land administration trends and their implications for australian natural resource management

This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 22 November 2014, At: 19:44Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Spatial SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjss20

Land administration trends and theirimplications for Australian naturalresource managementD.P. Mitchell aa Land Centre, School of Mathematical and Geospatial, Sciences,SET Portfolio , RMIT University , GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, 3001,Australia E-mail:Published online: 13 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: D.P. Mitchell (2009) Land administration trends and their implicationsfor Australian natural resource management, Journal of Spatial Science, 54:2, 35-47, DOI:10.1080/14498596.2009.9635177

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2009.9635177

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjss20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14498596.2009.9635177

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2009.9635177

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

SPATIAL SCIENCE 35 Vol. 54, No. 2, December 2009

Land Administration Trends and their Implications for Australian Natural Resource Management

D.P. Mitchell

D.P. MitchellLand CentreSchool of Mathematical and Geospatial SciencesSET Portfolio, RMIT UniversityGPO Box 2476V Melbourne Australia 3001 [email protected]

Over the last few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the productive use of natural resources in Australia, and a significant deterioration in the condition of natural resources. Recent approaches to improving natural resource management (NRM) aim to improve land use through voluntary schemes, economic incentives, and the un-bundling of rights to land and resources. However, these initiatives are constrained by limitations in the amount of local and regional land and natural resources information. This paper argues that as land administration systems (LAS) further develop they provide improved tools and mechanisms that can assist the goals of NRM. Benefits will be achieved through better administration of property rights and restrictions, improved land and natural resources information, and improved land

use management.

Keywords: Land administration, natural resource management, land use planning, property rights.

INTRODUCTIONI m p rove m e n t s t o n a t u r a l re s o u rc e management (NRM) are at the centre of sustainable development efforts. Over the last few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the productive use of natural resources in Australia, and a significant deterioration in their condition. This has increased the challenges faced in improving sustainability. In 2006, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) estimated that an annual figure of $3.7 billion would be required to respond to land and water degradation (Cocklin et al, 2006). Existing natural resource management approaches seek responses that address the conflicts between existing land use and land management practices, and the condition of the environment. However, Australian ecosystems involve a high level of complexity, and there is limited detailed understanding of the condition of the landscape, the nature of existing land use practices, and the impacts of those practices (Mitchell, 2005). The complexities faced are at various temporal, spatial and social scales and increasingly, multi-disciplinary approaches to natural resource management are being sought (Rammel et al, 2007).

The issues and trends in NRM were s u m m ar i se d by M itch e l l (20 05) a s sustainable development, im proving environmental governance, integrated catchment management, changing land use

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Vol. 54, No. 2, December 2009 36 SPATIAL SCIENCE

and land management practices, establishing clear rights over land and resources, and the need to increase understanding of natural resource systems and the effect of human activity. Controlling the interaction between people and land is central to sustainable natural resource management. Widespread changes in land use and land management p rac t ice s a re re q u i re d to ach ieve sustainable agriculture, reduce the rates of environmental degradation and manage land-based greenhouse emissions. This also needs to be balanced against Australia’s responsibility to assist with the current chronic food shortages faced in some countries. Mitchell et al (2007) presented the results of a survey on the issues considered by natural resource management decision-makers to be the largest barriers to effective NRM. The findings provided a range of institutional, policy and statutory barriers. The barriers of most relevance to land administration were a lack of information to support decision-making at local and regional scales, reluctance to release information, the difficulty in developing policy at the landholding level, and that administrative and property boundaries are insensitive to natural resource boundaries. The first two of these issues involve insufficient information for decision-making, and the third is a symptom of limited information at the landholding level.

Recent trends to improve NRM include voluntary schemes such as Landcare, and economic incentives (e.g. Bush Tender in Victoria). More recently the notion of providing payments to landholders for ecosystem services has been raised as an alternative response to land degradation. This is a challenging objective and requires detailed information about land and the associated natural resources. Another trend in NRM has been the un-bundling of rights over land and natural resources to allow trading of individual resources such as water and timber as commodities. Young and McColl (2002, pp4-5) provided a detailed discussion on the separation of land and water rights and stated As a general rule separation enables resources to be used

in a more economically efficient manner. Water markets have been established in Australia to allow a landholder with bulk water entitlements to transfer the rights to water separately to the land. This has led to problems as farmers in financial difficulties sold their rights to other parties (Bennett et al, 2008), and there have been concerns that this could become a widespread practice as drought conditions continue. In various States and Territories there are statutory provisions that also allow for the un-bundling of carbon credits (Department of Education, Sciences and Training, 2006). This has resulted in a large increase in the number of restrictions and it is now apparent that there is a lack of coherent management of these restrictions and the information they generate (Williamson, 2008).

The term land administration was given official status for the first time in 1996 by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe who defined it as the process of effectively managing land and the information about land (Economic Commission for Europe, 1996). Land administration systems (LAS) aim for efficient land markets and the effective management of land use to support sustainable development. LAS involve systems that manage the administration of land tenure, the assessment of land value to support taxation, the control of land use and development through the land use planning system (Enemark, 2005). Land management is a term used to explain the process by which the resources on land are put into good effect (UN-ECE, 1996), and includes all actions relating to the management of land and natural resources. Land management differs to NRM in that it is undertaken by different agencies and in practice includes the development of land polices, the management of LAS, and the development of land information infrastructures. Improved environmental outcomes occur when land administration and land management involve the consideration of land and the associated natural resources together.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Several authors (e.g. Industry Commission, 1998; Mercer, 2000; Young and McColl, 2002) have commented on the need to reduce the incidence of conflict and litigation over land use by developing clear and enforceable property rights, restrictions and responsibilities (RRR). Ideally land administration information systems would be able to clearly define and describe property RRR. However, the LAS in each State and Territory in Australia contain a plethora of property RRR that are not effectively enforced. Much searching behind the title register is required to identify all the RRR for a title, which is contrary to the original objectives of the Torrens system. Lyons et al (2004) argued that the primary causes were the volume of legislation providing for the creation of RRR, and the number of different agencies involved leading to different approaches in the administration of those RRR. Bennett et al (2008, p127) listed three main problems – some interests are poorly designed, some are poorly administered, and some interests do not exist where they ought to. One of the benefits of improving the way RRR are recorded in LAS frameworks is improved control over land use and therefore the potential for reduced impact on natural resources. The trend towards un-bundling water rights from land has placed pressure on Australia’s LAS to adapt, and increased the significance of the core LAS functions of land registration, planning and valuation to NRM.

This paper comments on the findings of recent research into the manner in which Australian LAS are evolving and their relevance to current approaches to NRM. As land administration is a relatively recent area of research, and is multi-disciplinary in nature, the international literature on the development of LAS tends to be restricted to a small number of authors. The most relevant and widely accepted vision for an ideal LAS is provided in the concept of the land management paradigm (Enemark, 2004; Enemark et al, 2005), and the related concept of integrated land-use management (Enemark, 2005). The land

management paradigm emphasises the role of land policies, land information and LAS in responding to sustainable development goals. Integrated land-use management emphasises the need to treat land and resources as a coherent whole. This paper outlines the land management paradigm and then considers the degree to which Australia’s LAS conform, and the trends in land administration as a basis to establish the benefits for NRM.

THE GLOBAL LAND MANAGEMENT PARADIGM

Enemark (2004) out l i ned the land management paradigm vision for a more unified LAS through greater coordination of the administration of land tenure, land use, land development and land valuation. The aim is that land and its resources are managed in a coherent manner. The functions of land tenure, land use and development, and land valuation are supported by a comprehensive land policy framework and suitable land information infrastructures to create improved land use management and efficient land markets (Enemark, 2005). This involves an operational component that includes the functions of land tenure (managing rights in land); land value (valuation and taxation of land); land-use (planning); and land development to improve the management of property RRR. These functions are supported by appropriate land information infrastructures and allow for access to relevant and current information about land, natural resources and the built environment (Enemark, 2004). Enemark’s global approach to land management is illustrated in Figure 1.

The land management paradigm is logically sound and recognises the strong relationship between decisions on land use, the quality of information on land and resources, and land tenure arrangements. Enemark (2004, p11) stated Sound land management is the operational processes of implementing land policies in a comprehensive and sustainable way. He noted that there is a tendency in many countries to separate land tenure rights from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


land-use rights, and this certainly applies to Australia where there is an institutional separation of land tenure and land use rights in most of the States and Territories.

Therefore the land management paradigm provides guidance in the development of LAS in most developed countries, with the aim of improved economic, social and environmental outcomes.

This vision is presented to illustrate the role of the separate land administration functions of land tenure, land value, land use and land development, and the relationships between the LAS institutions and land policies. LAS designed along these lines deliver reliable administration of land and detailed information about individual land parcels and RRR, and the supporting national policies. Benefits to sustainable development and land use accrue through improved land use management, and improved land ownership arrangements. This is further developed by Enemark (2005) in the concept of integrated land-use management.

I ntegrated land-use management . Enemark (2008, p4) outlined the case for integrated land use management arguing that land-use planning and restrictions are an increasingly important means of ensuring effective management of land-use, provide infrastructure and services, protect and improve the urban and rural environment, prevent pollution, and pursue sustainable development. He presented a framework for the integration of land-use management (Figure 2) which is based on overall land policies and laws that identify the objectives and institutional arrangements, and sectoral programs that include the collection of relevant information for decision-making. These sectoral programs support land use planning that relies on comprehensive, appropriate and updated land information systems. In the land-use management system outlined, the various sectoral interests are balanced against the overall development objectives and inform the control of land use (Enemark 2008, p5).

The argument that integrated land use management may lead to sustainable development is supported, and is consistent with the findings of this research. The aim of

Figure 1. The Land Management Paradigm (Enemark, et al., 2005)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


a coordinated approach to land use control, supported by comprehensive information on land and natural resources is central to the discussion in this paper. This approach fits very well with the objectives of land and NRM agencies in Australia, discussed earlier, and the benefits to NRM are considered later in the discussion. To date the LAS in the various Australian States and Territories have come some way towards being able to implement integrated land use management. However, there is still significant scope for improvement. The following section reviews the major trends in land administration in Australia and considers the implications for NRM.

LAND ADMINISTRATION TRENDSLand admin is t rat ion has undergone considerable change in recent decades. The major global drivers are well understood and include globalisation, microeconomic reform, developments in information and communication technology (ITC), spatial data infrastructures, and sustainable development (for example, Economic

Commission for Europe 2005; Enemark, 2005; van der Molen and Lemmen, 2005; Williamson et al, 2006; Enemark, 2007). In this section the major drivers and catalysts for change are explored to provide an understanding of land administration trends and their relevance to natural resource management.

Globalisation The impact of globalization is evident in several aspects of land administration. In 1999, McLaughlin noted that market-driven development across countries and regions and advances in ICT were breaking down traditional ideological, economic and cultural boundaries (McLaughlin, 1999). Since then the widespread acceptance of market-based economic systems, the globalisation of land markets, rapid technology innovation and improvements in communications networks has resulted. In parallel there has been an incremental increase in greater demand for information about land and its resources. Responding to this pressure, improvements to information technology and spatial data infrastructures have allowed land

Figure 2. Integrated Land use Management for Sustainable Development (Enemark, 2004)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


administration systems to make more information about land publicly available.

McLaughlin also argued that globalization includes the emergence of a global culture in which individuals become aware of issues of importance to the planet (for example global warming) and may enter the debate over public policy. Globalisation has impacted on land administration in Australia through a better understanding of best practices in other countries – particularly in Europe – and allows for the implementation of globally developed technical solutions. For example, the standardisation of the Core Cadastral Domain Model (Lemmen et al, 2005) allows for cross border information exchanges and, in Australia, moves to standardise the legal framework and approaches to property rights are evidence of the effect of globalisation. It also allows closer scrutiny of land administration policy and practices by various stakeholders in any part of the world, and for comparisons across jurisdictions.

Global isation has also meant that pol icies on the content, qual ity and avai labi l i ty of pu bl ic data m u st be consistent with international requirements (Economic Commission for Europe, 2005). Land administration systems in different jurisdictions have been built upon different historical frameworks. In Australia the LAS has evolved from the Torrens system designed to manage the registration and transfer of individual land parcels. European LAS evolved from complete cadastral maps and registers developed to support property valuation and taxation. Williamson (2008) argued that while Europe has generally approached land management in a holistic manner, Austral ia has created layers of tradeable land commodities and then tried to adapt our LAS to accommodate this trading. The importance of tradeable resources to NRM and the support provided by LAS is discussed later. Globalisation provides an opportunity to compare approaches and to develop visions for standardised LAS. The land management paradigm (Enemark, 2004) is an example.

Microeconomic reformLike most developed countries Australia underwent extensive micro-economic reform over the last twenty years and this has had a considerable effect on land administration in Australia, resulting in the centralisation of services, downsizing, privatisation, cost recovery policies, and performance contracts (Ting and Williamson, 2001). Australia responded to global competitive pressure in the early 1990’s by reviewing its internal arrangements of government and a trend developed towards smaller government with a focus on direct service delivery public-private-partnerships (Newnham et al, 2001, p3).

However, i n st itut ional restructu re has been a resultant theme and this is at odds with the management of land and resources in a coherent manner envisaged in the land management paradigm . In Victoria, for example, the functions of land administration were historically undertaken by individual departments. In 2002, Land Victoria was formed in the Department of Sustainability of Environment to oversee title registration, cadastral surveying and valuation, and was in the same Ministry as p lan n ing. This is consistent with other jurisdictions (for example, New Zealand – Ting and Williamson (2001), and Queensland – Lyons et al (2002)). Recently this was reversed with the functions of land use planning in Victoria moved to a new Department of Planning and Community Development. Although there are benefits to integrating all land administration functions within the one department or Ministry, land use planning decision-makers do not always agree. These changes provide additional challenges for the Australian land administration system in providing integrated land management and information for decision-makers on land tenure, land use and land valuation.

Co o k (20 01 , p5) a r t ic u l ate d t h e significance of Australia’s inclusion in the World Trade Organisation involving a commitment to enact legislation that reduces trade barriers and price distortions. The result was the introduction of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


National Competition Policy in 1993, which has been a significant catalyst for change and led to the adoption of the principle of competitive neutrality (Newnham et al, 2001). One of the implications of this policy is on the pricing of publicly-held spatial information and the provision of this information to stakeholders.

Overall, micro-economic reform has changed the way land administration institutions undertake their business and has further fragmented the management of land and natural resources.

Advances in information technology and communicationMany countr ies ( including Austral ia) implemented computerised systems in their land registry institutions during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and many are now outdated and maintenance is complex and expensive (van der Molen, 2003). In the last few years these systems in many countries have undergone dramatic changes as they respond to rapid developments in ICT. Advances in database capacity, Internet development, improved data communication capacity, increasingly sophisticated software, modelling standards, open systems, and GIS have provided the opportunity for improvements in the function of land administration (van der Molen, 2003). These advances have helped to accommodate the growing need for publicly available information and new services such as e-Governance. These computer-based systems are part of Australia’s Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). The development of web enablement, along with the SDI concept, has led to increased integration of distinct datasets held by different agencies. These integrated datasets are considered to be a critical part of our public infrastructure (Williamson, 2008). Australia has been among the leaders in the development of e-land administration tools to support land markets such as e-Conveyancing, and the provision of information about land on the Internet. These developments benefit the management of land and resources through the provision of information to support decision-making

on land use and land development control. The quality of land and natural resources information available to decision-makers has improved dramatically. When applied to NRM this means better integration of land and cadastral data with natural resource data, and an improved recognition by NRM decision makers of the benefits of using the resultant information. This is important as tighter control of land use and land management practices is central to improved NRM.

Sustainable DevelopmentThe Bathurst Declaration (UN-FIG, 1999) established and elaborated the connection between land administration and sustainable development. It has been recognised that sustainable development principles require decisions to be made based on the most relevant information about land and natural resources. In addition, the achievement of sustainable development policy objectives will require an effective LAS infrastructure supported by high-quality ICT networks that allow effective access to the information by all citizens (Economic Commission for Europe). All those concerned with the management of land and natural resources in Australia have developed a heightened awareness of the impacts of environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. The common issue is land use, as NRM aims to improve land use, and LAS have a central role in administering land use control. In response, land administration information systems have been through a process of re-engineering to integrate the wider range of data and information required by decision-makers. There is evidence that land administration systems in Australia are starting to develop some of the information required and an improved capacity to assist NRM decision making – particularly with respect to land use planning.

A s i n many cou ntr ies, Au st ral ian land tenure rights and land use rights are separated. Institutions for natural resource management, land registration and land use planning are often separate in Australian States and Territories. Water conservation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


and management has become a significant issue in Austral ia and the impact of sustainable development initiatives is evident in the separation of land and water rights and the establishment of water trading. Moves to un-bundle property RRR have had a significant impact on LAS and a rationalisation of the manner in which property RRR are administered is under way.

DISCUSSIONThe commentary above is provided to allow consideration of the manner in which these major trends may impact on natural resource management, especially with regard to the objective of improving land use and reducing natural resource degradation and loss of biodiversity. The negative impact of these trends involves the separation of institutional arrangements for land and natural resources making integrated approaches more difficult. A flow on effect of globalisation and sustainable development relevant to this discussion has been the dramatic increase in demand for information about changes to the natural environment, and the impact of human activities.

However, there are many positive impacts resulting from these trends in land administration. These may be summarised as the development of web enablement an d Spat ial Data I nfrast ru ctu res, a dramatic increase in the information on land and natural resources publicly available, increased integration of datasets, a rationalisation of the administration of property RRR, and the use of the Internet for the provision of information and e-business. There are also moves towards greater uniformity of land administration systems in each Australian State and Territory, and for a greater consideration of environmental issues in land use control through the town planning system. The development of a vision for a standardised LAS, such as the land management paradigm, is also important for NRM as it enhances our ability to monitor progress in re-engineering Australia’s LAS to include better integration of the management of land and natural resources.

In the discussion that follows the manner in which these trends intersect with existing NRM issues is considered. It is argued that the trends identified can be of assistance to NRM in three particular areas – improved administration of property RRR, to provide greater control over land use, and improved integration of information on land and natural resources. Each of these will reduce the separation between the management of land and natural resources, and therefore improve NRM. Improvements in these areas will move the various Australian LAS towards the global land management

paradigm vision.

Improved administration of property rights, restrictions and responsibilities.There has been much discussion in Australian on the need to identify and simplify property rights, restrictions and responsibilities. The NRM literature includes calls for the separation of property rights to foster more effective and efficient use of natural resources such as water, soil and vegetation. The NRM literature also calls for more education on the property responsibilities and restrictions and improved enforcement where the landholder is in breach of these. Both are considered important possible means of controlling land use and land management practices, although the unbundling of water rights has received the most coverage. The discussion in NRM circles has to a large degree preceded the discussion in Australian land administration literature, and the changes that have been implemented (such as the un-bundling and sale of water rights) have challenged land administration agencies to respond. However, the concept of integrated land-use management (Enemark, 2004) is wel l understood internationally as a means to ensure that laws and policies on land tenure and land use, and the resultant planning control, are based on

relevant land information.

Lyons et al (2002) presented the results of a review in Queensland and found that the number of restrictions over land and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


resources are on the increase and the current land administration systems in Australia do not identify all these rights. They found that this was impacting on the property market with a net economic loss to the Queensland economy. Following a 2004 ANZLIC national summit on land administration and property rights Lyons et al (2004) produced a report summary that acknowledged many of these issues and recommended that methods be developed to make information on all property RRR available from a single source, the development of a best practice for the creation of all RRR that is binding on all creators, and suggested action to address the erosion of Torrens’ system principles. These are al l important objectives . However, they present a sign if icant challenge to implement. Some property restrictions and responsibilities are relatively dynamic and it will be difficult to maintain current and accurate information. In addition it is difficult to determine the exact spatial extent of some RRR. The discussion has moved to consider those RRR that should be above or below the land register (Williamson, 2008). Lyons et al (2004) also recommended that ANZLIC develop guidelines for best practice and seek to improve the land policy and legislative framework. These are important first steps in the process.

Bennett et al (2008) considered the issues further and developed the concept of a property object as a tool to allow policy makers to compare and classify all property RRR. This concept may allow property RRR to be categorised and decisions to be made on which categories of RRR require information to be made centrally available. Bennett et al (2008) argued that the property object concept will allow an assessment of which particular RRR should be managed within the land registry.

Williamson et al (2006, p8) stated that Australia is creating layers of separate commodities out of land and adapting LAS as much as possible to accommodate this trading without a national approach. The author believes that the discussion on

RRR needs to be broadened to consider how RRR can be altered to provide natural resource managers with better tools to facilitate improved land use. There are three issues here – improving the structure and administration of RRR, informing land holders and other stakeholders of RRR, and enforcement.

The work of the above authors and ANZLIC is in response to the need for easier access to information on existing property RRR. However, land administration can also assist with the enforcement of property restrictions and responsibilities, and this warrants further discussion. In Australia the separation of land registries and land use control agencies is common and they have largely operated independently. However, the global land management perspective of E n e m ar k (20 04) a r t icu l ate s t h e interrelationship between land registration and land use control and the importance of the relevant agencies working together. The current discussion provides a good example of where better cooperation between land administration agencies can lead to improved environmental outcomes. Improved recording of property restrictions and responsibilities, along with greater enforcement of relevant land use controls, will make the landholder more informed and accountable. A good example can be found in Victoria where, until recent decades, a requirement of land owners in certain areas was the clearance of native vegetation. This was addressed through a tightening up of the provisions in planning schemes to restrict vegetation clearance in certain zones and in particular, in areas covered by Significant Vegetation Overlays . This change has reduced vegetation clearance with resultant benefits to landscapes and biodiversity.

Providing greater control over land useThere is a strong tradition in Australia of private property interests overlaid by control over land use through the planning system. Australian town planning systems have historically operated independently of land

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


registries and many of the natural resource management agencies. Town planning courses, in the main, traditionally paid little attention to environmental management and degradation, and have had little or no material on land administration. Australian land-use planning has not traditionally controlled the management of land, and changes in land use are harder to achieve than changes to land management practices. Small concessions may need to be made in approaches to statutory planning to increase its impact in natural resource management. Nonetheless, changes to the control of land use can have flow-on impacts to land management practices.

Ideally land use planning would begin with a detailed understanding of the condition of the natural resources and biodiversity, the extent of land cover, and of where inappropriate land use is happening. This would provide a solid base upon which to develop local government and regional strategies and to establish zones and other mechanisms of land use control. However, land-use planners are not ecologists or agricultural scientists, and are encumbered by workloads that make this level of analysis difficult. Land-use planning institutions need assistance to make appropriate strategic and statutory decisions that lead to a net improvement in the condition of the landscape. This is where LAS can help, with reliable integrated information on land and natural resources. The planning system is a tool that is used for spatially implementing policy driven change, it is also the means by which this change is communicated and its impacts mediated to local communities. When su pported by information on land, and appropriate decisions about land ownership, it provides significant opportunities for producing improved land use. An existing Commonwealth Environmental Research Fund (CERF) project, Landscape Logic, recognises the importance and is currently examining ways to improve access to spatial information for catchment and property level planning. In the project, spatial data sets will be used to build predictive models of how landscapes and

natural resources respond to management interventions.

Improved coordination between the management of land use, land ownership and natural resources is needed. With the advent of regional NRM, Australian States and Territories have had two institutions concerned with controlling land use – local government authorities and regional catchment management authorities. Only in recent times have there been efforts to coordinate the strategic planning of these institutions with respect to land use control, and the protection of natural resources and biodiversity. Mitchell et al (2004) argued that changes to land use planning are needed for it to be effective in ensuring inappropriate land use practices are prevented. These changes included improvements to the institutional, statutory and policy frameworks to make natural resource management decision-making a priority. Since then the planning industry in Australia has made some of these changes, with an improved focus on environmental issues in planning decisions. In Australia, NRM can benefit from coordinating the strategic planning by local governments and catchment authorities.

Changes to planning schemes can have an impact on inappropriate land use. Amending zones in risk and priority areas to include permit conditions requiring Whole Farm Plans or Environment Management Plans to be prepared would raise awareness of appropriate land management practices. Making the boundaries of zones and overlays consistent with the parcel-based boundaries in the cadastral mapbase would also allow better management of the landscape.

Further integration of information on land and natural resources The advancement in the SDI concept and web enablement have placed greater value on land information and provided tremendous opportunities for its use in improving decisions about land use. Integrated Land-Use Management provides the vehicle by which improved information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


can translate into improved land use. Mitchell et al (2004) argued that land use control could benefit from improving the information available to local government on existing land use, the condition of natural resources, areas subject to natural resource degradation and loss of biodiversity, risk and priority areas, and the effect of changes to land use. Site-specific information on the condition of the landscape, biota numbers and existing land use is limited, and in this area opportunities exist to dramatically improve the information available for decision-making. At present the institutional framework, data custodianship and information is fragmented and of varying quality.

Better understanding of the condition of the landscape and biodiversity will lead to improved zoning, overlays and other land use controls, resulting in more appropriate land use. We are already seeing the signs of this in the re-design of some of the rural and environmental zones and overlays in Victoria. This is encouraging and further integration of the understanding of the environmental effects of existing land use with the social, economic and aesthetic considerations of the town planner will improve the control of land use.

Similarly, there are opportunities for improved information on land and natural resources to enhance land valuation . Property valuers need to fully understand th e co n dit io n of th e lan dscape to adequately assess the potential of a landholding. Property valuation that fully considers the condition of the landscape will more accurately determine the current market value and also the sustainability of land use on a landholding, and therefore the future market value. Evidence of degradation, such as dryland salinity, will indicate a likely downward trend in productivity and act as an incentive to landholders to correct the decline. If the information was available to potential purchasers of the property the purchase price may be affected. There are strong arguments for improving information on land degradation on landholdings to support land valuation.

CONCLUSIONSAustralian LAS have some way to go to achieve the vision outlined in the land management paradigm. Land and resources are not yet treated as a coherent whole, and this paper has identified three areas in which improvement can be made. These are improved administration of property RRR, to provide greater control over land use, and improved integration of information on land and natural resources. The central theme is the need for improved land information to be incorporated with improved natural resource information to inform land administration and NRM decision-making. Each wil l require greater cooperation between agencies at different levels of government and even within different government departments.

Land administration systems provide tools and mechanisms that can assist the goals of NRM. Benefits will be achieved if the existing LAS can be re-engineered to include better administration of RRR, allow for improved information on the condition of the environment to be used in land use control and property valuation, and develop improved land tenure and use data so that it may be readily used in integrated land-use management . At present the institutional and policy frameworks for land management are fractured and this presents significant challenges in managing land and its resources as a coherent whole. To overcome these challenges political support at a high level will be needed to develop a national vision and a whole-of-government approach. Multi-disciplinary responses are needed to enhance NRM.

REFERENCESBennett, R., Wallace, J. and Williamson, I.

(2008) Organising land information for sustainable land administration, Land Use Policy, Vol. 25, pp. 126-138.

Cocklin, C., Mautner, M. and Dibden, J. (2006) Public Policy, private landholders: Perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management, Journal of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Environment Management, Vol. 85, pp. 986-998.

Cook, J. S. (2001) The Influence of Human Rights on Land Rights and Spatial Information, 42nd Australian Surveyors C o n g r e s s , B r i s b a n e , Ac c e s s e d 01/02/08, http://www.isaust.org.au/innovation/2001-Spatial_Odyssey/pdf/cook.pdf.

Department of Education, Sciences and Training (2006) Sustainability And Land Administration Systems: Proceedings of the Expert Group Meeting on Incorporating Sustainable Development Objectives into ICT Enabled Land Administration Systems, (Ed) Williamson, I . , Enemark, S. and Wallace, J . , 9-11 November 2005, Melbourne, Australia, Department of Geomatics, University of Melbourne. Accessed 09/10/08, http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/research/SDI_research/EGM%20BOOK.pdf.

Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) (1996) Land Administration Guidelines: With Special Reference to Countries in Transition, United Nations Publications, Geneva.

Economic Commission for Europe (2005) Land Administration in the UNECE Region: Development Trends and Main Principles, United Nations Publications, New York and Geneva, Accessed 21/03/08, http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/wpla/ECE-HBP-140-e.pdf.

Enemark, S. (2004) Building Land Information Policies, UN, FIG, PC IDEA Inter-Regional Special Forum on the Building of Land Information Policies in The Americas, Aguscalientes, Mexico, 26-27 October. Accessed 11/03/08, http://www.plan.aau .dk/~enemark/Kursusmater ia le/M e x i c o % 2 0 K e y n o t e P a p e r % 2 0SEFinalVersion.pdf.

Enemark, S. (2005) Understanding the Land Management Paradigm, FIG Commission 7 Symposium on Innovative Technologies for Land Administration , Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 19-25 June.

Enemark, S., Williamson, I. and Wallace, J . ( 2 0 0 5 ) B u i l d i n g M o d e r n L a n d

Administration Systems in Modern Countries, Journal of Spatial Science, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 51-68.

Enemark, S. (2007) Land Management in support of the g lobal agenda, International Congress GEOMATICA 2007, Havana, Cuba, 12-17 February.

Enemark, S. (2008) Underpinning Land Management – A major chal lenge for the global surveying profession, International Congress on Geomatics and Surveying Engineering and TOP-CART 2008, Valencia, Spain, 18-21 February, Accessed 15/04/08, http://www.fig.net/council/enemark_papers/2008/valencia_02_2008_paper.pdf.Industry Commission (1998) A Full Repairing Lease: Inquiry into ecologically sustainable land management . Belconnen ACT, Commonwealth of Australia.

Lemmen, C., van Oosterom, P., Zevenbergen, J., Quak, W., and van der Molen, P. (2005) Further Progress in the Development of the Core Cadastral Domain Model, in Innovative Technologies for Land Administration, Ed (van der Molen, P., and Lemmen, C.), FIG Commission 7 Symposium, June 24-25, University of Wisconsin, Maddison, USA.

Lyons, K., Davies, K. and Cottrell, E. (2002) On the Efficiency of Property Rights Administration in Queensland, Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland Government, Accessed 15/02/08, http://www.anzlic.org.au/publications.html.

Lyons, K., Davies, K. and Cottrell, E. (2004) A Summary of the paper “On the Efficiency of Property Rights Administration”, Brisbane, Australia, Accessed, 15/02/08, http://www.anzlic.org.au/publications.html.

Mercer, D. (2000) A Question of Balance: Natural Resources Conflict in Australia, The Federation Press, Sydney.

McLaughlin, J. D. (1999) Land Administration and Globalisation. Proceedings of UN-FIG Conference on Land Tenure and Cadastral Infrastructures for Sustainable Development, Melbourne, Australia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Mitchell, D., Buxton, M. and Budge, T. (2004) Assessing the Role of Land Use Planning in Natural Resource Management, Proceedings of International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) Working Week, Athens, Greece, May 22-27.

Mitchell, D. (2005) A Conceptual Model For The Integration Of Land Administration And Natural Resources Information In Australia, Doctoral thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

Mitchel l , D. , Norton, T. , Grenfel l , R. and Woodgate, P. (2007) Barriers to Implementation of Natural Resource Management at the Landholding Level in the Intensive Agricultural Zones of Southern Australia, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 103-110.

Newnham, L., Spall, A. and O’Keefe, E. (2001) New forms for government land administration - Land Victoria, A case study of the trend towards combining land administration functions and the resulting benefits to the community. FIG Working Week, Seoul, Korea.

Rammell, C., Stagl, S. and Wilfing, H. (2007) Managing complex adaptive systems – A co-evolutionary perspective on natural resource management, Ecolog ica l Economics, Vol. 63, pp. 9-21.

Ting, L. and Williamson, I. P. (2001) Land Administration and Cadastral Trends: The Impact of the Changing Humankind-Land Relationship and Major Global Drivers: The NZ experience, Survey Review, Vol. 36, No. 281, pp. 154-174.

United Nations / International Federation of Surveyors (UN-FIG) (1999) Declaration on Land Administration for Sustainable Development. Bathurst, Australia.

Van der Molen, P. (2003) Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, in Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Ed (van der Molen, P., and Lemmen, C.), FIG Commission 7, 8 and 9

Symposium, May 7-9, ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Van der Molen, P., and Lemmen, C. (2005) Symposium on ‘Innovative Technologies for Land Administration’, in Innovative Technologies for Land Administration, Ed (van der Molen, P., and Lemmen, C.), FIG Commission 7 Symposium, June 24-25, University of Wisconsin, Maddison, USA.

Williamson, I.P., Enemark, S. and Wallace, J . (2006) Incorporating sustainable development object ives into land administration, XXII F IG Congress , Mun ich , Germany, October 8- 13 , Accessed 01/02/08, http://www.fig.net/pub/fig2006/papers/ts22/ts22_01_williamson_etal_0260.pdf.

Williamson, I. (2008) Using Cadastres to Support Sustainable Development, International Congress on Geomatics and Surveying Engineering and TOP-CART 2008, Valencia, Spain, 18-21 February, Accessed 15/04/08, www.fig.net/pub/monthly_articles/april_2008/april_2008_williamson.html.

Young, M. and McColl, J. (2002) Robust Separation: A search for a generic framework to simplify registration and trading interests in natural resources, CSIRO Land and Water, Policy and Economic Research Unit, http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/consultancy/2002/Robust_Separat ion .pdf , Accessed 30/01/08.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:44

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

land administration trends and their implications for australian natural resource management

Documents