Chapter Eight: Outreach and Capacity Building

Introduction

This chapter describes the 'softer' elements of a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI), focussing on the outreach and capacity building activities that accompany the more technical elements of building a SDI dealt with in previous chapters. Nevertheless, the aspects of implementing a SDI discussed here often present considerable challenges because they depend on the willingness of people in different organisations and institutions to co-operate.

The chapter considers when it makes sense to develop a Spatial Data Infrastructure, how this relates to regional efforts and the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure and how outreach and capacity building activities can be used in the implementation of a SDI.

Contributions from both developed and developing countries have been drawn upon. These are placed along different ends of the spectrum of SDI development; some of these countries have gained much experience in implementing a SDI while others are just beginning.

Several people have contributed with their input or comments to this chapter. Thanks go to Mark Reichardt, FGDC, United States; Liz Gavin, NSIF, South Africa; Camille A.J. van der Harten, SADC Regional Remote Sensing Unit, Zimbabwe; Rita Nicolau, CNIG, Portugal; Bob Ryerson, Kim Geomatics Corporation, Canada; Terry Fisher, CEONET, Canada; Ian Masser, EUROGI; Hiroshi Murakami, Ministry of Construction, Japan; and Steve Blake, AUSLIG, Australia. Acknowledgements go also to the Program on Environment Information Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (EIS-SSA) for making available the best practice reports on environmental information systems for several countries.

Context and Rationale

The continued advances in remote sensing, mapping and geospatial technologies, including an increasing variety of data acquisition capabilities and low cost and more powerful computing capacity, coupled with the development of geographic information system technology, have enabled and increased the demand for geographic information. As the importance of geographic information in addressing complex social, environmental, and economic issues facing communities around the globe is growing, the establishment of a Spatial Data Infrastructure to support the sharing and use of this data locally, nationally and transnationally makes increasing sense.

Without a coherent and consistent SDI in place, there are inefficiencies and lost opportunities in the use of geographic information to solve problems. Furthermore, as spatial technologies are increasingly being used by diverse organisations in developed and developing countries, a number of obstacles add up to a geographic information bottleneck (see Example 1). Lack of institutional co-ordination, insufficient flow of information, overlapping of initiatives, duplication of field activities and results, poor management of resources and insufficient qualification of the technical staff are some of the most pressing problems. In addition, there is a lack of standardised metadata and poor documentation on who is doing what and the types of available information. This has a double negative effective. On one hand, potential data and information users have difficulty finding or having access to needed relevant information and, on the other hand, information suppliers do not know what they have which in turn prevents better organisation of information for dissemination and enhanced value of the information.

It is important to take into account that the longer the harmonisation of stand-alone databases is post-poned, the more difficult it will be to make them interoperable. Costs for integrating stand- alone systems into a SDI concept are increasing exponentially with time and the number of data sets. This suggests that a co-ordinated initiative based on SDI principles should be considered as soon as possible. A feasibility study carried out in Malaysia prior to the implementation of a national SDI concluded that a SDI would present an opportunity with dynamic benefits that would grow over time, culminating in accelerated socio-economic development the nation combined with a reduction in delays in the implementation of projects (http://www.nalis.gov.my/laman/kertas6e.htm).

However, the development of a SDI will rely heavily upon opportunities provided by the socio-political stability and the legal context of a country as well as other important institutional set-ups that might become instrumental while installing a dynamic process of information creation and exchange (see Example 1).

• Awareness of the value of geographic information and applications is growing quickly, in the public and private sectors.
  Growing awareness of the potential of GIS among public sector institutions, non-governmental organisations as well as the private sector means that the use of geographic information systems is increasing every year. However, often the existing spatial data systems are not technically linked and institutional co-ordination is still weak. Most GIS developments started with the implementation of an information component for specific projects. Systems are not designed to ensure smooth data sharing but primarily to respond to specific needs of the host organisation. Although this has helped to design systems with a demand driven approach, this evolution did not create a favourable context for straightforward data exchange.

• Co-operation and co-ordination between public sector organisations is limited.
  Due to the lack of co-ordination, the different data structures will not be compatible to facilitate data exchange. Although networking relationships exist between people, these are based on individual contacts and are not reflected in an operational co-ordination of activities. There is usually no nation-wide SDI and usually no lead agency has started activities to create one. Many of the systems are still in their installation phase. Where there is metadata at all, different agencies maintain it using different formats and tools. More generally there is a lack of common elements that could facilitate data exchange such as same working scales, same GIS software, and the completion of a national database which could be used as standard basic information layers. In many instances, there is no copyright law and most public agencies need to market their product in order to find additional resources to maintain and update their data. Only very few institutions have already started to define clear data exchange policies to disseminate their information.

• Development and implementation are very internal, stove-piped and do not favour data sharing collaboration.
  The spatial databases being built up are "stand alone systems", using individual philosophies and technologies (concepts, structures, hard and/or software). Most of these implementations are technology and/or donor driven and as such are isolated implementations, insular databases under construction, and related to specific environmental issues. The whole problem is exacerbated in developing countries since different agencies are often supported by a different donor. Each donor tends to encourage its own solution - often resulting in interagency competition instead of co-operation. Few of them are ready to deliver some outputs, none of them are fully operational yet. Communication between the different implementations is usually not possible technically because common communication standards for data exchange are missing. The exchange of information between institutions and teams ranges from limited to non-existent. Often the relation between the implementations is characterised by competition rather than co-operation. Existing systems primarily serve the purpose and mandate of their host organisations, who are only now beginning to co-operate and co-ordinate. There is very limited co-operation and co-ordination between public sector organisations.

• Most of the motivation to employ geographic information and tools is still internal to institutions to serve their primary needs. Outreach and education are not being emphasised.
  The majority of the institutions are motivated by their own mission and therefore to a great extent do not subscribe to national policy objectives. Existing systems serve primarily their own clientele, without concern for the needs of other potential users. This leads to the duplication of efforts and sometimes inefficient use of resources, both financial and human. Sharing information in a fully transparent manner is not the main characteristic of the usual communication culture. Communication is instead linked to hierarchy and authority. Since the success of a SDI is based to a large extent on cross-sectoral networking and access to information, the inherent organisational "communication culture" impedes the build- up of an efficient SDI.

• There are few national policy initiatives underway to encourage sharing and collaboration on geographic data and practices.
  There are only a few formalised institutional links to share data. Practically every organisation has its own way of producing digital data. Some departments are developing their own data standards including classification schemes for their own use. The awareness of copyright issues is rising, but there is often a complete lack of policy around information management - it has not been addressed simply because it is not seen as a priority.

• Vertical organisation within government and administration is limiting cross sectoral communication.
  Due to the strong vertical organisation culture of government and administration, there is no real encouragement of cross sectoral communication. Each ministry or department undertakes its own mandate, trying to create it's own database and information system, following it's own needs, point of views and priorities. Information is handled in a strictly vertical direction, following hierarchies. Information seems always to be linked to persons and their status within the hierarchy. Cross sectoral information exchange is strictly limited to informal organisation. The handling of information is a political issue, a cultural topic.

• Access to information is hindered by a lack of transparency
  Access to information is not only a question of ownership and attitude to communication. Transparency is not yet the main characteristic of communication culture and remains a major problem. Nobody really knows who disposes of what, where what is available or who is in charge to produce what. Without an overall information concept, without clear mandates, tasks and responsibilities, without a metadata-database, access to information remains a casual event, a question of personal relationships and good or bad luck. Users of information have to know about and in some cases hunt for information. To collect precise information one needs either a very good personal network, based on personal relationships, or a lot of time and good nerves. The major technical obstacles to data sharing reside in the lack of application of a national standard for spatial data, incompatible classification schemes and the almost total absence of data documentation or metadata. Additional difficulty stems from restrictions on spatial dissemination for maps of border areas.

These problems are not exclusive to developing countries. A fundamental problem underlying data sharing and distribution is the belief that one gains power and influence from withholding information and controlling it. In fact, true power is held by those who distribute the information and whose information is used by senior political levels. Once this leap of faith is taken, as it has been in several countries, data sharing becomes remarkably easy.

The national SDI in the US: Much of what is today's U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) have roots in the concern by Presidential Administrations since the 1950's to better co-ordinate the operations of agencies engaged in surveying, mapping and related GIS functions across government. Two major activities to drive co-ordination were the Office of Management and Budget published Circular A-16 in the late 1950's, and the activities of a federal mapping task force convened in the early 1970's. The Task Force was charged with studying the possibility of consolidating geographic information (GI) functions across the federal government to reduce potential duplication and overlap, and to potentially reduce costs. Pressures to consolidate Government GI functions continued and in the early 90's the US Government recognised the need to establish a sustaining spatial data infrastructure as part of its National Information Infrastructure. With the advancement of technology and the increase in the personal computers, there was an accelerated explosion of digital information production from a multitude of federal, state, local, other public and private sources. The need for a compatible infrastructure to find, share, and exploit information across jurisdictions became a common goal of many organisations to reduce duplication and improve support to users, and better co-ordinate the operations of agencies engaged in surveying, mapping and related GIS functions. The FGDC was created in 1990. The Committee was created to "promote the co-ordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geographic data". Specific support was requested from several key federal agencies involved with geospatial missions. Today, the FGDC has added more key federal departments, agencies and others will soon become a member as well. The role of other Federal Agencies is expanding as they realise the spatial significance of their social, environmental, economic data, and the FGDC focus now is moving toward getting these data types (such as crime and health data) recognised as national spatial data infrastructure components. The FGDC has also expanded its partnerships to include state, local, tribal governments, and representatives from the GIS industry and academia.

The national SDI in Australia: In Australia, the initial impetus came from the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC), the peak inter-governmental body for spatial data issues. Each State and Territory and the Commonwealth were represented but there were no industry stakeholders. Some 3 years of the ASDI was spent scoping the size of the tasks ahead and allocating jobs and lead agency status for specific tasks. The recent 12 months have seen the operationalisation of the SDI programs in each of the States and Territories.

Survey of national and regional SDI's: A global survey of many national and regional SDI's can be found at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/harlan/GSDI.html gathering baseline information on the nature and characteristics of the national SDI's that are currently being developed. For each national or regional entry, the following information is provided:

• the type of organisation(s) taking the leadership in the co-ordination and development of the SDI,
• the types, categories or forms of spatial digital data made available through the SDI,
• the technical and organisational access mechanisms of the SDI
• private sector involvement in the SDI
• public domain data sets
• legal mandate or formal orders behind the establishment of the SDI
• the components of the SDI
• most pressing challenges.

These sources suggest that the concepts of core data (or framework data), data standards, clearinghouses and metadata are well accepted as parts of SDI's in many nations around the world. From the standpoint of global SDI development, these are areas where we collectively should place our near term efforts in gaining international agreement where possible.

A SDI makes sense at the local, national, regional and global level where the overlap and duplication in the production of geographic information is paralleled by insufficient flows of geographic information among different stakeholders due to a lack of standardisation and harmonisation of spatial data bases. Once the importance of providing geographic information as an infrastructure similar to road and telecommunication networks is recognised, it makes sense to ensure that a consistent Spatial Data Infrastructure at the local, national and global level is developed.

The 'ideal' SDI: The characteristics of what may be described as an 'ideal' SDI are outlined below;

• There is a common spatial data foundation organised according to widely accepted layers and scales (or resolution) that is available for the entire area of geographic coverage (parcel, neighbourhood, city, county, state, nation, etc.) to which other geospatial data can be easily referenced.
• The foundation (or core) data is readily accessible and available at no or little cost from user-friendly and seamless sources to meet public needs and encourage conformance with it by producers of other geospatial data.
• Both foundation and other geospatial data, as required and specified co-operatively by data producers and users, is updated according to commonly accepted standards and measures of quality.
• Thematic and tabular data are also available on terms not incompatible with the foundation data.
• Cost-effective, geospatial data produced by one organisation, political jurisdiction, or nation is compatible with similar data produced by other organisations, political jurisdictions or nations.
• Geospatial data can be integrated with many other kinds or sets of data to produce information useful for decision makers and the public, when appropriate.
• Responsibility for generating, maintaining, and distributing the data is widely shared by different levels of government and the private sector. Governments take advantage of private-sector capabilities available at reasonable prices rather than maintaining dedicated capabilities.
• The costs of generating, maintaining, and distributing such data are justified in terms of public benefits and/or private gains; overlap and duplication among participating organisations is avoided wherever possible.

  (United States National Academy of Public Administration 1998)