Coastal Spatial Data Infrasturcture (CSDI): African requirements and Responses

Institutional framework
There is a complex network of agencies and institutions that are considered to be stakeholders in the coastal zone (Figure 1) that, collectively, represent the ICZM landscape of KZN. This network is embodied within a single, focused, and legally mandated multi-stakeholder forum, the Provincial Coastal Committee (PCC).


Figure 1. A network diagram showing the agencies and institutions represented on the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Coastal Committee (PCC) as nodes in a two-dimensional space (taken from Celliers et al, in press).


What is implicit in the figure above is the high level of understanding of the actors and their interaction within the network, and how this understanding, and the PCC as a vehicle for progress, would contribute towards the development of the shared benefit presented by an SDI. The PCC represents a cross-section of spatial information users and producers already organised within a legal framework intended to promote sustainable coastal development, defined as a balance between material prosperity, social development, cultural values, spiritual fulfillment and ecological integrity, in the interests of the current and future generations of this province. This framework is entrenched nationally as well as provincially and the legal mandate for management of this coastal zone is one of the compelling arguments for the development of a coastal SDI, and one that would greatly improve the likelihood of successful implementation. Not only are coastal stakeholders from this province considered to be progressive and innovative in terms of the marriage of science and management, but they also make a significant contribution to the activities in the regional ICZM landscape.

Vision, Strategy and Policy
Experience with land-based SDI initiatives has shown that technical issues, while important and non-trivial, are more easily resolved than are those related to different aspects of information policy and governance. Most SDI initiatives begin with a vision statement developed cooperatively by all identifiable stakeholders. In the case of a CSDI, it is important that land-based stakeholders are included in this group activity, including those who may not appear initially to have a direct stake in coastal environments. The US Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) pointed out that coastal problems often originate or are aggravated by sources originating hundreds of miles inland.

The Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone” is the result of cumulative drainage from the Mississippi–Atchafalaya River Basin, which includes all or parts of thirty states. In addition, atmospheric deposition from agriculture, power plants, industrial facilities, motor vehicles, and other often distant sources accounts for up to 40 percent of the nitrogen entering estuaries.

Following development of a CSDI vision, a formal strategy for implementing the vision is required. Strategy statements typically include sections on:

  • Business drivers (arguments articulating the need for SDI)
  • technological issues, e.g. information standards and data exchange, dissemination, access and exploitation principles;
  • minimum data holding requirements, e.g. 'core' data;
  • plans for stakeholder engagement;
  • performance or success criteria (Lance et al. 2006); and
  • proposals for SDI governance structures, e.g. 'ownership' of the initiative, coordination plans, reporting and monitoring of success.
A strategy document may includes specification of actions required to implement the strategy. However, it is also common to find staged Implementation Plans enacted over a period of years which implement the strategy, depending upon priorities, availability of funds and developments outside the direct control of the SDI coordinator, e.g. international standards developments, national e-government policy changes, etc. Once an initial strategy has been decided, various policies need to be enacted, sometimes officially, as statutory regulations, as well as less formally, by general agreement amongst stakeholders enacting sensible 'best practice'.

In the case of a thematic SDI, such as coastal/marine SDI, or a local/regional SDI (sub-national) being created within the framework of an existing national SDI vision and strategy, alignment of strategy and policy between the thematic/non-national SDI and the national SDI is required, since these must co-exist. In many countries and regions, this requires adherence to existing or planned e-government initiatives and programmes, since much of the data underpinning the CSDI will be governmental in nature. Failure to pay attention to this requirement led to serious delays and added cost in the UK in developing their fledgling national SDI, since the original SDI data and metadata requirements were not aligned with official e-government interoperability (e-GIF) and metadata standard (e-GMS) regulations.

Enabling technologies
Enabling technology underpinning an SDI initiative comprises several components, including:

  • metadata standards that adhere to internationally agreed standards, i.e. ISO 19115/19139 and evolving marine metadata profiles of that standard (Reed, 2006),
  • tools for creating and publishing metadata, and discovering data resources, typically via open web services (OWS) architecture and Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)-compliant tools adhering to OGC specifications,
  • marine data models that satisfy different communities of practitioners who work in, or are responsible for management of, the coastal zone,
  • formal data specifications for the core and ancillary datasets that are needed to conduct coastal research and support coastal management activities,
  • availability of tools enabling data harmonisation or integration, especially across disciplines, achieved via appropriate interoperability technology, e.g. use of XML schemas and shared models,
  • training in 'best practice' use of software tools for publishing metadata and discovering data resources, typically via open web services (OWS) architecture and OGC-compliant tools adhering to Open Geospatial Consortium specifications,
  • establishing marine/coastal information 'observatories' (portals) which can act as clearinghouses for multiple types of data, provide information services demonstrators and offer guidance and training in use of software, models and other forms of data interoperability 'best practice', such as metadata creation and dissemination.
Note that many of the enabling technology of SDI rely upon other infrastructure components being in place, based on the overall strategy, vision and policies, e.g. human resources training infrastructure and agreed or enforceable data access and exploitation policies.

Financial investment model
Very few national SDIs have received specific implementation funding from government, even following in-depth cost-benefit analyses which showed substantial benefits to the national economy from such an infrastructure. Because a majority of the financial benefits often appear to derive from increased efficiency in operations or enhanced decision-making, SDI implementers are expected to pay for their part of infrastructure creation from existing budgets. This is also cited as one of the reasons that many SDI initiatives have been so slow to achieve their objectives or, in some cases, to even begin implementation of their agreed strategies. In cases in which government (federal level) funding has been made available specifically for SDI programmes, e.g. in Canada and the Netherlands, or via supporting programmes, such as projects funded by the European Union institutions, typically only partial funding is available, usually on a 'matching funds' basis. In Canada, which has entered its second round of such funding for another CAN$60 million over 5 years (to 2010), which equates to a minimum of CAN$120 million over 5 years based on matching funding, scores of individual projects have been successfully implemented, each of which contributes to the CGDI.

Much can be learned from the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI) funding programme. Firstly, substantial funding is made available overall, but project funding is limited to the range of CAN$10,000 to CAN$200,000 per project, as 50% (maximum) matching funds for the beneficiary, who “must ensure and demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the GeoConnections funding is awarded to the private sector.” Projects can support three main pillars of the CGDI, i.e. data, services and applications, and are proposed by “Communities of Practice”:

“A group of people who share an interest about a topic (domain), who interact on an ongoing basis, and who accumulate and disseminate knowledge. ... a community, or group of users, that shares common concerns or sets of problems, and has common user requirements of the CGDI. ... (and) possesses a number of other characteristics ... (including) a critical mass of common interests; is organized, or can be organized; will help build awareness; has defined, or definable, needs to which the CGDI can respond; can identify and contribute to setting future CGDI priorities; can foster collaborative arrangements to contribute to the CGDI or develop user applications; has a high impact that can be identified; has an open communication process to define needs within the community or with similar communities.” (GeoConnections, 2005)

In the European Union, implementation of the regional SDI (INSPIRE - Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) is based on connecting harmonised national SDIs that are built using whatever funding mechanisms apply in each EU Member State. Harmonised implementation standards and regulations that will apply at regional (transnational) level are being developed using funds from other existing EU programmes, such as the framework R&D programme, inter-regional development, information market development and others across a range of European Commission Directorates.

Typically, no funding is made available from central government without an in-depth cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and/or impact assessment being conducted. This is one of the first steps that should be included in an SDI Strategy, regardless of where the funding ultimately arises, i.e. from existing budgets of stakeholders or as new infrastructure funding from treasury. The European Commission conducted the first international workshop focusing specifically on CBA methodologies for SDIs in January 2006 (Craglia & Nowak, 2006) and found that little research has taken place in regard to SDI CBA methodologies, which pose a complex mix of requirements. Much is to be learned from the process of conducting an SDI-level CBA as from the final metrics produced by the analysis itself.

Guiding objectives and conclusions
Having outlined the vision, enabling technologies, and likely financial investment model, it appears that there is a realistic opportunity for the creation of a provincial CSDI demonstration project of this nature. Such an initiative would have three primary objectives:

  • Creation of a functional and mandated coastal SDI for a portion of the east coast of Africa. This would include an integrated and inclusive approach to development, with a measurable and realistic horizon for implementation, facilitated by a healthy interaction between the private sector and government as embodied in the legally mandated KZN Provincial Coastal Committee.
  • Demonstration of the requirements and potential advantages of a coastal SDI within the framework of a national NSDI, with further linkages to integrate with national, regional and global initiatives. Not only should the SDI be fully implemented but also document a scalable and repeatable coastal SDI development process with the greatest likelihood of success for similar initiatives with South Africa as well as elsewhere in the region.
  • Provide integrated information resources that will contribute to the management of the coastal and marine environments both in the province and the region. The SDI also should also address concerns relating to a range of climate change issues that have an impact on both the marine environment and the coastal zone.
The use and availability of geospatial data to support ICZM in KZN has been progressive and already has certainly shown great potential. However, with the increased use and subsequent involvement in the field of spatial decision-making, it has become clear that what is required is more than a just a collection of datasets for a GIS. SDI concerns such as the availability and quality of data, lack of metadata and the lack of clarity about intellectual property rights and institutional relationships must be addressed as these are impacting on the efficient and effective GIS use. The province of KZN can take advantage of the growing awareness of knowledge infrastructure development and thus achieve a coastal and marine spatial framework. Provincially the majority of the enabling conditions for the creation of a CSDI have been met, and importantly, there is national and regional recognition and interest.

REFERENCES

  • Celliers, L. Bulman, R. Breetzke, T. and Parak O. (in press) Institutional Mapping of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Ocean Yearbook
  • Cotton, D. 2006. MDIP Marine Data Overview – Reference Document –Draft – V0.3, The UK Marine Data and Information Partnership, Inter-Agency Committee for Marine Science and Technology. Source: http://www.oceannet.org/mdip/documents/dataoverview/Dataoverview_refdoc03.doc
  • Craglia, M. and Nowak, J. (eds.). 2006. Report of International Workshop on Spatial Data Infrastructures’ Cost-Benefit / Return on Investment: Assessing Impacts of Spatial Data Infrastructures, European Commission, Report EUR 22294 EN. Source: http://sdi.jrc.it/ws/costbenefit2006/reports/report_sdi_crossbenefit%20.pdf
  • GeoConnections. 2005. Source: http://www.geoconnections.org/CGDI.cfm/fuseaction/accessRfpsEafcop2.home/gcs.cfm
  • Gillespie, R., Butler, M., Anderson, N., Kucera, and LeBlanc, C. 2000. MGDI: An Information Infrastructure to Support Integrated Coastal Management in Canada, GeoCoast Vol. (1) No. (1) pp. (15-24).
  • Green, D., Longhorn, R., Bartlett, D., Roccatagliata, E. 2004. Oceans 21: GIS for Coastal Management and Coastal Education – Framework Science Plan. Source: http://www.iccops.it/oceans21/documents/Oceans_21_Framework_Science_Plan_Finale.pdf
  • IACMST. 2006. Defining the Framework for UK Marine Data and Information. The UK Marine Data and Information Partnership, Inter-Agency Committee for Marine Science and Technology, UK. Source: http://www.oceannet.org/mdip/documents/MDIP_2006_strategy_v3_final.pdf
  • Jonkers, J. 2006. The European approach to coastal zone management. Proceedings of ECO-IMAGINE Conference, Cork, Ireland, June, 2006. Source: http://www.gisig.it/eco%2Dimagine/full%20papers/Cork/Dronkers.pdf
  • Lance, K.T., Georgiadou, P.Y. and Bregt, A. 2006. Understanding how and why practitioners evaluate SDI performance. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 1. http://ijsdir.jrc.it/articles_under_review/lance-georgiadou-bregt.pdf
  • Longhorn, R. 2003a. Coastal Spatial Data Infrastructure as Part of National/Regional SDI, in: CoastGIS 2003 Conference Proceedings, GISIG: Italy. Source: http://www.gisig.it/coastgis/papers/Longhorn.htm
  • Longhorn, R. 2003b. European CZM and the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Initiative (GSD), in: Green, D.J. and King, S.D. (eds), Coastal and Marine Geo-Information Systems, Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht, NL, pp. 543-554.
  • Longhorn, R. 2003c. A comparison of spatial information access policies of transnational environmental modelling and global climate change programs. In Geoinformation for European-wide Integration, T. Benes (ed.), Millpress, the Netherlands. 2003.
  • Longhorn, R. 2005. Coastal Spatial Data Infrastructure, Chapter 1 in: Bartlett, D. and Smith, J. (eds), GIS for Coastal Zone Management, CRC Press LLC, Bacon Raton, Florida, pp. 1-15.
  • MOTIIVE. 2006. Marine Overlays on Topography, EU-funded INSPIRE implementing rules project of the 6th RTD Framework Programme. Source: http://www.motiive.net
  • Reed. G. 2006. Marine Community Profile of ISO 19115 Version 1.1, Australian Ocean Data Centre Joint Facility, 2006-05-01. Source: http://www.aodc.gov.au/files/MarineCommunityProfilev1.2.pdf
  • Schwabe, C. et al. (eds) 2006. Determination of fundamental geo-spatial datasets for Africa through a user needs analysis. Report prepared for the Mapping Africa for Africa Initiative (MAFA), under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Compiled by the GIS Centre, Knowledge Systems Programme, Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) and EIS AFRICA, February 2006. p.373
  • U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century - Final Report. Washington, DC. Source: http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html
Page 3 of 3
| Previous |