Chapter Six

Getting Started

Introduction

Once the need for establishing SDI is acknowledged, it is necessary to set about developing SDI. There are many aspects of a coherent SDI, which may require attention, so how does one start? To return to the chess game metaphor of the introductory chapter: what are the tried-and-tested "opening moves"?

This chapter seeks to provide guidance to SDI implementers as to how to begin setting about developing the components of the infrastructure they require. Several of the elements to be developed have been described in previous chapters (policy development, partnerships and institutional arrangements), while the more technical components are covered in the SDI Cookbook. These details are not repeated here. This chapter then provides guidelines of how to begin given both the ideal situation/conditions, where there is wide support and adequate resources for developing SDI, as well as the less ideal - but perhaps more common - situation, where perhaps only certain elements can be developed due to limitations of resources or support.

Believing that a story may be worth a thousand theoretical frameworks, this chapter also includes illustrations of how SDI initiatives began in several African countries. These experiences are presented in the form of answers to the following basic questions:

How did SDI activity begin in the country:
- What were the drivers? I.e. what motivated the lead agency or partners to establish SDI?
- Is there "an event" that marked the beginning?
What activities were prioritised initially, and why?
What has been the most visible or significant impact or outcome to date?
Particular successes, as well as experiments which were less successful
Lessons learnt from experience; what would you do differently now?

The perfect scenario

The ideal situation is one in which the SDI implementer has adequate dedicated resources at their disposal, and the support of all the relevant parties, who need to be involved to develop SDI, be they at political, managerial and technical levels.

A discernable pattern of broad steps, or stages, to developing SDI in general, is the following:

A consultative phase, in which an understanding of and support for SDI is widened, and a deeper understanding is developed of one's requirements;
A defining or consolidating phase, in which the goals of the SDI programme, as well as structures to guide its development are formulated and refined;
The phased implementation of SDI, resulting in components of infrastructure becoming operational and finally, fully functional.

Note that the above steps are not fixed, may not necessarily follow in strict chronological order. There may be some overlap in time between these stages: for example, in refining ideas about the SDI programme, it may become necessary to repeat extensive consultation, or, once implementation begins, it may become evident that the goals of the overarching SDI programme or the structures supporting its implementation may need to be modified. There may even be a cycling through the steps: because there are bound to be ongoing changes in circumstances, both institutional and relating to technology, it may from time to time be necessary to review one requirements and how SDI is best implemented, requiring broad consultation with stakeholders once again.

These stages are described in more detail below. An alternate description of steps to developing SDI may be found in Box 1.

Box 1: Suggested steps by Prévost and Gilruth

(Adapted from Environmental Information System in Sub-Saharan Africa; Post - UNCED series: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development in Sub - Saharan Africa, Building Blocks for Africa, Paper no. 12, Yves Prevost and Peter Gilruth, WorldBank, Washington, 1997.)

Note: These steps were originally formulated as those needed for creating "EIS National Policy"; however, the definition of EIS used, encompassing both institutional and technical factors, may be equated with SDI. The applicability of the suggested steps is neither limited to, nor specific to, "environmental" information.

Step 1: Promote the development of a national "community of usage", that is, the grouping of individuals and organizations interested in applying geo-information. The community should be as broad as possible, and not limited to the public sector. It will have the responsibility for promoting the awareness of:

The potential of information in decision-making,
The long-term cost of poorly organized information to national development, and
The need to achieve wide consensus with regard to national policy.

Step 2: Create awareness of information availability and quality, by establishing an inventory of current data holdings, and disseminating the results to the information community, preferably using the Internet. This would lead to the establishment of a clearinghouse or co-ordination unit, responsible for maintaining and developing metadata catalogues and listings of environmental projects. The training of national staff may be required to be able to do this.

Step 3: Create awareness of database architecture issues (e.g. standards), through the construction of a data exchange and integration prototype. The prototype will identify the minimum set of standards to which databases must comply in order to be interoperable. This will also serve as a demonstrator. Training in database design and management may be needed. Expertise within the local private sector or universities may be available for this.

Step 4: Using the prototype results as a starting point, define a national environmental information policy, addressing issues such as

Core data sets (defining their content, scale and required accuracy standards) which are a public good,
Data custodianship for core data,
Data access conditions,
Setting priorities for the use of investment to build or upgrade core databases,
Mechanisms for establishing and adopting data standards (e.g. standardizing place names) and
Training priorities, with an emphasis on database design and management.

Step 5: Build the data infrastructure, requiring substantial investments in building the capacity of data custodian institutions to maintain databases.

Step 6: Develop applications in support of specific decision-making processes.

The consultative phase:

What happens during this phase?

As the name implies, the main component to this phase is consultation with parties who need to use geo-information, in order to develop a common vision for how geo-information collection and management can be co-ordinated, in order to bring the maximum benefits to the widest range of users possible. Apart from finding out what peoples needs are, this phase serves to . establish an understanding of SDI and wider support for participating in SDI. At this stage, the resources available may be extremely limited, so some effort should be directed to identifying how to fund the endeavour and raise support for it. Note that this phase may take a long time: for example, in Tunisia, there was a period of almost a decade between original ideas, perhaps broadly a consultative phase, and the development of a concrete implementation plan. Developing a common vision and understanding of SDI across many agencies, with different briefs, may simply take time.

Who is involved in this phase?

The consultation process may be initiated by a single "champion" institution, or, at very early stages, by an individual (or individuals) within an institution. Someone must have some idea what SDI is about, and feel passionate about it, in order to initiate action towards SDI. This initiating champion may play the leading role only during this phase - another institution may emerge as being more appropriate to act as lead agency, during the consultation process. All the key stakeholders, i.e. producers and user of geo-information, need to be - and feel - included in this phase. The stakeholder list may grow during this phase, as more players are identified in the course of interactions with stakeholders (see also the Annex "Participation Analysis" associated with Chapter 4 of this guide).

How is this undertaken?

Consultation and the promotion of the need for a co-ordinated approach to geo-information management may take place through a series of small meetings with individual stakeholders, or through workshops, or both. Depending on circumstances, it may be more appropriate to meet with a range of stakeholders on a one-to-one basis first, in order to stimulate their thinking, before convening a consensus-building workshop. On the other hand, information sharing may be more effectively achieved with a start-up workshop, after which there are follow ups with stakeholder institutions and individuals in smaller groups. Examples of both approaches may be noted in the "country stories" which follow in this chapter.

Because both consultation and a situational analysis generally require face-to-face meetings with many players, it may be efficient to undertake these simultaneously, i.e. meetings with stakeholders may be designed to do all the following:

Promote the notion and understanding of SDI,
Discover the geo-information needs of the organisation, as well as
Gather information on the organisation's existing capacity, practices and geo-information resources.

Kenya provides an example of where meetings with stakeholders were used both to promote the concept of SDI, as well as learn what data the stakeholders already had and/or required.

6.2.2 Defining an SDI programme:

What does this entail?

An overarching framework for developing SDI needs to be set out, based on the findings of and opinion garnered in the consultative phase. The programme should have a clear identity and a name that ensures it is widely supported. This framework is needed to provide direction and coherence to perhaps many projects, which would be undertaken in parallel, and over several years. Elements to be included within this framework are:

A vision of what the programme will achieve, and the benefits SDI will bring;
The principles on which it will be developed (e.g. partnership relationships);
The identity of the lead agency (see chapter 4 of this guide);
The institutional structures needed to ensure that there is ongoing consensus in order to have buy-in, at both technical and strategic levels (Chapter 4 provides details on institutional arrangements). For example, one may constitute a

A steering body (this might be termed a "Steering Committee", "Board", "National Committee for Geoinformation Infrastructure" etc.), most likely chaired by the lead agency committee, to provide ongoing guidance at a strategic level;

Technical working groups (focussing on policy, data standards, clearinghouse development etc.);

A stakeholder forum.

How the programme is to be funded, or even how future fundraising will be tackled (see Chapter 7 for further details);
Milestones to be achieved in SDI development, along with the associated timeframes.

How does one draw this up?

Often it may be most efficient for an institution (most likely the institution which has played the lead role during the consultation phase) to be tasked to produce a draft document (or documents), which can serve as the basis for discussion at a workshop. Several iterations may be needed. There is need to gain support for the programme at both technical and strategic levels across various agencies. It is likely that different fora will be needed to gain support for the programme at these levels.

6.2.3 A phased implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructure:

As not everything can be done at once, there is obviously a need to draw up a plan for the implementation of SDI in phases. Targets and timeframes relating to specific activities and outcomes need to be established. A benefit of a phased implementation with well-defined milestones which can be reached at regular short intervals, is that the achieving of recognised objectives is likely to engender more support for the process, as well as keep those involved in implementation enthusiastic about the process.

In drawing up a timetable for implementation, some factors to be considered are the following:

What outcomes will have the widest impact: what are the needs of users, and what are the (national) priorities?
What projects are currently in progress?
What resources, both human and technical, are currently available?
What can be achieved relatively easily and quickly?

· How should certain developments be ordered? E.g. the development of some datasets may depend on the availability of other datasets, and developing a web map service clearly requires digital datasets to be available.

The less-than-perfect situation

Insufficient resources for implementation

Often, in defining an SDI development programme, it may become apparent that the resources available for SDI development are simply not sufficient to undertake development in the "ideal" way. Worse still, resources may not be available even to define an SDI progamme at the level of detail desired. While efforts should continue to raise additional resources (more ideas on this are presented in chapter 7), it is not necessary to stall all SDI development until additional funding, or human resources, is obtained. There may thus be a need to begin with developing only some elements of SDI, for which the moment is opportune. Development may simply take place over a longer period than was anticipated.

In this case, it is important to examine even more carefully how one intends to phase development of SDI. In addition to the considerations listed in the preceding paragraph, further questions which could be asked, in order to establish priority projects, are the following:

What can be achieved without much funding?
What are the relatively low cost, but high impact activities that can be undertaken? e.g. the creation of an e-mail list server for sharing information (instead of convening face-to-face meetings), or a web-page for communicating developments and encouraging ongoing discussion
What emerged as the priority needs of users of geo-information during consultation with stakeholders?
Are there any activities, which may result in outcomes, which would be likely to assist in motivating for additional funding?
Are there sub-regional, regional or global programmes of activities, which could be harnessed to contributing to building national SDI?

Lack of support for SDI by all stakeholders

Even more difficult to deal with than having inadequate resources, is encountering less than ideal support for SDI from all the relevant stakeholders. During consultation with stakeholders, it may become apparent that one will not immediately be successful in gaining the support or understanding of certain agencies, or senior decision-makers. In this case, it is likely that there will also not be adequate resources available for SDI implementation, and it may not be possible to develop a widely-supported framework for SDI development.

Nevertheless, it may still be possible to make gains in SDI. Sometimes, going ahead with activities produces results that makes other parties want to come on board. An example of this is the decision by Namibia's EIN unit to make datasets available through the Internet: by going ahead and doing this, other organisations followed suit in due course.

The questions listed above become even more pertinent, and in addition, one should perhaps concentrate on the following:

Who are the supporters of SDI? Is there a particular sector, where there is support for a co-operative approach to developing SDI? If so, it makes sense to (temporarily) narrow one's focus to this sector, in order to make tangible gains.
If the "perfect plan" can't be realised, what is achievable? Focus on what can be done. For example, obviously documenting all existing geo-information resources is the ideal, but if it is not possible to document all legacy datasets, begin by ensuring that all new datasets developed, or all datasets that are updated, are documented at the time of production or updating.

Using a project as a catalyst for an SDI programme

In many ongoing SDI related initiatives in the continent, the activity itself started after the implementation of specific project which brought out the need for partnership, data sharing etc., and thus the need to set up NSDI. An example of this is the undertaking of the "Country-at-a-glance" activity by Ghana. Another example is presented in the case of Namibia, where the Infocom project highlighted the need for greater co-ordination with respect to data collection and dissemination.

It may even be possible to incorporate the building of a component of SDI into an existing project. An interesting case in point is presented by Nigeria's experience, where it proved possible to reconfigure a government-approved project, to contribute to building national SDI.

The caution in using a project to catalyse SDI activity is that this still leaves the need to think of the long-term sustainability of SDI development (the focus of chapter 7), i.e. what will happen when the project funding terminates.

Possible "opening moves"

Ideas regarding specific facets of SDI development

Some ideas are given below, as to how to begin to develop various aspects of SDI. These activities may be integrated into a phased implementation, or may be tackled while one is still waiting to be able to embark on a formal SDI programme. This list of possibilities is certainly not exhaustive, and should rather be viewed as an aid to stimulating ideas, appropriate within one's country context, on how to begin to enable wider and more effective use of geographic information.

Getting institutional arrangements and partnerships working:
- Start with the willing partners: this may even involve bilateral arrangements only, around data sharing or co-operation with respect to data updating, for example.
- Establish informal (if need be) working groups - call this a "GIS user group" or "GI user group" - at a technical level, for sharing information about projects being undertaken within ones agencies, or experience in managing geographic information, on a regular basis.
Policy development:
- Start developing a data policy for one's own institution, or component within the institution.
- Establish MOUs relating to data sharing or data management and production partnerships with individual institutions as and when the need arises, if relevant overarching policy and legislation is not yet in place. Make use of existing MOUs (e.g. those developed in Zambia), in order to fast track the drafting of an MOU.
- Instead of developing policy from scratch, use other examples of policy documents, to raise awareness and stimulate discussion on the elements needed in a policy framework for one's country. For instance, an informative workshop could be convened to discuss existing policy documents generated by other African countries (e.g. Nigeria's Geoinformation Policy, South Africa's Spatial Information Infrastructure Bill, Uganda's SDI decree).
Metadata:

Start by capturing one's own metadata, using free metadata capturing tools.

Demonstrating how metadata within a clearinghouse can be used to locate data sets one requires, can be very powerful demonstration of the benefit of capturing metadata. If you are unable to establish your own clearinghouse, you can still publish your metadata by registering a node with an existing clearinghouse, or, in the short term, until capacity allows you to undertake this yourself, even by providing the metadata to some other agency, which can publish it (e.g. ECA) on your behalf.

Geospatial data development:

Explore opportunities provided by global or regional initiatives, if national resourcing is limited.

- For example, there are 23 African countries participating in Global Map (as at March 2003), which produces 8 standardized digital thematic layers (these are: boundaries, drainage, transportation, population centers, elevation, land cover, land use and vegetation), at an effective scale of roughly 1: 1 000 000 (see http://www.iscgm.org ). Kenya is one of twelve countries worldwide, to have completed their national datasets.

- Another example is the Africover project (see http://www.africover.org ), which has seen the completion of datasets pertaining to several African countries already.

Prioritise the development or updating of one or two datasets likely to be most widely used. Once developed, these will have the most visibility and are likely provide the greatest benefit. For example, the Corporate GIS Division of the City of Johannesburg, on the basis of the information required by the most departments within the municipality, decided on a few key datasets to provide through the intranet. This focus ensured that a system, which was of use to many people, was available in a much shorter time than it would have taken to compile and publish everything on the wish-list.

It may be possible to obtain some base datasets on one's country from outside the country, and use these as a starting point from which to develop one's core geospatial data.

Standard development and implementation:

Choose software products which comply with international standards e.g. those which web map server interface

Adopt or adapt existing standards where possible, rather than trying to develop one's own from scratch.

Explore opportunities provided by global or regional initiatives (e.g. the AFREF project - see http://w3sli.wcape.gov.za/SURVEYS/MAPPING/afref.htm )

Considerations in choosing "opening moves"

Here are some considerations in selecting activities, with which one can begin implementing SDI. Once again, while not ideal, it may be possible to embark on some activities before one has a formal, funded SDI programme.

Tangible products have a clear motivational power, that is, it is ideal to find something that can be achieved (preferably in a relatively short time), with a well-defined and clearly visible outcome. For example, one might consider tackling metadata publishing, web-site development or a half-day workshop to raise awareness of SDI concepts and share information about developments taking place within various agencies.
Establishing communication and networking channels can offer high impact for relatively little effort, e.g. the creation of an e-mail list server for sharing information, or the creation of a web-page; the web-page(s) may even be created as part of an existing web-site.
It is helpful to be on the lookout continuously for opportunities provided by current national issues, e.g. drought etc.
It is also helpful to be aware of opportunities presented by externally driven and funded projects.
It may be possible that a particular sector is more ready to begin addressing its information infrastructure needs in a systematic way. In this case, it does no harm to begin with this sector: many characteristics of the information infrastructure developed will have a broader application to other sectors.
Consider going ahead and developing (small scale) demonstration projects or prototypes, in order to attract further support. Often a demonstration may prove more effective in drawing out support, than a beautifully written description of what one intends to do, along with a clinical description of the associated benefits.

African experiences of the early stages of SDI development

It may be helpful to study what has happened in various countries in Africa with respect to SDI development. Narratives, as recorded by people who have been or are directly involved in these efforts, are provided in full in the appendices and/or at their respective websites. Some early SDI experiences are summarised below.

These records of early SDI implementation experiences illustrate the point that there have been many different perspectives or points of departure with respect to initiating SDI development. In particular, a range of different drivers for embarking on SDI development, that is,. factors used to motivate the need for SDI, are evident in the examples set out below. Even so, there are remarkable similarities in the kinds of approaches that have been aken towards developing SDI. While there are many parallels between the needs of countries with respect to SDI, it is important to note that each country is unique - in terms of both its history and geography - and that an understanding of one's country is the key to determining the best way to proceed - what will succeed, and how it should be tackled.

Burkina Faso

How did SDI activity begin:

What were the drivers?

SDI activities in Burkina Faso started in the early 90's, driven by the high demand for sound, reliable and up-to-date information on natural resources, human activities etc., in order to work out and implement the National Environmental Action Plan.

Is there "an event" that marked the beginning?

At a national level workshop held in Bobo Dioulasso (2^nd major town in Burkina) in May 1991, it was decided to create the National Environmental Information Programme (in French, Programme National de Gestion de l'Information sur le Milieu, PNGIM) to act as a network to coalesce and co-ordinate all the initiatives in data collection, processing, dissemination and updating.

What activities were prioritised, and why?

At the workshop, it was decided to:

1. promote the use of common geo-information and thematic data in digital format as reference data (the national topographic database at scales of 1:200,000 and 1:1,000,000, national database on towns and settlements, land use and land cover etc.);

2. update certain old databases (water bodies and drills database) and create several new databases (estate owned forest resources, forest species);

3. increase the visibility and accessibility of all the available data by creating a metadata database called ENVIDATA;

4. train more and more people in GIS, remote sensing, traditional and modern techniques of data collection, processing, dissemination and updating.

Most public/noticeable impact to date?

1. Better visibility and accessibility of data and information to the former members of the PNGIM network;

2. Better use of available, standardised and useful information and better decision making;

3. Increased aspiration for having one's own information system, due to the increase in human resources.

Particular successes, as well as experiments which were not successes?

Other successes:

1. Greater enthusiasm for providing information and working in multi-disciplinary groups;

2. Better contribution to the PNGIM goals.

Difficulties:

1. Reluctance of data providers to share information directly, free of charge, with anyone, without a formal request and the procedures of the PNGIM co-ordinating body ;

2. Difficulties in updating and creating more accurate and useful reference data and information due to poor financial, logistic and human resources;

3. A lack of a formal approach to making decision makers more aware of geoinformation, due to poor financial, logistic and human resources.

Lessons learnt / what would you do differently now?

1. Data and information must be produced, disseminated and updated by the core agencies with expertise in the relevant discipline;

2. A ministerial decree or even a law is necessary to regulate and promote data and information flow, and define the benefits associated with and limitations of data ownership;

3. Promoting and supporting a national level network can advance the setting and using of standards, harmonising and co-ordinating initiatives, and raising key issues at a high decision-making level.

Kenya:

How did SDI activity begin?

The Survey of Kenya identified key institutions dealing with geo-information, both producers and users of spatial data, encompassing national government institutions, regional and international organisations, educational facilities and private sector institutions. Each institution was contacted through letters, telephone, faxes or e-mails. Appointments were made with these stakeholders to explain "NSDI", as well as learn about the organizations, and what type of data they had. Subsequently three national SDI workshops have been held (November 2001, April 2002, September 2002), to advance structures for developing SDI. SDI development is at an early stage in Kenya.

What were the drivers?

NSDI in Kenya is one of the most important and urgent tasks for the country to meet the ever-expanding demands for accurate and up-to-date geo-information, achieve effective good governance, realize sustainable development of the country and tackle poverty eradication. The Government of Kenya, through its current National Development Plan 2002-2008, is implementing an initiative for the establishment of NSDI, for the efficient management of geo-spatial data in the country.

Lessons learnt from previous experiences?

Previously it was found that it was difficult to try to inject geo-spatial considerations into general ICT policy.

Namibia:

Namibia began exploring the idea of sustainable development soon after independence in 1990. It marks a commitment by the Namibian people to meet their own needs without compromising the ability of future generations. In January 1998, the Directorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA) of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET), jointly with the Government of Finland, launched a four year (1998-2001) national programme entitled Information and Communication for Sustainable Development (Infocom). The overall aim of Infocom is to promote sustainable development in Namibia through:

Developing an effective Environmental Information Systems (EIS) Unit within MET;
Developing communication mechanisms to disseminate environmental information.

How did SDI activity begin?

SDI activities in Namibia began in 1998 when the Infocom Project was launched. However, different terminologies such as "information services" were used. The whole ideas of making data available through the development of metadata, the development of an information portal where the data are made freely available and the development of a resource centre in essence represent the implementation of SDI.

Infocom started with defining environmental indicators. These indicators were defined on the basis of the thematic reporting of the state of the environment. For each indicator defined, a set of data were collected (or efforts were made to do so). As the indicators were defined thematically and there was little communication amongst data producing agencies as well as data users; the process of data collection allowed duplication of efforts. Thematic groups ended up collecting similar data sets, as many of the indicators were cut across the thematic domains.

It wasn't until Infocom's term review (December 2000) and a DEA stakeholder analysis (December 2000), that Infocom realised it had to broaden its scope. Both the Project's term-review and the DEA stakeholder analysis indicated that lack of easily available, up-to-date and reliable data was a big problem in environmental decision-making in Namibia. The team therefore, altered their main Project components and work plan, which was adopted by its Steering Committee (SC) in 2001. The new approach emphasised the following:

The team will strive to make available and manage environmental data through a meta-database.
The team will strive to initiate and facilitate communication with and among data producing agencies, as well as data users.

What were the drivers?

The Directorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA) of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) was concerned to make information available and accessible to decision-makers and the Namibian community at large.

Is there `an event' that marked the beginning?

The letter from the Permanent Secretary of the MET to other permanent secretaries advanced the interest of stakeholders who attended the first Environmental Monitoring and Indicator Network (EMIN) workshop. This workshop, held in June 2001, was officially opened and closed by the MET Deputy Minister and the MET Permanent Secretary respectively.

Most significant achievement to date?

All data produced within EIS are being made freely available online. (see http://www.dea.met.gov.na/programmes/infocom/EMIN%202.htm ). This includes the actual data and their metadata. Other data collecting departments/agencies have adopted the same approach, to make their data available and accessible through internet. See DRFN for example (http://www.namibia-desertification.org )

Lessons learnt through Infocom?

Need to develop the trust and support of the community
Need to build local capacity
The right information products need to be developed, in order to resonate with policy - and decision-makers
There is a need for an overarching framework, to align parallel projects working towards the goal of improved access to better data, which outlasts short-term projects.

See the document "Namibia SDI Narrative" for more information, and the Web-site of the MET, http://www.dea.met.gov.na .

Nigeria:

How did SDI begin?

Nigeria has recently been able to obtain resources to begin SDI development, through reorienting a funded project, the Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS)/National Geographic Information System (NAGIS), when it was transferred to the National Spatial Research and Development Agency (NARSDA) for implementation. NARSDA initiated consultation with experts and stakeholders, leading to the decision to refocus the project and begin implementation of a National Geospatial Data Infrastructure.

What are the drivers?

Duplication of effort is a concern, while the lack of accessibility and lack of standardization of data inhibit its use. It is interesting to note that concerns about possible duplication of mapping efforts lead to the promulgation of the Survey Co-ordination Act as long ago as 1962, which has served to promote the co-ordination of the activities undertaking by Surveyors General at state and federal levels.

First activities?

In November 2002, the Honourable Minister of Science and Technology inaugurated a 10-member committee to draw up a draft National Geoinformation Policy, within three months.

Events?

Stakeholders, at a workshop held in Abuja, in February 2003, considered this draft policy. In November 2002, a workshop was held on Geospatial Data Infrastructure for all the federal and state Surveyors-General and senior staff of NARSDA.

Lessons learnt?

The report developed through an initiative in 1990 to develop a Land Information System was never implemented, with lack of funding the apparent reason. A move was made to resuscitate this initiative in 1996, but after the initial establishment of a National Geospatial Information Infrastructure forum and a start on the compiling of an inventory of the country's geospatial data resources, this effort also died away, due in part to lack of funding, as well as a change in administration. These experiences illustrate the importance of committed funding, as well as the need for commitment of individuals who play key roles in the stakeholder organisations.

See also the document "FinalNigeriaGIPolicy.pdf"

South Africa:

The National Spatial Information Framework (NSIF) (it will be known as the South African Spatial information Infrastructure (SASII) in the future) represents South Africa's SDI initiative. The Department of Land Affairs dedicated staff and funding to developing the NSIF in 1997.

How did the SDI activity begin:

What were the drivers?

The main concern of the Department of Land Affairs in initiating the NSIF was that of the duplication of digital data capture by government departments.

Is there an even that marked "the beginning"?

Most of South Africa's geographic information community would have seen a one-day workshop held in February 1998 as the birth of the National Spatial Information Framework (NSIF). This workshop was designed both to raise awareness of the need to develop SDI, as well as to instil confidence in stakeholders, that the Department of Land Affairs as lead agency, would undertake SDI development in a consultative way. Considerable care was taken to advertise the workshop as widely as possible beforehand, and afterwards to ensure that all the commitments made at the workshop were fulfilled.

What activities were prioritised initially, and why?

Early on it was recognised that the development of geographic information standards and a policy framework would take some time due to the necessity of a comprehensive consultative process. It was thus decided, that while standard and policy work was initiated, that there would be a strong focus on getting metadata captured and published through a clearinghouse. It was also decided, in the interests of having highly visible results as soon as possible, that the free software developed and made available by the FGDC for metadata capture and a distributed catalogue should be used.

Most significant achievements to date?

Spatial data pricing policy has been revised, with data now available at the cost of media only.
Also at the level of policy, the Spatial Information Infrastructure Bill is well on its way to being passed as an Act of Parliament.
Several standards nearly have the stamp of "national standards".

Other successes, difficulties, lessons learnt?

The convening of quarterly seminars in different centres across the country proved very valuable in garnering support for the NSIF. Allowing participants to share information on the management of spatial information in their institutions proved more motivating, than using the meetings to present explicitly the aims of the NSIF.
A significant number of metadata records are available through the clearinghouse, which was established in 1998. However, it has proved difficult to get people both to capture and to update metadata records.
The importance of sufficient personnel to be able to advance SDI is illustrated through the fact that a similar programme, the National Land Information System, which was a precursor to the NSIF, was not able to make significant impact, due in large part to a lack of human resources.
Sometimes it is necessary to go ahead and do things, rather than waiting for things to happen...

For a more detailed account, see other documents in the country information folder.

Uganda

The first extensive creation of digital geographic databases took place under the National Biomass Project. There was a growth in the number of users of the products generated by the Department of Forestry and Surveys and Mapping through this project. The National Environment Management Authority established an Environmental Information Network (EIN), with both "horizontal" (between national agencies) and "vertical" (within sectors from national to district level) components. EIN set up a data standards and training committee, but not much progress was made with respect to co-ordinating data capture and updating activities. The government, through the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MOFPED), realised that GIS is an effective tool for monitoring and improving service delivery in the government's efforts to eradicate poverty. MOFPED established a National GIS Task Force to oversee the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

How did SDI activity begin:

Is there an event that marks the beginning?

The World Bank provided funds for a study to design and develop National Spatial Data Infrastructure. An SDI Master Plan was developed in April 2001 and awaits implementation.

The development of the Karamoja Information System through the Karamoja Data Centre, may be seen as a local SDI prototype for National SDI.

What were the drivers?

The need for information to manage the environment, as well as plan effective utilisation of the country's natural resources, together with the need to improve service delivery through effective monitoring of government projects and programmes, rallied the following groups:

Local experts with GIS training
Donors
External Consultants And Consulting firms.

Most public /noticeable impact to date?

Improvement in the production of the District Development Plans for Moroto District, leading to an improvement in service delivery.

Zambia:

In 1997 the government of the Republic of Zambia embarked on the Environmental Support Program (ESP), consisting of various investment components to stimulate widespread interest and investment in environmental and natural resources management, within a framework of economic growth. The programme is being executed through a number of ministries, agencies and local communities and is supported by the government of Zambia, as well as a number of bilateral and multilateral donors. One of the four investment components of the ESP is the Environmental Information Network and Monitoring System (EINMS). EINMS's main objective is to increase the availability and accessibility of environmental information to various stakeholders, in order to assist in the implementation of ESP.

How did SDI activity begin?

The SDI activity began by carrying out a needs assessment of EINMS by all key institutions with a bearing on environment and natural resources in Zambia. This assessment indicated the role each institution would play in EINMS. A national stakeholders meeting was convened by the Vice-President of Zambia to introduce ESP and its components. The meeting also discussed the role of each institution in the implementation of EINMS activities. An EIS/GIS capacity assessment of the key data centres in Zambia was then undertaken to identify the critical issues in EIS/GIS. These included capacity building, hardware/software issues, data exchange issues and data availability and usage in these institutions.

Is there `an event' that marked the beginning?

The initial stakeholders meeting that was chaired by the Vice-President of Zambia helped to kick start the process. However, several players have kept the initiative alive.

What were the drivers?

The business driver was the environmental agenda that sought to increase the availability and accessibility of environmental data in decision-making. What is common throughout the various sectors where environmental degradation is a problem, is that relevant data and information are very scarce, and where it exists, it is not in a format that facilitates its integration with other data. It is therefore important to establish a mechanism to generate needed data , harmonize it and make it available, in order to decrease the rate of environmental degradation, particularly for rural communities.

Most visible/noticeable impact to date?

Mapping standards are being used widely by most institutions.
Digital base maps have been used by various institutions to produce thematic maps.
Capacity building in GIS /RS has taken place.
There is collection, collation and processing of data from various institutions to assist rural communities to develop fundable micro-projects.
There is a voluntary co-operation of parties, on the basis of MoUs.