Indian |
International | Geographic Information Infrastructure
Reflections on the Indian National Geospatial Data Infrastructure  Ian Masser Department of Urban Planning and Management International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Observation The Indian National Geospatial Data Infrastructure was launched at a workshop held in New Delhi on Feb 5th and 6th 2001. The workshop was organised by the Centre for Spatial Database Management and Solutions (CDMS) and took place under the sponsorship of the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Space. Co sponsors included the Ministries of Rural Development, Information Technology, Environment and Forests, Urban Development, Surface Transport, Mines and Minerals, and Agriculture and Cooperation. The workshop attracted a large audience from all sections of the Indian GI community and the organisers also invited a number of overseas experts to participate in the discussion. The centrepiece of the workshop was the report prepared by the Task Force on NSDI set up by the Department of Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the Surveyor General of India, Lt. Gen. A. K. Ahuja (Task Force on NSDI, 2001). This sets out an overall framework for a decentralised Indian NSDI based which takes account of the need to maintain standard digital collections of spatial data, the importance of developing common solutions for the discovery, access and use of such data to meet the requirements of diverse user groups, and the need to build relationships among the organisations involved to support its continuing development. With these considerations in mind the report pays particular attention to metadata standards and provision and the creation of an organisational framework which is inclusive of all the stakeholders. To achieve its objectives it recommends that the Government should pass enabling legislation that lays down guidelines for the commitment of the key players. Its authors see the NSDI as a national endeavour towards greater transparency and e-governance and propose the creation of a high level National Spatial Data Commission with a senior Cabinet Minister as chairperson to oversee its implementation. The implementation of such an infrastructure is likely to cost at the very least 1000 crore rupees (ie about $2 billion) and a mix of options ranging from Government funding, public private partnerships, and international loans will need to be considered to make this possible. It was clear from the presentations at the workshop that the authors of the report had done their homework and were familiar with recent NSDI developments in other parts of the world. Nevertheless it may be still useful to reconsider some of the lessons that might be drawn from this growing body of experience as the Indian NSDI moves from the proposal to the implementation stages. My own evaluation of the experience of the eleven countries that make up the first generation of NSDIs (Masser, 1999) shows considerable variations in both their composition and the driving forces that are behind them. In practice NSDIs come in all shapes and sizes. Not only are there massive differences between countries with respect to size and economic circumstances but there are also large variations between NSDIs in countries with federal as against centralised administrative structures. Despite this diversity those involved in the further development of the Indian NSDI can draw useful lessons from this experience. However, it is very important in this respect to adopt a critical stance when evaluating these experiences and to bear in mind that much of the material that is available from the responsible agencies involved does not adequately explain the national institutional context within which they have developed. The extent to which NSDI initiatives reflect such circumstances is highlighted in my comparative evaluation of the experience of Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States (Masser, 1998). Another useful antidote to official compilations can also be found in critical appraisals of national experiences such as the report prepared by the US National Academy of Public Administration (1998) which views the US NSDI from a very different perspective to that of the Federal Geographic Data Committee. With this in mind I would like to highlight four issues that are likely to need special consideration by those involved. In order of priority these are the nature of the machinery for coordination, the need to develop metadata services, the importance of capacity building initiatives and the need to promote data integration. The machinery for coordination This is one of the most important factors in the development and implementation of NSDIs. To be effective NSDIs must be given clearly defined mandates by their respective governments. This can be done in various ways: through enabling legislation as is proposed in India, or alternatively through the modification and adaptation of well established coordination mechanisms as was the case in the Netherlands. In either case the mandate from government should make clear the driving forces behind the NSDI and create the machinery that is needed for its coordination. This will usually take the form of a high level national committee such as the proposed National Spatial Data Commission in India although some countries have chosen to set up dedicated national centres for this purpose as is the case with respect to the National Centre for Geographic Information (CNIG) in Portugal. Whatever the form of the mandate and nature of the machinery that is set up for coordinating the NSDI effort it should not be forgotten that its principal task is to facilitate the evolution of the NSDI through the efforts of all its stakeholders. For this reason it is important to try to avoid creating top heavy coordination structures as much as possible and to concentrate on developing initiatives that promote interagency collaboration and data sharing among the stakeholders. Those involved in the coordination effort must also try to find the right balance between long term and short term objectives. In particular they must look for quick winners that produce visible results which demonstrate the potential benefits of the NSDI initiative and help to build up political support for the programme as a whole.
Page 1 of 2
| Next | |