Session Chair: Klaus Barwiniski, Director, Surveying and Mapping Agency of Northrhine-Westfalia, Germany
The Chair opened by stating that a GSDI is a "must for all". In quoting Hermann Habermann, he expressed the view that the time has come to "implement practical solutions" and he noted that there are areas in the world that are making progress with GSDI initiatives. The Chair proposed there should be an appropriate GSDI structure to move forward with.
In Latin America there is coverage of small scale mapping but little SDI development. However as well as Colombia, Brazil and Mexico have made progress in this regard.
The speaker highlighted the contrasts in Latin America; in the geography of the countries and in the extent of facilities and equipment in the various national mapping agencies.
He expressed the view that the GSDI road ahead is not paved and some of the difficulties being confronted include:
Historically, countries in the region are familiar with an analogue approach and the time taken to adjust to a digital environment will vary between countries. The approach to managing this change he said will determine how SDIs will develop.
The importance of countries understanding the specific benefits of SDI is all important.
The speaker briefly outlined the history of national surveying and mapping in Columbia noting that in addition to its national programs it is now promoting technical transfer in the region. As well the speaker is involved in the wider area of initiatives such as GSDI.
The speaker summarised a number of initiatives and some of the difficulties in harmonising regional activity, as follows:
PAIGH (Pan-American Institute of Geography and History)
Despite financial difficulties and unavailability of some modern technologies PAIGH influences and provides encouragement for issues such as SDI development.
DIGSA (Directorate of the Institute of Geography in South America, Spain and Portugal)
A forum for developing common policies for mutual benefit.
Since 1995 SDI issues have been on agenda.
Some datasets are being defined along with standards for mapping and for data.
IGDN (Inter-American Geospatial Data Network Initiative)
IGDN is the only truly regional SDI initiative in the Americas.
Concerning SDI, there is low involvement from most countries and it was noted that from within the region only one response was provided to the FGDC NSDI survey. As well only three countries are involved in ISO TC/211.
PCA (Permanent Committee for the Americas)
Of the 35 countries at the UNRCC – The Americas meeting in New York June 1997 only five included senior or decision making personnel. There is a need to convince countries of the benefits of SDIs.
A number of initiatives were proposed by the speaker to assist the region in SDI development including:
The speaker reported on the collaborative work of NMAs in the region in developing a 1:1million digital map in the Baltic Sea region to create a database of the Baltic Sea drainage area.
As a background to the project the previous Nordic 1:2 million map activity provided a useful experience platform from which to embark on the 1:1million project.
A total of 14 countries are involved in the project.
Project organisation:
Contents
Data
Problems
Methodology steps
At November 1998 the administrative and hydrographic boundaries are complete while transportation, settlement and geographical names are in preparation. However there is data missing from some countries.
One issue needing to be determined is copyright and how to find a common pricing level.
The project has provided a good opportunity for countries to work together in a joint SDI project.
Each panelist delivered a statement on GSDI initiatives and the following main points were noted:
Hermann Habermann, Director, Statistics Division, United Nations.
Sees GIS as an integrating force with specific reference to social, economic and environmental issues and decision making.
The importance of what/who is the client for the GSDI was raised. The panelist saw this as the first "big rock".
As a decision tool GIS needs rapid response spatial analysis software.
Privacy and confidentiality were noted as significant security issues to be addressed within the context of developing the GSDI.
Nobuo Nagai, Director, Geographic Department, Geographical Survey Institute, Japan.
Global Map was explained as a group of global geographic datasets that would be open to public access. It is seen as a specific product within the GSDI.
ISCGM is the coordinator of Global Map while datasets are managed by the responsible country. Global Map conforms with the aims of Agenda 21.
Global Map was first conceived in 1992 and established in 1996. Consensus has been reached within the International Steering Committee for Global Mapping (ISCGM) on the components of and activities for Global Map, with the first phase expected in 2000.
François Salgé Advisor to the Director General, Institut Géographique National, France
The speaker noted the role of CERCO as being primarily with policy matters while MEGRIN is its operational arm. MEGRIN has already developed some part of the SDI for Europe with its work on an administrative boundary database, its metadata server, its Topographic Database of Europe project at 1/250.000 (PETIT) and interconnection of national dataservers.
The USA and UK models for producing spatial data were compared. The US model is funded by public money whereas the UK model is not and has licences to cover costs.
A third model for the production of government GI and related data was put forward. This model would see some essential or core data acquired by government at its own expense for its own use. The cost for the other essential data is only partly covered by the government therefore licences would complement the resources. All data it acquired can be used for a universal service that would attract client costs.
The need for a GI regulating authority to balance or make up the deficit was noted. Essential data could be used for value added services under the condition of payment of licences to help cover the uncovered costs of production.
The speaker said this model would enable a valuable contribution of GI data to the GSDI. He suggested the creation of a working party within the GSDI arrangements to address this model.
A number of issues for the third model were suggested for consideration including:
The MEGRIN web site address was provided:- http://www.megrin.org/
Drew Clarke, Head, Analytical and Mapping Division, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Australia.
The speaker outlined the activities of the Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and the Pacific (PCGIAP) noting that of the 55 member nations it is between 10-15 that are active. Despite the region not being fully represented the PCGIAP is making good progress with an ambitious work program and the gaps in membership are being addressed.
PCGIAP Publication No.1, which was included in the GSDI3 satchel and is on the PCGIAP web site, sets out the goals and principles for the development of the Asia-Pacific spatial data infrastructure (APSDI).
The PCGIAP geodesy working group has made significant progress in establishing a precise regional geodetic datum as a fundamental component of APSDI. Ten member countries participated in a space geodesy regional field campaign during November 1997 and during the latter part of 1998 another campaign will link a number of national geodetic datums into the regional framework.
PCGIAP is seeking to establish fundamental data nodes across the region and data distribution will be via the Internet. PCGIAP is also seeking support for the development of member countries' NSDIs, which will help fill in gaps in the APSDI with a bottom up approach.
Monitoring climate change for a number of Pacific islands was quoted as one example where the GSDI would provide a good basis for environmental decision making.
PCGIAP supports the Global Map project.