TRAINING OF TRAINERS
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ADMINISTRATION
A Capacity Building Agenda for South and Southeast Asia
FINAL NARRATIVE REPORT
Version 9 March 2011
University of Twente
Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation [ITC]
TRAINING OF TRAINERS
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ADMINISTRATION
A Capacity Building Agenda for South and Southeast Asia
FINAL NARRATIVE REPORT
Compiled and edited by:
University of Twente, Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
United Nations University School for Land Administration Studies
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ i Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project objectives.............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Target group and countries ................................................................................................1 1.4 Project outputs ................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Partnership ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.6 Report purpose and structure .............................................................................................2 2. CASE STUDIES DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................3 2.2 Objectives of case studies .................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.5 Experiences......................................................................................................................4 3. EXPERT GROUP MEETING ..................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Background ......................................................................................................................5 3.2 Objective of Expert Group Meeting ...................................................................................... 5 3.3 Participants ...................................................................................................................... 5 3.4 Programme organization .................................................................................................... 5 3.5 Results and observations ................................................................................................... 6 3.6 Evaluation results ............................................................................................................. 8 4. DELIVERY OF TRAINING PROGRAMME .................................................................................... 9 4.1 Background ......................................................................................................................9 4.2 4.3
Objectives of training workshops......................................................................................... 9 Participants ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.4 Programme .................................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Results and observations ................................................................................................. 11 4.6 Evaluation results ........................................................................................................... 13 5. LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................................... 14 5.1 5.2
Experiences.................................................................................................................... 14 Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................... 17 Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page i
Abbreviations & Acronyms
EGM
Expert Group Meeting
GLTN
Global Land Tool network
GTZ
GIZ
HUS
Deutsche Geselschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
German Agency for International Cooperation (as from 1-1-2011)
Hanoi University of Science
ITC
Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (of the University of Twente)
KU
Kathmandu University
LTPAS
Land Tenure and Property Administration Section
ROAP
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (of UN-HABITAT)
TCBB
Training and Capacity Building Branch (of UN-HABITAT)
TLA
Transparency in Land Administration
ToT
Training of Trainers
UGM
Universitas Gadjah Mada / Gadjah Mada University
UN-HABITAT
United Nations Human Settlement Programme
UNU-LAS
United Nations University School for Land Administration (of ITC)
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page ii
Foreword
The Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) is to contribute to achieving the Millennium Development Goals,
poverty reduction in particular, through land reform, improved land management and security of tenure.
The Network has developed a global land partnership. Its members include international civil society
organizations, international financing institutions, international research and training institutions, donors
and professional bodies. Among the various activities of the network are the establishment of a continuum
of land rights, rather than a narrow focus on individual land titling, and the improvement and development
of pro-poor land management tools, as well as land tenure tools. This approach also entails unblocking
existing initiatives, helping strengthen existing land networks, assisting in the development of affordable
and gendered land tools useful to poverty-stricken communities, and building capacity on how to
implement security of tenure.
In the framework of the GLTN, two of its members the Training and Capacity Building Branch (TCBB) of
the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) and the United Nations University
School for Land Administration Studies of ITC, the Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth
Observation of the University of Twente in Enschede, the Netherlands, have jointly taken up the task to
develop tools for and to build capacity in Transparency in Land Administration (TLA).
A first phase of the programme (covering the period 2007-2008) comprised the preparation of a toolkit
and a framework training programme, and the implementation of the training programme in Africa. This
initiative was kicked-off with an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) in Nairobi, Kenya in January 2007, attended
by some 40 experts from across the world. This EGM resulted in a framework for developing tools for and
building capacity in transparency in land administration. This framework subsequently formed the
foundation for a training programme which was implemented in Africa in 2008. Some 114 so-called
“change-agents” from 19 different countries were trained in four courses organized in Ghana, Tanzania,
Namibia and Senegal. The combined results of the Nairobi EGM and the experience with the training in
Africa resulted in the formulation of a Toolkit for Transparency in Land Administration and a Training Guide
to be used for capacity building programmes that could be rolled out in various regions and continents.
Lack of resources prevented implementation of the training in transparency in land administration in other
continents of the world. Only in 2010 did funding become available for a second phase of the programme
covering Asia and the Pacific with special focus on South and Southeast Asia.
This report summarizes the activities carried out in this second phase, the experiences gained and the
lessons learned for future rolling-out of the programme in other regions and continents.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page iii
Acknowledgements
We like to express appreciation to the principal donors of this GLTN-funded capacity building programme,
the Governments of Norway and Sweden as well as agencies funding the participation of additional
candidates such as GTZ/(GIZ), Rights Link, the Netherlands Kadaster Land Rgistry and Mapping Agency
and UN-HABITAT.
Thanks are also due to the Training and Capacity Building Branch of UN-HABITAT, particularly Dr. Solomon
Haile and Mr Danilo Antonio and to Ms Lowie Rosales of the UN-HABITAT Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific for their active collaboration in making this programme a success.
Equal mention should be made about the contribution of the national Programme Managers and Chief
Technical Advisers of UN-HABITAT in the region for assisting in identifying case study authors and
candidates for the training programme.
Thanks are also due to the authors of the case studies for their hard work and many iterations they had to
go through in getting the stories right.
We also like to acknowledge the contribution of the three regional partner universities in Indonesia, Nepal
and Vietnam, mentioning in particular:

Dr. Subaryono and Dr. Trias Aditya, Head, resp. staff member of the Dept. of Geodesy of the Faculty
of Engineering of Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Dr. Bhola Thapa and Ms. Reshma Shrestha , Dean, resp. staff member of the School of Engineering of
Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal; and

Dr. Tran Anh Tuan, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Geography of Hanoi University of Science, Hanoi,
Vietnam.
Without their commitment and dedication and that of their participating staff members, the EGM and
workshops would never have been such a success as now confirmed by the evaluation.
Last but certainly not least we like to express sincere appreciation to the participants of the Expert Group
Meeting and the two workshops. It is due to their constructive participation that the events have yielded
such positive achievements. We envisage that they will be equally active and successful with implementing
their action plans in their home countries.
Sjaak Beerens
Director, United Nations University School for Land Administration Studies (UNU-LAS)
University of Twente, Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page iv
Executive Summary
Background
The Transparency in Land Administration Capacity Building Programme is a joint initiative of the United
Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) Training and Capacity Building Branch (TCBB) and
ITC, the Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation of the University of Twente (ITC) (more
specifically the United Nations University School for Land Administration Studies (UNU-LAS) of ITC). This
programme is implemented under the aegis of the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN).
A first phase comprising the development of a toolkit and a training guide for transparency in land
administration parallel to the implementation of a training programme in Africa was successfully carried
out in the period 2007-2008. Only in 2010 became resources available to carry out a second phase by
rolling-out the programme in Asia, more specifically in South and Southeast Asia.
The countries targeted to benefit from the second phase were Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka (for
South Asia) and Vietnam, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Philippines and Indonesia (for Southeast Asia)
The three major outputs foreseen for this second phase included:
1. Case studies; which would be front and centre in the training and vitally important to localize domestic
training;
Eight short and eight long case studies were envisaged for the training workshops.
2. Expert Group Meeting; which would serve to understand land issues in the South and Southeast Asian
region and tailor the Training of Trainers (ToT) training accordingly; identify areas of focus, build
partnerships; and create local ownership;
The EGM targeted fifteen (15) participants with knowledge of the state of land and governance in their
respective countries.
3. Training events; Two (2) ToT workshops would serve to expose participants from South, resp.
Southeast Asia to land sector specific transparency principles, concepts and tools, including training
delivery methods so that participants would be equipped to impart knowledge and skills to others in
their respective countries;
The workshops each targeted fifteen (15) trainers, formally or informally engaged in building
capacities of people involved in land administration in their home countries.
The second phase was implemented by the original partners of Phase 1 UN-HABITAT/TCBB and ITC/UNULAS expanded with three regional partners:

Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

School of Engineering, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel/Kathmandu, Nepal

Faculty of Geography, Hanoi University of Science / Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam
Recognition and achievements
The second phase of the Transparency in Land Administration Capacity Building Programme carried out in
and for participants from selected countries in South and Southeast Asia revealed that:

both high ranking officials such as the ministers opening the training workshops as well as the
participants of the EGM and workshops acknowledged the reality of corruption and lack of
transparency in the land sector in South and Southeast Asia; while

lack of capacity to address corruption and transparency was also recognized by all concerned making
the project to be considered as highly opportune for the region.
Project objectives in terms of outputs as agreed upon between the various partners have all been met:
1. A total of eight short and eight long case studies were developed, although one set could only partly
be used as a result of controversy between national participants over the veracity of facts;
2. An Expert Group Meeting was held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, gathering about 25 experts (against 15
planned), of whom 11 representing the 9 benefiting countries, 4 representing regional and
international
organizations
and
another
10
representing
the
organizing
institutions;
The EGM created awareness and ownership, provided the expected input for tailoring the training
programme and secured arrangements for identification of case study authors and participants.
A post-event participants’ evaluation rated the EGM with an overall score of 3.6 on a scale from 1 to 4.
3. Two training workshops in Kathmandu Nepal for South Asia and in Hanoi Vietnam for Southeast Asia,
provided an opportunity for 46 participants from 11 different countries (against 30 from 9 different
countries planned) to gain knowledge and skills to replicate the training in their own countries;
Considering the post-training participants’ evaluation results, the expectations and objectives of the
training have been met, particularly in terms of sharing the experiences from different countries and
having an opportunity for people from the same country but originating from different sectors, to
meet. The overall evaluation scores rated both events 4.1 resp. 4.2 on a scale from 1 to 5.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page v
Conclusions and recommendations
Based on the experiences, further rolling out of the programme should consider the following:
Partnerships

The partnership of international and national organizations proved to be instrumental and essential for
a successful implementation of the capacity building programme. Complementary and supplementary
knowledge, expertise, relation networks, resources and facilities proved to be a successful vehicle and
seem to be the best if not only way to organize these types of initiatives in future.

Apart from being essential for the local expertise, experience, relations, logistic and organizational
capacities, such partnerships increase exposure, strengthen the capabilities and enhance regional
collaboration and should therefore be nurtured in future activities.
Resource requirements

As resources for similar types of training will generally be limited, additional support, particularly for
funding of participants, will increase the number of beneficiaries and hence affect the impact of these
training programmes. It is recommended for that purpose to target particularly the donors and
implementing organizations of on-going programmes and projects in the land sector.
Scheduling and timing

Activities scheduling and timing proved to be too tight to gear the various activities to one another
such as case study development, identification and selection of participants and preparation of events.
These should be better thought off for future events and be based on a more realistic timeframe.
Development of case studies

The development of case studies, although essential instruments in the training, should recognize the
requirement for capable and, principally, objective and reliable (in terms of “delivery”) authors. An
element of subjectivity may, however, not be avoided which may in turn result in the risk of
controversy during the implementation of the training.
Expert Group Meeting

An Expert Group Meeting convening regional participants to create awareness and ownership, identify
priorities, tailor the training and identify participants is essential for the implementation of a training
programme in another region and should be recommended as an integral component of similar
programmes rolled out in other regions.
Identification and selection of participants

Identification and selection of participants has turned out to be a time-consuming process, particularly
challenging in terms of finding the right candidates being those who will be capable and in a position to
replicate the training and/or create capacity in other ways. It is recommended to make use of
extensive networks of contacts and demand curricula vitae to assess experience with and involvement
in capacity building, not to forget the paying of attention to reaching a proper gender balance.
Training delivery

Content and structure of the training can well be based on the curriculum developed for the TLA
Capacity Building programme as all identified tools were recognized as equally important for the
region. Localizing and customizing the training to local conditions is recommended to be done through
case studies reflecting national positions, and presentations and reflections of national conditions.

The course duration of three days was generally, and by both participants and organizers, considered
too short. It is recommended to have a duration of at least four and preferably five days.

Adjusting the duration would, apart from permitting more time for digestion and discussion, also allow
the presentation of national conditions and reflection on experiences and, if possible, a site visit.

Case studies were considered relevant learning tools provided these were presented by either the
authors or persons originating from the countries concerned and well prepared to answer questions.

Action plans were also considered valuable tools but it is recommended to pay special attention to the
introduction and guidance to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretations of the requirements.
Background documentation and training tools

Participants appreciated the background documentation and training tools and instruments which were
distributed prior to and during the workshops. It is recommended, however, to finalize the toolkit on
transparency in land administration and training guide developed during phase 1 and apply a less
restrictive policy in the distribution of materials to allow the participant easy adaptation of materials
for local, national use.
Impact assessment

Finally, impact is not and cannot be an integral part of a training programme carried out as a project
of short duration. It is therefore recommended that GLTN/UN-HABITAT set-up an impact assessment
programme on a more structural and long-term footing.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page vi
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Transparency is a critical component of a well-functioning land administration. Absence of unequivocal and
credible information on land availability and poor information dissemination on transaction procedures and
practices, land rights and policies is one of the elements causing transparency problems. There is a real
risk of corruption and inequalities in land allocation and management under such circumstances of lack of
or poor transparency. The consequences to the poor often take the form of difficult access to land assets,
unawareness of land policies and legal frameworks, ignorance about land transactions and prices,
misallocation of land rights, land grabbing and abuse. When in place, transparency can encourage civic
engagement and stakeholders’ accountability by rendering the public decision making arena more
accessible, understandable and predictable. This in turn strengthens confidence in governments and public
agencies, and has a positive economic impact, also on economic development. Many of the general
governance principles related to transparency thus appear highly relevant to the land administration field.
In many developing and emerging regions, there is a vast demand for skills in the land administration
area, including competencies to strengthen transparency. Developing tools in these areas, without
simultaneously building capacity to implement them, is unlikely to create a sustainable impact. In view of
the above, the United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-HABITAT) and the University of Twente,
Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), particularly the United Nations University
School for Land Administration Studies a joint initiative of ITC and the Netherlands Kadaster, Land
Registry and Mapping Agency, agreed in 2007 on a collaboration to enhance the capacity in transparency
in land administration through the design and implementation of a training programme on this topic.
This collaboration falls within the framework of the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN), which identifies land
management/administration as one of five key thematic focuses for attention and land tool development.
It also builds on on-going work by the United Nations University School for Land Administration Studies,
operating within ITC to promote the role of land administration worldwide for socio-economic development
in less developed countries, based on the principles of good governance.
A first phase of the programme covering the period 2007-2008 resulted in a draft toolkit for transparency
and draft training guidelines and a series of courses, implemented in Africa. Only in 2010 did resources
allow enlarging the geographical scope of this programme and to build capacity in transparency in land
administration in South and Southeast Asia. It was however considered essential to tailor the training
programme developed and applied in Africa to the conditions and needs of the South and Southeast Asian
region. Furthermore and based on the experience with the training in Africa, it was felt that rather than
targeting “change agents” for the training programme, as had been the case in Africa, trainers, active in
capacity building in their respective countries, should be targeted.
UN-HABITAT jointly with ITC subsequently formulated Terms of Reference for a training programme on
transparency in land administration (referred to as “project”) for Asia and the Pacific under the aegis of the
Global Land Tool Network.
1.2
Project objectives
The objectives of the project have been twofold:
1. to carry out an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) that would help identify regional priorities in regard to
transparency in land administration training; customize the training program that had previously been
developed; and
2. to conduct Training of Trainers (ToT) workshops that would impart knowledge and skills to potential
trainers to enable them design and implement training workshops that would sensitize land
administrators and other stakeholders about, and develop their capacity to tackle issues of
transparency in land administration and reduce corruption in the land sector.
1.3
Target group and countries
The Expert Group Meeting would target land governance experts working in government, training
institutions as well as civil society; while the Training of Trainers (ToT) events or workshops would focus
on training providers working in formal and informal training institutions.
Each of the three events would bring together at least fifteen (15) experts:

for the EGM persons with knowledge of the state of land and governance in their respective countries
and;

for the ToT training workshops, trainers formally or informally engaged in building capacities of people
involved in land administration.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 1
Originally the countries selected to benefit from this project were Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka
for South Asia and Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines and Vietnam for Southeast Asia.
Selection was based on the availability in these countries of resources to design and implement the
program, levels of socio-economic development, state of the land sector, including land governance and
corruption issues. India was eventually replaced by Pakistan as target country for South Asia.
1.4
Project outputs
The three major outputs foreseen for the project included:
1. Case studies development
Case studies would be front and centre in the training and vitally important to localize domestic
training:
Short case studies (8) would serve to create dilemma’s around ethical issues
Long case studies (8) would serve as tests to check the usefulness of tools to improve
transparency presented during the training
2. Expert Group Meeting
An Expert Group Meeting would serve to understand land issues in the South and Southeast Asian
region and tailor the ToT training accordingly; identify areas of focus, build partnerships; and create
local ownership.
3. Training events
Two (2) ToT Training workshops would serve to expose participants from South, resp. Southeast Asia
to land sector specific transparency principles, concepts and tools, including training delivery methods
so that participants would be equipped to impart knowledge and skills to others in their respective
countries.
1.5
Partnership
The project would be implemented as a joint partnership between:

United Nations Human Settlements Programme [UN-HABITAT]: Training and Capacity Building Branch,
Kenya, Nairobi
With internal UN-HABITAT partners:

Land Tenure and Property Administration Section / Global Land Tool Network [LTPAS / GLTN, Kenya,
Nairobi]

UN-HABITAT Regional Office for Asia and Pacific [ROAP – Fukuoka, Japan]
With external partners

University of Twente: Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation [ITC];
United Nations University School for Land Administration Studies [UNU-LAS]

Hanoi University of Science [HUS], Vietnam National University in Hanoi, Vietnam

Kathmandu University [KU], in Dhulikhel, Nepal
Once it became clear that the venue of the Expert Group Meeting had to be shifted from Bangkok due to
local conditions, an additional external partner was added:

Universitas Gadjah Mada [UGM], in Yogyakarta, Indonesia
1.6
Report purpose and structure
This final narrative report serves the purposes of presenting, respectively providing:
1. a summary of activities associated with the preparation and implementation of the project; and
2. a synthesis of the achievements of the project objectives, the lessons learned in that process and
recommendations for similar future activities.
A simple report structure is applied for this final narrative/synthesis report:

This Chapter 1 provides background, objectives and organization aspects;

The Case Studies Development process and results are presented in Chapter 2;

Chapter 3 deals with the organization and results of the Expert Group Meeting;

The delivery of the two ToT training workshops (the programme) is presented in Chapter 4; and

A synthesis of the project, addressing experiences, conclusions and recommendations is presented in
Chapter 5 under the heading “Lessons Learned”.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 2
2.
CASE STUDIES DEVELOPMENT
2.1
Background
Case studies on transparency and corruption issues would constitute key elements in the TLA training.
These case studies should document real life experience encountered somewhere in the South and
Southeast Asia region and demonstrate how lack of transparency in land administration affects service
delivery, social justice, community peace, etc.
Facilitation notes would be integral part of the case studies for use in the training workshops. These
background notes contain additional information meant to assist trainers who would use the case studies
in the training but who are not familiar with the socio-economic, political and legal context within which
the story portrayed in the case study has happened. As such these facilitation notes should provide
essential background information explaining the situation and experiences portrayed in the case study.
2.2
Objectives of case studies
Two types of case studies have been distinguished: Short and Long Case Studies.
The objectives of the short case study are to:
1. illustrate the variety of ‘situations’ in which opaque/non-transparent land administration or land
related corruption is encountered; and
2. raise issues and trigger personal reflections around participants’ own value systems.
The short case study should present a short, succinct practical ‘dilemma’, which will lend itself to
participants taking a position (and that there will be different positions taken within the group). For
example, some participants may side with one party in the case study, and judge an act as ‘nontransparent,’ while others may believe that the same act is transparent and justified. The participants
would be asked which part of the story they relate most to and find most important in their own context
and why. The case study would therefore facilitate this type of interaction among training participants.
The objective of the longer case study are for participants to work in sub-groups to:
1. identify the key problems related to transparency in land administration; and
2. identify possible entry-points to improve the situation based on the tools that have earlier been
presented.
The long case studies should be sufficiently complex and multi-layered. While they may focus on one key
issue, they need to lend themselves for a more complex analysis of proximate and underlying causes, and
different levels of intervention.
2.3
Approach
UN-HABITAT/TCBB and ITC/UNU-LAS prepared elaborate Terms of Reference for the preparation of the
case studies, taking into consideration the objectives and the experiences with developing and applying
similar case studies in the training programme implemented in Africa in 2008. Case studies for the Africa
training programme were developed by a limited number of authors identified and selected from the
expertise network in land administration of UN-HABITAT/TCBB and ITC/UNU-LAS in Africa.
The Expert Group Meeting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia in July 2010 (see Chapter 3) made clear, however,
that for South and Southeast Asia, case studies should preferably be prepared by authors originating from
the countries concerned. To reflect the expected diversity in conditions in the region the case studies
should also be divided over as many of the benefiting countries as possible. In order to achieve this, it was
agreed at the EGM that EGM participants in consultation with UN-HABITAT Programme Managers in these
countries would identify qualified authors to prepare 8 short and 8 long case studies each for eight
different countries.
Although elaborate Terms of Reference had been prepared for the purpose of guiding the authors through
the process of formulating case studies that would meet the requirements of the training, it was
anticipated, based on earlier experience, that extensive editing work would be required.
Eventually, with some special effort by EGM participants, national UN-HABITAT Programme Managers and
others, national authors were identified to prepare the required case studies for eight different countries.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 3
2.4
Results
For the South Asia training workshop four short and four long case studies were prepared from Nepal,
Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and used in the training event:

Nepal
Short case Study: Struggling for Space: A Case of Pathivara Squatter Settlement, Kathmandu
Long case Study: A Woman’s Land Record Authentication

Pakistan
Short case Study: A Tenant without tenure
Long case Study: Tenure Security and Justice

Bangladesh
Short case Study: Tenure Security and Shelter Policies for the Urban Poor in Bangladesh
Long case Study: Aleya’s Journey

Sri Lanka
Short case Study: Ownership Uncertainty in Temple Land
Long case Study: Abuse of Discretion
For the Southeast Asia training workshop eventually four short and four long case studies were prepared
from Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines and Indonesia. During the training workshop the Cambodia case
studies appeared to be rather controversial causing disagreement over the facts between national
participants originating from different organizations. These are therefore not included in this report:

Vietnam
Short case Study: Eviction at Long Vi Village: Mrs. Hao’s Torment
Long case Study: Phuong Lien Lands: An account of in-transparent land governance

Philippines:
Short case Study: The Travails of Transferring a Title
Long case Study: Anna’s Ordeal of Transferring her Title

Indonesia
Short case Study: A Dynamic Dispute over Land in the Inner-City
Long case Study: Customary Lands that conflict with New Policy
2.5
Experiences
The experiences with the development of the case studies (the use of them will be addressed in Chapter 4)
were mixed.
The identification of experienced authors was not always simple. The first initiative in this respect was left
to the participants of the Expert Group Meeting who were supposed to consult the national UN-HABITAT
Programme Managers for that purpose. Proposals for potential authors sometimes came very soon after
EGM participants returned home, in other cases proposals came late or not at all. In one case lack of
consultation between EGM participant and UN-HABITAT Programme Manager resulted in more authors
than needed reacted; all of them submitting draft case studies. UN-HABITAT and ITC eventually had to
identify authors for some countries to meet the requirement of getting eight (8) short and long case
studies.
Once provisional agreement had been reached with authors, the process of getting first draft versions of
case studies turned out to be very lengthy, causing uncertainty and anxiety whether or not such (draft)
case studies would ever be developed by the selected authors even though contractual arrangements had
been made. In one case another author had to be identified for lack of result with the originally selected
author while in another case the final case studies were delivered only days for the training workshop.
In spite of the elaborate Terms of Reference that had been prepared to guide the authors in the process of
developing case studies that would meet the requirements of the training, extensive and repeated
consultations were required with individual authors to get acceptable case studies. It needs to be said,
however, that this may partly be ascribed to the fact that the Terms of Reference for the short case study
was confusing by including an example case study which did not meet the prescription of having to be a
real story. It also turned out that authors with either a theoretical-scientific or a technical administrative
background had difficulty writing a “story” rather than a scientific, resp. technical report.
As a result extensive editing work was required and eventually some last minute, on the spot changes of
case studies, particularly issues/questions had to be addressed by the participants of the training.
In the end it turned out that the time required for developing acceptable case studies, incl. the
identification of authors, the guidance (and pursuing!) of authors to deliver and finally the editing work
involved considerable more time and effort. The delay in developing acceptable case studies was one of
the reasons for postponing the first scheduled training event in Vietnam with more than two months.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 4
3.
3.1
EXPERT GROUP MEETING
Background
Originally the Expert Group Meeting (EGM) was supposed to be held in Bangkok, Thailand for ease of
international air travel for regional and international participants. Circumstances in Bangkok at the
scheduled time, however, necessitated to look for another location. This location was eventually found in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia at the campus of the Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM).
The event was held on 20-21 July 2010 and hosted and organized by the Faculty of Engineering,
Department of Geodetic Engineering of the Universitas Gadjah Mada.
3.2
Objective of Expert Group Meeting
The objectives of the Expert Group Meeting (EGM) were defined as follows:

Introduce the training agenda to regional stakeholders and secure broad based ownership;

Obtain ideas and inputs to be used to focus the training on regional priorities for the TLA training; and

Customize the delivery method of the training to capabilities of the new target group (trainers) who
would be involved in designing and implementing training programmes in their respective countries.
3.3
Participants
The Expert Group Meeting would bring together at least fifteen (15) participants from South and Southeast
Asian countries, international experts, UN-HABITAT and ITC and their partners involved in the planned
training events and hence target land governance experts working in government, training institutions as
well as civil society.
Eventually, about twenty-five(25) experts representing government agencies, academia, professional
groups and members of civil society participated in the EGM. Only seven of the twenty five participants
were female (four of the eleven regional participants). Eleven participants represented the nine benefiting
countries., while an additional fourteen participants represented other regional and international
professional and academic organizations, including the organizers:
Country
Regional experts
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Vietnam
International experts
Malaysia
Malaysia
Kenya
Japan
Indonesia
Vietnam
Nepal
Netherlands
Total
3.4
Participants
Affiliation/Background
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
3
25
Government / Land sector
Government / Land sector
Government / Land sector
Academia / Land sector
Government / Land sector
Non-governmental organization / Land sector
International organization / Land sector
Government / Land sector
Government / Survey & Land sector
Government / Academia / Land sector
Academia / Communication and Legal sector
FIG International organization / Survey & Land
UN-HABITAT / Land sector
UN-HABITAT / Land & Settlement sector
Academia / Survey & Land sector
Academia / Land sector
Academia / Survey & Land sector
Academia / Land sector
Programme organization
The EGM programme was organized as set out below:

On 20 July 2010, resource persons gave presentations that contextualized and embedded the TLA
training in broad land governance concepts and principles. This was followed by reviews of the state of
TLA in the two regions (South and South East Asia) where the TLA training was set to be launched.
The third presentation provided insights into human capacity building in TLA with emphasis on
opportunities and challenges.

On 21 July 2010, tools to improve transparency in land administration were presented and discussed
(fine-tuning to the Asian situation). The EGM then concluded by translating the key issues identified on
TLA into actual human capacity building requirements or inputs that would determine the design and
implementation of the training program in the two sub-regions.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 5
To organize the discussions for the purpose of the event, i.e. tailoring the training programme, use was
made of the framework developed within the TLA Programme, comprising the following tools:
1. Assessing Transparency in Land Administration
2. Access to Information and Public Participation
3. Professional Ethics and Integrity
4. Organizational and Institutional Reforms
This framework was used for the following main issues/questions for South and Southeast Asia:
1. The main transparency challenges in the land sector
2. Past initiatives, on-going interventions and lessons learned
3. Customization of the training programme in terms of content, target group, selection of participants
and delivery methods
4. Barriers and enablers for country follow-up and intended impact.
3.5
Results and observations
Transparency Challenges
In general all principals/tools of transparency were recognized and confirmed as important challenges for
South and Southeast Asia during the EGM. The real challenge was considered to be the enhancing of
communication (skills) to “market” good land governance and transparency with government as well as
society at large.
Assessment

A specific need was felt for the development of regional/national criteria and parameters for the
assessment of transparency to replace/complement those developed for global level application.
Access to information and public participation

Lack of access to information, caused by absence of information or clear procedures but also by
unawareness among citizens, was considered one of the more important transparency challenges for
the region;

Insufficient participation/interest in transparency of some sectors of society such as the private land
sector was referred to as an issue of concern;

Adjustment of the methods for engaging the population in the decision making process was
emphasized, as methods thus far applied in the region were those that had been developed based on
western experiences and for mainly urban communities;

The use of modern electronic methods of communication for improving access to information such as
internet and SMS was advocated, although it was recognized that this has risks as well as limitations
as it may exclude certain parts of society that are not in a position to use such methods.
Professional ethics and integrity

Lack of sincere leadership and abuse of power were mentioned as challenges particularly in
combination with an unawareness of and/or indifference to the role of transparency both on the part of
government as well as citizens; and

Introduction of positive incentives to complement enforcement was emphasized, since “enforcement”
generally had a negative connotation. Enforcement was nevertheless confirmed as being required.
Organizational and institutional reforms

The weakness of the legal framework consisting of complex, multiple, overlapping and often conflicting
laws (in short the absence of a “conclusive” system) was also considered a major challenge and
occasionally referred to as the root cause of transparency problems; while

This weakness was further strengthened by organizational fragmentation (spread of responsibility over
different organizations), lack of or resistance against coordination and information sharing and
complexity of procedures. Improvement of the system and procedures should be adapted to local
conditions and requirements, socially and culturally, requiring innovative approaches.
Donor-funded projects addressing organizational and institutional reforms were referred to as a major
concern. In view of the short time horizon of such land registration and titling projects, priority should be
given to getting the system fully operational and adapted to local situations rather than focusing on the
number of titles issued (quality versus quantity).
Past initiatives and on-going interventions and lessons learned
Different initiatives and interventions in the region that were observed, generally distinguished between:

Nationally initiated policy reforms addressing the weaknesses in the legal framework;

Nationally initiated anti-corruption drives comprising national committees, monitoring bodies, civil
society engagement and enforcement; and

Donor-funded land registration and titling projects, generally of large scale and a quantity-output
(rather than outcome/impact) focus.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 6
Lessons learned from the nationally initiated interventions were considered to be still limited and mixed as
these were mainly of recent nature. Donor-funded projects were generally perceived as unsustainable as a
result of the donor-driven output focus, short time-horizon and poor adaptation to local conditions and
embedding in national systems, while disregarding national capacity. Lack of donor coordination was also
referred to as a weakness.
Customization of the Training Programme
Distinct differences in conditions and requirements between the individual countries were revealed during
the EGM. It was generally agreed that these differences could only be indirectly addressed through the
training programme by providing guidelines for customization at national level.
Content

The transparency challenges that were raised earlier in the discussions, generally accommodated
within the developed framework of tools for transparency in land administration, were all considered
required for the training in the South and Southeast Asian region. Emphasis was placed on such issues
as the development of national transparency assessment criteria, the need for a conclusive legal
framework, access to information, conflict resolution, awareness raising to both government as well as
citizens (civil society at large), about the role of transparency in and for good land governance.
Target Group

Based on previous experience in Africa with so-called “change agents” as participants of the training
and in view of increasing the impact through replication, the EGM confirmed the decision to target
“trainers” in the wider sense. Participants agreed that candidate participants should preferably come
from a mixed background comprising government officials, academia, professional training
organizations and civil society (including NGO/CBO and media). All should be active in land
administration-related training, have good communication skills and English language proficiency with
the aim to impart knowledge and skills. This should enable them designing and implementing training
workshops and other human capacity building initiatives in their respective countries.

Based on these points of departure it was agreed that participants should be:
o experienced trainers, active in training in land administration/governance as academics,
professional trainers of government or non-government organizations; and
o able to get follow-up training arranged in their respective countries.

Apart from the need for national candidates to represent different sectors and forming a group, also
gender balance and teamwork skills were considered essential.
Selection

EGM participants confirmed keen interest in being involved in the identification of candidates in close
consultation with national representatives of UN-HABITAT (Habitat Programme Managers/Chief
Technical Advisers).
Training methods

Interactive training was generally mentioned as preferred training method for the region, with a
variety of methods ranging from lectures to problem-based project work in groups. E-learning was
raised as an interesting alternative way of reaching more candidates at lower cost but considering the
absence of e-learning material and the investment required for its development, e-learning was
considered less appropriate at this stage;

The essential role of the case studies in the training was confirmed by all participants, mentioning that
considering the national differences between the countries there should preferably be case studies for
every individual country of origin of the participants. EGM participants therefore committed themselves
to play an active role in consultation with national UN-HABITAT Programme Managers in the
identification of experienced case study authors.
General

In conclusion there appeared to be no specific differences between the South and the Southeast Asian
region in terms of training course customization requirements whereas differences in conditions and
requirements between individual countries would definitely justify such customization. This pointed
again at the need to pay specific attention in the Training Programme (both for South and Southeast
Asia) to providing generic guidelines in the programme to enable the participants to customize the
programme for national needs. A first step towards such customization could be made by having
special action national action programmes made by the participants in the two training events.
Barriers and enablers for country follow-up and impact
Barriers and enablers for country follow-up were generally perceived as challenges rather than looking at
these in either negative or positive connotation:

The willingness of national government/policy makers to support and fund national training and
awareness programmes in TLA was generally considered a real challenge. In this respect it was
generally recognized that the international attention (incl. funding) to transparency and corruption,
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 7



3.6
considered as “global drivers”, provided excellent opportunity to convince national governments about
the importance of TLA. Reference was made to both procedural aspects such as ISO as international
transparency studies and the international raising of popular sentiment in the media;
Other challenges mentioned were the translation of generic guidelines and customization of the
training to meet specific country requirements; finding the right cases, incl. the explicit exposure of
corruption practices; finding the right participants of national level training; and providing convincing
incentives;
New communication media such as internet but also facebook, yahoo groups etc. were considered
innovative opportunities realizing that these would not be accessible to all; and finally
Special mention was made of the opportunity provided by on-going (donor-funded) projects as a
vehicle to raise awareness about transparency by involving project staff in training and/or organize
TLA training in the framework of these projects.
Evaluation results
The participants of the EGM generally perceived the event as a successful kick-off meeting for the training
in Transparency in Land Administration in South and Southeast Asia.
An evaluation conducted at the end of the event and using standard UN-HABITAT template, resulted in an
overall score of 3.6 on a scale from 1 to 4. The evaluation further revealed that participants considered the
preparation, the event and the outcomes of the event having met their expectations.
In terms of substance, the event was considered to have met the objectives set as it:

had identified regional priorities in the topic of Transparency in Land Administration;

had set up training targets, requirements and gaps to be filled in the subsequent training events in
South and Southeast Asia; and had

provided a sound platform to make training events suitable and effective for South and Southeast
Asia.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 8
4.
DELIVERY OF TRAINING PROGRAMME
4.1
Background
Two separate Training of Trainers (ToT) workshops were organized, for South Asia respectively Southeast
Asia:

The workshop for South Asia was carried out in Dhulikhel/Kathmandu, Nepal on 2-4 November 2010,
hosted and organized by the School of Engineering, Department of Civil and Geomatics Engineering of
Kathmandu University;

The workshop for Southeast Asia was carried out from 7-9 December 2010 in Hanoi, Vietnam, hosted
and organized by the Faculty of Geography of the Hanoi University of Science (National University of
Vietnam).
The latter workshop was originally scheduled for the end of September 2010 but postponed in view of time
limitations for the preparation of case studies and the identification, selection and mobilisation of
participants.
4.2
Objectives of training workshops
The workshops included core elements relevant to the regions as a whole, and more specific modules for
particular countries. The main aim of the workshops has been to fill up knowledge gaps in land
administration by providing awareness training with the following more specific objectives:
1. To understand the tools required for building transparent land administration;
2. To exchange and discuss problems and experiences gained among participants in their countries; and
3. To enable the participants to design and implement training workshops at national level to sensitize
national land administrators on the importance and elements of transparency in land administration.
4.3
Participants
As confirmed during the Expert Group Meeting (EGM) for the capacity building agenda for South and South
East Asia, the training would target training providers who are involved in formal and informal training
institutions with the aim to impart knowledge and skills to enable them designing and implementing
training workshops and other human capacity building initiatives. Based on these points of departure
participants should:

be experienced trainers and active in training in land administration/governance as academics,
professional trainers of government or non-government organizations; and

be able to get follow-up training arranged in their respective countries.
Candidates for the training were selected and nominated as a joint coordinated effort of the participants of
the Yogyakarta Expert Group Meeting and national UN-HABITAT Program Managers (HPM) of the
respective countries. The actual final selection of participants was done by the Training and Capacity
Building Branch of UN-HABITAT in Nairobi on nomination by the United Nations University School for Land
Administration Studies of the Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) of the
University of Twente.
Nomination and election were guided by the principles to achieve a good mixture of backgrounds of the
trainers representing government agencies, academia, professional training organisations and NGOs/CBOs
as well as achieving a good gender balance.
It was originally planned to have fifteen (15) participants for each of the two training workshops.

A total of seventeen (17) participants attended the South Asia workshop representing four South Asian
countries, i.e.: Nepal (6), Pakistan (3), Bangladesh (4) and Sri Lanka (4). All were funded from GLTN
resources. Only seven (7) of them were female in spite of an active gender-specific identification
process.

A total of twenty nine (29) participants attended the Southeast Asia workshop; i.e. from Vietnam (7),
Lao PDR (7), Cambodia (3), Philippines (5), Indonesia (4), Pacific Region (2) and Germany (1).
Eighteen (18) of them were funded from GLTN resources, the others 11 were funded from other
sources such as international donor, national NGO, UN-HABITAT and ITC/Netherlands Kadaster, Land
Registry and Mapping Agency. In spite of active identification to achieve a better gender balance, only
11 of the 29 participants were female.
The participants were a fair mixture representing different backgrounds of government, academia, and
NGO/CBO with a potential to conduct the trainings in their respective countries. It turned out to be rather
difficult to assess to what extent each of them was actively involved in training and awareness raising.
In addition in each of the two workshops there were representatives from the three regional partner
universities: Kathmandu University, Nepal, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia, Vietnam National
University/Hanoi University of Science, Vietnam along with UN-HABITAT and the University of Twente/ITC.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 9
Region/country
South Asia,
Kathmandu, Nepal
Nepal
Participants
Affiliation/Background
1
3
2
Government / Survey & Land sector
Non-governmental organizations
Academia
Pakistan
2
1
Government / Land sector
Non-governmental organization
Bangladesh
1
3
Government / Land sector
Non-governmental organization
3
1
17
Government
Non-governmental organization
1
3
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
29
Non-governmental organization
Academia
Press
International organization
Government / Land sector
Government / Land sector project
Non-governmental organization
Government / Land sector
Non-governmental organizations
Government / Land sector
Government / Project consultant
Non-governmental organization
Academia
Government / Land sector / Training centre
Non-governmental organization
Academia / Law
International organization
Regional organization / Land sector
Academia
Sri Lanka
Sub-total
Southeast Asia
Hanoi, Vietnam
Vietnam
Lao PDR
Cambodia
Philippines
Indonesia
Fiji
Germany
Sub-total
4.4
Programme
Duration
Each of the training workshops covered three (3) days.
Contents
The content of this course covered the key transparency aspects or tools clustered into eight different
training sessions:

Five sessions were dedicated to the core and substantive issues of land governance and tools to
address transparency in land administration.

Three other sessions covered understanding of problems and exchanging ideas through a) short and b)
long case studies from the participating countries on transparency and c) making action plans which
may be implemented in the participants’ countries.
Programme
The programme followed the content/curriculum as initially developed for the course comprising:
Day 1

Session 1: Substantive session - Land and Governance

Session 2: Short Case Studies
Day 2

Session 3: Substantive session – Assessing Transparency in Land Administration

Session 4: Substantive session – Access to Information and Public Participation

Session 5: Substantive session – Professional Ethics and Integrity

Session 6: Substantive session – Institutional and Organizational Reforms

Reflections on Transparency practices in Land Administration

Session 7: Long Case Studies
Day 3

Session 8: Action Planning

Recapitulation and Closing session
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 10
Based on the experience in the South Asia workshop which revealed that participants had not sufficiently
grasped the principles and the potentials of the transparency tools, an additional recapitulation session
was organised in the Southeast Asia workshop in between the original sessions 6 and 7.
Learning approach
In this training program several instructive/effective approaches have been utilized for delivery of the
content matter such that capacity of trainers to conduct similar training could be enhanced inorder to
achieve the objectives of the sessions.
The key points of the approaches are:

Short presentation of concepts, tools and real practice examples by facilitators

Highlight on questions related to concepts and tools

Case studies presentation by facilitators and analysis by participants, individually and in groups

Participants presentations and discussions
4.5
Results and observations
Background documentation
Prior to their departure, participants received background documentation in digital form covering both
logistic and administrative information of the workshop as well as subject matter related documentation on
transparency, land governance, corruption in the land sector etc. It was not clear during the workshops
whether participants had digested the material distributed to them.
Opening
Both workshops were opened by high ranking officials, confirming the interest in and importance attached
to the subject of transparency in the land sector in these countries:

the South Asia workshop was opened by the Minister of the Ministry of Land Reform and Management

the Southeast Asia workshop was opened by the Vice-Minister of the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment, responsible for the land sector in Vietnam.
Both confirmed the importance of transparency to address the corruption which both recognized to occur
widely in their countries. The frankness with which corruption and lack of transparency in the land sector
was presented by these high ranking officials formed a welcome foundation for the workshop.
Substantive sessions
The substantive sessions were presented by UN-HABITAT and ITC specialists, using overhead
presentations, of which prints were distributed to all participants for reference. Each of these sessions
started off with a number of questions that were subsequently addressed by partly interactive
presentations. The substantive sessions were followed by lively and interesting plenary discussions, which
were particularly used by the participants to share their own experiences. Because of time constraints both
the presentations and plenary discussions had to be short.
During the South Asia workshop in Nepal it occurred that not all participants had perceived the substantive
presentations addressing the various “tools” to improve transparency; tools that had to be used by the
participants in dealing with the long case studies during the second day. For that reason an additional
session was included in the programme for the Southeast Asia training workshop, recapitulating the
various tools that had been presented in previous sessions emphasizing their application in dealing with
the long case studies that would follow.
Reflections
The standard template of the training programme included a brief session for one of the training
participants originating from an anti-corruption agency, to reflect on the tools for improving transparency
in land administration that had been presented during the workshop. As such a representative was lacking
in both of the workshops, a representative from an anti-corruption agency or involved in assessing
corruption in the land sector was invited to give a presentation using the tools presented in the workshop
as reference framework.
Although in both cases very interesting presentations were delivered by equally interesting specialists and
appreciated by the participants (although complaining that allowed time had been too limited), in both
cases real “reflections” on the tools framework appeared to be lacking, hence missing the purpose of the
session.
Case studies
Following the introductory substantive session on land governance, corruption and transparency in the
land sector, short case studies from the participating countries were presented. A number of questions
were raised for the participants to digest and to use them for subsequent plenary discussion addressing
the ethical dilemmas identified in the case studies.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 11
Following all other substantive sessions, presenting the various tools to improve transparency, long case
studies were presented illustrating the challenges and corruption in the land sector, concluded with a
number of questions related to transparency. Participants were subsequently divided into groups and
assigned the task to apply what they had learned in terms of identifying tools that could address the
challenges presented in the case studies. The results of the group work were subsequently presented and
discussed in a plenary session.
As mentioned before, an additional recapitulating session preceded the long case study session in the
Southeast Asia workshop in order to have the participants grasp the full width and application possibilities
of the tools.
In the case of Cambodia both the short and long case studies resulted in disagreement and discussions
between the national participants originating from different (and apparently opposing) sectors, on the
correctness and completeness of the story, claiming it to be a biased view on the situation. As the
controversy appeared to become a matter of finding the truth rather than using it as a training tool, the
organizers decided to terminate the controversy by excluding both cases from further discussion.
Action plans
The third day of the workshop was almost entirely devoted to the preparation and presentation of country
level and individual action plans for human capacity building in transparency in land administration.
After a plenary presentation of the purposes, process, format and template of the exercise, participants
divided into national/country groups to jointly prepare a country level action plan addressing:
1. Three (3) key activities (to implement knowledge gained from the training);
E.g. replication of workshops, awareness raising, advocacy campaigns
2. Time line (start and end dates of the activities);
Within realistic time horizons
3. Support required from people/organizations to implement the activities;
4. Opportunities to implement the activities;
Particularly on-going programmes and projects
5. Challenges expected in implementing the activities;
6. The way these challenges will be addressed; and
7. Indicators (for measuring) of the success of implementing the activities.
Apart from the hardcopy prints of the overhead presentations of the substantive sessions an anonymized
hardcopy print of the training manual prepared in 2008 as part of the first phase of the TLA programme
was distributed to the participants. The original complete version of both the Training Manual and the
Toolkit on Transparency in Land Administration prepared during the initial phase of the TLA Programme
could not be handed out as reference material, since these were still in draft version.
In spite of the introduction of purpose, process, format and template (including examples) and the
guidance of groups during the preparation of the action plans, terms and concepts were not always fully
understood. For instance rather than an “activity” a “goal” was used, while indicators of success were often
intangible parameters.
Evaluation
At the end of the first and second day of the workshop brief evaluations among participants were carried
out using one-page evaluation forms. The results were analysed the same day to assess whether there
were issues that could be addressed during the implementation of the training.
At the end of both workshops more elaborate “post-training participants’ evaluation forms” were
distributed using UN-HABITAT template.
Hand-outs
At the closing of the training workshop, participants were provided with a certificate of attendance, a CD
with all presentations, relevant background documentation and the photographs made during the events
together with a souvenir on the part of the local organizers.
Reporting
Both workshops were reported in separate final reports, presenting preparation, implementation,
experiences and evaluation results and conclusions. Appendices presented a list of the participants; the
programme; case studies; detailed sessions report; country level action plans; post-training participants’
evaluation results and a photo gallery.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 12
4.6
Evaluation results
A formal evaluation by the participants was carried out using a UN-HABITAT evaluation template
addressing, through a series of questions, the following topics:

Objectives and Training Schedule

Programme and Training Materials

Course Delivery

Facilitation

Logistics and Administration

Perceived Impact

Usefulness
The overall rating of the training workshops by the participants of the South Asia workshop amounted to
4.2 on a scale from 1 to 5, equivalent to a rating of 84%. For the Southeast Asia workshop the rating
amounted to 4.1 or 82%.
Major more specific observations in the recapitulation by both participants and organizers for both
workshops constituted:

the highly compact nature of the course limiting the opportunity of the participants to provide input
and reactions on issues they considered important;

preference for case studies to be presented by the actual authors or if not possible by a person from
the country concerned;

the need to include training needs assessment allowing the design of replication courses to the
requirements of the target groups;

introductory presentations by one of the country representatives on the land administration system
applied in the country; and finally

the need for a simple reporting-back requirement from participants to monitor implementation of
action plans.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 13
5.
LESSONS LEARNED
5.1
Experiences
5.1.1 Partnership
The partnership between UN-HABITAT - TCBB and ROAP, University of Twente, ITC and local partners in
Indonesia (UGM), Nepal (KU) and Vietnam (HUS) has been experienced as very complementary and
supplementary and crucial for the successful implementation of the project:

UN-HABITAT and ITC were complementary in terms of substantive/contextual matters;

Local university partners provided complementary and supplementary knowledge and provided access
to local expertise;

The academic and professional networks of all partners involved in the project proved to be very
valuable in identifying candidate participants for the EGM and training workshops;

Most important however, was the contribution by local partners in Indonesia, Nepal and Vietnam in
preparing and organizing the EGM and training workshops, the mobilization of participants for these
events. One may doubt whether such would have been possible without their support.
5.1.2 Resources
From a resources point of view the partnership has also been essential for the results of the project. As the
funds available from GLTN resources were vastly insufficient to cover actual expenses the additional
contributions in staffing and materially by the partners have been indispensable for the implementation of
the project.
ITC alone contributed staff and material resources considerably exceeding the US$ 132 000 made
available by UN-HABITAT from GLTN resources. In addition UN-HABITAT and the local university partners
in Indonesia, Nepal and Vietnam have contributed substantially both in terms of staff input and
financially/materially. Unfortunately no detailed information on these contributions is available.
The contribution by other sponsors should also be mentioned in this respect, including:

GTZ (since 1/1/2011 GIZ) supporting two participants each from Lao PDR and the Philippines;

RightsLINK sponsoring two participants from Lao PDR;

ITC and the Netherlands Kadaster, Land Registry and Mapping Agency under UNU-LAS umbrella
sponsoring two participants from Indonesia;

UN-HABITAT / GLTN sponsoring UN-HABITAT staff and two participants from the Pacific
5.1.3 Project scheduling and timing
The initial project scheduling was experienced as being too tight. The preparation of case studies, including
the identification of experienced authors, and the identification and selection of candidates meeting the
requirements of the training (experience, engagement in capacity building and gender) took that much
time that the original implementation schedule could not be met.
As a result, the ToT workshop for Southeast Asia in Hanoi, Vietnam, originally scheduled for the end of the
September 2010 had to be postponed to early December 2010.
5.1.4 Case studies and development
Participants and organizers have considered the case studies essential elements of the training, although
this was apparently not always appreciated by the participants in the evaluation, in which case studies
were rather critically reviewed.
The decision to have case studies representing each of the benefiting countries may have been proper
from a relevance and ownership point of view but has been tasking from a management point of view.
It has been challenging to identify experienced case study authors, capable of writing real life stories,
meeting the requirements of the training and even more challenging to get them finish the task within
agreed upon timeframes.
Even when finished, considerable editing, rephrasing and reformatting was required in addition to dealing
with adjusting so-called facilitation notes to guide the facilitators of the case study sessions.
Also challenging has been to get unbiased stories. Although in only one case national participants
originating from different sectors, disagreed to the extent that it had to be decided to withdraw the cases
from the training, one may wonder whether other case studies might not have faced the same fate in case
participants would have been representing different opposing parties at national level.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 14
5.1.5 Expert group meeting
The Expert Group Meeting has provided valuable results in terms of:

Creating awareness and ownership at national level;

Identifying priorities and required focus for the training;

Tailoring the training programme; and

Identifying case study authors and training participants.
It is clear that the implementation of the two workshops has benefitted considerably from the results of
the EGM. Particularly the creation of awareness and the support with the identification of case study
authors and training candidates has been of crucial importance.
5.1.6 Identification and selection of participants
The EGM served (among others) the purpose of reaching agreement that EGM participants in consultation
with the national UN-HABITAT Programme Managers in the respective countries would identify candidates
for the training. This worked reasonable well for most of the countries. In a limited number of cases
information was obtained with considerable delays and/or after repeated reminders.
The subsequent nomination and selection by ITC respectively UN-HABITAT was often confronted with lack
of information (curricula vitae) about the candidates having experience with and being actively involved in
training and/or other capacity building activities.
Another challenge was achieving a proper gender balance for the training as the majority of identified
candidates were male. Active pursuance by ITC and UN-HABITAT eventually resulted in an increase in the
number of females but yet lower than what could be referred to as a balance.
Finally, the evaluation by the participants themselves revealed concerns over the considerable differences
of the background levels of the candidates, influencing the ability to analyse substantive matters and case
studies and to prepare action plans.
5.1.7 Training delivery
Course content and structure
Already during the EGM, the general principles and tools of transparency in land administration were
confirmed to be applicable for the region. The workshops reconfirmed this observation.
Participants remarked that they would have benefitted from examples of best practices of these tools as
the presentations were considered as presenting a rather overoptimistic view of the applicability and the
actual effect and impact of these tools.
Although recognizing the time constraints, participants almost unanimously mentioned the lack of a
site/field visit as an omission of the training. Apart from the time constraint one may doubt the added
value of such a visit, irrespective of the fact whether a relevant opportunity /example would be present in
the area.
Course duration
The duration of the course was, by both participants as well as organizers, perceived as being too short;
rather than three days it was suggested to have at least 4 and preferably 5 days to:

give the participants an opportunity to present the land sector in their own country; and

allow them more time to digest the information and knowledge gained.
Training approach
Participants suggested to have more input in the programme by:

giving them an opportunity to present the land sector in thir country; and

have them participate as presenters/facilitators.
Reflections
In both workshops, the idea to have one of the participants reflect on the application of the transparency
tools in the country of origin turned out to be impossible as there were no participants actively involved in
anti-corruption initiatives in their own country and/or still too unfamiliar with the tools themselves.
Replacing them by external presenters, although interesting, did not work out either as presenters turned
out to be too unfamiliar with the tools as a framework.
Presentations from experienced land administration specialists with expertise in anti-corruption cases were
interested and appreciated but should be given sufficient time for presentation and questions and answers.
The 30 minutes provided for this purposes in both workshops were frustrating both presenters and
participants.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 15
Case studies
Participants considered the case studies useful and relevant although participants observed that they
should preferably be presented by the authors themselves. If such would not be possible it was
recommended to have them presented by participants originating from the country concerned with proper
preparation and consultation with the author to enable them to answer any questions raised.
Case studies serve primarily as a learning tool, not for finding the truth although they should be as
objective as possible. Irrespective of the purpose, case studies may yet become subject of controversy and
“veracity”. The controversy over the case studies for one particular country indicates how challenging it is
to get case studies which give a sufficiently balanced and objective representation of the situation. A risk
of bias is always present and one may wonder whether similar controversies would not have occurred in
case representatives of different (opposing) parties and/or sectors would have participated.
Action plans
Participants showed keen interest and devoted considerable time and effort in preparing country level and
individual action plans for human capacity building. The majority of these plans were experienced as
rather ambitious but often fitting in the work programmes and responsibilities of the participants.
In a limited number of cases (i.e. country groups) principles and concepts were misunderstood, in spite of
the introduction on the purpose, process, format and template. This calls for an adapted introduction,
preferably with a well-defined example of both a country level and an individual action plan.
Background documentation and hand-outs
Participants time and again requested background documentation, hand-outs and tools to replicate the
training and/or carry out other capacity building activities in their home countries. Whatever background
information was available and/or accessible was handed over to the participants.
It is unfortunate, however, that the Toolkit for Transparency in Land Administration and the Trainer’s
Guide prepared during Phase 1 of the TLA programme, have as yet not been finalised and endorsed for
distribution. A hardcopy print-out of an anonymized training guide was distributed to participants in order
to help them out. For the same reason restrictions had to applied for the distribution of digital versions of
the power point presentations by allowing only non-editable versions. It would have been considerably
more useful for the participants if a less restrictive distribution policy would have been applied.
Evaluations
The “end-of-the-day” participants’ evaluations carried out during the EGM and workshops proved to be
very useful as it allowed the organizers to address issues of concern for the next day. The “post-training
participants” evaluation proved equally useful by:

shedding light on the extent objectives and expectations had been met; and

revealing issues that could be addressed for subsequent events (workshop).
5.1.8 Project achievements
Project objectives in terms of outputs as agreed upon between the various partners have all been met:
1. A total of eight short and eight long case studies were developed, although, one set could only partly
be used as a result of controversy over the veracity of facts;
2. An Expert Group Meeting was held gathering about twenty five experts (against 15 planned), of whom
eleven representing the nine benefiting countries, four representing regional and international
organizations and another ten representing the organizing institutions;
The EGM created awareness and ownership, provided the expected input for tailoring the training
programme and secured arrangements for identification of case study authors and participants.
3. Two training workshops provided an opportunity for a total of 46 participants from eleven different
countries (against 30 from nine different countries planned) to gain knowledge and skills to replicate
the training in their own countries; Considering the post-training participants’ evaluation results the
expectations and objectives of the training have been met, particularly in terms of sharing the
experiences from different countries and having an opportunity for people from the same country but
originating from different sectors to meet.
5.1.9 Project Impact
It is as yet too early to assess whether impact has been achieved in terms of replication of training and
actual capacity building in the participants’ home countries.
In the case of South Asia the participants agreed to have a follow-up to the training through an e-group
network to allow continuation of the interactions and the exchange of information and experiences.
Participants appeared to be equally committed to implement the action plans they had developed during
the workshops. It remains to be investigated however, whether and to what extent the action plans will be
actually implemented and as such will result in the impact that the project originally envisaged.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 16
5.2
Conclusions and recommendations
The second phase of the Transparency in Land Administration Capacity Building Programme carried out in
and for participants from selected countries in South and Southeast Asia (“the project”) has yielded the
following conclusions and recommendations:

Both high ranking officials such as the ministers opening the training workshops as well as the
participants of the EGM and workshops recognized the reality of corruption and lack of transparency in
the land sector in the region.

Lack of capacity to address corruption and transparency was also acknowledged by all concerned
making the project to be considered as highly opportune for the region.

The project objectives and expectations were met in terms of: a) developing eight case studies; b)
organizing an Expert Group Meeting attended by 25 specialists (against 15 planned) which yielded the
anticipated input for implementing the training and; c) organizing two training workshops attended by
46 participants (against 30 planned).
Rolling out the training programme to other regions should, however, take into considerations the
following conclusions and recommendations:

The partnership of international and national organizations proved to be instrumental and essential for
a successful implementation of the capacity building programme. Complementary and supplementary
knowledge, expertise, relation networks, resources and facilities proved to be a successful vehicle and
seem to be the best if not only way to organize these types of initiatives in future.

Apart from being essential for the local expertise, experience, relations, logistic and organizational
capacities, such partnerships increase exposure, strengthen the capabilities and enhance regional
collaboration and should therefore be nurtured in future activities.

As resources for similar types of training will generally be limited, additional support, particularly for
funding of participants will increase the number of beneficiaries and hence affect the impact of these
training programmes. It is recommended to target particularly the donors and implementing
organizations of on-going programmes and projects in the land sector for that purpose.

Project scheduling and timing proved to be too tight to gear the various activities to one another such
as case study development, identification and selection of participants and preparation of workshops.
These should therefore be better thought off for future events and be based on a more realistic
timeframe.

The development of case studies, although essential instruments in the training, should recognize the
requirement for capable and, principally, objective and reliable (in terms of “delivery”) authors. An
element of subjectivity may, however, not be avoided which may in turn result in controversy during
the implementation of the training.

An Expert Group Meeting convening regional participants to create awareness and ownership, identify
priorities, tailor the training and identify participants is essential for the implementation of a training
programme in another region and should be recommended as an integral component of similar
programmes rolled out in other regions.

Identification and selection of participants has turned out to be a time-consuming process, particularly
challenging in terms of finding the right candidates being those who will be capable and in a position to
replicate the training and/or create capacity in other ways. It is recommended to make use of
extensive networks of contacts and demand curricula vitae to assess experience with and involvement
in capacity building, not to forget paying attention of reaching a proper gender balance.

Content and structure of the training can well be based on the curriculum developed for the TLA
Capacity Building programme as all identified tools were recognized as equally important for the
region. Localizing and customizing the training to local conditions is recommended to be done through
case studies reflecting national positions and presentations and reflections of national conditions.

Course duration of three days was generally and by both participants and organizers considered too
short. It is recommended to have a duration of at least four and preferably five days.

Adjusting the duration would, apart from more time for digestion and discussion also allow the
presentation of national conditions and reflection on experiences and, if possible, a site visit.

Case studies were considered relevant learning tools provided these were presented by either the
authors or persons originating from the countries concerned and well prepared to answer questions.
Action plans were also considered valuable tools but it is recommended to pay special attention to the

introduction and guidance to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretations of the requirements.

Participants appreciated the background documentation and training tools and instruments which were
distributed prior to and during the workshops. It is recommended however to finalize the toolkit on
transparency in land administration and training guide developed during phase 1 and apply a less
restrictive policy in the distribution of material to allow the participant easy adaptation of materials for
local, national use.

Finally, impact is not and cannot be an integral part of a training programme carried out as a project
of short duration. It is therefore recommended that GLTN/UN-HABITAT set-up an impact assessment
programme on a more structural and long-term footing.
Transparency in Land Administration in Asia: Final Narrative Report
Page 17