|
|
|
Capacity Building for Spatial Data Infrastructure Development
Ian Masser
Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA)
University College London
Abstract
An important objective for governments throughout the world is to create national spatial data infrastructures to maximise the use that is made of national geographic information assets. More than 120 countries are already considering projects of this kind). From the outset it has been recognised that building a SDI is far more than just a technical task. Their effective implementation also often requires fundamental changes in the institutional context that governs the collection and dissemination of geographical information in each of the countries involved. More recently it has also been argued that such developments will require a prolonged programme of capacity building to ensure that the most effective use is made by all of the different kinds of stakeholders that are involved of the resources provided by the creation of a SDI. For this reason it is increasingly becoming apparent that the full impacts of SDI will not be realised for decades rather than years. With these considerations in mind this paper initially examines the nature of the SDI phenomenon and then considers the needs for capacity building with particular reference to two core strategic areas in SDI development: coalition formation and institutional development for SDI implementation.
Introduction
An important objective for governments throughout the world is to create national spatial data infrastructures to maximise the use that is made of national geographic information assets. More than 120 countries are already considering projects of this kind (Crompvoets 2002). This means in effect that over half the nations in the world are participating in what has come to be known as the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) phenomenon (Masser 2003). These developments have already spawned a hierarchy of SDIs both above and below the national level. Particularly interesting in this respect, given the global nature of the phenomenon, are the efforts of the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association to foster SDI development through the world.
From the outset it has been recognised that building a SDI is far more than just a technical task (see, for example, National Research Council 1993). Their effective implementation also requires often fundamental changes in the institutional context that governs the collection and dissemination of geographical information in each of the countries involved (see, for example, Rhind 1996). More recently it has also been argued that such developments will require a prolonged programme of capacity building to ensure that the most effective use is made by all the stakeholders of the resources provided by the creation of a SDI (see, for example, Masser 2001). With these considerations in mind this paper initially examines the nature of the SDI phenomenon and then considers the needs for capacity building with particular reference to two core strategic areas in SDI development: coalition formation and institutional development for SDI implementation.
The NSDI phenomenon
Some of the main milestones in the emergence of the NSDI phenomenon are set out in Table 1. From this it can be seen that its origins date back almost twenty years to the establishment of the Australian Land Information Council (ALIC) in January 1986 as a result of an agreement between the Australian Prime Minister and the heads of the state governments to coordinate the collection and transfer of land related information between the different levels of government and to promote the use of that information in decision making (ANZLIC 1992, p.1).
Table 1 Some NSDI milestones
| 1986 | Australian Land Information Council set up to coordinate the collection and transfer of land related information between the different levels of government |
| 1990 | US Federal Geographic Data Committee set up to coordinate the development, use, sharing and dissemination of surveying mapping and related spatial data |
| 1993 | US Mapping Science Committee report on 'Toward a coordinated spatial data infrastructure for the nation' |
| 1994 | Executive Order 12906 'Coordinating geographic data acquisition and access: the National Spatial Data Infrastructure' |
| 1996 | First Global Spatial Data Infrastructure conference in Bonn, Germany |
| 1998 | First generation of NSDIs paper identifies 11 initiatives from all parts of the world. |
| 1998-2000 | 54 countries respond to GSDI survey |
| 2002 | Crompvoets claims that 120 countries are considering NSDI development |
The second milestone occurs in 1990 when the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established an interagency Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) to coordinate the 'development, use, sharing, and dissemination of surveying, mapping, and related spatial data (OMB 1990).' Up to this point the term 'National Spatial Data Infrastructure' was not in general use although a paper was presented by John McLaughlin (1991) at the Canadian Conference on Geographic Information Systems in Ottawa entitled 'Toward National Spatial Data Infrastructure.' Many of the ideas contained in this paper were subsequently developed and extended by the United States National Research Council's Mapping Science Committee in their report on 'Toward a coordinated spatial data infrastructure for the nation' (National Research Council 1993). This argued that effective national policies, strategies, and organisational structures need to be established at the federal level for the integration of national spatial data collection, use and distribution. To realise this goal it proposed that the powers of the FGDC should be strengthened to define common
standards for spatial data management and to create incentives to foster data sharing particularly among federal agencies.
The turning point in the evolution of the NSDI phenomenon came in the following year in the United States with the publication of an Executive Order 12906 signed by President Clinton on 11th April 1994 entitled “Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.”(Executive Office of the President 1994) The Executive Order set out in some detail the main tasks to be carried out and defined time limits for each of the initial stages of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Apart from the core task of inter-agency coordination through the FGDC, these included the establishment of a National Geospatial Data Clearing House and the creation of a National Digital Geospatial Data Framework. The Executive Order also gave the FGDC the task of coordinating the Federal government’s development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and required that each member agency of that committee held a policy level position in their organisation. In this way it significantly raised the political visibility of geospatial data collection, management and use not only among Federal agencies but also nationally and internationally.
This document had an immediate impact on thinking in the European Union where a meeting of key people representing geographic information interests in each of the member states was organised by Directorate General XIII (now DG Information Society) in Luxembourg in February 1995. The main task of this meeting was to develop the ideas set out in the first of what became a series of draft documents on 'GI 2000: toward a European geographic information infrastructure' (CEC 1995). One of the outcomes of this debate in Europe was the decision to hold the first of what subsequently became a regular series of Global Spatial Data Infrastructure conferences at Bonn in Germany in September 1996. This conference brought together representatives from the public and private sectors and academia for the first time to discuss matters relating to NSDIs at the global level.
After the second GSDI conference in Chapel Hill, North Carolina in 1997 the author carried out a survey of the first generation of NSDIs (Masser 1999). This showed that at least eleven NSDIs were already in operation in various parts of the world by the end of 1996. What distinguished these from other GI policy initiatives was that they were all explicitly national in scope and their titles all referred to geographic information, geospatial data or land information and included the term 'infrastructure', 'system' or 'framework'. This first generation included relatively wealthy countries such as the United States and Australia as well as relatively poor countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia.
The rapid rate of NSDI diffusion after 1996 is highlighted by the findings of a survey carried for the GSDI by Onsrud (www.gsdi.org). This shows that 54 countries responded positively to his questionnaire between 1998 and 2000: 21 of these came from the Americas, 14 from Europe, 13 from Asia and the Pacific and 6 from Africa. The number of positive responses to this survey is nearly five times the number of first generation NSDI countries identified up to the end of 1996 while data collected by Crompvoets (2002) suggests that as many as 120 countries may be considering projects of this kind. Given these circumstances it is felt that the term 'NSDI phenomenon' is a reasonable description of what has happened in this field over the last ten years.
The nature of a NSDI
The extent of the NSDI phenomenon is all the more surprising, as there is no clear concensus about what constitutes an NSDI. Many NSDI's have a strong project dimension which focuses on concrete goals such as the completion of the national topographical database. Others are much more process oriented and focus mainly on strategic issues such as capacity building and the modernisation of government. This is partly due to the different interpretations that can be given to the notion of infrastructure. To some people infrastructure means tangible physical assets like roads and railway networks. To others it is a strategic process of policy formulation and implementation carried out by governments to ensure that their geographic information assets are managed in the interests of the nation as a whole (Barr and Masser, 1997). This includes not only the tangible assets but also the individuals and institutions that are needed to make it a functional reality.
The definition put forward by the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association conveys some of the complexity of the issues involved. It defines a global (and implicitly a national) SDI as follows:
'A (National) Spatial Data Infrastructure supports ready access to geographic information. This is achieved through the co-ordinated actions of nations and organisations that promote awareness and implementation of complimentary policies, common standards and effective mechanisms for the development and availability of interoperable digital geographic data and technologies to support decision making at all scales for multiple purposes. These actions encompass the policies, organisational remits, data, technologies, standards, delivery mechanisms, and financial and human resources necessary to ensure that those working at the (national) and regional scale are not impeded in meeting their objectives (www.gsdi.org).' (Author's underlining)
The underlined sections of this comprehensive but complex definition show that there are four key concepts underlying NSDIs. The first of these states their overriding objective is to promote ready access to the geographic information assets that are held by a wide range of stakeholders in both the public and the private sector with a view to maximising their overall usage. The second concerns the need for coordinated action on the part of governments to ensure that the overriding objective is achieved. The next part of this sentence gives some examples of the kind of actions that are required from governments. The third key element stresses the extent to which NSDIs must be user driven. Their primary purpose is to support decision making for many different purposes and it must be recognised that many potential users may be unaware of the original purposes for which the data was collected. Finally the last sentence illustrates the wide range of activities that must be undertaken to ensure the effective implementation of an NSDI. These include not only technical matters such as data, technologies, standards and delivery mechanisms but also institutional matters related to organisational responsibilities and overall national information policies as well as questions relating to the availability of the financial and human resources needed for this task.
|
|
|