The Thailand land titling project—thirteen years of experience

Pergamon P ! !: S 0 2 6 4 - 8 3 7 7 1 9 7 1 0 0 0 2 9 - X

~.aml U.w I',lielv. VM. 15. Nt~. I. pp. 3-23. 199~ :i; ll~lS Elsc~ icr Scicnct I.ld. All rights reserved Printed in ( ircifl Brilain (l/(~4-S t77t1:"; i It~.iN)+ ().lNI

The Thailand land titling project thirteen years of experience

V. Rattanabirabongse, R. A. Eddington, A. E Burns and K. G. Nettle At a time when interest in the establishment of effective land administration systems in developing countries is running high, one of the best case studies is the Thailand Land Titling Project. This major project commenced in 1984 and has achieved substantial success. This paper describes the situation in Thailand at the time that the project had its genesis and traces the history from that point. The objectives of the project are outlined and the results of the project to date in meeting those objectives are described. In keeping with its purpose as a case study, the paper discusses the factors which have contributed to the success of the project and also the issues which have emerged and the lessons which have been learnt during the course of the project. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords: land administration, land titling, land valuation, land markets, agricultural tenure and productivity, government revenue from land. Vichien Rattanabirabongse, Director General, Department of Lands, Phra Phiphit Road, Bangkok, Thailand 10200; Robert Eddington, Director Technical Assistance, Thailand Land Titling Project; Kevin Nettle, Manager Technical Assistance, Thailand Land Titling Project; Tony Burns, International Projects Manager, Land Technologies Division, BHP Engineering Pry Ltd, 26 Atchison Street, Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2500.

The Thailand Land Titling Project (TLTP), which began in 1984, is the largest land titling project currently being implemented in the World and the most successful. To date project expenditure has totalled in excess of US$247 million and over 5.5 million hind titles have been distributed to hind owners, with over 10 million people being direct beneficiaries. The project was recently presented with one of the two 1997 World Bank Awards for Excellence, making it one of only four World Bank projects to receive this recognition. Although the project has faced and still faces many challenges, over the 13years of project implementation project targets have been lar,,,cly met or exceeded and the project has been used as a model for other projects in Asia and throughout the World. In this paper, the authors seek to document project experience and to explore the major lessons and issues that can bc drawn from this experience. The partners in the project have been the Royal Thai Government (RTG), the World Bank, and the Government of Australia. The I)cpartmerit of l,ands in Thaihmd (D()L) is responsible for implementing the project. The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Develi)pmcnt, IBRD) has provided loan funds and the RTG has supplied counterpart budget allocations and personnel. The Australian Agency for lntcrnatiomd Development (AusAID) has supplied grant funding tk)r technical assistance and an intcrnational education and training program. The AusAID funds have been managed by BHP Engineering. The TLTP is nearing the end of its 13th year of operation. Two distinct phases have been succcssfully completed and the 13th year is the third year of Phase Ill. TLTP was designed as a four-phase project over 20 years, and is due to bc completed in 2004.

The starting point 7he scene in 1982

In 1982 the population of Thailand was estimated at 48 million. The area of Thailand is 320.7 million rat (513 120 km 2) with private land as distinct from State land then amounting to 118.2 million rat (189 120 km2). Various forms of documents certified land tenure with a significant amount of private land being undocumented.

The Thuihmd htnd litlin,tt imJiect: I," Ratlanuhirah~m~w el al.

Thailand was divided into 73 provinces with approximately 10% of the total population living in Bangkok. As the agency with the major responsibility fl~r the administration of land in Thailand, l)Ol, operated with a head office in Bangkok supported by offices spread throughout the provinces, i lowever, other RTG agencies were also issuing various forms of land use licenccs. Appendix A, compiled for the Project Identification Report, details the breakdown of State and private land, and the RTG agencies responsible for their administration. Thailand at the time saw the majority of the labour force employed in agriculture. In spite of growth in this area, real incomes in rural areas remained low and poverty was widespread, particularly in the provinces of the north-cast. Meanwhile the pressure for further land settlement continued. In this social, economic and physical environment. DOL was hardpressed to meet the demand for land records in the fi~rm of land use certificates, title deeds, and property maps. The concern was such that at the rate in which title deeds had been produced since I)O1. wits cstablished in 1901, and with current resources, the Department wot, ld take 20()vears to complete the registration of rights in land throughout Thailand. Even with a proposal to expedite the surveying and mapping in support of land registration, the time estimate was still 85 years.

Rationale fin" the pl'Oj~'¢t The project originated from a number of studies carried out in Thailand prior to the 1982 Identification Report, including the 1978 Basic Economic Report bv the World Bank and the Land Policy and Development Study undertaken by local consultants in support of the preparation of the fifth Five-Year National Social and Economic Development Plan (NESDP. 1981-85). These highlighted the fact that only about 12~4 of the 14g million rai (23.7 million ha) of occupied agricultural land was covered bv title deeds, while a further 49q~ was held under less secure forms of officially recognized land use right document. In addition. 18c~ was occupied by persons who, although they may have had a justifiable claim to ov,,nership, lacked any officially recognized documentation, and a t'urthcr 21G was illegally occupied forest rese~'e. "l'hc RTG saw this situalion as unsatisfactory anti rcsolvcd to strengthen the ownership rights of all legitimate occupiers of land to the full title condition in the shortest possiblc time. The following is extracted from a spccch by Mr ('hanasak Yuvapurnc. a former l)irector (ieneral of the DOI.: During 196(}-1975 the agriculture sector had a growth rate of 5G per annt, m. However this was achieved mainly by the continucd expansion of cultivatcd areas often at the expense of forest resources.

Realizing that land rcsourccs wcrc linite the Govcrmncnt set a target, in the 5th national plan, of 3.5c; growth in agricultural production per year. If natural resources were to be prescrvcd and further dcforcstation contained, this growth ratc could not come from cxpansion but would havc to result from productivity improvcmcnt. This would mean more intense farming and incrcascd capital investment in improving the land. Fly granting securc land tenure through a rccognizcd legal title, land holders could get better access to formal credit by using their hind as collateral. This would

lhe lhuiland hind titling proie~ t: I'" Ruttanahiruhon~.w et al.

encourage the investment needed and result in increased productivity and higher family incomes. The TLTP resulted from discussions between the RTG and the World Bank in the early 1980s concerning a Structural Adjustment Loan for Thailand and the review of the fifth NESDP. The project had its genesis in the agricultural sector of the Bank, and the pcrceived need was to provide secure land tenure as a means of alleviating rural poverty. The history of the projec! shows that it was created by a formal project identitication in 1981, designed and prepared during 1982 and 1983, appraised and approved in 1984 (World Bank, 1~,~84), and commenced implementation on 1 ()ctober 1984. l)t:ficiencies in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ~ / l a n d s ill 1984

At project start-up, other RTG agencies involved in aspects of land administration included the Royal Forest Department (RFD) and the Agriculture Land Reform Office (ALRO), both of which could issue land use rights certificates. D()L had no authority over the issue of these land documents. Consequently land tenure records in one administrative system could be diffcult to relate to another system. Lawrance (1982) in his commentary on Land Tenure and Administralion observed that: Thailand is fortunate in having a legal framework consisting of two modern and comprehensive codes covering land administration and the law of property. It has been suggested that the existence of a number of other enactments involving aspects of land administration (e.g. Government Property Act: Land for Livelihood Act) unduly complicates this legal framework, but such separate legislation is often necessary and is usual in most countries. It appears, however, that when the l,and Code was enactcd in 1954 the intention was that the Land Department would bc responsible on instructions from the government for survey and allocation by formal document of all State lands, both for use by government and local administrations or State enterprises and for private individuals, and that it would maintain control of records of such original allocations. The Code always envisaged (s:80) that responsibility for administration of certain State lands could be delegated by the Minister to public bodies other than the l,and Department, and such delegations have taken place. The lands so delegated, however, have not always been surveyed by the Land Department and [i~rmally allocated, and central statistics are often lacking. In particular, a large number of separate agencies are operating settlement (allotment) schemes. They include lk~r example the Departments of I,and, Public Welfare, Cooperative Promotion, [~and Development, Corrections, and the War Veterans Organization. These agencies issue their own occupational licenses to settlers, it would be advantageous if the areas allocated to settlement and. when the Departments' cadastral mapping program covers these areas, the individual parcels (blocks) allotted to settlers were automatically documented at the earliest opportunity. The Land Code of 1954 provided a strong legal framework for the land administration procedures implemented by D()L, and DOI, had well established procedures, supported by a raft of regulations. There was a

Ihe lhailand hind titling pn~ie¢ t: V Rattanahirahong~e ctal.

well established network of Provincial and District Land Ofticcs. However, there wcrc a number of diftieultics. • The cadastral mapping system had evolved over time to cover the major settled areas using a series of 29 local origins. Major inconsistencies in geodetic control and mapping within these origins wcrc prevalent. • There was insufficient survey and map information to support the issuance of titles in much of the country--particularly in rural areas. • In Bangkok D()L had bccn unable to supply large scale cadastral maps to support the parccllation resulting from the rapid economic development of the capital. Urban maps in Bangkok wcrc very much out of date (the I)OL Director General had issued an instruction in 1971, waiving the requirement to update the cadastral map prior to issuing new titles). • There were inconsistencies in land administration, with one level of records (pre-emptive rights and certificates of utilization) maintained at the District Office level arm the title records maintained at the Provincial level. Within Thailand there was no private sector involvement with the land administration process. This meant that private sector lawyers were not used to assist in eonveyancing, surveyors were not used for land b o u n d a ~ dclinition, mapping sciences did not exist outside the public sector, and land valuation (appraisal) was not supported by a profession with qualifications and standards. While the process of land registration was well established, information about land from the registration system was not a matter of public record. The statistical base to underpin the project was thercfl)re difficult to establish.

Capahililies ~/'lhe Detmrlment ~)I"Lands in 1984 At project commencement in 1984, the Department provided a very strong foundation fl~r the project. For more than 80years, DOL had been assisting the RTG in progressively providing land ownership rights to an increasing proportion of the population. With over 700 land offices across Thailand, I)()L was then already providing a superior level of land administration service to the community. 1)()1, officials were part of a civil administration system which saw the individuals employed and promoted in a structured service ovcrsightcd by Ilis Majesty the King of Thailand. This created a traditionally strong work ethic. There wcrc sufficient numbers of staff in DOL either already trained in land technologies or capable of participating in training for an intensive programme of technology transfer to bc launched. According to the 1981 Annual Report, the professional staff in the Department numbered 9823. By 1983 this had grown to 990(I, being made up of 4~72 land administration officers (including land officers and legal officers), 2645 surveyors (including draftsmen, map production and computing staff) and 25116 general staff (including personnel, finance and accounting, clerical, typing and other staff). Within DOL there was in 1984 a limited capability to support survey. mapping and title issue programmcs. This was described (Lloyd and Burns, 1991) as: • No urban improvement programs. • Small survey control capability with a few EDM instruments.

7h<' 7haihmd hind titling im+[e¢'t: 1"l?attanat,iral~on++c el al. • Low photo mapping capability of less than 5{1<)maps per annum. • No map rejuvenation program. • Small systematic adjudication capability of about 48001) parcels per annum from 40 adjudication teams. • No in-house computers.

The project fundamentals Polio' f r a m e w o r k

l tistorieally Thailand has had plentiful land resources. At the turn of the century the population was about 7 million and much of the remote areas, particularly the north and the north-cast, were virgin forests, with settlement largely confined to the fertile central plains. Ahhough all land belonged to the Crown, ownership was acquired by individuals who were prepared to develop the land. These processes were formalized with the formation of the D O L in 19{11. In the early part of the century various policies and laws were established to recognize private rights in land and to regulate the trade in these rights. These laws were consolidated into the I.and ('ode in 1954. which is administered by the D O L in the Ministry of Interior. In 1061 the Thai Cabinet set a policy that 50r),: of the land in Thailand would be reserved fl~r forestry to be administered by the RFD in the Minist D, of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Administrative procedures were established to reserve land as forest and the RFD was charged with the responsibility of marking and surveying individual fl~rest reserves for declaration as national forests, ttowever the RFD has had considerable diflieulty in delineating forest boundaries. Recent surveys using satellite imagery indicate that significant forest land has been denuded (7g.I million square rai or 12.5 million ha, between 1961 and 10,~5; ('hirapanda. 1986). The RTG has also implemented a number of other land allocation policies and laws in recent decades, notably the l+and Reform Act of 1975. This legislation, administered by the ALRO in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. has been increasingly active in the re-allocation of private and public land to disadwmtaged people. In recent years RTG has implemented a program of land relk~rm to give degraded forest land to disadvantaged individuals, but irregularities with this program led to the fall of the Chuan Leekpai Government in 1995. The Land Code and well established DOI+ procedures have provided a very strong policy and legal framework for the TLTP. For this reason, land policy and legislation has never been a major element in the design and implementation of the TI,TP. l+egal l h m w w o r k

The Civil and ('ommercial Code, enacted in 6 books from 1923, provides a strong legal basis for property rights, in 1954 all existing land law was consolidated in the Land ('ode. By project start-up DOL had 30years experience in registration of rights in land under the l,and ('ode, and a history in excess of g0 years of practice in land administration including the well established practice of land adjudication to ascertain the ownership of a parcel of land and its extent. As l.awrancc (It;82) noted: Proccdurcs for adjudication i.e. the process of lirst documentation of privalc hinds, and the subsequent rcgistration of dealings in such

lhe lhaihmd huul tttling proic¢t: I "Rattanahirahongw et al.

lands are well testcd and operate satisfactorily. The registration system is of considerable value to the government, particularly in terms of revenue, and to private owners, particularly in terms of access to formal credit where available. The ('ivil and Commercial Code and the Land ('ode wcrc well established bcfl~rc project identification. At project start there were an estimated 11.6 million parcels on the title deeds (NS4) and certificate of utilization (NS3 and NS3K) land registers, and land transfers were routinely completed within I - 2 days. Two vital changes to the Land ('ode were proposed at the project planning stage and the project was designed with the assumption that the law would be passed in the first year. A bold step perhaps, but necessary to complete the project in 20 years, the first change was to allow the NS3K utilization certificates to be upgraded to full title deed without a ticld survey. The second change, to facilitate decentralization of title deeds, was to replace the Provincial Governor as the authorizing officer on title deeds by the Provincial land officer or his branch office head.

Institutional re,v)onsihilities The DOL is responsible for the administration of the Land ('ode and is thc implcmcnting agcncy for thc TLTP. This clear dcfinition of institutional responsibility has bccn a strength of the TLTP. Howcvcr thc Land ('ode only applies to non-forest areas and it has ncvcr bccn easy to dcfinc forest boundaries on thc ground. This difficulty and thc land rcform program, which has bccn more active in the past dccadc, have incrcasingly impacted on the TLTP. In thc design of T L T P I!I funding has bccn provided fi~r thc RFD and thc Land Development Dcpartmcnt to accelerate forest boundary definition to support the TLTP. ( "ommilDlcqll

The senior staff in I)()L during the initial design of the T L T P were strongly committed to the project. This support by senior officers in I)()L was essential as the resources required to commence the project were substantial. At the start of the project many key officers in D()L viewed the "FI,TP as just another project. This attitude has changed as the project has evolved to the stage where the T L T P is recognized as the central program for the development of DOL. The TI,'['P has also had strong commitment with the Ministry and RTG, as described by Lloyd and Burns (1991). and this continues to be so. TI,TP has now endured five administrations and two coup d'etat. Land related issues are prominent and continually topical in Thailand, and the Chuan Leckpai Government was brought down in 1995 on a censure motion concerning abuses in the land reform program (a program, as noted above, that is unrelated to DOI, and the TLTP).

Project evolution Each phase of the project has taken a different focus. In Phase I there was a significant emphasis on the technical areas in an effort to address identified weaknesses. Over the 13 years that the project has been implemented the focus of the project itself and the technical assistance program has moved from the support of key technical areas through improved technology into more fundamental areas, such as the preparation and implenlentation of strategic planning, IT planning, human resources

Flu" l'haihmd land tilling project: |' Rattanal,indJong,~e <'t ul.

development and planning and service delivery, in order to ensure sustainability. Appendix C summarizes the change in focus in response to the changing project environment, emerging issues and new directions for continuing development.

Project ohjectives The project had the fi)llowing objectives in Phase l (World Bank, 1984): • To accelerate the issuance of title deeds to eligible land holders. • To improve the effectiveness of land administration, both in Bangkok and in thc provinces. • To produce base maps and cadastral maps in both urban and rural areas on one homogeneous mapping system and showing all land parcels, • To improve the efficiency of the Central Valuation Authority in conducting valuations of land and buildings as a base for more equitable property taxation and expropriation. The objectives for T L T P II were very similar to the above, however, the objectives for TI.TP Ill are (World Bank, 1994): • • • •

To To To To

provide secure land tenure to eligible land owners. develop the long term sustainability of DOL's institutional capacity. improve land administration service delivery. develop an effective national property valuation function.

The evolution in the project objectives reflects the maturity of the project and the shift from a focus on technical outcomes to the more broad-based issues of institutional capacity and enhanced service delivery.

15"oject components The components in each of the first three phases of trated in Appendix D. Broad budget figures fl)r each in Appendix B. Although T L T P activities have not consistent components in the three phases, a number bc drawn:

the TI,TP are illusphase are drawn up been structured in of observations can

• Surveying, mapping and land titling have bccn major cost elements in the T L T P and constitute over two-thirds of the budgeted expenditure in T L T P !I1. • Budgeted project expenditure on valuation in TLTP I and I1 was minor, at about 1% of project costs, which approximates the rclativc size of the Central Valuation Authority (CVA) ordinary budget in DOL. The T L T P budgeted expenditure on valuation increased significantly in T L T P Ill. • There has bccn a significant decrease in technical assistance and training expenditure from TLTP I to "FLTP III, cvcn more so in terms of percentage expenditure. Information on the "FLTP I and I1 base mapping and land titling activity is detailed in Figure 3. The survey/mapping methodology implemented on the TLTP. with a hcavy reliance on rectified photomaps as a survey/map base in rural areas and simple graphical ground survey techniques in urban areas, is a very practical, pragmatic approach. Even st), the cost of the base mapping in T L T P I and I1 was over 8(1% of the cost of the ticld adjudication and title issuance process. The field adjudication and title issuance process is a very labour intensive, low technology process. Major cxpcndi-

7h(' lhaihmd hind tttfin~ profl,c/: ~" Rutmnuhiruhon.~w el al. ture items m the total US$43.9 million cost of the TI.'FP I and il hind title issuance programs were field allowances (7(L5(~,;) and temporary staff salaries (22.6q4). [-:xpcnditure on materials, equipment and furniture was only 6.8¢';. This practical approach to hast mapping and land titling is reflected in the comparatively low unil cost of a title deed, a point that will bc taken up later hi this paper.

Proiect areas As notcd previously, thc TI.TP arosc from high Icvel R'FG and dcvclopment agcncy considcrations of Thailand's ceonomic, social and natural resources status in the late l~,~70s and early 1980s. Of particular concern was the diminished growth of agricultural production attributed nlainly to cultivation of marginal hinds giving poor yields. Previous growth was through expansion of cultivation but often into rich fl~restcd areas, The policy of the Governrncnt in tile agriculture and rural sector was thercfl)re: • To alleviate rural poverty and redress regional income disparities. • To increase agricultural production while avoiding deterioration of the envlrollnlent. In the urban sector, the rnain problem was the poor condition of fundamental land rccords comprising the cadastre. This led to a policy of rc-mapping and maintaining thc urban cadastrc. The policy directives played a strong role in the selection of project areas. The main component of Phase I was rural mapping and this was initiated in the southern third of thc north-cast region, thc poorest region in the country, and tile western half of tile upper north region, a region of high potential growth. Nine provinces were involved and these were sclcctcd on tfic basis of cithcr the high proportion of undocumcnted land or the high agricultural potential. LJrban mapping was implcmcntcd, with an emphasis on Bangkok. In Phasc I I t h c cmphasis of the project was broadcncd (World Bank, 1990). Whilst thc RT(,; still wanted to assist the poorer rcgions of the country there was also the obicetivc of supporting thc othcr Govcrnmcnt dcvclopmcnt phms. The pro.jcct eovcred 3(1 provinecs, including 16 provinces of mainly high value rural hind in thc lower north and ecntral regions, six provinces in the lcss well developed north-cast region and eight provinces of land carmarkcd for intensive dcvclopmcnt on thc Eastern Seaboard. Urban mapping was again conccntratcd in Bangkok. In Phase Ill project actMtics arc occurring in Iq provinces, including ten provinces in the north-cast and scvcn provinces in the north to complcte land titling coverage in these rcgions, and two provinces in the central region. I~roject bcncticiarics arc mainly in the rural population, composed of farmers on small holdings and including tile poorcst segments of thcsc groups in the north-east. This is consistent with a major RTG goal for the 199(}s of the reduction of inter-regional inconle disparities, with particular attcntion to the historically poorer north-cast region. 7i, chni('al as.~istance

By the end of Phase Ill the value of the technical assistance to "|'LTP will have exceeded the equivalent of US$20 million. A summary of the main elements of the technical assistance across the three phases is set out in Appendix I'L Thc technical assistancc has been a critical success factor, hut only as an integral component of the total pro.iect design. ,lust as the project dcsign I0

7tw Thuihmd land tilling im,iect: l' Raltanahimhongse el al.

has changed over the three phases to meet new requirements, so has the focus of technical assistance. Appendix C charts the technical assistance in relation to other project factors. As sccn by the changing nature of the technical assistance, DOL built up its expertise to the point where the technology transfer is sustainable. Because the technical assistance was always aimed at thc introduction of appropriate technology, DOL can now manage that technology and independently pursuc an up-gradc path as well as absorb ncwcr technologies. Examples arc sccn in the survcy and mapping areas whcrc thcrc has been an easy transition from Doppler satcllitc surveying to GPS, and from traditional photogrammctry to a recently installed digital photogrammctric system. Much of this is duc to the pragmatism with which the Australian advisors and their Thai counterparts approached the project objectivcs. Again an examplc comes from thc survey and mapping area where map standards and survey accuracies wcrc deliberately set at practical achievable Icvcls. The projcct was ncvcr subject to thc dcmands of the tcchnoerats cvcn though operating in a technical environment. Similarly in thc late 1980s there was no concentrated push for extensive computerization within thc project or particularly any attcmpt to jump on the LIS bandwagon. Whcn IJS was cautiously cxplorcd bctwccn 1990 and 1992 with pilot projects in Bangkok, there was no real surprise at the serious data managcmcnt issues which emerged. This cautious approach to LIS continues.

Project outcomes Achievement r~fphysical targets Targets for T L T P are largely centred on production--number of aerial photographs, maps, titles, parcels valued, trainees, person months of training etc. The Project has largely met or exceeded the targets that have bccn set down. Somc have bccn achieved complctcly e.g. thc aerial photography of Thailand for TLTP was completcd in 1996. The results have bccn assessed in thc World Bank's Projcct Completion Reports for Phase i and il both of which expressed satisfaction with the achicvcmcnt of thc targets and objectives. The T L T P production of title deeds is summarized in Figurc I and the unit cost of title deeds in Figure 2. The unit costs set out in Figure 2 arc based on the total real costs recorded against the activity by the project office and include all operational costs and procurement (including the substantial cost of aerial photography). Thesc costs do not include thc salary costs of official staff, in 1995 it is estimated that the unit salary cost pcr title deed was about 2511Baht (about US$111; Burns, 19~,15). Thcrc has been a significant increase in thc 1996 project output, due in large part to new arrangements for the management of the ticld teams. It is anticipated that this level of annual output will bc required in order to achieve the completion of the project in the planned 20-year period. In 1984 at the commcnccmcnt of the Project, Thailand had approximately 4 million title deeds. Now thc number is over 13 million. By the end of thc Project it is cstimatcd that 19 million of Thailand's land parcels (currently numbering approximately 26 million parcels) will havc title documents. The majority of those parcels not registered with title deeds will have certificates of utilization (NS3, NS3K). The target for the TI,TP is 13 million titles over 20years and separate from the project I)OL has 11

The 77t.ilaml land titling pn)ject: k" Rat/anahirahongw el al.

Thailand

Annual Oulput (N $ 4 ) 900,000 000,000

l, a n d T i t l i n g

Title Deed

(NS4)

Project

Production

I

700,000 600,000

NS3K C o n v e r s i o n

500,000 400,000 Photomap base

300,000 200,000

Ground Survey

100,000 0

YES

= Year

ending

September

30

Figure 1. Thailand Land Titling Project: title deed (NS4) production.

somc capacity fl)r systematic adjudication funded solely by its rccurrcnt budget allocation.

Socio-ecmtomic impact Thcrc have bccn a nttmbcr of studies of the socio-cconomic impact of the TI.TP. both cross-sectional studies prior to thc Projcct (Fcdcr e/al.. 1988) and a scrics of longitudinal studies during Projcct implcmcntation ( C c n t c r for Applicd Economic Rcscarch. 1993). Kcy lcssons that can bc drawn from thcsc studics included: • L c g a l title is the main factor in cxphtining diffcrcnccs in hmd prices. It was found that titled hmd was bctwccn 75 and 1977~ morc valuable than land without any documcnts. • l.and titles arc related to thc d c m a n d and supply of crcdit. It was found that access to institutional credit increased by 27% and that intcrcst

Thailand Land Titling Project Unit Cost of a Title Deed

US$/title T

50

45 40 35 30 25 20

Total Cost

15

=-,

.

10

G r o u n d Survey/ NS3K C o n v e r s i o n

5 0

,,=,

,,=,

~

,,=,

~

~

,,=,

~

,,=,

,=,

,,=,

YES = Year ending S e p t e m b e r 30 Historical, current cost, in Thai Baht. converted to US$ at US$1 = 25 Baht Total Cost = Cost of base mapping + cost of NS4 issuance Figure 2. Thailand Land Titling Project: unit cost of a title deed.

12

Fh(" 7huihmd hind titling i,roiect: l" Ratt,nahiruhon.qw et al.

Breakdown

o f L a n d T i t l i n g C o s t s - T L T P I a n d II

Base M a p p i n g / N S 4 Issuance

NS4 I s s u a n c e E~enses 0% Malenals, equ~mer, 7%

Base mapping 46%

Utilities 0%

Tempora~ NS4

70%

Stall 23%

Issuance 54%

The above charts have been prepared on the basis of historical costs recorded for the base mapping and the NS4 Issuance (ground survey and NS3K conversion) processes in TLTP I and II (1984 to 1994). Source: Burns (1995) Figure 3. Breakdown of land titling costs--TLTP I and II.

• • • •

rates were cheaper with the more formal lending sources. In addition, borrowers with good land collateral received between 75 and 123% more credit than those without. The incidence of land transactions increased for titled hind. it was easier to operate in the land market. For titlcd lands there was an increased use of farm inputs such as seeds and chemical fcrtiliscrs. The value of production per unit area and the yield per unit area was higher for titled hind The Project lead to an increase in cultivated areas.

Fiscal imlmCt Atthakorn et al. (1996) report that over the period of the project there has been a signiticant increase in government revenue collected by D O L from property and transfer taxes (from under US$200 million p.a. to nearly US$120II million p.a.). In 1995 the total revenue collected by D O L was just under US$1200million, over ten times the total cost of running the Department of over 140110 staff in over !1111()offices throughout Thailand.' This has been one factor that has contributed to the strong support for the T L T P from policy makers, despite several major changes in administration over the 13 years of the Project. This major fiscal impact was not anticipated as a major project outcome.

Areas where planned outcomes have not been achieved

'The estimated cost of operating DOL in 1995 was US$112.3million (Burns et al., 1996).

One area where the T L T P outcome has not approached the outcome planned in project design, is in the area of valuation. Perhaps the underlying reason for this is the fact that the DO1, and R T G have never fully appreciated and accepted the concepts and rationale for a valuation authority as proposed by the project designers. The D O L readily appreciated the need for a central agency to provide valuation advice to support its own operations, principally in the establishmcnt of appropriate fees and charges. In 1984 the CVA in D O L had a

13

/he 7lmihmd land tit~ink, ira!/cot." 1" Ruttanahirahmt~.~c el el. staff of about 100--much in excess of that anticipated by the project designers.-' Whilst many of these staff lacked even basic training in valuation, and the techniques applied by the CVA in preparing valuation rolls were crude in comparison to those applied in many other countries, the activities of the CVA were closely linked to the perceived registration requirements of DOI.. As ('ooper (19~,~7) indicates, the valuation needs identified by the project designers included: • Provision of property valuations fl~r property transfer charges and taxes. • Provision of compensation estimates for government agencies acquiring private property through expropriation. • Providing expert advice on property value issues to government. • Providing a national property value base to facilitate collection of the proposed national property tax. An important indicator of the importance placed by the project designers on the need fi~r a national agency to supply a broad-based valuation scrvicc to thc RTG, is the fact that the design for Phase I made clear rcfcrcncc to a National Valuation Authority (NVA), rathcr than the tcrm adopted by DOL, the CVA. ~ As noted in Appendix D, the budget allocated to the valuation component in Phascs I and II was rclatively small. The wduation component in "f[.l"l~ I and II, like the rest of the project, largely achieved its targets. I lowcver the targets set down for the valuation activity did not truly rcflcct the substantial capacity building objectives anticipated by the project designers. l'hc one major indication of early difficulties was the fact that, dcspitc signiticant technical assistance, legislation to support the valuation function was not passed by the Thai Parliament. Since the start of the TI.'I'P, vahlation Icgislation has bcen beforc Parliament three times, oncc gctting as far as the second reading, and each time a changc in governnlClll has brought the process to a halt. Scvcral detailed studies into hind tax during thc past dccadc have also not resultcd in ncw lcgislation. This lack of legislative progress could indicate a lack of political will, or all least the lack of a consensus that change was necessary. In TLTP III incrcascd resources were allocated to thc devclopmcnt of the ('VA (Appendix 1)), largcly predicated on significant growth in CVA stafling Icvcls. This growth in staffing has not occurred and the CVA and D()I. in gcncral have bccn constraincd by an increasingly strict staffing freeze (see Discussion bclow). Sevcral attcmpts havc been made to highlight thc impact of this constraint on staffing growth by comparing ('VA with comparable agencies in other countries. ('oopcr (19~,~7) obsc~'es:

2The Staff Appraisal Report for TLTP I lists an initial base staffing for the CVA of 26, building to 185 by the fifth year of the project (World Bank, 1984). 3The design for Phase II drops the term NVA and refers to the CVA, as does Ihe design for Phase III (World Bank, 1994).

14

I11 the United Kingdom therc is a government valuation service which has to do thc samc sort of job which was originally proposed for the ('VA. The number of propcrty asscssmcnts completed in thc I.JK would be vc W similar to the potential number which would be nccdcd to hc completed in Thailand if thc tasks envisioned in the formative stages of the project were rcquircd to bc undertaken by the ('VA. In the UK organization therc arc over 2,(100 qualilicd valuers and a total of over 5.U0(I staff. The ( ' V A has abot, t 2{1{I staff and 8 fully qualiticd valuers. The disparity betwccn thc design and implementation in the valuation component in T H ' P Iii is such that it is clear that a fundamental rcview is

"ll~c Thailand land lillill[~ I~l'oj('¢'l: I/Ratl.nahiraSongse el aL

necessary, particularly as DOI, has recently announced changes that more closely align the CVA to its own requirements at the expense of providing a broader valuation service to RTG. The matter has not yet bccn fully considered by the World Bank, but change is likely to occur as a result of the mid-term review for TLTP 111. phmncd for late 1997. Perhaps the key lesson from this experience is the nccd to confirm the political and bureaucratic support fl~r major project initiatives and to document the necessary commitment of all parties to the implementation of the project design. In view of the critical imp¢~rtancc of increased staffing to the planncd development of the CVA, confirmation of the RTG's commitment to the planned increase in staff in TI,TP III should have been sought.

Success factors The World Bank has been active in a number of land titling initiatives, usually as a component in an agricultural development project. Wachter and English (1992) published an internal review of World Bank projects that had a land titling component. This review considered till recent Bank projects which, in their summary documentation, indicated that some clement of land titling was pursucd. From this list of projects were excluded land settlement projects which were confined to a limited area, and those projects for which no evaluation study was available. This resulted in a tinal sample of 12 operations, one in Bolivia, five in Brazil, one in Colombia, one in india, one in Malawi, one in the Philippines and two in Thailand (including the Thailand l,and Titling Project). They concluded that it: ...is clcar from the above review that of all of the discussed land titling projects or project components very few could be considered successful. Besides the Thailand Land Titling Project, the Brazil Agricultural Development and Environmental Protection Project and the Piaui Rural Development Project may bc considered partly successful, while in the other projects various problems seriously hampered project perfl~rmance. Thesc problems cannot bc neatly compartmentalized, but may be grouped into a number of somewhat overlapping categories: (a) an overall lack of political support: (b) contticting bureaucratic priorities and/or infighting: (c) lack of institutional capacity or an unwillingness to commit adcquate resources: and (d) underestimation in the preparation phase of the complexity and/or cost of the tasks to be carried out. or other design weaknesses. The |i~llowing factors have contributed to the success of TI,TP. (a) TLTP came after some 20years investment by the World Bank in agriculture in Thailand. (b) The TLTP is a project which is solely concerned with hind titling. Many of the less successful projects had additional components. (c) The Project was dealing with only one implementing agency, the i)epartment of Lands in the Ministry of Interior. (d) Prior to the Project, DOL was a well-established Department with a large number of reasonably well educated staff distributed in a country-wide network of offices.

15

lhc lhailund hind titling pr~#c~ t." ~ " Rattanahiruhrm,~'c ctal.

(e) Thailand had a long history of land titling and wcll developcd land laws which rcquircd only a limited numbcr of amcndmcnts.

(f) D O L was rcsponsiblc for thc administration of rights in all non-forest land and thcsc lands wcrc predominatcly in thc settled lowlands and in areas of littlc or no traditional land tenure. (g) The administrative procedures of DOI, wcrc already fairly efficient and rcsponsivc to public dcmand. (h) Thcrc has bccn strong and sustaincd commitmcnt to the Project by successive administrations.

LeSSOIIS Many issues which impact on project achievements have emerged during tile TLTP. The most significant impact relates to the fl)llowing. 1. Land titling needs a crmtmitment to national reform Overlaps in jurisdiction are compromising key targets of the project by preventing the issue of titles for many parcels. This has been particularly the case with forest boundaries and declared land refl~rm areas. The policy decisions by the Government in respect of forests and [and refl~rm have previously been referred to. Multiple responsibilities across Government lk~r aspects of land administration weaken the ability of the implementing agency to progress the TLTP. Although thin issue was identified and understood before project commencement, some problems have remained incapable of resolution during the project. Until Phase IlL field adjudication staff did not adjudicate near forests in areas where fl)rest boundaries were uncertain. This reduced the percentage of land adjudicated. Now, by mutual agreement, the RFD surveying resources are used to mark forest boundaries in adjudication areas and to delineate forest boundaries on D O L maps. In contrast, where A L R O has declared a land reform area, field adjudication is effectively stopped even though much of the hind in the declared land reform area is not intended for re-allocation. A clear land use policy ix required for the classification and field klentification of forest land and accurate statements of the land declared fl~r allocation under the land reform policy arc also required. This issue is expanded by Burns et al. (1996). 2. Technical innovation needs to he matched with changes at the institutional h, vel if" r~Jbrms am to I~e su.s'tained l laving an older well established organization with a strong history was an advantage in the initial stage of the project as it provided a solid platform from which to expand activities and introduce new technology. However, these same characteristics can be a disadvantage later in the life of the project when institutional change becomes necessary. The problem ix intensified by the fact that D()L is largely structured along technical or professional divisions. As a result there has been: • a lack of communication across divisions and lack of coordination between divisions: • a tendency for the initiatives of one division not to be made known to other divisions, • a tendency for a division not to take into account another division in dcsigning work proccsscs, • a lack of cross-divisional analysis.

16

The Thaihmd hind titlingprojert: V Ratttmahirahongw et aL As the land titling function is a cross-divisional process these factors can impact severely on the project. Some mcasurcs have been taken to try and overcome the problem, such as the Technical Planning Committee which was formed to providc a forum for better planning and coordination of activities across divisional boundarics.

3. Appropriate incentives ,fi)r staff are essential This affects two areas: (i) First. reward systems are needcd for field staff as they have a very demanding task working under more difficult conditions than those faced by normal office staff. (ii) Second, and more importantly, incentives for career advancement and improvement must bc provided to staff to enhance their skills and to retain them in the positions for which they are traincd. There have been instances of the skills being wasted by virtue of staff rotation by DOL or through staff moving to other areas of the organization where they perceive greater prospects of progression. T L T P success is dependent on human resource management effectiveness in areas such as career planning, training and development, and comprehensive, integrated strategics are necessary. A Land Titling Projcct Officc (LTPO) was cstablishcd within DOL as an informal division rcsponsiblc for the planning, implcmcntation and monitoring of the TI~TP. Scvcral attempts wcrc made to obtain Civil Service Commission (CSC) approval for formal status for thc LTPO. This was never granted, mainly as the CSC saw that the project had a finite charter--even though this charter extended to a planned 20-year period. The formation of the LTPO provided a focus but the I~TPO's informal status was a disincentive to staff. Frequent staff turnover affected I,TPO pcrformancc. In addition, thc rclativcly junior status of previous Project Managers hindered the cross-divisional coordination necessary to facilitate project implementation. This issue was addressed with the appointment of a project manager at the level of division director.

4. Systematic land adjudication requires comprehensive planning, an accurate statistical base and ~['(eetive coordination of activities Land titling is a pipeline of legal, bureaucratic and technical processes, some of which need to occur ycars before ficld work can commence. Successful land titling requires that these processes bc closely coordinated. This is not a simple task whcrc the base statistics are not reliable. Difficulties with base statistics and coordination has given rise to problems at different stages of the project such as: (i)

Systematic adjudication commencing in areas where no photomapping was available. (ii) The need to frequently adjust the work plans of field parties and re-deploy them due to the unreliability of estimates of the number of undocumented parcels in a jurisdiction. (iii) Delays in the distribution of titles to landholders duc to the increase in the workload for land office staff. As thc project has progressed, grcatcr attention has been placed on the collation of base statistics, at a lower level of administrative district.

17

l h e "lhuihmd hind titfing pr~t#,c t: I/ Rutlunuhirah~mg~e ct ul.

5. D¢~fmition O/'co.qdete Flowing from the difficulties mentioned above relating to poor base statistics, is the question of when land titling is complete. Land titling as implemented in the TU['P is a systematic process to formally record rights in land in geographic units of the sub-district ('tambon'). The output of the land titling process could be measured in a number of ways, including the number of parcels adjudicated, the number of new titles registered in the Land Office. the number of titles distributed to land holders, or even as ~ln estimate of the number of parcels that have not been registered. In the initial design the t)utput measure was not clearly specified. There arc a number of reasons why some land holders do not participate in the tield adjudication process. These reasons include: absentee land holders, difficulties with lesser land documents--such as unregistered succession, or existing documents held by a mortgagor: and uncertainty over forest boundaries or land rctk~rm. In Thailand it is rare to have land disputes that remain unresolved during adjudication, particularly in rural areas. Uncertainty in forest boundaries is a major reason for not adjudicating parcels, as the D(.)I, staff, to ensure that parcels arc not adjudicated in forest land, have tended to leave a buffer in areas where a forest boundary is uncertain. In some regions tff the country, particularly in the North where land eligible for registration is often narrow valley t]oors between forested mountains, the impost of a buffer c~n mean a significant proportion of parcels arc not adjudicated. In implementation it soon became apparent that it was not only impossible to complete the registration for all eligible titles, but in some circumstances it was inefficient to ~lttcmpt to do so. A working dclinition of what constitutes completion of land titling in an area was developed. Under this definition: ...activities are considered complete in a province when: (a) title deeds have been issued to all legitimate parcels with appropriate documentation" (b) the remaining eligible parcels have been idcntitied: (e) clear policy directions and an implementation plan have been determined for these parcels. Pursuant to this dctinition, a key determinant on completeness is the ability of the l~and Office to respond to requests fi)r registration, in some cases, systematic field teams have been re-deployed to an area to address requirements that cannot be addressed by the Land Office. D O L also has plans to deploy special task forces from Bangkok to assist Land Offices mop up smaller areas of undocumented parcels.

6. The Government ~"freeze on civil seta'ice positions "['his policy, strictly enforced from 1994, imposes serious staff shortage problems on DOL. As a consequence, some key T L T P programs such as land adjudication, Branch [,and Office expansion and CVA development arc affected. The original project design was based on progressively scaling up these areas of operations and the lack of staff is a severe constraint to this process. Coming at a time of increased demand for services this constraint will require D O L to step up its human resource development and redesign key work processes. However. by requiring D O L to examine ways to manage its human re~)urces more effectively, review its procedures and look at private sector services, rather than the traditional approach of seeking more st~lff, the freeze on staff levels is also having a positive effect.

18

77t~" lTuahmd hind titlbtg proie¢t. 1" Rattamd,iral,¢mg.w c't al.

Z Project design must be flerible Land titling projects have traditionally been designed for long implementation periods. Therefore projects must accommodate the changes in the external environment which will inevitably occur. This problem can bc overcome in part by implementing the project in stages. However, cvcn within each phase, there is still the nccd to adapt to unforeseen events or problems and flexibility is essential. The unforeseen events can range from general policy changcs by Government, such as the frcczc on staffing levels, to spccilic decisions, such as the decision in 1992 by the Government tt~ fund from its own budget a 'Four Year Project" to undertake land titling in areas of Thailand not planned for titling until T L T P IV (after 1999). This additional activity assigned to DOL placed a further constraint on the allocation of the limited resources available in the Department. Apart from policy changes, unforeseen problems at the operational level, such as incorrect base statistics concerning the estimate for the number of undocumented parcels in a jurisdiction, have required constant adjustment of work plans, while problems with the quality and availability of maps have resulted in a shift to a higher reliance on ground survey methods. Other issues arc idcntiticd and discussed by Atthakorn eta/. (1996).

Conclusion The Thailand Land Titling Project has proved its durability and richly deserves the recognition that it has received. A number of factors have contributed to the project success. These include: • the strength of the underlying project fundamentals--policy and legislative framework, institutional arrangements and commitment from DOL and RTG; • the willingness of RTG to set down and implement a long-term phm to address the project objectives, and the willingness of the co-financing partners, the World Bank and AusAID, to support the project throughout a substantial period of this plan; • the level of cooperation which exists between the co-financing partners. The project design is close to 15 years old, but still serves as a useful model for adaptation in a country requiring a project the size and complexity of TLTP. Certainly. interest in T H ' P is high, many other developing countries in the region have visited Thailand to study the project and the Thai experience has strongly influenced the design of a number of recent multilateral projects.

References Atthakorn, V., Eddington, 17,.A. and McFadzean, S. G. (It)t~6) The Thailand Land Titling Projcct~design parameters and implementing issues. International (?onfcrcncc on I,and Tenure and Administration, Orlando, t-L. November. Burns, A. F. (1995),~vstemati~"Land Registration Report. Report HI, l,and Titling Project, Department of Lands, Thailand. November. Burns, A. F., Eddington, R. A., Grant, C. A., Lloyd, I. I). (1996) i,and titling experience in Asia. International Conference on I,and Tenure and Administration, Orlando, FL, November.

19

llw 7ttaihmd h::td titling project: V Rattanabimhong.se ~'t aL ('enter for Applied Economic Research (1993) Socio-economic evaluation of the Land Titling Project. Center for Applied Economic Research, Kasctsart Univcrsity, July. ('hirapanda, S. (1986) Adjustmcnts of land rights in Thailand. Unpublishcd report, TDRI Seminar on Land Policy, Pattaya. ('oopcr. J. M. (Iqt,~7) Institutional prcrcquisitcs for project dcvclopmcnt: lessons from thc ('cntral Valuation Authority. Paper presented at the Regional Scminar on the Thailand land Titling Project--I,essons for I_,and Administration and I,and Titling, Bangkok, I1-14 March. Fcdcr, G.. Onchan. T.. ('halamwong, Y. and Hongladarom, ('. (1988) Land R~,,llts and Farm Productivity in Thailand. Published for the World Bank by John I lopkins University Prcss. Baltimore, MD, 1t~88. l,awrancc, J. ('. (1982) Land administration. Project Brief. Joint World BankADAB Projcet hlcntilication Mission, January. l,loyd, I. D. and Burns, A. F. (19t;I) Implcmcntation issues and rcsults in the first six years of thc Thailand Land Titling Project. ('onfercncc on Land Information Managcmcnt, University of New South Wales, July. Wachtcr, D. and English, J. (1992)The World Bank's cxpcricncc with rural land titling. Divisional Paper numbcr 19~,~2-35, Policy and Research Division, Environment Dcpartmcnt. World Bank, March. World Ba n k (1984) Staff Appraisal R~7~ort--l'haih:nd--l,and Titling Project. Rc port No. 4627-1H, Projccts Dcpartmcnt, East Asia and t'acitic Rcgional Oflicc, May. World Bank (1990) Staff Apprai.~al RtT~ort--Ttlailand--Second l,and Titling Project. Rcport No. 8538-'1"II, Agriculture ()pcrations Division. Asia Regional Offiec, August. World Bank (1994) Staff /Ipl,-aisal I?eport--711aih:nd--l,and Titling 111 Project. Rcport No. 12g¢~6-1"11.Agriculture and Natural Resources Operations l)ivision, East Asia and Paeilic Regional ()fficc. August.

Appendix A: Breakdown of State and private lands, and agencies responsible for administration A. Stale hinds. No single government agency is responsible for the admini-

stration of all State lands. There arc four main categories of State lands differentiated by the agencies responsible for their administration. (I) I~brest lands administered under appropriate legislation (National Forest Rcsc~'c Act 1964; National Parks Act 1961) by the RFD. This is by far the largest category totaling 162.2 million rai (259520 kin-'), i.e. 79.7¢/r of all State lands and 50.6% of the whole country. This total is madc up of 944 gazcttcd fl)rcst rcscrvcs, prcrcscrvcd forests destined for gazcttal, 17 gazcttcd national parks, and 21 gazcttcd wildlife sanctuarics. Thcsc gazcttcd rcscrvcs and parks contain land uscd for agriculture by private individuals, somc of whom wcrc in posscssion prior to gazcttal and can thcrcby claim legal ownership. (2) (;overnment Real E~'tate administered under the Government Property Act 1975 by thc Treasury Dcpartmcnt (Rcal Estatc l)ivision). This catcgory contains lands used by various govcrnmcnt agcncics, including universities and schools, and certain State lands leased or available for lcasing to privatc individuals or for futurc govcrnmcnt uscs. It totals 10.6 million rai (16945 km 2) of which 4(1% is allocatcd for the use of the Ministry of Dcfcncc and 58% for the use of other government agencies. (3) Local administration,s and State enteq~rise lands. This is a small catcgoD' totaling only 3 million rai (4800 kin:) administcrcd by thc

20

TIP+' Thailand hind titling prt~icct: 1" Rattanahimh.ngse ct aL

above agencies and includes certain State lands fl~r religious purposes, no breakdown is available. (4) Pubfic Domain administered under the Land Code by the Land Department. This category consists of land +for the common use of the public, waste land, surrendered or abandoned hind and includes land under water, islands and foreshores. Land in the public domain, some of which, if unoccupied and not under the administration of another government agency, is available for allocation. The Civil and Commercial Code (s.13116) provides that State hinds cannot bc acquired by prescription. Summary of categories of State lands by category of agencies administoring them: Forest lands (RFD) (includes forest reserves, national park, wildlife sanctuaries) Government Real Estate (Treasury Department) Local administrations and State enterprise lands Public Domain (Land Department) (including land under water and foreshores) Total

162.2 million rai (259520 km 2)

10.6 million rai ( 16945 km 2) 3 million rai (4800 km 2) 26.6 million rai (42560 km -~)

202.4 million rai (323825 km 2)

B. Private lands--general. Private lands, whether held communally or by individual or juristic persons, are either documented in one of the forms authorized by the Land Code or are undocumented. The total area of the various categories of documented lands tire: ( 1) Title deed (2) Certificate of utilization (3) Pre-emptive certificate (4) Communal lands

18.6 million rai (2976(I km z) 64.4 million rai ( 1(13040 km z) 7.8 million rai (12480 km 2) 1.0 million rai (1600 km 21

Total

91.g million rai ( 146800 km 2)

Undocumented lands total 26.4 million rai (4224(I km2). This category is presumed to include land in settlement schemes operated by government agencies other than the Land Department in which documents authorized by the Land Code have not yet been issued. The most significant settlement programs in size are those conducted by the Departments of Public Welfare under the Land for Livelihood Act 1968, and the l)cpartment of Cooperative Promotion. In these settlement schemes a license to occupy land is issued to settlers, which can bc converted to a recognized form of title at a later date. This category does not include the substantial area of land (approximately 32 million rai) used by private individuals in reserves administered by the RFD. Under the Land Code (5.2) land which is not vested in any person, shall be deemed the property of the State. Vesting of land in a person is evidenced by document (title dccd or certificate of utilization). This category consists of hinds which are bclicvcd to be in the lawful possession of individuals, but which have not yet been so documented.

21

"/71("

771aihmd htnd titling I,'+qrct." I' Rattanalm'al~(m.k,.u" c/a/.

Appendix B. Approximate project expenditure ( U S $ M ) 4 Sources

Phase

Bank loan R T G ftnnd AusAI D grant Total

33.b 211.4 8. I b2. I

!

Phase I I

Phase 11 !

Total

30.11 50.2 5.4 85.b

12().0 84.() ft.() 211).1)

183.6 154.h 19.5 357.7

Appendix C

THAILAND LAND TITLING

- CHANGING

IU PROJECT

REQUIREMENTS

2o

Number

of

Title Deeds (million)

zoo

TA Staff Months

• PJmll~4y Environmental Factors

• k ~ i t enm'oad~nl • zlnmglhen~g emnomy • shill m exports from a,g~u/k~re to k~Jsl~y

• poo+s u r e . n a p mlmsm.¢4ura/capa~It7

I ~ *~lo'ny land n'zz~te(

* ernofm~ on ae~op~m (Eastem Sealx~xO • increa.~g autonomy ol local govl)mment * mlxo,,q~ms in sen,,.icedeivecy • more~sin9 co~srainls on c~l mmmmam~ =.+Wm~,ng

~mmy~mmy • <:ha~e$ mm<~ in Lan<:lCode • s=gnd+<:~lsla~mg requ=m.nm,nt Project

• ~y • ~

Issues

~e~I/IBRD e.q~efrance • ~ s ~ h ~ c a t ~ valuat~m

• ¢o(~nued ino+ease in ~udl=~ • emphasls o~ lan~ inlmmalon • a~tninlstra4ive • Valuationleglstat~,n * p~anmng and co
• t~+<:t ma~l~m~Pmanc~ sup~ • Sl~llcalk~l~Umm~l ol ~ w m~*ptrmm • mJpl~ ~ P ~ mmm~mam~ I~lmlOgy • rnalor emphams on educal~on • inlmauction e/rww v a~uabo~

Technical Assistance Issues

4Actual project expenditure for TLTP I and II, a s d o c u m e n t e d in t h e r e s p e c t i v e project completion reports. T h e T L T P III f i g u r e is the budgeted expenditure, including physical and price contingencies.

22

October

1984

October TLTP

I

• sh~l from led~.a~ to slmt~sbtut~n Ix~kJin9 • development ~ HR strztegles • iml~p~rn~l in land a~minrstmbon

1990

October TI,TP

!I

• ~low dram ~ ee~omic

gn~th • over-itwes~nen~=n properly market • ll~¢~ased role for the private sector • mcma~l eml~mS ~ • ir~'oas~l aut~c~my Ice RTG agonaes • focus on deveop,'r,ent ~ slrate~¢ Ira~m~ ~k • inoreas~-='denlphaslS oll mnqce deb,eff • emphasis on HR and IS slraleges • COl'~Ok,Oal~ Of syste~na~c adjud=cat~on mpac~y • ~o,~asecl empt'ams on improv~l land re~atrahon pr~ed~es • incteas~ role d the private sector • distdbt~ ol DOL Oala • ~pport lot strategy: Iran~work I o ~pp0~ for im~ove,me~s in HF~I and D I • ~ppOa lot IIl~rcvEd service dek, er~ (IS and land registtati~} • renew of adludicauon p~cedures • preparal~ for phasing ot~ of TA

1994

October TLTP

ill

• cor~eli~ o4syslerna~ a~udica~ Pro9ram • re-ass~nmenlolstaff from systemauc adju~cati~ teams • OOL supported by contracts wllh private sector

• DOE la,gely self reliant

1999

October TI,TP

IV

2004

The 7haihmd hind titling pr.iect: V Ratt.nat>irahong.w et al.

Appendix D. TLTP component structure Actual cost (US$M)

Item

Component Phase I

I

Rural mapping, surveying and systematic adjudication Urban mapping Land administration (including civil works) Valuation General institution building (including technical assistance) 'lbtal, Phase I

2 3 4 5

% Base cost

37.8

611.9

2.8 6.1)

4.5 9.7

IL7 14.8

1.1 23.8

62.1 Actual cost

item

Component Phase !!

I

Cadastral mapping and remapping Land titling and administration Valuation Institution building Technical assistance and training Total, Phase 11

2 3 4 5

(US$M)

% Base cost

25.6

29.9

49.9

5b;.0

11.6 4.2 5.5

0.7 4.7 I'x4

85.5

Item

Component Phase ! 1 !

I

Land titling (including surveying, mapping and title

Actual cost (US$M)

% Base cost

118.9

67.8

17.1 17.5 15.1 6.3

9.7 111.1) 8.6 3.6

11.5

I}.3

issue) 2 3 4 5 6

lmprovcd service delivery Strengthening DOL Valuation Technical assistance and training Studies (socio-economic and environmental impact) Total, Phase I I !

175.4

Appendix E. Technical assistance inputs Input (person-mnnths) Category

l.xmg-tcrm Short-term Long-tcrm Short-term

Phasel

advisors in Thailand 433 advisors in Thailand 162 fellowship for DOL staff 71}8 training for DOL staff 196

Phasell

PhaseIIl

Total

255 57 353 46

27I} 21) 88 52

958 239 1149 294

23