Land Administration and Management in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 1 Meskerem Brhane, David Mason, Olga...
-
Upload
elaine-golden -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of Land Administration and Management in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 1 Meskerem Brhane, David Mason, Olga...
1
Land Administration and Management in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Meskerem Brhane, David Mason, Olga Kaganova, Geoff Payne and Chinzorig Batbileg
Annual World Bank Land and Poverty ConferenceMarch 2015
2
Purpose and Context of Report
• UB’s population and built area have greatly expanded during a period of economic growth
• City has been exploring ways of improving financial management, creditworthiness
• Parallel work examining urban service delivery and municipal expenditures
• How can urban land be used as a resource for the infrastructure investments and enhancing quality of life?
3
Overview of Presentation
• UB’s population and built area have greatly expanded during a period of economic growth
• This has negatively impacted the quality of life for many urban residents
• Despite all of the investment and expansion of the built area, land administration and management have not kept pace
• The city has likely foregone substantial revenues because of this
• Overview of recommendations for UB
4
Background: Mongolia in Transition
Transition to democracy and market economy All land was state owned Use of land for private purposes is now allowed
Land ownership by Mongolian Citizens Land possession by private and state entities Land use by foreign entities
Land management and administration practices, and related legislation are totally new
5
“Survey” of Urban Land Issues Land Administration Issues:
Tenure• Land ownership for all Mongolians (good for low income housing)Land Use and Planning• Uncoordinated & poorly planned land use and development Cadaster and Registry• Poor land administration capacity, procedures and systems• Land disputes, challenges to land & property titlesTaxation and Value Capture• Active and profitable land and property market (known to all but the
city Land Management:
• Poor records of publicly owned land• Loss of public land from “carvings”• Lack of land for public use
6
Existing Policies Encourage Low Density
• Entitlement of large free plots with little taxation result in low density residential areas
• Zoning that separates residential use from commercial use and discourages mixed land uses result in: – People having to travel long distances to meet their daily needs
of jobs, education, food etc.– Increases burden on roads and contributes to traffic congestion
• Master Plan promotes expansion of city without regard to the cost of per capita infrastructure provision
Legend
District boundariesInhabited Areas 2013Land use/ land cover classes
111 Continuous Urban Fabric (S.L. > 80%)112 Discontinuous High Dense Urban Fabric (S.L. 50% - 80%)113 Discontinuous Low Dense Urban Fabric (S.L.: 10% - 50%)120 Industrial, Commercial and Transport Units
Between 2000 and 2013:• 87% of all new expansion has occurred in the form of low density development
2013
New growth is mostly low-density expansion
Low average density compared to other East Asian cities of similar size
500,000 1,500,0000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
East Asian Cities (Pop 0.5 -1.5 million)Ulaanbaatar
Population
Densi
ty (
People
per
sq. km
. of
built-
up a
rea)
Average
Source: ‘East Asia’s Changing Urban Landscape’, World Bank 2014
Ulaanbaatar has low density by international standards
9
Infrastructure has not kept up with the city’s expansion
Hong Kong
Beijing
Singapore
Seoul
Jakarta
Ho Chi Minh
Da Nang
Shanghai
Manila
Kunming
Wuhan
Bangkok
Ha Noi
Ulaanbaatar
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Road Density: Linear km of paved roads / urban area
Ha Noi
Jakarta
Ho Chi Minh
Da Nang
Ulaanbaatar
Kunming
Bangkok
Wuhan
Manila
Seoul
Shanghai
Hong Kong
Singapore
Beijing
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Total Registered Vehicles / Linear km of paved roads
And there are more cars using limited road space
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Buit-Up Urban Area (km2)
Avera
ge C
om
mute
Tim
e (
min
)
Ulaanbaatar
Beijing
ShanghaiManila
Bangkok
JakartaWuhanCebu
SingaporeSeoul
Ho Chi Minh
Hong Kong
Ha Noi
Da Nang
Which increases average commute times
14
Dimensions of Residential Land Markets
• City’s built area is dominated by khashaas and low density growth
• Limited penetration of formal credit (less than 10 percent)– Plots have limited value for collateral– Avoid price reporting
• Little information about prices, volumes, submarkets
15
Control of Public Land
Lack of strategic land managemento Lack of strategy and coordination results in shortages of land
for public use– “Carve outs,” lack of protected land for new streets in city centre
or schools in ger areas o Excessive land holdings:
- About 2,500 individuals hold close to 6,000 m2 each for household use- Do budgetary organizations need 5.9 hectares each and NGOs - 1.25 hectares each?
Forgone revenues from land allocations => non-transparent land allocation – direct allocations
16
What is public land used for?
Inventory of the public land was carried out, but it still does not provide crucial information
17
Land Management and Administration Practices
The databases at PRD are at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate
The Master Plan could extend existing problems
• Aims to disperse rather than concentrate population (satellite cities)
• Does not dedicate adequate space for mix land uses
• Costs for full implementation far exceeds available resources
• Existing tax and fee structures for land preclude value capture
Key Conclusions
1. UB is undergoing a historic transformation toward market-driven urban development, but the process has its internal imbalances:o Market forces already value land according to its
location and infrastructure amenitieso Free access to land for residents, budgetary institutions,
NGOs, and other land users led to low-density urban expansion and overall overconsumption of land by various land holders
o The Master Plan exposes UB to risks of non-sustainable spatial
Key Conclusions, cont’d 2. UB has the street system that is dramatically insufficient for its needso “Better” streets rather than “more” streets
3. Significant foregone public revenue from potential land value capture: o Land and property holders have been paying very low
property tax and land fee, if at all (for example, owners of apartment not paying property tax at all)
o Land for commercial activities was allocated free-of-charge or at low administrative prices
Key Conclusions, cont’d 4. However, the current efforts face three key sets of constrains: o Existing national laws and regulations that limit
UB’s power to establish taxes and fees o Still conflicting perceptions about land as a
designated public entitlement for residential useo Flaws in the land management and administration
system, such as (i) lack of strategic direction, (ii) insufficient transparency, and (iii) missing critical elements of land administration infrastructure
Key Recommendations, Short Term
1. Begin developing an explicit land management policy and strategy for publicly owned land, by a special and temporary Task Force
o Members from different departments, district level governments
o Develop long-term comprehensive land management strategy and practices
o Review existing practices and procedures to reduce fragmentation in land administration and management
o Complete inventory of public landso Determine which vacant public lands to retain for future
public use, which to release to the private sector; which to retain for future determination
2. Some priority actions to pursue, cont’d o Enhance city’s budget revenues by capturing land value of
newly allocated land through using auctions as the main instrument of allocating good-quality vacant land to the private sector
o Introduce new procedures for good-quality auctions of land and other ways of land allocation
o Create and use a separate budgetary fund to collect revenues from privatization of land rights (e.g. land privatization, allocation of possession rights) for capital investment purposes
Key Recommendations, Short Term
All municipal land
Land for current and future public uses
Land that can be allocated for private uses
Land that can be allocated for private
uses
Sites in less valuable locations
Sites in valuable locations
“Golden reserve” for future auctions
For auctions only Can be allocated
via other mechanisms (e.g.
lottery)
A framework for sorting out municipal land
3. Start engaging the population, businesses, and the civil society in open and evidence-based discussion of land-related challenges that UB faces and choices and changes ahead
Key Recommendations, Short Term
4. Conduct “audits” on land held by individuals with large land parcels / holdings, budgetary organizations, and NGOs, in order to identify excess land and re-possess it to the city for further release on the market or charge market price for it
Key Recommendations, Longer Term
Key Recommendations, Longer Term, cont’d
5. Explore further land value capture via two internationally tested instruments:
A. Market-based property / land taxExample: A modest market-value based tax on non-residential buildings can generate 16% of UB’s 2012 budget; a similarly modest, market-value based property tax on apartments can generate 18% of the UB’s 2012 budget
B. Land Development Feeo A one-time charge paid by everybody before they may start
construction, with revenues spent on infrastructure; used in Europe, the US, and former Soviet countries
Key Recommendations, Longer Term
6. Regulatory and administrative reform related to land:
o Streamline procedures for obtaining and transferring land and property and construction permits (in partnership with GASR and ALAGaC)
o Improve interdepartmental coordination and sharing of information and databases (PRD and Tax Office)
o Review and revise existing land regulations to support density and diversity of land uses, access to transit
Key Recommendations, Longer Term
7. Pursue legal reform at the national level foro Improving the investment climate by reforming the
current land tenure lawso Eventually reconsidering the current practice of allocating
low-cost urban land for residential use in current form, o It is not compatible with more sustainable, environmentally and
economically feasible urban environment that provides modern quality of life