Conclusion#

The use of geospatial data in humanitarian and development organizations has come a long way in recent years: groups are increasingly relying on geospatial data for operational work, the value of geospatial data collection is being recognized, and improved technology and open data make geospatial analysis approachable for less technical people and organizations. However, the field still suffers from being disjointed, disorganized, and disconnected. Organizations continue to struggle with internal mandates around data schemas, storage, and data collection strategies; these internal struggles make collaboration and coordination difficult. While these organizations increasingly make informal connections that enable greater coordination and data sharing, official relationships have not materialized.

Concerning existing data repositories, the emerging picture is that global, regional, and national data are often handled in systematic ways. However, locally relevant data is occasionally collected and catalogued, but organizations who uploaded these data are not systematic. Therefore, the datasets available in a catalog such as HDX often play the role of a showcase, indicating what kind of data might be available from the individual uploading actors rather than the totality of existing data. Interviewees of this study confirmed this view, expressing that HDX is a great resource, but they would rather go to the data collector itself to make sure they obtain the latest version of the data they require; this introduces additional burdens on both the individual seeking data, and those producing data.

The findings of these interviews are in line with the observations of the UN Geospatial Network. They assessed the geospatial capabilities of the individual institutions within the UN system by a survey, reported as the BLUEPRINT Geospatial Landscape of the United Nations System. Findings and further steps are developed in the BLUEPRINT Geospatial for a Better World. In their analysis of the geospatial capabilities, they acknowledge strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (p. 10):

  • Strengths

    • strong geospatial capabilities

    • existence and enforcement of data standards in some entities

    • capacity building programmes (although poorly funded)

  • Weaknesses

    • existing coordination mechanisms are informal and on a voluntary, best-effort basis

    • lack of corporate understanding on inefficiencies caused by the lack of a better use of geospatial information

  • Opportunities

    • determination of respective entities to enhance coordination and collaboration through the Network

    • more and more technical solutions provided by the industry

  • Threats

    • lack of funding

    • lack of coordination that leads to redundancy in initiatives and programmes among entities

As a way forward, they define three strategic objectives, which we endorse:

  1. Building and strengthening the network through an effective governance and the development of policies, including frameworks, standard operating procedures, guidelines and best practices,

  2. Delivering geospatial information as One via a common platform and common data standards, and the adoption of innovations for the collection, management and distribution of geospatial information, and

  3. Partnerships, capacity development and outreach, fostering a closer cooperation and sharing of resources, the mainstreaming of geospatial information management and use, and an increased understanding and utilisation of geospatial resources.