Future Directions

for the

Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and the Pacific

The Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and the Pacific (PCGIAP) was established by a Resolution of the 13^th United Nations Regional Cartographic Conference for Asia and the Pacific (UNRCC-AP) held in Beijing in 1994. The UNRCC-AP recognised the need for a permanent body to address the rapid development of geographic information systems (GIS) in all countries, and the need for regional and global coordination in this field. The PCGIAP operates under, and reports to, the UNRCC-AP.

The aims of the PCGIAP are to maximise the economic, social and environmental benefits of geographic information through cooperation in development of the regional geographic information (or spatial data) infrastructure (SDI), contribution to the global SDI, sharing of experiences, and activities such as education, training and technology transfer.

The PCGIAP has defined a number of specific objectives for itself, including to:

• develop guidelines for data acquisition and sharing;
• define the regional SDI (based on what is available in member countries);
• define a framework for describing fundamental data sets and key agencies;
• design a strategy for regional geodesy and for topographic databases;
• prepare guidelines for digital cadastral databases (DCDB) and cadastral reform;
• determine the need for research, training and technology exchange.

The structure and operation of the PCGIAP is defined by a comprehensive set of statutes. The Committee comprises one representative from each of the 55 countries in the UN-defined Asia Pacific region. Members are the heads of the national surveying and mapping agency, or their equivalent. A plenary meeting of the Committee is held once per year, with every third meeting being in conjunction with the UNRCC-AP. Members may bring experts from their country to attend meetings, but only Members have voting rights. The Executive Board comprises the President, Vice President, Secretary and up to seven Members, with responsibility for managing the activities of the Committee between plenary meetings. The Board is supported by one full-time person, provided through the Secretary.

The objectives of the Committee have been pursued through four Working Groups:

1. Geographical Information Infrastructure and Institutional Framework
2. Issues Relating to Cadastral Infrastructure
3. Regional Geodetic Networks
4. Legislation and Administrative Arrangements for the Acquisition and Sharing of Spatial Data

The cooperation, goodwill and dedication of many people have enabled the PCGIAP to make some significant achievements in its first three years, including:

• three plenary meetings held, with 13 to 20 countries represented;
• recognition by a number of international bodies (representatives appointed to those bodies, and several presentations made to international meetings);
• work plans developed for each Working Group;
• preparation of a comprehensive paper on the Asia Pacific SDI commenced;
• survey of the status of SDI in member countries commenced;
• survey of the status of DCDB in member countries commenced;
• survey of the status of legislative and administrative arrangements for data acquisition and sharing in member countries commenced;
• regional geodetic campaign completed, involving VLBI (6 sites), SLR (10), GPS (36) and DORIS and PRARE systems, to develop a regional geodetic framework;
• technical paper on geodetic transformation strategies prepared.

The 14^th UNRCC-AP (Bangkok, 1997) meeting made a number of recommendations for action by the PCGIAP, including:

• identify new funding options for spatial data infrastructure programs;
• assess the performance of the past three UNRCC-AP meetings and present a proposal for their future role and direction (including mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of Conference resolutions);
• implement a www facility for monitoring implementation of UNRCC-AP Conference recommendations, and for national reporting;
• strengthen cooperation in the Global Map project;
• establish cooperation with the ESCAP Regional Space Applications Program;
• link the Asia Pacific SDI into the Global SDI initiative.

The PCGIAP Executive Board, at its November 1997 meeting in Kobe, requested the Secretary to prepare a Discussion Paper addressing future directions for the Committee, including consideration of the UNRCC-AP recommendations and the role of the PCGIAP in creating fundamental regional datasets, for consideration at the Tehran meeting in March 1998. This is that paper.

The following sections comprise an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Committee and of the opportunities and threats it faces, a summary of the key issues that must be addressed, and a proposed structure for the future.

It is emphasised that the opinions expressed in this paper are personal, and do not necessarily represent the views of other members of the Executive Board. The purpose of the paper is to provide a basis for discussion by all members of the Committee at the Tehran meeting, so that clear directions can be given to the Executive Board for the further development of the PCGIAP over the next several years.

The strengths of the PCGIAP include:

• Recognition and support of the United Nations and other international bodies (the PCGIAP has the necessary credentials to succeed).
• Membership is open to the national agency of all ESCAP countries (there are no political barriers to participation).
• Core group of active and enthusiastic members (sufficient to develop some momentum).
• Full-time person supporting the Executive (the minimum resource necessary to enable effective operation).
• Ambitious work program (some significant and valuable objectives have been established).
• Diverse range of technical approaches and cultures (which ensures that every member can both contribute to and learn from other members).
• Format and style is simple and direct (operations are not overly constrained by bureaucratic processes or diplomatic protocols).

There are however a number of weaknesses:

• Low participation rates of member countries (only 30% are involved; many countries cannot afford to participate, or do not see sufficient value).
• No external funds available to support work programs (all work is funded by participating countries, so limiting the scope of activities).
• Slow progress in several work programs (due to resource limitations and poor response rates to written surveys).
• Limited practical achievements to date (with the significant exception of the geodetic work, few tangible benefits have been delivered to members).

Significant opportunities for the PCGIAP include:

• Global GIS initiatives are rapidly developing (PCGIAP could play a more active role in the GSDI, Global Map and ISO standards areas).
• External funding may be available (PCGIAP has not yet attempted to access funding from international development bodies).
• Beneficial work programs can be readily defined (there are many potential activities which would be of great benefit to member countries).
• Enhanced support from the UN for PCGIAP as a model for other regions (which should lead to further opportunities for cooperation and development).

There are also a number of threats to the PCGIAP achieving its aims:

• Continuing low participation rates could lead to a loss of credibility (the PCGIAP may not be seen to represent the region).
• Slow progress in delivering tangible benefits could lead to stagnation (countries will not see sufficient value in active participation, activities will wind down).
• Political barriers may emerge (particularly in programs that require the sharing of data which may be regarded as sensitive).

The above analysis, and the recommendations of the 14^th UNRCC-AP, enable identification of four key issues that must be addressed by the PCGIAP:

1. participation rates by member countries;
2. design of the work program (and hence of the working groups);
3. availability of resources to pursue the program;
4. functional relationship with the UNRCC-AP.

The participation issue is best addressed through the design of the work program and availability of funding, so reducing the issues to three.

The initial PCGIAP work program is, with the exception of the geodetic activities, largely focused on conceptual issues involving questionnaires and the preparation of reports and papers. While this was an appropriate starting point, there is a need to move quickly through this phase and undertake more activities that produce tangible benefits for members. Little has been done in the training and technology exchange areas, and the PCGIAP has not yet commenced development of any regional fundamental data sets. Training and technology exchange would be of most benefit to the developing countries, and regional data sets are the key requirement for the global initiatives. This suggests the designation of two new Working Groups with associated work programs: Geographic Data (focused on fundamental datasets) and Regional Development (focused on national institutional strengthening). Strong work programs in these areas will necessarily improve member participation rates.

While the design of work programs to deliver greater benefits is relatively easy, the resourcing of such programs is much more difficult. The PCGIAP needs to address this issue more directly, by identifying the potential sources of funding (such as the Asian Development Bank and other international and national aid agencies), the types of projects and activities that they may be willing to fund, and then submitting project proposals and grant applications. This process may take several years to succeed, and will require continuous follow up, but it would seem to be the only way to acquire sufficient funding to undertake major beneficial projects. The Secretariat could be charged with responsibility for coordinating all proposals and applications, to ensure consistency of approach.

The PCGIAP has been requested to assess the performance of the past three UNRCC-AP meetings, and to present a proposal for their future role and direction (including mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of resolutions). This provides an ideal opportunity to review the functional relationship between the UNRCC-AP and PCGIAP, particularly the structure and objectives of their meetings. A report on this review, and on the implementation of the other resolutions regarding the PCGIAP, will need to be presented to the 15^th UNRCC-AP in the Philippines in 2000. The general approach should be to integrate the two bodies, such that the UNRCC-AP becomes the three-yearly conference of the PCGIAP. A $BA4(Bpecial Working Group of the UN Regional Cartographic Conferences’ is scheduled for March 1998 in Mexico, at which the role of the UN and coordination between UNRCC's are likely to be discussed. That meeting may also provide an important input to the UNRCC-AP$BCT(B considerations.

A program and structure based on an Executive and three core areas is proposed:

• Executive (three office holders and 7 members): responsible for planning and managing the activities of the PCGIAP and UNRCC-AP; defining the regional spatial data infrastructure; all publications including directories and internet sites; and coordinating funding proposals to aid agencies. The Executive would take over the activities of current Working Group 1, and elements of Working Group 4.
  

The Executive would be supported by three new Working Groups (WGs), with the Chairs of each WG being members of the Executive:

1. Geodesy: responsible for defining geodetic technical standards; and coordinating regional geodetic campaigns. This program is a continuation of the current WG3.
2. Geographic Data: responsible for defining spatial data standards; compiling fundamental regional geographic data sets (as defined in the Regional SDI); and coordinating regional contributions to global data initiatives. This is a new program.
3. Regional Development: responsible for developing and implementing programs for national institutional strengthening (such as seminars, workshops, staff exchanges). This is largely a new program, but would include elements of current WG2.

This structure would ensure that the planning, management and delivery of programs are fully integrated, through regular Executive meetings. Working Group Chairs would be able to appoint coordinators for key activities within their work program, and should be able to travel and meet their coordinators and members as required to ensure that their work plan is achieved.

The PCGIAP Executive (Working Group 1), through the Secretariat, should develop proposals for aid funding based on the PCGIAP work program, and submit them to the relevant agencies. The key area is likely to be regional development, with an emphasis on national institutional strengthening. This could include funding to undertake cadastral studies, or for a workshop of small Pacific island countries. These funding proposals would be submitted by the PCGIAP, and would be designed to complement (not replace or duplicate) aid funding for individual countries.

This activity will initially require discussions with developing countries and aid agencies, to identify needs and opportunities. It is recognised that it may take some years to develop the necessary relationship between PCGIAP and the aid agencies for this activity to be successful.

The following general approach is proposed:

• The UNRCC-AP should continue, meeting every three years. The format should be that of a conference, with both invited and presented papers. Attendance should comprise country delegations led by the PCGIAP member, and recognised non-government agencies. The PCGIAP Executive, along with the member from the host country, should be responsible for organising the conference agenda, including identification of the Chairman and invited speakers. The UN should continue providing administrative support, including the issuing of invitations, provision of translation facilities, and publication of proceedings. Key elements of the Conference would include:
  - report from the PCGIAP Executive (achievements and plans);
  - invited presentations on global and other UNRCC developments;
  - national reports from participating countries.
  
• The PCGIAP should continue to meet once per year, with every third meeting being incorporated within the UNRCC-AP. The format of these business meetings’ should be that of a committee, focused on work plans and technical issues. Attendance should be limited to the PCGIAP member (head of national surveying and mapping agency, or equivalent), and a small number of technical advisers. The key elements of the meetings would be:
  - Working Group progress reports and plans;
  - Working Group technical meetings.
  
• The PCGIAP Executive should continue to operate primarily through e-mail, with ad hoc meetings between the full Committee meetings only as required.
  
• The PCGIAP should develop a three-year planning cycle, coinciding with the UNRCC-AP dates. Some sessions of each UNRCC-AP meeting should be run as a PCGIAP meeting, presenting reports from the previous three years and proposed plans for the next three, for consideration by the Conference. Elections for the PCGIAP Executive (including WG Chairs) should be held at the PCGIAP meetings coinciding with UNRCC-AP meetings.
  
• Resolutions of the UNRCC-AP should be categorised, with those requiring action to include the person or agency responsible, and the due date. The PCGIAP would include all UNRCC-AP resolutions on its web site, along with a statement of the status of the action items. The UNRCC-AP agenda would include an item for review of the status of action resolutions’ from the previous conference, with the PCGIAP Executive providing a written report as the basis for the review.

The above approach would limit the size and scope of PCGIAP meetings to a round-table forum of agency heads with a focus on technical issues, enabling such $BAC(Business meetings’ to be held without the expense of organising a major conference. The three-yearly UNRCC-AP would be developed into a major regional conference, incorporating the annual PCGIAP business meeting for that year.

The approach outlined above is summarised as a diagram in Attachment 1.

The future directions outlined above are intended to provide a sharper focus for the PCGIAP over the next few years. If such new directions were adopted at Tehran, the following steps would be required during the meeting:

• amend the statutes to reflect the new Work Program;
• form the new Working Groups;
• develop more detailed work plans for each Working Group;
• consider whether any transitional arrangements are required for the 1999 PCGIAP meeting.

The new work plans would then provide the basis for the next PCGIAP activity cycle, through to the UNRCC-AP in 2000.

Drew Clarke

Secretary, PCGIAP

Return to Record of Proceedings

Return to PCGIAP Home Page