Annexure 10
Attachment E
[Back to Annexure 10]

OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES BY PCGIAP PACIFIC GROUP TO PCGIAP TASKFORCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction

Australia circulated the PCGIAP Taskforce questionnaire to all 19 Pacific Island countries prior to the Suva workshop. A number of queries were resolved during the workshop and responses were received from the following 15 Pacific Island countries, and one more is expected:
  • American Samoa
  • Cook Islands
  • Fiji
  • French Polynesia
  • Guam
  • Kiribati
  • Micronesia (Pohnpei)
  • Nauru
  • Niue
  • Palau
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Samoa
  • Solomon Islands
  • Tonga
  • Vanuatu
Background

The questionnaire was developed by the PCGIAP Secretariat in consultation with the PCGIAP Taskforce Committee (Malaysia, Japan, Iran and Australia) as a means of data collection across the Asia and the Pacific region. Data being sought comprised the level of participation in PCGIAP activities and the status of GIS and related activity and programs in PCGIAP member countries.

The data would be used to help identify and manage the GIS and related development needs of member countries.

Summary of Responses

This attachment provides an overall summary of the 15 responses, which were consistent with the outcomes of the Suva workshop. A full analysis of the responses is not available at this time.

The following main points emerged from the responses to the questionnaire:

  • There had been only minimal participation in PCGIAP activities by Pacific Island countries up to the Suva workshop. All countries expressed an interest in becoming more involved in meetings and working group activities.
  • The primary reasons for nil or little participation were:
      - availability of funds
      - little or no knowledge of PCGIAP by small number of countries
      - little understanding of relevance of PCGIAP to member countries
  • Most countries have embarked or are embarking on the acquisition digital mapping data and automated systems. The extent of data suitable for GIS applications varies. However a move to GIS compatible date is generally evident.
  • All countries expressed a willingness to develop a NSDI for their country and most asked for assistance in this regard.
  • There seem to be a lead agency in most countries that would logically take a lead role in NSDI development and implementation.
  • GIS is mostly viewed from a local and national level rather than part of a broader spatial data infrastructure.
  • There is limited availability of GPS equipment.
  • Restrictions and use of digital data vary as do pricing policies and access mechanisms. In most cases data are available at the cost of supply.
  • Assistance was mostly identified as being required under the following categories, roughly in priority order:
      - geodesy (processing, field activities, GPS equipment)
      - NSDI policy and coordination
      - GIS theory
      - cadastral systems, surveying and mapping
      - topographic and other data standards
      - remote sensing imagery.

[Top]