Towards strategy of spatial data infrastructure ... · PDF fileTowards strategy of spatial...

Towards strategy of spatial data infrastructure development with focus on the private sector involvement

A case study in Uganda

Susan Nasirumbi

March, 2006

Towards strategy of spatial data infrastructure development with focus on the private sector involvement

A case study in Uganda

By

Susan Nasirumbi

Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-information Management. Thesis Assessment Board Chair -Prof ir Paul Van der Molen- I.T.C External examiner -Prof Dr ir Arnold Bregt –Wageningen University Supervisors - Ir.C.H.J Lemmen -C. Paresi

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS

Disclaimer This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of Daddy Yusuf Mangheni.O. Hasibate “Your spiritual motivation led me through this journey”

i

Acknowledgements

It is with heartfelt gratitude that I take this opportunity to offer appreciative response to various people who have contributed to this research. First, I thank the good Lord who has made “a way where there seemed to be no way” and opened the door for the opportunity to do my Masters of Science program and for allowing me to complete this course of study. Thanks to the Netherlands Fellowship Program for granting me the fellowship and ITC lecturers who taught us Prof.ir.P.van der Molen, Dr. Javier Morales, Dr. Arbind Turladhar, Dr.Yola Georgiadou, Mr.Bert Raidt, Dr.Eric de Man, Dr.Radwan, Ir.Walter de Vries and most especially Fabio Corsi who laid the foundation training on GIS when we had just started the course. Am grateful for the ITC lay out study schedule were we have mid term presentations, which helped me sharpen my thought on the research thanks to the comments from Prof. ir. Paul van der Molen. Lastly I thank our GIM program director Kees Bronsveld for the support. I really thank my supervisors’ Christiaan Lemmen and Chris Paresi who fostered my creativity, forwarded critical comments and their continuous support through out the research period. Gratitude goes to Kate Lance who was there to listen, reviewed my work and gave advice from the time of my proposal writing. A number of people assisted me in different ways during the fieldwork period in Uganda. These included Lwasa Shuiab who was the facilitator at the workshop, Karatunga Ali, Bernard Muhwezi, and all those who attended Gilbert Echelai, Agnes Alaba, James Osundwa, Sjaak Dielman, Mugizi, and Sserwanja. My employer Mr.Amadra of Geo information communication ltd for granting me a study leave My Geo-information Management (GIM) classmates Dimo from Macedonia, Bhagya from Sri Lanka, Tuan from Vietenam, Totsapon from Thailand, Sung Park(…my neighbour ) from Republic of Korea, Zhang Ning from China, Mohammed Bishr from Egypt -were helpful in cheering up the class in times of stress which motivated my work. I also learnt a lot from them about various aspects from the different parts of the world. Words can not express the appreciation I extend to my family members for their tender loving care and their regular communication during my study period. The following family members’ standout for consistent support and encouragement Flavia Nabwire, Grace Mangheni, Olivia Nabbongo, Ian Mangheni (my sisters and brother).Also thanks to Dr. Nanwagwe Banabus, the Wandera family, Tony Bwire, my niece Alicia queen Chuli chuli, Winnie Nasirumbi. My pals Moses Otim, Roger Tuyisenge, Gasana Grace, Deus, Joan Namutebi, Hamza Galiwango, Asim Banskota, Lillian Busingye. Finally special thanks goes to my dearest pal Asim Shrestha for being there for me in good times and bad times, out of sight does not mean out of mind.

��

� ��

ii

Abstract

Many countries worldwide are engaged in Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) development, which involves the development of geospatial services that support public service delivery. Various SDI advocates and practitioners have indicated that Public Private Partnership (PPP) should be encouraged for SDI development and the provision of geospatial services. The use of PPP approach for SDI development involves the collaboration of the public and private sector; this has been successful in advanced economies. However, little is known about the feasibility of PPP approach for SDI in developing countries. Uganda has recognized the need for PPP in public service delivery which has led to improved value for money and improved services. However, there is limited collaborative work in the design, development, implementation and delivery of geospatial services between the public and private GI stakeholders in Uganda.

The research analyses institutional arrangements, policy and legislation and technology components of SDI from the Economically Developed Countries (EDCs) with specific reference of The Netherlands, Canada, Australia and United States of America (U.S.A) and from Economically Less Developed Countries (ELDCs) with specific reference of South Africa (S.A) and Egypt. Eventually similarities and differences from the reviewed countries case study in EDCs and ELDCs are identified. Further the research comprehends the opportunities and challenges for PPP in SDI development in Uganda based on the data collected in the field study through interaction with different stakeholders from the geospatial sector. An evaluation process of the geospatial sector is carried out from the reviewed EDCs, ELDCs and PPP experiences in the water sector of Uganda and focus on analysis of the geospatial sector in Uganda so as to derive PPP parameters. The research proceeds to present strategic PPP guidelines for future development of SDI focusing on the involvement of the private sector. The research winds up with conclusions and recommendations for implementation and future research.

KEYWORDS: SDI, public-private partnerships, private sector, institutional arrangements, policy and legislation, technology

iii

Table of contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Collaboration of the public and private sector for SDI development.................................... 1 1.1.1 Background........................................................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 PPP for service delivery in Uganda................................................................................... 2 1.1.3 Geospatial services in Uganda .......................................................................................... 2

1.2 Research problem .................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Research objective................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Research Questions................................................................................................................ 4 1.5 Research framework .............................................................................................................. 4 1.6 Justification of the research................................................................................................... 4 1.7 Prior research......................................................................................................................... 5 1.8 Research Methodology .......................................................................................................... 5 1.9 Thesis Structure ..................................................................................................................... 8

2 Review of PPP in economically developed and economically less developed countries SDIs ..... 9 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Nature of Partnerships .......................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Types of Partnership arrangements ................................................................................... 9 2.3 Public-Private-Partnership for SDI development ................................................................ 11 2.4 Economically developed countries case review fostering PPP approach............................ 11

2.4.1 National Geographical Information Infrastructure (NGII) Netherlands ......................... 11 2.4.2 Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI) ........................................................... 13 2.4.3 Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure (ASDI)................................................................ 14 2.4.4 United States NSDI ......................................................................................................... 16

2.5 Reviewed PPP Lessons learnt from EDCs .......................................................................... 17 2.6 Economically Less developed countries review fostering PPP approach ........................... 18

2.6.1 National Spatial Information Framework (NSIF) South Africa...................................... 18 2.6.2 SDI situation in Egypt ..................................................................................................... 19

2.7 Reviewed PPP Lessons learnt from ELDCs ........................................................................ 21 2.8 Comparison of economically developed and economically less developed countries SDI initiatives........................................................................................................................................... 22

2.8.1 Similarities ...................................................................................................................... 22 2.8.2 Differences ...................................................................................................................... 22

2.9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 23 3 SDI developments in Uganda........................................................................................................ 25

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 25 3.2 SDI Situation in Uganda ...................................................................................................... 25

3.2.1 Institutional Arrangement................................................................................................ 25 3.2.2 Policy and Legislation ..................................................................................................... 27 3.2.3 Technology...................................................................................................................... 27

3.3 SDI initiatives in Uganda..................................................................................................... 28 3.4 Private sector involvement in SDI activities in Uganda ...................................................... 29

iv

3.5 Situational analysis of the Geospatial sector of Uganda ..................................................... 30 3.6 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................. 31

4 Field methodology and Data analysis ........................................................................................... 33 4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Area of Field Study.............................................................................................................. 33 4.3 Importance of the Field Study.............................................................................................. 33 4.4 Data Collection Strategy...................................................................................................... 33

4.4.1 Preparation....................................................................................................................... 33 4.4.2 Primary Data.................................................................................................................... 34

4.4.2.1 Spatial Data Infrastructure Workshop .................................................................... 34 4.4.2.2 In-Depth Interviews ................................................................................................ 35 4.4.2.3 Questionnaires ........................................................................................................ 35

4.4.3 Secondary Data................................................................................................................ 36 4.4.4 Pitfalls faced in the field.................................................................................................. 36

4.5 Findings of the Workshop.................................................................................................... 36 4.5.1 Geospatial Sector............................................................................................................. 36 4.5.2 Water service delivery sector .......................................................................................... 37

4.6 Findings of the In-depth interviews and questionnaires ...................................................... 37 4.6.1 Geospatial Sector............................................................................................................. 38 4.6.2 Water service delivery sector .......................................................................................... 41

4.7 Summary of results .............................................................................................................. 43 4.8 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................ 44

5 Evaluation of PPP in the Geospatial Sector in Uganda................................................................. 45 5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 45 5.2 Steps for evaluation ............................................................................................................. 45

5.2.1 Parameters in accordance with PPP ................................................................................ 46 5.3 Evaluation criteria................................................................................................................ 48

5.3.1 Results/comments............................................................................................................ 50 5.4 Discusion ............................................................................................................................. 51 5.5 Proposed strategies for SDI development in Uganda .......................................................... 51 5.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 53

6 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................. 55 6.1 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 55 6.2 Recommedations.................................................................................................................. 56

6.2.1 For Future Research ........................................................................................................ 56 6.2.2 Other Recommendation................................................................................................... 57

References ............................................................................................................................................. 59 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix 1: Framework of Cooperation between Karamoja Data Centre (KDC), .......................... 63 Appendix 2: Fieldwork Supplements: Workshop Background......................................................... 65 Appendix 3: Fieldwork Supplements: Workshop Report ................................................................. 67 Appendix 3: Questionnaire on geospatial sector: ............................................................................. 84 Appendix 4: Questionnaire on PPP................................................................................................... 92

v

List of figures

Figure 1-1Research Methodology........................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-1 PPP Organisational model in the GBKN (The Netherlands) .............................................. 12 Figure 4-1 Data collection strategy....................................................................................................... 34 Figure 4-2 Perceived role of the private sector in geospatial................................................................ 38 Figure 4-3 Support PPP for SDI development ...................................................................................... 39 Figure 5-1 Evaluation Process ............................................................................................................. 45

List of tables Table 2-1Types of PPP in relation to risks ........................................................................................... 10 Table 2-2 Types of PPP......................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2-3 Comparison of SDI development of EDCs and ELDCs....................................................... 22 Table 3-1SWOT analysis of Geospatial sector of Uganda ................................................................... 31 Table 4-1 Analysed issues drawn up from geospatial sector in Uganda .............................................. 42 Table 5-1 PPP parameters ..................................................................................................................... 46 Table 5-2 SDI component, parameters and PPP guidelines for evaluation process ............................. 49 Table 5-3 Evaluation table with the rating scores................................................................................. 50 Table 5-4Summary of results ................................................................................................................ 51

ii

List of Acronyms

ANZLIC _Australian and New Zealand Land Information Council APWO _Association of Private Water Operators CGDI _Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure EDC _Economically Developed Countries EIN _Environment Information Network ELDC _ Economically Less Developed Countries ESA _Egyptian Survey Authority ESRI _Environment System Research Institute EU _European Union GI _Geo Information FGDC _Federal Geographic Data Committee FOIA _Freedom of Information Act GBKN _Large Scale Base Maps of the Netherlands IDA _International Development Association LIS _Land Information System MWLE _Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment in Uganda NGDC _National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse NEMA _National Environment Management Authority in Uganda NFA _National Forest Authority NMA _National Mapping Agency NWSC _National Water Sewage Cooperation in Uganda NIMES _National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy NORAD _Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation OSUL _Ondeo Services Uganda Limited PEAP _Poverty Eradication Action Plan PPP _Public Private Partnership RAVI _Dutch Council for Real Estate Information SDI _Spatial Data Infrastructure SSI _Spatial Science Institute SWOT _Strengths Weakness Opportunities and Threats UBOS _Uganda Bureau of Statistics UBS _Uganda Bureau of Standards UETCL _Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd UNECE _United Nations Economic Commission for Europe USAID _US Agency for International Development

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Collaboration of the public and private sector for SDI development

A Public Private Partnership (PPP) is an arrangement between the government and the private sector with the aim of providing public infrastructure, community facilities and related services. According to (Adadie and Howcroft, 2004)undertaking PPP by the government can lead to improved value for money or improved services. A PPP is characterized by the sharing of investment, risk, responsibility and reward between the partners. PPP exists within a broad set of partnership arrangements which also includes contracting out, privatization, and concessions (Gidman et al., 1995). A PPP can be established for a variety of purposes, among which are the provision of quality services to customers and profit generation.

Many countries worldwide are engaged in Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) development, which involves the development of geospatial services that support public service delivery. Geospatial services are services that handle geospatial data and information, there are three major types of geospatial services; the data services, the value add processing/client services and the brokerage services (Di, 2004).Various SDI advocates and practitioners have indicated that PPP should be encouraged for SDI development and the provision of geospatial services. According to (Williamson et al., 2004) the complete vision of the SDI will materialize through cooperation and collaboration of the private and public sectors.

There is evidence that PPP has been successful for SDI development in countries with advanced economies like Australia, (ANZLIC, 2004) sees that partnerships are needed to deliver outcomes for the Australian user community. ANZLIC relies on developing and maintaining partnerships in communities of practice that use spatial information. However little is known about the feasibility of PPP approach for SDI in developing countries.

Geospatial organizations established by professional and licensed are considered as being in the private sector. In Uganda, for example, the development of the geospatial private sector is still in its initial phase. However, the government and donors have been supporting private sector growth in general. Due to economic reforms that have been carried out during the last years there is a suitable environment for PPP. This can be observed from the privatization of state owned enterprises ranging from small-scale commercial to large scale industrial establishment. PPP has been adopted for the delivery of a number of public services such as health, education, capacity building, energy sector, environment management and water supply. These have had mixed success.

This research will focus on identifying the role of the private sector in relation to the Cadastre and National Mapping Agencies (NMA) as elements of SDI. Land administration can be considered as a


2

key driver in SDI evolution though SDI plays a broader role in modern economy than supporting land administration(Williamson and Feeney, 2001). SDI development will be analysed in some economically more developed countries (Netherlands, Canada, Australia and United States of America) and economically less developed countries (South Africa and Egypt). SDI development in those countries will be analysed, and also PPP experience in the water sector of Uganda will be analysed. This will be done so as to draw parameters, to find out the requirements and nature of PPP needed for SDI development in Uganda.

1.1.1 Background

Private sector development in Uganda There has been development of the private sector in the past 15 years in Uganda, which is contributing to the economic growth of the country. International donors are further supporting this. For instance, the International Development Association (IDA) signed a credit of US$70 million on February 23, 2005(Shalita and Wong, 2005) Which meant to support private sector development in the country, to address critical issues in the business environment, including improvements in land registry and business registration services, to support the revision and passage of key commercial legislation, and to strengthen institutions that support the private sector. The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) is another international donor that supports the private sector development in major partner countries which includes Uganda(Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NORAD, 2002). The NORAD is involved in the support of energy, microfinance institutions, education and health in Uganda. Further the United Nation and the US Agency for International Development(USAID) are supporting the development of the private sector, for example in Land registration (Economic and Social Council, 2000).

1.1.2 PPP for service delivery in Uganda

Traditionally the government of Uganda has been providing public services like water, health, electricity, education, and banking services to the society. With the development of the private sector, public services are being provided in collaboration of both the government and private sector. This has led to the establishment of partnerships. For some public services in Uganda such as health, there has been an integration of public and private service providers, which is viewed as a move towards a more coherent service delivery system (Corkery, 2000).

1.1.3 Geospatial services in Uganda

In the information age, geographical information has become very important for carrying out successful many (public) tasks (Kok and Loenen, 2004).Geospatial services include web mapping, data conversion, map production and maintenance, data analysis, system development, GIS training. In Uganda, geospatial services are being delivered by both the public and private (GI) organizations. In Uganda there are a number of private sector organizations involved in production, use and dissemination of GI.

The public sector is the traditional GI service provider and user. However, the demand for geospatial services is gradually growing. This can be observed from the various GIS tenders that are being advertised, for instance the recent Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd tender (UETCL,


3

2005). Both public and private GI organizations bid for these tenders. At the moment, though, public agencies work in collaboration with the private GI organizations through sub contracting.

1.2 Research problem

The partnership of both public and private GI related organizations is important for the development of the geospatial sector and should be considered if a country wants to fully utilize geographical information to deliver geospatial services (Geography Advisory Group GAG, 2004) Such partnership implies an arrangement where public and private GI organizations have a common understanding, it can be expected that this leads to having a better partnership working.

In Uganda, private GI organizations are facing several problems in their effort to deliver geospatial services to the customers. These problems are caused by the limited collaboration with the public GI organizations. According to (Stiles and Williams, 2003)collaboration with organizations with innovative ideas generates the capability to realize full potential within the market. The public sector is the main in charge of geospatial data provision and infrastructure developments. So far, in Uganda there has been slow progress in SDI development. The involvement of the private sector through collaboration in a PPP should be considered as an approach for SDI development. PPP has had positive impact for public service delivery (water sector) in Uganda, it has laid good strong foundations on the economical side and on quality service delivery (Corporation(NWSC)). Also, the existence of policy is part of the foundation. In 1999, the Government of Uganda published a National Water Policy focused on community driven demand in rural area, along with improved district management and private sector involvement. Rural water coverage rose from 57.9 percent in June 2004 to 60 percent in June 2005, in the same period water coverage increased from 65 percent to 67 percent(Suruma, 2005). In urban areas the policy emphasized private sector participation to commercialize and improve efficiency of the sector.

With reflection of public private partnerships in Uganda offering public services (health, water), geospatial services may need to follow the same trend. SDI development require new relationships and partnerships between the public and private sector entities to be established(Rajabifard and P.Williamson, 2000). According to(ANZLIC, 1999) and the (Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC, 1997) various coordinating agencies are encouraging SDI development through partnerships in other, more developed countries. A proper establishment of PPP in the initiative of SDI development in Uganda could be advantageous to a large number of GI service providers and users.

Problem statement: There is limited collaborative work in the design, development, implementation and delivery of geospatial services between the public and private GI stakeholders in Uganda. In the GI sector in Uganda there is no real tradition with such collaboration. Experiences from other countries learn that private companies can provide a relevant contribution to SDI development with in a framework of PPP. In Uganda PPP presents an opportunity for expedited SDI development and the harnessing of associated benefits.


4

1.3 Research objective

Objective of this research is to understand the opportunities and challenges for public-private partnership in SDI development in Uganda. Through understanding the opportunities and challenges, a proposal for a strategy of SDI development will be worked out, based on a PPP approach with respect to policies and legislation, institutional arrangements and technology.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What role does the private sector play in institutional arrangements, policy and legislation and technology issues that can be considered for PPP approach from SDI in EDCs?

2. What role does the private sector play in institutional arrangements, policy and legislation and technology issues that can be considered for PPP approach from SDI in ELDCs?

3. What is the geospatial sector opinion on the role and contribution of the private sector for SDI development in Uganda? What is the PPP experience in other sectors in Uganda?

4. What are the requirements necessary for establishment of PPP for SDI development in Uganda? What kind of PPP is suitable for Uganda?

5. What are the opportunities, challenges and threats for use of PPP for SDI development in Uganda?

1.5 Research framework

The framework of this research focuses on the factors involved in the partnership of public and private GI organizations in geospatial service delivery as a strategy of SDI development in Uganda. It describes and analyzes cases of partnerships in public service delivery (water sector) that are in operation in Uganda. Review of cases in which PPP is being pursued for SDI development in EDCs (Netherlands, Canada, Australia, and United States of America,) and ELDCs (South Africa and Egypt) is carried out. These cases will provide the basis for the formulation of a PPP strategy for SDI development in Uganda. Several researchers have explored various aspects on partnerships such as focusing on the demand side, the customer needs. This research will also focus on the supply side, looking at the organisations delivering to the customers.

1.6 Justification of the research

Among the terms of reference of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) includes “…..the encouragement of partnership among the public and private sectors in managing land resources for sustainable development”. The UNECE Working Party on Land Administration held a workshop and focussed its attention on PPP in Land administration which realised synergetic effects could be encountered by involving of the private sector(Creuzer, 2002).

In 1997, Uganda set up a comprehensive development framework “Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)” which guides the formulation of the government policy that will lead to a modern economy in which all agents can participate in the economic growth. The PEAP (2004) emphasizes the performance of the private sector in the delivery of development results. PEAP provides important focus for the work of National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES) which is to


5

coordinate monitoring and evaluation matters that have been identified as priority areas for cross cutting public sector reform. There are several spatial data initiatives in Uganda, but collaboration between them is rather limited (NIMES Task Force, 2004).Therefore there is need to consider PPP approach for SDI development which will involve collaborative work among the private and the public sector.

1.7 Prior research

As already stated above, several researchers have explored partnerships with a focus on the demand side, the customer needs. This research will also focus on the supply side, looking at the organizations delivering to the customers.

Molen (2002) talks of extension of both the private and public partners which would provide opportunities to enhance customer service substantially. Since partnerships exist at various types: by virtue of law, agreement and by occasion. The article focuses on the partnerships to meet customer requirement.

Tukugize (2005) identified a number of lessons that were considered relevant to ensure growth of the GI market in East Africa (EA) and proposed promoting private public partnership. The partnership should be carried out by involving the private sector participation through outsourcing and contracts.

Pryjomko (1997) discussed the use of spatial technologies and data for sustainable development of the environment. Such development could be achievable by private-public collaboration. However he stressed the challenge of how to make it happen.

A report published by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2005), advises governments to use space technology more wisely in order to address society needs. In order to do this it recommends that governments should encourage private sector participation. According to the OECD, this report is written from the point of view of society and addresses governments rather than industry; it focuses on the demand side rather than the supply side of space technology.

Sengupta (2004) in a journal article titled “Government intervention and public-private partnerships in housing delivery in Kolkata”, explains how public-private partnership is being used as an urban housing policy in India. The paper seeks to reflect on the emerging concept of PPP in developing countries as an offshoot of enabling strategies for housing delivery.

Alvarez (2003) analyses partnerships that take a form of a virtual enterprise. The MSC thesis is focused on how to manage distributed geo information production in a virtual enterprise environment with specific reference to the management and combination of partners’ workflows to fulfil a client demand.

1.8 Research Methodology

The figure below (Fig1) shows the steps how the research has been conducted, along with the various methods that have been used. The research involves descriptive, analytical, and comparative studies. Further a qualitative analysis of data collected in the field has been carried out.


6

Step 1 Literature Review A literature review has been carried on SDI development in Economically Developed Countries (EDCs) and Economically Less Developed Countries (ELDCs) and on the situation of SDI in Uganda. For these three case studies the focus was on the private sector involvement focusing on three components of SDI (institutional arrangements, policy and legislation, and technology).

Institutional arrangements Douglas (1997) identifies key elements that would comprise the institutional framework these are:

• Leadership- it is imperative that an institutional structure be identified to lead the development of a national spatial data infrastructure.

• Funding- for the SDI initiative to succeed, a funding mechanism should be established. The ideal situation would be to have the government fund this initiative.

• Custodianship- a custodian of a fundamental dataset is an agency having the responsibility to ensure that a fundamental dataset is collected and maintained under conditions and in a format that conforms to standards and policies established for the national spatial data infrastructure.

• Education and Training- in designing and developing the infrastructure, it may be determined that there is a shortage of appropriately educated and trained people and that this is an impediment to successful implementation of the infrastructure.

Policy and legislation Data policies play an important role in access and sharing of data among the public and private stakeholders in the development of SDI. A policy framework for SDI should be established across all levels of government, while integrated, pro-active, and inclusive(Craglia and Johnston, 2004). However, countries deal with the private sector in the geospatial world differently, which has an impact on the collaboration between the private and public sector. Policies that will be referred to in this research are those that are aimed at increasing access, sharing and effective use of spatial data and include pricing, copyright, intellectual property rights and rights of privacy.

Technology According to (Warnest et al., 2005) technology is one of the core components of SDI framework which involves access, acquisition, distribution and storage of geospatial data. SDI development in any country can be a success if the technology is well functioning. But the nature of technology is dynamic due to the rapidity in which it is developing.

Step 2&3 Fieldwork study Data collection was carried out using three specific methods: a workshop has been organised, two types of questionnaires have been prepared and filled and in depth interviews have been carried out. The workshop served as a main event for information collection. The information has been used to study the nature of partnership existent in public service delivery with respect to critical issues as follows driving force, risks, benefits and responsibilities.


7

Publicly accessible information pertaining to the questionnaires also collected (secondary data collection).Secondary literature provided details on Uganda’s Land Information System, National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES), policy and legislation. Step 4 Evaluation process Evaluation process was carried out which involved comparison making. A benchmarking approach was also involved with the purpose of identifying, learning, and adapting outstanding practices to improve on the collaborative work of the public and private GI organisations in Uganda. The benchmarking process began with an initial period of intensive research (desk research) and preparation. This was meant to define what is to be benchmarked and who the benchmarking partner would be. Data was then gathered on specific issues. Analysis that was used during benchmarking was as follows:

• Identify what benchmarking could achieve • Identify what processes could be benchmarked • Identify potential benchmarking partner organization • Identify key parameters

Step 5

Develop strategy with respect to the framework which will involve the following aspects; the institutional arrangements, policies and legislation and technology for PPP development and implementation SDI in Uganda. This will be done with respect to characteristics of PPP such as investments, risks and responsibilities.

Figure 1-1Research Methodology

(5) Analyses of existing experiences of PPP in the 3 cases reviewed

(3) Investigated the current condition with respect to geospatial sector Aspects -PPP Opportunity -PPP Challenges

(6) Develop proposals for a strategy of PPP in SDI in Uganda Proposal frame work � Institutional

arrangements � Policy

&Legislation � Technology

FIELD WORK

-Workshop -Questionnaire -Interview -Secondary data collection

(4) Investigated nature of partnership in water service delivery (PPP)

(1) Study PPP EDC s SDI

Literature Review

Evaluation process

(7) Conclusion & recommendations

(2) Study PPP in ELDCs SDI


8

1.9 Thesis Structure

Chapter 1- Introduction

Collaboration of the public and private sector for Spatial Data Infrastructure development in Uganda

This chapter provides an overview of the research. It presents the background to the study, the research problem, the research framework and key references to prior works done. It further outlines the objectives of the research, the research questions and the methodology used to answer these questions. Finally, it gives an overview of the structure of the thesis.

Chapter 2-Review of Public Private Partnership in economically developed and economically less developed countries SDI developments

This chapter critically reviews private sector involvement in SDI developed of EDCs and ELDCs, with focus on three SDI components institutional arrangements, policy and legislation, and technology. This was conducted to provide specific lessons which could be adapted by Uganda with regards to the formulation of a strategy of SDI development focusing on the private sector.

Chapter 3-SDI developments in Uganda

This chapter describes the activities and an overview of SDI initiatives that Uganda has undergone in the effort to develop SDI, this is to justify the relevance of the research. It outlines the opportunities, threats and challenges for SDI developments with respect private sector involvement.

Chapter 4-Field methodology and data analysis This chapter describes the methodologies that were used for data collection in the field study. Data analysis is carried out with respect to data collected from the geospatial sector and PPP experiences in the public service delivery sector (water sector) are exploited

Chapter 5-Evaluation of PPP in the geospatial sector in Uganda This chapter focuses on the evaluation process were reviewed PPP of EDCs and ELDCs SDI, water service sector of Uganda and the situational analysis of the geospatial sector of Uganda are analysed. This is carried out in order to identify PPP parameter. Eventually strategies for private sector involvement in SDI development in Uganda are outlined.

Chapter 6-Conclusion and Recommendations Conclusions and recommendations for further final thoughts are outlined.

Chapter 2: Review of PPP in economically developed and economically less developed countries SDIs

9

2 Review of PPP in economically developed and economically less developed countries SDIs

2.1 Introduction

This chapter seeks to answer research questions 1 and 2 though it begins with a description of some of the different types of partnerships. This is to draw attention to the variety that exist and be able to find the suitable kind for Uganda’s case in SDI development with analysis of the subsequent chapters. The chapter basically reviews EDCs and ELDCs that are fostering use of PPP for SDI development. This is done to find out the role of the private sector with respect to institutional arrangements, policy and legalisation, and technology. PPP lessons are drawn from those aspects. Similarities and differences between EDCs and ELDCs are also drawn though it is recognised that the EDCs are more advanced compared to Uganda. The chapter is based on literature review and will derive specific findings that could be adapted in the strategy development for private and public collaborative work (PPP) for SDI development in Uganda.

2.2 Nature of Partnerships

Partnerships refer to a formal collaboration, underpinned by binding agreements, contracts or legislation for mutual benefits. Partnerships have been made successful in a range of public-private, public-public, private-private initiatives in various international countries(Kevin Mcdougall et al., 2005). The research focus is on public-private partnership.

2.2.1 Types of Partnership arrangements

Partnership arrangements have been categorised in (table2.1) were the private sector is liable to risk transfer and in (table 2.2) risk transfer is allocated to the sector best placed to manage and deal with it (The National Council for Public Private Partnerships, 1999).


10

Table 2-1Types of PPP in relation to risks Type Definition Risk Build Operate Transfer (BOT)

The private partner builds a facility to the specifications agreed to by the public agency, operates the facility for a specified time period under a contract or franchise agreement with the agency, and then transfers the facility to the agency at the end of the specified period of time.

In most cases, the private partner will also provide some, or all, of the financing for the facility, so the length of the contract or franchise must be sufficient to enable the private partner to realize a reasonable return on its investment through user charges.

Privatisation Implies any process whereby the private sector is involved in the provision of public services.

The private sector is the risk taker.

Turnkey Operation A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor.

The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment

Design Build (DB) Private partner provides both design and construction of a project to the public agency. The public sector partner owns the assets and has the responsibility for the operation.

This type of partnership can reduce time, save money, provide stronger guarantees and allocate additional project risk to the private sector.

Design-Build-Maintain (DBM)

DBM is similar to a DB except the maintenance of the facility for some period of time becomes the responsibility of the private sector partner. The public sector partner owns and operates the assets

The benefits are similar to the DB with maintenance risk being allocated to the private sector partner and the guarantee expanded to include maintenance

According to (Canada's Business and Consumer Site, 2004; Gidman et al., 1995) Table 2-2 Types of PPP Type Definition Contracting Out Involves placing contract by public agency to an external private company

Franchising/Concession Private partner take over responsibility for raising finance for investment as well as running the service and collecting charges

Management Contract Private organisation may agree to take over the responsibility for managing a service to specified standards but using the staff, equipment of the urban authority

Management Buyout Public agencies wishing to become enabling authorities can allow the management of well run internal functions to negotiate the purchase of that function, usually with help of the private venture capital

Operation &Maintenance Government contract with private partner to operate and maintain a publicly owned facility.


11

2.3 Public-Private-Partnership for SDI development

In many countries the private sector is turning out to be an important player in building of SDI. In the past the public domain has been the main contributor of SDI however, of recent the private sector has been recognised as an important contributor in building of SDI (Warnest et al., 2001).With the private sector involvement in SDI development, in turn leads to a PPP concept which involves collaboration of the public and private sector. (Gray, 1985) describes collaborations as “the process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions beyond their own limited vision of what is possible. (Warnest et al., 2001) the current understanding of collaboration and how to create partnerships in the development of National SDI is limited and potentially restricting progress.

The value of geospatial data is being recognised in many countries, this has led to different initiatives in the establishment of SDIs, and this is being done through use of different strategies. PPP approach is among the strategy that is being encouraged in the development of SDI. (Fornefeld et al., 2003) argue that the degree in which the private sector integrates in the national activities to establish a national data infrastructure differs. The private sectors have a role they are able to play to contribute to the building of SDI in a country.

2.4 Economically developed countries case review fostering PPP approach

The four countries reviewed are Netherlands, Canada, Australia, and United States of America (U.S.A). The choice of these countries was because of the existence of SDI literature in many places (internet-online literature, published books, journals). The cases that are reviewed are focussing on the role of private sector involvement in institutional arrangement, policy and legislation, and technology.

2.4.1 National Geographical Information Infrastructure (NGII) Netherlands

Institutional arrangements

Leadership: In 1990 a coordinating Minister for Geographical Information was appointed, he led to the formulation of a consultative body “The Dutch Council for Real Estate Information (RAVI) which comprises of all public services and local authorities. The concept and development of NGII is promoted and shaped by RAVI (Kok and Loenen, 2004).

Custodianship: Since 1994, the Dutch Land Registry office or Cadastre has been a self administering state body which implies it is a legal entity under public law. It is responsible to ensure that information on registered properties (parcel data) in the Netherlands is recorded in public registers and in cadastral maps. Tasks performed by the cadastre involve registering, informing, maintaining records and planning.

The Large Scale Base Maps of the Netherlands (GBKN) is a PPP model that comprises of the cadastre, the utilities, the municipalities and the water boards. The GBKN will possibly be an authentic registration, one of the elements of NGII. The partnership framework for making the base up


12

was launched in 1992 and all the parties involved in the production process agreed to the framework including the apportioning of financial support: utility companies 60 per cent, municipalities 20 per cent and the cadastre 20 per cent. The task of national partnership for the base map at that time was to support the regions were the progress was too slow and it led to a positive effect (Eekelen, 2001).

General Board LSBMGeneral Board LSBM

Union of MunicipalitiesUnion of Energy Comp.Union of Water BoardsUnion of Water Distr.Union of Cable TV Org.

RepresentativeRegional Joint Ventures

RepresentativesUmbrella

Organisations

Representatives National Participants

National Participants >5%

Boards Regional

Joint Ventures

Management Board

Secretary/OfficeLSBM

Present Organisational ModelPresent Organisational Model

Municipalities

PPP organisational model for large scale base map in the Netherlands (Ir.L.M.Murre, 2005) Figure 2-1 PPP Organisational model in the GBKN (The Netherlands)

Funding: The Dutch cadastre an independent body, which operates on the basis of business principles, carries out cost recovery and is a non profit organisation.

The datasets of GBKN is financed by all the Dutch municipalities, the Dutch cadastre and the joint utility companies and Dutch telecom. The production cost of GBKN amounts to $400 million and maintenance costs annually about �27 million.

Policy and legislation

Database Legislation: The Dutch Parliament implemented the European Directive on the legal protection of databases (96/9/EC), the database law enacted in1999. The new law protects the producer of a data base, it also grants the producer two rights;

1. The producer has the right to grant permission both for downloading, printing and copying (parts of) data sets.

2. The producer has the right for making a data set available to public.

Copyright: The copyright act does not make a distinction between private parties or government. Both may impose copyright on their information as long as the work is original and shows personal views of the creator of that work. Geo-information with a personal view in the Netherlands can be protected by copyright (Kok and Loenen, 2001).

Privacy: The Dutch privacy law was effective since 1 September 2001 and is important for the use of geo-information. The law applies to ownership of data and the value of geo-information.

Pricing: The Dutch government practices cost recovery on data supplied by Dutch government bodies to third parties. The cost recovery carried out by the data producers /suppliers; is an important source


13

of finance. Metadata is provided free of charge by the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (NGDC).

Liability: The Netherlands government guarantees the creation and maintenance of data for use by many organisations and the data producer assumes all liability for its use by others.

Technology

Data access: The NGDC provides means of accessing available datasets via the internet, since 2001, a private firm Geodan was hired to take responsibility of NGDC which became a non profit organisation. The geo-information sector in the Netherlands has a crucial role in the development of the e-government. In 1998 e-government policy was launched and the basic element was the creation and maintenance of authentic registrations (Molen, 2002).

2.4.2 Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI)

Canada has a PPP in developing CGDI.(Cooper, 2004b) cites an example of private sector involvement in CGDI in production service programmes like surveying, mapping, and land administration mapping, which were being sub contracted to the private sector in the late 70s under close government supervision. By the late 1980’s most front end surveying and mapping production capabilities had migrated from the public sector to the private sector. The focus of such programs eventually moved from data collection to database management and updating, government priorities changed as well. (Nichols et al., 1999) strongly believes that the private and public sector stakeholders have an opportunity to make CGDI an international model for enhancing both the access and use of geospatial data by working together.


Leadership: Geoconnections is a national partnership program meant to develop CGDI and is supported by Inter Agency Committee of Geomatics (IACG) and the Canadian Council of Geomatics (CCOG) with the motive to combine governmental, private sector and academia, work related to expand the range of geospatial applications and services (Nichols et al., 1999).

Custodianship: Geomatics Canada is responsible for provision of geospatial data which provides cadastral framework for specified Canada Lands. The cadastral framework is complied from Canada Lands Survey Records (CLSR), registration plans and location sketches archived in the CLSR.

Funding: Geoconnections is funded by the Government and approximately $60 million was launched in partnership to implement CGDI. The partnership was delivered to the private sector, community based organisation, academic community and the government (federal and province).

It is the Canadians opinion that the SDI concept will require the private sector contribution to its funding, through a joint private sector and government partnership (Giff and Coleman, 2002).

Education and Training: Geoskills is among the programs that CGDI is implementing through Geoconnections. Geoskills works with industry, government and academic partners to promote geomatics skills and careers, support development of geomatics practitioners and growth of Canada’s geomatics industry. It also encourages open consultation and collaboration among stakeholders.


14


Access to Information Act 1983: Provides Canadian citizens and other permanent residents and corporations in Canada the right to apply for and obtain copies of records held by government institutions and confidential records can also be withheld (Banisar, 2004).

Spatial data pricing policy: Most Canadian agencies charge a fee for geospatial data, the fee attempts to recover cost for data creation and distribution. This has been a recurring source of frustration among GIS users in the public and private sectors. The cost-recovery policy originates from the concept of "Crown copyright," in which the government has copyrights to information/data it produces, including intellectual property. The situation stems, in part, from the perspective that government needs to maintain control of its products, to protect information integrity and cultural nationalism, and, recently, to generate revenue.

Technology

Geoconnections is associated with advancing a culture and technology that supports the sharing and integration of geospatial data and services through making Canada’s geospatial information accessible on the internet, since it has a much better infrastructure broad band and the system is more interoperable.

2.4.3 Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure (ASDI)

Australia has three levels of government; national, state/territory (eight) and local (727), and a vigorous private sector spatial industry (Williamson et al., 2004). In 1966, ASDI was initiated, under support of Australian and New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC). The ASDI facilitates the identification, sharing and usage of spatial data across Australia and New Zealand in both the public and private sector arenas.


Leadership: ANZLIC is the peak intergovernmental council and provides leadership in the collection, management and use of spatial information in Australia and New Zealand (Busby and Kelly, 2004b). It provides an overarching framework which guides other national bodies including Public Sector Mapping Agencies and the Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (Muggenhuber, 2002). In the effort to create an environment in which ASDI can be developed ANZLIC has been working with all government sectors and, more recently with the private sector in various arenas such as developing national pricing, copyright and data access policies and guidelines, addressing institutional arrangements setting up the role of all parties (ANZLIC, 2003).

Custodianship: The state and territory governments are responsible for cadastral information, large scale topographic maps.

Private companies, especially water, power and telecommunications utilities and spatial software vendors are responsible for maintaining significant spatial datasets(Busby and Kelly, 2004a).

Funding: ANZLIC views the SDI as being similar to any other infrastructure and thus, should be funded by the government.


15

Education and Training: Provision of professional developments in the geospatial world is carried out by Spatial Science Institute (SSI) which is a national professional organisation that was formed to purse education and skills with the Department of Education, Science and Training through the Spatial Sciences Education and Skills Formation Advisory Committee (SSESFAC).


According to (Busby and Kelly, 2004a) Australia has developed its SDI taking into consideration data access policies and procedures such as privacy and access principles.

Freedom of Information Act 1982: Provides nationals access to information with exemptions to documents relating to national security and defence.

Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000: Gives the individual the right to access records about themselves held by private parties.

Spatial data access and pricing policy: The spatial data access and pricing policy was announced in September 2001 and introduced in February 2002. The key element of the policy is that: government spatial data can be available at a marginal cost of distribution under essentially unrestricted terms of use (Department of Industry and Australian Government, 2004). Australia has common policy drivers faced by all jurisdictions and these are:

• Maximizing the economic, social and environmental benefits from the substantial investment already made in spatially referenced data,

• Meeting rising community expectations for online services and access to information,

• Addressing environment degradation and natural resource depletion,

• Protecting communities through measure such as hazard risk assessment, emergency response and counter terrorism.

Among the guideline principles for spatial data access and pricing policy of Australia, ANZLIC involves access arrangements that should be geared to maximise the use of spatial data resources in both public and private sectors and to encourage the development of an innovative and competitive value-adding industry.

Technology

In Australia, SDI is moving towards a web services model based on new international standards (ISO19115 and OGC Catalogue Service specification). This will better meet the needs of a more aware and growing user base and make it easier to sustain the commitment to enhance data discovery and access.

(Europe, 2002)Data policy for land administration in Australia approach to e-government relies on a set of fundamental principles ensuring a consistent deployment of information and communication technology in public administration:

• Dual approach: citizens can choose between electronic services or paper-based transactions, • Standardized processes and concepts guaranteeing security and privacy; open standards and

freely available interface specifications, • One-stop-shop concept.


16

2.4.4 United States NSDI


Leadership: Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is the lead agency responsible for the implementation of NSDI in the U.S. It was established in 1994, when the Executive Order 12906 called for the establishment of a coordinated NSDI as one of the President’s principal programs, which was going to be pursued through his administration. In the Executive Order, FGDC that was set up in 1990 was given a mandate to involve the state, local, tribal governments, academia and the private sector in coordinating the development of the NSDI. This was to be done through coordinating ‘the development, use, sharing and dissemination of surveying, mapping and related spatial data’ (OMB, 1990).

Funding: Most identifiable NSDI funding in the USA comes from the Federal government, the identifiable funding from the private sector is modest.

Education and training: The FGDC publishes educational materials and reference implementation of software to promote competence in NSDI concept. Research grants are provided to the University of Consortium for Geo information Sciences.


Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): Creates a balance between the rights of citizens to be informed about government activities and maintains confidentiality of some records (Loenon and B.G.Kok, 2002a). The basic purpose of the FOIA is to check against corruption and to hold governors accountable to the governed.

Spatial data pricing policy:

Public: The U.S has a policy of open access to data which encourages the practice of re-use and modification of data. The public domain has the right to access data at no cost, for large volumes at a cost of filling a user request form.

Private: Since the federal government is not allowed to charge more than the cost of copying the information (Groot and McLaughlin, 2000) the private sector does provide end-customers with information and services at a fee.

Copyright: Many spatial datasets in the U.S are little protected by copyright but are protected by alternative laws like the contract laws and the use of signed license agreements to control the use and duplication of datasets (J.Onsrud and R.Lopez, 1998).

Legal issues: The position of the US congress (1986) supports developments by individuals and private businesses of markets for government information. This has encouraged the distribution of government information in the public interest through its copyright policy. In the executive order, FGDC was given a mandate to also involve the private sector in coordinating the development of the NSDI.

Technology

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) depends largely on a strong private public partnership in development of standards. According to (ANSI Government Affairs, 2005) the partnership has been useful in the strengthening of the U.S voluntary standards system, which are used by agencies such as the U.S. Department of Defence.


17

2.5 Reviewed PPP Lessons learnt from EDCs

The reviewed SDI aspects (institutional arrangements, policy and legalisation, technology) which are among the fundamental requirements of building SDI indicated some crucial lessons. The lessons learnt are based from the EDCs experiences:


• In order to implement PPP partners must have the willingness to share risks and rewards involved in managing a project. Partnerships are tough to build and sustain, this is because they are faced with conflicting budgets, and inadequate incentives; political challenges and different personal motive. All get in the way. Institutions with such differences find it difficult to compromise in order to have a successful PPP.

• The initial stages of PPP in an organisation are usually encountered with bottlenecks however; there should be a common motive to the set up of the partnership and an appropriate strategy should be undertaken in the decision concerning financial contribution as in the case of GBKN in the Netherlands.

• A well planned PPP organisational model is necessary to define the purpose and the responsibilities of the public and the private organizations involved in development of a particular SDI project.

• Availability of appropriate funding in the project from both sectors (private and public) is essential in building of SDI. Thus structuring of the financial model which is a prerequisite to sound regulatory framework, helps in having transparency. The model allows government to understand the private sector projects without foregoing considerations of broader government objectives. Usually the public partners contribute a higher percentage compared to the private partners in terms of investment.

• PPP requires official government support in the development of SDI. For instance in the U.S. there is a federal government structure that nurtures a sustaining membership for the PPP. The government officials regularly conduct policy and technical meetings to support the PPP and the community.

• The involvement of the private sector can have significant contribution like data collection maintenance and vendors of software. Further still the government working in collaboration with the private sector has the potential to expand the range of geospatial application and services as in the case of Canada under the Geoconnection programs.


• Established appropriate policies and legislative frameworks that support collaboration of the private and public are requirements for use of PPP approach for the development of SDI.

• The data pricing policy in Canada and Australia puts emphasis on cost recovery though it is being seen as a barrier. This may be a limitation to the private sector participation in SDI development since they have to pay a fee for the spatial data. Compare in relation to this the U.S that practices open access model.


18

• Spatial data policies like copyright act don’t make distinction between the government and private parties; both may impose copyright on their information. The private geospatial sector has an opportunity to get involved in SDI development since their works are protected by the spatial data policies.

Technology

• Data standards are essential to enable the private and public sectors to be able to exchange geospatial data amongst their organisations. The private sector could play a role in development of standards; take for instance in the U.S, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) depends largely on a strong private public partnership in development of standards. More so the EDCs use international standards such as ISO19115 and OGC Catalogue Service specification take for instance Australia which is moving towards a web services model this enable data sharing among stakeholders.

• Geospatial information in EDCs is accessible on the internet, creates convenience in data discovery, access and exchange of spatial information among the private and public GI sectors hence internet connection vital for communication. It also meets the needs of the users.

2.6 Economically Less developed countries review fostering PPP approach

The ELDCs have recognized the role of the private sector involvement due to the merits of PPP experiences from EDCs. This is evident by proposals for the private sector involvement on ELDCs from a number of researchers. Two countries from the African continent (South Africa and Egypt) that have better developed SDI than Uganda have been selected as case studies.

2.6.1 National Spatial Information Framework (NSIF) South Africa

The development of SDI in South Africa has been undertaken by the establishment of NSIF, which is a national initiative that coordinates the development of infrastructure needed to support the utilization of spatial information in decision making. In 1997, the Department of Land Affairs established a component to coordinate the development of NSIF in order to create a single database, maintained by different agencies using common standards and protocols.


Leadership: Department of Land Affairs is responsible for the establishment of NSIF and dedicated resources in 1997 to operate the initiative.

Custodianship: The Chief Directorate of Surveys and Mapping which is part of the Department of Land Affairs is responsible for the production of topo-cadastral maps, which are on the scale of 1:250 000 and shows topographic details.

Education and training: Chief Directorate of Surveys and Mapping came up with Map Aware Project which seeks to promote map awareness and map literacy throughout South Africa. Map Trix, Map Packs, and Map aware workshops are materials that are being used to educate and train the citizens of South Africa on the importance of maps. There is need to educate and train citizens (private and public) to produce professionals that encourage the implementation of SDI.


19


Promotion of Access to Information Act: Was approved by parliament in February 2000 and went into effect in March 2001. It promotes access to information to the citizens and is intended to foster a culture of transparency and accountability in public and private bodies.

Spatial data pricing policy: NSIF pricing policy is uniform in the public sector and is strongly influenced by the Promotion of Access to Information Act,2000 (Act No 2 of 2002), which requires all departments and other public institutions to provide information on a non-profit basis. The aim of the policy is not to achieve cost recovery from users, but to make spatial information and services more accessible and affordable by charging the user what it costs the department to make the information available at the requested format. There is a price list of the available products and services. Only the direct costs such as transfer medium, printing, paper, ink, postage and packaging are recovered.

Copyright: Spatial information products and services originated by the state are protected by the copyright Act, 1978 (Act No 98 of 1978). Through the states copyright the private organisations are mandated to use spatial information products and services without obtaining specific authorisation.

Liability: SA has liability clause that accompany digital data from a department responsible for the dissemination of spatial information.

Technology

Data standards: Administrative support for standard development and the community involvement in the development of standards is carried out by national body Standards South Africa (StanSA). Such standards include SANS 19115, geographical information-metadata, SANS 1878, S.A spatial metadata standard (Cooper, 2004a).

The NMA of South Africa has improved in technology and developed applications for marketing and sales system. This system uses existing data and resources to make geographical information through standard web browsers accessible on the internet. A metadata database (the Spatial Data Discovery Facility) containing around 3000 records on spatial data holdings within both the public and private sector is searchable through a variety of different interfaces on the internet.

2.6.2 SDI situation in Egypt

The national cadastre and land registration scheme in Egypt is supported by the Egyptian Survey Authority (ESA) which gained autonomy in 2001 as an executive authority in the public sector and became a self financed organisation. The ESA has its own standards for all steps in producing maps (M.Hussein, 2005).


Leadership: According to the legislation the ESA has identified the role to develop SDI in Egypt with involvement of the all stakeholders. In 2004, the government of Egypt under took several actions requesting the ESA to allow the private sector to play a role in mapping and cadastre activities (Radwan et al., 2005).


20

Custodianship:

Public: The ESA is the authority responsible to produce, maintain and distribute current and accurate geographic data (Cadastre).

Private: As proposed according to (Lemmen et al., 2005) through legislation the private sector could play a role of data administration in the development of Urban Cadastre under the responsibility of the public sector.

Funding: The development of ESA has involved international donors (USAID and GTZ) who have supported in various fields for instance ESA has been funded in its cooperation with ITC to perform a management development program. The USAID and GTZ projects supported in technical modernization and in 1995 the government of Finland and Egypt explored opportunities to cooperate in the modernisation of the cadastral operations in Egypt. Since 2001 the Finnish government has been funding the Egyptian Cadastral Project (ECIP).

Education and training

Public: Surveying science courses are currently being offered in Egyptian government universities.

Private: The non profit private universities including The American University in Egypt (AUG) are compatible with international higher education standards are also offerings surveying science courses.

It is realised in both sectors that there is a trend to introduce geoinformatics courses, which as a result of learning about geoinformatics would provide an integrated approach to learners. Concerning the status and advances in geospatial data acquisition and processing methods prevailing in surveying science as well as management analyses and visualizations of geospatial data with in GIS (Baraka, 2005).


Spatial data pricing policy: The policy of cost recovery was undertaken as a decision from the Egyptian government on 1st July2001 when ESA gained autonomy as economic authority in the public sector and became a self financed organisation and had to generate its revenue from its services (Youssef, 2005). The ESA operates on cost recovery and partnering with private companies for the delivery of diverse, large, services that are beyond its capacity.

Technology

Public: Initiatives have been undertaken to encourage online service delivery of cadastral data and functionalities of all stakeholders. It has been noticed that such services can be implemented in cooperation with the private sector. An online cadastral portal has been proposed in the framework of SDI initiatives in Egypt (Rawdan et al., 2005). Egypt proposes an automated cadastral system. This will involve building cadastral digital map layers, establishing and writing computer software packages “cadastre ver.2.3”(which would benefit the growth of the private and public works) provide data types to private users and state organisations (Haggag et al., 2005). This will eventually lead to coordination between private and state organisations.

Private: Quality Standard Information Technology (QSIT), a private company in Egypt founded in 1994 focuses on GIS and cadastral solutions and offers GIS consultancy with a wide range of professional IT services like GIS system design, on-site support and training.


21

The ESA is exploring the possibilities for partnering with the private IT companies to support management of its strategic and operational information and the associate databases and ICT resources (Nasr et al., 2005).

2.7 Reviewed PPP Lessons learnt from ELDCs

The study and which written proposals on the involvement of the private sector in SDI development have indicated a number of useful lessons that can provide the necessary requirements for public and private collaboration (PPP) for SDI development in Uganda. From the analysis of the SDI situation in South Africa and Egypt the following points were extracted.


• Involvement of the private sector to take up roles in mapping activities as in the case of Egypt where new improvement actions are set and ESA is exploring new strategic directions. A good communication network among the private and the public sector is essential to enable the development of SDI.

• Custodianship policy formulation which addresses information needs of both the public and private sector, to promote exchange and sharing of data/information do encourage collaboration among sectors, are necessary for successful development of SDI. Collaboration should involve mutual trust and good faith by encouraging good relationships on matters of common interest. PPP will achieve success in development of SDI if the data custodians are willing to share data.


• Development of SDI must consider the establishment of spatial data policy (copyright, pricing policy, liability) and implement these policies. However, in order to strengthen the collaboration of the private and public sector, the established polices should take consideration of the role played the private sector.

• Existence of fixed price lists of spatial data products and services as in the case of South Africa has a number of advantages, like the creation of transparency in the public sector.

Technology

• To enhance quality delivery of cadastral data the private sector should be involved as proposed in the case of Egypt where an online cadastral portal should be established and will involve agencies to post metadata that describe their cadastre data and land functionalities and were customers can request services though brokerage.

• The private sector can play a greater role in the field of information technology support in the development of SDI .There is greater contribution the private sector has in the provision of cadastral solutions as in the case of Egypt.


22

2.8 Comparison of economically developed and economically less developed countries SDI initiatives

Table 2-3 Comparison of SDI development of EDCs and ELDCs

2.8.1 Similarities 2.8.2 Differences

Institutional arrangement aspects Leadership: Common public body/organisation in the EDCs and ELDCs influence the private sector to contribute in SDI development. EDCs- RAVI, FGDC ELDCs-ESA Education and training: Programmes on SDI concepts have been made and the private sector plays a crucial role in enlightening the public sector e.g. Geoskills in Canada. The programmes encourage collaboration among stakeholders(public/private) Funding: Both EDCs and ELDCs believe the government should be responsible in funding SDI development. Though private sector do contribute financially in data collection, update and maintenance.

Donor support: SDI projects in ELDCs are mostly donor driven unlike in ELDCs. Participation of the private sector: The private sector in EDCs is highly participating in SDI development compared to ELDCs.

Policy aspects Cost recovery model: With the exemption of U.S.A the other EDCs and ELDCs carry out cost recovery where by the direct costs involved in the delivering of the geospatial product is charged to the customers. Pricing: Geospatial products and services do not have a standardized price in EDCs /ELDCs. Public and private sector do set up there own prices hence price discrimination. Freedom of Information Act: According to the global survey on freedom of information and record laws around the world, carried out in 2003, the EDCs and South Africa from the ELDCs case studies used in this research have adopted this law (Banisar, 2004). FOIA creates transparency in governments.

Access policy: In EDCs access policy arrangements encourage the development of an innovative and competitive value-adding industry by the private/public sector unlike in ELDCs the struggle to have access policies in place is still on going e.g. in Egypt. EDCs take strong consideration to have data access policies and procedures such as liability, access principles in the development of SDI unlike ELDCs were the policy system is ad hoc. Copyright policy: There are variations in implementation and enforcement of the copyright policy in EDCs and ELDCs.

Technology aspects Technology: There is dynamism of technology in Internet: Considering low level of internet


23

EDCs and ELDCs however, ELDCs are influenced by EDCs through donor projects Standardisation: International standards are highly applied by EDCs; ELDCs such as S.A agreed to adopt standards of geoinformation in 2004 starting with the relevant S.A standards. Existence of standards increases the user base of geospatial data. Software: Open source software (Linux, My SQL, open source GIS) are used by EDCs and ELDCs. Open source initiatives exist in EDCs and ELDCs. It involves programmers who can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves, and this is carried out by the private and public sector. World wide web: Although the level of technology is different, the initiatives for establishing clearinghouses which enables exchange and access to spatial data is taking place in the reviewed EDCs and South Africa (Crompvoets and Bregt, 2003).

connection in ELDCs private/public stakeholders face problems to access geospatial data unlike in EDCs internet connection have much better infrastructure like broad band and the system is more interoperable. GIS software: EDCs produce GIS software (ESRI) while ELDCs have to purchase it from EDCs. Though open software is available for both the EDC and ELDC, the ELDCs have little expertise (programmers) knowledge that is able to customise the software.

2.9 Conclusion

This chapter examined the role of the private sector in EDCs and ELDCs which streamlines to the concept of PPP in SDI development with specific reference to institutional arrangements, policy and legislation, and technology. The institutional arrangements have been presented as: custodianship, leadership, funding, educational and training this was meant to observe which role the private sector plays in those aspects. The policy and legislation issues included open access policy, cost recovery, liability, and pricing policy which enable the private organisation to have freedom to upgrade geospatial data from public GI organisations. The technology aspect tackled specific issues such as internet connection, data standards that enable the interoperability. The chapter then derived specific lessons from the reviewed cases; The Netherlands, Canada, Australia, The U.S.A, South Africa and Egypt .The chapter described the role played by the public and private sector in SDI development in order to extract specific PPP lessons that could be adopted by Uganda. Finally the chapter carried out a comparison between the EDCs and ELDCs to find the common ground and differences, it was recognised that most of the issues required for PPP in SDI development are similar though the cases reviewed are unique in various aspects. Both EDCs and ELDCs governments are realising the potential and merits of involvement of the private sector in SDI development and it is highly being encouraged.


24

Chapter 3: SDI development in Uganda

25

3 SDI developments in Uganda

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter analysed the role of the private sector in SDI development in cases of economically developed countries and economically less developed countries SDI initiatives. This chapter attempts to answer the research question on the opportunities, challenges and threats for use of PPP in SDI development in Uganda by describing the general status of the geospatial sector categorised in SDI components (institutional arrangements, policy and legislation, and technology). A situational analysis of the geospatial sector is carried out to enable in strategy development of PPP approach in Uganda. It is based on literature review and partially on field work study.

3.2 SDI Situation in Uganda

Below description of the general developments of various organisations that are playing a role in the geospatial sector are analysed to have a broader perspective of the motive of the chapter.

3.2.1 Institutional Arrangement

Leadership: Land management issues are managed by the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment through the Department of Land and Surveys in Entebbe. Between 1995 and 1999 urban based large scale cadastral GIS and digital image processing was done by the CAMPUS project with assistance from European Union (EU). This project ended in 1999. Further in 2003 there was a consulting service with Swede survey that focused on design of a land information system.

Custodian ship: The three relevant key players in the initiative of establishing SDI in Uganda have been categorised as (Karatunga, 2002):

• Core institutions

• Supporting institutions

• Other institutions

Core institutions

These involve sectors which fall in the 5 government priority programme areas: roads /transport infrastructure, water and sanitation, education, health, and agriculture. These sectors recently have started using GIS to support planning, management, monitoring and evaluation. Take for instance the education sector in December 2003, The Ministry of Education and Sports contracted the School Mapping Project of all schools in the country to a private organisation AFRICON, which is a South African consultancy firm. This was carried out to improve the credibility of the Education Management Information System of Uganda (EMIS) and enable provision of data on schools to all the stakeholders.


26

Supporting institutions

These institutions involve the Department of Land and Surveys, the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic development, Uganda Bureaus of Statistics (UBOS), National Biomass Forest Department, Ministry of Local Government and the Karamoja Data Centre(KDC). These institutions are members of the National GIS Task force that was established in 2000 by the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.

• The Department of Land and Surveys

The main functions are to:

• Formulate the National surveys policies strategies and plans,

• Direct the implementation of all mapping programmes,

• Coordinate and supervise national survey activities in compliance to the national policies standards and legislation,

• Review and initiate national mapping standards,

• Regulate and control the printing, updating and distribution of national maps.

• The Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

This ministry coordinates the National GIS task force and is the decision making centre for implementation of government programmes through overseeing the planning of national strategic development initiatives in order to support economic growth, efficiency, stability, eradication of poverty and enhancement of overall development in Uganda.

• Uganda Bureau of Statistics(UBOS)

The UBOS was formerly a statistics department under the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, which was established in 1998. It is a semi-autonomous body responsible for data collection, monitoring, supervision of the national statistical system, coordination and dissemination of official statistics. In July 2002, the cartographic section was restructured to a geo information service section.

• The National Biomass, Forest Department

It is the oldest scientific department in the country established in1926. This department has faced many challenges including decentralization then re-centralization, and operation constraints which led to the Government restructuring it. An outcome is a new semi-autonomous institution “National Forest Authority (NFA)” which was established in 1998. From 1990-1993 the National Biomass, Forest Department was involved in the National Land cover/use mapping for assessment of woody biomass. Further, the department has developed digital datasets of 6 thematic layers: protected areas, administrative units, road networks, rivers, elevation-contours, geodetic network. There was usage of GIS in the National Biomass study project which led to the continual use of GIS in the department.

• The Ministry of Local Government

The local government Act of I997 aims at shifting government major tasks from the centre to lower local level to improve service delivery. The ministry is responsible for inspecting, monitoring and where necessary offer technical advice, assistance, support supervision and training to all local governments. It also plays a co-ordination, harmonization and information role with respect to other


27

government ministries and departments, private sector, regional and international organisations. The information management flow is from low local government (town council, sub counties divisions), to high local government (districts and municipalities), and then to the central government (town council, sub counties divisions) however, there is no geospatial information management involved. Local Governments like Tororo, Busia and Karamonja districts have started using GIS as a data integration tool, and enabling simple interpretation of information from their database to enable planning processes.

• The Karamoja Data Centre (KDC)

This is a technical unit within the Office of the Minister of state for Karamoja affairs. It was established in April 2001 as the government’s focal point for coordinating all data and information generating activities in Karamoja region. The centre collaborates with key autonomous government institutions, local governments, international and local agencies with specific interests in developing and updating the Karamoja Information System (KIS). The function of KIS is to provide the districts with reliable data necessary to support the district planning processes. The KDC has set up a cooperation framework with a number of institutions in order to enhance data collection and data processing capabilities. (Appendix 1: memorandum of cooperation). The KDC has produced 20 thematic digital layers at regional and district level.

Other Institutions

• National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)

This Authority is mandated to monitor, supervise and coordinate environmental matters in Uganda. It relates with other sectors as provided in the National Environment Statue 1995, and links with local governments through the Local Government Act 1997 under the umbrella of the Environment Information Management (EIN). The EIN was established to enhance the capability of key producers to exchange data and information in compatible formats and at minimal cost. There is an enabling policy and legal framework in place for the greater participation of the private sector in environment management, and private leases have been obtained on forest reserves.

• Makerere University

The university offers GIS course units in the different faculties/departments.

3.2.2 Policy and Legislation

Spatial data access policy: The 1995 Uganda constitution recognizes the right of access to information, however there is no national policy for data exchange though some institutions have a memorandum of understanding that enables them to share data (Appendix 1).

Pricing: There is no central pricing policy for geospatial datasets though some institutions like NEMA, and the NFA have set up prices for existing geospatial datasets. In other institutions the price depends and can sometimes take up negotiation with the client while other institutions give their data freely depending on the working relations.

3.2.3 Technology

Data standards: In Uganda, there are no national standards for management of spatial information with different agencies. This has led to different systems for managing data, and updating similar


28

datasets. However, there is existent of the Uganda Bureau of Standards which is responsible for making standards though it has not been able to develop standards for the geospatial sector. Developing of standards would require investment in time and human resources. Under the World Bank funded study conducted by a Swedish Consortium 2000, preliminary data exchange specifications were developed in accordance with the recommendation of Open GIS consortium and in harmony with ISO/TC 211.These specifications have not yet been adopted by any institution due to lack of a formal coordinating body.

Participation in e-governance (ICT) by the public and private GI organisation is complimentary to the success of SDI development though the Uganda ICT policy does not yet recognise the role of geo-information in the nation’s sustainable development process. The Uganda National ICT policy framework of May 2002 recognises that ICT has a big role in the stimulation of national development and globalization of the economy. This has led to several initiatives to be undertaken to promote the development and application of ICT.

3.3 SDI initiatives in Uganda

Efforts to establish SDI in Uganda have been underway with several initiatives such as National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (NIMES) which is one of the most recent, U-consult Sweden 2004, and Environment Information Network (EIN), The Uganda Spatial Data Infrastructure (USDI) concept paper, a study done by The EU in 2001, which stopped at the proposal stage however, was not able to get documentation on this, The UBOS initiative, several workshop have been organised for this purpose. An overview of these initiatives is described below;

National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation: It was developed in 2003 after the Cabinet of the Government of Uganda approved a coordination framework to make sure that all government programmes work in a rational and synchronised manner. It is a legal entity under the Office of the Prime Minister, which aims at data collection and dissemination of information with respect to delivery of government’s intended goals and policy objectives, as laid out in the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). NIMES is intended to bring together a number of institutions and government sectors fostering integration of the scattered and disjointed datasets in order to develop an effective monitoring and evaluation system. Under the NIMES structure, a GIS coordination committee is to be established to oversee the development and use of GIS in Uganda. Approval of the NIMES funding was announced on the Governmental financial budget of 2005/2006.

U -consult Sweden: The World Bank funded the writing of a fundamental report for the establishment of Uganda Spatial Data Infrastructure (USDI) “Design and Development of Geographic Information System Uganda EFMP II /PHRD/00/05-GIS”. This was carried out by a Swedish consortium in April 2004. The USDI established was meant to support public and private sector applications of geo-spatial data in areas such as education, health and water. In general, the recommendations that were noted in this report are:

• Establishing of a Spatial Data Infrastructure Committee

• Establishing sub-committees to support the Spatial Data Infrastructure Committee on standardisation, Co-financing, GIS education

• Establishing a permanent Spatial Data Infrastructure Co-ordination unit

• Defining mandates and ownership of the main datasets


29

• Initiating a feasibility study on Land Administration

• Ensuring that all future projects conform to the rules and conditions of USDI

• Adopting the principle of free exchange of key spatial data sets with government institutions.

Environmental Information Network: This was initiated in 1995 by NEMA with the motive of collecting information from different stakeholders with regards to natural resources and environment. Functions carried out by EIN that promote the building of SDI are the promotion of data standards, capacity building and the building of awareness of information needs. The six institutions that participated in the pilot phase are Department of Agricultural planning, Department of Lands and Survey, Department of Meteorology, Kawanda Research station, Makerere Institute of Environment and Natural Resources, The National Biomass, Forest department.

The USDI concept paper: The USDI Operationalization initiative was carried out in September; 2001. The programme objective is to contribute to the improvement of the national planning and monitoring capacities with a rationalized and integrated sector wide approach in line with PEAP. This proposed plan was under the support of Government of Uganda, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics initiative: The UBOS has undertaken a strategy in SDI development by adapting a GIS policy which defines GIS as a key strategic tool to improve services and meet the aims and objectives defined in the UBOS corporate plan. UBOS is committed to coordinate its efforts with other GIS stakeholders in Uganda to build an SDI that can improve the performance of offering services.

3.4 Private sector involvement in SDI activities in Uganda

The GI private sector is growing in Uganda, several GI professionals are establishing GI private companies along side their government jobs. In the field study the interviewed geospatial stakeholders noted that the geospatial industry had good future prospects and had evolved to GI professionals establishing private companies such as Geo-Information for planning and environment, MUIENR Geographic services (U) ltd. A number of foreign investors have also established private GI companies for instance WE consults (Water, Environment &Geo Services) which in 2004 had a collaboration agreement with Nieuwland a company in the Netherlands, they decided to combine their expertise in the geoinformation field.

Public& Private land surveyors In July 2002, the cabinet approved the implementation of the Land Sector Strategic Plan (LSSP) developed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Environment (MWLE). The LSSP was developed to guide government, private sector, civil society and other stakeholders in administration and optimal use of land resources. One of the main strategies of the LSSP is to carry out systematic adjudication and demarcation of land rights which involves field data capture, processing, plotting and incorporating into the National Land Information System (NLIS). In Uganda systematic demarcation will ensure the availability of land information, where land information aggregated is developed from individual forms or records of ‘who’ holds ‘what’ land ‘where’ and citizens will attain their property rights. This land information is expected to contribute to poverty eradication directly or indirectly, as well as enable the development of SDI in Uganda. The Land and Surveys Department is charged with formulating government policies and guidelines regarding surveying and mapping issues in Uganda.


30

The department ensures that government and others surveys carried out by the private surveyors are of good quality.

GIS Software resellers

Uganda is a private sector which is authorised to demonstrate, promote, market, sell and support ESRI products. The private sector is essential in the SDI development due to the ability of provision of GIS software which is a platform for working with geographical information.

Database designers and application developers

The private sector has the potential to offer various geo services like consultancy, application development in geo information, data communication and data design. GIS database design, GPS and topographic surveys are being carried out by the private companies.

Capacity building and training

The private sector are publishing a GI magazine and taking part in the distribution of ESRI newsletters to GIS users. This creates awareness to the various users, on the ongoing development and on the contents of latest updates of the ESRI software in geospatial world.

Websites

Websites are essential in advertising of the potential of an organisation to the public. Most GI private companies have established their own websites. It is expected that this will increase on the market for their services depending on the response of internet users in Uganda. By February 2002, Uganda had 17 licensed internet service providers (Note: Those providing internet access service providers, as opposed to public internet service, which are mainly cafes).

3.5 Situational analysis of the Geospatial sector of Uganda

The study of status of SDI developments in Uganda has indicated some opportunities that can be exploited through involvement of the private geospatial sector however there are challenges that are faced.

SWOT is an acronym which describes strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of a system. This involves the internal factors (strengths and weakness) and the external factors (opportunities and threats) of the geospatial sector. This is carried out so as analyze the geospatial sector, to enable identify the gaps were the private sector could contribute play a role considering strengthening of collaboration among the Private and Public geospatial sectors. The analysis uses data from the overview situation of SDI in Uganda.


31

Table 3-1SWOT analysis of Geospatial sector of Uganda Internal Factors External Factors

Strengths(S) • Busy with digitalizing the

analogue maps, detailed maps of towns available

• Increase GIS in public sector • Availability some datasets • Availability of GI in several

organisations professional

Weaknesses(W) • Existing data not updated • Insufficient qualified

technical professional • No internet connection in

some geospatial companies • No standard fixed price list

for the spatial data • Insufficient financial

resources and poor management

• Use of only ESRI software products

• lack of awareness of existing geospatial data

Opportunities(O) • Several GIS/LIS projects

carried out by foreign donors • Approval NIMES funding by

Government of Uganda • Increase in organised

geospatial conferences, CODI-GEO meetings, workshops

• Increase use of computer technology

SO Strategies • Influence the donor to

support in data collection • Make proper usage of funds

available

WO Strategies • Emphasize use of GIS from

other companies apart from ESRI

• Use the donor projects to carry out data updates

Threats(T) • Lack of coordination in the

GIS donor projects • Insufficient political support • lack of spatial data policies

ST Strategies • Influence the government to

make spatial data policies

WT Strategies • Establish a coordinating

body for GIS donor projects • Enlighten government

official on SDI concept to get their support

3.6 Concluding remarks

This chapter looked at the geospatial sector to generally describe the SDI developments of Uganda. Overviews of the different organisations and the role they play have been presented so as to express the situation of the geospatial sector. With the different initiatives in the development of SDI it has been realised that the concept of SDI is highly appreciated by the citizens who know its benefits. The


32

study revealed several organisations in possession of geospatial data and use of GIS software which provides Uganda an opportunity to develop SDI. A SWOT analysis was carried to enable identifying the gaps and will help figure out the necessary parameters for PPP in chapter 5. However, the main motive of the chapter was to study the private sector involvement in SDI development in Uganda, which acknowledged the ability of the private sector in various aspects and led to the outline of the opportunities and challenges of PPP approach in Uganda which provides the answer to research question 5.

Chapter 4: Field methodology and Data analysis

33

4 Field methodology and Data analysis

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the methods that were used to achieve the purpose of the field study; these included desk research, in-depth interviews, questionnaires, secondary data collection further a workshop has been organised. The chapter addresses research question 3 by describing the current situation of geospatial sector focusing on the role of private sector and opinions of PPP approach for SDI development from both public and private sector. Further PPP experiences in the water sector are described that could be used to identify the requirements for PPP in the geospatial sector. This is followed with a summary report.

4.2 Area of Field Study

The field study was conducted in Kampala, Uganda. Uganda is a landlocked country, lying astride the equator. It is bordered to the north by Sudan, to the west by Zaire, to the south by Tanzania and Rwanda and to the east by Kenya. It has an area of 241,000sq.km and a population of 24.7million people (UBOS, 2002). The average real rate of GDP growth has been 6.9 per annum since 1990/91.

4.3 Importance of the Field Study

The importance of carrying out field study was to share experience and knowledge among the public and private GI stakeholders in order to develop a strategy for PPP in the development of SDI in Uganda. Mainly to collect data and supportive references to enable answering questions like;

• How can the private sector contribute to SDI development in Uganda?

• What kind of PPP is called for in the geospatial sector?

• What are the foreseen issues in the use of PPP in the functioning of SDI development in Uganda?

• What actions can be carried out for the geospatial sector to stimulate partnerships between the public and private institutions?

4.4 Data Collection Strategy

4.4.1 Preparation

This involved identifying a sector with experience in the use of the PPP approach in the public service delivery in Uganda. This also involved finding out the geospatial organisations that were going to be


34

contacted from the public and private sectors in Uganda. A list was made it comprised of four columns for the name, organisation, email and telephone contact of the people that were scheduled to take part in the field study. Invitation letters to the workshop and questionnaires were drafted. Public and private sector representatives were invited to attend the workshop, were asked for their permission to be interviewed and were asked to answer the questionnaire.

Figure 4-1 Data collection strategy

4.4.2 Primary Data

4.4.2.1 Spatial Data Infrastructure Workshop

A half day workshop, with the theme “Public Private Partnership for SDI development in Uganda” was organised. The workshop took place on 30th September 2005 at the Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation of the Makerere University. Seventeen (17) participants from 12 organisations participated (See Appendix 2; for summary of workshop details and workshop report). Geospatial stakeholders from both the public and private sector, some officials from the public service sector attended the workshop; the participants contributed and raised opinions to the theme of the workshop There were 4 main presentations carried out, the first one on an overview of SDI initiatives in Uganda, then the researcher presented the overview and the objectives of the workshop, then a presentation from the public sector, the final presentation was from the private sector, the last session involved asking questions, and opinions to the main questions which were:

Preparation Stage -Design Questionnaires -List Public& Private GI organisation to be contacted -Workshop invitation letters

Data Collection Tools Primary data Secondary data

-Workshop -Interviews -Questionnaires

-News articles -SDI reports -Policy documents

Output Objective of the study


35

1. What role does PPP have in SDI development in Uganda?

2. How can PPP drive SDI development in Uganda?

Video coverage of the workshop took place, a DVD copy and video tape was made. The workshop video tape runs for 130 minutes. Voice recording of the workshop proceedings was also carried out.

Observations at the workshop: The workshop was a meeting point for the professionals in the SDI field in Uganda. There were several potential, business discussions that were taking place in the course of the short breaks and after the workshop.

• It was appreciated that the workshop was timely since the concept of SDI development in Uganda was a hot issue in this period.

• It was another opportunity for professionals in Uganda to share ideas on the prospects of the development of SDI since there were several workshops that had taken place.

• Due to the tight schedules of the professionals the workshop session became a meeting point which showed cooperation among stakeholders and willingness to build SDI in Uganda

• Professional who attended teamed up in 3 categorises private to private, public to public and private to public.

4.4.2.2 In-Depth Interviews

Geospatial sector stakeholders from private and public organisations and employees from the public service sector were interviewed. The interviews were used to gauge the opinions of the various stakeholders regarding the PPP approach for SDI development. The interviews were helpful in understanding the insight of the experiences of PPP in public service delivery and for the geospatial sector opinions on the private sector involvement on SDI development.

A total of twelve (12) interviews were carried out, these were face to face interviews, which lasted thirty minutes to an hour. The officials who were to be interviewed were given questionnaires in advance to have an idea of what the interview would be like. This mainly was to have an early preparation and focus for the interviewee. To have faithful interviews, notes were being taken and the interviewee was following the discussion and so was reading through the written notes as approval evidence.

Specific issues were discussed during the interview were:

• Services the organisation provides to the nationals,

• What were the policies involved in data exchange and who were the data custodians,

• Kind of collaboration with other institutions,

• Problems faced in collaborative arrangements with other organizations,

• Recommendations for Public Private Partnership for SDI development.

4.4.2.3 Questionnaires

Two types of questionnaires were designed (see appendix 3 and 4 for questionnaires used); one questionnaire was to find out the current condition of the geospatial sector in Uganda with respect to


36

delivery of geospatial services and the collaboration of public and private GI organisations. The other questionnaire was to assess the nature and aspects of the public and private sector in delivering of public services such as water, education to the public.

4.4.3 Secondary Data

Secondary data involved reviewing publication and existing documents with information regarding the research topic. Secondary data collected are:

• Uganda SDI initiative reports

• Policy Documents

• Newsletters and magazines

• Brochures

• Copy of Memorandum of cooperation

4.4.4 Pitfalls faced in the field

The data collection methods used during field work (workshop, interview and questionnaires) had some drawbacks: • The date of the scheduled field study workshop collided with Ministry workshops which resulted in a

low turn up of participants.

• Some of the participants interviewed were reluctant in sharing of ideas and not willing to give secondary information about the organisation as it was regarded as confidential.

• Interviewing of the targeted clients from the public sector required long procedures and some of the other targeted interviewee were out of the country on official duty.

4.5 Findings of the Workshop

Summary of results agreed to by all participants;

4.5.1 Geospatial Sector

• The private geospatial sector should form a corporate body and join Private Sector Foundation Union (PSFU). PSFU is Uganda’s private sector umbrella organisation made up of 71 business associations representing all sectors in the economy. PSFU founded in August 1995 and was established in response to the need for improvements in the operating environment for private businesses in Uganda. This can be a foundation for the private GI organisation to be able to bring forward their views on SDI development to the government, since PSFU carries out policy advocacy and maintains dialogue with government, it also partners with the government to implement private sector programmes.

• The private GI sector was agreed upon as one of the basic actors who have a role to play in SDI development since they are the main service providers who offer system development, database development, operations support and consulting services in the geospatial sector.


37

• The need for the public geospatial sector to open up and create willingness to share the existing geospatial datasets with the private GI organisations. This will do away with reproducing already existing datasets.

• The need to have the private GI sector to get involved in SDI awareness campaigns in the country. It was suggested that this could be carried out by having talk shows on radios and television would intrigue the national on the SDI concept.

• The private GI sector provides quality GI services and products to the citizens. The development of SDI would require having accurate datasets and with expertise from the private GI sector it would create partnership with the public GI sector.

• A memorandum of understanding needs to be carefully prepared with the involvement of the private GI sector opinion. This would ensure an affordable cost to geospatial datasets and an increase to the participation of the private GI sector in SDI development.

• The need for a committed lead agency is not yet conspicuous for SDI development in Uganda.

• The involvement of the private sector in SDI development for Uganda is regarded as essential since experiences learns that they are in general more creative the public sector. More so there are experts in the private sector the offering value added services to the citizens. This illustrates the ability and role of the private geospatial sector.

4.5.2 Water service delivery sector

PPP experiences in water service delivery

The National Water and Sewage Corporation (NWSC) had a PPP with Ondeo services, a French private firm. NWSC signed a 2 year management contract was with Ondeo Services Uganda Limited (OSUL) to manage Kampala water supply and sewage service area (KWSSA). Kampala was taken as a pilot area for PPP in water service delivery. Ondeo services were to take care of the operational costs, technical handling and NWSC was to maintain the developments. This PPP created a transformation in NWSC .This was justified by the major event of the last quarter of the contract when a value analysis of all the activities linked to service delivery was carried out. From the analysis it was discovered that the operational costs determined were reasonable from the time the PPP was created which was wasn’t the case before. Further more by the end of the contract in August 2004 the French private company had laid a strong foundation through the contract for the sustainability of KWSSA not only on the economical side but also on the service delivery quality.

4.6 Findings of the In-depth interviews and questionnaires

Summary of the results below were agreed upon by a total of twenty (20) people who were interviewed and questioned.


38

4.6.1 Geospatial Sector

Nature of services provided

• The private geospatial sector focuses on business development services, like analytical services in a range of application areas, map production that suits the specifications and requirements of the customer. The focus on customer satisfaction is carried out through provision of quality services and products.

• The private geospatial sector has the professional capacity to undertake successful GIS and GPS training. Customised training programs which suit the client’s time and budget are provided.

• The public geospatial organisations carry out various GIS activities like data collection, equipping the districts with hardware, software and GPS to enable operations at the district level. Integrating use of GIS in the district is meant to improve on the planning process of the government.

Role of the private geospatial sector in SDI development Should not be involved in general Participate in making policies Data generation Maintain geospatial database on Behalf of the government Provide GIS software Provide human resource Development 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 4-2 Perceived role of the private sector in geospatial

Criteria of calculation of the percentage

x/y *100 = percent of the role of the private sector

Where x = Number of stakeholders interviewed & questioned who agreed on a particular aspect

Y= Total number of interviewed &questioned stakeholders

Figure 4-2 shows that most of the respondents perceive the role of the private sector to involve data generation, human resource mobilization, provision of GIS software, participation in policy making and

20% 60% 80% 80% 85% 90%


39

management of geospatial datasets on behalf of the government, and also people who don’t want the private sector to be involved in SDI development are represented.

90% want the private sector to provide human resource (expertise), 85% want the private sector to be the main provider of the GIS software, and 80% agree that the private sector should be involved in geospatial data generation and maintenance on behalf of the government, 60% agree that the private sector should be involved in making of spatial data access policies while 20% oppose the involvement of the private sector in general.

Policy and legislation issue

• There is no pricing policy to regulate the sharing of geospatial datasets among the organisations. Establishment of geospatial policies (copyright, intellectual property rights) could be implemented through having strong influence if a partnership is created by the public and private geospatial organisation. Established partnerships could have a strong advocacy for geospatial policies to government to implement.

Technology issue

• The Uganda bureau of standards should adopt open standards. The bureau of standards does not have geo-data knowledge. Existence of common standard basis will enable data integration and exchange of data among the stakeholders (private/public).

Nature of collaboration

• Collaboration among organisations private-private, public-private, and public-public do exist but are not structured. However, it was noted that the organisation which initiates collaboration is more on the demand side.

• As show in Figure 4-3, 80 % of the respondents supported the use of PPP for SDI development in

Figure 4-3 Support PPP for SDI development

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Support Do not support

80% 20%

Uganda compared to 20 percent who do not support it however, it was mentioned the private sector are not ready to make financial contribution though they are willing to make use of the geospatial data available by the public organisations. The respondents revealed the public sector had been in control for long and required to have partnership with private sector which would be attributed to better services and sharing of responsibility.


40

Criteria of calculation of the percentage

x / y *100 = percent of the supporters (non supporters)

Where x = Number of stakeholders interviewed & questioned who supporter (non supporters)

y = Total number of interviewed &questioned stakeholders

Way forward of PPP for SDI development

This has been categorised according to the public and private geospatial opinions on SDI development in Uganda.

Public Geospatial sector opinion

• Build a culture of management of geospatial datasets to enable to deal with the demand of geospatial services and products. The need to involve the private sector was seen as essential to carry out some duties like data management and design.

• Investment in data collection is one sided from the public sector, this is due to financial support from the government to the public geospatial sector. This was acknowledged by private sector who agreed that they pay a fee for geospatial datasets as long as the costs are reasonable. The payment by the private sector was to encourage the public sector in data production; it is like cost recovery on the public sector side. The private sectors don’t indulge so much in data generation.

• SDI development must take an integrated approach, through involving potential stakeholders such as the private sector.

• Encourage the incorporation of the spatial dimension in the system of most governmental organisations. This will enhance the use of information management system with spatial component which will encourage the development of SDI.

• Involvement of the private sector has been regarded as a way forward as one of the interviewee suggested that “an integrated approach should be introduced were by each sector has defined responsibilities depending on the capability. Uganda being a small economy, SDI development should start in a sustainable way were by the private sector should contribute by offering human resource that is skilled and the public sector should contribute financially since the level of investment in the geospatial data is high due to the fact that public sector are financed by the government”.

Private Geospatial sector opinion

• Increase in use of GIS is leading to a driving force of change from analogue to digital though there is need for data standards. It was suggested that the key ministries should coordinate standardization to enable exchange and use of available datasets.

• The need for a strong private body would influence SDI development. The private sector initiatives like capacity building would be a success if there was a coordinating body supporting effective partnerships to drive SDI development.


41

• Subsides on tax charged on establishing private organisations which would encourage GI professionals and lead to the increase of private geospatial organisations.

• Encouraging of foreign investors in the introduction of other GIS software like Intergraph since ESRI products are the ones that are mainly used. This would bring about a variety of GIS software and would have price competition which would enable the private sector to purchase the GIS software from a company with an affordable price charge. This was suggested since the private companies claimed that the prices of ESRI software were high.

• The interviewees considered the collaboration among the private and public sector to be an inevitable venture for the development of SDI in the coming future. Involvement of the private sector was also considered to come with effectiveness in geospatial service delivery (quality and on time products).

4.6.2 Water service delivery sector

PPP experiences in water service delivery

Association of Private Water Operators (APWO) was launched in August 2004 and is in line with the government policy of contracting local private operators to manage the delivery of water services in small towns. The association seeks to improve the standard of service provision and yield recognition and support from the public, government and development partners. The association is composed of nine companies which subscribe, membership fee is 400,000 Uganda shillings (200 euros), and annual subscription is 200,000(100 euros) Uganda shillings. The fee paid enables the running of the association. Benefits for being a member company in the association are:

• Members are entitled to attending workshops that are organised by the association,

• Members are entitled the association magazine that is published as an advertising strategy,

• Participation in global event like world water week, conferences,

• Joint advocacy and lobbying for water contracts from the government.

Requirements for joining the association are that, the company has to be registered and dealing in engineering, payment of membership and subscription fee.

Policies: The private companies operate on contract by bidding for tenders to manage water supply in a town, on winning bid sign contract with town council.

Success of APWO

• It has brought in light efficiency in service delivery and recognizing the benefits of private sector participation in water sector,

• It has gained international recognition,

• Most of the towns undertake by the private operators have improved on the delivery of water and in a few years they will be able to break even.

Challenges

• Short lived contracts which run for a period of three years,

• Town being taken by NWSC which create unfair competition between the NWSC and the association


42

• Some towns are too small to pay the private operators

• Some members of the association take long to pay there subscription because they are running on small scale.

Risks

The risks faced by the association are:

• Termination of contracts this is because the contracts are short lived (3years),

• Market risk, arising from impractical levies and delays in payment by the citzens who are receiving the water services, which makes management difficult for the private operators.

Impact of PPP on public service delivery

• Quality of services improved,

• Extended availability of services to rural areas,

• Prices increased but not full cost recovery.

Reasons leading to success of PPP in delivering of water services

• Good leadership/administration,

• Government approval to support PPP,

• PPP is an agreed option of water sector reforms.

In general distinct issues and an overview of the role of the private and public sector in Uganda are mentioned below (Source: Fieldwork).

Table 4-1 Analysed issues drawn up from geospatial sector in Uganda Private sector Public sector

Expand market of geospatial products and services by providing value added products

Provide basic geospatial products and services

Customers given first priority Regular serving of customers Donor funded though projects Proposal writings

Government funded

Influence policy making Make the policies Foster availability of required skills in the industry by training nationals

Offer GIS courses

Promote media publication of geospatial sector Get access to publications of the geospatial sector

Take risks for profit rewards Avoid risks; protect public interest Data maintenance/ Geospatial data production Already existing data can be updated Tap investors to support geospatial sector Efficiently use the government funding

allocated in the annual financial budget


43

4.7 Summary of results

The results are to assess the involvement of the private sector in the SDI development of Uganda. The observations are summarized below.


• The public sector has the mandate to provide geographic maps, information. However, the geospatial data available isn’t up to date and there is lack of geospatial professionals in the public sector organisation, the private organisations are willing to take part in data maintenance, offer education and training(capacity building), provide qualified human resource, and ready to sustain SDI development in Uganda.

• The existent private sector lack a lead, there participation in SDI development requires an organised constitution and mandate to enable the promotion of PPP approach and enhance contribution to the geospatial sector.


• The lack of a central policy for access and exchange of spatial data is a difficulty to the private sector to access the necessary geospatial data so as to enable delivering of geospatial services to the citizens.

• There is no standard pricing list which leads to negotiations and cost variation depending on either digital or analogue data, also depending on were the data has been purchased. The private sector suggested standard price lists to be made and also a mechanism to be initiated that shows the available data and in which organisation it can be bought.

• Need to have data sharing policies to enable the private geospatial sector to access to geospatial datasets.

Technology

• The responsibility of selling of the GIS software is mainly carried out by the private sector which means that the risks involved with dealing with GIS software and technology (computers, GPS) like inflation of the Uganda shillings, low customers purchase of computers, commissioning risk, i.e. having few consumers purchasing the GIS software is mainly in the hands of the private sector. The private sector expressed the willingness to take up technology risks (GIS software, hardware) involved in SDI development.

• The private sector considered the cost for internet connection high. The existence of internet would have potential benefits for the private organizations in SDI development and its availability by public and private sector would create a favorable environment for data sharing.

• There was a common opinion among the public and private sector to have quality computers on sale since their where complains of poor quality computers being sold. This was observed by the frequent crash of their computers, which put work at a hold.


44

• GIS equipment (software, GPS) should be tax exempted; also the taxes like licensing charged on to establishing of private GI companies should be minimal. This is because when the companies have been set up the profit margin is low in the initial stages.

• Having a one stop shop centre would increase on the use of geospatial datasets by the public and private geospatial organisations.

4.8 Concluding remarks

The data collections techniques applied had various issues to tackle which have been described and the general remarks from the 3 techniques is as follows: the involvement of the private sector in SDI development is essential in particular areas were they excel better than the public sector though some issues need to be put into consideration. The private sector isn’t willing to contribute financially on data collection due to fact that they are in an initial stage of development. Still, they have a role they could contribute in provision of professional skills, updating and maintenance of data, and distribution of GIS software that contribute to SDI development. PPP approach can be stimulated through establishing policies that are conducive for both sectors and enlightening the government officials in the ministries about the key role played by the private sector in the development of SDI. Trust and negotiation where necessary among partners and should be undertaken were parallel issues are occurring. This creates a favourable environment for data exchange and sharing hence collaboration of the public and private sector. It is important to note that the private sector is willing and has the potential to participate in the development of SDI due to their expertise, quality services that they are able to provide. For public service delivery (water) it was observed that the management service contract partnership of NWSC and OSUL teams led to a tremendous progress in the Kampala region water supply and service sewerage services. The result of this partnership led to the establishment of a sound base foundation for the future sustainability of Kampala water supply and sewage service area.

Chapter 5: Evaluation of the Geospatial Sector

45

5 Evaluation of PPP in the Geospatial Sector in Uganda

5.1 Introduction

This chapter attempts to answer research question 4 by identifying the requirements and suitable PPP arrangements necessary for the development of SDI in Uganda. This is based on the case study of EDCs and ELDCs that will be involved in deriving parameters for SDI development, and on the PPP experiences in the water sector in Uganda. This is carried out in order to fill the performance gap identified in the geospatial sector in Uganda (Table3-1) in chapter 3.

5.2 Steps for evaluation

Evaluation process as well as benchmarking approach is involved. The benchmarking approach from the managerial perspective involves the comparisons with outsiders which may expose best industry practices and encourage the adoption of those practices(Camp, 1935). Benchmarking is basically learning from comparing with others, the materials from the previous chapters will be used in the benchmarking process. Identification of key parameters from the benchmarked partners (EDCs, ELDCs SDI case study& water sector in Uganda) enable developing strategies for private sector involvement to enable use of PPP approach for SDI development in Uganda.

Figure 5-1 Evaluation Process

Evaluation Process

Reviewed PPP in LDCs SDIs

PPP experience of water service delivery in Uganda

Identify key parameters

Reviewed PPP of economically developed SDIs

Situational analysis of geospatial in sector in Uganda

Proposed strategies for SDI development in Uganda

Evaluation Process

Reviewed PPP in ELDCs SDI

PPP experience of water service delivery in Uganda

Identify key parameters

Reviewed PPP of EDCs SDI

Situational analysis of geospatial sector in Uganda

Proposed strategies for SDI development in Uganda


46

5.2.1 Parameters in accordance with PPP

The parameters presented below in table 5-1 are those found in EDCs, ELDCs case study and the water service sector in Uganda.

The weight score was based on the parameters that appeared on the three case studies (EDCs, ELDCs and water service sector in Uganda) to have a high score, then the parameter that appeared on the two case studies (either ELDCs and water service delivery or EDCs and ELDCs) had a medium score, lastly the parameter that appeared from one case study (EDCs) had a low score. The score ranges from 1-3were; 1= less important, 2= Important, 3=Very important. The higher the weight, the more important the parameter is to SDI development in Uganda.

Table 5-1 PPP parameters Class of parameters

Reviewed PPP of EDCs SDI

Reviewed PPP of ELDCs SDI

Water service delivery

Weight

Political support Government support Government support 3 Capacity building Capacity building Training staff 3 Good administration Leadership Good leadership 3 Involvement of donors Involvement of foreign

companies 2


Governance 1

FOIA FOIA 2

Copyright policy Copyright Act,1978 2

Open access policy Existence of National water policy

2


Cost recovery Cost recovery Price increase not fully cost recovery

2

International data standards

National Standards Standard requirements to participate

3 Technology

High level of technology

Presence of use technology

Water technical facilities

3

Key parameters for PPP

The parameters involve the necessary requirements that can be used to enable the private sector to participate in geospatial data production, maintenance and service delivery. They are discussed in accordance to SDI components (institutional arrangements, policy and legislation, and technology).The discussion makes reference to the situation of geospatial sector in Uganda.

Institutional arrangement

• Political support: Governmental support is highly crucial for involvement of the private sector in SDI development as in the case of U.S.A were President Clinton in April 1994 signed the


47

Executive Order 12906 and FGDC was mandated to coordinate the development of NSDI through involvement of various agencies among which was the private sector. In Uganda the private sector of the geospatial industry has not had strong governmental support which creates a negative impact on the development of SDI through PPP approach.

• Capacity building: The reviewed cases expressed the involvement of the private sector in playing a role in capacity building in development of SDI. Among which the spatial information industry action agenda (2001) of Australia’s goals for success of the spatial industry involves “education and skills formation” which creates and maintains a highly skilled, relevant and innovative workforce. There is insufficient qualified technical professional in the geospatial sector in Uganda though there are private and public institutions offering GIS courses. Education and training on the concept of SDI requires strong attention to curb down the shortage of skilled professionals in the geospatial sector in Uganda. While the private sector organisations need capacity building on how to engage in a win-win dialogue and on advocacy skills, the public sector need capacity building to the high governmental official enlightenment on need of PPP for SDI.

• Governance: EDCs have taken into consideration the new concept of governance that requests for interaction between public and private sectors as observed in the recent developments as in the case of USA and Australia, which show a marked shift to, inclusive model of SDI governance (Masser, 2005). Also the proposals for ANZLIC show an action plan which involves a new governance model that takes into account of the balance between public and private sectors, data sources and data users(ANZLIC, 2004). Governance for collaboration of the public and private sector would be a complex system for the present geospatial sector of Uganda, due to lack of coordination in the GIS donor projects carried out resulting to wastage of resources. Whereas both the expansion of the geospatial market through provision of value added products taken by the private sector and the provision of basic geospatial products and services taken by the public sector have their merits there is no compelling need to run these programmes separately. At least there is ample room for improving collaboration between the public and private sector.

• Good leadership: The existence of good leadership which takes into consideration the ability of the private sector in SDI development creates a favourable environment for collaboration with the public sector. To have success of PPP approach for SDI development in Uganda the geospatial sector should take into consideration having the government play the leading role through creating initiatives that offer a favourable environment for private sector involvement in arena were they excel.


• Freedom of Information Act: The implementation of the freedom of information act creates transparency in the countries were it has been established though there is confidentiality on some government information. Uganda is among countries with pending efforts on the adoption of FOIA. Adoption of this act by the Government of Uganda will create an era of transparency which is a potential requirement to strengthen collaboration of the private and public sector.

• Open access policy: Existence of an access policy as in the case of U.S.A enables access to information and enables the private sector to get access to geospatial data free of charge. It is worth noting that any user of this data uses it on their own risk, since the owners of the data are not liable for any damages encountered due to usage of the data. The government of Uganda


48

could provide data free of charge to promote usage of spatial data. Depending on the response from the stakeholders, decisions could be made on the viability of the policy. However, if the stakeholders are not ready to have open access policy then cost recovery model can be carried out but only direct costs with no profit motive should be charged to the users as in the case of South Africa. As a result access to geospatial data will be affordable to the private sector which is an opportunity to maximise utilisation of the available data. Accesses to information policy that enable the private sector to utilise data create a favourable environment for the collaboration of the public and private sector and promote development of SDI.

• Copyright policy: The copyright policy in the spatial information industry in necessary to protect the works of the public and private sector. In the Netherlands the geo-information works with a personal view can be protected by copyright though in the U.S little protection given to spatial datasets through copyright policy. In Uganda the copyright bill, 2002 is pending concerning amendment of the copyright Act and provision of related rights, the existence of the copyright Act would encourage the private sector to add value through building on the available spatial data. Further this would promote collaboration of the public and private sector.

Technology

• World Wide Web technology: The EDCs are highly advanced technically and are moving to web service model based on international standards as in the case of Australia. Web technologies play a key role in data exchange and enable access to information on a regular basis on the need of the stakeholders (public/private).Lands Survey Department of Entebbe and MWLE have not yet installed internet though it is the proposed plan for the ministry. Because of no internet obtaining data is cumbersome. Availability of web technology could enable the private sector easily search for data available through search engines and also purchase of data could be done on line as in the case of the Netherlands were the public and private partners provide opportunities for customers to access data online services .

• Data Standards: Geospatial data standards are generally regarded as a vital component for SDI. The EDCs highly make use of the international standards while the ELDCs like South Africa have incorporated the use of standards by initiating national standards (StanSA). Use of data standards facilitates the harnessing of geo-information in decision making. However, it has been observed that Uganda has not yet put use of data standardization into practice though professionals are aware of the benefits of having it in place

5.3 Evaluation criteria

The criteria for evaluation is based on the guiding principles of PPP (see table below) this is tackled taking consideration of the reviewed literature of the EDCs, ELDCs and the experience of the water sector of Uganda. The criteria can be formulated in the form of guiding principles of PPP so as have a better understanding of whether PPP approach is realistic for Uganda’s situation. These principles are grouped according to SDI components-institutional arrangement, policy and legislation technology. The guiding principles can be associated with certain parameters of SDI development in relation to geospatial sector of Uganda. As with any proposal, the first step is a full evaluation to determine


49

whether it is a government priority. Public-private partnerships will be based on the following guiding principles (Brunswick Canada, 2001): • Project definition: the project is of sufficient size and/or complexity to provide opportunity for

the private sector to demonstrate its initiative, innovation and expertise in providing best value. • Competitive private sector market: sufficient qualified private sector proponents exist to ensure

a competitive process. • Shared rewards: the public receives 'value for money' from the initiative, while the private sector

can reasonably expect to receive a fair return on its investment. • Premise of risk transfer: risks are allocated to the partner best suited to assume the risk. • Procurement process: must be fair and transparent and will be subject to due diligence. • Signed contract: the acceptance of a usually long-term relationship established through signed

contractual arrangements. • Communications: a proactive, ongoing and transparent communications plan designed to keep

people informed is implemented.

Table 5-2 SDI component, parameters and PPP guidelines for evaluation process

SDI Component Parameter PPP guiding principles

Institutional arrangement Political support

Capacity building

Governance

Good leadership

Project definition

Competitive private sector market

Procurement process/Communication

Communication

Policy and legislature

Freedom of Information Act

Open access policy

Copyright policy

Signed contract

Premise of risk transfer

Signed contract

Technology

World Wide Web technology

Data Standards

Premise of risk transfer/Communication

Communications

Evaluations and scoring procedure

The evaluation procedure here is carried out by using findings presented in chapter3 and 4(SDI Uganda) along side with the PPP guiding principles. This is categorised based on SDI components (Institutional arrangements, policy and legislation, technology). A scoring system is used to rate and it is dependent on PPP parameters for SDI development that have been identified (Table 5-1). The evaluation process is carried out to find out whether PPP approach in Uganda is viable. The private sector involvement score is in relation to the parameters and PPP guiding principles, this ranges from 1-3 were; No support=1, Low support=2, High Support =3. The implication of the score high implies the presence of the parameter in Uganda, low implies that some elements of the parameter are in place and no support implies absence of the parameter in Uganda. The weight score has been derived


50

directly from table 5-1.The weighted score has been obtained by multiplying the weight with the private sector involvement score.

Table 5-3 Evaluation table with the rating scores

SDI Component

Parameter Weight PPP GP PSI (scores)

Weighted

Score

Political support 3 Project definition 2 6

Capacity building

3 Competitive private sector market

3 9

Governance 1 Procurement process 2 2

Institutional

arrangement

Good leadership 3 Shared rewards 1 3

FOIA 2 Signed contract 1 2

Open access policy

1 Premise of risk transfer 1 1

Policy and legislature

Cost recovery 2 Signed contract 1 2

WWW technology

3 Premise of risk transfer 2 6 Technology

Data Standards 3 Communications 1 3

PPP GP= PPP guiding principles; PSI= Private sector involvement

5.3.1 Results/comments

The parameter weighted score has obtained by addition of the total weighted score in accordance with SDI component (institutional arrangement, policy and legislation, and technology). The Possible weighted score has been obtained by multiplying the maximum possible weight score (3) to maximum possible score in PSI score (3). Then eventually multiply to the number of parameter in accordance with SDI component (institutional arrangement, policy and legislation, and technology). Comments refer to rationale for the private sector being a partner with public sector in development of SDI in Uganda with reference to institutional arrangements, policy and legislation and technology. From table 5-4 for SDI component institutional arrangement the private sector has certain elements of PPP guiding principles like competitive private sector market, for policy and legislation the private sector has low elements of PPP guiding principles in SDI development, for technology the private sector has certain elements of PPP guiding principles to influence PPP approach for SDI development


51

Table 5-4Summary of results SDI components

Possible weighted score

Parameter Weighted score

Percentage (%)

Comments

Institutional arrangement

36 20 55% Private sector has certain elements of PPP GP


27 5 18% Private sector has low elements of PPP GP

Technology 18 9 50% Private sector has certain elements of PPP GP

5.4 Discusion

The evaluation process meant to determine the readiness of the private sector to get involved in SDI development in Uganda through use of PPP approach. This research does not represent a comprehensive survey based on the whole country. The evaluation process didn’t tackle all the possible parameters for PPP approach however; the most crucial ones were selected. This leads classification of the nature of PPP for Ugandans situation from (table 2-1 and 2-2) being a dilemma. However, management contract nature of partnership could be a trial for Ugandans’ situation since it has been adopted in the water service delivery sector and has shown progressive results for public service sector (Water) in Uganda. Despite the weaknesses in the evaluation process, the reliability of the evaluation procedures can be supported by (J.D.Hunger and T.L.Wheelen, 1997) whose analysis ideas have used(table 5-3,5-4). More so also the comparative findings in EDCs, ELDCs and the water service delivery sector of Uganda. However, it is worth noting that the private sector has high potential to contribute in SDI development in various arenas like management of geospatial data (data maintenance), database designer and application, capacity building, GIS software resellers but not a partner in sense of fulfilling the PPP principles guidelines. This is because from table 5-4 in policy and legislation the parameter weighted score were to low compared to institutional arrangement and technology.

5.5 Proposed strategies for SDI development in Uganda

The research presented the involvement of the private sector in development of SDI. PPP approach could be used in future and the requirements to be considered to make the environment favourable for the private sector to operate in Uganda are mentioned below. A number of strategic guidelines have been generated for future purposes. Institutional arrangements

• The government has to take the lead to create favourable environment for the collaboration of the public and private geospatial sectors hence political support is vital. Involvement of the private sector in SDI development will materialize if government intervention is considered so as to create opportunities for the private sector to play a role in the geospatial world.


52

• The private sector should carry out demonstration pilot projects to prove their ability in SDI development. This will instigate the government to provide government resources (finances) and commitment to support the involvement of the private sector in SDI development.

• Formalise private sector organisation through formation of an association to enable a strong stand and create room for dialogue with the government. However, there is need of some procedures and registrations to be carried out like licensing of the formed association.

• The promotion of SDI concept has to be carried out in the country. This can be done in various ways such us; the schools (universities) can educate students about spatial information, also government official require to be enlightened on SDI concept, talk shows on SDI can be carried out to create public awareness, workshops and conferences on SDI can be organised. This will create an environment where the citizens are aware of the benefits of SDI. More so professional will be created hence skilled personnel in the geospatial sector.

Policy and legalisation

• Establishing of policies that favour PPP practices are necessary for the collaboration of the public and private sector in SDI development. The formulated policies should enable data exchange and influence collaborative work of the sectors. For instance the Uganda copyright policy should be amended. Further encourage adoption of FOIA which will create transparency which is a potential requirement to strengthen collaboration of the public and private sector.

• More so FOIA creates transparency which can be depicted from the existence of pricing policy, price lists for geospatial products and services as in the analysed cases reviewed. Introducing a system of financial transparent practices for the geospatial sector in Uganda (MWLE &Lands and Survey Department) will increase purchase of geospatial data by the user community.

• The government should create appropriate SDI structures were the private sector is given a chance to voice professional SDI proposals. The contribution of the private sector in policy making could lead to establishing policies which are convenient for the private sector involvement in SDI development.

• Development of certification procedure for the private sector to be involved in partnership with the public sector is necessary, to check the ability and quality of job carried out by the private sector in the production of geospatial services and products that are in line with the customer expectations hence quality control procedures have to be set. This will enable the public sector to identify the private sector to carry out collaborative works in SDI development.

Technology

• Standardization being a crucial essential for data exchange and this has not been tackled in the case of the geospatial sector in Uganda. Initiation of a legal framework to enforce the implementation of national standards can be undertaken as in case of South Africa (StanSA).Uganda could adapt local standards to enhance data sharing between the public and private sector, then as interest of GIS increases in the country international standards can be adapted.


53

• World Wide Web technology is necessary for data sharing and has had positive impact for the EDCs in the development of SDI. Uganda should promote internet usage in public and private GI organisations; this could be done by lowering the charges on internet connection and monthly fee.

5.6 Conclusion

Public private partnership for SDI development in Uganda could be adapted in future due to low PPP principle guidelines in policy and legislation and the average guidelines in technology. The absence of certain PPP elements can be justified take for instance project definitions in Uganda the government doesn’t fully provide opportunity to the private sector to demonstrate its initiative, innovation and expertise in providing best value. More so when it comes to communication there is no transparent communication plan especially when we focus on the private sector which requires establishing a private sector association which will at least enhance communication among private GI organisations. As for procurement process, Uganda has not adopted the FOIA that would create transparency. However, the private sector has high potential in being involved in SDI development in certain aspects as mentioned earlier. For future purposes strategies of PPP have been outlined and it has been identified that strengthening the collaboration of the public and private sector would require identifying requirements like government support, FOIA which is linked to transparency, having spatial data policies in place (copyright, liability).It is worth noting that presently in Uganda the involvement of the private sector in SDI development would be regarded as private sector participation since they are involved as user community.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

55

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

The main objective of this research was to develop strategies towards the use of PPP, focusing on the involvement of the private sector with the motive of SDI development in Uganda. To do this, the research had to answer five main questions concerning:

The role of the private sector in institutional arrangements, policy and legislation and technology issues to be considered for PPP approach from SDI in EDCs and ELDCs, the main findings are:

• For PPP approach to transpire in EDCs and ELDCs it was observed that the private sector had contributively role in institutional arrangements, policy and legislation and technology considerations for SDI development. In institutional arrangements, private sector roles include: capacity building in offering education and training leading to provision of professional developments in the geospatial world, financial contribution though this was modest due to the belief that SDI should be funded by the government ,maintenance of spatial datasets. In policy and legislation, private sector roles include: influencing in policy making. Technology included: collaborative work to ensure that current and accurate geospatial data is readily available. The private sector roles identified are applicable for Uganda based on the case studies.

• There is a notable success in collaborative work of the private and public sector in development of SDI projects justifiable from EDCs and proposed documentations of ELDCs cases reviewed. Successful experience in The Netherlands is the GBKN as a result of using win –win situation, proper apportioning of financial support among the partners and having a well planned organisation model. Having such a model in place creates simplification in management of SDI development.

The geospatial sector opinion on its role and contribution for SDI development in Uganda:

• The private sector has a role in provision of professional skills, geospatial data collection carrying out updates and maintenance of data, and distribution of GIS software that contribute to SDI development.

The PPP requirements and the kind of PPP arrangements that could be suitable for the geospatial sector in Uganda

• For PPP approach to transpire in SDI development in Uganda the government should take SDI as a priority project hence political support is essential. This will involve enlightening the government officials in the ministries, parliamentarians about the key role played by the private sector in the development of SDI. Further the government should establish policies that are conducive for the both sectors to share data. For technology requirements Open standards could be adapted since


56

they are free, no licensing fee is required for use, these standards are simply standards where their creation, management and dissemination is done in a more open, inclusive and transparent way.

• The private and the public sector require having collective goals, trust and negotiation where parallel issues come up SDI development. There should be a common drive among the sectors that will push their contribution to SDI projects to their maximum capability. Further commitment of provision of various resources (financial and human) by both sectors is necessary this creates security in operation in SDI development.

• Establishing policies like copyright, intellectual property right, privacy, liability, pricing and FOIA that are conducive for public and private sectors, which create a favourable environment for data exchange and sharing are necessary for collaborative work.

Opportunities, challenges and threats for use of PPP for SDI development in Uganda the main finding are;

• Opportunities included the GI private sector is growing in Uganda, several GI professionals are establishing GI private companies and the increase in the use of GIS software. More so several organisations are in possession of geospatial data.

• Threats involved most of the GIS activities undertaken by the private and public sector are donor funded which is a merit to SDI development however, there is lack of coordination of these projects which leads to duplication. Public sector not supportive to the private GI distributors of GIS software in promotion of GIS software sale since purchases are carried out from neighbouring country (Kenya) yet we have ESRI distributor in Uganda. Lack of awareness of existence of particular datasets.

6.2 Recommedations

The recommendations are categorised into two, future research issues that could be further investigated to promote the usefulness of this research and other recommendations for Uganda.

6.2.1 For Future Research

• A more detailed analysis of the criteria to determine whether PPP arrangements were the private sector can be a risk taker should be further investigated. This will require to analyse the different types of PPP arrangements were both public and private are risk takers.

• It is necessary to investigate the relation of the private sector with other SDI components (people, data) and also focus on cultural aspect on its influence on PPP on the development of SDI.

• There is need to use the benchmarking methodology in detail following all the steps in relations to PPP for SDI development.


57

6.2.2 Other Recommendation

Strategic and operational recommendations • With the current situation of SDI developments, PPP approach isn’t viable for Uganda. However,

PPP can only take place if it entails involvement of private foreign investors, this could boost the geospatial sector.

• Formalization of the private sector to form an association is required to have an upper hand when it comes to dialogue with the government, also important in SDI project, tender bid/contracting out work to the private sector.

• Demonstrational projects with a vision, mission and specific targets to meet should be established for the private sector to expose their ability; this should be in alignment with public sector to enable involvement of SDI development.

• SDI development could start on public service sector basis. Water sector could be ideal sector to begin with since PPP framework already exists. It could be easier to demonstrate value and easier to promote other sectors and finally for National SDI.

• SDI development would require encouraging the incorporation of the spatial dimension in most government organisations, employing of qualified human resource, make use of quality equipments (computers), developing of data standards these could be local standards or open standards.

References

59

References

Adadie, R. and Howcroft, A., 2004. Developing Public Private Partnerships in New Europe. http://www.pwcglobal.com/Extweb/service.nsf/docid/6FDD654BE69A4B3385256BDC00527C30/$file/pwc_PPP_report_final.pdf

ANSI Government Affairs, 2005. A strong Private-Public Partnership. http://www.ansi.org/government_affairs/partnership.aspx?menuid=6 (Accessed 29th/october/2005)

ANZLIC, 1999. Towards the Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure, pp. 4. http://www.anzlic.org.au/pubinfo/2358011750

ANZLIC, 2003. ASDI Distribution Network; The Internet Framework Technical Architecture, pp. 23. http://www.anzlic.org.au/ASDI_quick.html

ANZLIC, 2004. Engagement with the spatial information industry. Banisar, D., 2004. The Freedominfo.org.Global survey Freedom of Information and Acess to Government to Government Record Laws Around the World.

http://www.freedominfo.org/survey/global_survey2004.pdf Baraka, M.A., 2005. Geoinformatics e-Learning in Egypt. FIG Working week and GSDI-8: 10.

http://www.fig.net/pub/cairo/tech_programme.htm Brunswick Canada, 2001. Public-private Partnership(Guidelines and Protocols).

http://www.gnb.ca/0158/reports/index.htm Busby, J.R. and Kelly, P., 2004a. Australian Spatial Data Infrastructures. GSDI conference: 10. Busby, J.R. and Kelly, P., 2004b. Australian Spatial Data Infrastructures, GSDI, India, pp. 10. Camp, R.C., 1935. Benchmarking:The search for industry best practices that lead to senior

performance. Canada's Business and Consumer Site, 2004. Choosing the Best P3 Model.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inpupr-bdpr.nsf/en/h_qz01581e.html#which Cooper, A., 2004a. Status of the Standardization of Geographical Information in Africa.

http://www.gsdi.org/SDIA/docs2004/nov04links/AARSE_2004_Standards_Workshop_Status_of_Africa_final.pdf

Cooper, D.J.C.a.J., 2004b. Examining the Role of Partnerships in Building a Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure. UN,FIG,PC IDEA: 12.

http://www.fig.net/pub/mexico/papers_eng/ts3_coleman_eng.pdf Corkery, J., 2000. Public service reforms and their impact on health sector personnel in Uganda.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/health/pubserv6.pdf Corporation(NWSC), N.W.S., 2004. Management Services Contract For Kampala Water Supply&Sewerage Service Area(KWSSA). Craglia, M. and Johnston, A., 2004. Assessing the Impacts of Spatial Data Infrastructures: Methods and Gaps. “7th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science”. Creuzer, P., 2002. Land Administration in Public Private Partnerships.

http://www.eurocadastre.org/pdf/creuzer2.pdf Crompvoets, J. and Bregt, A., 2003. World Status of National Spatial Data Clearinghouses. URISA,

15. Department of Industry, T.a.R. and Australian Government, 2004. Review of the Implementation of

the Spatial Information Industry Action Agenda and the Spatial Data Access and Pricing Policy. http://www.industry.gov.au/assets/documents/itrinternet/Review%20of%20Spatial%20Information%20Industry%20Action%20Agenda20050317115546.pdf

Di, L., 2004. Distributed Geospatial Information Services-Architectures,Standards, and Research Issues. http://www.isprs.org/istanbul2004/comm2/papers/121.pdf

References

60

Economic and Social Council, U.N., 2000. Workshop on public/private sector relationships in the establishment of Land Registration.

Eekelen, H.V., 2001. A map that took 25 years to complete Large Sale Base-map As Authentic Registration? www.gbkn.nl

Europe, E.C.f., 2002. Workshop on Customers-Cooperation Services. http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2002/hbp/hbp.2002.10.e.pdf

Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC, 1997. A Strategy for the NSDI,. http://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi/strategy/strategy.html Accessed August 24th/2005

FGDC, 1994. The 1994 Plan for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure:Building the Foundations of an Information Based Society. USGS.

Fornefeld, M., Oefinger, P. and Rausch, U., 2003. The Market for Geospatial Information: Potentials for Employment, nnovation and Value Added. MICUS Management Consulting GmbH.

[email protected] Geography Advisory Group GAG, 2004. A Geographic Information Strategy for England. GAG. Gidman, P., Blore, I., Lorentzen, J. and Schuttenbelt, P., 1995. Public-Private Partnerships in Urban

Infrastucture Services. Giff, G. and Coleman, D.D., 2002. Spatial Data Infrastructure Funding Models: A necessity for the

success of SDIs in Emerging Countries. FIG XXII International Congress: 16. http://www.fig.net/pub/fig_2002/Ts3-4/TS3_4_giff_coleman.pdf Gray, B., 1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration', Human Relations,. Groot, R. and McLaughlin, J., 2000. Geospatial Data Infrastructure : Concepts, Cases and Good

practice. Haggag, A., Shaker, I., El-Maghraby, M. and Zobarei, A., 2005. Towards an Automated Information

System for Cadastral Survey in Egypt. FIG Working week and GSDI-8. Ir.L.M.Murre, 2005. GBKN-the Large Scale Basemap of the Netherlands, Amersfoort. J.D.Hunger and T.L.Wheelen, 1997. External strategic factors analysis summary. J.Onsrud, H. and R.Lopez, X., 1998. Intellectual property rights in disseminating digital geographic

data,products,and services:Conflicts and commonalities among European Union and United States approaches.

Karatunga, M.A., 2002. The Uganda Spatial Data Infrastucture Framework. http://geoinfo.uneca.org/sdiafrica/country%20information/uganda.htm

Kevin Mcdougall, Abbas Rajabifard and WILLIAMSON, I., 2005. Understanding the Motivations and Capacity for SDI Development from the Local Level.

Kok, B. and Loenen, B.v., 2004. How to assess the success of National Spatial Data Infrastructures? ELSEVIER.

Kok, B.C. and Loenen, B.V., 2001. Policy Issues Affecting Spatial Data Infrastructure Developments in the Netherlands.

Lemmen, C., Radwan, M., Kader, F.A. and Abdelmoneam, A., 2005. A Vision on the Development of the Urban Cadastre in Egypt. FIG Working week and GSDI-8: 15.

Loenon, B.V. and B.G.Kok, 2002a. Spatial data infrastructure and policy development in Europe and the United States.

M.Hussein, S., 2005. The Role of ESA in Building Spatial Data Infrastructure(ESDI) Towards the Electronic Government(E-gov). FIG Working week and GSDI-8: 15.

Masser, I., 2005. The Future of Spatial Dat Infrastructures. http://www.commission4.isprs.org/workshop_hangzhou/papers/7-16%20Ian%20Masser-A001.pdf

Molen, P.v.d., 2002. Partnerships for better services:public-private and public-public partnerships to achieve better service to customers in the Netherlands.

Muggenhuber, G., 2002. Components of Spatial Information – What is needed? FIG XXII International Congress: 9.

Nasr, M.H., Eisayegh, A., Fekry, S., Kassem, A. and Radwan, M.M., 2005. New Strategic Directions in the Egyptian Survey Authority and Impact on the Requirements for Capacity Building: An

References

61

Example of International Cooperation for Human Resource Development. FIG Working week 2005 and GSDI-8: 17.

Nichols, S., Coleman, D.J. and Saylam, K., 1999. Towards a Conceptual Framework Architecture to Support the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure(CGDI).

NIMES Task Force, 2004. The National Intergrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NORAD, 2002. Study on private sector

development in Uganda. http://www.norad.no/norsk/files/UGA%20sluttrapport.doc OMB, 1990. Coordinating of surveying,mapping and related spatial data activities,Cirucular A-16

revised (Washington DC.Office of Management and Budget,Excutive Office of the President).

Radwan, M., Nasr, M.H., Lemmen, C. and Hussein, S., 2005. The Egyptian Survey Authority Business Model to Strengthen Public Private partnership in the real estate industry. FIG Working week 2005 and GSDI-8: 15.

Rajabifard, A. and P.Williamson, I., 2000. Spatial Data Infrasturctures:An initiative to facilite spatial data sharing.

Rawdan, M.M., Bishr, Y., Emara, B., Saleh, A. and Sabrah, R., 2005. Online Cadatre Portal Services in the Framework of e-Government to Support Real State Industry in Egypt. FIG Working week 2005 and GSDI-8: 16.

Shalita, S. and Wong, M., 2005. Uganda Signs US$70 million Agreement for Private Sector Development. www.worldbank.org/afr/ug

Stiles, J. and Williams, P., 2003. The Impact of Intent on Public/Private Sector Partnership. Suruma, E., 2005. Promoting economic growth and household incomes though increased

savings,investment,employement,and productivity. http://www.ugrevenue.com/pdfs/Budget.doc

The National Council for Public Private Partnerships, 1999. Public-Private Partnership. http://ncppp.org/howpart/ppptypes.html

UBOS, 2002. Provosional Population Census Results.Entebbe,Kamapala. Warnest, M., Rajabifard, A. and Williamson, I., 2001. Understanding inter-organisational

collaboration and partnerships in the development of National SDI. URISA. Warnest, M., Rajabifard, A. and Williamson, I., 2005. A Collaborative Approach to Building National

SDI in Federated State Systems: Case Study of Australia, From Phoraohs to Geoinformatics FIG Working Week2005 and GSDI-8, Cairo,Egypt, pp. 11. Williamson, I. and Feeney, M.-E., 2001. Land Aministration and Spatial Data Infrasturcture – Trends and Developments. 23. Williamson, I., Rajabifard, A. and F.Feeney, M.-E., 2004. Developing spatial data infrastructures From concept to reality, 316 pp. Youssef, A., 2005. The Strategies of Land Information Management System. FIG Working week and

GSDI-8: 16. http://www.nsif.org.za/ accessed 2005-12-28 http://www.qs4it.com/aboutqsit.aspx accessed on 2005-12-19 http://www.tdn.nl/english/ accessed 2006-01-02 http://www.unece.org/env/hs/wpla/terms_wpla.html accesses on 2006-01-18 http://www.geoconnections.org accesses on 2006-01-31 http://www.ugrevenue.com/pdfs/Budget.doc access 2006-02-10 http://cccm.nrcan.gc.ca/english/products_e.asp access 2006-02-14 http://www.freedominfo.org/survey/global_survey2004.pdf access 2006-01-15

References

62

Appendices

63

Appendices

Appendix 1: Framework of Cooperation between Karamoja Data Centre (KDC),

Office of the Prime Minister, Karamoja Affairs

And

The Directorate of Water Development (DWD)

Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment

Preamble information:

The Office of the Prime Minister in collaboration with the Italian Cooperation is implementing a MASTER PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF KARAMOJA.

One of the key elements of the project is the Karamoja Information System, (KIS) designed to collect, process and disseminate all information relevant to the development planning in Karamoja.

The Karamoja Data Centre (KDC), is a unit in charge of developing the KIS and a focal point for data and information regarding all developmental activities in the Karamoja region. KDC has set up the information system in collaboration with key Government departments, independent organizations, Local Governments, International and local agencies with specific focus in the Karamoja region.

The cooperation framework has been drawn to regulate the interface between KDC and the other stakeholders in the development of Karamoja. It is not a legally binding framework, but a free and open mechanism for cooperation according to defined operational modalities.

Addresses:

1. Karamoja Data Centre,

Office of the Prime Minister, Karamoja Affairs

P.O. Box 341, Kampala

Tel: 341084/90,

Email: [email protected]

2. The Directorate of Water Development

Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment

P.O. Box 20026 Kampala

Tel: 220374

Description of the framework:

Appendices

64

The co-operation shall include the following elements: (i). Data sharing and exchange of information collected, processed and updated by the

two institutions. (ii). Developing a mechanism to ensure effective and efficient approaches to data

collection, access, maintenance, exchange and integration. (iii). Harmonisation of activities in order to avoid duplication, fragmentation and

inconsistencies in the information generated by the two organisations. Such activities include among others; data collection, processing and capacity building both at national and district level.

(iv). Development of appropriate standards for data sharing with a special emphasis on the digital datasets

(v). Provision of supplementary and interactive support in collecting data of mutual interest.

(vi). Sharing of resources such as skills, hardware and software as well as financial where appropriate.

(vii). Participation to workshops, seminars and training programmes organised by either institution.

(viii). Establishing and promoting contacts with relevant stakeholders and partners in the sharing and exchange of information.

Performance Information: • Bi-annual meeting to evaluate the effectiveness of the Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU), and review the progress and implementation of the specific initiatives The undersigned, duly authorised by their respective organisation/institution, have signed this framework of cooperation Signed by ………. Date………… ………………………………………. …………………………………………… Representative of the Karamoja Data Centre Representative of the cooperating institution

Appendices

65

Appendix 2: Fieldwork Supplements: Workshop Background

WORKSHOP ON THE USE OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN UGANDA Place: Faculty of Forestry & Nature Conservation, Makerere University. Date: 30th September 2005 Time 8.30 - 1.00pm Background

Many countries worldwide are engaging in Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) development, which involves the development of geospatial services that support public service delivery. The initiatives to the development of SDI have been carried out in various ways depending on the different countries capacity.

However, it is important to note that the use of collaborative work between the public and private geographical information (GI) organization in geospatial service delivery to customers is limited in Uganda. The partnership of the public and private GI organization is expected to support the development of geospatial sector. This will enable delivering of geospatial services, which includes web mapping, data conversion, map production, data analysis, system development, GIS training.

To sustain the existence of these GI organizations, a strategy has to be formulated for SDI development, which will focus on the public and private GI organization in use of partnership in geospatial service delivery. The potential beneficiaries of this strategy range from the government organizations, environment management institutions, land registries, and Uganda economy as whole.

Purpose

This half-day workshop will be held in Kampala at the Faculty of Forestry & Nature Conservation, Makerere University. The workshop’s main aim is to bring together representatives of all the stakeholders from government, private sector, and non government organizations to explore main issues relating to use of public private partnership for SDI development in Uganda

The purpose of this workshop is to:

� Explore the role of the public, private GI organizations and NGOs in the initiative of SDI development in Uganda

Appendices

66

� Investigate the current status of collaboration in the use of geospatial information between the public and private sector in Uganda

� Understand the opportunities and challenges for public-private partnership in the development of SDI

� (Outline the requirements for establishing partnerships in geospatial sector)

� Identify the kind of agreements/policies that would be suitable for promoting partnerships in the geospatial sector

The proceedings of this workshop will be used as input in Msc. thesis and made available to a wider audience as reference material for promotion of the development of GI/SDI in Uganda.

The target group for the workshop will consist of:

Mainly the public and private organizations involved in the GI use and production, this may also involve local government, academia and non-government organizations, and Community based organizations.

Programme

The programme is designed to exchange experiences and generate new ideas to formulate proposals for SDI development focusing on the use of public-private partnership for future consideration in Uganda.

Registration: At the workshop. For Further information contact Ms. Nasirumbi Susan Geo-Information communication (GIC) Ltd Plot 115 Kiira road, Kamwokya Tel: 078 750659 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Lwasa Suaib SDI Representative Tel 025677 461727 Email: [email protected]

The workshop is supported by Mr. Ir. C.H.J. Lemmen International institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation Urban-Regional Planning and Geo information Management (PGM) P.O. BOX 6, 7500AA Enschede Netherlands Tel (31) (53) 4874 475: Fax 4874 335 [email protected]

Appendices

67

Appendix 3: Fieldwork Supplements: Workshop Report

Masters Research Workshop Report The workshop started at 09.25 with consultant (Shuaib Lwasa) as the chair person of the session

He invited consultant (Caroline Tukugize) to give an over view of the workshop details and program of the day.

Introduction of participants was undertaken and several expectations and fears included are;

Expectations:

• Interface with professions in Geo information

• How the public and be interfaced with in the field of geo information

• Discussion on how to forge PPP’s

• SDI development in Uganda

• Partnerships in geo information use

• Appreciate geo information as a product

• To gather accurate data from the stakeholders to develop an Msc thesis

• Build a spatial data infrastructure for the country

Fears: Participants had no fears because the workshop was being attended by professionals in the field of SDI.

Brief remarks by Consultant (Shuiab Lwasa)

He commented that this Workshop has been timely because the professionals have all along been trying to develop a strategy for SDI development in Uganda since the year 2000 but have always been faced with several challenges along the way.

He then called upon the participants not to use the workshop as a collection point for data for the Msc Thesis alone but also try to get a network for the initiative for driving SDI in Uganda.

Overview of SDI in Uganda by ITC Researcher (Nasirumbi Susan)

She presented the proposed Strategy of SDI development with focus on the public and private geo-information providers & users.

Appendices

68

Defined Public Private Partnerships as arrangements between government & private organizations that are geared towards improved value of money/services but however characterized by sharing of investment, risk, responsibility and reward between partners.

Workshop objectives

• To understand the opportunities and constraints for PPP in SDI development in Uganda

• Develop proposals for a strategy of PPP for SDI development in Uganda

• The research problem specifically is Low level of collaborative work in geospatial service delivery among the public and private GI providers and users.

The presenter then raised questions that are supposed to be discussed in the workshop and these include:

1. What role does PPP have in SDI development in Uganda?

2. How can PPP drive SDI development in Uganda?

And finally she told the participants that her expected out put from this workshop is:

Develop proposals for a strategy of PPP for SDI development in Uganda

Framework of proposal will involve 3 aspects

• Policy

• Institutional arrangements

• Technology

Keynote address by a consultant

SDI initiative on GI development in Uganda

The presenter subdivided the topics to be handled as follows:

• Introduction

• Understanding SDI

• Approaches to SDI

• The pillars of SDI

• Initiatives in Uganda

• The status

• Way forward

• Conclusion

Appendices

69

Introduction

Spatial Information in general is a vital ingredient of development because of its provision support in decision making and management.

But experiences show that despite recognizing it as important, spatial information has not been adequately harnessed for development in Uganda. Geo-information is continuously being produced by fragmented agencies. The question; Is geo-information a service or just an end product?

Geographic information is vital to make sound decisions at the local, regional, and global levels. Business development, flood mitigation, environmental restoration, community land use assessments and disaster recovery are just a few examples of areas in which decision-makers are benefiting and can benefit from geographic information, together with the associated infrastructures (Nebert, 2001)

Spatial Data Infrastructure is needed to support information discovery, access, and use of this information in the decision-making process. This is because geo-spatial information is produced by a multiplicity of actors with limited coordination and exchange of information. However, information is an expensive resource, and for this reason appropriate information and the resources to fully utilize this information are not readily available, particularly in Uganda. Therefore we need SDI to minimize the costs of information production but also harness its utility for development in Uganda

Understanding SDI

The term “Spatial Data Infrastructure” (SDI) is often used to denote the relevant base collection of technologies, policies and institutional arrangements that facilitate the availability of and access to spatial data. SDI provides a basis for spatial data discovery, evaluation, and application for users and providers at all levels of government, the commercial sector, the non-profit sector, and academia and by citizens in general. Such a framework promotes a reliable, supporting environment, analogous to a road or telecommunications network that facilitates the access to geographically-related information using a minimum set of standard practices, protocols, and specifications.

An SDI must be more than a single data set or database; an SDI hosts geographic data and attributes, sufficient documentation (metadata), a means to discover, visualize, and evaluate the data (catalogues and Web mapping).

The presenter also highlighted the challenges of developing SDI in Uganda since different GIS users have tended to develop their own data sets, even if there are existing geospatial data sets available for them. This is because;

• They may not know available existing data sets that could be appropriately used for their applications; or access to these data sets is difficult.

Appendices

70

• Some organizations may not be mandated to produce different datasets.

• They are not used to sharing data sets with other sectors and/or organizations;

• Existing geospatial data sets stored in a certain GIS system may not be easily exported to another system. Several data is produced in auto cad, map info, Illwis, Arc Gis and therefore these producers have to present the data in an acceptable format.

• There are many actors involved in data collection and distribution characterized with; a proliferation of GI applications, product types, and formats

• Duplication as a consequence of the difficulties to access the existing data, the highly specific quality of the data collected

• Increasing difficulty in the exchange and use of data from different organizations

Therefore an SDI that supports multiple users has the following requirements;

• Policy development

• Getting institutional arrangements and partnerships working

• Metadata which is defined as data about data.

• Geospatial data development

• Standard development and implementation (including data sharing formats)

Approach to SDI Implementation A discernable pattern of broad steps that have been followed in Uganda to developing SDI in general is the following:

• A consultative phase, in which an understanding of and support for SDI is widened, and a deeper understanding is developed of one’s requirements;

• A defining or consolidating phase, in which the goals of the SDI programme, as well as structures to guide its development are formulated and refined;

• The phased implementation of SDI, resulting in components of infrastructure becoming operational and finally, fully functional.

The last two are not yet realized in Uganda.

Step 1: Promote the development of a national “community of usage”, that is, the grouping of individuals and organizations interested in applying geo-information. The community should be all inclusive and not limited to the public sector. It will have the responsibility for promoting the awareness of:

• The potential of information in decision-making,

• The long-term cost of poorly organized information to national development, and

• The need to achieve wide consensus with regard to national policy.

Step 2: Create awareness of information availability and quality, by establishing an inventory of current data holdings, and disseminating the results to the information community, preferably

Appendices

71

using the Internet. This would lead to the establishment of a clearinghouse or co-ordination unit, responsible for maintaining and developing metadata catalogues and listings of geospatial projects. The training of national staff may be required to be able to do this.

Step 3: Create awareness of database architecture issues (e.g. standards), through the construction of a data exchange and integration prototype. The prototype will identify the minimum set of standards to which databases must comply in order to be interoperable. Training in database design and management may be needed.

Step 4: Using the prototype results as a starting point, define a national information policy, addressing issues such as

• Core data sets (defining their content, scale and required accuracy standards) which are a public good,

• Data custodianship for core data,

• Data access conditions,

• Setting priorities for the use of investment to build or upgrade core databases,

• Mechanisms for establishing and adopting data standards (e.g. standardizing place names) and

• Training priorities, with an emphasis on database design and management.

Step 5: Build the data infrastructure, requiring substantial investments in building the capacity of data custodian institutions to maintain databases.

Step 6: Develop applications in support of specific decision-making processes.

(Steps derived from Prevost and Peter Gilruth, 1997)

At the national level, common spatial data are often defined through community and/or national agreements on content, known as "framework" or "fundamental" data in various national SDIs.

The framework’s key aspects are:

• specific layers of digital geographic data with content specifications

• procedures, technology, and guidelines that provide for integration, sharing, and use of these data; and

• institutional relationships and business practices that encourage the maintenance and use of data

Who can be involved in SDI development?

The presenter highlighted the basic actors in the process who involve:

• users and producers of detailed data, such as utilities (NWSC)

• users of small-scale, limited geographic data, such as street networks, statistical areas, and administrative units; (Local authorities)

• data producers who create detailed data as a product or a service; (private, research, academic institutions)

Appendices

72

• data producers who create low-resolution, small-scale, limited themes for large areas; (global mapping projects)

• product providers who offer software, hardware, and related systems; and (private organizations)

• Service providers who offer system development, database development, operations support, and consulting services. (private organizations)

The pillars of SDI

• Framework for data production sharing and exchange

• Legal instruments and policy

• Users

• Hardware Infrastructure

• Clearing Houses (web mapping, Open GIS)

The Role of Private-Public Partnerships in SDI Development

• The role of private sector can not be disputed as indicated in the list of actors. In some countries for example; Uruguay and in the United Kingdom, Clearing houses have largely been driven by the private sector

• In most cases the need for wide participation in the development of lasting, useful SDI is acknowledged, and so private-public partnerships are not only encouraged but a requisite.

• The beneficiaries of SDI should be seen to derive from the public and private sectors, academia and non-governmental organizations, as well as individuals.

Initiatives in Uganda

• SDI activities

• Fragmented agencies Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), MWLE

• Workshops to bring geo-spatial community together

• Studies by : The EU study in 2001

Environmental Information Network by NEMA

U – Consult, Sweden 2004

Swede Survey 2003-04 (Land Information System)

National Integrated Monitoring and Environmental System (NIMS)

• UBOS

• USDI Operationalization initiative

Appendices

73

NIMES has several components but however the specific component that addresses SDI is component 8 which is highlighted below.

• Component 8. National Spatial Data Infrastructure

• Facilitate the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure that utilizes geographic information in effective planning and policy-making across government. This will include standardisation of codes and concepts, data sharing/enabling agreements etc. Specific activities will include the investigation on a pilot basis of the possibility for:-

• efficient integration of various data sets, using a Geographical Information System,

• spatial analysis of various output and outcome indicators related to poverty reduction and public service delivery,

• targeting of public expenditures and poverty eradication programs at the national, district and community levels

• Operationalise NSDI to support planning and policy analysis, formulation and review.

The status

• GIS Capacity Development Framework

• UBOS

• Focus on aspects of geo-statistical services, mapping, web mapping

• Training and awareness on GIS across stakeholders

Way forward

• Need to consider Geo-spatial information as a service value addition will be appreciated

• PPP in which initial costs can be met by the private entity and recovered over time e.g. Geo-maps Kenya in Kigali

• Framework, Memorandum of Understanding needs to be very carefully prepared to ensure quality, access by all users without jeopardizing the data creator/producer. There should be a cost although that should be affordable.

• A committed lead agency is still not yet conspicuous for SDI development in Uganda

Conclusion

• SDI development in Uganda is underway but yet to harness the involvement of the private sector

• PPP initiatives are required for value addition and development of geo-spatial information as a service

• Institutional arrangements, policy development and metadata, geo-data development and standards are requisite to full scale development of SDI in Uganda

Discussion

• Incorporate other GI providers

• Initiate a vigorous Awareness campaign.

Appendices

74

• Uganda still lacking information which is the drive to GI development in Uganda.

• Several organizations interested and a talk show on media is important hence this will involve all stakeholders.

• The legal entities exist and these include UBOS and NIMES.

• Usability of the data is very important and has to be clarified to all the stakeholders.

• Little distinction between GI and SDI

• MWLE wants to take full custodianship of data and hence the process is not so fast.

• SDI is a broad network which would in essence be responsible for the production of GI

Session break - Break Tea

Opportunities for SDI development in the public sector by Muhwezi Bernard Justus, Principal Geo-Information Officer - Uganda Bureau of Statistics

• SDI Strategy

• Institutional Development

• Infrastructural Development

• Human Resources Development

• Data Development

• Geo-Spatial Awareness and advocacy

• Data management

• Conclusion

The vision of the individual organizations should evolve to serve their mandate within a geographic framework’s planning and implementation.

The organizations’ missions should contribute to better GS data for sustainable development by participating in collecting or converting information to common framework specifications

Within the organizations’ policies,

GIS should be defined as a key strategic tool to improve its services in order to meet its aims and corporative objectives; Hardware, software, geo-spatial data, users and procedures

Public organizations have mandates with a lot of flexibilities to employ and embrace Geo Information Technology. A lot of inter and intra relational opportunities are needed to enhance the collaboration in geospatial data collection and utilization and sharing. The Best practices in SDI are available for formal standardization and procedures.

Within an org. production line, integration with GIT is expensive at initial investment but pays a lot of benefits in medium and long term – this is not a threat since public organization’s life time is unlimited.

Human Resource Development

Appendices

75

Training of GIS users and technicians through joint pooled training both in-house and locally organized can generate critical community development of practitioners if well utilised.

GIS professionals could redefine their roles towards being pivot information managers

The expected impact of geospatial data production includes:

• user-friendly presentation of basic policy data and information in form of maps in publications/website;

• clear basic policy evidences in form of pictures and diagrams;

• increased use of modern GIT in information analysis for informing policy and decision making

The presenter highlighted the importance of the spirit of patriotism and sacrifice in the development of spatial data infrastructure.

Data Management and Development

• There is need for equipping staff with the necessary computer skills and experience in spatial data capturing for large projects exist, without use of agreed SDI specifications and formats.

• In-house large data bases and data sets, that are only lacking spatial components for utilization within a GIS environment

Geo-Spatial Awareness and Advocacy

• There is increased need for geospatial data and information in all projects undertaking, an opportunity to enshrine SDI issues at project design, planning and implementation.

• Adoption of UNSDI decree by government could be the platform for success.

• Highly productive informal relations with stakeholders in the area of geospatial data: UN bodies, ministries and private organizations, research community, could be enhanced by agreeing on SDI data specs and data sharing

• Formalizing the relations through agreements, MoU, Geo-Spatial Data User-Producer Committee, Geography networks, User Groups, Professional bodies

Challenges

• Very high demand for GS data and meta data;

• Resources needed for technical and human capacity upgrading

• Lack of funding mechanisms to support SDI initiatives

• Operational SDI desk acceptable by all and recognized by govt

GI professionals have not been organized enough to bring their profession to a level of recognition to influence public debate and consumption of GSD. The sharing and provisioning of GS has been ad hoc, negating development and misuse and under use of GI.

The Way Forward

UBOS has offered itself to:

• Serve as a centre of excellence and a hub for GIS-based statistics within the entire NSS;

Appendices

76

• Other organizations within their mandates can follow suite and fill in the gaps

UBOS success as practitioners in GS production is linked to sharing resources, information and knowledge through cooperation with and collaborative efforts and agreements therefore embracing a NSDI provides GSD for a promising framework for guiding and integrating human activities for decision making and policy formulation. Partnerships extend our capabilities in technology, skills, logistics, and data.

Discussion

• Information is a public good

• There are now a number of professionals

• Opportunities do exist in terms of human resource, collaboration and infrastructure.

• Awareness should be addressed and hence case studies have to be developed by the institutions involved in the GI sector

• A free Geo spatial software do exists on the internet hence the users should utilise it.

Public-Private Partnership for SDI Development in Uganda

Presented by Amadra Ori-Okido, Geo-Information Communication Ltd

The presenter highlighted the back ground and details of GIC as a private company in the GI sector as highlighted below.

Corporate Information

• Geo-Information Communication Ltd

• Private Company incorporated in May 2002

• Owned by Ugandans

• 6 Employees

• Sales & Support capacity being developed

• Plot 115, Kiira Road, Kamwokya

• Email: [email protected]

Business partners of GIC

Oakar Services Ltd.

• Established in 1998, based in Nairobi

• Exclusive ESRI Distributor for Eastern Africa

• Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia

• Eritrea, Burundi, Rwanda, Djibouti

• Value Added Reseller for Uganda

• Under the BPP GIC is authorized to: Demonstrate, Promote, Market, Sell, Support

• ESRI Software and related materials

Appendices

77

• Joint Activities; User Workshop of 2002,User Workshop of 2004,Training,Consultancy Services, Software Support, Software Sales

• ESRI

– Environmental Systems Research Institute

– founded in 1969 as a private consulting firm

– Headquarters in Redlands, California, USA

– The world's leader in GIS technology

– In 1981,it launched the first commercial GIS software called ArcInfo

• ESRI employs over 2,500 full-time staff

• Over 1,400 staff are based in Redlands, California

• 10 regional offices in the US

• > 75 international distributors and users

• > 229 countries

• its business program is comprised of over 1,200 developers, consultants, resellers, and data providers

• oakar has a network of over 75 international distributors with users in more than 229 countries

SDI

This is an Infrastructure which addresses several issues including; technology, policies, standards and human resources necessary to acquire process store, distribute and improve the utilization of geo-spatial data.

The Core components of an SDI include: Portal, Metadata, Framework, GEO data Standards.

ESRI Support for SDI

ESRI provides support to SDI in several fields which inter alias include:

• Interoperability and Standards; Ability to bring information from many sources and organizations together and perform crosscutting analysis

• ArcGIS: Engineered for Interoperability

• ESRI fully encompasses Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC) specifications and standards as well as comprehensive IT standards such as those related to ISO, W3C, ANSI, CEN and many other leading de-facto industry standards. This includes adherence to and leadership work in areas such as XML, SOAP, SQL

• Data Interoperability ; requires technology to support conversion form or direct access to multiple geographic data sets in multiple formats

• Supported Data Formats; Supports over forty data formats via data converters or via direct read hence several formats are supported and this limits data conversion procedures. Supports other technology standards that allow for direct data access including simple features as SQL, OLE COM, XML, and GML

Appendices

78

• Metadata ;ArcGIS Desktop allow you to create, manage, and edit metadata stored in XML representation of FGDC Content for Digital Geospatial Metadata or of ISO 19115 Metadata Standard. ArcIMS Metadata Services enable users to create a central, online metadata repository that facilitates publishing and browsing metadata over the Internet

• ArcGIS Data Models; The ArcGIS geodatabase architecture allows the creation of common or essential data models for specific industries and applications

• Open Published Data Format; The Shape file spatial data format is open stores non-topological geometry and attribute information for the spatial features in a data set support point, line, and area features

• Data ;ESRI also offers a variety of data resources to support applications, including online data sets and online data subscriptions via the Geography Network, and data from a variety of vendors

• Open Platform and Technology Support;Operating Systems including Windows, UNIX, and Linux DBMSs, such as IBM DB2 Universal Database and Informix Dynamic Server, Oracle, and Microsoft SQL Server Network Protocols such as TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTTPS ,Developer Environments including VB, C#, C++, Visual Studio .NET, and Java, Handheld Devices, including Windows CE and Pocket PC ,Enterprise Applications such as SAS, IBM DB2, Oracle, SAP, IBI, and FileNET,Web Services such as XML, SOAP, UDDI, and WSDL; OGC specifications

The presenter then raised an important question for the participants;

Question: Is Uganda Ready for SDI?

Answer: YES and no

Political Support Yes

Data sets – yes

Standards – no (few data providers)

Partnerships – no

Clearinghouse - no

Conclusion

Funds – Great potential – GSDI, ESRI, EIS, SDI Africa

Political support above everything!

Data - a problem but still in manageable levels.

Standards – No formal standards but minimal data loss expected.

Metadata – no metadata and hence no standard conversions. Fresh Metadata development should comply with USDI standards

Appendices

79

Clearinghouse - Non existent. Internet usage is still a barrier but will be overcome in the next few years.

Question presented to the plenary and suggested solutions for them.

Question 1

How do private GI institutions interact with public sector in the development of GI acquisition, processing, production and use of geospatial data?

SOLUTION:

Joint programs - large scale mapping, education, research

• Value addition to core products

• Service providers - consulting, training (human capacity development), systems development, portal etc

• Providers of goods (Hardware, Networking etc)

• Enabling Policy Environment

• Development of GI Standards

Question 2

Is the private Sector contributing to SDI development?

SOLUTION

• Yes. It should or it will.

• Example of ESRI.

• Problem: The GI sector is at infant stage, very few actors

• No awareness about SDI

• Technology (Service providers) Internet etc are not aware about SDI

Question 3

What do we see as the Public-Private partnership in the Operationalization of the SDI concept in service delivery in Uganda?

SOLUTION

• Create institutions to take care of the geospatial sector

• Formulate policies to guide the Private-Public partnerships

• Availability of funds for the development of the geospatial sector

• Involvement of other development partners such as PSFU

Question 4

Suggest actions that can be carried out for the geospatial sector to stimulate partnerships between the public and private institutions

• Lower taxes (provide tax holidays)

• Protect Intellectual property (copyright laws)

Appendices

80

• Make conditions for accessing credit facilities more flexible–Information policy should cover the geospatial sector

• Encourage public-public and private-private partnerships

Mr. Gilbert Echelai – Case study on Public – Private Partnerships in Uganda - Ondeo Services Uganda Limited (OSUL) and National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC)

The presenter highlighted a case study in brief as follows:

Ondeo is a French private firm that was involved for a pilot in PPP’s

Its pilot is running Kampala area to estimate the cost and benefit of the venture.

Ondeo was to take care of the operational costs and NWSC to maintain the developments.

Ondeo was to bring in the technical expertise and it was operating on a management fee

This PPP created a transformation in NWSC

The partnership was successful because of the effect it had on NWSC:

• NWSC has managerial changes

• NWSC hasn’t been privatized since it generates own revenue for its operations.

• Ondeo surpassed the targets that had been set for them

• NWSC has not taken over the operations using the experience

• NWSC has adopted the strategy used by Ondeo under an Area management contract by utilizing its own staff.

Now the challenge that exists is how do we relate the same experience in the usage of GI in Uganda?

Establishing SDI for Uganda therefore has to create a situation for mutual benefit for both the data users and producers from the private and public sector.

UBS has to develop local standards for the development of SDI.

Data custodian has to be selected from the data organisations for easy and efficient utilization of this data.

Water Sector

NWSC as a public service delivery was observed as encouraging public – public partnerships

NWSC is now trying to establish the datasets that exist in several sectors which is cost effective.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Discussion

• Develop internal managerial contracts within staff in one organization to motivate staff.

• There should be clear Separation of roles, managerial / technical

Appendices

81

• Create mutual benefit and trust within the company if PPP are going to succeed

• Intellectual property/ copy rights – are they going to be placed on data and if they are, won’t they create a user conflict which will lead to lack of flow of information to the public?

• There is a basic lack of an IT policy and the private sector can have a bigger role in the development of this policy. The geographic information users should also be involved since they are the biggest stakeholders in this industry.

• The private sector should identify users of the products and their marketing / awareness techniques.

Questions Discussed: Are public institutions ready for data sharing?

Responses:

Copyright protection is not limited to the data that is produced however other players need protection of the law however different prices are set for different users and these should be discussed and agreed on and this should be affordable.

Several players exist in the GI field for example hardware providers, internet providers, database management system specialists hence a unified strategy has to be developed to create awareness among the users. GI producers have their own strategy to reach the users.

Sharing of information exists in UBOS and the strategy is still effective however there is no existing policy addressing the sharing of this information.

Discussion:

• Private sector foundation helps institutions in private sectors; can GI institutions form a body which PSF can support?

• Development in Uganda has failed to catch up because human resource is not effective. This is a prerequisite for development of GI sector.

• How have the public organizations assisted in the development of the GI sector

Responses:

• UBOS is training GIS facilitators in order to close the manpower gap however it is still on a small scale.

• Short term management contracts are better placed to deliver effective results.

• Motivation is an important factor in getting work done.

• Institutions can be formed but this is a game of numbers, several institutions are not aware of the SDI. Some organizations such as UMA have been successful with the capacity to even influence government decisions.

• Private GI organizations are currently mainly linked to contractual agreements rather than PPP’s however partnerships may be made with the major data producers using the existing infrastructure.

Appendices

82

Status of the GI market – Sjaak Dielmann – WE Consult (private consultancy firm in GI production)

Roles of WE consult and what they have been involved in:

• Provide consultancy services

• Produce data

• Use available data sets e.g. roads

• During the consultancy partnership, the data is wholly owned by the client.

• And the sharing of this data is basically for the client.

• No partnerships have been formed with government so far.

• Several layers however are very sensitive and not readily available for sharing.

Questions asked

What would be the nature of arrangements (PPP’s)?

Consultative (information sharing)

Contributory (support sharing)

Operational (work sharing)

Collaborative (decision sharing)

Producer – user –where the private companies add value

QN: Are there any identifiable PPP’s that exist in Uganda for the cases of research?

Under public – public

Government instructs on order e.g. in mapping, UBOS and NWSC should work together

One to one memorandum of understanding

What are the existing opportunities in the country?

Government is introducing the private sector led approach to the delivery of services hence the professionals only need to justify that SDI is a service

Government should deliberately take up and spear head the development of SDI in Uganda.

Constraints: The fear and lack of trust between the companies

Requirements for such partnerships

Policy environment should address the issue of intellectual property.

Copyright issues have to be addressed

Representation of the Private sector on the USDI

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Appendices

83

No NAME DESIGNATION/ ORGANISATION

EMAIL PHONE CONTACT

1. Shuaib Lwasa Department of Geography – Makerere University

[email protected] 077-461727

2. Jim Sserwanja Kampala City Council [email protected] 071-809309 3. Joanita Namutebi Joint Medical Stores [email protected] 071-248331 4. Christine Lyaka Kampala City Council [email protected] 078-861068 5. Caroline Tukugize Environmental Consultants [email protected] 078-685118 6. Amadra Ori Akido Geo Information

Consultants [email protected] 077-445011

7. James Osundwa Oakar Services Kenya

[email protected] +254-20-2718321

8. Bernard Muhwezi UBOS [email protected] 078-598800 9. Hamza Galiwango Physical planning

Department Ministry of water, lands and environment


10. Sjaak Dielman WE Consult [email protected] 077-779899 11. Gilbert Echelai Akol National Water and

sewerage companies [email protected] 071-485902

12. Moses Otim Environmental Consultants [email protected] 077-984645 13. Agnes Alaba Geological survey [email protected] 077-699228 14. Francis Mugizi Department of Geography –

Makerere University [email protected] 077-498866

15. Richard Lule Association of Private Water Operators


16. Margaret Wandera Kampala City Council [email protected] 077-413114 17. Suzan Nasirumbi Researcher – ITC

Netherlands [email protected] 077-750659

Appendices

84

Appendix 3: Questionnaire on geospatial sector: The current condition of the geospatial sector in Uganda with respect to: delivery of geospatial services in collaboration of the public and private Geographical Information Providers. Name of respondent: Institute representing: Date: A. Organizational status 1. Which organization are you representing in response to this questionnaire? Tick the most appropriate

� Government � Semi-government � Local government � Academia � Private sector � Non government organization � Community based organization � Other (please specify)…………………

2. At what level does your organization function?

� Local � National � Regional � International

3. What is the main GI activity of the organization?

� Utility(water, electricity, telephone) � Land Surveying � GI Data Collection, processing and analysis � Topographic Map Production � Tailored map production � Environment analysis � GI training/education � Road Network � Geodetic network � Disaster management � Other (please specify)……………………….

Appendices

85

B. Geospatial services and marketing 4. What geospatial services (digital or analogue) do you provide to your customers? GIS sales, training and consultancy

� GIS training � Software sale � Consultancy services � Other (please specify)…………………

Online GIS services � Map Querying � Viewing and publishing � GI web designing � Other (please specify)…………………

Geo-processing service

� Image processing and analysis � GIS spatial analysis � Other (please specify)…………………

Map production � Topographic � Thematic � Location Specific � Layer specific � Integrated with tabular information � Other (please specify)…………………

Other services provided (Please specify) � …………………………………………. � …………………………………………. � ………………………………………….

5. How do customers access your services?

� Telephone � Email � Office visit � Website, internet � Service delivered � Appointment � Other (please specify)…………………

Appendices

86

6. Which advertising medium is most often used/or most effective with in your organization?

� Public media(The daily news paper, radio ,television) � GI magazines, Brochures � Tele marketing � Website( internet) � Through conferences and seminars � Billboards � Other (please specify)…………………

7. Which are the main datasets used by your organization? � Administrative Units � Hydrology � Cadastral information � Utility location (water points, electricity lines….) � Man made Structures (buildings ) � Topography, Elevation � Aerial photographs and Satellite Imagery � Land Cover/Use � Land holdings/parcels � Population data � Other (please specify)…………………

8. How does you organization get access to required dataset (Qn 8)?

� Purchase from data custodians � Custodian to datasets(internal user) � Unrestricted to all users (government and other sectors) � Other (please specify)…………………

9. What obstacles are being experienced by your organization in the delivery of the demanded geospatial services? Tick

� Lack of data � Lack of adequate metadata � Existence of policies that prevent sharing � Lack of access to communication networks � Lack of common standards � Lack of awareness at all levels local, national and regional � Insufficient human and technical resources � Lack of effective search engines � Lack of freedom of access

Appendices

87

� the issues surrounding pricing � the cost of data acquisition and/or conversion � Other (please specify)……………………….

Questions to be answered by a private representative: C. Nature of Collaboration 10. Have you engaged in any kind of partnerships or collaboration with the public GI organization for GI service provision?

� Yes � No Briefly explain .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11. Which of the following ways has the government collaborated with your organization?

� Funding agency � Buyer � Coordinator � Other (please specify)…………………

12. Which of the following forms of funding pattern and collaboration between your organization and the public sector is most likely to be used?

� Public funding with private service delivery and private management � Public as well as private funding with private service delivery and private

management � Public as well as private funding with public/private service delivery and

public/private/joint management � Private funding with private service delivery and private management

D.) Policy environment 13. Does your organization have any of the following policies regarding the production of Geospatial services? Pricing policy

� Yes � No If yes, how is it being enforced?

� Price list � Other (please specify)…………………

Copyright policy

� Yes � No

Appendices

89

If yes, how is it being enforced? � Follow-up of copyright infringement � Other (please specify)…………………

E.) Data Sharing 14. Does you organization have any experiences of sharing/exchanging data with other organizations?

� Yes � No

If yes please specify the organizations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. To what extent would you support collaborative working in data sharing among organizations?

� Invest in development of clearing house � Establishing data sharing polices � Establishing common standards � Encourage regular meetings among data users � Establish defined responsibilities of each GI sector � Encouraging learning from organizations with innovative ideas � Other (please specify)…………………

16. What has the main barriers to exchanging geospatial information with among GI service providers?

� Different formats of datasets � Reluctant to share due to competition � Unaware of existent datasets and who owns it � Different interpretation of datasets � Unclear or non existing pricing, copyright and privacy policies � Different reference frame condition (coordinate system-projection and datum) � Lack of data standardizations � Insufficient knowledge on how to exchange geospatial data � Different output quality � Incompatible software platforms � Other (please specify)…………………

F.) National Spatial data Infrastructure Aspects Definition of Public private partnerships (PPP)

Appendices

90

PPP are defined as arrangements between government and private sector with the aim of improved services /value for money through providing public infrastructure, community facilities and related services. PPP Alliance 17. Does your organization have experience in collaborative working with the other sectors in geospatial service delivery?

� No � yes

If yes please mention. .…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18. Which of the following nature of partnership (collaborative work) does your organization take part in?

� Simple contractual arrangements � Complex agreements design � Operate � Maintain � Finance � Provision of infrastructure service � Other (please specify)…………………

19. Which role is your organization playing in the initiatives to SDI development? Briefly explain

� Coordinate…………………………….. � Facilitate………………………………. � Participate……………………………… � Support………………………………… � Observe………………………………… � Other (please specify)…………………

20. With the use of PPP of SDI development which benefits is your organization likely to attain?

� Improved efficiency � Better informed decision making � Better partnership working � Improved service delivery

Appendices

91

� Healthier business environment � Enhanced conditions for economic growth � Other (please specify)…………………

Thank you for your kind cooperation in completing this questionnaire. Optional Name: Contact: For any further reference, please contact

1. Ms Nasirumbi Susan, Email [email protected] 2. Mr. Ir. C.H.J. Lemmen ,Email [email protected]

Appendices

92

Appendix 4: Questionnaire on PPP: Assessing the nature and aspects of the Public and private sector in delivering of public services such as water, health to the public Name of respondent: Institute representing: Date: Definition of Public private partnerships (PPP) PPP are defined as arrangements between government and private sector with the aim of improved services /value for money through providing public infrastructure, community facilities and related services. A. Organizational issues 1. Which of the following best describes your organization? Tick the most appropriate

� Government � Semi-government � Local government � Academia � Private sector � Non government organization � Community based organization � Other (please specify)…………………

2. Which of the following public services is being delivered by partnership of your organization and another sector?

� Health � Water � Electricity � Education � Transportation � Other (please specify)…………………

Please mention the partner organization below � …………………………………………. � ………………………………………….

3. Which of the concepts below are related to joint collaborative work of your organization and the partner organization?

� Provision of public services

Appendices

93

� Sharing risks and rewards � Legal ownership of assets by public sector � Full retention of responsibility by government � Other (please specify)…………………

4. What impact has the use of PPP had on services being delivered to the public? Elaborate if necessary

� Quality of services………………………………………………………………… � Prices………………………………………………………………………………

. � Extended availability of services to rural areas � Other (please specify)…………………

5. Are there reasons that are leading to success of the collaborative work of your organization and partner sector in delivering of public services?

� Yes � No If yes please tick

� Availability of finance � Good leadership /administration � Affordability of services � Quality of the available services � Other (please specify)…………………

6. What difficulties as partners (public/private) do you face in the offering services to the public?

� Lack of enough funds � Poor management � Unfavourable working environment � Lack of related Policies � Other (please specify)…………………

B.) Procedures and Guidelines 7. Has there been any guidelines/agreements established for development of PPP in your organization?

� Yes � No If yes, please specify ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… C.) Nature of Collaboration

Appendices

94

8. What type of partnerships or collaboration have you engaged in with other organizations for public service provision? Briefly explain .………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9. Which of the following ways has the government collaborated with the private developers/service providers?

� Funding agency: providing grant/capital/asset � Buyer: buying services on a long term basis � Coordinator: specifying various sectors/forums in which participation by the

private sector is welcome � Other (please specify)…………………

10. Which of the following forms of funding pattern and collaboration between the public sector and the private sector is being used?

� Public funding with private service delivery and private management � Public as well as private funding with private service delivery and private

management � Public as well as private funding with public/private service delivery and

public/private/joint management � Private funding with private service delivery and private management

D.) Risks &Revenue Sharing 11. Which specific risks are involved in the project implementation by the organization? Please tick one or more as appropriate Market risk, arising from;

� Insufficient demand � Impractical user levies � Other (please specify)…………………

Finance risk, arising from; � Inflation � Increase in taxes � Change in exchange rates � Other (please specify)…………………

Operation and maintenance risk, arising from; � Termination of contract � Technology risk � Labor risk � Other (please specify)…………………

Legal risk, arising from; � Changes in policies

Appendices

95

� Changes in lease rights � Collapse of developers/service providers � Other (please specify)…………………

Other risks (Please specify) � …………………………………………. � …………………………………………. � ………………………………………….

Questions to be answered by a Government representative: E.) Financing: 12. Where is financial support of PPP being mostly achieved from in your organization?

a. Local banks b. International donors c. Government budget � Other (please specify)…………………

F.) Coordinating Body: 13. Is there a coordinating body within the government to facilitate the preparation and development of PPP infrastructure projects?

� Yes � No If yes, what are its functions? .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… If you answered No, are there any plans for establishing such a coordinating unit in your government? .………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… G.) PPP Alliance 14. In what ways could use of PPP alliance, strengthen cooperation between the public and private sectors in public service delivery?

a. Increase economic growth b. Improved efficiency in service delivery c. Service expansion d. Reduction of finance burden on government � Other (please specify)…………………

15. In your view, are the private organizations prepared to face the opportunities of use of PPP?

a. Yes b. No

Appendices

96

If YES, explain .…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… If NO, explain .…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16. What further development in the private sector is needed, if any? .………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17. Which changes in your own organization are needed for further development of the geospatial sector? .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18. Does your organization have experience in working with the private sector?

c. Yes � No If yes please mention. .…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19. Have you knowledge of PPP being practiced else where?

a. Yes � No If yes tick were

a. Local government b. Ministries c. Rural areas d. International e. Other sectors please specify……………………

20. Does your organization have the idea to the development of PPP? f. Yes � No

If yes briefly explain how .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21. Does your organization have a strategy to cooperate with private sector?

a. Yes � No If yes briefly explain how

Appendices

97

22. What could be the role/contribution of the private sector to development of PPP? .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23. In what ways could the PPP Alliance be most beneficial to you? Elaborate please

a. Working condition…………………… b. Salary………………………………… c. Opportunities…………………………… � Other (please specify)…………………

Questions to be answered by a Private sector representative: H.) Prices 24. Can the local population in the country afford the charges for services and products under PPP?

� No � Yes

If yes, how are affordable prices and a reasonable profit achieved? Briefly explain please .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… I) Financing 25. Where is financial support of PPP being mostly achieved from in your organization?

a. Local banks b. International donors c. Government budget � Other (please specify)…………………

J.) Development 26. In your view, what are the requirements for developing PPP at a faster pace in Uganda? .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… K.) PPP Alliance 27. In association with particular jobs to be done in partnership, which of the following is the main concern of your organization?

a. Profitability of the activity b. Job security

Appendices

98

c. Working conditions d. Social status e. Other sectors please specify……………………

28. What ways should PPP alliance strengthen cooperation between the public and private GI organizations in geospatial service delivery? .……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29. What ways could the PPP alliance be most beneficial to you? .………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Thank you for your kind cooperation in completing this questionnaire. Optional Name: Contact: For any further reference, please contact

3. Ms Nasirumbi Susan, Email [email protected] 4. Mr. Ir. C.H.J. Lemmen ,Email [email protected]

Towards strategy of spatial data infrastructure ... · PDF fileTowards strategy of spatial...

Documents

Transcript of Towards strategy of spatial data infrastructure ... · PDF fileTowards strategy of spatial...