OGC White Paper on Land Administration

Ongoing urbanization and increasing complexity of infrastructures and densely built-up areas require a proper recording and registration of the legal status which can only be provided to a limited extent by existing 2D cadastral systems. The registration of legal status can be complex in 2D. 3D, including indoor modeling, is required to capture the whole legal and spatial dimension, which further includes the marine environment.

In cases where value of land is higher or an intensive level of land use exists, conventional field surveys using high-precision instruments (GPS, Total Stations, Laser scans) can be deployed. Areas with lower land values may require other approaches (use of imagery, lidar, radar). All those approaches are covered by the Fit-For-Purpose approach for land administration (descriptive, not prescriptive).

The Fit-For-Purpose approach (FIG/World Bank, 2015, UN-Habitat, 2016) argues for cost-effective, time-efficient, transparent, scalable, and participatory data collection and management, including participatory surveying, volunteered land administration, and crowdsourcing. In many situations, it is sufficient, to identify visual boundaries in the field using imagery. By following the Fit-For-Purpose approach, Land Administration Systems are simple at the start and can improve over time whenever necessary or relevant. It is a dynamic process: adapting to address different countries/areas, technologies deployed, and administration approaches. Such an approach must be gender sensitive, transparent, and highly participatory. The approach is affirmed in the Addis-Ababa Declaration ‘Geospatial Information Management towards Good land Governance for the 2030 Agenda’, (UN-GGIM, 2016).

Implementation of the Fit-For-Purpose approach requires flexible standards and a good model for data description using metadata, such as is incorporated in LADM. LADM supports the continuum of land rights (management of different tenures in one environment) and a continuum of approaches in data acquisition and recordation and many different representations of spatial units (point-based, line-based, polygon-based, and volume-based), and parties (from groups to individual and non-natural persons). Complete point-based approaches with identified monuments or beacons (or wooden pegs) are time consuming and complex.

Different types of survey approaches must be accommodated to allow integration of new spatial cadastral data with existing data, and to assure retention of original field observations. The software required for adjustments is often integrated in the survey instruments – but it should also be available during cadastral mapping – e.g., with a tablet in the field. In all cases there should be options to include rights and right holders with related attributes. Adjustments of field observations to existing cadastral spatial data could be included in cadastral GIS. Surveys are also needed in support to quality improvement of cadastral data.

Using app and cloud-technology, collected field data can be transmitted from a mobile device directly to a cloud-based GIS environment, enabling everyone to follow the process remotely. The field survey is, for example, about creating an overview of all existing people-land relationships, including formal (legal) ownership and informal (social) land use and overlapping claims. Owners or claimants are invited to walk the perimeters of their land parcels and to point to the vertex points of the boundaries themselves using a GPS receiver. A grassroots surveyor records the observations with an app installed on a mobile device or tablet. Imagery (from satellite, aircraft, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)) of the area is displayed on the screen of the mobile device. Data collection is done in an integrated way: the perimeter is stored as a closed polygon together with the claimed type of right combined with a photo of the face of the owner or claimant and a photo of the owner’s or claimant’s ID. A preliminary identifier is used as linking key. The GPS receiver may be handheld low-accuracy. In this way, the walked perimeters identify a boundary from sides, from two spatial units. If those are within a specified tolerance, then agreement is demonstrated. The approach implies that neighbors do not have to be in the field at the same time, which reduces the complexity associated with organizing the participation of boundary neighbors at the same time. The approach can be done in analogue way, too. Digital pens may be used in that case. This approach can be organized as participatory survey – where the right holders hold the GPS receiver and point out the vertex points and a grassroot surveyor (trained by a professional) collects the data in the app – with a very simple user interface. In this case the professional surveyor is the organizer, the person who creates awareness, organizes the data acquisition, accepts the data, and manages quality assurance. GIS is needed to handle collected data – calculating averages in boundary observations (which is complex – not all of the same points are necessarily observed from two sides), identification of objects, area calculation, and public inspection. During a public inspection of collected data, the agreement on boundaries can be confirmed – and the boundary may be visualized as a “green” (agreed) boundary.

It is crucial to get an overview of areas under dispute and to collect the geometry of the disputed area. ‘Dispute holders’ need to ‘agree’ on the area and location of the dispute. During the adjudication process in the field, disputes may lead to the creation of overlaps between polygons. In that case, those overlaps are mapped and the corresponding authorities know the exact location of a land-related conflict. Conflict resolution approaches need to be included as well as the interaction between land administration and disaster management.

After field data collection, the data must be checked for completeness and prepared for public inspection. Integration of knowledge and expertise from Remote Sensing in the Land Administration Domain is important and needed.

Automated feature extraction may be applied to boundaries of plots bounded by topographic features instead of the plots themselves. If extracted features are visualized on printed or screen-displayed imagery, they can be used to identify features as being identical to cadastral boundaries or not. Feature extraction may be helpful in estimating the number of parcels or spatial units that can be expected in project areas as what can be expected in the field is often unknown.

Fixing boundaries in participatory approaches is preferred – if needed. Conventional approaches in monumentation are always possible, but may be avoided in the preliminary stages of development of land administration. Demarcation with monuments or beacons takes a substantial part of the (grassroot) surveyor’s time. If demarcation is an absolute legal requirement, people could place the beacons themselves. Otherwise, it is a good idea to explore modern demarcation methods – smart markers could provide a good alternative. Modern markers like the traceable 3D radio frequency identification (RFID) markers can be detected and identified from a distance of several meters using a simple smartphone.

Data acquisition for millions of spatial units – based on evidence from the field in participatory approaches – is an enormous operation. Millions of polygons, lines and points are to be observed in reality and need to be linked to formal and informal holders of real rights and/or use rights. The organization of this process requires enormous amounts of human-supported transactions related to logistics and case management - all based on geographic information. During field work, a check on the completeness of the data acquisition needs to be performed in an easy way. Tools, transport, paper, imagery, awareness campaigns, local support from local authorities (if needed in co-management with traditional authorities), and grass-root data collectors combined with professional expertise has to be organized at the right place and time.

Updates and changes may concern the following: parties and their attributes, rights, restrictions and responsibilities and related attributes, basis administrative units and related attributes, and spatial units and related attributes. Common transactions are buying and selling, establishment of mortgage, or rights (for example encumbrance, usufruct, but may be also tenancy). A very specific transaction is the inclusion of the result of spatial planning, e.g., a land consolidation or land readjustment.

More generic process-related modules (Stubkjaer, et al., 2007) in data acquisition and data handling as well as maintenance and publication are needed. Standardization can also make it easier to monitor the progress of global indicators relating to land tenure security. Process information is information on who has to do what in approving the transaction. LADM has roles already included as well a series of dates for interaction with processes – but the LADM Edition I does not include Land Administration processes for initial data acquisition, data maintenance, and data publication.

Cadastral data maintenance can be ‘programme-driven’ (systematic) or ‘sporadic.’ Programme-driven means maintenance through a complete and systematic new acquisition after initial data acquisition or an earlier maintenance effort. Sporadic means case by case maintenance in a ‘transaction-driven’ way and relates to transactions in the land market (buying/selling, establishment of mortgage, etc.). Transactions require source documents providing the basis for changing and updating the data in the database – from one consistent state to another. Attributes in all classes can be subject to change.

The blockchain is a secure mechanism to handle and store transactions in a distributed ledger environment. Once a transaction has taken place, it cannot be altered or erased from existence. A transaction is irreversible. An additional advantage of blockchain use is that not only the transaction itself, but also the history of transactions, is safely captured, making the data immutable and hence providing trust by definition. Blockchain is also known as the ‘distributed ledger;’ it is the database that provides proof of who owns what at any given time and it is publicly available and publicly maintained. A blockchain is transparent. That means: everyone who would like to see the transaction is able to do so and verify the transaction. This makes the process of value exchange visible, so normal people can see any injustice. Development of blockchain support in land administration requires co-operation with ISO TC 307 on Blockchain. FIG is also involved in the use of blockchain. Smart contracts are contracts whose terms are recorded in a computer language instead of legal language. Smart contracts can be automatically executed by a computing system, such as a suitable distributed ledger system. The smart contract is the layer that fully utilizes the potential of blockchain technology. Smart contracts contain the computer code that executes the contract.

Knowledge on geometric accuracy should result in quality labels identifying the relative and absolute accuracy of geometric data. This is relevant for adjustment later on and the integration of data from different sources collected with different instruments and tools in different approaches. But land administration is not only about geometric data. Talking about quality in land administration means not only talking about geometric accuracy, but also about ‘linking’ polygons (spatial units) and people (right-holders). Needed functionalities should be deployable on a single device, i.e., linking functionalities for image-based data acquisition to handheld GPS, biometric data (fingerprint identification and facial recognition), and voice/video recording in support of object identification. Devices supporting these functions could also be useful for inspections, for fieldwork related to building and construction permits, for cadastral maintenance, etc. Land data collected on many devices could deliver results in formats based on operational standards.

Legacy data may be located and stored all over a country in administrative (legal) and spatial (survey) archives. The paper documents in those archives often have a legal meaning. After digitizing the documents, they are not yet archived in a unified manner compliant with (international) standards: this applies to both the archives with the maps as well as the archives with the deeds. Having a digital archive is one of the preconditions for e-services to function optimally. Stages of digital archiving may be distinguished: protection of the existing archives; scanning and indexation; quality improvement of the archives; optimization of internal consistency; and integration of the digital archive in workflows.

Interoperability, data sharing and data integration is needed in development of land administration.

External links to other databases (supporting information infrastructure deployment), e.g., addresses, population register, business register, building register, utilities register, etc., are needed. Use of these databases includes access to libraries with cloud free compositions of imagery as produced on large scale with remote sensing technologies, approaches in initial data acquisition, methods in public review/inspection, and checks on complete coverage. Data sharing means the data is collected once and used many times through establishing linkages with SDIs, for example. Duplicative efforts in data collection and maintenance can be avoided. Data has to be ‘kept at the source.’

Services must be able to support operations in an internet-connected environment as well as a disconnected environment, as internet is not reliable in many areas. Services may support declaration of land rights online by the rightholders themselves. Quality assurance procedures are required in these cases. Also, for maintenance, services can be developed. Further applications may support reporting land disputes and conflicts, requests for information, publication of land data, provision of products and services, land right formalization, map renovation and quality improvement, and digital archiving.

A fiscal registry or database is supposed to record legal, physical, geometric, economic, and environmental characteristics of the property units, which are subject to immovable property valuation and taxation. A land administration infrastructure is required to link fiscal registries with other public registries (e.g., cadastre, land registry, building, and dwelling registries).

While most developing economies are trying to establish Land Administration Systems, some developed jurisdictions are undergoing significant change in terms of their Land Administration Systems. The New South Wales state government in Australia privatized the operation of its land registry in 2016. The South Australian state government also privatized it land registry earlier in 2017. Now, Victorians await on whether their lawmakers will follow suit.

While rare, privately-operated land registries do exist elsewhere. A private operator administers the buying, selling, and subdivision of properties in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. In other jurisdictions, there have been unsuccessful privatization attempts. In 2013, the Canadian province of Alberta’s Real Estate Council concluded that a proposal to privatize the title office was not in the public interest. And last year, the province of Nova Scotia assessed the prospect of a privatized titling office and concluded there would be no considerable gain from it. The UK Conservative government in 2016 also examined this idea but did not go ahead with privatization. This was primarily due to a lack of support from the property industry and a fear of public backlash.

There are risks and opportunities that is PPP-based land registries bring. These include increased fees, a natural monopoly, banks requiring title insurance for purchasing properties, risks to the integrity of land registration processes and property information, depreciating existing skillsets in the title offices that are hard to source, and the prospect of jobs moving elsewhere and even overseas.

At the same time, PPP-based land administration provides an opportunity to harness technologies that transform land administration into faster and more automated processes while removing intermediary fees and reducing red tape. Using technologies like blockchain, titles and other documents can be encrypted and protected in digital transactions. This challenges the need for lawyers to check documents, financial institutions to prove money exchange, insurance companies to back the title, and title offices to register the transactions. Consumer-grade technologies such as drones, 3D scanners and smartphones also make it easier for the public to collect land information. This will challenge regulated professions such as land surveying. These professions need to be rethought in a technology-driven society where land data collection becomes accessible to everyone (Kalantari and Jeffers 2017).

Cooperation. It is very possible to re-use and develop implementation standards in OGC together with the development of LADM Edition II in parallel to implementation of LADM. Commitment of personnel representing professional organizations is important here of course. As Christine Lacroix from ISO says: “When expertise from the whole world comes together to solve important problems, great things can happen ^[2] .” Global organizations as UN and the World Bank are of crucial importance in setting needs and requirements and as motivators.

Communication. The functionality and options for use of LADM should be better known and communicated. LADM is a flexible standard that can meet local requirements. It is not a prescriptive standard – it is descriptive. LADM can also be described as a land administration expert language. It describes the common denominator in land administration worldwide. The rich functionality of LADM should be better and further promoted. UML instance level diagrams are very useful in communicating this functionality.

Standards like the LADM are crucial to jump-start new initiatives and are connecting top-down and bottom-up projects. It is very important that there is awareness of this at policy level. Policies should support the implementation of standards particularly when such standards are globally agreed.

Common vision on use and applications of standards in land administration. Different disciplines working in land administration have their own view and interpretation to its importance, use, and application. We talk about anthropologists, social scientists, lawyers, registrars, conveyors, notaries, geodesists, surveyors, remote sensing experts, valuers, brokers, spatial planners, land tax officers, cartographers, GIS/SDI/database experts, and information managers – from academia, public, and private environments. A common vision and agreement on the information, the structure of the information, and the meaning and use of information is important. Of course, OGC and ISO are involved in this work.

Compatibility. future versions of the LADM should be backwards compatible with prior versions.

Valuation. The LADM is a conceptual data model which provides a standardized global vocabulary for land administration. A proposal to extend the scope of LADM with a fiscal perspective is available (Çağdaş, et al., 2016; Çağdaş, et al., 2017). This proposal provides a data model that could be used to construct information systems for immovable property valuation and taxation and offer a data exchange option. The proposal (for inclusion in the second edition of LADM) provides a common basis for governments to direct the development of local and national databases and for the private sector to develop information technology products. Another option could be to include this fiscal work as an informative annex (similar to LPIS or INSPIRE CP annexes). Currently it is mentioned in the informative annex K (External classes: ExtValuation and ExtTaxation) of ISO 19152, Edition I (ISO, 2012). The valuation discipline needs to be involved here. OGC needs to be closely involved in order to bring experience as well as good and workable solutions for mass appraisal.

Indicators. The Global Land Indicator Initiative (GLII) ^[3], seeks to derive a list of globally comparable harmonized land indicators, using existing monitoring mechanisms, and data collection methods as a foundation. Internationally agreed standards will be key alongside agreed global concepts and evidence-based approaches. Note: this concerns aggregated data and statistics – not policies.

Land Administration Performance Index. Although, there has been significant progress in developing performance evaluation frameworks and benchmarks for individual Land Administration Systems (LAS) aspects, ontological differences inherent in each LAS, however, have stymied attempts to cross-compare performance of land administration systems in their entirety. There is need for a foundation of a Land Administration Performance Index – which is possible linked to existing global frameworks or initiatives.

Linking physical objects. Legal space and legal objects have their own geometries which are in many cases not (or not completely) equal to physical space and physical objects. Legal space could be linked to physical objects – by identifierss or re-use of descriptions of space. GML and CityGML offer options in this respect.

Indoor models. The users of indoor spaces create a relationship with the space depending on the type of the building and the function of the space. Applying LADM allows assigning rights, restrictions, and responsibilities to indoor spaces, which indicates the accessible spaces for each type of user. An IndoorGML-LADM model is one example of linking physical and legal objects.

Marine Cadastre. The LADM standard is as-published applicable to Marine Cadastres. Also there needs to have special attention for the transition zone from land to sea and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). A normative reference to IHO S121 (Marine Limits and Boundaries) based on the LADM principles needs to be included in ISO 19152.

Spatial planning/zoning with legal implications. In principle, this is a matter of coding zones in code tables (based on the local situations). It further implies integration of spatial planning and land administration environments. Re-use of zones from spatial planning into restrictions to land rights should be possible.

Other legal spaces: mining, archaeology, utilities. These may need specializations in the data model.

Formal semantics/ontology for LADM Code Lists. For the domain of land administration, the localization issue extends from language names to the various organizations and institutions dealing with interests in land. Paasch et al. (2013), propose code lists as a means of internationalization by which the classes of the LADM may be related to the jurisdiction concerned. The issue of code lists has been addressed by the OGC as well, namely in terms of the document [OGC 17-050r1] “Code List Manifesto.”

Metadata and tenure atlases are relevant in this context. Tenure atlases provide overview on tenure systems and the level of recognition. This may include areas without land markets and nature preservation, etc.

More explicit 3D+time profiles. There is a model for representation of legal space with a datatype allowing the representation of volumes that are not completely closed. More functionality is required for a complete partition of space.

Extended survey model and legal model. This model can define adjustments from field observations to the spatial database and the generation of quality labels.

Encodings/technical models. Models concerning the further integration of LADM with existing standards. Note: INTERLIS is available as an implementation standard.

Open data. Open data made available specifically for the Coding of Rights, Right holders, Spatial Unit Types, etc. See Informative Annex J of [ISO 19152, 2012].

Survey procedures and map updating. Cadastral map updating includes adjustments and transformations of field observations (collected at different moments in time and with different survey instruments or via use of imagery from different sources) to the spatial database. Management of areas is needed: there may be more than one area to be maintained for the same spatial unit and the legal and accurate area as calculated in the cadastral GIS may not match other records. Implementation of tolerances to manage the differences in measurements should be flexible and purpose-related. Results of subdivisions of spatial units and the results of readjustments and land consolidation may need to be shared with other systems.

Generic processes. Processes such as initial data acquisition involve many millions of spatial units (amongst them parcels) where people-to-land relationships have to be determined, documented, and reviewed.

In implementing countries, specific strategies and more generic approaches are expected to be applicable and operationalized. For example: participatory surveying where people themselves hold the GPS receiver or blockchain technology with less involvement of professionals in transaction processes could be very applicable for transactions in land administration.

Conversion of social tenure to legal tenure is a process that may require different levels (layers) of data with related attributes. The same is valid for geometric quality improvements of the cadastral map.

A new class representing processes may be defined: a specialization of the class representing sources – thereby creating a connection between the classes of workflow management module and LADM classes.

Processes can be organized on the basis of use of electronic signatures in cases of applications and information requests requiring public or private keys and encryption/decryption.

Provision of information to data collectors for initial data collection or maintenance is a specific but very important process (task management, logistics). This provision of data can be paper-based imagery or digital: paper-based acquisition allows leaving the collected field boundary evidence to the local people. Data provisioned include:

VGI and crowdsourcing for Land Administration. It is possible that rightsholders and communities collect and maintain their own data with a certain level of professional support for quality assurance, etc. Participatory surveying is possible with GPS. Conversion from social tenure to legal tenure may require professional support – but caution must be taken as the way in which professional support is applied can be made easy or complex. The Publication of parties, related rights, and spatial units may also occur via global services (e.g., Google Earth, Bing Maps, Open Street Map, and many others). Note: this type of publication may be in conflict with legislation – in some countries the land administration must be established within the country.

Integration. To ensure securing land and property rights for all, there needs to be concerted efforts to improve the production of data and the generation of information needed to record all forms of people-to-land relationships that will provide effective and efficient Land Administration Systems. There will be a need for considerably more integration across the various national data and information systems and platforms in order to leverage the most effective data and analysis for evidence-based policy formulation and decision making.

Internationally agreed-upon and open standards will be key to unlock the value of data and the wealth of information needed to recognize all forms of people-to-land relationships, which is vital for the well-being of all humanity and sustainable development.

The OGC Land Administration Domain Working Group (LandAdmin DWG) will focus on (see charter):

Additionally, the DWG will identify proposals for industry interoperability assessments, interoperability testbeds, pilots, and experiments designed to bring together users and technology providers to test, demonstrate, and validate best practices to guide the acquisition and implementation of sustainable, scalable, and interoperable land administration systems. The LandAdmin DWG cannot work in isolation. The LandAdmin DWG will work closely with the LandInfra DWG and SWG and CityGML SWG to identify existing standardization efforts underway in the OGC that reference Land Administration concepts to work toward interoperability with LandInfra standards. Within OGC, cooperation will occur with the Marine DWG and the Data Quality DWG as well as with ongoing discussion forums regarding non-authoritative data and blockchain and distributed ledger technologies. In addition to engaging OGC membership, the DWG will leverage OGC’s formal alliance partnerships and liaisons with other associations and standards development organizations (e.g., ISO / TC 211, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), OASIS, International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), and The Global Land Tool Network (GLTN)) to address interoperability issues that span the land administration community of practice, geospatial systems, and the broader IT environment. Examples include linkages with ISO / TC 211 regarding the LADM (Land Administration Domain Model, ISO 19152:2012) standard as well as those Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) responsible for IT standards related to topics such as security, web and mobile services. Further, this DWG will be open for participation by any interested organizations and individuals.

In this context, there should be a focus on the nexus of BIM and 3D Cadastres to examine the challenges of integration of data from each discipline. The challenges include leadership, advocacy, collaboration, inter-domain and intra-domain, best practices, funding models for BIM and 3D Cadastre integration, BIM and city models data value/intellectual property, standards and scales, bringing BIM to 3D Cadastre workflow, data models based on concepts and ontologies, cross-domain curriculum development, and BIM/3D Cadastre issues in the context of current social constructs such as public and private sector duties and partnerships. There is also a recognition of cross-domain collaboration in this space such as those between OGC, buildingSmart International, and ISO. The need for academic community input more into BIM and 3D Cadastre standards is also required (Kalantari, 2017).

FIG will submit a New Working Item Proposal to ISO on the development of LADM Edition II. The proposal includes the following main scheduled LADM extensions.

FIG will propose that OGC and ISO look for options to cooperate in order to align and accelerate developments where possible. FIG may involve the Joint board of Geospatial Information Societies as professional disciplines have to cooperate and join forces to achieve and maintain tenure security for all.

If the New Working Item Proposal is accepted, ISO / TC 211 will develop the next LADM Edition in cooperation with its members and following the ISO procedures. On the valuation extension, cooperation is needed from the International Valuation Standards Council, Standards on Mass Appraisal of Real Property, and International Property Measurement Standards. There will be an extension of the scope of LADM with valuation.

Co-operation should occur with ISO TC 307 on distributed ledgers / blockchain.

ISO and OGC will cooperate on LADM in order to accelerate development. Apart from the development of the next edition, there will be attention to the management of code lists in order to include formal ontology and semantics.

This experts groups finds amongst its members the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, UN-Habitat, and the World Bank. This Expert Group addresses standards and Fit-For-Purpose approaches in Land Administration into the Framework for Sustainable Land Administration – as part of the overall Integrated Geospatial Information Management Framework. The Framework for Sustainable Land Administration is a reference for developing and strengthening Land Administration Systems and a reference for Member States when developing, strengthening, or modernizing their national (or sub-national) Land Administration System. The Framework shall describe key principles for a sustainable and interoperable land administration and management system that can efficiently and effectively document, record, and recognize people-to-land relationship in all its forms.

The coordination with IHO S121 regarding Marine Limits and Boundaries needs to be organized with the IHO and the UN – Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea.

A close coordination with the user community needs to be organized – including surveyors, registrars, and valuation experts.