The introduction of property taxation in transitional economies offers a unique perspective from which to study fiscal and governmental decentralization, land privatization and market development. These reforms all involve fundamental changes from the centrally controlled and planned societies of the communist period. The Lincoln Institute has a particular interest in the experiences of countries that are adopting property taxation and is underwriting a series of case studies in consultation with research associates in Armenia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Russia and the Slovak Republic.

These studies demonstrate similarities in the challenges and problems faced by countries in transition and the extraordinary changes that have taken place in less than a decade since the fall of communism. At the same time, each country has followed a somewhat different path, adopting strategies that reflect its unique set of past traditions and current circumstances.

Decentralization and Privatization

Among the challenges facing these countries after nearly 50 years of communist rule are the decentralization of fiscal and political control and the reduction of the role of government in favor of private-sector ownership and activity. Privatization of land ownership has been a particularly sensitive issue. Taxes on real property have been introduced as part of a strategy to provide a revenue source to local governments, to encourage privatization of government-owned real estate assets, and to improve land utilization. Although in most cases the central governments continue to play a dominant role, a degree of local fiscal authority and autonomy has been introduced. Poland and Estonia have assigned these taxes to local self-governments, with authority to determine tax rates within limits established by their national parliaments.

In the other countries, national law sets the rate of taxation, but some local control is achieved by adjusting the coefficients applied to area measures that establish the tax base. The revenues raised from land and building taxes are still a relatively modest source of local revenue, and generally benefit rural communities more than urban areas. Although property taxes raise a minor portion of these countries’ total taxes at present, central governments envision a larger role for them in improving inter-governmental finance systems.

Privatization of state assets and ownership rights to real property is an essential yet complicated process that is still underway in each of the countries studied. In Estonia, for example, the desire to restitute land to pre-Soviet-period owners or their heirs initially complicated the determination of property rights. The adoption of a land tax in 1993, within two years of independence, was an essential element of Estonia’s land reform program, which also included privatization and market development. Limiting the tax base to land alone was intended to encourage its productive use, stimulating owners of restitution rights “to develop the property or sell it.”

In the former Soviet satellites, considerable private ownership remained under communism, but the formal cadastral systems were not maintained and the recording of property rights is still far from complete. During the Soviet period, land was treated separately from buildings, and this practice has continued in some countries, making real estate units more difficult to assemble for investment purposes. Property (buildings and structures) is treated separately from land for taxation purposes in Armenia, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Russia.

While housing and business privatization has progressed to a degree in all countries, the release of land to private ownership and especially to ownership by foreigners has been a contentious issue. In Russia, although the Constitution and Civil Code provide for private property, the government and the Duma have failed to agree on a Land Code to provide a legal basis for land ownership. Most countries have placed some restrictions on foreign ownership, but permit long-term leases. Land taxation offers a potentially broad and expanding revenue base as privatization continues.

Market-based Reforms

In the absence of secure property rights and developed property markets, most countries have taken an incremental approach to incorporating market-based elements into their property tax bases. With the exception of Estonia, the countries in this study levy taxes on the basis of land or building area, adjusted by coefficients related to location, population, usage or other factors not derived directly from market indicators. As a logical step in their transitional reforms, Armenia and the Czech Republic are each exploring the addition of ad valorem elements to their area-based property tax, and Poland is considering proposals to shift to a market-based system. Plans for an ad valorem tax in the Slovak Republic await further fiscal, governmental and market reforms.

Estonia’s strong ideological commitment to a market economy led its Parliament to take the bold step in 1992 to base its land tax on market value. The first valuation assigned price zones to each assessment area, with the expectation that the methodology could be refined as understanding of real estate markets improved and as the markets matured. The collection of land tax information has strengthened real estate market activity and has been a catalyst for the development of land records, sales registries and cadastral maps. A revaluation in 1996 incorporated the expanded market databases.

Recent efforts to develop a pilot project for market value-based real property taxation in two Russian cities illustrate both the potential and the frustration of tax reform in the current Russian fiscal climate. The program began with funding from USAID in 1995, and federal legislation authorized the “experiment” in 1997. Before the current fiscal crises, the city of Novgorod anticipated implementation of the new tax in 1999 to replace the three existing non-value-based taxes on land, property of individuals and assets of enterprises. Whether the local officials will consider it possible to risk implementation under current conditions is now unclear.

Other Challenges

The reorganization of administrative functions and the cost of integrating and collecting property tax information are other challenges to the development of modern market-based property tax systems. Each country is struggling with structural reforms of Soviet-based administration and are seeking to improve inter-agency cooperation and efficiency in planning for property tax reforms.

The case studies illustrate the complex transitions that are underway in each of these countries. At the same time, the studies point out the important role that property taxation can play in providing a stable source of independent revenue to local governments, developing democratic and accountable public institutions, and maintaining a public claim on property entering the private market.

The potential benefits of market value-based taxation in stimulating real estate markets and promoting urban revitalization and efficient land use are just beginning to be recognized. The financial hardships still experienced by many people in these countries may keep property taxes at very modest levels for some time, making the design of a broad-based system with limited exemptions particularly important to the viability of property taxation in these new economies.

Note:

1. “Unlikely Icon,” Economist (February 28, 1998): 78.

Jane H. Malme is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute specializing in the development and implementation of property taxation in diverse international contexts.

She is coordinating the preparation of case studies with colleagues for the following transition countries:

Armenia: Richard R. Almy, consultant, Almy, Gloudemans, Jacobs & Denne, Chicago, Illinois, with Varduhi Abrahamian, International City/County Management Association, Yerevan, Armenia

Czech Republic: Gary Cornia and Phillip Bryson, Romney Institute of Public Management, Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, with Dr. Alena Rohlícková, Ministry of Finance, Czech Republic

Estonia: Jane H. Malme with Tambet Tiits, director, AS Kinnisvaraekspert, Tallinn, Estonia

Poland: Jane H. Malme with W. Jan Brzeski, president, Cracow Real Estate Institute, Cracow, Poland

Russia: Jane H. Malme with Dr. Natalia Kalinina, Center for Real Estate Analysis, Moscow, Russia

Slovak Republic: Gary Cornia and Phillip Bryson with Ing. Sona Capová, Univerzita Mateja Bela, Banská Bystrica, and Milos Koncek, Ministry of Finance, Slovak Republic

Sources: These figures are based on official country data sources and were provided by the research associates. No data was available from Russia.

Land and housing markets, and any other market for that matter, can be approached as arenas in which persons exchange rights to assets subject to constitutional rules, statutory and common law rules, and administrative rules and procedures. The value of land is often believed to be determined by expectations about what land uses will be legally permitted over time and the return from such uses. However, there is substantial evidence, international as well as U.S.-based, that markets and prices are also shaped by expectations about what is legally prohibited yet is nonetheless achievable through extra-legal or illegal means.

Scholars since Jeremy Bentham have linked markets and their viability to a legal regime of property rights which clearly defines, safeguards and facilitates the transfer of such rights through legal means. How then do we explain illegal or extra-legal property transactions: the buying and selling of stolen goods; subdivision of single-family houses into one-room rentals; and squatter settlements.

In all these contexts, assets are being acquired and used, hence there is property. There are also markets, frequently thriving, to exchange such assets. What is absent from these markets are legally defined rights. Their absence, however, does not prevent these markets from emerging and affecting supply and demand in the legal market. It is crucial, therefore, that such markets be understood, not just as an exotic feature of the developing world, but as alternatives to which actors in the market turn under certain conditions.

What happens if property rights are not clear, are contested or are not well enforced? Policy advisors rarely address this question, not because they fail to see that property regimes are frequently lacking in stability and security, but rather because they see their function as one of putting in place the ideal set of laws, regulations, and administrative and enforcement mechanisms that would guarantee stable expectations, secure rights and efficient markets (see Figure 1).

The only problem is that putting in place such laws and regulations rarely happens in a vacuum. Rather, it happens in a landscape of existing interests, entitlements, conventions and practices. It is the interaction between these new interventions and existing norms and practices that determines who is able to do what with which assets in society. Three examples illustrate my point.

Farm Restructuring in Eastern Europe

Until the late 1980s, farmland in Eastern Europe was organized within state farms, collective farms, or, in some cases, small private farms owned by farmers who had the right to cultivate but not sell or develop the land. The absence of competitive agricultural and land markets prevented many necessary adjustments from taking place: labor mobility, adjustment in farm sizes, incentives to invest or increase labor productivity, and moving land to better uses.

Some policy advisers have argued that unless the New Independent States establish family-based farms with legally, well-defined and well-protected private property rights that can be transferred easily, little can be done to promote necessary adjustments. How do farmers adjust to the new realities of the transition while constitutions are amended, laws are promulgated, cadasters are compiled and land registers are established?

The answer lies in short-term informal leasing, which is the most common land transaction in Eastern Europe for several reasons. First, informal leases occur mostly between neighboring farmers who know each other and the quality of the land being traded. Second, most leases are short-term, allowing farmers to reduce the uncertainty associated with long-term commitments in inflationary and politically unstable environments. Finally, short-term leases allow farmers to adjust their farming units, which speeds up the economic restructuring of the farming sector. Farmers conduct these short-term transactions not because they are legally permitted but because of norms, conventions and local networks.

Squatter Housing in Developing Countries

Conventional wisdom on squatter housing in developing countries has been that lack of tenure security is responsible for the poor quality of housing in these settlements. Granting legal titles, the argument goes, would provide the necessary security and unleash household savings into investment in better housing. Recent empirical work, however, suggests that legal title is neither necessary nor sufficient for tenure security to exist.

Furthermore, absence of land title does not prevent squatters from renting or selling their houses. Indeed, except when an eminent threat of eviction exists, informal markets evolve to reduce the uncertainty associated with illegal transactions. Rules and arrangements evolve over time to provide information about who owns what, enforce contracts and resolve property disputes. For example, neighborhood associations in Brazilian favelas maintain an informal register of residents and issue documents as proof of ownership. Middlemen and land subdividers in Jordan play a crucial role in finding buyers and even financing them. These roles substitute for, duplicate or manipulate the legal system that functions in formal markets.

Illegal Housing Conversions in the U.S.

A recent series of articles in the New York Times documents the surge of illegal apartments throughout the City of New York in response to continuing poverty and the dwindling supply of affordable housing. In Queens, for example, one- and two-family units are being converted into multiple apartments, turning even attics and basements into makeshift flats.

These apartments are not registered with the city and are, therefore, not regulated. Firefighters estimate that as many as 80 percent of the homes in Queens are illegally subdivided. Needless to say, landlords, tenants, developers, brokers and contractors operate in these markets. They rely on evading, manipulating, and breaking laws and regulations to allow these markets to function. By necessity, they also have to rely on extra-legal means to enforce some of their contractual arrangements or resolve their disputes.

An Alternative Model

To understand how land markets operate, we need a “lens” that captures a wider array of rules and market arrangements. We need to examine not only what constitutional, statutory and common laws permit, but also what social norms and conventions permit. We need to go beyond property rights to include the range of property interests that are not necessarily based in law. We also need to go beyond the formal means of contracting and enforcement to include informal means based on ethnic, territorial and associational networks. This approach amounts to an alternative framework (see Figure 2) for understanding market actors’ expectations about the ability to use, develop, transfer and derive income from land.

The wider lens approach to market institutions also allows us to shift emphasis from institutional forms to institutional substance. The important question is not whether a particular institution (such as a land registry) exists, but rather how information about land and housing markets is provided, how risk is reduced, and how enforcement is made effective.

Omar Razzaz is Ford International Assistant Professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He previously worked at the World Bank on property rights under transition in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

References

Bruni, Frank, with Deborah Sontag. “Behind a Suburban Facade in Queens, A Teeming, Angry Arithmetic,” The New York Times, October 8, 1996, p. A1.

Razzaz, Omar. “Contestation and Mutual Adjustment: The Process of Controlling Land in Yajouz, Jordan,” Law and Society Review 28, no. 1. 1994.

“Examining Property Rights and Investment in Informal Settlements: The Case of Jordan,” Land Economics, November 1993.

World Bank, “Regional Study: Farm Restructuring and Land Tenure in Reforming Socialist Economies: A Comparative Analysis of Eastern and Central Europe,” 1994. Prepared by Euroconsult/Center for World Food Studies, Washington, DC.

Latin America is a region of sharp contrasts in land use: the expansive Amazon forest and growing areas of deforestation; large uninhabited regions and enormous urban concentrations; the coexistence of wealth and poverty in the same neighborhoods. Many of these contrasts derive from land policies established by powerful land interests that are perpetuated because of outdated or distorted data. This heritage is a part of the region’s colonization process that has been characterized by the exploitation and occupation of land at any price.

The first land information system for registering parcels in Latin America was established in 1824 by the Topographic Commission in the Province of Buenos Aires in the Republic of Argentina. Territorial cadastre offices throughout the region now manage public land information systems that register maps and data about the parcels on which taxes are levied and rights are granted to the owners or occupants of the land.

What Is a Cadastre?

A modern cadastre is an integrated database system that holds information on land registration and ownership, physical characteristics, econometric modeling for property valuation, zoning, geographic information systems, transportation, and environmental, socioeconomic and demographic data. Such cadastres represent a holistic planning tool that can be used at the local, regional and national levels to address issues such as economic development, sprawl, poverty eradication, land policy and sustainable community development.

The earliest recorded accounts of property surveys in ancient Egypt used the science of geometry to measure distances. European cadastres later followed this ancient model until advancements led to more fully integrated systems that could be used for fiscal purposes, such as valuation, taxation and legal conveyance, as well as land management and planning. The United States does not have a national cadastral system, but similar municipal processes reflect both the policy and protocol of international cadastre programs.

The International Federation of Surveyors was founded in Paris in 1878 as the Fédération Internationale des Géomètres and is known by its acronym, FIG. This nongovernmental organization represents more than 100 countries and supports international collaboration on surveying through the collection of data on surface and near-surface features of the earth and their representation as a map, plan or digital model. FIG’s work is conducted by 10 commissions that specialize in different aspects of surveying. Commission 7, Cadastre and Land Management, focuses on issues in cadastral reform and multipurpose cadastres; parcel-based land information systems; cadastral surveying and mapping; and land titling, land tenure, land law and registration. For more information, see www.fig.net/figtree/commission7/.

Multipurpose Cadastres

In recent years, the vision of the cadastre as a multipurpose information system has begun to evolve, bringing with it great advances in the quality of land information systems, as well as some problems. The origin of these concerns can be found in the very concept of multipurpose cadastre systems and in the administrative decisions needed for their implementation. A common assumption holds that to implement a multipurpose cadastre it is necessary to expand the alphanumeric databases—including social and environmental data as well as the usual physical (location and shape), economic and legal aspects of the parcel—and to connect this information with a parcel map in a geographical information system (GIS). While this is very important, it is not enough.

Implementation of a multipurpose cadastre implies a change of paradigm for its administration and demands a new land use framework law and new relationships between the public and private sectors. In 1996 Brazil established a biannual National Multipurpose Cadastral Congress that examines its own state-level cadastre programs and those in neighboring countries. Despite the attention devoted to cadastres and the many papers published on the topic since then, there is no evidence of any municipality in which the multipurpose cadastral system is actually working as well as hoped.

According to the literature, the way to make a cadastre truly multipurpose is to integrate all the public and private institutions that are working at the parcel level using a unique identifier, and to define standards for the alphanumeric and cartographic databases. Chile is one of the countries where all the parcels have a common identifier designated by the implementation of the National Territorial Information System, although the system does not yet integrate the alphanumeric cadastral data with maps at the parcel level (Hyman et al. 2003).

Centralization versus Decentralization

The hegemony of the unitary system of government that characterizes most Latin American countries has caused a predominance of centralized cadastres, although this phenomenon also occurs in countries with a federal government. Brazil, for example, recently restructured its National System of Rural Cadastre, which, in spite of the technical advances proposed by Law 10.267/2001, will continue to be administered by an institution of the national government.

In contrast, the decentralization movement in the region aspires to modernize state governments by transferring powers to municipal jurisdictions, including the institutions responsible for land administration. For example, more than half of the states in Mexico still have centralized cadastral data, although some have begun to decentralize by creating municipal systems that are compatible with the state cadastre. A similar situation is occurring in Argentina, where some provincial institutions are beginning to transfer systems and data to the municipalities. Local administrators have an added incentive for assuming responsibility for organizing and maintaining cadastral systems because of the opportunities to collect property taxes and sell maps or databases registered in the local cadastral system to utility companies and other entities in the private sector.

All these good intentions, however, frequently run up against the chronic problem of the scarcity of capable personnel and infrastructure. In some cases decentralization may constitute a problem rather than a solution and it could jeopardize the maintenance and validation of data. For example, the adoption of the decentralized model may lead to the coexistence of extremely detailed and precise cadastres in some locations with practically nonexistent cadastres in other locations. Such discrepancies between adjacent municipalities may create inconsistent land information when it is aggregated at the regional and national levels.

A centralized model, on the other hand, can facilitate the unified design and structuring of the cadastre and guarantee the integration of geodetic and cartographic systems with the identification of parcels. The difficulties in accessing and distributing information for local needs might be solved by using the Internet to organize land data and maps through the central cadastre. Some countries, such as Jamaica, Chile and Uruguay, are beginning to structure their eCadastres in this way. (This term is derived from the eGovernment concept introduced by the World Bank.)

When considering the varying development stages of Latin American cadastres, we can conclude that each jurisdiction must analyze which type of system is most appropriate for its own circumstances. It is worth considering the Common Principles on the Cadastre in the European Union, a document that affirms that “there are no intentions to unify the cadastral systems of the member states; however, there is interest in standardizing products” (Permanent Committee 2003). If it is possible to work with different cadastral systems across Europe, it must be possible to do so within a single country.

Public versus Private Cadastres

After the publication of Cadastre 2014 by the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), one of the new visions that provoked much discussion was the proposal that the cadastre should be “highly privatized; public and private sectors are working closely together, reducing the control and supervision by the public sector” (Kaufmann and Steudler 1998). For example, in Japan private companies have almost total control of the cadastral base of some cities, whereas in the member states of the European Union the cadastre resides within the government sphere.

In Latin America, cadastres remain primarily in the hands of public institutions; the private sector normally participates in the processes of implementing cartographic updates and information systems, but not in the administration itself. The Mexican municipality of Guadalajara, for example, did a comparative study of costs, concluding that managing the cadastre with its own public employees and equipment would yield a savings of 50 percent in investments, which was confirmed after one year of implementation.

In spite of the positive results obtained from such projects developed entirely within public administrations, the private sector cannot be ignored, particularly in the context of the privatization wave that has hit Latin America in recent years. For example, telephone, water and electric companies need up-to-date land information in the same way as the public institutions. Their common interest in maintaining databases is leading the cadastre offices and the utility companies to work together and share investments, as well as to look for ways to standardize data and define common identifiers for the parcels.

Conclusions

The majority of Latin American cadastral systems are still registering three kinds of data following the traditional economic-physical-legal model: the economic value, the location and shape of the parcel, and the legal relationship between the property and the owner or occupant. However, there is increased interest in utilizing multipurpose information systems. In this transition process, some administrators have decided to implement new cadastral applications based only on technology; evidently, this has not been as successful as they imagined. This incorporation of new technologies must be accompanied by necessary changes in procedures and legislation and by professional training of public employees.

In recent years international institutions such as the World Bank, the Lincoln Institute and many European and American universities have been collaborating to help improve Latin American cadastres. They support educational programs, academic events and concrete projects for implementing reliable and updated land information systems. As the transition to multipurpose cadastres continues, changes will be implemented through a careful revision of relevant legislation, more accessible forms of customer service, stronger collaboration between private and public institutions that generate and use cadastral data, and the application of contemporary international standards. Territorial cadastres in Latin America will become even more efficient and valuable if they generate information that allows the development of projects oriented to fundamental social concerns such as land regularization and identification of vacant land.

Diego Alfonso Erba is professor of advanced GIS applications and digital cartography at UNISINOS (Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos) in São Leopoldo-RS, Brazil, and a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute.

References

Hyman, G., C. Perea, D. Rey, and K. Lance. 2003. Encuesta sobre el desarrollo de las infraestructuras nacionales de datos espaciales en América Latina y el Caribe. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). (Survey on the development of national infrastructures of spatial data in Latin America and the Caribbean. International Center for Tropical Agriculture.)

Kaufmann, Jürg, and Daniel Steudler. 1998. Cadastre 2014: A vision for a future cadastral system. Frederiksberg, Denmark: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Available at http://www.swisstopo.ch/fig-wg71/cad2014.htm.

Permanent Committee on Cadastre in the European Union. 2003. Common principles on the cadastre in the European Union. Rome. December 3. Available at http://www.eurocadastre.org/.

Diego Alfonso Erba is a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, on leave from his position as professor in the Graduate Program of Geology at Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos–UNISINOS, Brazil. He received undergraduate training as a land survey engineer from Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina, and later earned two master of science degrees and taught in several universities in Brazil. His early professional experience was in regularization of informal settlements in Santa Fé, Argentina, and he headed the GIS department for an agricultural cooperative in southern Brazil. He also earned a doctorate in Surveying Sciences from Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, Argentina, and did postdoctoral research in GIS for Water Bodies at the Natural Resource Center of Shiga University, Otsu, Japan; and in GIS for Urban Applications at Clark Labs-IDRISI of Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Land Lines: What is a territorial cadastre?

Diego Erba: The institution of a territorial cadastre does not exist in the United States, at least not in the same way as in many countries around the world. Although the term “cadastre” has more than one meaning, in general there is consensus that it comes from the Greek catastichon, which can be translated as “a list of parcels for taxation.”

This kind of list exists in the U.S., but the profile of the institutions that manage the data are different from those in Latin America and in many European and African countries, where the territorial cadastre encompasses economic, geometrical, and legal data on land parcels and data on the owners or occupants. The institutions that manage this data, also often named territorial cadastres, are closely connected with the Registry of Deeds or Register of Land Titles because their data complements each other and guarantees land property rights. These longstanding connections reflect the cadastral heritage of Roman and Napoleonic legal systems.

LL: Why do urban public administrators need to know about territorial cadastres?

DE: The cadastre and the register should be connected for legal reasons, if not for practical reasons, and there are many models of how cadastres could or should relate to public institutions. Unfortunately, the norm is still an isolated or nonintegrated cadastre, which dramatically reduces its potential usefulness as a tool for urban planning and land policy.

For example, irregular settlements (slums) are generally developed on public or environmentally protected areas, or even on private parcels, and are neither taxed nor registered in territorial cadastre databases. These areas are represented in cadastral cartography as “blank polygons” as if nothing happened inside them. The paradox is that data and cartography about irregular settlements normally exist, but that information is often in institutions that are not related to the cadastre and consequently are not registered.

There is a growing perception of the cadastre’s importance as a multipurpose information system serving not only the legal and financial sectors of cities, but also all of the institutions that make up the “urban reality,” including public services agencies, utilities, and even certain private providers of urban services. The move to this new concept and improved urban information systems has not been easy or without resistance in developing countries, however.

LL: Why is a multipurpose cadastre so difficult to establish and use?

DE: The implementation of a multipurpose cadastre typically requires administrations to allow for more horizontal exchanges of information. It also frequently requires changes in the legal framework and the establishment of more fluid relationships between the public and private agents to share standardized data and ensure continuous investments to keep the databases and cartography up-to-date.

This sounds like a simple process, but in practice it is not easy because many administrators still consider that “the data is mine,” and they are not ready to collaborate. At the same time, some overly zealous administrators convinced of the potential value of a multipurpose cadastre may skip stages and jump from a traditional cadastre to a multipurpose model without due attention to effectively implementing the exchanges of information.

Even when operated privately, territorial cadastres are treated as a public service, which means they depend on public funding and political decisions for approval to update the land valuation system or the cartography. At the same time, this kind of public service is not visible and therefore is not as interesting for the politicians who wish to demonstrate their accomplishments through more tangible projects such as a new bridge or school.

The updating of cadastral data impacts land value and consequently the amount of property taxes, which is not popular with voters. Nevertheless, new government administrators who seek to improve their jurisdiction’s fiscal status may decide to update the cadastre in an attempt to increase property taxation revenues. This has a strong political impact at the beginning of the official’s term, but the data on property value may not be touched for years afterwards and will grow more and more inaccurate compared to the actual market value. In many Latin American jurisdictions legislation imposes the obligation of cadastral updates on a regular basis, although compliance is inconsistent.

Another frequent mistake is to consider that the solution is to implement a modern geographic information system (GIS) to manage the cadastral data. In the ideal situation we would like to see integrated systems that use coordinated and standardized databases, but some municipalities are ill-equipped, and those that do have sufficient infrastructure do not have enough well-prepared employees to accomplish the tasks. The notion that “one size fits all” is not really applicable to a region in which there are such significant differences among jurisdictions. I like to say that the problem with cadastral institutions is not hardware or software but “people-ware.” Even when financial resources exist, the lack of trained professionals and technicians is a significant obstacle.

LL: In this context, is it possible to consider a multipurpose cadastre for Latin America?

DE: It is possible, but the concept is still new and frequently is not well understood. There are many good cadastres in Latin America, as in some Colombian and Brazilian municipalities and in some Mexican and Argentinean states. In some jurisdictions the fusion of the territorial cadastres with public institutions and geotechnological systems generates cadastral institutes that are better structured in terms of budget and technical staff and consequently are better able to identify illegal settlements and monitor the increment of land value using modern tools.

However, from my viewpoint the region still does not have a full-fledged operational multipurpose cadastre. A common assumption is that implementing a multipurpose cadastre requires adding social and environmental data to the existing alphanumeric databases available in the traditional territorial cadastres, which consider economic, geometric, and legal aspects of the parcel, and then connecting all that data with a parcel map in GIS. While this is very important it is not essential, because the implementation is not a technological problem as much as a philosophical one. Most municipal administrations do not think about putting institutions that traditionally manage different social (education and health), environmental, and territorial (cadastre) databases under the same roof.

LL: How is your work with the Lincoln Institute helping to broaden awareness about territorial cadastres?

DE: I have been working with the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean since 2002 to explore the relationships among multipurpose cadastres and the program’s four topical areas: large urban projects; land valuation and taxation; informal settlements and upgrading programs; and value capture. It is always a challenge to tailor the curriculum for educational programs, but we believe strongly that it is important to facilitate the widespread sharing of knowledge in each country and to prepare public officials and practitioners with different levels of expertise. The participants, including cadastre administrators, urban planners, lawyers, and real estate developers, gain a common language and vision of the urban cadastral applications, and they can start a process to improve the system in their own countries.

Our pedagogical strategy for this year involves the dissemination of knowledge through a combination of distance education and traditional classroom courses at different levels. We plan to develop training seminars followed by a tailored distance education course in those countries that demonstrate the conditions necessary to implement this new vision of the multipurpose cadastre. Finally, we will organize a regional classroom course for the best distance education students in three neighboring countries.

This plan contrasts with many training programs offered by other international institutions, which contemplate concepts and the use of tools that may not be applicable in countries with different legal frameworks and technological levels. We will begin this cycle with seminars in Chile and Peru, working with the Chilean Association of Municipalities and the Institute of Regional Economy and Local Government in Arequipa, Peru. These and other partners in Latin America have committed to disseminate and increase local capacity on these issues.

Another component of our strategy is the dissemination of resource materials. We will be publishing two books later in 2006 about the concepts and implementation of cadastres that can be applied in most countries. One book describes in detail the cadastral system in each Latin American country, and the other conceptualizes the juridical, economical, geometrical, environmental, and social aspects of the multipurpose cadastre, highlighting the relationship between the territorial cadastre and the four topical areas of the Institute’s Latin America Program.

In 2005 we made a DVD, which is currently available in Spanish and Portuguese. It includes a documentary film about multipurpose cadastres and some taped segments from classes and discussions on the relationships between the multipurpose cadastre and complex urban issues.

LL: What is the long-term goal of the multipurpose cadastre?

DE: The problems that have been raised here should not discourage urban administrators from reorganizing their cadastres and their legal land policy frameworks in their cities and countries. On the contrary, they should try to change the reality by developing new laws that shows the spirit of an updated land policy. Data on Latin American cities exist, but they are fragmented and not standardized.

The best way to build a multipurpose cadastre is to integrate all the public and private institutions that are working at the parcel level and to develop a unique identifier to define standards for the alphanumeric and cartographic databases. It is a very simple and clear concept, but its implementation is not. To reach that objective it is necessary for administrators, practitioners, and citizens to understand the cadastre’s potential for improving land management practices and the quality of life in urban areas. Many times simple solutions can help to solve complex problems such as those presented by cadastral systems.

The development of new land and tax systems in countries in political and economic transition in Central and Eastern Europe reflects a unique array of historical, social, political, and economic circumstances. While all transitional countries seeking admission to the European Union (EU) have initiated comprehensive reforms to encourage free markets and democratic governments, the three Baltic nations—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—made privatization and restitution of property rights a prime objective immediately after their independence in the early 1990s. These actions, together with a desire to stimulate real estate markets and capture tax revenues for improved public services, made them the first of the transitional countries to introduce value-based taxation of real property.