1. Good governance in land administration

2. Why action is needed Rents from land are large and increasing –Benefits from natural resource extraction –Non-agricultural land, urbanization, –Land transactions and demand for admin. services Ways to capture rents are manifold –Large scale land-grabs, public-land concessions to cronies –Land conversion and zoning –Petty corruption in service delivery –Rent-seeking by the judiciary Implications serious, inequitable, hurt economic performance –Investors complaining about access to land –TI indicators of customers (land sector most corrupt) –But the poor are much more adversely –Social unrest and strife –And if not embedded in a good governance framework, projects may fail

3. Why there is potential Governance is no longer off the table –Broad acceptance of general principles –Work by partners (FAO Guidelines, GLTN seminars) –Focus on accountability of institutions & officials Technology as an enabler –Widespread access to information (hiding difficult) –Reduces the cost of improving governance (paper trail, completeness) –Improves scope for monitoring by users (case tracking) External enforcement mechanisms –Global conventions –Scope for reinforcement through market mechanisms –Shift from project to program support & policy-based lending –Private sector standards

4. What is needed to make progress? Translate general principles into land issues –Policy principles –Institutions & effectiveness of service delivery –Derive indicators to measure these Reach consensus/methodology on indicators measurement –Aggregate/typical outcomes (Doing Business as a model) –Routine administrative information: Outreach & efficiency in supply –Customer satisfaction: Extent to which demand is satisfied Close the feedback loop by highlighting links to policy –Establish link between actions and indicators –Examples of policy or institutional change What was the impact on indicators How were political economy constraints dealt with –Impact of shortcomings & bottlenecks –Integrate these into conceptual framework for focus countries

5. Policy principles I Land policy is in line with principles of fairness & equity –No gender, ethnic, racial discrimination/restrictions on land ownership or use –Principles of (historical) equity addressed without undermining other ways of land access & in a way that is cost effective compared to alternatives –Policy reform processes conducted in a participatory manner, contributing to a common vision & with clear benchmarks A variety of accepted & socially legitimate rights is legally recognized & can be recorded –Legal recognition of communal/customary, collective, private, public, religious rights –Boundaries of tenure regimes are defined in a way that is verifiable at low cost –Mechanisms to make transition between regimes available –Main tenure regimes & associated rights well understood by those affected –System to record rights operational, up to date, covering significant shares of each type –Unrealistic standards/administrative constraints do not impede ability to register rights

6. Policy principles II Limitations on exercise of rights (incl. planning & taxation) least-cost provision of public goods –Land use planning is in line with need and done in a participatory way –Zoning restrictions justified by external effects, determined in a transparent & participatory way & in line with enforcement capacity –Valuations done in transparent, objective, uniform equitable objective –Property taxes in line with broad principles, collected effectively & equitably Whatever limitations on transferability of land exist are justified by imperfections in other markets –No restrictions on subdivisions –Transferability of land through rental is unrestricted –Restrictions on transferability through sale are temporary and justified by malfunctioning of other markets or knowledge gaps.

7. Institutional environment I Land admin. institutions have clear mandates & operate in a transparent, cost-effective, and sustainable fashion –Institutional responsibilities at different administrative levels are clearly assigned, well defined and do not overlap –Standards of professional and personal integrity in place & enforced throughout –Service delivery standards publicized & adhered to and mechanisms to enforce them available –Institutions for land administration has financially and technically sustainable –Land institutions widely accessible & provide services cost-effectively Management, acquisition & disposal of public land follow clear procedures that are applied transparently –Inventory of public lands, including the returns from them, is available –Public land is managed transparently & efficiently –Acquisition and holding of land by the public sector is limited to the public purpose –Public land is released to the private sector in a transparent way and without large subsidies –Partial or full expropriation of land under eminent domain is limited to immediate public use and accompanied by fair compensation (including resettlement where needed).

8. Institutional environment II Accessible (judicial & non-judicial) institutions manage conflicts and resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously –Land owners/users have access to institutions that are empowered to manage conflicts expeditiously and transparently –Responsibility to resolve different types of conflict is clearly assigned –Appeals mechanisms are available and accessible to those aggrieved in a non-discriminatory way –The share of land sterilized because of conflict is low & decreasing Information provided by the land administration system is reliable, sufficient, and accessible at reasonable cost –

9. Status and next steps Case study countries identified –Indonesia, Kyrgiz Republic, Peru, Tanzania, Burkina Revision and discussion of conceptual framework –To include economic perspective & assessment of policies –Lessons from case study countries (negative and positive) Agreement on indicators and of a methodology to assess them –Administrative & effectiveness of service delivery –Customer satisfaction & biases in access (comparing to representative data) –Key processes to be tracked and methodology for doing so (incl. regional variation) Review by peer reviewers and Bank staff –Feed into a concept note for ESW –Circulation within Bank and with other partners –Implementation of country case studies In coordination with others –Governance initiative by UN-Habitat/GLTN –Towards a voluntary code of conduct for governance jointly with FAO