FIG PUBLICATION NO. 47Institutional and Organisational DevelopmentA Guide for Managers
Contents1. Introduction 2. The Context 4. Necessary Components in Sustainable
Organisations
ForewordThe International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) believes that effectively functioning land administration systems are of central importance to ongoing economic development. These systems provide guarantees of land tenure which enable economic activity and development. There are many elements to land administration systems, and many organisations involved in both the public and private sector. As with any chain, the system is only as strong as its weakest part. It is therefore appropriate that FIG, as the leading Non-Governmental Organisation representing surveyors and land administrators, has set as its central focus for the 2007–2010 period the task of ‘Building the Capacity’. This requires capacity assessment and capacity development, both of which are vital to building sustainable capacity. This publication is the result of a FIG Task Force on Institutional and Organisational Development leading to a guide for managers to build sustainable institutions and organisations. FIG has committed itself and its members to further progress in building institutional and organisational capacity to support effective land administration systems. Such work is particularly about developments at the organisational level, but this cannot ignore the societal and individual levels. Progress requires honest self-assessment of organisational and system strengths and weaknesses. Effective management action must follow, to build on the strengths and address the weaknesses. FIG commits itself to support managers and professionals in this task, working with governments, national bodies and individuals. This guide provides a tool in this regard. The document builds on several other FIG Publications, including the Bathurst Declaration (FIG, 1999); the Nairobi Statement on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development (FIG, 2002a); Business Matters for Professionals (FIG, 2002b); the Aguascalientes Statement (FIG, 2005); and Capacity Assessment in Land Administration (FIG, 2008). This work would not have been possible without the contribution of the Task Force members – Santiago Borrero, Richard Wonnacott, Teo Chee Hai, Spike Boydell and John Parker – as well as many other individuals who have reviewed, commented on and improved draft outputs, completed questionnaires and the like. FIG is very grateful to all of them.
1. IntroductionEffectively functioning land administration systems, providing guarantees of land tenure, are of central importance to ongoing economic development. In many countries, however, land administration systems are not sufficiently robust to deliver effective land tenure, and this can limit or restrict economic development. This impacts the global economy, as well as the economy and the welfare of the citizens of the country involved. 1.1 BackgroundThe FIG Task Force on Institutional and Organisational Development has taken forward a programme of work to assess the particular challenges to building organisational capacity. The Task Force developed, tested and refined a self-assessment questionnaire to determine capacity at system, organisation and individual levels; this was made available to and completed by professionals from many countries. In reviewing the responses to the questionnaire, FIG also considered other recent work including that of the UN FAO (2007), AusAID (2008) and Land Equity International (2008). This work (which is described in more detail in Greenway (2009)) led FIG to draw the following broad conclusions:
These key findings led FIG to the view that a number of key components need particularly to be considered by those who want to build sustainable institutional and organisational capacity in land information systems – these components are described in this publication. 1.2 How to use this guideThis publication is written for use by practitioners. It aims to provide individuals and organisations with an increased understanding of capacity building, in particular building the capacity of organisations to meet the increasing demands placed on them. In this way, it complements FIG Publication 41 – Capacity Assessment in Land Administration (FIG, 2008), which considers the capacity of the system. The essence of the publication is the checklist for managers at Section 3. This is developed further in Section 4, which draws together the key lessons from FIG’s work and experience and presents them in the form of key issues which must be addressed, along with examples from around the world. Section 2 provides context for the challenges of institutional and organisational development, including defining some of the terms used. A possible use of this document by a practitioner anxious to review, and as necessary improve, the capacity of an organisation is:
2. The ContextThis section provides some background to the issues of capacity building and land administration, to ensure that users of this publication have a clear understanding of the terms used. 2.1 Capacity, capacity building and sustainable organisationsUNDP (1998) offers this basic definition of capacity: “Capacity can be defined as the ability of individuals and organizations or organizational units to perform functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably.” UNDP (1997) has also provided the following definition of capacity development: “the process by which individuals, organisations, institutions and societies develop abilities (individually and collectively) to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives.” Capacity building consists of the key components of capacity assessment and capacity development. Sufficient capacity needs to exist at three levels: a societal (systemic) level; an organisational level; and an individual level, with all three needing to be in place for capacity to have been developed. So what is a sustainable organisation? From these definitions, it is one which:
Such an organisation needs to assess its capacity honestly and objectively, and to give focused attention to capacity development. The emphasis on sustainability is vital: unless capacity is sustainable, an organisation cannot respond effectively to the ongoing demands placed on it. 2.2 Land administrationLand administration is a central part of the infrastructure that supports good land management. The term Land Administration refers to the processes of recording and disseminating information about the ownership, value and use of land and its associated resources. Such processes include the determination of property rights and other attributes of the land that relate to its value and use, the survey and general description of these, their detailed documentation, and the provision of relevant information in support of land markets. Land administration is concerned with four principal and interdependent commodities – the tenure, value, use, and development of the land – within the overall context of land resource management. Figure 1 below depicts how these elements link together to provide a sustainable land administration system.
Figure 1: A Global Land Administration Perspective (Enemark, 2004). The day to day operation and management of the four land administration elements involves national agencies, regional and local authorities, and the private sector in terms of, for instance, surveying and mapping companies. The functions include:
The importance of capacity development in surveying and land administration at the organisational level was usefully quantified in Great Britain (OXERA, 1999) by research that found that approximately £100 billion of Great Britain’s GDP (12.5% of total national GDP, and one thousand times the turnover of OSGB) relied on the activity of Ordnance Survey of Great Britain. With such very significant numbers, as well as the central importance of sound land management, the need for sustainable and effective organisations in the field of surveying and land administration is clear. 2.3 Institutional and organisational developmentFor the purposes of this document, institutional development relates to the enhancement of the capacity of national surveying, mapping, land registration and spatial information agencies and private organisations to perform their key functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably. This requires clear, stable remits for the organisations being provided by government and other stakeholders; these remits being enshrined in appropriate legislation or regulation; and appropriate mechanisms for dealing with short-comings in fulfilling the remits (due to individual or organisational failure). Putting these elements in place requires agreement between a wide range of stakeholders, in both the public and private sectors, and is a non-trivial task. Organisational development, in contrast, relates to the enhancement of organisational structures and responsibilities, and the interaction with other entities, stakeholders, and clients, to meet the agreed remits. This requires adequate, suitable resourcing (in staffing and cash terms); a clear and appropriate organisational focus (to meet the agreed remit of the organisation); and suitable mechanisms to turn the focus into delivery in practice (these mechanisms including organisational structures, definition of individual roles, and instructions for completing the various activities).
One useful and succinct model for putting in place suitable measures to enable and underpin organisational success is that developed by the UK Public Services Productivity Panel (HMT, 2000). This recognises five key elements which need to be in place: Of course, defining and implementing the detail in any one of the above items is a significant task, and all must be in place if the organisation is to succeed. By putting the appropriate mechanisms and measures in place, and continuously challenging and improving them, organisations can ensure that they effectively turn inputs into outputs and, more importantly, the required outcomes (such as certainty of land tenure). All organisations need continuously to develop and improve if they are to meet, and continue to meet, the needs of their customers and stakeholders. In the land administration field, there are many examples of under-resourced organisations unable to respond effectively to stakeholder requirements, thereby leading to a lack of access to official surveys and land titling (leading to unofficial mechanisms being used, or a total breakdown in efficient land titling). There is a need to provide appropriate assistance to enable the necessary capacity to be built and sustained by such organisations, given the key role of their operations in underpinning national development. A range of methods exist, including releasing internal resources for this work (if suitable resources exist), or external support. 3. A Checklist for ManagersManagers and leaders need to give a strong focus to the following nine issues if they are to develop sustainable institutions and organisations. Some key questions to consider are provided below; more detail is provided in sections 4.2–4.10. 1. Make clear statements defining the responsibilities of each level/ sector
2. Provide transparent leadership ‘from the top’ to encourage collaboration in both top-down and bottom-up ways
3. Define clear roles for the different sectors, including the private sector
4. Establish a clear organisational culture that supports a cooperative approach amongst individual employees
5. Ensure that the network of individuals and organisations has a sufficient voice with key decision makers for land administration issues to be taken fully into account in all central policy making
6. Facilitate policy development and implementation as a process that is open to all stakeholders, with all voices being clearly heard
7. Provide a legal framework that enables the use of modern techniques and cross-sector working
8. Offer relevant training courses that clearly explain, encourage and enable cooperative and action-based working by organisations, within a clearly understood framework of the roles of each level/ sector
9. Share experiences through structured methods for learning from each others’ expertise and experiences, with this learning fed back into organisational learning
4. Necessary Components in Sustainable OrganisationsSection 2 has provided a general description of land administration, a general model for organisational development and a description of a sustainable organisation. This Section provides a description of nine key elements which FIG’s work leads it to believe need to be present for such an organisation to exist, and which (from FIG’s research) are often not in place. It includes examples of where they have been successfully implemented in different countries and states. 4.1 The necessary componentsFIG considers that managers and leaders need to give a strong focus to the following nine issues if they are to develop sustainable institutions and organisations:
These statements cover all five elements of the performance management model illustrated in Figure 2. The following sections elaborate on each of the nine issues, providing further description and giving examples of work that has been done in the relevant area. The sections are intended to assist managers of organisations seeking to increase sustainable capacity. The sections should generally be used following completion of a self-assessment questionnaire to determine particular areas of concern, or used directly by managers familiar with their organisations. Section 3 has summarised the questions connected to each issue. 4.2 Make clear statements defining the responsibilities of each level/ sectorLand administration is a far-reaching aspect of government activity and many different organisations are involved in policy development and the delivery of its different elements. This often includes organisations at supra-national, national, regional and local level. Many aspects of the work will be laid down in formal legislation, but much of this legislation will focus on the work of particular organisations or parts of the system. Other elements of the system will rely on informal understandings or ‘custom and practice’. Given this situation, many stakeholders will be confused as to who does what, meaning, for instance, that:
All of this will lead to confusion, frustration, delay and wasted activity. In a truly sustainable system, each organisation involved in land administration knows what its role is – and what it isn’t – and which other organisations it needs to work with to deliver overall objectives. This is clear to stakeholders – politicians, land owners and occupiers, private sector firms, citizens, staff – meaning that the right work is done in the right places. This in turn means that scarce resources aren’t wasted on correcting confusion and that the agreed goals of the land administration system are delivered more effectively.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, engagement with other organisations and/or law makers, along with clear, improved communication is essential. In general, written descriptions of roles and responsibilities, presented in easy to understand ways (such as flowcharts showing who is responsible for the different activities) will allow the identification of unclear areas, overlaps and gaps, at which stage dialogue can address and resolve the issues. Changing the law takes time, but a focus on clear written agreements of who does what will allow earlier resolution of issues. The Australian example above shows how a State government and local government have agreed a sensible allocation of responsibilities so that, collectively, they fulfil legal and user requirements effectively. 4.3 Provide transparent leadership ‘from the top’ to encourage collaboration in both top-down and bottom-up waysMany different organisations are involved in land administration. There is an understandable tendency for each organisation to set targets and priorities based around its own activities. This provides staff, managers and stakeholders of that organisation with assurance that it is working efficiently and effectively. Such an approach, however, can limit the overall effectiveness of the system.
In a truly sustainable system, the various organisations involved in the land administration system work together to agree shared objectives which improve overall system efficiency. This is challenging work for managers, who may often be assessed and rewarded based on the efficiency of their organisation. This emphasis on end-to-end effectiveness therefore needs to be reinforced by clear messages and actions from governments and administrations, to make clear that such joining up is both required and expected. Such joining up may include consideration of organisational mergers, but it is important to remember that organisations do not necessarily need to merge to be able to work together effectively. Often more important is a clear demonstration by managers and leaders that they understand and want to use the benefits of formal and informal collaboration. This may include the putting in place of Service Level Agreements or other agreements between organisations. This top down demonstration, complemented by appropriate target setting, gives staff in the different organisations the confidence to think widely about the opportunities for overall system improvement, and to work together to deliver this.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, it is vital that you gain a wider understanding of the land administration system and engage with other senior managers to demonstrate the very real performance benefits of cross-organisational working. The benefits of working collaboratively throughout the land administration system are well documented. Your work can therefore often start with looking at experiences in other jurisdictions, and proposing pilot projects to demonstrate real benefits, and that they can be delivered in a reasonable time and for a reasonable cost. In this way, stakeholder resistance, based on concerns that the operation of the system will be disrupted by the effort to join up more, can be reduced. The Northern Ireland example shows how the bringing together of stakeholders started by structured work in a neutral environment. The benefits of collaboration are now sufficiently well understood in Northern Ireland that such structures and safeguards can be relaxed. 4.4 Define clear roles for the different sectors, including the private sectorBecause of its fundamental importance to economic and national development, the land administration system – and most of its components – is in most jurisdictions managed and operated by the government. Ultimately, the task of allocating roles rests with government as the custodian – on behalf of the citizen – of an effective land administration system. In many jurisdictions, the private sector delivers key elements of the land administration system. The role of government in allocating responsibilities and tasks, however, can lead to the private sector feeling that it is seen as secondary by the public sector. The academic sector is also pivotal in maintaining sustainable capacity: it is this sector which designs and delivers training courses – both at the start of people’s careers and, increasingly, in lifelong learning. These courses must deliver the required information, and set the required culture of effective collaboration. Otherwise, the professionals involved in the land administration system will not receive clear and unambiguous messages about their role in the wider system. In a truly sustainable system, government (on behalf of citizens) retains overall responsibility for the land administration system. It engages with representatives of all of the other sectors involved to agree each sector’s roles and responsibilities. The government then allocates roles and tasks between sectors in the most effective manner, and keeps this under review to ensure that changes in capacity and capability lead to adjustment of allocations as appropriate. The government may choose to document the roles of the different sectors in legislation, or may choose to provide clear statements on a non-legal basis. It then acts in accordance with these statements, including when considering governmental support in its different forms.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is no, the work of the different sectors involved in the land administration system is likely to be ineffectively organised. A number of forums will probably already exist for discussion of effective allocation of activity. Professionals in the public, private and academic sectors will probably all be members of the relevant professional body, for instance. This will enable peer-to-peer discussions of the current arrangements and how they can be improved. The professional body is likely to have contact with professional bodies in other jurisdictions, allowing a comparison of arrangements across countries. This information can be collated and proposals for effective allocation drafted for discussion. Wide engagement at an early stage will be essential, and careful positioning of the work to ensure that it is seen as driven by concerns of public policy and not a sectional group (section 3.6 is also relevant in this regard). The IHO example above shows how sectors within a community can collaborate effectively, each respecting the role and responsibilities of the others, to put in place and sustain an effective way of working. 4.5 Establish a clear organisational culture that supports a cooperative approach amongst individual employeesWithin an organisation, managers may state that working across and beyond the organisation is important. But if staff performance is assessed on their individual effectiveness in their particular role, collaborative working will not develop in practice. In a truly sustainable system, words, actions and systems all fully support a cooperative approach to activity, both across teams and business units within an organisation, and between organisations. The key influence on the approach taken in practice is the organisational culture – that unspoken, unwritten understanding of ‘the way we do things round here’. Elements that need to be considered in the organisational culture include: the way that people are rewarded (for individual performance or for team effort); the symbols that are used (the success stories reported in formal publications, the news in staff briefings, even the pictures in the office reception area). And all of this needs to be continuously reinforced by all levels of managers in their words and their actions – for instance, that managers of organisations are seen to meet regularly together to agree inter-organisation liaison.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is no, your actions and your words will not encourage and cajole staff to work together across and beyond organisational boundaries. You will therefore need to consider how your actions can support such collaborative working. Actions speak louder than words – informal contacts and/or formal agreements with other organisations will provide a clear framework for collaboration. Shared targets will link this approach into organisational and individual success measures. And the successes that you choose to highlight can further reinforce this. Mergers are one organisational solution to the challenges of working across organisational boundaries. Committees are another. Both have been summarised in the examples in this section. 4.6 Ensure that the network of individuals and organisations has a sufficient voice with key decision makers for land administration issues to be taken fully into account in all central policy makingMany organisations are involved in delivering an effective land administration system. These organisations may be working, individually and collectively, very effectively. However, it is also important that the legal and policy framework in place fully supports operational delivery, and that the framework is sufficiently responsive to political, economic, social and technological changes to enable sustainable development. In many countries, policy making and operational delivery are seen as distinct activities with limited communication between them. This is likely to lead to policy that is not grounded in practical reality, and operational delivery which is constrained (and sometimes impossible) because of inappropriate policy. Excellent social policy objectives will not be delivered if the proposed implementation is cumbersome or unworkable. In a truly sustainable system, policy making and operational delivery are seen as parts of the same activity, with constant communication and iteration between the two parts to ensure that policy meets the needs of the government and its citizens, but that the policy can be faithfully and completely delivered. It is therefore essential that policy makers receive and take fully into account the constructive, well-articulated views of operational delivery staff and vice versa. Policy makers receive very many representations to introduce, adapt or repeal policy. It is therefore vital that those responsible for delivering the land administration system – in the public and the private sectors – speak with a strong, coherent voice, and use a variety of channels to influence the policy makers.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is no, there are real risks that policy will not develop and adapt to allow effective delivery. You need to ensure that policy makers hear the voice of the delivery organisations, and respect it as an important, objective voice. This may most effectively begin through making personal contacts, and through showing where specific, straight forward changes can make a real difference. Through this process, the benefits of policy and operations working together will become clear and can be communicated on the basis of examples. Further formalisation can then be put in place to be able to withstand the moving on of key individuals. Working in this way delivers better results, and completes the process more quickly despite the slower start as engagement is put in place. The Netherlands have found this, as has the international community, in the examples above. 4.7 Facilitate policy development and implementation as a process that is open to all stakeholders, with all voices being clearly heardIt is important that those developing policy for land administration, and those delivering the land administration system, clearly hear other voices. Individual citizens are key stakeholders in the system and have to believe that the system delivers equitably and effectively. Pressure groups also need to have their voices clearly heard and taken into account. The primary role for ensuring this breadth of engagement lies with policy makers. A key secondary role, however, lies with the delivery organisations and individuals, who will engage with individual citizens and community groups on a daily basis in their work. Such individuals need to ensure that such input is provided to the policy makers. This also applies to the development of organisational strategies for individual organisations. Citizens and representative groups need to be convinced that their voices are all heard and taken seriously if they are to feel any ownership of the resulting decisions. Consultation and feedback are critical if successful strategies are to be developed. If stakeholders do not believe that their voices are heard and respected, they will not have confidence in the land administration system and will use other routes to seek to change decisions that have been made. In a truly sustainable system, all voices are heard and priorities are agreed based on all of the voices. Communication and feedback explains why certain ideas cannot be taken forward, so that all stakeholders understand and are able to support policy and organisational strategy.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is no, stakeholders are unlikely to feel fully engaged in the policy development process and will therefore feel limited ownership of its outcomes. Professionals have a key role to play in improving this process, as they engage with many stakeholders on a regular basis, and are perceived as being interested, expert and objective, meaning that they can speak with the confidence that other stakeholders may not have. It is therefore important that professionals build strong connections with the policy making and shaping process. This will often start through personal links, allowing professionals to show the policy makers and other stakeholders the value they can bring to the process. The South African example above shows the difficulties that can arise when insufficient consultation and communication takes place. 4.8 Provide a legal framework that enables the use of modern techniques and cross-sector workingLegal frameworks develop over time and take a good deal of time and effort to alter. Legislative capacity is generally restricted, with many pressures for parliamentary time. This means that many countries rely on relatively old legislation to control the land administration system. That in itself is not a problem; the problem arises if the legislation prescribes details of the work to be completed. Legislation is also the highest authority in any jurisdiction, providing the legal framework within which all citizens and organisations must operate. It is therefore important that the law does not restrict or hinder cross-sector working, and is managed in a flexible way so that it can adjust to changes in society and technology. In a truly sustainable system, the necessary constraints of the law making process and timetable are fully recognised, and laws focus on required outcomes. Inputs such as technical matters which change on a regular basis, are managed through regulations or instructions under the authority of the law but which can be changed in a more flexible (but transparent and accountable) manner.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is no, the legal system is unlikely to facilitate the effective operation of the land administration system. It will therefore be important that professionals and delivery organisations work through key contacts (such as government-appointed professional officers) to explain the technical changes that will make the law out of date – and, worse, will prohibit the use of improved technology and techniques. Maintaining links with professionals in other jurisdictions will allow examples to be provided to law makers. The new Australian regulations provide an example of appropriate documentation, as does the Botswana Land Policy. 4.9 Offer relevant training courses that clearly explain, encourage and enable cooperative and action-based working by organisations, within a clearly understood framework of the roles of each level/ sectorIt is important that courses clearly explain the nature of the entire land administration process, and the various organisations and sectors involved, whilst often concentrating on certain aspects. For instance, land survey courses need to explain the land registration system as well as the broader land administration system. This embodies the T-shaped skills principle – that effective practitioners need to have a breadth of understanding across a range of activities, along with detailed understanding of their chosen area of specialisation. This is as equally relevant to start-of-career training courses as it is to lifelong learning courses. Courses must also attempt to embed the concept of the need to work across disciplines and organisations – which can then be developed further as students from the courses go to work for different employers and in different sectors. In a truly sustainable system, those developing training courses work very closely with those in practice and responsible for policy development and operational delivery, to ensure that the courses meet practitioners’ needs in a timely way whilst being firmly rooted in academic knowledge and discipline.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is no, training courses are unlikely to provide students and graduates who can succeed in professional practice. This will significantly reduce the benefits of the education and place additional pressures on the professional accreditation and membership tests of the various professional bodies. Many jurisdictions have good examples of successful collaboration between academia and professional practice, including external examiners from professional practice, and professional body accreditation of academic courses. Professional bodies which maintain links with their peers in other countries will be able to provide such examples, along with suggestions for initial low-risk stages which will prove the benefit of this approach to those who are sceptical. 4.10 Share experiences through structured methods for learning from each others’ expertise and experiences, with this learning fed back into organisational learningBusy people do not spend sufficient time learning from experiences. This problem increases with the increasing business and personal pressures on us all, and the increasing expectation that instant communication requires instant decision making. It is, however, well documented that collating and using lessons learned from particular tasks can shorten the time to complete future tasks. This process need not be lengthy – but neither should the time given to it be unnecessarily restricted. In a truly sustainable system, proper time is given to a structured learning process which involves all of the affected individuals and organisations. The results are agreed and widely shared to facilitate wide and ongoing learning.
Key questions:
If the answer to any of these questions is no, you are probably not giving enough priority to learning lessons as a basis for ongoing improvement. The tried and tested techniques around lessons learned, and the burgeoning web-based portals, provide ample opportunity to learn and to share, and this is a crucial element of developing sustainable, effective institutions and organisations. References and BibliographyAustralian Agency for International Development (AusAID), 2008, Making Land Work: Volume 1 – Reconciling Customary Land and Development in the Pacific. Available from http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/MLW_VolumeOne_Bookmarked.pdf Duindam, A., Bloksma, R., Genee, H. and van der Veenm J., 2009, State of Play of the Operational and Legally Bound Spatial Planning SDI in the Netherlands. Proceedings of GSDI 11, Rotterdam, June 2009. Available from http://www.gsdi.org/gsdiconf/gsdi11/papers/pdf/129.pdf Enemark, S., 2004, Building Land Information Policies. Proceedings of UN/FIG Special Forum on Building Land Information Policies in the Americas, Aguascalientes, Mexico, 26-27 October 2004. Available from http://www.fig.net/pub/mexico/papers_eng/ts2_enemark_eng.pdf Enemark, S., 2009, Surveying Education: Facing the Challenges of the Future. Proceedings of the FIG Commission 2 workshop, Vienna, 26-28 February 2009. Available from http://www.fig.net/commission2/vienna_2009_proc/papers/opening_enemark.pdf FIG, 1999, The Bathurst Declaration on Land Administration for Sustainable Development. FIG Publication No 21. Available from http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm FIG, 2002a, The Nairobi Statement on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development. FIG Publication No 30. Available from http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm FIG, 2002b, Business Matters for Professionals, FIG Publication No 29. Available from http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm FIG, 2005, Aguascalientes Statement – The Inter-Regional Special Forum on Development of Land Information Policies in the Americas. FIG Publication No 34. Available from http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm FIG, 2008, Capacity Assessment in Land Administration. FIG Publication No 41. Available from http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pubindex.htm Greenway, I., 2009, Building Institutional and Organisational Capacity for Land Administration: an update on the work of the FIG Task Force. Proceedings of the FIG Working Week, Eilat, May 2009. Available from http://www.fig.net/srl/ HMT, 2000, Public Services Productivity: Meeting the Challenge. Available from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/241.pdf Kakulu, I. I. and Plimmer, F., 2009, Real Estate Education versus Real Estate Practice in Emerging Economies – a challenge for globalization. Paper presented to ERES conference, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2009. Available from http://eres.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/show?eres2009_394 Land Equity International Ltd, 2008, Governance in Land Management – A Draft Conceptual Framework. Available from http://www.landequity.com.au/publications/Land%20Governance%20-%20text%20for%20conceptual%20framework%20260508.pdf Mathuba, B. M., 2003, Botswana Land Policy. Presented at an International Workshop on Land Policies in Southern Africa, Berlin, 26-27 May 2003. Available from http://www.fes.de/in_afrika/studien/Land_Reform_Botswana_Botselo_Mathuba.pdf OXERA (Oxford Economic Research Associates Ltd), 1999, The economic contribution of Ordnance Survey GB. Report available at http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/aboutus/reports/oxera/index.html UNDP, 1997, Capacity Development – Management Development and Governance Division Technical Advisory Paper 2. Available from http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/Docs/cap/Capdeven.pdf UNDP, 1998, Capacity Assessment and Development. Technical Advisory Paper No. 3. Available from http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/Docs/cap/CAPTECH3.htm UN FAO, 2007, Good Governance in Land Tenure and Administration. FAO Land Tenure Studies Number 9. Available from http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1179e/a1179e00.htm Published in English Published by January 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FIG PUBLICATION No 47
Institutional and Organisational Development Published in English Published by The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), January 2010 Printed copies can be ordered from: |
