To be published in The Australian Surveyor BENCHMARKING CADASTRAL SYSTEMS by Daniel Steudler, Ian Williamson, Jürg Kaufmann and Don Grant Daniel Steudler, Secretary, Working Group 7.1 (Modern
Cadastral Systems), Commission 7, International
Federation of Surveyors (FIG) and Associate at Swiss
Federal Directorate of Cadastral Surveying,
Einsteinstrasse 2, CH-3003 Berne, Switzerland Ian Williamson, Chairperson, Commission 7, FIG and
Professor of Surveying and Land Information, Department
of Geomatics, University of Melbourne, Parkville,
Victoria, Australia, 3052 Jürg Kaufmann, Chairperson, Working Group 7.1 (Modern
Cadastral Systems), Commission 7, FIG, Kaufmann
Consulting, Concepts and Project Management for
Geomatics, im Hauffeld, CH-8455 Rüdlingen, Switzerland Don Grant, Australian delegate to Commission 7, FIG
and Surveyor General, Land Information Centre, Bathurst,
New South Wales, Australia, 2795 ABSTRACT Increasingly countries are looking at ways to improve the performance of their cadastral systems and are examining ‘benchmarking’ as one option. As with all comparative analyses, including benchmarking, obtaining useable data is critical. This paper presents the results of a project to compare the performance of cadastral systems internationally, undertaken over the last two years by Commission 7, International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) (which is responsible for cadastre and land management matters within the FIG). The paper is primarily concerned with presenting data based on appropriate performance indicators and does not attempt to draw conclusions from the data. The Commission believes the results of this project will be useful to other countries wishing to improve their own cadastral systems. In addition the project has identified the very real difficulties in developing appropriate performance indicators for cadastral systems because of differences in the interpretation of cadastral definitions due to cultural, legal, social and institutional differences in those countries involved in the project. INTRODUCTION The last decade has seen a dramatic increase in interest in cadastral reform and related activities as governments recognise its potential in contributing to economic development, social stability and environmental management (Williamson, 1997). At the same time, as a part of the world-wide adoption of micro-economic reforms, there has been an increasing trend to adopt management practices which contribute to organisations performing at the level of international best practice. One of the key management strategies adopted in this trend is ‘benchmarking’ along with related techniques such as Total Quality management (TQM). Benchmarking is increasingly seen as a key in improving productivity, efficiency and measuring service quality. The current trend to use better management and scientific approaches in cadastral reform has also led to a greater emphasis on the use of case study methodologies (which share many similarities with benchmarking), where data collection and comparative analysis are critical (Williamson and Fourie, 1997). Case study methodologies rely on good quality data to permit comparisons, in a similar manner to benchmarking. In response to these management trends, Commission 7, which is responsible for cadastral and land management in the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), embarked on a data collection exercise about two years ago in order to compare the performance of cadastral systems world-wide - basically benchmarking cadastral systems. The objective of this paper is to present the results of this project which was primarily concerned with refining a questionnaire used as the basis of the data collection and in obtaining meaningful results. Importantly the data presented in this paper has a caveat that while all efforts have been made to seek data that can be compared with reasonable confidence, the project has clearly identified the very significant legal, social, cultural and institutional differences which occur between countries and even within countries in their cadastral systems. While the intention of the project was to prepare a questionnaire which would permit the comparison of ‘apples and apples’ and not ‘apples and oranges’, this has been very difficult due to the different interpretations of cadastral definitions across countries. BENCHMARKING The concept of benchmarking has traditionally been used in the private sector but is increasingly being used in both the government and academic sectors as a management tool to improve productivity, efficiency and performance. A good introduction to the use of benchmarking in government is a report by the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPRT) which describes how to apply benchmarking to the local government sector. Following are some excerpts from a position paper by the IPRT (1997) on the subject. "Benchmarking generally refers to the process of comparing an organisation’s performance with some standard. The benchmark can be the previous performance of the organisation (benchmarking over time), or other organisations (benchmarking across an industry or over industries). The term ‘benchmarking’ can also be used in a more specific sense and refers to the process of comparing with the best performers in an industry" (IPRT, 1997). When this is done on an international scale the process is often referred to as trying to achieve ‘international best practice’. Benchmarking is often divided into two categories; comparative performance information or ‘results benchmarking’ and the analysis and improvement of processes within an organisation or ‘process benchmarking’. "Process benchmarking involves identifying an organisation’s performance and practices in key areas and making comparisons with other organisations, in order to learn how to achieve better results. Process benchmarking often involves comparing with best practice performers. The benefits of process benchmarking are gained by comparing the practices of internal operations with the operations of others, and applying the results to improve practice." (IPRT, 1997) As stated by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of DUPONT Australia and New Zealand, R.F.E.Warburton (1993), "…if you see a good idea, steal shamelessly". Learning from others is very important in the process of continual improvement to achieve international best practice and is an important outcome from benchmarking. "The term ‘benchmarking’, is often used to refer to process benchmarking exclusively. In this context, results benchmarks are referred to as ‘performance indicators’." And further, "Successful benchmarking is more than just a measurement exercise. The aim of benchmarking and the development of performance indicators is to provide information and insights to assess and improve performance." (IPRT, 1997). The key to good benchmarking is good quality data. Again as stated by the IPRT (1997) , "…meaningful benchmarking depends on the availability of quality information that can be sensibly used for comparative purposes", and further, "…benchmarking will only be a useful tool where comparisons are not distorted by poor quality data". As stated by CCH (1997), a 1992 survey of benchmarking activities conducted in Australia’s top 500 organisations found the overwhelming motive behind benchmarking was survival in the marketplace. Other reasons for benchmarking, which are not unique to top organisations, include the following:
Cadastral organisations use the process category when seeking to achieve integration of the legal, spatial and fiscal entities which historically comprise the cadastre and to improve the key cadastral processes of land adjudication, land transfer and mutation (subdivision and consolidation). They also use results benchmarking (or performance indicators) to compare the performance of specific activities. As a result of the interest in benchmarking, the Commission 7 project has placed a lot of emphasis on the development of appropriate performance indicators in this project. A discussion of these indicators and the project is described below. THE FIG COMMISSION 7 BENCHMARKING PROJECT Working Group 7.1 within Commission 7 has the mandate to look at developments and trends in the cadastral field and to present a vision for "Cadastre 2014" at the next FIG congress in 1998 in Brighton. To get an understanding of cadastral trends, an early questionnaire was prepared by the Working Group on this topic, answered by member countries and the results analyzed. The two issues of ‘cost recovery’ and ‘privatization’ attracted a lot of attention from many countries and the working group agreed to look at these in more detail. As a result at the FIG Commission 7 meeting in Budapest, Hungary in 1996, the traditional annual country reports of the delegates were utilized to present and discuss these two issues from each country's point of view. At the end of these presentations, it became obvious that comparisons between jurisdictions were only possible if common definitions for cadastral components could be agreed upon. The Working Group took the opportunity to develop a second questionnaire based on the discussion in Budapest and subsequent meetings and correspondence between the key researchers in the project. The questionnaire tried to identify some simple indicators for a typical cadastral system. For the purpse of the questionnaire, a cadastral system was considered to consist of two main parts, being "cadastral surveying and mapping" as the spatial component and "land registration" as the textual component. This simplified approach was taken to try and simplify the data collection and reduce any miss-interpretations. The questionnaire was structured as follows: Jurisdiction:
Cadastral system:
The questionnaire was distributed in December 1996 to over 80 delegates and corresponding members of Commission 7, and at the time of the annual meeting in Penang, Malaysia, in May 1997, the Working Group had received responses from 53 countries or states. The country representatives attending the meeting in Penang presented their questionnaire responses as country reports. The presentations and particularly the country data and comparisons created a great deal of interest. Extensive discussion was undertaken to again clarify the basic assumptions and definitions used in the questionnaire, although time did not permit complete standardisation of definitions. The clarifications were summarized and the data providers from the various jurisdictions were asked to modify their submissions if appropriate. As a result a significant number of jurisdictions modified their data. A condensed version of the questionnaire together with the clarifications is included as an appendix. RESULTS The data from the countries were compiled in five data sets numbered from A) to E), each dealing with a different topic. Remarks about the data and the addresses of the data providers were compiled in two additional data sets F) and G). The data sets are too large to be included in this paper however a complete set has been retained by the authors. This paper presents key data items and ratios that were derived from the original data. This data is presented in bar diagrams throughout the remainder of the paper. For the 53 countries or states that answered the questionnaire, the following abbreviations are used:
A) General Statistics and Content Data set A) contains the total population of the jurisdiction, the gross national product (GNP), GNP per capita, the total number of land parcels (see questionnaire for definition), the total value of land and of mortgages, and data on the technical content of the cadastral system. Figures A1, A2, and A3 show the population, the GNP per capita, and the size i.e. the number of parcels in the cadastral systems of the countries and states that responded to the questionnaire.
Figure A2: Gross national product per capita in US$.
Figure A3: Number of parcels within the jurisdictions in million. Figures A4 and A5 show the derived data that is intended to provide an economic indicator of the respective jurisdictions by showing the two ratios "population per parcel" and "mortgages/land value". first ratio "population per parcel" is the ratio of the number of persons by the number of parcels. The main range of this ratio is between 0.5 and 3.5. There are extreme values where the ratio is more than one hundred persons per parcel for various reasons (including the definition of a parcel). For example in city states like Hongkong and Singapore there is a very high population density. In countries where the cadastral system has been recently introduced – such as many former communist countries – or where the cadastral system does not yet cover the entire land area, the ratio between parcels and population is high, due to the fact that not all parcels have been registered in the system at this stage. The average of the ratio "population per parcel" is 1.7. The average value was calculated as weighted average, with the number of parcels as weight.
The ratios mortgages/land value are represented as a percentage. The average of the ratios of the countries that made indications is 33%. This means that approximately 1/3 of the value of the land including all improvements on it is mortgaged.
B) Performance and Reliability Data set B) represents the performance and reliability of the spatial and textual cadastral components. For this analysis, typical transactions for each component were chosen: for the spatial component the annual number of new parcels and boundary disputes, and the time to subdivide land were chosen, and for the textual component the annual number of land transfers and title disputes, and the time to transfer land were chosen. To compare the data between the different jurisdictions, they were "normalized" with the total number of parcels. Therefore the following figures are the annual number of transactions and disputes per one million parcels. These numbers are rather difficult to interprete as there probably are many variations in the data due to local or national influences. In order to interpret the data correctly further research would need to be undertaken to understand these specific influences. Figures B1 and B2 show the annual number of transaction per one million parcels giving an indication of the performance of each component of the cadastral system. The average values are weighted with the number of parcels.
Figures B3 and B4 show the annual number of disputes per one million parcels. These ratios may give an indication of the reliability of each component of the cadastral systems. The average values are weighted with the number of parcels.
To represent the timeliness of the cadastral systems, the same typical transactions as above were examined for each component. The time to transfer land represents the work of the land registry while the time to subdivide land reflects mainly the work of the surveyor. In practice these two processes are very difficult to separate as every jurisdiction defines them differently. The process to subdivide land was chosen even though it also contains the process of transferring land, but it nevertheless is a typical process for the spatial component of a cadastral system.
Figure B5: Time in days to subdivide land (minimal - maximal duration).
C) Completeness Data set C) shows the completeness of both spatial and textual components of the cadastral system. The completeness of cadastral surveying, the first component, is represented in the following figures by three proportions. The first proportion gives the actual coverage of the land that has to be covered by law with cadastral plans or maps. This first proportion contains the total coverage of plans or maps in any form, i.e. digital and coordinated form. The second proportion gives the amount of surveyed and coordinated maps, either in paper or computer form. The third proportion represents the amount of computerized maps in digital form. All indications could either be based on the number of parcels or the covered surface. Figures C1 and C2 show the three proportions of the cadastral surveying component. In figure C1 the countries are sorted by the proportion of the total actual coverage and in figure C2 by the proportion of the computerized maps in digital form.
Figure C1: Completeness of spatial component (cadastral surveying), sorted by proportion of total coverage in any form.
Figure C2: Completeness of spatial component (cadastral surveying), sorted by proportion of computerized maps in digital form.
The completeness of the second component, land registration, is represented by two proportions. The first one represents the actual amount of parcels that are registered in the land registry, where 100% would be the number of parcels that would have to be registered by law. The other proportion represents the amount of parcels that are computerized in digital form. All the indications are based on the number of parcels. Figures C3 and C4 display the two proportions. In figure C3 the countries are sorted by the actual registration, and in figure C4 they are sorted by the proportion in digital form.
Figure C4: Completeness of textual component (land registration), sorted by proportion in digital form. D) Personnel and Salary Structure One section of the questionnaire looked at the personnel and salaries of the three professions active in the cadastral system (as defined for this project). For the spatial component, professional surveyors with a university degree and technician surveyors were included, while the textual component was represented by the lawyers/solicitors. Data set D) compiled the numbers, the proportions working in the public and private sectors, and the salaries of the three professions. From this data, the number of personnel per one million population, and two salary ratios were calculated. Figures D1, D2, and D3 show the number of personnel per one million population for each profession – in full-time-equivalents – active in the cadastral system.
Using the indicated salaries, two ratios have been calculated. The first compares the salaries of the private sector vs the salaries of the public sector for each profession. The second compares the average salaries with respect to GNP per capita. The ratio between the private and public sector is shown for each profession in figures D4, D5, and D6. The ratios between the average salaries and the GNP per capita are shown in figures D7, D8, and D9.
Figure D4: Professional surveyor’s annual employee salary five years after graduation: ratio between the private and public sector.
Figure D5: Technician surveyor’s annual employee salary five years after graduation: ratio between the private and public sector.
Figure D6: Lawyers/solicitors annual employee salary five years after graduation: ratio between private and public sector.
Figure D7: Average salary (private and public sector) of professional surveyors in relation to GNP per capita.
Figure D8: Average salary (private and public sector) of technician surveyors in relation to GNP per capita.
Figure D9: Average salary (private and public sector) of lawyers/solicitors in relation to GNP per capita (average 5.6, without PNG, UGA, and IDO 2.1). E) Cost Recovery Aspects Data set E) contains data on the cost/benefit of the cadastral system. The term cost/benefit however must be used here with great care as the calculation of the expenditures, incomes, and the degree of cost recovery for the cadastral system components were done in a very simplistic way, and may not take into account the complexities in each jurisdiction. The data base shows the results in four sections. The first section indicates the cost per parcel of initial data acquisition. The second indicates the annual cost of maintenance per parcel for each component of the cadastral system. The third indicates the supposed income that the components are generating through the costs of the respective standard transactions and the fourth section gives the comparison of supposed expenditures and incomes, indicating a supposed degree of cost recovery. All costs and expenditures are assumed to be in 1996 US dollars. The costs are represented below in figures E1-E6. Figures E1 and E2 show the cost per parcel for initial data acquisition. Figures E3 and E4 show the annual cost of maintenance per parcel. When multiplied by the total number of parcels, estimated annual expenditures are obtained for each component of the cadastral system. The annual expenditures were then compared with the GNP (figures E5 and E6) to provide some approximate comparison. The incomes of the cadastral system components were calculated in a similar way for each jurisdiction. The costs per transaction (figures E7 and E8) were multiplied with the annual number of transactions (see figures B1 and B2) which were again compared with the GNP (figures E9 and E10). The estimated annual expenditures were then related to the corresponding estimated annual incomes which gives a supposed cost recovery degree for each cadastral surveying component (figures E11 and 12). As mentioned above, figures E1 and E2 show the cost per parcel for the initial data acquisition for each component of the cadastral system. The average values are $406 for cadastral surveying, and $141 for land registration. The differences of the indicated costs are quite large - while many countries indicated costs of less than $100, there are a few countries where the costs were above $1,000 per parcel for cadastral surveying, and also close to $1,000 for land registration. There appears to be some differences in the interpretation of what constitutes "costs" in some countries.
Figure E1: Cost of initial data acquisition for spatial component (cadastral surveying) in US$/parcel (the appears to have been some misinterpretation of what constitutes cadastral surveying in some jurisdictions).
Figure E2: Cost of initial data acquisition for textual component (land registration) in US$/parcel.
Figures E3 and E4 show the total annual maintenance costs of each component of the cadastral system expressed in $ per parcel. The average of the indicated costs for cadastral surveying is $20 and $15 for land registration. These numbers mean that the cadastral system of an average country with 1 million parcels would cost approximately $35 mio a year.
Figure E3: Annual cost of maintenance for spatial component (cadastral surveying) in US$/parcel/year.
Figure E4: Annual cost of maintenance for textual component (land registration) in US$/parcel/year.
In order to compare the annual costs between the countries, they have been multiplied with the total number of parcels and then related to the Gross National Product. The results are displayed in figurs E5 and E6 and are expressed in ‰ of the GNP; the averages for each component were 0.6‰ and 0.5‰ respectively. As a few countries had much higher values than all the others, the averages were calculated without including the most extreme values.
Figure E5: Supposed annual expenditures of spatial component (= multiplication of annual cost of maintenance with total number of parcels) in ‰ of the GNP (average 1.8 ‰, without ALB, POL, and YUG 0.6 ‰).
Figure E6: Supposed annual expenditures of textual component (= multiplication of annual cost of maintenance with total number of parcels) in ‰ of the GNP (average 2.0 ‰, without ALB and YUG 0.5 ‰).
The following figures E7 and E8 show the costs for the typical standard transactions for each component of the cadastral system. The chosen transaction for the spatial component was the "parcel subdivision" - the average of the indicated costs is $736 per parcel with maximal indications of up to $4,000. The transaction representing the textual component is the „land transfer"; the average value there is $385. This average was calculated without the maximal value of $25,000 in Hongkong.
Figures E5 and E6 above show the annual costs of the cadastral system. A similar calculation was done to get an estimation for the annual incomes, although in a very simplistic way. The costs for the typical transactions were multiplied with their annual occurences; these were displayed earlier in figures B1 and B2. The results, which are shown in figures E9 and E10, then were again related to the GNP of the respective jurisdiction and expressed in ‰. The average values of 0.4‰ and 0.7‰ were calculated without the exceptional high values of Malaysia.
Figure E9: Estimated annual income of spatial component (= multiplication of ‘costs per parcel subdivision’ with ‘annual number of new parcels’) in ‰ of the GNP (average 0.7‰, without MAY 0.4‰).
Figure E10: Estimated annual income of textual component (= multiplication of ‘costs per land transfer’ with ‘annual number of land transfers’) in ‰ of the GNP (average 1.5 ‰, without MAY 0.7‰)
The last two figures E11 and E12 show the relations between the supposed costs (figures E5 and E6) and the supposed incomes (figures E9 and E10). The result is a supposed cost recovery degree for each component of the cadastral system. However, these recovery degrees may not be representative of the real circumstances. The assumptions used in the analysis are too simplistic and may not take into account all the necessary facts. They are only based on the typical transactions of each component. Therefore great care must be taken in interpreting these results.
Figure E11: Estimated cost recovery degree for spatial component (= ratio of ‘supposed income’ to ‘supposed expenditures’) in % (average 224%, without MAY 177%)
Figure E12: Estimated cost recovery degree for textual component (= ratio of ‘supposed income’ to ‘supposed expenditures’) in % (average 745%, without MAY 329%) CONCLUSIONS The objective of this paper is to present the results of a project undertaken by Commission 7 of the International Federation of Surveyors to compare cadastral systems around the world. The project originally grew out of a desire of the Commission to compare privatisation and cost recovery trends in the cadastre in different countries. However, as the project progressed it quickly became obvious that the data being collected had greater potential in comparing the performance of or ‘benchmarking’ cadastral systems. The project is timely since many countries and jurisdictions are currently trying to improve the performance of their cadastral systems as part of micro-economic reform. They are adopting many current management techniques such as total quality management and benchmarking in order to achieve international best practice. As a result, data presented in this paper could be useful. On the other hand the paper has not attempted to draw significant conclusions from the data, but to present the data and allow others to analyse it and to draw their own conclusions. As stated above, the project highlighted weaknesses in the questionnaire used for the project. Hopefully others may use the data and the experience of this project to develop more refined processes which may be more useful. However the Commission believes that since this is one of the first projects of this type it will be of interest to any country or jurisdiction which wishes to improve its cadastral system. Recognising the importance of the project, the Commission has agreed to continue the project and to refine the data collection further over the period 1998-2001. If any readers are interested in the continuation of the project they can contact any of the authors or can obtain an update from the Commission’s WWW Home Page (http://sunspot.sli.unimelb.edu.au/fig7/intro.html). The Commission is also having discussions with the Meeting of Land Administrators (MOLA) which has been constituted under the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). MOLA has undertaken a similar comparative project with European countries with an emphasis on land registration and as such the sharing of data and experiences should collectively improve the collective understanding of cadastral systems and assist in their improvement. CAVEAT The data used in this paper has been collected with reasonable care and is presented in good faith. However since it was sourced from contributions from individual jurisdictions, the authors of the paper, the International Federation of Surveyors and The Australian Surveyor take no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the data, for misinterpretations by individual jurisdictions in filling out the questionnaire or the conclusions which are drawn from that data. As a result, care must be taken in its use. REFERENCES CCH (1997), "Benchmarking", Human Resources Management, CCH Australia Limited, 61-210 to 61-300. IPRT (1997), "Benchmarking Local Government Performance in New South Wales", Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPRT) of New South Wales, Discussion Paper DP-21. Warburton, R.F.E. (1993), "Achieving a best practice culture", IBC Conference, Sydney, 15 February, 1993. Williamson, I.P., and Fourie, C., (1997), "Using the Case Study Methodology for Cadastral Reform", Submitted to Geomatica, 17 p. Williamson, I.P (1997), "The Justification of Cadastral Systems in Developing Countries", Geomatica, Vol 51, No 1, 1997, pp21-36. APPENDIX The questionnaire used in the project is shown below in condensed form. It includes the clarifications obtained at the annual meeting of Commission 7 in Penang in May, 1997. Questionnaire concerning Cost Recovery and Privatization Issues Bern, December 1996
1. General Indicators 1.1 Definitions for this Questionnaire
1.2 Jurisdiction for which the responses are valid ………………………………… 1.3 Filled out by ………………………………… 1.4 Overall Information about Jurisdiction If numbers are not statistically available, please estimate them. Total values of land and mortgages probably are not readily available but can be estimated with rough assumptions like e.g. average values and mortgages per parcel in urban and rural conditions.
2. Information about the Cadastral System 2.1 Content of Cadastral System The basic data sets in cadastral surveying/mapping (spatial data) and land registration (textual data) include (please tick box if your system includes the component):
2.2 Statistics of the Cadastral System Please indicate the following numbers based on the average of the last 5 to 10 years:
2.3 Completeness of Cadastral System (End of 1996) Cadastral surveying and mapping (spatial component): The responses can be based on the number of parcels, but may also be based on surface indicators (hectares).
Land registration (textual component): The answers should be based on number of parcels.
3. Personnel Structure What is the number of personnel active within the cadastral system ?
4. Cost Recovery 4.1 Cost of initial data acquisition What is the average cost for initial data acquisition of a "standard" urban parcel of the data content as indicated in section 2.1 including material, both private and government personnel, normal charges (excluding taxes such as stamp duty) and other operational costs ?
4.2 Annual cost of maintenance What are the annual costs of maintaining the cadastral infrastructure (including both the Land Titles Office and cadastral surveying and mapping components) of the data content as indicated in section 2.1 after the initial data acquisition has been completed (including personnel and operational costs, hardware/software maintenance, data security and back-up measures, accommodation and rental costs) ? Example: If the annual cost to maintain the surveying and mapping infrastructure is US$15million and the cost to operate the Land Titles Office is US$30million a year, and there are 3 million legal parcels in the jurisdiction, then the cost to maintain the spatial component would be US$5 per parcel per year and for the land registration component would be US$10 per parcel per year.
4.3 Fees for transactions On average, what must a land owner of a "standard" urban parcel pay to subdivide land or transfer land?
|
