EGM 9-11 November
DAY 1
Session 1
Ian Williamson – Welcome and Vision
- Overview of research conducted
- Overview of meeting and workshop activities
Stig Enemark – The Land Administration Paradigm
- Overview of paradigm
- Land needs to be managed as a scarce resource- economic and environmental.
- A holistic approach is required that incorporates management of rights, restrictions and responsibilities
- Question: What does holistic mean? Holistic management of each function is required- these are very broad generic concepts. This concept ‘holistic’ was not clear. Land includes everything
- Question: Discussion on the difference between land use management and planning
- Importance of the cadastre- 3 key roles, most basic building block
- Based on the vision- the three tiered model results
- Question: Where does utility information fit in? Answer: Under land use
- Therefore hierarchy- policy > cadastral systems > land administration systems > land management- Need to piece these elements together- model described
- Importance of Institutional Development outlined
- Key global trends discussed briefly- FIG, PCGIAP
Jude Wallace – Research Report
- Research outputs and overview
- Massive land issues in Australia- low value, degradation.
- The vision of land accounting is a key outcome
- The research story…
- Land markets, De Soto “passport” view BUT also require cognitive capacity, trust confidence (as seen in the Netherlands- trust = investment), reasonable public and private sector arrangements (private sector MUST be considered)- formal systems don’t deal with new commodities in land- should they? Complex property markets require additional tools (corporatisation, securitization etc)
- Privacy
- Registration systems, Cadastres, Tenures
- How does Land Administration really deliver sustainable development?
- Evolution of Land Administration- importance of layering
- Spatial/ Land Information- importance of geo-coding, difference between traditional land information and relative information
- iLand: spatially enabling society
- Evaluation and monitoring
Session 2
Bas Kok – The EU Perspective
- Overview of the Netherlands
- Ravi- initiator of Dutch cadastre explained
- Key Components of NSDI
- Authentic registers, Large scale cadastral maps
- Subsidy request example
- ‘Space of Geo Information’
- CRC in Netherlands- Overview given
- Planning example
- Disease spread example
- INSPIRE
- Three levels of datasets- core, crucial, optional
- Timetable outlined
- Active role for GI community
- Political capital very important
- Must define core datasets- essential
- Question: Any discussion re: need to move to a common model for LA? Answers: Learnt from past failures, set clear goals i.e. environmental issue, lots of planning
- Questions: Collaboration very important, three types of datasets- Did the custodians of datasets get involved? Answers: Not really
- Questions: How much of Dutch experience was driven by Government, how much by User end? How do we create a relevant project? Answer: Users must be considered, must continually check if relevant. Space for Geo Information was a bottom up approach. Have to pull lots of different stakeholders together.
Stig Enemark – The Danish Way
- Overview of Denmark given
- No general overall land policy in Denmark- various polices and laws relating to urban, rural, coastal areas and retail areas
- The DAISI- divided into four parts- digital maps, governmental initiatives, registers, datamodels
- All land use restrictions in a given area can be queried
- Server orientated IT architecture
- Authentic registers are also a priority and in use
- Land book is separate from Cadastre- land book looks after legal rights and restrictions. Some public restrictions are included. Every time a new right is created- a new entry is made in the land book as a transaction. Land use regulation are not in the land book- they are provided elsewhere.
-Vision is largely implemented. New project- reorganize land book, take out the smaller interests. Cadastre should not host land regulations
Holger Magel- The German Perspective
- Component 1
- Legal and institutional issues are just as important as technical\
- Germany still suffers from the side effects of separation
- Different separations of registration and mapping across Europe
- Component 2- eGovernment
- Component 3- Country’s Capacity
- EU concentrates on building different Country’s capacity
- INSPIRE demands Government’s to offer minimum datasets without charge
- Component 4- ICT as a major driver
- Interoperability
- Component 5- The need for Land Management
- Sustainable Development is now a key driver, reduction of land consumption
- Urban and rural development. Europe is characterized culturally by the need for rural living
- Component 6 – Seamless information to support policy implementation
- Germany
- 16 Lander’s in Germany
- Top down and bottom up approach
- All 16 lander’s have the same datamodel as federal level. Cooperation is key, but laws eventually enshrine the situation.
- Still decentralized data, but norms and standards are federalized
- Germany is achieving the land administration paradigm
- Benefits- on the way to multi-purpose cadastre, not just about securing property any more.
- Negatives- not explicitly focused on sustainable development
- Perhaps no need to focus development on sustainable development- because sustainability is already embedded culturally and enshrined in the constitution.
- To do list- recognize the importance of SDI, user orientated perspective needed
- Three key improvements- become a daily tool, real time land market IS, include user perspective through participation, 4th- eCitizenship is a goal- how do we facilitate this?
- The Land Management Paradigm
- Can such a model function everywhere?
- Does it respect local habits and requirements enough?
- Is it really a user driven approach?
Session 3
Paul van der Molen – The Netherlands
- Overview of country
- Netherlands has a central land policy
- Restrictions and public rights are becoming increasingly important and complicating the idea of a bundle of rights
- Integrated policy, integrated operations and integrated land information are essential- in agreement with Stig’s paradigm
- Covered requirements for policy framework to achieve land management
- Covered requirements for institutional framework to achieve land management
- Relationship between rights, restrictions and responsibilities: rights – [restrictions + responsibilities] = ownership
- Public Rights– 20 by land administration, 60 by municipalities other interests spread over many level institutions- highly complex
- Central government is a core driver e.g. animal diseases/ organized crime/ disaster management- Government is not able to manage these and has realized this.
This brought about the streamlining program for the restructuring of the WoG information architecture.
- Benefits:
- While situation is chaotic, the individual datasets are of good quality- helps
- Kadastre is now an independent public agency
- De facto linkages were already established
- Negatives:
- slow decision making
- government attitudes quite negative towards change
- Key Improvements
- streamlining of key data
- law on registration of public encumberances (single desk rather than many)
- IT renewal
- The integrated model is supported by van der Molen, slightly altered
- Question: Where are the rights interested? Answer: 2 parts for the legal situation of land- public and private. It would have been easy to record in central system. But municipalities are so important and they insisted they would be the only one to include public encumbrances. If interest effects third party- it must be recorded, flagged on cadastre.
- Question: Anyone in Netherlands can subdivide without restriction- How is such a system managed? Answer: Building permits are used to control the situation- What’s the point of subdividing if you can’t build?
Daniel Steudler – Swiss Case
- Overview of Switzerland- federation of Cantons
- Security of ownership key objective- policy outlined in civil code
- Parcels, roads, buildings are all registered and all new rights have to be attached to a parcel e.g. water has to be attached
- Trading of complex forms of rights does not happen in Europe. Non negotiable.
- In Australia we’re unbundling- this is not an issue in Europe. In Europe minerals are registered in registry but they’re not shown on the cadastre
- Because mining was so important is Australia- depth limitations were applied
- In Holland not possible to be owner of a 3D property in Europe. In Australia it is possible through application of strata titles.
- Swiss integrates layers using coordinates where in Australia we’re using parcels to link i.e. parcel identifiers
- Same data-model is used in every Canton, could be implemented differently in every Canton
- Steudler believes all restrictions should be included in the Cadastre and managed by the Cadastre.
- Positives
- Standardized approach to data modeling
- lighter data model- coordinates implied
- Negative
- slow transition to fully digital data
- horizontal coop between federal agencies not always positive
- decentralized with 26 Cantons is not always efficient
- Buildings included in the Cadastre
- EU influences- not involved with EU but involved in spatial initiatives such as INSPIRE and EuroGeographics
- Three key improvements
- NGDI is established and operational (includes cadastral data)
- Stronger focus of users and customers
- Overcome the drawbacks of Federalism, while retaining the benefits
- Review of paradigm is Swiss context
- Sus Dev doesn’t not have to happen, even if functions integrated
- Education needs to be considered
Session 4
European Focus Group Feedback
- See PPT slides
Australian Focus Group Feedback
- See PPT slides
DAY 2
Session 1
Grahame Searle – Western Australia
- Overview of SLIP
- Coverage for key centres in WA. Fancy tools and some extra information- transparency, dimensions, areas, imagery over time
- Question: How are RRRs put on, below the line? Answer: We have the tools/architecture setup- let us do the work for you
- 70% of state budget goes to police, health, education- therefore land info management gets no money. Revenue neutral department. Selling services rather than selling information
- Focus in not on land management- it’s on land information management in WA.
- Some restrictions are in, but not enough.
- Agencies are now getting scared that by overlaying their information with imagery- holes will be shown up.
John Rickard – Victoria
- No single land policy- set out in many Acts
- Victoria still has adverse possession
- A consolidation and single policy would help
- Sustainable Development is a strong focus in DSE and Victoria as a whole
- “Effective property markets” helps to mesh registration and cadastre
- Good: EC and SPEAR are key activities- Water registration is a new project
- Bad: Silo, paper systems, duplication, lack custodian, sub optimal information management- concentrates on registration, require crown land register, limited marine cadastre, buildings in cadastre not current priority
- Horizontal integration (e.g. WA does well) vs. Vertical Integration (integration with business and other levels of government)- Victoria is concentrating on vertical integration e.g. EC
- How do we maximize benefits from vertical and horizontal integration
- Four key improvements- National EC initiative, harmonization of torrens legislation, consistant interstate water trading system, streamlined e-plans
- Victoria’s silos are based on the two different forms of integration
- Problems with the paradigm
- It’s not commercial enough, no focus on trading
- how are we going to fund it?
- lacks reference to human skills and capacity building
- lacks focus on the private sector
- focus is on land, where is the focus on wider natural resources
- how can it address issue of encouraging change in community thinking from rights to accepting responsibility and sustainable development
Warwick Watkins – NSW
- Overview of NSW- history, size, land administration functions
- quadruple bottom line- balancing institutional problems- should be addressed
- Going down same road as other states- EC, SDI and GBE, LPI
- local govs integrated with land department
- not much focus on sustainable development- strong information management focus.
- market focus rather than sustainability/land management focus
- Postives: Torrens system, technology as enabler, focus as register of rights, SDI approach, RRRs being registered with NSW- but ownership still with RRR managers
- Negatives: historical policy decisions, silo mentality, continual re-invention, federated systems
- Registries must adapt or may be passed over, Interoperability required and must be made up of a range of different types of interests
- Local government boundaries service the needs of less than 25% of the community- therefore how should data be delivered to people- how do we rearrange institutions to achieve better service provision
- Key improvements: unbundling property rights, interoperability, user driven, light regulation
- The Model- is ok, has all required elements, but needs value added to it
- Question: NSW is business orientated whereas VIC is focused on sustainable development. Answer: Victoria has focused on sustainable development, but underneath that cloak, we must still be commercially viable. Warwick believes LAS role is to deliver tools to enable other to achieve sustainable development i.e. information managers rather than land managers
Session 2
Steve Jacoby - Queensland
- Technology focus but still mentions of sustainable development
- Integrated planning, Information Queensland
- Information products released for free, for public not professionals, simple, plan to move into paid services.
- Must have information online for mining activity to prevail- if not, goes elsewhere
- Challengers- RRRs, 180 pieces of legislation, across three tiers of government, 15 on title, federal: native title, enviro protection and biodiversity, state: water, tree clearing
- Priority in Queensland is on land management rather than land information management e.g. tree clearing
- For model to be relevant must show how it links different layers of information, where do the people into the model?
- Next 10 years: access to all info- RRRs- make 180 discoverable, public involved in the decision making, there will be never one tier of government- therefore need to make federated system work- ICT, sharing ideas, service approach
- Question: Is there a difference between the states? Strengths and weaknesses of QLD? Answer: Strong focus on-the-ground outcomes, natural resource issues, land administration issues come in behind these. Openness and engagement is good in QLD. Government state rather than private driven.