| |
FIG PUBLICATION NO. 47
Institutional and Organisational Development
A Guide for Managers
Contents
Foreword
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 How to use this guide
2. The Context
2.1 Capacity, capacity building and sustainable organisations
2.2 Land administration
2.3 Institutional and organisational development
3. A Checklist for Managers
4. Necessary Components in Sustainable
Organisations
4.1 The necessary components
4.2 Make clear statements defining the responsibilities of each
level/ sector
4.3 Provide transparent leadership ‘from the top’ to encourage
collaboration in both top-down and bottom-up ways
4.4 Define clear roles for the different sectors, including the
private sector
4.5 Establish a clear organisational culture that supports a
cooperative approach amongst individual employees
4.6 Ensure that the network of individuals and organisations has
a sufficient voice with key decision makers for land administration issues to be
taken fully into account in all central policy making
4.7 Facilitate policy development and implementation as a process
that is open to all stakeholders, with all voices being clearly heard
4.8 Provide a legal framework that enables the use of modern
techniques and cross-sector working
4.9 Offer relevant training courses that clearly explain,
encourage and enable cooperative and action-based working by organisations,
within a clearly understood framework of the roles of each level/ sector
4.10 Share experiences through structured methods for learning
from each others’ expertise and experiences, with this learning fed back into
organisational learning
References and Bibliography
Orders for printed copies
The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) believes that
effectively functioning land administration systems are of central
importance to ongoing economic development. These systems provide guarantees
of land tenure which enable economic activity and development. There are
many elements to land administration systems, and many organisations
involved in both the public and private sector. As with any chain, the
system is only as strong as its weakest part.
It is therefore appropriate that FIG, as the leading
Non-Governmental Organisation representing surveyors and land administrators,
has set as its central focus for the 2007–2010 period the task of ‘Building the
Capacity’. This requires capacity assessment and capacity development, both of
which are vital to building sustainable capacity.
This publication is the result of a FIG Task Force on
Institutional and Organisational Development leading to a guide for managers to
build sustainable institutions and organisations.
FIG has committed itself and its members to further progress in
building institutional and organisational capacity to support effective land
administration systems. Such work is particularly about developments at the
organisational level, but this cannot ignore the societal and individual levels.
Progress requires honest self-assessment of organisational and system strengths
and weaknesses. Effective management action must follow, to build on the
strengths and address the weaknesses.
FIG commits itself to support managers and professionals in this
task, working with governments, national bodies and individuals. This guide
provides a tool in this regard.
The document builds on several other FIG Publications, including
the Bathurst Declaration (FIG, 1999); the Nairobi Statement on Spatial
Information for Sustainable Development (FIG, 2002a); Business Matters for
Professionals (FIG, 2002b); the Aguascalientes Statement (FIG, 2005); and
Capacity Assessment in Land Administration (FIG, 2008).
This work would not have been possible without the contribution
of the Task Force members – Santiago Borrero, Richard Wonnacott, Teo Chee Hai,
Spike Boydell and John Parker – as well as many other individuals who have
reviewed, commented on and improved draft outputs, completed questionnaires and
the like. FIG is very grateful to all of them.
Stig Enemark
FIG President |
Iain Greenway
FIG Vice President
Task Force Chair |
1. Introduction
Effectively functioning land administration systems, providing guarantees of
land tenure, are of central importance to ongoing economic development. In many
countries, however, land administration systems are not sufficiently robust to
deliver effective land tenure, and this can limit or restrict economic
development. This impacts the global economy, as well as the economy and the
welfare of the citizens of the country involved.
1.1 Background
The FIG Task Force on Institutional and Organisational Development has taken
forward a programme of work to assess the particular challenges to building
organisational capacity. The Task Force developed, tested and refined a
self-assessment questionnaire to determine capacity at system, organisation and
individual levels; this was made available to and completed by professionals
from many countries. In reviewing the responses to the questionnaire, FIG also
considered other recent work including that of the UN FAO (2007), AusAID (2008)
and Land Equity International (2008). This work (which is described in more
detail in Greenway (2009)) led FIG to draw the following broad conclusions:
- cooperation between organisations is a weak point: there is often
suspicion rather than cooperation;
- the remits and skills of the different organisations involved in
administering a land administration system are often not joined up
effectively;
- the lack of effective working across sectors is a particular issue;
- there are skill gaps, particularly in the conversion of policy into
programmes, the division of labour, and ensuring effective learning and
development;
- stakeholder requirements appear insufficiently understood or
insufficiently balanced, leading to ineffective use of outputs;
- there is insufficient time and effort given to learning from past
experience.
These key findings led FIG to the view that a number of key components need
particularly to be considered by those who want to build sustainable
institutional and organisational capacity in land information systems – these
components are described in this publication.
1.2 How to use this guide
This publication is written for use by practitioners. It aims to provide
individuals and organisations with an increased understanding of capacity
building, in particular building the capacity of organisations to meet the
increasing demands placed on them. In this way, it complements FIG Publication
41 – Capacity Assessment in Land Administration (FIG, 2008), which considers the
capacity of the system.
The essence of the publication is the checklist for managers at Section 3.
This is developed further in Section 4, which draws together the key lessons
from FIG’s work and experience and presents them in the form of key issues which
must be addressed, along with examples from around the world.
Section 2 provides context for the challenges of institutional and
organisational development, including defining some of the terms used.
A possible use of this document by a practitioner anxious to review, and as
necessary improve, the capacity of an organisation is:
- read Section 2 of this document to make sure that terms and definitions
are clearly understood;
- consider the checklist at Section 3 to determine particular areas for
development, focussing on the developmental areas highlighted by the
self-assessment tool;
- use the material in Section 4 as a basis for focusing improvement
activity.
Land registration office, Uganda.
2. The Context
This section provides some background to the issues of capacity building and
land administration, to ensure that users of this publication have a clear
understanding of the terms used.
2.1 Capacity, capacity building and
sustainable organisations
UNDP (1998) offers this basic definition of capacity: “Capacity can be
defined as the ability of individuals and organizations or organizational units
to perform functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably.” UNDP (1997) has
also provided the following definition of capacity development: “the process by
which individuals, organisations, institutions and societies develop abilities
(individually and collectively) to perform functions, solve problems and set and
achieve objectives.”
Capacity building consists of the key components of capacity assessment and
capacity development. Sufficient capacity needs to exist at three levels: a
societal (systemic) level; an organisational level; and an individual level,
with all three needing to be in place for capacity to have been developed.
So what is a sustainable organisation? From these definitions, it is one
which:
- performs its functions effectively and efficiently;
- has the capability to meet the demands placed on it; and
- continuously builds its capacity and capability so that it can respond
to future challenges.
Such an organisation needs to assess its capacity honestly and objectively,
and to give focused attention to capacity development. The emphasis on
sustainability is vital: unless capacity is sustainable, an organisation cannot
respond effectively to the ongoing demands placed on it.
2.2 Land administration
Land administration is a central part of the infrastructure that supports
good land management. The term Land Administration refers to the processes of
recording and disseminating information about the ownership, value and use of
land and its associated resources. Such processes include the determination of
property rights and other attributes of the land that relate to its value and
use, the survey and general description of these, their detailed documentation,
and the provision of relevant information in support of land markets. Land
administration is concerned with four principal and interdependent commodities –
the tenure, value, use, and development of the land – within the overall context
of land resource management. Figure 1 below depicts how these elements link
together to provide a sustainable land administration system.
Figure 1: A Global Land Administration Perspective
(Enemark, 2004).
The day to day operation and management of the four land administration
elements involves national agencies, regional and local authorities, and the
private sector in terms of, for instance, surveying and mapping companies. The
functions include:
- the allocation and security of rights in lands; the geodetic surveys and
topographic mapping; the legal surveys to determine parcel boundaries; the
transfer of property or use from one party to another through sale or lease;
- the assessment of the value of land and properties; the gathering of
revenues through taxation;
- the control of land use through adoption of planning policies and land
use regulations at national, regional and local levels; and
- the building of new physical infrastructure; the implementation of
construction planning and change of land use through planning permission and
granting of permits.
The importance of capacity development in surveying and land administration
at the organisational level was usefully quantified in Great Britain (OXERA,
1999) by research that found that approximately £100 billion of Great Britain’s
GDP (12.5% of total national GDP, and one thousand times the turnover of OSGB)
relied on the activity of Ordnance Survey of Great Britain. With such very
significant numbers, as well as the central importance of sound land management,
the need for sustainable and effective organisations in the field of surveying
and land administration is clear.
2.3 Institutional and organisational
development
For the purposes of this document, institutional development relates to the
enhancement of the capacity of national surveying, mapping, land registration
and spatial information agencies and private organisations to perform their key
functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably. This requires clear, stable
remits for the organisations being provided by government and other
stakeholders; these remits being enshrined in appropriate legislation or
regulation; and appropriate mechanisms for dealing with short-comings in
fulfilling the remits (due to individual or organisational failure). Putting
these elements in place requires agreement between a wide range of stakeholders,
in both the public and private sectors, and is a non-trivial task.
Organisational development, in contrast, relates to the enhancement of
organisational structures and responsibilities, and the interaction with other
entities, stakeholders, and clients, to meet the agreed remits. This requires
adequate, suitable resourcing (in staffing and cash terms); a clear and
appropriate organisational focus (to meet the agreed remit of the organisation);
and suitable mechanisms to turn the focus into delivery in practice (these
mechanisms including organisational structures, definition of individual roles,
and instructions for completing the various activities).
Figure 2: A Performance Management Model (HMT, 2000).
One useful and succinct model for putting in place suitable measures to
enable and underpin organisational success is that developed by the UK Public
Services Productivity Panel (HMT, 2000). This recognises five key elements which
need to be in place:
Of course, defining and implementing the detail in any one of the above items
is a significant task, and all must be in place if the organisation is to
succeed. By putting the appropriate mechanisms and measures in place, and
continuously challenging and improving them, organisations can ensure that they
effectively turn inputs into outputs and, more importantly, the required
outcomes (such as certainty of land tenure).
All organisations need continuously to develop and improve if they are to
meet, and continue to meet, the needs of their customers and stakeholders. In
the land administration field, there are many examples of under-resourced
organisations unable to respond effectively to stakeholder requirements, thereby
leading to a lack of access to official surveys and land titling (leading to
unofficial mechanisms being used, or a total breakdown in efficient land
titling). There is a need to provide appropriate assistance to enable the
necessary capacity to be built and sustained by such organisations, given the
key role of their operations in underpinning national development. A range of
methods exist, including releasing internal resources for this work (if suitable
resources exist), or external support.
3. A Checklist for Managers
Managers and leaders need to give a strong focus to the following nine issues
if they are to develop sustainable institutions and organisations. Some key
questions to consider are provided below; more detail is provided in sections
4.2–4.10.
1. Make clear statements defining the responsibilities of each level/
sector
- Are you clear what the role of your organisation is in the land
administration process and how it interacts with that of other
organisations?
- Are you clear on the roles and responsibilities of the other
organisations with which you need to interact?
- Are your staff clear?
- Do other organisations and stakeholders agree your understanding of
roles and responsibilities?
- Does the division of responsibilities enable effective delivery of land
administration functions?
- Does legislation support this division of responsibilities?
2. Provide transparent leadership ‘from the top’ to encourage
collaboration in both top-down and bottom-up ways
- Do you, as a manager within the land administration system, understand
the extent of the end-to-end processes involved in the system?
- Do you appreciate the benefits that can be delivered by those involved
in the entire process working together effectively?
- Are you assessed on the overall effectiveness of the land administration
system for your jurisdiction and its citizens?
- Do you give a clear lead, in word and action, to your staff to work to
improve the effectiveness of the overall system?
- Are the necessary informal and formal agreements in place between
organisations to support cross-organisation working?
- Is there the necessary culture of working together to support
cross-organisation working?
3. Define clear roles for the different sectors, including the private
sector
- Do you have a clear understanding of the current roles of the different
sectors – public, private, academic – in the land administration system?
- Is the allocation of roles clear and objective?
- Does the allocation of roles support the effective operation of the land
administration system?
- Is the allocation of roles agreed with leaders of all sectors?
- Is the allocation of roles kept under review and adjusted as necessary?
4. Establish a clear organisational culture that supports a cooperative
approach amongst individual employees
- Do your words and your actions consistently reinforce the need for
joined up collaborative working throughout your organisation and with other
relevant organisations?
- Do your organisation’s key targets explicitly include elements that can
only be delivered with input from other organisations?
- Is staff performance measured with reference to the overall success of
the land administration system?
- Are the successes you report internally and externally related to the
need to deliver overall system goals?
5. Ensure that the network of individuals and organisations has a
sufficient voice with key decision makers for land administration issues to be
taken fully into account in all central policy making
- Does your organisation have strong and effective links with policy
makers?
- Do these links give you a voice that is heard in the policy development
process?
- Does the policy development and maintenance process sufficiently
recognise operational realities?
- Are the links sufficiently formalised that they will survive changes of
key individuals?
6. Facilitate policy development and implementation as a process that is
open to all stakeholders, with all voices being clearly heard
- Does policy making on land administration matters in your jurisdiction
take place in a way that ensures that the voices of all stakeholders are
heard?
- Do stakeholders have confidence in the fairness and robustness of the
policy making process, so that they can accept the results?
- Do professionals play a key role in commenting on and shaping policy
development?
7. Provide a legal framework that enables the use of modern techniques and
cross-sector working
- Does the law covering the land administration system provide a clear
framework of requirements whilst avoiding stipulating inputs and methods?
- Does the law appropriately recognise the reality of different types and
formality of tenure?
- Are the various types of law, regulation and instruction used
appropriately to address issues of principle, policy and procedure?
8. Offer relevant training courses that clearly explain, encourage and
enable cooperative and action-based working by organisations, within a clearly
understood framework of the roles of each level/ sector
- Do education and training courses for surveyors reflect the reality of
professional practice?
- Are training courses regularly reviewed with key input from practising
professionals?
- Are staff from your organisation invited to participate in other
organisations’ training courses – and do staff from other organisations
participate in your organisation’s training courses – to assist in the
spread of information and in building relationships?
- Do training courses provide students with a clear overview of the entire
land administration system and the various organisations involved, before
providing detailed education in particular components of it?
- Do training courses include examples of successful collaborative working
between organisations and individuals?
9. Share experiences through structured methods for learning from each
others’ expertise and experiences, with this learning fed back into
organisational learning
- Do you complete a structured learning process with those involved at the
end of a project?
- Do you share the results of this learning with others who might benefit
from it now or in the future?
- Do you use web-based systems to share and gain learning?
4. Necessary Components in Sustainable
Organisations
Section 2 has provided a general description of land administration, a
general model for organisational development and a description of a sustainable
organisation. This Section provides a description of nine key elements which
FIG’s work leads it to believe need to be present for such an organisation to
exist, and which (from FIG’s research) are often not in place. It includes
examples of where they have been successfully implemented in different countries
and states.
4.1 The necessary components
FIG considers that managers and leaders need to give a strong focus to the
following nine issues if they are to develop sustainable institutions and
organisations:
- Make clear statements defining the responsibilities of each level/
sector.
- Provide transparent leadership ‘from the top’ to encourage collaboration
in both top-down and bottom-up ways.
- Define clear roles for the different sectors, including the private
sector.
- Establish a clear organisational culture that supports a cooperative
approach amongst individual employees
- Ensure that the network of individuals and organisations has a
sufficient voice with key decision makers for land administration issues to
be taken fully into account in all central policy making.
- Facilitate policy development and implementation as a process that is
open to all stakeholders, with all voices being clearly heard.
- Provide a legal framework that enables the use of modern techniques and
cross sector working.
- Offer relevant training courses that clearly explain, encourage and
enable cooperative and action-based working by organisations, within a
clearly understood framework of the roles of each level/ sector.
- Share experiences through structured methods for learning from each
others’ expertise and experiences, with this learning fed back into
organisational learning.
These statements cover all five elements of the performance management model
illustrated in Figure 2.
The following sections elaborate on each of the nine issues, providing
further description and giving examples of work that has been done in the
relevant area. The sections are intended to assist managers of organisations
seeking to increase sustainable capacity. The sections should generally be used
following completion of a self-assessment questionnaire to determine particular
areas of concern, or used directly by managers familiar with their
organisations. Section 3 has summarised the questions connected to each issue.
4.2 Make clear statements defining the
responsibilities of each level/ sector
Land administration is a far-reaching aspect of government activity and many
different organisations are involved in policy development and the delivery of
its different elements. This often includes organisations at supra-national,
national, regional and local level. Many aspects of the work will be laid down
in formal legislation, but much of this legislation will focus on the work of
particular organisations or parts of the system.
Other elements of the system will rely on informal understandings or ‘custom
and practice’. Given this situation, many stakeholders will be confused as to
who does what, meaning, for instance, that:
- politicians will expect things of certain organisations when they are
the responsibility of other organisations;
- citizens will contact the wrong organisations; and
- staff in organisations will be unclear of their role and interactions,
and will not know which other organisations to contact.
All of this will lead to confusion, frustration, delay and wasted activity.
In a truly sustainable system, each organisation involved in land
administration knows what its role is – and what it isn’t – and which other
organisations it needs to work with to deliver overall objectives. This is clear
to stakeholders – politicians, land owners and occupiers, private sector firms,
citizens, staff – meaning that the right work is done in the right places. This
in turn means that scarce resources aren’t wasted on correcting confusion and
that the agreed goals of the land administration system are delivered more
effectively.
|
Australia has three levels of government – national, state and local.
Australia’s constitution gives responsibility for land-related matters
to the states: for instance, all land registries are the
responsibilities of the states. Working through a range of committees
and councils with representation from different levels of government, it
has been possible to develop a collaborative model. For mapping, it has
been agreed that the national mapping organisations will be responsible
for small scale mapping of the country (smaller than 1:100,000); and
states will be responsible for medium and large-scale mapping (1:50,000
and larger). For example, in the State of Victoria, there are defined
responsibilities and roles established with local government bodies and
some regional authorities as to whether they will undertake large scale
mapping or provide data elements to the state which then becomes the
custodian of that data on behalf of the local government body or
authority. In this way, the responsibilities of all levels of government
are clear – and those responsibilities have been shared between
different levels of government in an effective way. Information
provided by a Task Force member |
|
In Europe, the INSPIRE Directive (http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
) provides a legal framework for consistent management of spatial data
throughout the 27 member states of the European Union. This is designed
to ensure that data analysis and use is effective. Previously, analysis
of major river systems required data from several countries to be joined
together, raising difficulties with inconsistencies in data formats,
terminology, coordinate reference systems and the like. Data
collection and management remains a national function, but the Directive
requires clear responsibility for the maintenance of different datasets
to be allocated, metadata about the datasets to be available in a
consistent format in geoportals, and the technical elements of data
sharing to conform to international standards. In this way, data can be
shared more effectively, reducing duplication of effort, ensuring that
data is fit for the required purpose, and allowing better decisions to
be made more quickly.
Information provided by a Task Force member |
Key questions:
- Are you clear what the role of your organisation is in the land
administration process and how it interacts with that of other
organisations?
- Are you clear on the roles and responsibilities of the other
organisations with which you need to interact?
- Are your staff clear?
- Do other organisations and stakeholders agree your understanding of
roles and responsibilities?
- Does the division of responsibilities enable effective delivery of land
administration functions?
- Does legislation support this division of responsibilities?
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, engagement with other
organisations and/or law makers, along with clear, improved communication is
essential.
In general, written descriptions of roles and responsibilities, presented in
easy to understand ways (such as flowcharts showing who is responsible for the
different activities) will allow the identification of unclear areas, overlaps
and gaps, at which stage dialogue can address and resolve the issues.
Changing the law takes time, but a focus on clear written agreements of who
does what will allow earlier resolution of issues. The Australian example above
shows how a State government and local government have agreed a sensible
allocation of responsibilities so that, collectively, they fulfil legal and user
requirements effectively.
4.3 Provide transparent leadership ‘from the
top’ to encourage collaboration in both top-down and bottom-up ways
Many different organisations are involved in land administration. There is an
understandable tendency for each organisation to set targets and priorities
based around its own activities. This provides staff, managers and stakeholders
of that organisation with assurance that it is working efficiently and
effectively. Such an approach, however, can limit the overall effectiveness of
the system.
|
Property valuation activities can increasingly be completed from data
derived from aerial photography and satellite imagery, improving the
efficiency of the data collection and valuation processes and removing
the time-consuming need for ground inspections. Such ground inspections,
however, enable the data collectors to gather the ownership and date
information essential for property tax administration. Organisations
which oversee the end-to-end process, therefore, often require the
retention of ground visits in the valuation process, as this improves
the overall effectiveness of the tax assessment and collection process.
|
In a truly sustainable system, the various organisations involved in the land
administration system work together to agree shared objectives which improve
overall system efficiency. This is challenging work for managers, who may often
be assessed and rewarded based on the efficiency of their organisation. This
emphasis on end-to-end effectiveness therefore needs to be reinforced by clear
messages and actions from governments and administrations, to make clear that
such joining up is both required and expected. Such joining up may include
consideration of organisational mergers, but it is important to remember that
organisations do not necessarily need to merge to be able to work together
effectively. Often more important is a clear demonstration by managers and
leaders that they understand and want to use the benefits of formal and informal
collaboration. This may include the putting in place of Service Level Agreements
or other agreements between organisations. This top down demonstration,
complemented by appropriate target setting, gives staff in the different
organisations the confidence to think widely about the opportunities for overall
system improvement, and to work together to deliver this.
|
In Northern Ireland, work on a Geographic Information (GI) Strategy for
the province began in 2001 with the bringing together of key experts and
stakeholders for a three-day structured process of agreeing key
priorities. This led to the publication of a strategy and the setting up
of a cross-sectoral Steering Group, with sectoral groups drawn of
individuals from different organisations progressing proof of concept
studies (including one which cut the time taken for utility companies to
ascertain what other cables and pipes were under a road ‘from six weeks
to six minutes’). Centrally, the Steering Group also oversaw the
development of a GeoPortal, GeoHub NI™ (www.geohubni.gov.uk).
In 2008, the Steering Group agreed that the key elements of the strategy
had been completed, and an inclusive process which included workshops,
blogs and formal Ministerial approval, led to the publication of a new
Northern Ireland GI Strategy for 2009-19
http://www.gistrategyni.gov.uk)
which has been approved by the Ministerial Executive[cabinet].
Implementation is being managed by a cross-sectoral Delivery Board,
guided by a GI Council of very senior officials and managers from the
public and private sectors. Information provided by a Task Force
member |
Key questions:
- Do you, as a manager within the land administration system, understand
the extent of the end-to-end processes involved in the system?
- Do you appreciate the benefits that can be delivered by those involved
in the entire process working together effectively?
- Are you assessed on the overall effectiveness of the land administration
system for your jurisdiction and its citizens?
- Do you give a clear lead, in word and action, to your staff to work to
improve the effectiveness of the overall system?
- Are the necessary informal and formal agreements between organisations
in place to support cross-organisation working?
- Is there the necessary culture of working together to support
cross-organisation working?
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, it is vital that you gain a
wider understanding of the land administration system and engage with other
senior managers to demonstrate the very real performance benefits of
cross-organisational working.
The benefits of working collaboratively throughout the land administration
system are well documented. Your work can therefore often start with looking at
experiences in other jurisdictions, and proposing pilot projects to demonstrate
real benefits, and that they can be delivered in a reasonable time and for a
reasonable cost. In this way, stakeholder resistance, based on concerns that the
operation of the system will be disrupted by the effort to join up more, can be
reduced.
The Northern Ireland example shows how the bringing together of stakeholders
started by structured work in a neutral environment. The benefits of
collaboration are now sufficiently well understood in Northern Ireland that such
structures and safeguards can be relaxed.
4.4 Define clear roles for the different
sectors, including the private sector
Because of its fundamental importance to economic and national development,
the land administration system – and most of its components – is in most
jurisdictions managed and operated by the government. Ultimately, the task of
allocating roles rests with government as the custodian – on behalf of the
citizen – of an effective land administration system.
In many jurisdictions, the private sector delivers key elements of the land
administration system. The role of government in allocating responsibilities and
tasks, however, can lead to the private sector feeling that it is seen as
secondary by the public sector.
The academic sector is also pivotal in maintaining sustainable capacity: it
is this sector which designs and delivers training courses – both at the start
of people’s careers and, increasingly, in lifelong learning. These courses must
deliver the required information, and set the required culture of effective
collaboration. Otherwise, the professionals involved in the land administration
system will not receive clear and unambiguous messages about their role in the
wider system.
In a truly sustainable system, government (on behalf of citizens) retains
overall responsibility for the land administration system. It engages with
representatives of all of the other sectors involved to agree each sector’s
roles and responsibilities. The government then allocates roles and tasks
between sectors in the most effective manner, and keeps this under review to
ensure that changes in capacity and capability lead to adjustment of allocations
as appropriate.
The government may choose to document the roles of the different sectors in
legislation, or may choose to provide clear statements on a non-legal basis. It
then acts in accordance with these statements, including when considering
governmental support in its different forms.
|
In New Zealand, the legal mandate for administering the central
components of the land administration system rests with the public
sector, in particular the government agency Land Information New
Zealand. All public sector organisations, however, outsource their land
surveying work. This has been a longstanding practice in cadastral
surveys, where licensed surveyors complete surveys which are ratified by
the Surveyor General and then lodged in the central government database
(currently known as Landonline). Private sector surveyors therefore hold
invaluable information about the practical impacts of legislation and
regulations and, individually and collectively (for instance, through a
professional body such as the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors),
provide key practitioner input to ensuring workable regulations which
enable effective and timely surveys by suitably skilled practitioners.
The public sector policy makers recognise that individuals and
organisations in the private sector are key stakeholders – and work with
them on an as-needed basis and through the professional bodies whom they
view as key allies in the continuous drive for improvement and increased
effectiveness. Information provided to a Task Force member
|
|
Professionals working in hydrographic surveying and nautical charting
operate within a framework of national and international law. It is
therefore important that the training of Hydrographic Surveyors properly
reflects changes in the law and in technology. Given the important
international elements, the International Hydrographic Organisation
(IHO) has a lead responsibility for regulating and certifying
Hydrographic Surveying courses. IHO also recognises the important
expertise of practising professionals. It has therefore, together with
FIG, formed an International Board for the Standards of Competence of
Hydrographic Surveyors and Nautical Cartographers that includes
representatives of FIG and the International Cartographic Association
(ICA). It is this International Board that decides on the recognised
standard of Hydrographic Surveying and Cartography courses.
The Board also reviews formal continuing professional development
schemes and arrangements for Hydrographic Surveyors seeking recognition
at international level. The International Board is therefore a good
example of governments, professionals and academia working together to
ensure effective professional development.
Information provided to a Task Force member |
Key questions:
- – Do you have a clear understanding of the current roles of the
different sectors – public, private, academic – in the land administration
system?
- Is the allocation of roles clear and objective?
- Does the allocation of roles support the effective operation of the land
administration system?
- Is the allocation of roles agreed with leaders of all sectors?
- Is the allocation of roles kept under review and adjusted as necessary?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, the work of the different
sectors involved in the land administration system is likely to be ineffectively
organised.
A number of forums will probably already exist for discussion of effective
allocation of activity. Professionals in the public, private and academic
sectors will probably all be members of the relevant professional body, for
instance. This will enable peer-to-peer discussions of the current arrangements
and how they can be improved. The professional body is likely to have contact
with professional bodies in other jurisdictions, allowing a comparison of
arrangements across countries.
This information can be collated and proposals for effective allocation
drafted for discussion. Wide engagement at an early stage will be essential, and
careful positioning of the work to ensure that it is seen as driven by concerns
of public policy and not a sectional group (section 3.6 is also relevant in this
regard).
The IHO example above shows how sectors within a community can collaborate
effectively, each respecting the role and responsibilities of the others, to put
in place and sustain an effective way of working.
4.5 Establish a clear organisational culture
that supports a cooperative approach amongst individual employees
Within an organisation, managers may state that working across and beyond the
organisation is important. But if staff performance is assessed on their
individual effectiveness in their particular role, collaborative working will
not develop in practice.
In a truly sustainable system, words, actions and systems all fully support a
cooperative approach to activity, both across teams and business units within an
organisation, and between organisations.
The key influence on the approach taken in practice is the organisational
culture – that unspoken, unwritten understanding of ‘the way we do things round
here’. Elements that need to be considered in the organisational culture
include: the way that people are rewarded (for individual performance or for
team effort); the symbols that are used (the success stories reported in formal
publications, the news in staff briefings, even the pictures in the office
reception area). And all of this needs to be continuously reinforced by all
levels of managers in their words and their actions – for instance, that
managers of organisations are seen to meet regularly together to agree
inter-organisation liaison.
|
In many countries, a variety of organisations have been created and set
apart from central government – for instance, as Government Owned
Companies, Commercial State Bodies and the like. In some countries, they
have been moved out of the capital city for reasons of regional balance.
It then requires specific effort to make sure that the organisations
work effectively together, treating each other as customers and
suppliers or, even more effectively, as partners in a joint venture to
make the best possible land administration system. In a number of
countries, the organisations responsible for mapping, valuation and land
registration have been brought together into single organisations by
governments which have recognised the benefits of close working. This
has happened, for instance, in many Australian states, in the Caribbean
and in Northern Ireland. Organisational mergers are not essential –
collaborative working is very possible between organisations – but they
provide a very clear statement that the different organisations rely on
each other to deliver the outcomes required from the land administration
system. Information provided by Task Force members |
|
In Land & Property Services in Northern Ireland (www.lpsni.gov.uk),
the key organisational targets are set using a balanced score card
approach. A Management Committee of managers from all directorates meets
monthly to review progress against all of the organisation’s key
targets, and to reassign resources and funding between targets as
necessary to ensure ongoing balance between them. This process
recognises that all areas of the business have a key role to play in the
achievement of corporate objectives, and that such decisions can in many
cases be taken by managers without needing the intervention of Board
members. Information provided by a Task Force member |
Key questions:
- Do your words and your actions consistently reinforce the need for
joined up collaborative working throughout your organisation and with other
relevant organisations?
- Do your organisation’s key targets explicitly include elements that can
only be delivered with input from other organisations?
- Is staff performance measured with reference to the overall success of
the land administration system?
- Are the successes you report internally and externally related to the
need to deliver overall system goals?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, your actions and your words
will not encourage and cajole staff to work together across and beyond
organisational boundaries. You will therefore need to consider how your actions
can support such collaborative working. Actions speak louder than words –
informal contacts and/or formal agreements with other organisations will provide
a clear framework for collaboration. Shared targets will link this approach into
organisational and individual success measures. And the successes that you
choose to highlight can further reinforce this.
Mergers are one organisational solution to the challenges of working across
organisational boundaries. Committees are another. Both have been summarised in
the examples in this section.
4.6 Ensure that the network of individuals and
organisations has a sufficient voice with key decision makers for land
administration issues to be taken fully into account in all central policy
making
Many organisations are involved in delivering an effective land
administration system. These organisations may be working, individually and
collectively, very effectively. However, it is also important that the legal and
policy framework in place fully supports operational delivery, and that the
framework is sufficiently responsive to political, economic, social and
technological changes to enable sustainable development.
In many countries, policy making and operational delivery are seen as
distinct activities with limited communication between them. This is likely to
lead to policy that is not grounded in practical reality, and operational
delivery which is constrained (and sometimes impossible) because of
inappropriate policy. Excellent social policy objectives will not be delivered
if the proposed implementation is cumbersome or unworkable.
In a truly sustainable system, policy making and operational delivery are
seen as parts of the same activity, with constant communication and iteration
between the two parts to ensure that policy meets the needs of the government
and its citizens, but that the policy can be faithfully and completely
delivered. It is therefore essential that policy makers receive and take fully
into account the constructive, well-articulated views of operational delivery
staff and vice versa. Policy makers receive very many representations to
introduce, adapt or repeal policy. It is therefore vital that those responsible
for delivering the land administration system – in the public and the private
sectors – speak with a strong, coherent voice, and use a variety of channels to
influence the policy makers.
|
In the Netherlands, the development of law, policy and operational
aspects of the spatial planning aspects of a National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (SDI) has taken place in a collaborative manner. It has
involved three levels of government – national, provincial and
municipal. The 2006 Spatial Planning Law was driven largely by planning
considerations, but its reliance on SDI was quickly seen and the Law was
drafted to provide a sound legal basis for the SDI. Regulations created
under the Law provide a specific legal basis for the SDI. Considerable
collaboration also took place in the development of standards to support
the operation of the SDI. A top level project group consisting of
representatives of municipalities, provinces, several departments of
central government, delivery organisations and lawyers managed the work,
setting up separate research groups of experts as required. The
standards will now be reviewed on a 2-yearly basis, in a process managed
by Geonovum, the Dutch geographic standardisation foundation. This will
be done in close collaboration with the main spatial planning
stakeholders, in a transparent process, to ensure commitment and
effectiveness. Information summarised from Duindam et al, 2009,
supplemented by discussions with a Task Force member |
|
The creation of a standardised core tenure model has long been discussed
by land administration professionals and international agencies of the
UN. There was general agreement that such an international model would
be valuable, whilst recognising the different legal systems and
processes in different countries. Both the policy makers and the
professionals recognised that they would not be able to create an
effective model separately, so a process of collaborative working
involving UN-HABITAT and FIG was agreed. This involved stakeholder
discussions and expert workshops to create a draft Social Tenure Domain
Model (STDM) of particular relevance to developing countries. This has
been formally reviewed for UN-HABITAT by FIG. A more generally
applicable model, the Land Administration Domain Model (LADM), has also
been developed by FIG experts, and is now being taken forward through
the broad consensus process of ISO to create an international standard,
which is expected to be complete by 2011. The ISO process has brought
together experts from public, private and academic sectors. All involved
agree that the resulting document is much stronger than would have been
possible without this collaboration.
Information provided to a Task Force member by the Project Leader of
the LADM work in ISO. |
Key questions:
- Does your organisation have strong and effective links with policy
makers?
- Do these links give you a voice that is heard in the policy development
process?
- Does the policy development and maintenance process sufficiently
recognise operational realities?
- Are the links sufficiently formalised that they will survive changes of
key individuals?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, there are real risks that
policy will not develop and adapt to allow effective delivery. You need to
ensure that policy makers hear the voice of the delivery organisations, and
respect it as an important, objective voice.
This may most effectively begin through making personal contacts, and through
showing where specific, straight forward changes can make a real difference.
Through this process, the benefits of policy and operations working together
will become clear and can be communicated on the basis of examples. Further
formalisation can then be put in place to be able to withstand the moving on of
key individuals.
Working in this way delivers better results, and completes the process more
quickly despite the slower start as engagement is put in place. The Netherlands
have found this, as has the international community, in the examples above.
4.7 Facilitate policy development and
implementation as a process that is open to all stakeholders, with all voices
being clearly heard
It is important that those developing policy for land administration, and
those delivering the land administration system, clearly hear other voices.
Individual citizens are key stakeholders in the system and have to believe that
the system delivers equitably and effectively. Pressure groups also need to have
their voices clearly heard and taken into account.
The primary role for ensuring this breadth of engagement lies with policy
makers. A key secondary role, however, lies with the delivery organisations and
individuals, who will engage with individual citizens and community groups on a
daily basis in their work. Such individuals need to ensure that such input is
provided to the policy makers.
This also applies to the development of organisational strategies for
individual organisations. Citizens and representative groups need to be
convinced that their voices are all heard and taken seriously if they are to
feel any ownership of the resulting decisions. Consultation and feedback are
critical if successful strategies are to be developed.
If stakeholders do not believe that their voices are heard and respected,
they will not have confidence in the land administration system and will use
other routes to seek to change decisions that have been made.
In a truly sustainable system, all voices are heard and priorities are agreed
based on all of the voices. Communication and feedback explains why certain
ideas cannot be taken forward, so that all stakeholders understand and are able
to support policy and organisational strategy.
|
Recent FIG Commission 9 consideration of compulsory land acquisition has
found that using the compulsory process is considerably less effective
in reaching agreement and acceptance of stakeholders than the use of
voluntary methods. Voluntary methods must be formulated to ensure that
all stakeholders have a clear voice, and are heard. If all stakeholders
understand that a compulsory process will follow unless the matter can
be resolved by agreement, this will focus everyone’s minds, but makes it
vital that the procedures and professionals involved in the voluntary
process ensure that all stakeholders have their voices heard fairly, and
that the reasons for the ultimate decision are clearly explained.
Information provided to a Task Force member |
|
Prior to 1994 (when South Africa became a fully democratic nation), land
ownership was generally restricted to the white population. Some groups
were forced out of the areas in which they had stayed for many years,
and moved to other areas for various political reasons. Since 1994, the
forced removal of communities and individuals and the return of those
communities to their original homes or land has taken up a great deal of
the time and energy of the Land Claims Commission. For example, a
certain area close to the centre of Cape Town has had an unfortunate
history of delay (over seven years) in finalizing the return of
forcefully removed communities to the area, with little progress having
being made because not all of the community interest groups were
included in the negotiations from the very start of the process. There
has also been a history of acrimony between municipal, provincial and
state bodies which has had strong political undertones and has not aided
the process. The Commission has found that, in order to make any
progress in these matters, it is important to be very sensitive to the
needs of all groupings, irrespective of political affiliation or
interest, and to involve all groups from the earliest stages of policy
making. Information provided by a Task Force member
|
Key questions:
- Does policy making on land administration matters in your jurisdiction
take place in a way that ensures that the voices of all stakeholders are
heard?
- Do stakeholders have confidence in the fairness and robustness of the
policy making process, so that they can accept the results?
- Do professionals play a key role in commenting on and shaping policy
development?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, stakeholders are unlikely to
feel fully engaged in the policy development process and will therefore feel
limited ownership of its outcomes. Professionals have a key role to play in
improving this process, as they engage with many stakeholders on a regular
basis, and are perceived as being interested, expert and objective, meaning that
they can speak with the confidence that other stakeholders may not have.
It is therefore important that professionals build strong connections with
the policy making and shaping process. This will often start through personal
links, allowing professionals to show the policy makers and other stakeholders
the value they can bring to the process.
The South African example above shows the difficulties that can arise when
insufficient consultation and communication takes place.
4.8 Provide a legal framework that enables the
use of modern techniques and cross-sector working
Legal frameworks develop over time and take a good deal of time and effort to
alter. Legislative capacity is generally restricted, with many pressures for
parliamentary time. This means that many countries rely on relatively old
legislation to control the land administration system. That in itself is not a
problem; the problem arises if the legislation prescribes details of the work to
be completed.
Legislation is also the highest authority in any jurisdiction, providing the
legal framework within which all citizens and organisations must operate. It is
therefore important that the law does not restrict or hinder cross-sector
working, and is managed in a flexible way so that it can adjust to changes in
society and technology.
In a truly sustainable system, the necessary constraints of the law making
process and timetable are fully recognised, and laws focus on required outcomes.
Inputs such as technical matters which change on a regular basis, are managed
through regulations or instructions under the authority of the law but which can
be changed in a more flexible (but transparent and accountable) manner.
|
If legislation states that angles must be measured a set number of times
when completing various elements of cadastral surveys this, by its very
wording, means that GPS surveys cannot be used because a GPS survey
cannot be shown to conform to the legislation. If the law were to state,
by contrast, that the final accuracy of coordinated survey points in the
cadastre is to be x centimetres, the Surveyor General or equivalent
could stipulate any requirements in regulations and instructions as he
or she sees appropriate and necessary; and these regulations could be
altered more rapidly. Similarly, many countries are now considering
moving (or have moved) to coordinated cadastres without survey marks. If
legislation prescribes the form and nature of survey marks, it will need
to be altered, delaying the possibility of implementing marker-less
cadastres. But if the legislation states that corner points must be
recoverable on the ground with an accuracy of y centimetres, the
Surveyor General or equivalent can state what is and is not allowable.
In the state of Victoria, Australia, the Survey Cadastral Regulations and the
Survey Coordination Regulations used to be quite prescriptive, for instance
detailing how boundaries should be traversed and measured. The latest
regulations are non-prescriptive and leave it to the surveyor to determine how
s/he obtains the accuracy required. The surveyor must be able to demonstrate how
s/he has verified that the survey meets the required accuracy.
Information provided by Task Force members |
Land and land tenure are emotive and politically sensitive issues in
most African countries. In Botswana, there are three categories of land
inherited from colonial rule: Customary land, Stateland and Freehold
land. The allocation and administration of each category is different.
Most people are resident on Customary land, so it is imperative that the
administration of this land is well guided to secure and
sustain people’s livelihoods.The Botswanan Government took early
steps after independence, with the 1968 Tribal Land Act which created
Land Boards to administer customary land and introduced leasehold
arrangements in customary land. The Act was amended in 1993 to keep pace
with social and economic changes. The Land Boards were put in place to
improve customary land administration, ensure that emerging economic
opportunities were adequately catered for in Botswana’s land management
system, create capacity for handling the demanding and complex land use
issues emanating from the new economic opportunities, and democratise
customary land administration.
The national land policy was reviewed in 2002 to ensure that it was capable
of addressing current challenges. The land policy is considered to have been
successful, with much of that success achieved because the policy has addressed
the following factors:
- cultural beliefs and practices;
- consultation and democracy;
- political and economic stability;
- population size;
- ongoing review of critical issues.
Summarised from Mathuba, 2003 |
Key questions:
- Does the law covering the land administration system provide a clear
framework of requirements whilst avoiding stipulating inputs and methods?
- Does the law appropriately recognise the reality of different types and
formality of tenure?
- Are the various types of law, regulation and instruction used
appropriately to address issues of principle, policy and procedure?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, the legal system is unlikely
to facilitate the effective operation of the land administration system. It will
therefore be important that professionals and delivery organisations work
through key contacts (such as government-appointed professional officers) to
explain the technical changes that will make the law out of date – and, worse,
will prohibit the use of improved technology and techniques. Maintaining links
with professionals in other jurisdictions will allow examples to be provided to
law makers. The new Australian regulations provide an example of appropriate
documentation, as does the Botswana Land Policy.
4.9 Offer relevant training courses that
clearly explain, encourage and enable cooperative and action-based working by
organisations, within a clearly understood framework of the roles of each level/
sector
It is important that courses clearly explain the nature of the entire land
administration process, and the various organisations and sectors involved,
whilst often concentrating on certain aspects. For instance, land survey courses
need to explain the land registration system as well as the broader land
administration system. This embodies the T-shaped skills principle – that
effective practitioners need to have a breadth of understanding across a range
of activities, along with detailed understanding of their chosen area of
specialisation. This is as equally relevant to start-of-career training courses
as it is to lifelong learning courses.
Courses must also attempt to embed the concept of the need to work across
disciplines and organisations – which can then be developed further as students
from the courses go to work for different employers and in different sectors.
In a truly sustainable system, those developing training courses work very
closely with those in practice and responsible for policy development and
operational delivery, to ensure that the courses meet practitioners’ needs in a
timely way whilst being firmly rooted in academic knowledge and discipline.
|
Survey courses around the world need to produce students who have the
professional and technical capability to complete the work that is
required of them. The design of courses must ensure sufficient academic
rigour, but also that this is grounded in reality. Courses will
therefore need to adapt constantly, recognising societal and cultural
norms and evolving market needs. A recent study of education for valuers
found mismatches between the professional education and skills of
surveyors as provided within academia, and the needs of the professional
practice in which the surveyors are employed on graduation. Some of the
reasons for this were found to be onerous generic educational
requirements imposed by universities, lack of resources, failures in
communication, and inadequate guidance by professional bodies as to the
requirements of professional practice. A partnership approach between
academia, practitioners and professional bodies is found to be able to
work effectively, with professional bodies accrediting academic courses
on the basis of threshold standards and, overall, on whether the courses
prepare students for the profession. By contrast, those courses
developed without a strong professional practitioner voice did not
produce students who were prepared to cope with the challenges of
professional practice.
Summarised from Kakulu and Plimmer, 2009 |
|
The Problem Based Learning (PBL) approach applied at Aalborg University,
Denmark is both project-organised and problem-based. In order to provide
for the use of project work as the basic educational methodology, the
curriculum is organised into general subjects or “themes” normally
covering a semester. The themes chosen in a programme are generalised in
such a way that the themes in total will constitute the general aim or
professional profile of the curriculum. The themes provide for studying
the core elements of the subjects included (through the lecture courses
given) as well as exploring (through the project work) the application
of the subjects in professional practice. Traditional taught courses
assisted by actual practice are replaced by project work assisted by
courses. The aim is broad understanding of interrelationships and the
ability to deal with new and unknown problems. In general, the focus of
university education becomes more on “learning to learn”. A
consequence of this shift from teaching to learning is that the task of
the teacher is altered from transferring knowledge into facilitating
learning. Project work also fulfils an important objective: the student
must be able to explain the results of their studies and investigations
to other students in the group. This skill is vital to professional and
theoretical cognition: knowledge is only established for real when one
is able to explain this knowledge to others. In traditional education,
the students restore knowledge presented by the teacher. When the
project organized model is used, the knowledge is established through
investigations and through discussion between student members of the
project group. The knowledge, insight, and experiences achieved will
always be remembered.
Summarised from Enemark, 2009 |
Key questions:
- Do education and training courses for surveyors reflect the reality of
professional practice?
- Are training courses regularly reviewed with key input from practising
professionals?
- Are staff from your organisation invited to participate in other
organisations’ training courses – and do staff from other organisations
participate in your organisation’s training courses – to assist in the
spread of information and in building relationships?
- Do training courses provide students with a clear overview of the entire
land administration system and the various organisations involved, before
providing detailed education in particular components of it?
- Do training courses include examples of successful collaborative working
between organisations and individuals?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, training courses are unlikely
to provide students and graduates who can succeed in professional practice. This
will significantly reduce the benefits of the education and place additional
pressures on the professional accreditation and membership tests of the various
professional bodies.
Many jurisdictions have good examples of successful collaboration between
academia and professional practice, including external examiners from
professional practice, and professional body accreditation of academic courses.
Professional bodies which maintain links with their peers in other countries
will be able to provide such examples, along with suggestions for initial
low-risk stages which will prove the benefit of this approach to those who are
sceptical.
4.10 Share experiences through structured
methods for learning from each others’ expertise and experiences, with this
learning fed back into organisational learning
Busy people do not spend sufficient time learning from experiences. This
problem increases with the increasing business and personal pressures on us all,
and the increasing expectation that instant communication requires instant
decision making.
It is, however, well documented that collating and using lessons learned from
particular tasks can shorten the time to complete future tasks. This process
need not be lengthy – but neither should the time given to it be unnecessarily
restricted.
In a truly sustainable system, proper time is given to a structured learning
process which involves all of the affected individuals and organisations. The
results are agreed and widely shared to facilitate wide and ongoing learning.
|
The most commonly used project management frameworks require that a
Lessons Learned report is completed as part of the completion of a
project. In the PRINCE 2 methodology, the Lessons Learned report is
generally completed in a workshop which brings together all involved
parties and considers what went well, what went less well, and what
lessons can be learned for future projects. Many organisations now bring
key lessons learned together into a manual for successful projects. The
same process can – and should – be easily applied to the development of
policy or completion of surveys. Information provided by a Task
Force member
|
|
The growing numbers of GeoPortals and other web-based tools allow a
place to share such learning across countries and continents – the
Knowledge Portal developed by the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure
Association (GSDI) is one such example (http://geodatacommons.umaine.edu/network/home.php).
The portal offers the opportunity for any organisation to deposit and
examine documents, find contacts in other organisations around the
world, and participate in a range of discussion forums. Information
provided by a Task Force member
|
Key questions:
- Do you complete a structured learning process with those involved at the
end of a project?
- Do you share the results of this learning with others who might benefit
from it now or in the future?
- Do you use web-based systems to share and gain learning?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, you are probably not giving
enough priority to learning lessons as a basis for ongoing improvement. The
tried and tested techniques around lessons learned, and the burgeoning web-based
portals, provide ample opportunity to learn and to share, and this is a crucial
element of developing sustainable, effective institutions and organisations.
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), 2008, Making Land
Work: Volume 1 – Reconciling Customary Land and Development in the Pacific.
Available from
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/MLW_VolumeOne_Bookmarked.pdf
Duindam, A., Bloksma, R., Genee, H. and van der Veenm J., 2009, State of Play
of the Operational and Legally Bound Spatial Planning SDI in the Netherlands.
Proceedings of GSDI 11, Rotterdam, June 2009. Available from
http://www.gsdi.org/gsdiconf/gsdi11/papers/pdf/129.pdf
Enemark, S., 2004, Building Land Information Policies. Proceedings of UN/FIG
Special Forum on Building Land Information Policies in the Americas,
Aguascalientes, Mexico, 26-27 October 2004. Available from
http://www.fig.net/pub/mexico/papers_eng/ts2_enemark_eng.pdf
Enemark, S., 2009, Surveying Education: Facing the Challenges of the Future.
Proceedings of the FIG Commission 2 workshop, Vienna, 26-28 February 2009.
Available from
http://www.fig.net/commission2/vienna_2009_proc/papers/opening_enemark.pdf
FIG, 1999, The Bathurst Declaration on Land Administration for Sustainable
Development. FIG Publication No 21. Available from
http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm
FIG, 2002a, The Nairobi Statement on Spatial Information for Sustainable
Development. FIG Publication No 30. Available from
http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm
FIG, 2002b, Business Matters for Professionals, FIG Publication No 29.
Available from
http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm
FIG, 2005, Aguascalientes Statement – The Inter-Regional Special Forum on
Development of Land Information Policies in the Americas. FIG Publication No 34.
Available from
http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm
FIG, 2008, Capacity Assessment in Land Administration. FIG Publication No 41.
Available from
http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm
Greenway, I., 2009, Building Institutional and Organisational Capacity for
Land Administration: an update on the work of the FIG Task Force. Proceedings of
the FIG Working Week, Eilat, May 2009. Available from
http://www.fig.net/srl/
HMT, 2000, Public Services Productivity: Meeting the Challenge. Available
from
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/241.pdf
Kakulu, I. I. and Plimmer, F., 2009, Real Estate Education versus Real Estate
Practice in Emerging Economies – a challenge for globalization. Paper presented
to ERES conference, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2009. Available from
http://eres.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/show?eres2009_394
Land Equity International Ltd, 2008, Governance in Land Management – A Draft
Conceptual Framework. Available from
http://www.landequity.com.au/publications/Land%20Governance%20-%20text%20for%20conceptual%20framework%20260508.pdf
Mathuba, B. M., 2003, Botswana Land Policy. Presented at an International
Workshop on Land Policies in Southern Africa, Berlin, 26-27 May 2003. Available
from
http://www.fes.de/in_afrika/studien/Land_Reform_Botswana_Botselo_Mathuba.pdf
OXERA (Oxford Economic Research Associates Ltd), 1999, The economic
contribution of Ordnance Survey GB. Report available at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/aboutus/reports/oxera/index.html
UNDP, 1997, Capacity Development – Management Development and Governance
Division Technical Advisory Paper 2. Available from
http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/Docs/cap/Capdeven.pdf
UNDP, 1998, Capacity Assessment and Development. Technical Advisory Paper No.
3. Available from
http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/Docs/cap/CAPTECH3.htm
UN FAO, 2007, Good Governance in Land Tenure and Administration. FAO Land
Tenure Studies Number 9. Available from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1179e/a1179e00.htm
Published in English
Copenhagen, Denmark
ISBN 978-87-90907-77-8
Published by
The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
Kalvebod Brygge 31–33, DK-1780 Copenhagen V
DENMARK
Tel. +45 38 86 10 81
Fax +45 38 86 02 52
E-mail: FIG@FIG.net
www.fig.net
January 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Editors: Iain Greenway and Stig Enemark
Photographs: © Stig Enemark
Design and layout: International Federation of Surveyors, FIG
Printer: Oriveden Kirjapaino, Finland
|
