Land Administration System of Australia and Indonesia - Case Study Example

Title: Compare and Contrast land administration system of Australia and Indonesia Name Institution Date of submission Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 The evaluation framework 3 What is land administration system? 4 Land administration system evaluation framework 5 Comparison and contrasting of the country systems 5 a) Accountability 5 b) Equity 6 c) Transparency 6 d) Public engagement 7 e) Efficiency and effectiveness 7 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction The developed countries use land administration systems developed from the cadastral map that are established basically for land valuation and taxation considering the land usage. The current systems of land administration particularly cover the capacity of use of land for agricultural purposes (Qian, 2015). The cadastral map is developed from a set of new policies and technologies brought by land reforms. This has allowed land management to have a more integrated approach when it comes to land issues. In contrast, about a decade ago, Australian land administration system evolved from Torrens system that entailed title registration to the management of the transfer of person land parcels. The move by the Australian land administration system resulted in the lack of support in the management of wider issues in social, economic and environmental fields. Historically, the development of land administration system in Australia has not reached its potential like other countries in the world (Williamson, Enemark, Wallace & Rajabifard, 2008). This paper evaluates the performance of governance practices in Australia and Indonesia. The evaluation framework Generally, land is the most valuable resource, and it needs to be managed carefully. Firstly, land is a non-renewable resource that is needed by all human beings. The modernization in various countries defined by urbanization has led to the increase in scarceness of land. Secondly, practices related to land have been ranked as the most corrupt in the public service (United Nations, 2015). Regarding the two characteristics, it is important to evaluate the performance of land administration system to reduce the negative consequences. Land administration systems in various countries have deficiencies. For example, a case study of Indonesia shows that despite there is government provision of land registration to protect land tenure, about 45% of the land has not been registered. The people around Bandung live informally without title deeds because of the high cost of the registration process. Inevitably, a case in Nepal has developed criticism on how the management of land related issues are dealt with especially with the increase in the informal settlements (Guspriadi, 2015). What is land administration system? Land administration system (LAS) can be perceived as a set of administrative functions that ensures a sustainable organization and development of land matters (Enemark, Williamson & Wallace, 2013). These functions include land registration, valuation and taxation, cadaster, survey as well as land planning and development. Land registration is the core of land administration system ensures that there is a formal title for the citizens. The titles ensure that citizens have better privileges associated with lands such as higher land investment and better formal credit (Qian, 2015). Cadaster is also an important component in the LAS that aims at providing land information regarding all the land related issues. Land development entails upgrading of the informal settlements (GDRC, 2015). The big irony remains to be, with the existence of the universal land reforms, why there is still informal settlements in some countries like Indonesia and Nepal, unlike in Australia? The most probable reason is that the land administration system in some countries fails to meet the universal principle of good land governance. Therefore, it is important to assess the land administration system of Australia, and compare it to other countries like Nepal and Indonesia based on the land governance. According to Williamson, Enemark, Wallace & Rajabifard (2008), if the governance characteristics are identified, the more likely we have the solutions to the land issues in some countries. As reflected in Australia, good land governance promote better system where people can have local engagement, transparency, efficiency and improved urban services that could make the informal settlement exist with little or no trouble (Australia Land Information System, 2015). Land administration system evaluation framework The framework of evaluation comprise of three main components namely, the land administration system, developed strategy and assessment framework. The framework provides indicators of the good governance that will help during the comparison of the land administration systems of the countries identified. The framework will compare and contrast the land administration systems of the three countries based on the following attributes equity, transparency, public engagement, effectiveness and efficiency. Each attribute is evaluated from a different context of governance. The land administration system is the subject of analysis, and it bridges the importance of having good governance when it comes to settling informal settlements in the country. Comparison and contrasting of the country systems a) Accountability The land administrative system has four major domains, namely, land policy, registration and cadaster, planning and development. Accountability as an evaluation indicator implies that the all the four domains should be accountable to the public when it comes to making decisions regarding land issues. Both Australia and Indonesia have clear mandated and defined land administration systems in managing land issues. For example, in managing informal settlement, the government institutions are less conscious to take initiatives in some land issues. However, there is still lack of accountability when it comes to land taxation and valuation in developing countries like Indonesia. This is because the policy influence of the public is still insignificant (Guspriadi, 2015). b) Equity According to Burns (2006) equity implies that all the people have an equal right to access necessities. When it comes to land matters, equity refers to the prevention of the grabbing of land illegally by the elite groups. In Australia, many of the civil institutions such as Lao Women’s Union have participated in education people especially women and ethnic groups about their land rights. As a result, the union has achieved 34% increase in the title owned by women and 23% owned by individuals from economically deprived group (United Nations, 2015). In this case, land administration system has pushed for equity through civil unions. In Indonesia, the same efforts to promoting equity have been done through the creation of social congruence within then land administration system. However, Australia is much committed to the policy reforms of the land that protect equity compared to Indonesia, which is affected by strong politics (Burns, 2006). c) Transparency Transparency is about making decisions and implementing them in an open and free way, and making it available to the people who are directly influenced by these decisions (Williamson, Enemark, Wallace & Rajabifard, 2008). Australia is among the developed nations in the world which has a complete cadastre. Also, the adoption of complete cadastre towards the end of the 21st century has reduced the case of corruption and lack of transparency in land administration. Indonesia has a long way to go when it comes to transparency. Though equity has been significantly embraced, the decisions are still centralized. This means that matters concerning land are done at the top central level thus opening up avenues of corruptions and lack of transparency (GDRC, 2015). When it comes to land information, complete cadastre provides land information in both Australia and Indonesia. Both countries have recognized the importance of technology in mapping since one can get land information easily. d) Public engagement Developed countries have their land administration systems decentralized to ensure that the public participate in the decision-making processes concerning land issues. In both Australia and Indonesia, there is an increasing awareness of the public through political engagement to ensure the vulnerable groups are involved in the decision-making process that could affect them. In Australia, the land commission is using e-citizenship to inform and mobilize the public on the land issues and reforms (Burns, 2006). However, in Indonesia there is lack of a robust land administration system that that is web-based to ensure that all citizens are involved. As a result, this could lead to neglect of the minority during decision-making process on land-related issues. For example, it is easier to access the information on title deeds and reforms in Australia than in Indonesia. The majority of the land owners in Indonesia often go to central land administration to get all information regarding land issues (Australia Land Information System, 2015). e) Efficiency and effectiveness Good land governance is all about effectiveness and efficiency of the land administration system. Effective and efficient land administrative system implies that the services within the system have to meet the expectations of the right democratic of people during the use of land. Nepal and Australia have almost the same land administration system defined by an affordable and simple procedure in following land issues. For example, the land information can be obtained easily from the government website. However, the critical details of the land are only obtained from the central land administration (Burns, 2006). The land administration system in Australia is strongly connected with the legal, social and economic framework. Therefore, the system supports land markets as well as the land administration as natural resource thus promoting sustainable development. With the developing nations like Indonesia, the LAS have a small connection with the social, legal and economic framework thus reducing its efficiency and effectiveness (Enemark, Williamson & Wallace, 2013). Conclusion In conclusion, developed countries have good land governance in their land administration systems compared to developing countries. The assessment of Australian and Indonesian land administration systems has shown that there is still a huge gap in developing countries compared to developed ones when it comes to land issues. Developed countries like Australia have embraced new initiatives that will boost the effectiveness and efficiency, accountability and public participation of the citizens as far as good land governance is concerned. However, the developing countries such as Indonesia and Nepal are still affected by political forces, corruption and lack of technology in their land administration systems. Therefore, to ensure that the four domains of the land administration system works as per the expectations of the public, the five attributes needs to be followed and adhered to. References Australia Land Information System, (2015). WALIS eNewsletter — WALIS - Western Australian Land Information System. [online] Walis.wa.gov.au. Available at: http://www.walis.wa.gov.au/news/enews [Accessed 20 Aug. 2015]. Burns, T. (2006). International Experi ence with Land Administration Projects: a Framework for Monitoring of Pilots. Wollongong, NSW: Land Equity International Pty Ltd. Enemark, S., Williamson, I. and Wallace, J. (2013). Building modern land administration systems in developed economies. Journal of Spatial Science, 50(2), pp.51-68. GDRC, H. (2015). Urban Governance: Need of the Day. [online] Gdrc.org. Available at: http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/need-ofthe-day.html [Accessed 20 Aug. 2015]. Guspriadi, T. (2015). Modeling Customary Land Tenure within the National Land Administration Using the Social Tenure Domain Model (Case Study Ulayat Land in Minangkabau Community, West Sumatra, Indonesia). South Jakarta: National Land Agency. Qian, L. (2015). Evaluating Land Administration System from the Perspective of Good Governance: A Case Study Informal Settlement in Kathmandu Valley. Enschede: University of Twente. Tegnan, H. (2015). Legal pluralism and land administration in West Sumatra: the implementation of the regulations of both local and nagari governments on communal land tenure. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, pp.1-12. United Nations, (2015). United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management. The Application of Geospatial Information–Land Administration and Management, 3(1), pp.4-20. Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J. and Rajabifard, A. (2008). Understanding land Administration Systems. International Seminar on Land Administration Trends and Issues in Asia and The Pacific Region : Position paper, pp.19-20. Read More