RICS Geomatics – researchMarch 2003

Getting it together – the geography jigsawSustainable partnerships: people, places, and information

Robin Waters, Peter Woodsford and Rosemary Hoskins

C o n t e n t s

Introduction

• Mapping the problem• The research focus• Donors, recipients and practitioners• Contacts and contributors• Web searches• Questionnaire• World Summit on Sustainability (WSSD)

Project background

• The changing environment• Agreeing the terms• Sustainability and the status for geomatics

Research findings

• Changing technology – changing choices• Hypothecation disappearing• Devolution of project identification and management• Geographical preference and priorities for poverty reduction• Local institutions and politics• Jigsaw pieces – the herd instinct

Conclusions and recommendations

Annex A – acknowledgements

Annex B – questionnaire

Annex C – references

We take it for granted that we can accurately and unambiguously describe our neighbourhood, our towns and our country. We can use this to define who owns what and where our boundaries lie. It is almost impossible to imagine life withoutbeing able to do this. It underpins all aspects of the functioning of a modern economy and society. We do this using maps that are accurate and that are kept up to date.

Yet, it is not something that can be taken for granted across the world. While huge amounts of aid are lavished on major development projects, the RICS Geomatics Faculty and the RICS Foundation were concerned that little attention was being given to the mapping needs of developing countries. We welcome this report, in highlighting the sources of support available and suggesting ways that aid for mapping infrastructure can be enhanced. We hope this report helps developing countries get the mapping infrastructure they need to support their economic and social development.

‘RICS is committed to sustainable development as originally propounded at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and as more specifically reiterated in the FIG Agenda 21 adopted in 2001.’

Rob Mahoney FRICS, FBCartSChairman 2001-02, RICS Geomatics FacultyDavid FitzpatrickExecutive Director, RICS Foundation

2

6

10

18

13

14

19

3

Mapping the problem

Imagine you are lost in the scrubland of a large central African country. You’ve been able to contact the rescue authoritiesbut they can’t get to you. Why? Because the maps and other geographical data they are using are 20 years out of date. Itsounds a bit extreme for those of us used to GPS and imaging systems but this is a problem with much wider implicationsfor many professionals working on the ground in developing or transitional countries.

‘Images need interpreting into useable information in the context of human settlement and other activities on theground…’

In 2002 the RICS Geomatics Faculty and RICS Foundation commissioned research into the sources of support for geomaticsand ‘mapping infrastructures’ in developing and transitional economies. This report presents the findings of the ‘GeomaticsAid’ project, carried out between May and September 2002 by:Robin Waters, RSW Geomatics LtdPeter Woodsford, GIS consultantRosemary Hoskins, environmental consultant

Very quickly it became clear that the issues are not only local but global. And not so much technical but human.

‘Whatever the system, it is the quality of people more than ideas that really matter.’

This quote from Professor Peter Dale puts much of the rest of this report in context and applies worldwide. The ‘qualityof the people’ refers not just to their technical ability but also to their managerial skills and professionalism. Collectingthe data has never been more technically advanced and conducted with such detail. However, analysing it, managing it, storingit, distributing it and sharing it has become more complex.

The research found part of the problem was that mapping and spatial data infrastructures have become parts of larger,higher profile projects such as land reform or urban planning. In the process they have often been downgraded and not seen in a wider context.

What is needed is more directed funding to support more specific geomatics related projects. Funding that is going to have to come from global organisations, who previously have not recognised that good, co-ordinated, global access togeographical information is essential for decision making ‘on the ground’.

The research focus

In fact, developing and transition economies have many sources of geomatic aid but very little concrete evidence ofthe effectiveness of such aid: not necessarily because it has not been used effectively but because little research seemsto have been carried out. So the research project moved away from some of the specifics of the original brief, whilecontinuing to look at the sustainability of aid for geomatics and the role of geomatics in sustainable development.

We looked at geomatics within land administration projects involving land tenure, cadastral systems and the large-scalemapping associated with them. We were given references to failed, or at least less than perfect, major cadastral projectsinside the European Union and in North America, so it would be surprising if all such projects in developing and transitioneconomies were to go smoothly. A recent meeting of European cadastral practitioners found they and their departmentswere operating under increasing pressures with few extra resources.

We also looked at the more recent initiatives towards spatial data infrastructures (SDI). SDI appears to cover all of the activities of a national mapping agency in providing digital topographic and administrative boundary information as a framework for any other spatially distributed information. It usually includes aerial photography and satellite imagery.

Donors, recipients and practitioners

We needed to consider all aspects of the ‘support chain’, so we have divided the chain into three parts: donors, recipients and practitioners.

Donors: are the governments, foundations or agencies that provide money and other resources to support developingand transition countries (eg World Bank, DfID, Ford Foundation).

4

Recipients: are the ministries or departments that receive the benefits of the support provided by the donors (eg ministries of agriculture, survey departments, land registries). We concentrated on ‘end user’ departments (eg survey departments)rather than on the ministries that ultimately control them. The ultimate beneficiaries should of course be citizens of thecountries concerned.

Practitioners: are agencies, companies, institutions and individuals employed to deliver consultancy, project management,surveying and mapping tasks, IT development, technology and skills transfer. They may be contracted in a variety of ways. Someof these organisations have specific expertise (eg donor country national mapping agencies). Some are simply suppliersof goods and services (eg instrument makers, mapping companies), while many are more general consulting companieswith expertise in many fields but often employing sub-contracted experts. In a growing number of cases these practitionerscome from the country or region of the recipients rather than from the ‘developed’ world. For example there is significantpublic and private sector GIS expertise in South Africa, India and several of the transition economies in Central andEastern Europe.

Contacts and contributors

The research team have a variety of contacts relevant to this project. Firstly, an initial letter was emailed to these peopleduring May and June. Many of the contacts agreed to help and gave their thoughts either by telephone or email. Someagreed to help by completing a questionnaire (Annex B).

The team also attended several important and relevant international meetings: • The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), Washington, USA• The European Organisation for Experimental Photogrammetric Research (OEEPE) Spring meeting, Rauma, Finland • Global Spatial Data Infrastructure 6 (GSDI6), Budapest, Hungary.

These contacts became key contributors to the project.

Web searches

The team carried out web searches in different sectors, but with some overlap to ensure that we were not missing anyobscure links. General and specific web links are listed throughout the report and in Annex C. All of the large donors, such as the World Bank1 and DfID2, have useful web sites, although with very different levels ofcontent. An additional factor in web searches was dividing geomatics from the larger projects they are a part of, a moregeneral research problem as we have already mentioned

Questionnaire

The questionnaire (Annex B) was mostly for donors and practitioners, although a slightly modified form of it was alsosent to some recipient organisations. The timing of the project over the summer months and dealing with busy contactsoverseas meant it was difficult to get the level of response we wanted.

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)

Robin Waters attended the launch event for the Global Alliance for Building Sustainability (GABS) during the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (August 2002). He and the chairman of the RICS GeomaticFaculty Board co-presented the main findings of the project titled: Getting it together, the geography jigsaw – Sustainable partnerships: people, places and information3. This was then distributed at GABS and subsequently elsewhere. We have added the relevant developments at GABS and WSSD to this final report.

Why this research matters

Some of the key findings of this research are that:• Mapping and spatial data infrastructure underpin most essential economic activity including land management and

property markets• There is evidence that geomatics has been taken for granted within higher profile programmes and awareness needs

to be raised through education and training• Technology advances are reducing costs and potentially multiplying the benefits of mapping and spatial information• Important new initiatives are happening at local, regional and global levels and need to be exploited proactively.

5

The changing environment

The nature of mapping has changed radically over the last 25 years and continues to change. Mapping no longer seemsto be recognised as a common good.

In his paper to FIG in Washington in 2002, Professor Peter Dale listed the factors that together, are changing the environment in which the geomatics industry is working:

Labour intensive systems changing into Capital intensive systemsCheap/old technology › Expensive/new technologyA specialised/narrow role › A multi-disciplinary serviceGovernment driven › Market orientedGovernment funded › Full cost recoveryMonopolistic › Competitive with private sectorTraditional products › New products and servicesCasualness about time scales › Time and cost focusedQuality controlled › Quality assured/risk managedA benevolent National MappingAgency › An uncertain future

Agreeing the terms

The different global organisations and bodies involved have yet to agree the meanings of many of the terms used bythe industry. In some cases no universally agreed term exists. So for clarity we have outlined our definitions here:

Mapping infrastructureThis term was used in original contract wording. No universally agreed definition exists, but for this project it has beenassumed to refer to the products and services generally provided by National Mapping Agencies and (in some countries)by other central and/or local government departments in support of many diverse decision making needs, and/or therecording of more specialist information by planners, engineers, thematic specialists (eg geologists), land administrators,and the general public.

Spatial data infrastructure (SDI)The concept of spatial data infrastructure (SDI) emerged during the 1990s and is typically used in a national (NSDI) or global (GSDI) context.

The US response to the 1998 questionnaire4 defined their NSDI as follows: ‘The core framework data themes being developed are geodetic control, elevation and bathymetry, digital imagery, government boundaries, land ownership, transportation and hydrography (rivers and lakes). The vision is that these widely available data sets will provide a current base on which to collect, register, or integrate other information.’

The GSDI web site5 has a rather broader definition: ‘GSDI covers the policies, organisational remits, data, technologies, standards, delivery mechanisms, and financial and humanresources necessary to ensure that those working at the global and regional scale are not impeded in meeting their objectives.’

For this research SDI includes data sets as well as the policies, institutions, standards and resources needed to deliverthem on a sustainable basis. And we include ‘mapping infrastructure’ as defined above.

Land administrationThe World Bank6 and many other donors now use variations on this term to cover, amongst other things, what has been traditionally thought of as cadastres and land registers. This is a more holistic approach because it covers the ‘market’, the legal basis, land-use planning and customary practice.

GeomaticsRICS Geomatics Faculty home page 7 states it is:‘the science and study of spatially related information and is particularly concerned with the collection, manipulation andpresentation of the natural, social and economic geography of the natural and built environments.’

6

CadastreA cadastre is a surveyed register of land, originally for financial purposes. Now it’s often used in the ‘multi-purpose cadastre’to cover buildings, utilities and other spatially related information recorded on large-scale maps or as digital spatial data8.The term has more significance in continental Europe where ‘the cadastre’ has explicit legal and often financial status.

Scale (digital data)Strictly speaking digital data cannot have a ‘scale’. Users can make displays of digital data any scale they like. Howeverthe scale of a conventional map determines, to a large extent, what, how much and how accurately detail can be seen.So scale has become a shorthand way of describing the content and accuracy of maps and their data. Ideally all digitalspatial data should include information about its provenance for users to work out its relevance to their needs, independentlyof the scale. This is often known as ‘metadata’.

Ortho-imagery (photography)This is imagery (either from scanned photos or from directly collected images) that gives a vertical (map-like) view of theground. This process is rigorous and needs either a separate terrain model of the right resolution and accuracy or the useof stereo imagery. However there are many purposes for which simple (and much cheaper) improvement of images toground control can provide an acceptable alternative, especially in areas of low relief. These are often called ‘rectified mosaics’.

Remote sensingThis is the technique of getting data about the environment and the surface of the earth from a distance, for example,from aircraft or satellite. In practice, techniques for using satellite imagery and aerial photography are converging (asseen by the merging of the related professional bodies).

Sustainability and the status of geomatics

WSSDSince the Rio Conference in 1992, sustainability has been the central principle of international development. In August 2002the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held in Johannesburg and geomatics was unconditionallyrecognised as a significant part of the solution to making the world more sustainable.

In the final WSSD Plan for Implementation9 there are many references, which will need geomatics input, including theneed for:

• land reform• land management• monitoring of the environment• planning for sustainable new developments.

More clearly, in paragraph 119, there are specific references to the wider use of earth observation technologies. TheInternational Steering Committee for Global Mapping (ISCGM) managed to get the following text into the WorldImplementation document:

‘Promote the development and wider use of earth observations technologies, including satellite remote sensing, globalmapping and geographic information systems, to collect quality data on environmental impacts, land use and land-usechanges.’

There is also a statement about the need to take local circumstances into account when applying general legal, administrativeor technical ‘solutions’ to development. The exhibition associated with the WSSD was called Ubuntu Village and was madeup of stands and pavilions from individual countries, multinational companies and non-governmental organisations(NGOs). Prominent in this were several stands directly relating to geomatics including a strong input from the US standon GSDI, a new emergency mapping service (KeyObs) on the European Space Agency stand, and a large part of theJapanese pavilion devoted to the Global Mapping Project.

GABSThe main findings of the preliminary version of this report were presented at the launch of the Global Alliance for BuildingSustainability – a ‘Type 2’ fringe conference associated with the summit. The presentation and associated leaflet werecalled: Getting it together, the geography jigsaw – Sustainable partnerships: people, places and information. This presentationfitted neatly into the theme of GABS – closing the gap between policy and practice, and encouraging co-operationbetween professionals of all disciplines. It was apparent from the questions from the audience (all professionals fromother disciplines) that geomatics is seen as useful but under-promoted. When applications and products are explained,their benefit is immediately obvious but often taken for granted.

7

Changing technology – changing choices

Information technology, satellite positioning and electronic measurement have revolutionised the surveying andmapping industry over the last 25 years.

However these technologies have often been used by industry to improve the ways in which it carries out its pre-existingtasks, rather than to think again about end users’ requirements and how they might now be met.

It would be a tragedy if the geomatics industry were simply to use the generalised aspirations of the WSSD resolutions to justify expenditure on more sophisticated techniques that take no account of real needs on the ground.

• Satellite position fixing has removed most of the justification for the geodetic control systems with permanent groundmarks every few kilometres. The control network is now in the sky, available in all weathers and virtually everywhere. Itcan be used for navigation to a few tens of metres or for precision measurements down to centimetres without havingto plan a campaign in advance and with instruments that are not much more costly than the theodolites or electronicdistance measurement systems of yesteryear. Measurement and recovery of property boundaries is therefore much easierthan it used to be, but many cadastres have not yet legally recognised GPS measurements as acceptable methodology.

• Aerial photography has been used for photogrammetric mapping since the 1930s but has only recently been accepted as a cadastral methodology in some authorities. Today cheap digitally rectified mosaics of aerial imagery can offer auseful alternative to line maps or rigorous ortho-imagery in many parts of the world. But these have been very slow to gain acceptance in many government survey and mapping organisations.

• Satellite (or earth observation) imagery is rapidly becoming more available, and is increasing in resolution, reliabilityand coverage. Environmental, decision-support and land-use projects are making increasing use of satellite imagery, as promoted in the EIS-AFRICA position paper ‘Geo-Information Supports Decision-Making in Africa’10 , the US NationalResearch Council ‘Down to Earth: Geographical Information for Sustainable Development in Africa’ 11 and the Food andAgriculture Organisation (FAO) Africover Project12. Pricing is still an issue, but use of satellite imagery is being aggresivelypromoted both by the imagery companies and by their supporting governments. Donated or subsidised imagery havefigured prominently in French and US programmes. The wording in the plan of action from the UN World Summit onSustainable Development (see WSSD) particularly highlights the role of satellite imagery:

‘The wider use of earth observation technologies, including satellite remote sensing, global mapping and geographicinformation systems, to collect quality data on environmental impacts, land use and land-use changes’.

• Web-based delivery of maps and other spatial data infrastructure has been technically possible for several years and isnow cost-effective. However it has been held up by problems of copyright, legal liability and charging mechanisms – some of which, depending on the jurisdiction, are within the control of the mapping agencies.

• Interoperability, associated with the rise of the internet, is the development of standards for interoperability and open web services. In geomatics these mostly come from the Open GIS Consortium (OGC) complemented by ISO TC211.Interoperability standards underpin most SDI structures. Projects such as USAID/OGC Geographic Information for Sustainable Development Initiative13 have started the transfer of such techniques to African countries.

• Formal cadastres. One of the most pressing issues facing land administrators in Central and Eastern Europe is theupdating of cadastres and/or land registers that were ignored during the socialist period14. The sheer scale of the taskfacing the authorities is frightening. Full scale cadastral renewal using conventional methods is extremely expensiveand time consuming but, despite numerous experiments, some authorities are reluctant to accept aerial photos,satellite positioning and GIS techniques together with some changes to the legal regulations which would speed up the processes. This is often a collective failure of will on the part of several agencies unable to compromise on pragmatic solutions.

• Informal cadastres. In Africa a pressing issue is the handling of customary land rights, which are being recognised aspragmatic solutions to rural land administration15 16. Aerial photos and relatively low accuracy GPS measurementsare fine for most rural areas and even for regularising property rights in many of the squatter townships aroundurban areas. Involvement of the local community and its traditional organisations can also help them to accept landadministration goals.

8

These examples are designed to help professionals think about what they are trying to achieve, rather than just aboutbetter ways of doing what they have always done. The more and better the technology, the more and hopefully betterthe choices that can be made.

Donors are aware of new technologies and will not always take kindly to being told that things must always be done inold inefficient ways.

‘Information gathered or collated for projects should be as inter-usable for other projects and sectors as can reasonably beafforded…’

We accept however that technology is only one factor (albeit an enabling one) – the other relevant factors include legaland institutional apathy, as well as the difficulty in retaining trained technologists in low-paying government departments.

Hypothecation disappearing

‘As mapping has become more market-orientated, government funded national mapping agencies have increasingly beenreplaced by commercially driven agencies and private sector companies competing in the global market.’

Hypothecated taxes are those dedicated to, or ring-fenced for, a particular use. In the past some resources were dedicatedto geomatics or surveying and mapping.

From government funding…

For example, the Directorate of Overseas Surveys (DOS) in UK was a government department funded to carry out surveyingand mapping in the developing world17 18. Its staff and equipment were dedicated to such projects and could not bediverted for other purposes. This hypothecation, while ensuring a certain level of expertise, was inherently inflexible in terms of policy and operated mainly on a peer to peer level (DOS prided itself on close relationships with the relevantnational mapping agencies.) One result was also a centralised and ‘template’-driven methodology. However DOS couldrelatively easily show what had been achieved for its budget – areas of photographs taken, numbers of maps made,numbers of staff trained.

Now there are few (if any) explicit mapping projects funded by donor organisations alone and few (if any) hypothecatedresources. As already mentioned, mapping and geomatics now form part of larger projects and/or ‘local’ schemes,which need partial support but with local resources allocated. Importantly, this means that data about geomatics support is hard to find and separate from environmental, agricultural or land administration projects. This is even more the case with private foundations, although this research has found some evidence of projects supported from such sources (eg Ford Foundation) and from software vendors ESRI2525 and Intergraph26.

It also means that geomatics finds itself in a multi-disciplinary market along with many other calls on the same funds.Many ministries may be involved in a programme in a particular country or regions and all need to be ‘lobbied’ if theyare to support a geomatics project. Perhaps more importantly they should all be made aware of the potential cross-disciplinary usefulness of a geomatics element in many projects or programmes overtly dedicated to a particulartheme.

…to commercialisation

Associated with the demise of hypothecation is the commercialisation of the ‘practitioners’.

DOS was folded into Ordnance Survey as OS International and rapidly became as commercial as the rest of OS.Today OS will only provide expertise on full commercial terms even if it were to be approached by DfID. A similar situation is apparent with IGN-FI in France 19 and SwedeSurvey in Sweden.

‘Now we have the situation with most funding bodies that competitive tenders must be held for all substantial projects.’

9

The ‘contracting out’ of projects was always a part of DOS methodology; particularly encouraged by some UK governments. Now we have the situation with most funding bodies that competitive tenders must be held for allsubstantial projects. These are often won by consortia that may include Geomatics expertise. This tendering processmeans that historical links (for example between previous colonial powers and their former colonies) are fading as newcentres of excellence emerge as a result of commercial advantage or more-or-less overt government policy.

‘…no doubt that competition, and the resulting incentive to use the most cost-effective technology, has boosted productivity.’

There is no doubt that competition, and the resulting incentive to use the most cost-effective technology, has boostedproductivity and has also changed the geography of supporting and supported countries. American firms now dominateland registration projects in the Caribbean and are introducing land title insurance in Eastern Europe and Central Asia(ECA). Japan has supported many projects in Africa and western European support for ECA programmes (eg Phare) hasdiverted some resources previously employed in the developing world. India has emerged as a very competitive resourcefor all types of geographical data capture and processing, and now features at least as a sub-contractor in many projectsin the US and western Europe.

‘Closure of short/medium term projects may have a negative effect on the sustainability of local programmes.’

Short-term cost-effectiveness is only one factor in measuring overall benefits. The rapid start-up and equally rapid closureof projects run on a short or medium term basis may also have a negative effect on the overall sustainability of localinstitutions and programmes.

Devolution of project identification and management

It has long been standard practice for the major global players such as the World Bank (WB) and the Commission ofEuropean Communities (EC) to ‘delegate’ project identification to local or regional offices. They in turn work withnational governments, usually through the Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Planning. Policy guidelines and projectselection procedures are set centrally, but project negotiating is devolved. The resulting projects are also managedthrough local offices, who often use seconded experts in this management role. The World Bank has an evolving priorityfor portfolio management by decentralised country staff to increase responsiveness to client needs, as well as decreasingthe risk of not achieving project objectives.

We are seeing more delegated project identification in bilateral aid programmes. This is coupled with a trend towardsgreater focus (see below). A typical example is the recent Dutch government statement20:

‘The type of bilateral aid provided by the Netherlands is largely determined by the needs of individual recipient countries.The individual responsibility of each developing country remains the main priority. Each country, each people, must feel thatthey ‘own’ their own development. If not, the effect will not be sustainable, and things will simply collapse, as it were, whenthe donor pulls out. Where possible, the Netherlands prefers to support an entire sector, eg health care, rather than scatteredprojects. In a sectoral approach the government can set out long-term policies to which all parties commit themselves. Tothe Dutch way of thinking, donors must be prepared to allow their activities to be coordinated by the government of therecipient country, and to agree on the financing of the sector programme.’

Bilateral aid in many countries comes under two heads – development aid and trade support. In development aid, as seen in the Dutch example, local embassies increasingly identify and oversee projects.

‘Practitioners often identify projects with their governments on a business opportunity basis.’

But in trade support, there is much less devolving of project identification. Practitioners often identify projects withtheir governments on a business opportunity basis, eg in Switzerland where this process is quite explicit (and used tobuild the Swiss geomatics industry)21 22. Similar processes exist in other countries with well-formed geomatics industries (egCanada) or where government aid is used to boost geomatics companies (eg USA).

Potential beneficiaries are therefore faced with several levels of lobbying to secure their projects. They mainly have towork within their governmental structures and with the customers for their services, to establish sufficient priorityfor the mapping/geospatial infrastructure case. They also need to develop contacts with countries within whose

10

bilateral aid preferences they are included. In practice the more sophisticated practitioners (eg ITC Holland, with its ‘old studentnetwork’23 ) sometimes work with potential beneficiaries in a ‘coaching’ role.

‘An evident shortfall in such ‘coaching’ in the geomatics area, which RICS Foundation could help remedy.’

But we found a shortfall in such ‘coaching’ in the geomatics area, which RICS Foundation could help remedy. A significanthelp would be to publish a guide for donors outlining the cross-cutting nature of mapping and SDI for in-country representatives as well as providing guidelines on fostering appropriate support.

There is a growing level of effective in-country project management resource, and ‘best practice’ guidelines for stimulatinginternal/external joint project management are badly needed.

Geographical preferences and priorities for poverty reduction

There appears to be a strong trend for bilateral aid to be more focussed, with donors developing relatively restrictedlists of preferred recipient countries. This trend is mostly seen in small/medium European donors, but is increasing in mostprogrammes. It is coupled with the desire for more sustainable involvements and with the ‘herd instinct’ (see below). It isalso linked in some cases with an objective of developing more long-term, sustainable relationships.

For example, Switzerland has concentrated its geomatics aid in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union, France hasreduced the number of priority countries to around 20 (and diversified from its former exclusive focus on Francophonecountries). In the UK the priority of DfID is poverty reduction with an intended emphasis on the lowest-income countries,although not to the exclusion of middle-income countries as the aim is the reduction of people’s poverty not that ofcountries.

The Commission of the EU also prioritises poverty reduction and therefore the least developed countries. There is aspecial relationship with ACP states through the Lomé convention.

There are two countervailing tendencies to the focussing trend:

• The desire on the part of donors to promote trans-national infrastructures, such as GSDI. Japan and USA are currently leading the way here. The reasons for this are diverse, including the need to tackle genuinely global issues such a climatechange and environmental conservation, the desire to promote research in general, the needs of personal and businessnavigation systems and defence. Benefits to the participant recipients, while not entirely paramount, can be substantial.The most notable current private sector initiatives, the ESRI donation of software and services for use in WorldMap/GSDIinitiatives (described in the Rand Study Report24 and detailed at25 ) and the recently announced Intergraph donation of OGC-compliant software26 are examples of the mix of disinterested philanthropy and commercial interest. Bothdonate 100 licences on a one-per-country basis, with a view to increasing public access to basic mapping data in the country (from within and globally) and to increasing the market for the software products.

• The increasing need for practitioners to compete in an open market. A typical example is the Annual Report of SwedeSurvey for 2000, which reports 70 projects in more than 30 countries in Europe, Asia and Africa27. There is still somegeographic correlation between donors and practitioners, but increasingly projects are awarded by competitive tender.Practitioners therefore tend to go with the business, although they maintain some specialisms for particular areas.US government agencies overseas activities tend to be linked with US aid (eg the USGS International Program28 )although US commercial organisations compete in the open market and dominate some sectors.

Local institutions and politics

‘The local political situation will often be the overriding factor in deciding whether or not a particular programme or projectcan be implemented.’

As mentioned above, changes in technology may require legal and institutional changes to operate effectively. Whateverthe technologies available and whatever the strategies favoured by donors, the local political situation will often bethe overriding factor in deciding whether or not a particular programme or project can be implemented.

11

The Russian Duma has only just (2002) passed a law that allows rural land to be bought and sold many years after theWorld Bank-supported LARIS29 project began to update the cadastral and land registration systems.

In Zimbabwe today30 there is clearly a political situation that has overridden the existing law of the land (in both sensesof that phrase) and it is difficult to see how donors could currently expect that any land administration project would beimplemented in a coherent and sustainable way.

These are extreme examples, but in most transition and developing economies, as anywhere else, there may be conservativeor self-seeking politicians and professionals and the interdepartmental jealousies that can get in the way of progress.

Donors are very often keenly aware of these situations and this is one reason for delegating their decision making to local orregional offices with greater local knowledge.

Recipient governments may be aware of the issues but can be too close to see the wood for the trees. Individual recipientdepartments certainly need to understand their local political environment. But it is very often the case that the bestprofessionals in their own fields are not the most politically aware – or perhaps we could say that the best professionalmust have political awareness as much as technical or managerial expertise.

It is very often those we have termed the practitioners who are least aware of local situations – if only because they are likelyto be contracted for relatively short periods and cannot afford to spend their time getting to know the local environment.Since these practitioners may be charged with devising complex cross-cutting solutions they can become very frustratedand/or be less than effective in particular situations.

Jigsaw pieces – the herd instinct

There is a trend for any individual donor to support joint projects or programmes or at least in the same area as otherdonors. This can be very beneficial if the projects are complementary, though it imposes the burden of co-ordination on one or more of the organisations or the recipient department/government.

PositivesSupporting each other creates very useful synergy with different donors with slightly different policies, resources orexpertise coming together to produce a balanced project. An example is currently being constructed in Croatia with contributions from (at least) the World Bank, the EU, DfID(UK), USA, Norway, Germany and Austria. In this case DfID provided the resources for the preparation phase of a World Bank loan for a registration and cadastre project. The EU will help with funding for renewal of the cadastre itself. Norway is helping with scanning equipment and expertise. The Austrians and Germans with pilot projects in rural areas; and the USA with help in the capital.

Similarly in Hungary, those involved in this type of project have included the EU, Germany, Austria and Switzerland.There is also an element of risk-sharing built-in to this synergy. There is less chance of any one institution or country taking either all the credit for success or all the blame for failure.

NegativesThe down side of such co-operative projects lie in the co-operation itself. Someone has to (or should) manage the co-operation. Joint committees may achieve this, hopefully including representatives of all parties involved, but even this puts some strain on the recipient governments or departments. If the load falls entirely on the local recipientsit may become a very onerous burden and can consume scarce expertise. The case studies for Croatia and Uganda (see below ) illustrate some of the problems of such projects.

Where specialist inputs are needed, timing is crucial but may be subject to purchasing and budget timetables that areout of sync with the other inputs. Delivery of computer hardware is relatively easy and off-the-shelf; delivery of specialisedsoftware is fraught with specification, design, performance and implementation problems. In Central and Eastern Europe,for example, there are often quite competent local software resources that can be very awkward to fit into purchasingprogrammes designed for international competition. It is very difficult to devise a strategy that can fairly balance theadvantages of ‘international standards’ against the desire to create and nurture local expertise on a sustainable basis.And that also needs to achieve value for money. At the level of computer operating systems, Microsoft generally seem to have ‘won’ but there is more of a competitive market for databases (though Oracle are dominant) and much morecompetition for mapping and GIS software.

12

The impact of global and regional initiatives may be seen by international experts as positive (and they can bringfunding). But for individual countries and projects they may be seen as inappropriate if they impose different standards at the wrong time, divert resources from local priorities or are really designed for the long-term interests of thestrategic and defence needs of outsiders.

Recent EU initiatives on a common European-wide SDI, that is watched very carefully by pre-accession states in CentralEurope, are controversial enough in the current EU member countries, let alone in countries that are still trying to sort out50 years of complete neglect of their land administration sectors.

Case studiesUganda

Mapping and geospatial information users include census, agricultural statistics, construction, town and country planning,defence, tourism, NGO’s and the Environmental Information Network. But coverage is uneven and work is only at theplanning stage to restore the control network. 1:50K paper maps date from the 1950s; 12% have been revised usingdigital techniques. Town maps date from 1970s; two, including the capital, have been modernised. Cadastral mapscover 15% of the country. Thematic and landcover maps have been produced from imagery and air photography.Support has come from the World Bank, the EU, Japan and Italy. There is a growing competence with modern techniques,but activity is piecemeal due to funding restraints.

(from JLM Bwogi, Ag. Commissioner of Lands and Surveys)

Co-operation in Croatia – Real property registration and cadastre project

The World Bank is lending the Croatian government two thirds of the $34M costs of a project to update and harmoniseland registration and cadastre in the country over the next five years. The rest of the costs will be born roughly equallyby the Croatian government and by the EU. In addition to this funding there have been/will be contributions fromGermany and the Netherlands (pilot projects for cadastral renewal) and funding from Norway for scanning equipmentand a map production flowline. It is also expected that local governments in Croatia will help in their own regions. Theproject involves close co-operation between the Cadastre (SGA) and the Land Registry (Ministry of Justice). There are likely to be considerable opportunities for local companies to supply software and services during the project lifetime. www.worldbank.org/pics/pid/hr67149.txt

Conclusions and recommendations

Geomatics has powerful potential to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of projects in many disciplines that includegeographical data. We found that – outside the specialist audience – there is a lack of awareness of either the potentialor the requirements of SDI, implying lost potential in many projects whether in industrialised nations or countries inreceipt of development aid.

The research conducted for this project has identified the following areas where RICS should initially work to improvethe quality of mapping projects, particularly in countries in receipt of aid for such projects.

The findings and recommendations for non-specialist audiencesIn particular there is a need for increased awareness of the potential cross-disciplinary usefulness of a geomatics elementin many projects or programmes overtly dedicated to a particular theme such as environment or agriculture.

Simple presentation of mapping/SDI requirements to other disciplinesBrief presentations given to professionals from other disciplines during this project indicate that they are open togeomatics inputs and can easily understand the benefits if presentations are kept simple and free of jargon. The GABScharter explicitly identifies the need for cross-discipline co-operation and RICS should use this new framework to promotesustainable geomatics.

Identifying gaps in mapping/SDI infrastructure that need supportOur research shows that there are some gaps in the support offered to transitional and developing economies. There hasbeen an emphasis on accurate cadastres at one end of the spectrum and on satellite imagery at the other. In betweenare the medium-scale mapping and quality-controlled geographic information (eg gazetteers, road networks, aerialimagery) which developed countries now take for granted but which are non-existent or extremely out-of-date elsewhere.

Coaching of members/departments in recipient countriesAs identified above, there is potential to increase the take-up of the benefits of geomatics to recipients through lobbyingboth controlling home ministries (usually finance or planning) and donors. The role of coaching potential recipients is ideally suited to professional bodies such as RICS and other GABS signatories.

Donor awarenessOur research identified the need to publish a specific guidance note to donor institutions, documenting the cross-cuttingnature of mapping and SDI for in-country representatives and providing guidelines on fostering appropriate support.

Best practice guidelinesBest practice guidelines should address: • Technical issues such as interoperability, metadata, integration of imagery and map data• Stimulating internal/external joint project management• Review of relationships between domestic and foreign spatial data producers/processors and domestic and foreign map

and spatial data users• Review of international data sources and the restrictions placed on their use for copyright or commercial reasons• Prioritisation of domestic resources in the context of more or less generous international support in specific geomatics

applications.

The audiences for such guidelines should include donors, practitioners and recipients as well as non-specialist audiences.The guidelines in themselves would serve to increase awareness of the potential power of geomatics to strengthencross-disciplinary projects.

Was the methodology applicable? We believe that with the timescale and resources available the methodolgy was appropriate. It is clear that the questionnairecould be refined and that more follow-up discussions could be held but this would need more time and resourcesthan were available. A comprehensive study covering all donors and all beneficiaries would take a lot more resourcethan was available for this project, but we make reference to some global surveys. A global SDI survey was carried out in 199831.

13

14

Annex A – Acknowledgements

The project team wishes to thank all those who contributed to the research for this project, and in particular:

Gavin Adlington, LAPECO, UK

Sam Bacharach, Open GIS Consortium (GISD Initiative)

Rick Baldwin, Blom Info, UK

Antoine Bernard, Commercial Director, IGN-France International

J.L.M. Bwogi, Ag. Commissioner of Lands and Surveys, Uganda

Professor Peter Dale, Past President FIG , UK

Christoph Eidenbenz, Swiss OEEPE delegate, Formerly of Swiss Landes Topographie

David Fitzpatrick, RICS Foundation

Russell Fox, Ordnance Survey, International and Government Relations, UK

Liz Gavin, EIS Africa

Don Grant, Land Administration Consultant, recently Chief Technical Advisor to the Hellenic Cadastre

and formerly Surveyor General of New South Wales

Eric Holland, Senior Development Consultant, ITC Holland

Sean Johnson, Consultant to DfID, UK

James Kavanagh, RICS Geomatics Faculty

Jean-Philippe Lagrange, Director of Overseas Affairs, IGN France

Dr. Kate N. Lance, USGS EROS Data Center/International Program

Nick Land, Eurogeographics and previously Head of OS International, UK

John Leatherdale, Consultant, UK

John Lynam, The Rockefeller Foundation, Nairobi

Rob Mahoney, RICS Geomatics Faculty

Robin McLaren, Know Edge Ltd, UK

Gerhard Muggenhuber, FIG, Austria

Professor Tommy Österberg, Technical Director, SwedeSurvey

Andrew Peter, Consultant to World Bank, UK

Sture Pettersen, Managing Director, SwedeSurvey

Ádám Podolcsák, Consultant, Hungary

John Price, Retired Consultant to World Bank et al, UK

Mark Probert, Ordnance Survey, International and Government Relations, UK

Hon Ruhakana Rugunda, Minister of Water, Lands and Environment, Uganda

Mike Sharp, Consultant to Asian Development Bank, UK

Dave Sharp, Registers of Scotland, UK

Ranasinghe Silva, Surveyor General, Sri Lanka

Neil Smith, Consultant and previously OS International, UK

François de Soyres, IGN-France International

Muhammad Sulaiman, Consultant, Zanzibar

Philip Wilbourn, RICS Environment Faculty

Piroska Zalaba, Department of Lands and Mapping, Hungary

It should be noted that many of the above gave their information/opinions in confidence and have not therefore been

quoted directly. The authors take full responsibility for the wording of the report where it has not clearly been attributed.

15

IntroductionThe following questionnaire is part of a study into the support given for development of map-based infrastructure in developing countries. The Study is being conducted on behalf of RICS Foundation, a UK charity sponsored by RoyalInstitution of Chartered Surveyors. Its aim is to investigate how such development aid might best contribute to sustainabledevelopment. We are most grateful to you for your time in responding to the questionnaire.

Your name:Organisation:Phone number:

Policy directions Yes/no Priority Comments/detailsLow/medium/high

Policy direction for support?

Any priority countries/regions? Any priority themes (eg climate change, agriculture, AIDS),Under which themes would support be given for map-based infrastructure?

Any particular practices (eg partnerships Notwith other agencies, grass roots applicableparticipation)

How are projects identified (eg how much weight is given to in-country offices)

Are the policy and criteria public?

How do potential recipients find out Notabout support? (eg government to applicablegovernment)

Are project-executing organisations selected by tender?

Is there a preference to give local partnersresponsibility for carrying out projects?

Any other policy issues?

Annex B – Questionnaire

16

Are any of the following criteria used when making grants?

Criteria? Yes/no Priority Comments/detailsLow/medium/high

Accessibility of information and services eg to the public, commerce, the rest of government, through metadata, publicity, ease of contact, pricing

Planning for interdisciplinary use of data at national and international levelseg data on environmental indicators(national/international)

Institutional sustainability

resource availability

culture,

education, training, human resources

Is there a preference for ongoing projects, or one-off projects?

Transparency of policy making,

of pricing mechanisms.

Technical openness (attitude to interoperability, data exchange,standardisation)

Accountability recipient reporting

and recipient audits

performance indicators

professionalism

willingness to embrace changes to customers’ needs

willingness to embrace new technology

other

17

Criteria? Yes/no Priority Comments/detailsLow/medium/high

Wider legal and economic environment

eg commitment to land markets

policies on land taxation

agricultural dimensions of land policy

meeting housing needs

land tenure and property rights

land use planning such as promoting rural/urban access by GIS

other

Commitment to education and training in use of the infrastructure,

at national level

at regional level

Commitment to gender and ethnic equality

access to land tenure and property rights

within project structure

Other criteria not included above?

Political?

Regional stability?

Other?

18

When support is given

Criteria? Yes/no Priority Comments/detailsLow/medium/high

What form does the support take? Notgrants, applicableloans, equipment and software, consultants, subsidised training,mix of above

What conditions are attached to the support? eg scoping reports, feasibility reports, inception reports

the passing of certain enabling legislation (eg on land reform)

the provision of matching funds

‘tying’ of funds to procurement

open tender process for any equipment/services

Other donor objectives?

Are figures available for the take-up and Notsuccess rate of grants for map-based applicableinfrastructure in the past?

take up (%)

success rate (%)

success rate determined by internal audits independent audit?

Other comments

19

Project case studies (for projects which have been completed within the last five years)

countries assisted

project names/descriptions – particularly if part of larger agric/rural dev/urban dev project

Dates

Value

loan/grant/in-kind

project classification (see below: small/medium / large scale + further breakdown)

contacts and source of information (important for acknowledgement and any follow up)

comments on efficacy/success/failure

comment on breakdown between money, experts, equipment, training, etc.

1 small scale (typified by the ISCGM global mapping project.2 medium scale (typified by 50k and 250k mapping) which was traditionally line mapping but may now be various

forms of photo/image-mapping and which is generally reckoned to be necessary for overall economic development.This is now likely to be produced digitally if not being replaced by databases as part of the 'spatial data infrastructure'.This type of infrastructure is inherently general purpose, needs to be sensitive to different cultures and topographyand is inherently 'national' in nature and coverage.

3 large scale mapping for detailed administration of land and the 'built' environment.

20

Annex C References

Note: web-based references are given as <hyperlink> at <www:url>. Users of the softcopy version of the report can

access via the <hyperlink>. Users of the hard copy version will have to copy the www.url into their browsers.

1 The World Bank Group – Land Policy and Administration at www.worldbank.org/landpolicy

2 The UK Department for International Development at www.dfid.gov.uk/

3 Getting it together, the geography jigsaw – Sustainable partnerships: people, places and information, RICS Geomatics

Information Brief, RICS, August 2002.

4 Survey Of National And Regional Spatial Data Infrastructure Activities Around The Globe at

www.spatial. maine.edu/ ~onsrud/ GSDI.htm

5 www.gsdi.org

6 www.worldbank.org/landpolicy

7 RICS Geomatics Faculty at www.rics.org/geo/

8 International Office of Cadastre and Land Records at www.oicrf.org/index.html

9 World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation available at

www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm

10 Geo-Information Supports Decision-Making in Africa, EIS-AFRICA, Pretoria, South Africa, available from EIS -Africa at

www.eis-africa.org/

11 Down to Earth: Geographical Information for Sustainable Development in Africa, Committee on the Geographic

Foundation for Agenda 21, Committee on Geography, Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council,

ISBN 0-309-08478-4. available at Nat'l Academies Press, Down to Earth: (2002), Table of Contents at

search.nap.edu/books/0309084784/html/

12 FAO AFRICOVER - Land cover assessment based on remote sensing for the whole African continent at www.africover.org/

13 USAID/OGC Geographic Information for Sustainable Development at www.opengis.org/gisd

14 Cadastres in the Phare countries, Prof T Bogaerts, GIM International, Dec 1999

15 www.oxfam.org.uk/landrights/intro.htm and www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/IN1_en.htm

21

16 DfID Discussion draft: Better livelihoods for poor people: the role of Land Policy, J Quan, Apr 2002

17 Mapping the World, A. Macdonald, HMSO, 1996

18 Mapping for Development, G McGrath, Cartographica Monograph 29-30, 1983

19 IGN FI About us at www.ignfi.fr/england/framepresentation.htm

20 Development Assistance - Making a difference, at www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ401953#P68_9461

21 Swiss Trade-Related Technical Co-operation (TRTC) at

www.seco-admin.ch/seco/seco2.nsf/Atts/ ET_Aktiv/$file/e_ Laenderliste.pdf

22 Submission of a project idea to seco at www.seco-admin.ch/seco/seco2.nsf/Atts/ET_Aktiv/$file/e_Projektsub.pdf

23 ITC – Project services; institutional development, advisory services, consulting at www.itc.nl/projects/default.asp

24 Lessons for the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure: International Case Study Analysis at

www.gsdi.org/docs2001/Rand/Rand_GSDIfinal.pdf

25 Global Map and GSDI Grant Program - Description at www.esri.com/industries/internationaldev/ grants/description. html

26 Intergraph Open Interoperability Endowment Program at www.ingr.com/gis/ogc/interop.asp

27 Swedesurvey Business Concept and Annual Report at www.swedesurvey.se/

28 United States Geological Survey EROS Data Center International Program at edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/

29 Federal Land Cadastre Service of Russia – LARIS project at www.fccland.ru/english/dlaris.htm

30 BBC News – Who Owns the Land at news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_594000/594522.stm

31 Global Spatial Data Infrastructure at www.gsdi.org

These URL’s were correct as at March 2003.

Ap

ril 2

003/

600/

RIC

S G

eom

atic

s/20

230/

RIC

S St

ud

io/C

.Ren

aud

in

ISBN: 184219142X

The Royal Institutionof Chartered Surveyors 12 Great George StreetParliament Square London SW1P 3AD United Kingdom

T +44 (0)870 333 1600 F +44 (0)20 7334 3811

contactrics@rics.org.ukwww.rics.org