Transcript Document

• Day:
• Session:
• Coordinators:
Thursday 10th November
14.30am - 15.30
Ian Williamson & Stig
Enemark
• Topic:
Components of the
vision- break out groups
Day 1 – Wednesday Nov 9th
Welcome & Research
Vision
Presentations - European
Perspective of Paradigm
Australian Group
Coordinator: Stig Enemark
Rapporteur: Steve Jacoby
Evaluate – Components of
the vision
Report Back - Discussion
European Lessons Learnt
European Group
Coordinator: Ian Williamson
Rapporteur: Paul van der Molen
Day 2 – Thursday Nov 10th
Presentations - Australian
Perspective of Paradigm
Australian Group
Coordinator: Stig Enemark
Rapporteur: Grahame Searle
Evaluate – Components of
the vision
Report Back - Discussion
Australian Lessons Learnt
European Group
Coordinator: Ian Williamson
Rapporteur: Daniel Steudler
Day 3 – Friday Nov 11th
Presentation – Spatially
Enabling Government
Group 1
(based on Australian &
European Perspectives)
Evaluate – Issues in
Designing a New
Generation of LAS
Rapporteur: Warwick Watkins
Group 2
(based on Australian &
European Perspectives)
Rapporteur: Holger Magel
Report Back - Discussion
Final Presentation
Next Generation of LAS
Ian Williamson, Stig Enemark,
Jude Wallace
Key Observations (1)
•
•
•
•
•
Land administration does not deliver
sustainable development, however SD cannot
be achieved without effective land
administration
European trend to legislate spatial enablement
and codify self regulation
Public private partnerships are increasing
Spatial cadastre is fundamental and accepted
by government and society
Land parcel is still centralcoordinated/spatially referenced
Key Observations (2)
•
•
•
Spatial professions (especially
surveyors) are the key driver in
government reform in Europe
We need a new language to
communicate to end users/ simple
messages required – semantic
interoperability
ICT convergence unlocks value in
existing systems and this is underplayed
in the model
Key Observations (3)
•
•
•
•
•
Process is important – not entities
Without the cadastre and land registry,
land use planning, land tax and legal
security in property, in support of
sustainable development, is not possible
Good governance in a complex world
now requires integrated data approach
Land administration needs information
on both built and natural environment
Must be a spatial dimension to LAS
Key Observations (4)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title is fundamental and is still undervalued
Institutional issues are still the primary
problem
End-User orientated approach is required rather
than technology focus
Environmental Issues: policy response in
Europe has been very different to Australia
Unbundling rights in AUS/Unheard of in Europe
Country Context is important- Education,
Institutional arrangements
Key Observations (5)
•
•
•
•
•
Land Administration enables but does not
deliver Sustainable Development
Changes seem to have occurred in Australia
without legislation?
Authentic Registers well supported. We do not
have these authoritative registers in Australia
Local Government more empowered in Europe –
more problematic in AUS
SDI: Need to retain simple messages (de Soto)
– for users / politicians
The Paradigm
1. What is the vision for an ICT enabled
LAS to support sustainable
development?
2. Is a common understanding possible?
The Paradigm (1)
•
•
•
•
Land use planning, land development and land taxation
are confusing the model. The key is a unique, integrated
and coordinated cadastre and land registry. This must be
spatially enabled and support interoperability. Most land
related activities rely on this (ie. Planning, valuation,
land development)
The model is a land management model, not a land
administration model?
Indicators/science not included in the model nor are
reporting and evaluation mechanisms
Revise the model to reflect service provision to citizens
The Paradigm (2)
•
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
–
In Australia:
Unbundling has resulted in disparate management of ‘new property’
i.e. managing outside the LAS which are not TAXED
Politics has had a large impact in rural Australia- different to Europe
We’ve yet to unlock value of the ‘parcel’ and existing land
administration systems
How do you promote this model to end-users, key stakeholders
(e.g. Utilities) AND politicians
Fundamentally there appears nothing wrong with Australian LAS
Conceptually attractive model (efficiencies etc.), but, is it
visionary enough?
Link between LAS functions and sustainable development is not
unique – other contributors
Where are the people in this model?
Is the parcel approach limited? Geo-coding and addressing
offers far more opportunities
The Paradigm (3)
•
•
•
•
•
Add people dimension
Strong engagement of local government needed
– missing from the model
Process aspect – two way interaction e.g. two
way arrows, interaction between policy and
land information
Outcome related model – need to try and
capture outcomes in the model
Capacity building at society, institutional, data
process and individual level – renewable self
sustaining cycle
The Paradigm (4)
•
•
•
Need to take into account culture and value
systems
What sort of society, quality of life, personally
and as a community, do we want and hence
what are the systems/infrastructure needed to
deliver this ie. Creation and distribution of
wealth, identification and protection of assets,
protection and enhancement of the
environment. All of this requires core
information (including land) to underpin
decision making and the outcomes
Model encompasses core elements. Different
jurisdictions have different focus.
Key Drivers (1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
-
Environment Sustainability
Business Efficiency
Informed Decision Making
Technology
Security/ Anti-terrorism?
Community Expectations
Risk Management
European Drivers:
Environment was the key political driver for INSPIRE
Agricultural subsidies
Information technology
Fraud
Key Drivers (2)
Remaining responsive to user needs at a
whole of government level
-
Productivity as a result of IT application
Environmental needs – monitoring
Security
Revenue raising through tax
Image/pride
Meeting public expectation – servicing the
citizen
Key Components and Tools (1)
•
•
•
•
•
Web Services
Standards/Shared Architectures
Government transparency- activities
NOT institutions
Spatially Enabled Interoperability (SDI)technical, semantic, legal
Cadastre (coordinated?) + other core
land related information
Key Components and Tools (2)
•
•
•
•
•
Authentic registers that are spatially enabled
A common data model in the cadastral domain,
especially in federated systems, is essential for
interoperability
Register of Interests/ Torrens System
Key component in building capacity are
education at universities, CPD and research
activity
Quality assurance framework
Key Components and Tools (3)
•
•
•
•
-
Core business of land administration
Spatial dimension
RRR dimension
Tax and valuation
Land development
Modern planning is adds value as a user of our information
which should lead to sustainable development. Role of
providing information to land users that want to make
decisions about the use of land
Land management will be more sustainably practised as a
result of land information
Land administration agencies are in the business of land
information management for the plethora of user needs and
land management outcomes
Future Challengers, Issues & Improvements (1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Achieving a national system in a federated
country
Achieving spatially enabled government
How does the land registry system contribute to
SD?
Relationship between the land registry and
spatial cadastre
Can international comparative monitoring be
established?
Administration of restrictions and
responsibilities
Is the land parcel still central to LA?
The role of buildings in land administration
Future Challenges, Issues & Improvements (2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Engaging with the intended audience (citizens,
politicians and NGOs)
Consideration of the social dimension
Institutional silos - Overcoming silo approach
Professional culture clash
Maintenance costs
International
collaboration/monitoring/standardisationCapacity Building of society, institutions and
individuals
3D and 4D Cadastres
Future Challenges, Issues & Improvements (3)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Historical institutional frameworks are key barriers- ICT
can just ‘mask’ these problems
The language used in the spatial sector fails to sell
spatial technologies and information (simple / relevant)
Multi-jurisdictional problems- state vs. federal vs. local
vs. regional authorities- Should the model+ include
these relationships / roles?
Funding and governance arrangements need attentionThese need to be understood to make the model relevant
to a particular jurisdiction
Recognise the components all interact in a social system
Value of property street address – this is what people
use, not Lot/Plan number
Difficulty of engaging stakeholders
Future Challenges, Issues & Improvements (4)
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
Engagement and interaction between all levels of
government
Shared vision, values and systems within a federated
system that facilitates interoperability
Need for unified data models, semantics and structures to
support this – progressed to a greater extent in Europe
Heading towards national systems
Marketing and presentation – recognising the client
Remember SDI is an infrastructure and enabling
platform for data integration, data sharing, data access
– not an end in itself – it is all about data to data and
data to people
Bundling / unbundling of rights – does this service
sustainable development – recognising that we still need
to identify RRR of which some will have a value