Open Workshop
Friday 11th November
Expert Group Meeting
Key Discussions and Outcomes
Speaker:
Ian Williamson
Day 1 – Wednesday Nov 9th
Welcome & Research
Vision
Presentations - European
Perspective of Paradigm
Australian Group
Coordinator: Stig Enemark
Rapporteur: Steve Jacoby
Evaluate – Components of
the vision
Report Back - Discussion
European Lessons Learnt
European Group
Coordinator: Ian Williamson
Rapporteur: Paul van der Molen
Day 2 – Thursday Nov 10th
Presentations - Australian
Perspective of Paradigm
Australian Group
Coordinator: Stig Enemark
Rapporteur: Grahame Searle
Evaluate – Components of
the vision
Report Back - Discussion
Australian Lessons Learnt
European Group
Coordinator: Ian Williamson
Rapporteur: Daniel Steudler
Day 3 – Friday Nov 11th
Presentation – Spatially
Enabling Government
Group 1
(based on Australian &
European Perspectives)
Evaluate – Issues in
Designing a New
Generation of LAS
Rapporteur: Warwick Watkins
Group 2
(based on Australian &
European Perspectives)
Rapporteur: Holger Magel
Report Back - Discussion
Final Presentation
Next Generation of LAS
Ian Williamson, Stig Enemark,
Jude Wallace
Key Drivers for the model (1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Environment Sustainability
Business Efficiency
Informed Decision Making
Technology
Security/ Anti-terrorism?
Community Expectations
Risk Management
Remaining responsive to user needs at a whole of government
level
Productivity as a result of IT application
Environmental needs – monitoring
Revenue raising through tax
Meeting public expectation – servicing the citizen
Key Drivers for the model (2)
•
European Drivers:
Environment was the key political driver for INSPIRE
Agricultural subsidies
Information technology
Fraud
Key Issues & Components (1)
•
Achieving sustainable development: ICT based LAS does not automatically
lead to sustainability.
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sustainability is brought about by a mix of factors, LAS is only one.
Sustainability must be embedded in a countries culture.
Interoperability: Lack of common understandings impedes debate – legal,
inter-community, technical, semantics
Branding/Marketing issues: The term “land administration”, “cadastre” and
“SDI” are not useful for selling the vision- politically appealing language is
required
People: A connection to people is missing- the model is dehumanized
Levels of Government: Local government and local communities should play
a larger role. How do we integrate 3 levels of government?
Rural vs. Urban Land: Rural areas are a greater problem in Australia
Universality of model: Can we have a conceptual model that resonates
across cultures and countries
Key Issues & Components (2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
The role of the private sector:
–
How can they be embedded into the model/paradigm
–
Do they have a role if they’re only economically driven
Market Focus: Current LAS system of cadastre and land registry are focussed
on the Land Market
Coordinated Cadastre: Spatially enabled cadastre is the key to meeting
sustainable development as you must relate back to the owner
LAS need to cater and build in behaviour elements of people - when designing
changes to LAS, what is the behavioural change we are trying to implement
Unbundling of rights – need to make sure that this does not threaten
sustainability
ICT Convergence: unlocks value in existing systems and this is underplayed
in the model
Process is important: not entities and institutions
Information Needs: Land administration needs information on both built and
natural environment
Institutional issues: are still the primary problem
Key Issues & Components (3)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
End-User Focus: is required rather than technology focus
Indicators/science: not included in the model nor are reporting and
evaluation mechanisms
Address Information: More utilization required- this is what the real world
uses
Visionary? Conceptually attractive model (efficiencies etc.), but, is it
visionary enough?
Data Model: A common data model in the cadastral domain, especially in
federated systems, is essential for interoperability
Web Services
Standards/Shared Architectures
Register of interests
Comparing Europe and Australia (1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cultural Differences: European approach to land is much closer to indigenous
people of Australia
ICT Focus: Australia has high levels of ICT enablement - this extends to the
rural sector
Economic Focus: Australia has a strong focus using economic tools to achieve
sustainability (e.g. unbundling) whereas in Europe holistic management and
sustainability are embedded
Creating Policy: In Australia the governing parties dominate, whereas, in
European countries parliament is more important
Importance of Cadastre: In Europe the cadastre plays a far more important
role
Buildings: Buildings and land use are included in European models- this tends
to bring people into focus
Legislation & Codification: European trend to legislate spatial enablement and
codify self regulation
Authentic Registers: well supported in Europe. Australia does not have these
authoritative registers as yet
Steps to achieving the vision… (1)
•
A final discussion/white paper is required as a potential future policy
paper
Raise the importance of the debate at ministerial level through a
ministerial council of land ministers
•
–
•
•
•
•
•
Problem cases need identification (e.g. contaminated land)- this will build an
argument for government action at the ministerial level
A common language is needed- this can be established through further
dialogue between stakeholders
Consideration of the marine dimension? Marine cadastral datamodels?
What can Europe offer?
Register of restrictions –critical to achieving sustainability
Network of people who should be used as a reference group to provide
advice to and receive advice from
Involve others – users, other professionals, community
Further steps… (2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Government needs to understand the impact and scope of the
effect of the RRRs
Capacity building at society, institutional, data process and
individual level – renewable self sustaining cycle
What sort of society, quality of life, personally and as a
community, do we want and hence what are the
systems/infrastructure needed to deliver this
Engaging with the intended audience (citizens, politicians and
NGOs)
Consideration of the social dimension
Institutional silos - overcoming silo approach
Professional culture clash
Maintenance costs
International collaboration/monitoring/standardisationCapacity Building of society, institutions and individuals
3D and 4D Cadastres