1. Open Workshop Friday 11 th November Expert Group Meeting Key Discussions and Outcomes Speaker: Ian Williamson

2. Day 1 – Wednesday Nov 9 th Welcome & Research Vision Presentations - European Perspective of Paradigm European Group Coordinator: Ian Williamson Rapporteur: Paul van der Molen Report Back - Discussion European Lessons Learnt Australian Group Coordinator: Stig Enemark Rapporteur: Steve Jacoby Evaluate – Components of the vision

3. Presentations - Australian Perspective of Paradigm European Group Coordinator: Ian Williamson Rapporteur: Daniel Steudler Report Back - Discussion Australian Lessons Learnt Australian Group Coordinator: Stig Enemark Rapporteur: Grahame Searle Evaluate – Components of the vision Day 2 – Thursday Nov 10 th

4. Report Back - Discussion Group 1 (based on Australian & European Perspectives) Rapporteur: Warwick Watkins Evaluate – Issues in Designing a New Generation of LAS Day 3 – Friday Nov 11 th Presentation – Spatially Enabling Government Final Presentation Next Generation of LAS Ian Williamson, Stig Enemark, Jude Wallace Group 2 (based on Australian & European Perspectives) Rapporteur: Holger Magel

5. Key Drivers for the model (1) Environment Sustainability Business Efficiency Informed Decision Making Technology Security/ Anti-terrorism? Community Expectations Risk Management Remaining responsive to user needs at a whole of government level Productivity as a result of IT application Environmental needs – monitoring Revenue raising through tax Meeting public expectation – servicing the citizen

6. Key Drivers for the model (2) European Drivers: -Environment was the key political driver for INSPIRE -Agricultural subsidies -Information technology -Fraud

7. Key Issues & Components (1) Achieving sustainable development: ICT based LAS does not automatically lead to sustainability. –Sustainability is brought about by a mix of factors, LAS is only one. –Sustainability must be embedded in a countries culture. Interoperability: Lack of common understandings impedes debate – legal, inter-community, technical, semantics Branding/Marketing issues: The term “land administration”, “cadastre” and “SDI” are not useful for selling the vision- politically appealing language is required People: A connection to people is missing- the model is dehumanized Levels of Government: Local government and local communities should play a larger role. How do we integrate 3 levels of government? Rural vs. Urban Land: Rural areas are a greater problem in Australia Universality of model: Can we have a conceptual model that resonates across cultures and countries

8. Key Issues & Components (2) The role of the private sector: –How can they be embedded into the model/paradigm –Do they have a role if they’re only economically driven Market Focus: Current LAS system of cadastre and land registry are focussed on the Land Market -Coordinated Cadastre: Spatially enabled cadastre is the key to meeting sustainable development as you must relate back to the owner -LAS need to cater and build in behaviour elements of people - when designing changes to LAS, what is the behavioural change we are trying to implement -Unbundling of rights – need to make sure that this does not threaten sustainability ICT Convergence: unlocks value in existing systems and this is underplayed in the model Process is important: not entities and institutions Information Needs: Land administration needs information on both built and natural environment Institutional issues: are still the primary problem

9. Key Issues & Components (3) End-User Focus: is required rather than technology focus Indicators/science: not included in the model nor are reporting and evaluation mechanisms Address Information: More utilization required- this is what the real world uses Visionary? Conceptually attractive model (efficiencies etc.), but, is it visionary enough? Data Model: A common data model in the cadastral domain, especially in federated systems, is essential for interoperability Web Services Standards/Shared Architectures Register of interests

10. Comparing Europe and Australia (1) Cultural Differences: European approach to land is much closer to indigenous people of Australia ICT Focus: Australia has high levels of ICT enablement - this extends to the rural sector Economic Focus: Australia has a strong focus using economic tools to achieve sustainability (e.g. unbundling) whereas in Europe holistic management and sustainability are embedded Creating Policy: In Australia the governing parties dominate, whereas, in European countries parliament is more important Importance of Cadastre: In Europe the cadastre plays a far more important role Buildings: Buildings and land use are included in European models- this tends to bring people into focus Legislation & Codification: European trend to legislate spatial enablement and codify self regulation Authentic Registers: well supported in Europe. Australia does not have these authoritative registers as yet

11. Steps to achieving the vision… (1) A final discussion/white paper is required as a potential future policy paper Raise the importance of the debate at ministerial level through a ministerial council of land ministers –Problem cases need identification (e.g. contaminated land)- this will build an argument for government action at the ministerial level A common language is needed- this can be established through further dialogue between stakeholders Consideration of the marine dimension? Marine cadastral datamodels? What can Europe offer? Register of restrictions –critical to achieving sustainability Network of people who should be used as a reference group to provide advice to and receive advice from Involve others – users, other professionals, community

12. Further steps… (2) Government needs to understand the impact and scope of the effect of the RRRs Capacity building at society, institutional, data process and individual level – renewable self sustaining cycle What sort of society, quality of life, personally and as a community, do we want and hence what are the systems/infrastructure needed to deliver this Engaging with the intended audience (citizens, politicians and NGOs) Consideration of the social dimension Institutional silos - overcoming silo approach Professional culture clash Maintenance costs International collaboration/monitoring/standardisation- Capacity Building of society, institutions and individuals 3D and 4D Cadastres