Geospatial Data Sharing Barriers Across Organizations and the

Possible Solution for Ethiopia

Habtamu Sewnet Gelagay

Spatial Data Infrastructure Program (SDIP), Information Network Secuirity Agency of Ethiopia, Adis Ababa, Ethiopia

Keywords: Geospatial Data, Geospatial Data Sharing Barriers, SDI, Ethiopia.

Abstract: Geospatial data sharing across organizations is a well-recognized challenge .Due to the absence of appropriate

space to share geospatial assets, they often remain scattered and locked in various sectors of Ethiopia, no data

sets are maintained and updated regularly, efforts are duplicated, and finding the available data set is difficult.

Exploiting the full socio-economic benefit of geospatial information is thus impossible. This paper therefore

aimed to assess inter-organizational geospatial data sharing challenges; and the possible solutions in Ethiopia.

Lack of coordination, poor data quality and incompatibility, institutional, legal, policy, and technological

issues were identified as major challenges. ENSDI, already initiated, should be promoted more as the

collaborative entity meant for effective inter-organizational geospatial data sharing. National strategy to hand

over informal SDI initiatives, clear ENSDI development approach (top down), and investment on the building

block of ENSDI are suggested for the successful execution of ENSDI.

1 INTRODUCTION

The role of geospatial information in support of the

economy, and efficient decision-making still

challenged due to the absence of cross-border

geospatial data sharing mechanism (Ali and Ahmed,

2013). Geospatial data sharing therefore faces a set of

high-level challenges: (1) data are scattered and

locked in each sectors, (2) efforts are duplicated ,(3)

data are not updated and maintained regularly, (4)

finding the available data is too difficult, and (5)

organizations are incompetent to meet their

geospatial data requirement by themselves

(INSA,2015 ). The geospatial community therefore

deprived from entertaining geospatial data sharing

benefits such as reduction of duplication of efforts;

accessing better-quality and complementary data; and

ensuring that data are created once, maintained

regularly, and used many times (Nap, 2002).

The aforementioned challenges are common in

Ethiopia, and each organization could not know who

is doing what and where. Thus, the exact barriers that

make the sectors reluctant to share geospatial data in

the country still needs to be better understood, and

solutions to overcome the existing barriers and to set

sound geospatial data sharing mechanisms have to be

identified. This paper therefore aimed to review inter-

organizational geospatial data sharing challenges in

Ethiopia and suggest the possible solutions.

2 GEOSPATIAL DATA SHARING

CHALLENGES ACROSS

SECTORS OF ETHIOPIA

Based on the reviewed resources, lack of

coordination, poor data quality and compatibility,

policy, institutional, legal, and technological issues

are identified by this study as a principal geospatial

data sharing challenges among sectors in Ethiopia.

2.1 Lack of Coordination Among

Sectors

Different organizations in Ethiopia are engaged in

collecting the same geospatial data without

coordination (UNECA, 2001). This problem has been

clearly observed in the network of Ethiopian Natural

Resource and Environmental Metadata base (member

institutions were failed to share geospatial

information through the network) (UN-DESA, 2011),

and between different directorates within the ministry

satellite images purchased (costing US$3.2 million)

Gelagay, H.

Geospatial Data Sharing Barriers Across Organizations and the Possible Solution for Ethiopia.

DOI: 10.5220/0006778802690273

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM 2018), pages 269-273

ISBN: 978-989-758-294-3

269

Figure 1. Information silos at various sectors of Ethiopia; A case for MoFECC&CSA(INSA, 2015).

of water, and energy (MoW, 2008). The locked by

CSA for 2007 census (INSA, 2014) is another

demonstration. The big issue here is: (1) other sectors

couldn’t know the available effort at CSA so that they

perhaps enforced to purchase the same type of

satellite images; and (2) CSA will continue to

purchase this satellite images in every 10 years to

meet its organizational demand. This implies that

spatial data sets are purchased many times and used

once (threat to the national economy).

The network aiming to share and make accessible

1:250,000 scale topographic maps (Assefa and Haile

Mariam, 2013),and the development of ENSDI under

Ethiopian Mapping agency(EMA)were suffered by

poor cooperation among sectors (Gemeda,

2012).Fear of loss of control and miss-use of shared

data; fear of loss of funds; and nervousness about

quality makes organization reluctance to cooperate

and share geospatial data (INSA, 2015).Absence of

cross-border cooperation thus deprived sectors of

Ethiopia from realizing the benefit of shared

geospatial asset (INSA, 2015).

2.2 Technological Barriers

Networking cost, incompatible old systems, vendor-

driven GIS system, absence of sound system

architecture, and lack of system interoperability

obstructs cross-border spatial data sharing (UN-

DESA, 2011; and Edemba, 2012). Poor penetration

rate (IDI, 2009)), and downloading and uploading

rate of internet (http://www.dospeedtest.com/

speedtest-result/country-statistics/Ethiopia) in

Ethiopia impedes web based geospatial data sharing.

Immatureness of e-commerce (in efficient ICT

infrastructure) along with the absence of file

compression technology and poor internet band width

limits the sharing of voluminous imagery data .Lack

of skill manpower is not negligible as well (Nap,

2002; Assefa and Hailemariam, 2013). Partner

organization of the Ethio-EIN initiative were

challenged due to absence of automated data base,

and infrastructure(UNECA hosted the node) (AEIN,

Undated). Gemeda (2012) also assured too low

ENSDI readiness due to poor web connectivity and

telecommunication infrastructure.

2.3 Poor Data Quality and

Compatibility

Lack of standards (Nap, 2002), geometric miss

registration, and absence of common data base design

(Barry, 2010), different feature definitions, model,

quality specifications, datum, projections and

coordinate systems (Onsrud, 2007; Sebake and

Coetzee, 2008), and project specific data organization

(Sieber, 2007) deters cross-border spatial data

sharing. The geospatial information in many sectors

of Ethiopia lacks quality, and incompatibility (INSA,

2014). Absence of digital data sets, regular

preservation, and metadata inhibits geospatial data

sharing among sectors of Ethiopia (Gemeda, 2012).

Poorly organized and outdated geospatial data affects

ENSDI development (Zeleke et al., 2007). Ethio-EIN

was also challenged due to non –standard,

incompatible, and absence of digital data in most of

the member institutions (AEIN, undated). Project

planning and impact assessments efforts as part of the

growth and transformation plan (GTP) of the country

are now suffered by the lack of reliable national

spatial data sets, and absence of standards (Krauer

and Gete, 2015).

2.4 Policy Barriers

Lack of policy becomes an issue when organizational

members are uncertain about the data policy and

fearful of making a mistake, unsure of the intellectual

property implications. In other instances, explicit

policies discourage data sharing due to concerns

about the inability to prevent data misuse or liability

claims, uncertainty about fit for use of data, and

revenue generation requirements. As a result, they

often err on the side of data protection and withhold

the data (Geoconnections, 2011a). The absence of

data access policy deters the success full achievement

of Ethio-EIN (AEIN, Undated), and ENSDI

(Gemeda, 2012).

GISTAM 2018 - 4th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management

270

2.5 Legislative Barriers

Lack of well-harmonized legislation on geospatial

industries hampers information sharing with in the

wider geospatial market .The potential security risk

of making the data available, which imply miss-use

and the perceived liability from the use of open data

and decisions based on inaccurate and unreliable data

(Abidah et. al., 2009; Barry, 2010), and the absences

of service charge legislation hampers web based

geospatial data sharing (Sebake and Coetzee, 2008).

Geospatial data sharing among sectors in Ethiopia

suffered by the absence of practical legal framework

such as intellectual property right, custodianship, and

liability(Assefa and Hailemariam, 2013; and INSA;

2015).Collaborative institutions deterred to

effectively share their data in Ethio-EIN due to lack

of legal frame work (AEIN, undated). Furthermore,

the current Intellectual Property Right (IPR) law in

Ethiopia does not explicitly entertain the ICT sectors

(MCIT, 2015), and the geospatial technology and

information (INSA, 2015).

2.6 Institutional Barriers

Fear of exposing data of poor quality, and bad

experiences on the use of others data along with

unequal institutional commitment, conflicting

priorities, institutional disincentives, differing risk

perceptions, (Onsrud, 2007), and absence of

information sharing culture (Sebake and Coetzee,

2008) make organizations reluctant to share their

geospatial assets. Absence of formal institutional

arrangements, is a basic limitation in Ethiopia to bring

together institutions to keep up their effort to be

networked and shared their resources (Gemeda, 2012;

AEIN, undated) .Lack of institutional budget,

awareness, and strong leadership are the major causes

observed for the failure of different networks

(including SDI) in Ethiopia (Lance, 2003; and

Eelderink et al., 2008). Weak institutional operational

capacity is a common problem in Ethiopia (Gemeda,

2012).

3 THE POSSIBLE SOLUTION

3.1 Geospatial Data Sharing through

National Spatial Data

Infrastructure (NSDI)

Collaborating institute (NSDI) facilitate geospatial

data sharing amongst organization (Ali and Ahmed

2014). Hence, many of the governments in the world

developed NSDI to encourage geospatial data sharing

among organization (Moeller, 2001).

Considering this collaborative geospatial data

sharing entity (NSDI) is therefore noteworthy.

Indeed, SDI is not a new concept in Ethiopia, and

dated back to the establishment of Ethio-GIS since

1999 (Gemeda, 2012). EMA takes the initiative

formally since 2002 (Mulaku et al., 2006) as the

frame work of policies, standards, technologies, and

institutional arrangements that promote data sharing.

But, ENSDI was failed under the remit of EMA due

to the obstructions mentioned from subsection 2.1-

2.6, and principally EMA was not legally mandated

for the development of ENSDI (INSA, 2015). INSA

restarted the ENSDI by mandate, and various

activities such as preparation of geospatial

information and technology policy, standards, and

geo-portal development (in progress) have been done

(researchers concrete information)

However, ENSDI development is still in an infant

stage, and the researcher disclosed his fear as if

further promotion and campaign in need, and

recommends (1) clear ENSDI development approach

(top down ), (2) informal SDI initiatives hand over

strategy, and (3) collaborative investment on the

building blocks of ENSDI.

3.1.1 Setting Clear ENSDI Development

Approach (Top Down)

This study suggests a top down approach of ENSDI

development. This is because; ENSDI development

under EMA and other informal SDI initiatives were

practically suffered from getting the buy-in of the

government for the last decade. Besides the above,

world wide experience revealed that the successful

implementation of NSDI totally relays on the political

will of the government. For instances, the initiative

like Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe

sponsored by European Commission ,and an

executive order to force the cooperation among

agencies for the execution of NSDI of USA signed by

president Bill Clinton (https://books.google.com.et/

books) demonstrates the power of getting the political

will at first for the success of NSDI.

3.1.2 Informal SDI Initiatives Handover

Strategy

The presence of clear national strategy to handover

different informal SDI initiatives helps the efforts

invested from being wasted when the initiatives

comes to completion. Different informal SDI

initiatives come up with a great effort to derive

Geospatial Data Sharing Barriers Across Organizations and the Possible Solution for Ethiopia

271

ENSDI were observed in Ethiopia (Gemeda, 2012),

but their efforts were wasted and continued to be

wasted due to the absence of clear hand over strategy.

Hence, this study recommends an assessment of the

ongoing informal SDI initiatives, and building on the

existing effort by team up with them for the success

full development of ENSDI.

3.1.3 Investment on the Building Blocks of

ENSDI

Collaborative investment on: (1) legislations

including IPR, custodianship, and liability,(2)

telecommunication infrastructure, (3)standardization

,(4)development of the institutional operational

capabilities ,and (5) policy entailing data access,

sharing, and service charge among others should be

done to complement what is already in place for hard

infrastructure

4 CONCLUSION

In Ethiopia, absence of the full buy-in of the

government is the under laying cause for the failure

of formal and informal SDI initiatives for the last

decade. Hence, unlocking the economic potential of

geospatial information, and creating geospatially

enabled community through geospatially networked

environment is still neglected. Clarifying the ENSDI

development approach, top down, setting clear

informal SDI initiatives hand over strategy, and

collaborative investment on the building block of

ENSDI are suggested in this paper as the promising

solutions to reinforce the already initiated ENSDI as

a collaborative cross-border geospatial data sharing

mechanism.

REFERENCES

Abidah, A, Shahidah. M. A, and Ahmed .F. (2009).Geo-

Spatial Data Accuracy and its Legal Implications in the

Malaysian Context: Eighteenth United Nations

Regional Cartographic Conference for Asia and the

Pacific. Bangkok.

African Environmental Information Network (AEIN).

(Undated). Best Practices and Lessons Learnt from the

Implementation of the Africa Environment Information

Network (AEIN). http://www.unep.org/dewa/africa,

acessed 3 October 2016

Ali, A. and Ahmed, M. (2013). Geospatial data sharing in

Pakistan: Possibilities and problems. https://

www.researchgate.net/261286691, accessed on 23

December 2015.

Assefa, G. and Hailemariam S. (2013). Online Service

Delivery of Geo-information Data: The Case of

Ethiopian Mapping Agency: HiLCoE Journal of

Computer Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1.

Barry, W. (2010). The most contentious issue facing GIS

data sharing today.

Douglas, N., (1997). The US National Spatial Data

Infrastructure. http://buccaneer.geo.orst.edu/myst/

nsdi_ppt/sld001.htm.

Edemba. (2012). Challenges a developing country like

Kenya faces in implementing web based mapping.

https://edembac.wordpress.com, accessed on 20

December 2015.

Eelderink, L., (2008). Towards key variables to assess

National Spatial Data Infrastructure in developing

countries. MSc GIMA.

Geoconnection. (2011a). Final Report: CGDI Operational

Policies Needs Analysis. Ottawa: Geoconnections,

Natural Resources Canada.

Gemeda,D.O.(2012).Assessment of Ethiopian Spatial Data

Infrastructure. Master thesis, Wageningen University.

Netherland

GIS Society of Ethiopia (GISSE),(2011). Geographic

Information System society of Ethiopia.

IDI (2009). Measuring the information society. ICT

Development Index.

Information Network Security Agency (INSA). (2014).

Demand analysis document on national spatial

information and technology policy

Information Network Security Agency (INSA) . (2015).

Stake holders survey report on ENSDI obstacles and

benefits.

Lance, K. T., (2003). Spatial data infrastructure in Africa.

Spotting the elephant behind trees, GIS development,

7(7): 35-41

Krauer J, Gete Z. (2015). Building spatial data

infrastructure in Ethiopia. Eastern and Southern Africa

Partnership Program: Highlights from 15 Years of Joint

Action for Sustainable Development: Centre for

Development and Environment (CDE), University of

Bern, with Bern Open Publishing (BOP), pp. 99–102.

http://doi.org/10.7892/boris.72023

Ministry of Communication, Information and Technology.

(MCIT). (2015). National data set design document.

Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE),

(2008).Strengthening Water Sector Monitoring and

Information System in Ethiopia with GIRWI Project.

Final Report of the Diagnostic Phase. June 2008, Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia

Moeller, J. (2001). Spatial Data Infrastructures: A Local to

Global View. http://gsdi.org/PPT/unrcc01.ppt,

accessed 25 December 2015.

Mulaku, G. C., Kiema, J. B. K., and Siriba, D. N.,(2006).

Assessment of Kenya’s Readiness for Geospatial Data

Infrastructure Take Off. University of Nairobi,

Department of Surveying, Nairobi, Kenya.

National Academies Press (NAP). (2002). Down to Earth:

Geographical Information for Sustainable

Development in Africa. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/

10455.html, accessed 20 December

GISTAM 2018 - 4th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management

272

Onsrud, H. (Ed.). (2007).Research and Theory in

Advancing Spatial Data Infrastructure Concepts. ESRI

Press, Redlands,California.

Sebake, D, M. and Coetzee, S. (2008).Barriers and

Motivators of Inter organizational GIS Data Sharing for

Address Organization In South African SDI . MSC

Thesis .University of Pretoria, Department of Computer

science.

Sieber, R. E. (2007). “Spatial Data Access by the

Grassroots.” Cartography and Geographic Information

Science 34(1), pp. 47-62.

United National Department of Economic and Social

Affairs (UN‐ DESA). (2011). Strengthening Water

Sector Monitoring and Information System in Ethiopia:

GIRWI Project Phase II.

United Nation Economic Commission of Africa (UNECA).

(2001). The Future Orientation of Geo information

Activities in Africa.

Zeleke, G., Alemu, B., Hergarten C., and Krauer J. (2007).

“Consultation Workshop on NSDI and EthioGIS (2nd

Release)”, workshop proceedings, November 28, 2007,

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp.1-73.

Geospatial Data Sharing Barriers Across Organizations and the Possible Solution for Ethiopia

273