The Workgroup was unable to address the issue of mapping on the provincial level. Not yet the right forum for discussing in detail.
Maps at 1:250,000 and above insufficient. In principle, need for more quality control – many existing maps cannot be used because they were never ground-truthed.
There are on-going activities that may produce such maps in the near future
Important to trigger greater interaction between the (1) Donor supported track and (2) science or research track.
Possibility of national inventory? No clear institutional mandate, thus no ideal base for locating such a database. Would have to be a process-oriented effort, not a one time exercise.
In a number of cases, the recommendations refer to SMRP or GTZ, in others, no reference to someone to take action
Should send a letter to MRC Secretariat, SMRP is in a position support and to offer assistance – to find resources to assist this process, but has to be carried by other institutions present as well.
CATALOGUE:
Concerning a catalogue: do representatives present see a problem making information available? SMRP could, in principle, collect and transmit the information. But do local institutions HAVE a data catalogue, and would they be willing to make them available?
In Laos, have already initiated a process of communication, including data sharing, among Laotian institutions. Monthly meetings are being held. Very hopeful that such data sharing is possible.
In Vietnam, there is no knowledge of a similar effort to either collect or distribute such information. Information is there, but often hard to locate. In addition, willingness is uneven, and relatively complicated. MoSTE, GDLA and FIPI compiling a base data set at the 1:50,000 to 1:100,000 scale that should be published in the near future. It is still unclear if this is an ‘official’ data set, or simply ‘another’ data set.
In Cambodia, an information has already been established under the UNDP to collect information. It should be available on the Internet in the near future. A printed catalogue already exists, but was unfortunately not brought to the meeting.
What happens if you don’t have this ideal team? In many cases, one individual is tasked with all these assignments. To ensure sufficient personnel and budget support, need to have institutional acceptance which begins with an appropriate process of needs assessment.
A GIS forum could help with skills upgrading, keeping people up-to-date.
If YOU are willing to spend time/resources on setting up a network THEN do the first steps of a network NOW!
Issues and problems were clustered under three themes: (1) data management policy, (2) cooperation with institutions, and (3) institutional mandates.
Detailing the meaning of ‘data sharing’, the following points were made:
Additional definition to ‘cooperation within institutions’ included:
The following points were also made to further define ‘Cooperation (or lack thereof) among institutions’: inter-institutional competition
Findings were in turn clustered, and yielded two main recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Support/organize national-level networking and communication (First column can be considered as a terms of reference for the meeting)
Recommendation 2: Develop manual for setting up a GIS and producing products in (a) regional/National context (b) national languages (Table of Contents is column No. 2: Data management policy). In the interim: consider the lessons learned as a ‘check list’ for your GIS products!
Are the results going to be accepted at the end of the day? Agree up front about methodologies and willingness to accept a new paradigm.
Uncertainty should be made clear, so that people don’t take products as a ‘bible.’
If you are user oriented, and you have assessed their needs well, many other problems will resolve themselves.
When using data sets from different sources, have an agreement, name the sources.
Even if you agree on everything in a project environment, you need to consider the packaging so that high level (non-science) decision makers appreciate the ‘science’ behind the product, without overwhelming the audience.
Establishing separate GIS units should be carefully considered for they can actually obstruct information flow when they are ‘boxed in’, physically separated from other professionals, in ‘better equipped’ offices, and on a different (‘higher’) pay scale. This can provoke resentment and in-house resistance.