The introduction of a market-oriented economic policy in Estonia after independence in 1991 set the stage for a plethora of reforms to restore property rights and establish a price system for goods, labor, capital and land. Land and ownership reforms had two goals: the restoration to former owners of land “unlawfully expropriated” during the Soviet regime, and the treatment of land as a valuable and scarce economic resource. As one might expect, these tasks have not been easy to accomplish, and frequent revisions in the laws and methods governing restitution and valuations have been made.

Historical Overview

Despite the far-reaching reforms taking place in Estonia today, the transformation of land ownership and the patterns of land use still reflect 55 years of history, including wars, occupation and annexation. In the first of three working papers I analyze the impact of these historical developments on land use, population structure and farm wealth in pre-Soviet Estonia. Prior to annexation to the Soviet Union in 1940, Estonia had a flourishing farm sector. Land was used mostly for agriculture, with the majority of the population residing in rural communes or municipalities.

Research also shows that a market for land was well established and reflected site specific characteristics. A distinguishing feature of this market was the coexistence of a sale-purchase price determined by the forces of supply and demand and other prices reflecting the “social” character of land use. For example, land acquisition for use by landless farmers (communal land) had a much lower price than the market price. This feature, although it may have served a social purpose, impacted the value of land for compensating former owners.

Another significant finding relates to the taxation of farms in pre-Soviet Estonia. Land and improvements on land (fixed assets) were subject to taxation, although the effective rate of taxation was quite small. This tax was a local tax with the receipts allocated to local government budgets.

Land Reform

The second paper provides a framework for the analysis of valuation formulae used by the Estonian Land and Tax Boards for the valuation of land for tax purposes. It includes a brief overview of the current land stock and land use, a discussion of land and ownership reforms, including valuation laws and methods, and a statistical analysis of the valuation model used by the Land Board.

Estonia’s experience with privatizing its economy is without a doubt at the forefront of liberalization efforts undertaken by the new independent states. The transformation of collective rights to land into individual rights took place in Estonia by means of legislation. First, the new Constitution in 1992 restored to citizens the rights of ownership of productive assets, including land, and property and land reform laws established a system for the restitution of land to former owners. Second, principles for establishing land value for compensation and privatization were spelled out by the valuation law(s).

A land market, especially for urban land, is likely to develop quickly, offering the Land Board useful information for adjusting their valuation models. Once a sufficient number of observations on land transactions becomes available, a hedonic price model or present value model can be developed to provide information on the marginal valuation of each land attribute, as well as the significance of other land characteristics not included in the current model. Using the Estonia Base Map, the spatial aspect of land and other amenities (GIS variables) may be incorporated in the model to yield good estimates of the marginal product of land in both urban and rural municipalities.

Given that land value is used as a tax base, it is incumbent upon public sector officials to assess it fairly and accurately. A land tax yield hinges on the size and distribution of the base. If the tax model neglects this, revenue will suffer and land use will be suboptimal. Economies in transition can ill afford this road.

Land Taxation and Tax Reform

The third paper integrates the two aspects of land reform, valuation and taxation, beginning with an historical overview of land taxation in Estonia leading up to the current (1995) land tax. It addresses the assignment of tax sources between the state and local governments, and the significance of land taxation as a revenue source for local governments. The paper also offers a statistical model for estimating land tax revenues based on the Estonian Land Board valuation maps, the land cadastre and tax rates selected by local municipalities and then contrasts the estimates with actual data obtained from the Estonian National Tax Board.

After independence in 1991, the Estonian government introduced a new tax system that replaced the Soviet system, and the state budget was completely “decoupled” from the USSR’s All-Union budget. On May 10, 1993, the Estonian parliament passed the Law on Land Tax as part of a reform agenda dealing with budgetary reform in general and land reform in particular. The path followed by Estonia is similar to that prescribed by the World Bank for many former Soviet republics. Guided by “western” principles of taxation, the Estonian tax system was designed to achieve efficiency in resource use as well as to meet national and local budgetary needs.

The land tax is one of several revenue sources collected from people and enterprises in Estonia. Although the land tax was established as a state tax with shared revenues between the state and local governments, it was quickly designated as a local tax with its proceeds dedicated for local budgets. Estonia also recognizes the efficiency of a special tax on land value, even though at the time of this study it accounted for only seven percent of local revenues.

Several conclusions emerge from this part of the study. First, a tax on land offers special efficiency benefits, although its implementation needs to be considered carefully. Second, for land to be a viable tax source serious attempts should be made to enhance the efficiency of financial and insurance markets, especially in rural areas. Third, land valuation should reflect two elements: the value of present attributes and the value of these attributes in the future, because a parcel of land valued at the best use of these attributes today may not capture their full value in the future.

Finally and perhaps most importantly for economies in transition, valuation and taxation of land should be viewed in the context of a “learning curve.” With the progress of the economy in general and land markets in particular, land taxation should be strengthened through annual valuation to enhance the tax capacity of municipal governments and to encourage the optimal development of land use over time.

Attiat F. Ott is professor of economics and director of the Institute for Economic Studies at Clark University in Worcester, MA. This article is adapted from three new working papers resulting from research supported by the Lincoln Institute.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 3 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

América Latina es una región de marcados contrastes en cuanto al uso del suelo: la extensa selva del Amazonas y crecientes áreas de deforestación, grandes regiones despobladas y enormes concentraciones urbanas, la coexistencia de la riqueza y la pobreza en los mismos vecindarios. Muchos de estos contrastes derivan de las políticas de suelos establecidas por intereses poderosos que se han perpetuado gracias a registros desactualizados o distorsionados. Esta herencia es parte del proceso de colonización de la región que se ha caracterizado por la explotación y la ocupación de tierras a cualquier precio.

El primer sistema de información para el registro de parcelas de tierra en América Latina lo estableció en 1824 la Comisión Topográfica en la Provincia de Buenos Aires de la República Argentina. Las oficinas de catastro territorial en toda la región actualmente manejan sistemas de información sobre suelos públicos en los que se registran mapas y datos sobre los terrenos sujetos a impuestos y se otorgan derechos a los propietarios u ocupantes de la tierra.

¿Qué es un catastro?

Un catastro moderno es un sistema integrado de bases de datos que reúne la información sobre el registro y la propiedad del suelo, características físicas, modelo econométrico para la valoración de propiedades, zonificación, sistemas de información geográfica, transporte y datos ambientales, socioeconómicos y demográficos. Dichos catastros representan una herramienta holística de planificación que puede usarse a nivel local, regional y nacional con la finalidad de abordar problemas como el desarrollo económico, la propagación urbana, la erradicación de la pobreza, las políticas de suelo y el desarrollo comunitario sostenible.

Los primeros registros de agrimensura de propiedades en el antiguo Egipto utilizaron la ciencia de la geometría para medir las distancias. Más tarde los catastros europeos siguieron este modelo antiguo hasta que nuevos conocimientos dieron lugar a sistemas más integrados que podían usarse para fines fiscales, como la valoración, la tributación y las transferencias legales, así como la gestión del suelo y la planificación urbana. En los Estados Unidos no existe un sistema nacional de catastro, pero los procesos municipales semejantes son reflejo de la política y el protocolo de los programas internacionales de catastro.

La Federación Internacional de Agrimensores fue fundada en París en 1878 bajo el nombre de Fédération Internationale des Géomètres y se conoce por su acrónimo francés FIG. Esta organización no gubernamental reúne a más de 100 países y fomenta la colaboración internacional en materia de agrimensura mediante la obtención de datos de las características de la tierra sobre, en y bajo la superficie y su representación gráfica en forma de mapas, planos o modelos digitales. La FIG lleva a cabo su labor a través de 10 comisiones que se especializan en los diferentes aspectos de la agrimensura. La Comisión 7, Catastro y Manejo de Suelos, se concentra en los asuntos relacionados con la reforma catastral y catastros de usos múltiples, sistemas de información sobre suelos basados en parcelas, levantamientos catastrales y cartografía, titulación y tenencia de suelos y legislación sobre los suelos y registro. Para obtener más información, visite la página Web www.fig.net/figtree/commission7/.

Catastros multifuncionales

En años recientes, la visión del catastro como un sistema de información multifuncional ha comenzado a evolucionar y a producir grandes avances en la calidad de los sistemas de información sobre suelos, pero también algunos problemas. El origen de estas inquietudes puede hallarse en el concepto mismo de los sistemas de catastros multifinalitarios y en las decisiones administrativas que se necesitan para su implementación. Existe una noción frecuente según la cual para implementar un catastro multifuncional es necesario ampliar las bases de datos alfanuméricas –incluidos los datos sociales, ambientales y también físicos (ubicación y forma), aspectos económicos y jurídicos de la parcela– y vincular esta información a un mapa de parcelas en un sistema de información geográfica (SIG). Aunque es un paso importante, no es suficiente.

La implementación de un catastro multifuncional implica un cambio de paradigma para su administración y exige una nueva estructura de usos del suelo y nuevas relaciones entre los sectores público y privado. En 1996 Brasil ideó un Congreso Nacional sobre Catastro Multifuncional que se celebraría cada dos años para evaluar sus propios programas estatales de catastro y los programas de otros países vecinos. Pese a la atención dedicada a los catastros y los muchos artículos que se han publicado desde entonces sobre el tema, no hay indicios de ninguna municipalidad en la cual el sistema catastral multifuncional opere de la manera que se esperaba.

Según las publicaciones existentes, para que un catastro sea realmente multifuncional es necesario integrar todas las instituciones públicas y privadas que trabajan al nivel de parcelas con un identificador único y definir parámetros para las bases de datos alfanuméricas y cartográficas. Chile es uno de los países donde todas las parcelas tienen un identificador común designado por la implementación del Sistema Nacional de Información Territorial, aunque el sistema todavía no ha integrado los datos catastrales alfanuméricos con los mapas a nivel de parcelas (Hyman et al. 2003).

Centralización y descentralización

La hegemonía del sistema unitario de gobierno que caracteriza a la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos ha propiciado el predominio de catastros centralizados, si bien este fenómeno también ocurre en países con gobierno federal. Brasil, por ejemplo, recientemente reestructuró su Sistema Nacional de Catastro Rural, el cual, a pesar de los avances tecnológicos propuestos en la Ley 10.267/2001, continuará bajo la administración de una institución del gobierno nacional.

En contraste, el movimiento de descentralización en la región aspira modernizar los gobiernos estatales mediante la transferencia de poderes a las jurisdicciones municipales, lo que abarca las instituciones encargadas de la administración del suelo. Por ejemplo, más de la mitad de los estados de México aún tienen datos catastrales centralizados, aunque algunos han comenzado la descentralización creando sistemas municipales compatibles con el catastro estatal. Una situación similar ocurre en Argentina, donde algunas instituciones provinciales están comenzando a transferir sistemas y datos a las municipalidades. Los administradores locales tienen un incentivo adicional por asumir la responsabilidad de organizar y mantener los sistemas catastrales debido a las oportunidades para recaudar impuestos sobre la propiedad y vender mapas o bases de datos registrados en el sistema catastral local a las compañías de servicios públicos y demás entidades del sector privado.

Sin embargo, todas estas buenas intenciones a menudo se tropiezan con el problema crónico de la escasez de personal capacitado e infraestructura. En algunos casos la descentralización puede constituir un problema más que una solución y podría poner en riesgo el mantenimiento y validación de la información. Por ejemplo, la adopción del modelo descentralizado puede conducir a la coexistencia de catastros sumamente detallados y precisos en algunos lugares y catastros casi inexistentes en otros. Tales discrepancias entre municipalidades vecinas pueden dar lugar a incongruencias cuando se incorpora la información sobre el suelo a nivel regional y nacional.

Por otra parte, un modelo centralizado puede facilitar la unificación del diseño y la estructura del catastro y garantizar la integración de sistemas geodésicos y cartográficos con la identificación de parcelas. Las dificultades de acceso y distribución de la información para satisfacer necesidades locales podrían resolverse usando Internet para organizar los datos y mapas a través de un catastro central. Algunos países, como Jamaica, Chile y Uruguay, comienzan a adoptar este enfoque para estructurar sus catastros en forma electrónica (llamados e-catastros, término derivado del concepto de eGovernment -administración electrónica- introducido por el Banco Mundial).

Al considerar las distintas etapas de desarrollo de los catastros en América Latina, podemos concluir que cada jurisdicción está obligada a analizar qué tipo de sistema resulta más adecuado para sus circunstancias particulares. Vale la pena considerar los Principios Comunes del Catastro en la Unión Europea, un documento que afirma que “no hay intención de unificar los sistemas catastrales de los Estados miembros; no obstante, si existe interés en estandarizar los productos” (Comité Permanente, 2003). Si es posible trabajar con sistemas catastrales diferentes en toda Europa, debe ser posible hacerlo en un mismo país.

Catastros públicos y catastros privados

Después de la publicación del Catastro 2014 de la Federación Internacional de Agrimensores (FIG), una de las nuevas visiones que suscitó mucho debate fue la propuesta de que el catastro debiera estar “altamente privatizado; el sector público y el sector privado trabajarán en conjunto, lo que reducirá el control y la supervisión por parte del sector público” (Kaufmann y Steudler 1998). Por ejemplo, en Japón las empresas privadas tienen el control prácticamente total de la base catastral de algunas ciudades, mientras que en los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea el catastro reside en la esfera gubernamental.

En América Latina los catastros se mantienen principalmente en manos de instituciones públicas; el sector privado por lo general participa en los procesos de implementación de actualizaciones cartográficas y sistemas de información, más no en la administración misma. La municipalidad mexicana de Guadalajara, por ejemplo, realizó un estudio comparativo de los costos y concluyó que el manejo del catastro con sus propios empleados y equipos significaría un ahorro del 50% en inversiones, lo que quedó confirmado un año después de la implementación.

Pese a los resultados positivos obtenidos en dichos proyectos desarrollados por completo dentro de la administración pública, no es posible dejar de lado al sector privado, especialmente en el contexto de la ola de privatización que ha sacudido a América Latina estos últimos años. Por ejemplo, al igual que las instituciones públicas, las compañías de teléfono, agua y energía eléctrica necesitan información territorial actualizada. El interés en común por mantener al día las bases de datos hace que las oficinas de catastro y las compañías de servicios públicos trabajen en colaboración y se repartan las inversiones, además de buscar maneras de estandarizar la información y definir identificadores comunes para las parcelas.

Conclusiones

La mayoría de los sistemas catastrales de América Latina siguen registrando tres tipos de datos según el modelo económico-físico-legal tradicional: el valor económico, la ubicación y forma de la parcela y la relación entre la propiedad y el propietario u ocupante. No obstante, existe un mayor interés en utilizar sistemas de información multifinalitarios. En este proceso de transición, algunos administradores han decidido implementar nuevas aplicaciones catastrales basadas en la tecnología, pero es evidente que no se ha logrado el éxito que ellos anticipaban. Esta incorporación de nuevas tecnologías debe estar acompañada de los cambios necesarios en los procedimientos y la legislación y de capacitación profesional de los empleados públicos.

En años recientes ciertas instituciones internacionales como el Banco Mundial, el Instituto Lincoln y muchas universidades europeas y estadounidenses han prestado su colaboración para ayudar a mejorar los catastros latinoamericanos. Ofrecen apoyo para programas educativos, actividades académicas y proyectos concretos con la finalidad de implementar sistemas de información territoriales que sean confiables y estén actualizados. A medida que continúa la transición hacia catastros multifinalitarios, se implementarán los cambios a través de una revisión minuciosa de la legislación pertinente, formas más accesibles de servicio a los usuarios, colaboración sólida entre las instituciones públicas y privadas que generen y utilicen datos catastrales, y la aplicación de estándares internacionales contemporáneos. Los catastros territoriales en América Latina llegarán a ser todavía más eficaces y útiles si generan información que propicie el desarrollo de proyectos orientados a las preocupaciones sociales fundamentales, como la regulación del suelo y la identificación de terrenos desocupados.

Diego Alfonso Erba es profesor de aplicaciones avanzadas de SIG y cartografía digital en la UNISINOS (Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos) en São Leopoldo-RS, Brasil, y docente invitado del Instituto Lincoln.

Referencias

Hyman, Glenn, Perea, Claudia, Rey, Dora Inés y Lance, Kate. 2003. Encuesta sobre el desarrollo de las infraestructuras nacionales de datos espaciales en América Latina y el Caribe. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT).

Kaufmann, Jürg y Steudler, Daniel. 1998. Catastro 2014: Una visión para un sistema catastral futuro.

Frederiksberg, Dinamarca: Federación Internacional de Agrimensores (FIG). Documento disponible en la página http://www.swisstopo.ch/fig-wg71/cad2014/download/cat2014-espanol.pdf.

Comité Permanente sobre el Catastro en la Unión Europea. 2003. Principios Comunes del Catastro en la Unión en la Unión Europea. Roma. 3 de diciembre. Documento disponible en la página http://www.eurocadastre.org/pdf/Principles%20in%20Spanish.pdf.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Diego Alfonso Erba es un profesor invitado del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo), con licencia de su cargo de profesor del Programa de Graduados de Geología de la Universidade do Vale do Río dos Sinos (UNISINOS) de Brasil. Se graduó de ingeniero agrimensor en la Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina, y después obtuvo dos títulos de maestría en ciencias y enseñó en varias universidades de Brasil. Su experiencia profesional inicial fue en la regularización de los asentamientos informales de Santa Fe, Argentina, y encabezó el Departamento de Sistemas de Información Geológica (SIG) de una cooperativa agrícola del sur de Brasil. También obtuvo un doctorado en agrimensura de la Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, Argentina, e hizo investigaciones posdoctorales en SIG para cuerpos de agua en el Centro de Recursos Naturales de la Universidad Shiga de Otsu, Japón; y en SIG para aplicaciones urbanas en los Laboratorios Clark-IDRISI de la Universidad Clark de Worcester, Massachusetts.

Land Lines: ¿Qué es un catastro territorial?

Diego Erba: La institución del catastro territorial no existe en los Estados Unidos, por lo menos no de la misma forma que en muchos otros países del mundo. Si bien el término “catastro” tiene más de un significado, en general hay consenso de que proviene del griego catastichon, que se puede traducir como “una lista de parcelas tributarias”.

Este tipo de lista existe en los Estados Unidos, pero el perfil de las instituciones que manejan estos datos no es el mismo que en América Latina y muchos otros países europeos y africanos, donde el catastro territorial incluye datos económicos, geométricos y legales de las parcelas de tierra, además de datos sobre sus dueños u ocupantes. Las instituciones que manejan estos datos, con frecuencia también llamadas catastros territoriales, están estrechamente conectadas con los registros de títulos o los registros de propiedades, porque sus datos se complementan y garantizan el derecho a la tenencia de la tierra. Estas conexiones tradicionales reflejan la herencia catastral histórica de los sistemas legales romano y napoleónico.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué los administradores públicos urbanos necesitan saber sobre los catastros territoriales?

DE: El catastro y el registro de propiedades deberían estar conectados por razones legales − y además con fines prácticos − y hay muchos modelos que demuestran cómo los catastros podrían o deberían estar relacionados con las instituciones públicas. Desafortunadamente, en general los catastros de las distintas regiones están aislados o no están integrados, lo cual reduce mucho su utilidad potencial como herramienta para la planificación urbana y las políticas de suelo.

Por ejemplo, los asentamientos irregulares en general se construyen en áreas públicas o de protección ambiental, o incluso en parcelas privadas, y no pagan impuestos ni están inscritos en las bases de datos de los catastros territoriales. Estas áreas se representan en la cartografía catastral como “polígonos en blanco”, como si no existiera nada dentro de ellos. La paradoja es que en general se poseen datos e información cartográfica sobre estos asentamientos irregulares, pero la información se encuentra frecuentemente en instituciones que no están relacionadas con el catastro, y por lo tanto estos asentamientos no están oficialmente registrados.

Hay una percepción creciente de la importancia del catastro como sistema de información multifinalitario: que sirve no sólo a los sectores legales y financieros de una ciudad, sino también a todas las instituciones que conforman la “realidad urbana”, como las agencias de servicios públicos, las compañías de servicios públicos e incluso ciertos proveedores privados de servicios urbanos. No obstante, esta evolución hacia un concepto nuevo, y hacia sistemas de información urbana mejorados, no ha sido sencilla, y se ha topado con resistencias en los países en desarrollo.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué es tan difícil establecer y usar un catastro multifinalitario?

DE: La implementación de un catastro multifinalitario exige en general un mayor intercambio horizontal de información entre las instituciones gubernamentales. A menudo, también exige una modificación del marco legal y el establecimiento de relaciones más fluidas entre agentes públicos y privados, para poder compartir datos estandarizados y asegurar las inversiones constantes necesarias para mantener actualizadas las bases de datos y la cartografía.

Esto parece ser un proceso sencillo, pero en la práctica no lo es, porque muchos administradores todavía consideran que “esos datos son míos” y no están dispuestos a colaborar con otros. Al mismo tiempo, algunos administradores demasiado entusiastas, convencidos del valor potencial de un catastro multifinalitario, a veces se saltan etapas y pasan de un catastro tradicional a un modelo multifinalitario, sin prestar demasiada atención a la implementación efectiva de los intercambios de información.

Aun cuando operen en forma privada, los catastros territoriales se consideran como un servicio público, así que dependen del financiamiento público y de decisiones políticas para aprobar un nuevo sistema de valuación de la tierra o la cartografía. Al mismo tiempo, este tipo de servicio público no es visible y por lo tanto no es tan interesante para los políticos, que quieren demostrar sus logros por medio de proyectos más tangibles, como un puente o una escuela nueva.

La actualización de los datos catastrales afecta el valor de la tierra y consecuentemente el monto de los impuestos sobre la propiedad, un tema que no es popular con los votantes. No obstante, los administradores gubernamentales que desean mejorar el estado tributario de su jurisdicción pueden decidir al principio de su mandato que quieren actualizar el catastro para tratar de aumentar los ingresos provenientes de los impuestos sobre la propiedad. Esto tiene un impacto político significativo al comenzar su mandato, pero es posible que de allí en más no se alteren los datos del valor de la propiedad por muchos años, resultando cada vez menos precisos en comparación con su valor real de mercado. En muchas jurisdicciones latinoamericanas, la legislación impone la obligación de actualizar el catastro en forma periódica, aunque el nivel de cumplimiento no es homogéneo.

Otro error frecuente es considerar que la solución estriba en crear un sistema de información geográfica (SIG) para manejar los datos catastrales. En el caso ideal, nos gustaría ver sistemas integrados que usan bases de datos coordinadas y estandarizadas. Sin embargo, algunas municipalidades no tienen los recursos suficientes, y aquéllas que los tienen no cuentan con empleados con la preparación suficiente como para realizar la tarea. La noción de que se puede arribar a una manera única de implementar catastros no es realmente práctica en regiones donde las diferencias entre jurisdicciones son tan significativas. Yo siempre digo que el problema con las instituciones catastrales no es de recursos físicos ni de recursos de software, sino de recursos humanos. Aun cuando existan los recursos financieros, la falta de profesionales y técnicos capacitados presenta un obstáculo significativo.

Land Lines: En este contexto, ¿es posible considerar un catastro multifinalitario para América Latina?

DE: Es posible, pero el concepto es todavía nuevo y no se comprende por completo. Hay muchos buenos catastros en América Latina, por ejemplo en algunas municipalidades de Colombia y Brasil y en algunos estados de México y Argentina. En algunas jurisdicciones, la fusión de catastros territoriales con instituciones públicas y sistemas geotecnológicos genera institutos catastrales que están mejor estructurados en términos de presupuesto y personal técnico, y por lo tanto pueden identificar mejor los asentamientos ilegales y controlar el aumento del valor de la tierra usando herramientas modernas.

No obstante, desde mi punto de vista, la región aún no cuenta con un catastro multifinalitario en plena operación. Una suposición común es que la implementación de un catastro multifinalitario exige el agregado de datos sociales y ambientales a las bases de datos alfanuméricas existentes de los catastros territoriales tradicionales, para tener en cuenta los aspectos económicos, geométricos y legales de la parcela y después conectar todos los datos con un mapa de parcela en SIG. Si bien esto es muy importante, no es esencial, porque la implementación no es tanto un problema tecnológico como filosófico. La mayoría de las administraciones municipales se resisten a combinar instituciones que tradicionalmente manejan bases de datos sociales (educación y salud), del medio ambiente y territoriales (catastros) bajo el mismo techo.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo ayuda su trabajo en el Instituto Lincoln a ampliar el nivel de conocimiento sobre los catastros territoriales?

DE: He estado trabajando con el Programa para América Latina y el Caribe desde 2002, para explorar la relación entre los catastros multifinalitarios y las cuatro áreas temáticas del Programa: grandes proyectos urbanos; valuación y tributación de la tierra; asentamientos informales y programas de regularización; y recuperación de plusvalías. Es siempre un desafío adaptar los programas de estudio educativos, pero creemos firmemente que es importante compartir los conocimientos de manera amplia en cada país y preparar a los funcionarios públicos y a los técnicos con distintos niveles de experiencia. Los participantes en nuestros programas académicos, que incluyen a administradores de catastro, planificadores urbanos, abogados y emprendedores inmobiliarios, adoptan un lenguaje y una visión común de las aplicaciones catastrales urbanas, y pueden iniciar un proceso para mejorar el sistema en sus propios países.

Nuestra estrategia pedagógica para este año incluye la diseminación de conocimientos por medio de una combinación de educación a distancia y cursos tradicionales en el aula a distintos niveles. Tenemos pensado desarrollar seminarios de capacitación, seguidos de un curso de educación a distancia adaptado a aquellos países que demuestren las condiciones necesarias para concretar esta nueva visión de un catastro multifinalitario. Finalmente, organizaremos una clase regional en el aula para los mejores estudiantes a distancia en tres países vecinos.

Este plan contrasta con los múltiples programas de capacitación ofrecidos por otras instituciones internacionales, que contemplan conceptos y el uso de herramientas que pueden no ser aplicables en países con distintos marcos legales y niveles tecnológicos. Comenzaremos este ciclo con seminarios en Chile y Perú, trabajando con la Asociación Chilena de Municipalidades y el Instituto de Economía Regional y Gobierno Local en Arequipa, Perú. Éstos y otros socios en América Latina se han comprometido a difundir y aumentar la capacidad local sobre estos temas.

Otro componente de nuestra estrategia es la difusión de materiales didácticos. Más adelante en 2006, publicaremos dos libros sobre conceptos e implementación de catastros que se pueden aplicar a la mayoría de los países. Uno de los libros describe en detalle el sistema catastral de cada país latinoamericano, y el otro conceptualiza los aspectos jurídicos, económicos, geométricos, ambientales y sociales del catastro multifinalitario, realzando la relación entre el catastro territorial y las cuatro áreas temáticas del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln.

En 2005 produjimos un DVD, que en la actualidad se ofrece en español y portugués. Incluye un documental sobre catastros multifinalitario y algunos segmentos grabados de clases y discusiones sobre las relaciones entre el catastro multifinalitario y asuntos urbanos complejos.

Land Lines: ¿Cuál es el objetivo a largo plazo del catastro multifinalitario?

DE: Los problemas que se han señalado aquí no deberían desalentar el esfuerzo de los administradores urbanos por reorganizar sus catastros y el marco legal de sus políticas de la tierra en sus respectivos ciudades y países. Por el contrario, deberían tratar de cambiar esta realidad desarrollando nuevas leyes que demuestren el espíritu de una política del suelo moderna. Los datos sobre ciudades latinoamericanas existen, pero están fragmentados y no están estandarizados.

La mejor manera de construir un catastro multifinalitario es integrando todas las instituciones públicas y privadas que están trabajando a nivel de parcela, y desarrollando un identificador único que defina las normas para las bases de datos alfanuméricas y cartográficas. El concepto es muy simple y claro, pero su ejecución no lo es. Para alcanzar este objetivo es necesario que los administradores, técnicos y ciudadanos comprendan el potencial del catastro para mejorar las prácticas de gestión de la tierra y la calidad de vida en zonas urbanas. Muchas veces hay soluciones simples que ayudan a resolver problemas complejos como los presentados por los sistemas catastrales.

New evidence from Brazil indicates that the regulation of land use and building standards can reinforce other factors that contribute to informal and irregular urban land occupation. The magnitude and persistence of informality in Latin American cities cannot be fully explained by poverty rates (which are declining), insufficient public investment in social housing or urban infrastructure (which is expanding), or even government tolerance of certain opportunistic practices on the part of informal developers and occupants (The Economist 2007). While these factors are undoubtedly important, inappropriate land use and building regulation also seems to play a role in the resilience of the problem. It can be argued as a corollary that an alternative regulatory framework may help to alleviate informality in urban land markets.

Clearly defining the ownership of property is often thought to be necessary for the efficient operation of markets and the appropriate use of scarce resources. Specifying property rights within mature governance frameworks is relatively straightforward for traditional private goods, but it becomes more complex for common property goods such as groundwater, environmental resources, irrigation systems, forests, and fisheries.

Common property goods are often subject to overexploitation (the well known “tragedy of the commons”), and many observers argue that the sustainable use of common property can be solved simply by employing one of two alternatives: private ownership, or public ownership operating within a clear regulatory framework. The argument is that either approach can internalize externalities and reduce transaction costs.

This notion that there are only two discrete solutions—private ownership or public ownership—to promote the sustainable management of scarce common resources has proven problematic for at least two reasons. First, neither private nor public ownership has always conserved scarce resources well, as in the case of the timber industry. Second, many alternative property rights approaches have been successful in managing scarce common resources in a sustainable manner, in some cases over hundreds of years.

Examples of alternative property rights approaches include the management by farmers of irrigation systems in Nepal, by villagers of Alpine grazing lands in Switzerland and Italy, and by villagers of mountain grazing land and forests in Japan and Norway. In all of these cases, farmers owned their private agricultural parcels and also participated as communal owners of commonly held resources.

Analyses of many cases of successful common resources management reveal that specific practices vary widely and depend on underlying institutions, social norms, culture, and ecological conditions. Accordingly, specific practices are usually not transferable from one context to another. However, research also shows that participants in successful systems have seven elements in common: accurate information about the resource; a common understanding about the resource’s benefits and risks; shared norms of reciprocity and trust; stable group membership; a long-term perspective; decision rules that avoid either unanimity or control by a few; and relatively low-cost monitoring and sanctioning arrangements.

These systems work best when the common pool resource is in a fixed location, such as forests, grazing land, mineral deposits, and many environmental resources. When the location of the common resource is not fixed, however, virtually no single property rights approach has been very successful. This is famously the case for fisheries, where the stock of fish is mobile and its size is difficult to track. Most property rights systems applied to fisheries give property rights to the annual catch, not to the underlying stock. Many approaches have been attempted to control fish catches, and the most promising current practice uses transferable quotas, but this approach is still a work in progress.

An excellent summary of the evolving theory of property rights is available in the recent Lincoln Institute book edited by Daniel Cole and Elinor Ostrom, Property in Land and Other Resources. Elinor Ostrom in particular has contributed greatly to the property rights literature, and her work in this area was honored last year when she was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.

The volume includes chapters that address the complexity of property rights and their applications to common pool resources such as air, land, water, and wildlife (including fisheries). In addition, two chapters review the self-organization of property rights practices by miners during the 1849 California gold rush and more recent gold rushes. Those authors found that very similar property rights practices emerged in other such mining situations.

Human development is often characterized as a war between the contradictory goals of individuation and conformity. We struggle to distinguish ourselves from the herd, but we panic at the prospect of social isolation. Our social sciences, especially economics, are similarly conflicted. The cult of the individual is a dominant social meme, and this dominance is exacerbated by the rise of economic fundamentalism—the unquestioning faith in unregulated markets and the concomitant distrust of government and social systems. Starting with Adam Smith’s invisible hand, scores of economists built careers devising theories based on methodological individualism, the idea that “social phenomena must be explained by showing how they result from individual actions, which in turn must be explained through reference to the intentional states that motivate the individual actors,” according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. These theorists uniformly praised unfettered individuals and markets as the best way to achieve the joint goals of prosperity and fairness and promoted (or prevented) public policies buttressed by this view.

At the same time, other mainstream economists have warned about the “isolation paradox,” a category of scenarios in which individuals, acting in relative isolation and guided only by their short-term self-interest, generate long-term results that are destructive to all. Examples include the Malthusian nightmares of famine and pestilence curbing population growth, the prisoner’s dilemma, or the tragedy of the commons, which was described in a 1968 essay by Garrett Hardin. Hardin warned about the hazards of population growth through a parable about unmanaged use of common grazing land. The inevitable over-use of the land by individual herders maximizing their flocks would destroy the land and make it unsuitable for everyone. The solution, according to Hardin and others, is some form of enclosure of the commons, through privatization or public ownership that can establish coercive mechanisms to ensure that individuals behave in ways that protect the common interest.

Luckily, most humans do not subscribe to economic theory and instead develop their own ways to reconcile these contradictions between individuation and conformity. And public intellectuals such as Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Economics Nobel laureate (and the only woman so honored), have advanced our knowledge about the ways we mediate these two very human tendencies. We do it through institutions—groups of humans voluntarily organizing themselves to harness the benefits of individual effort while avoiding the pitfalls of isolated individuals run amok. According to Ostrom and others, various institutional arrangements—formal organizations, rules of engagement, public policies, to name a few—organically emerge to prevent unfortunate events like the tragedy of the commons. In this issue of Land Lines, we feature stories about a number of such institutional arrangements that have emerged to protect us from ourselves or to manifest mutual benefits. In our interview with Summer Waters of the Sonoran Institute (p. 30), we learn about efforts to promote the economy and protect the ecology of the Colorado River watershed and reintroduce the flow of fresh water to the river’s delta.

We’ve only begun to study systems that organically emerge to manage commons, but we know even less about how we create commons. This might be a result of our tendency to treat commons like manna—conveyed from heaven, not created by humans. However, as reported by Tony Hiss (p. 24), thousands of people have come together voluntarily to create a new commons—millions of acres of land conserved to protect vast ecosystems, to save habitat for endangered species, to provide green space for densely packed urban dwellers, and to realize a variety of other long-term goals. From the point of view of orthodox economists, it’s a world gone crazy. Not only are formerly isolated individuals acting in ways that prevent the tragedy of the commons, they are taking action to create new ones.

Ironically, the story of America’s first public park, Boston Common, is often used as a cautionary tale to illustrate the tragedy of the commons. Truth be told, it is one of the first examples of individuals self-organizing and subordinating their short-term interests to create a shared resource for the long term. Boston Common was created in 1634 when members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony voted to tax themselves to purchase and protect the parcel of land to train troops and graze cattle. These citizens understood that, with some 2,500 people joining the colony annually, it would not be long before all habitable land was developed and all urban open space would disappear, according to Jim Levitt in his forthcoming book, Palladium of the People.

Public education is another man-made commons, as are most public goods. We organize and tax ourselves to support the provision of this critically important institution. And over time, we need to revise the way we manage and maintain it, like any commons. In this issue, Daphne Kenyon and Andy Reschovsky offer a window into the analyses of the challenges cities face in financing their schools—and some ideas about how we can address these problems (p. 34). We also explore how universities and hospitals can work with their neighborhoods and cities to pursue mutually beneficial collaborative goals, in the feature on anchor strategies from Beth Dever, et al. (p. 4).

For some economists, creation of new commons is a theoretical impossibility. In his first book, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Mancur Olson hypothesized that people will endure the complications of acting together only if there is a sufficient private incentive; and large groups will not pursue collective action unless motivated by significant personal gain (economic, social, etc.). Theory and practice clearly have collided, and the impact is and will continue to be profound. As Hiss notes, in his essay on large landscape conservation, “The first thing that grows is not necessarily the size of the property to be protected, but the possibility for actions, some large, some small, that will make a lasting difference for the future of the biosphere and its inhabitants, including humanity.”

It doesn’t stop there. In the United States, a bastion of the free market, some 65 million citizens belong to common interest communities, such as condominiums and homeowners’ associations, as reported by Gerry Korngold (p. 14). A quarter of the nation voluntarily has limited its own autonomy to protect and preserve common interests. As noted by Korngold, this wouldn’t have surprised de Tocqueville, who described the U. S. as “a nation of joiners.” In Democracy in America, in 1831, he wrote, “I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it.” Perhaps it is time to organize a cult of collective action to celebrate the incredible things we are able to do when we work together. We might find that the policies, practices, organizations, and institutions that we create to mediate our internal war between individuation and conformity have contributed more to human advancement than the individual achievements we more often celebrate.

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.