[
Summary |
Reports | Datasets | Network & Links
|
Search| Order Documents ]
ARENDAL II WORKSHOP
on UNEP and CGIAR Cooperation
REPORT
on Data, Capacity Building and Networking Needs
for the Use of
GIS in Agricultural Research.
May 9-11, 1995
CONTENTS
Last updated May 10, 1996 by Lorant Czaran / 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The CGIAR has long been interested in the potential application of
modern information technology in agricultural research. Over time
there has been a series of meetings and workshops addressing specifically
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) - the first in Rome in 1986,
organised by the CG and FAO; another in Nairobi in 1991, sponsored
by UNEP, Rockefeller Foundation and ILRAD; a third in Arendal
in 1992, arranged by UNEP/GRID with support from the Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and a recent workshop in Washington
in March of this year under USAID and CGIAR sponsorship. A project
has now been funded, primarily by the Norwegian Government, to
enable implementation of the recommendations emerging from the
Arendal I meeting. The project aims to establish long-term co-operative
links between UNEP and the CGIAR, particularly in the use of the
GRID and CGIAR networks to compile, distribute and maintain high
quality natural resource and socio-economic digital datasets and
to assist CG Centers to ensure capacity is in place to use such
datasets in agricultural research activities. The Arendal II Workshop
is the first major project activity and its main objective is
to provide a sound basis for detailed planning and implementation.It
is important to note that not only has the technology undergone
considerable development in the years since the Rome meeting,
but there have also been changes in the nature and direction of
the CGIAR research agenda. These factors make a project of this
nature very timely. The project is envisaged to be system-wide,
involving participation from as many Centers as possible (12 Centers
were represented at the Arendal II workshop). Collaboration with
other agencies is also an essential component, not only with UNEP
as the title implies, but with a wide range of international and
national agencies (11 such organisations were represented at the
meeting). Such partnerships are needed to ensure that quality
data is made available from all relevant sources and that experiences
in the application of various technologies are shared in order
to efficiently address the wide variety of problems dealt with
by the Centers.
Summary of Program
The theme of the meeting was
well established by Dr Stein Bie in his keynote address entitled
Data Needs for the Food Insecure.Workshop sessions addressed the
following five primary areas, the first three of which emphasized
information exchange, whereas the fourth and fifth moved towards
project requirements and outputs.
1. The current activities and
capacities of the 12 Centers represented were summarised. These
showed a spectrum ranging from CIAT which has a large GIS unit
with 20 scientists, digitising technicians and data analysts and
a well equipped laboratory, to Centers which have minimal hardware
and software and no dedicated specialist staff.
The UNEP/GRID
system, comprising 11 Cooperating Centres was also described and
the position of GRID in UNEP's Environment Assessment Program.
2.
Both the CGIAR and UNEP are at an early stage of implementing
new telecommunication networks. For the Centers, the network will
deliver global connectivity through an Integrated Voice Data Network
(IVDN), the development of which is approved and rapid implementation
is planned. UNEP is in the process of establishing a satellite-based
communications network, UNEPnet.
3. Three invited presentations
examined new issues in use of the technology and data. Underlying
all was the theme of combining database management, geographic
information systems, telecommunications, etc. with various types
of models to integrate into true decision-support systems.
4. Invited speakers addressed the availability and use of data in
different categories, and working groups then identified priorities
and commonalties in data and information needs of Centers and
their constituencies, and how these needs might be met. For some
needs, existing available datasets were clearly identified e.g.
Digital Chart of the World (DCW) and World Vector Shoreline (WVS);
in other cases possible sources of data were identified to be
pursued e.g. Defence Mapping Agency (DMA) and US Department of
Agriculture (USDA); and a third group were those datasets which
needed to be compiled e.g. population data.
5. Working groups also
addressed the question of building capacity in Centers, particularly
those currently at a minimum level. The emphasis was clearly on
building human resource capability, and the requirements included
increasing awareness of the potential of such tools, at all levels.
Training offerings should be application-based and use specific
projects where possible, preferably cross-cutting programs and
Centers.Recommendations for Future ActionsThe recommended project
activities are grouped under three headings - dataset production,
institutional support and development, and networking. Dataset
Production Activities in this area should include: - the creation
and maintenance of a catalog of existing datasets beginning with
those in GRID and the Centers themselves, - ensuring that existing,
currently available datasets are easily accessible to Centers
in a usable form, - working with potential data sources to make
other existing datasets also available, - filling data gaps by
compilation of datasets not known to be available elsewhere.Institutional
Support and Development The project should assist Centers, especially
those currently operating at a low-level, to strengthen their
capacity to use GIS, Remote Sensing (RS) and related technologies.
This might be done through: - analysis of requirements in this
area, - overall awareness building, - formulation and implementation
of institutional development programmes including seminars, workshops
and demonstrations, - provision of technological "tools".NetworkingThe
term networking is used in the broad sense of communication and
is not intended to emphasis electronic communication. The project
should ensure on-going exchange of data and experiences among
Centres and with external agencies. This might involve regular
(electronic) newsletters and/or bulletins, cooperative undertakings,
etc. Alliances with international and national agencies should
be actively pursued. The project should also produce some form
of brochure illustrating how GIS in decision support systems
has the capability to enhance CGIAR capacity to address the problems
of hunger, poverty and environmental destruction.
It is clear that
current project funding is in the nature of "seed money"
which can be used to take some initial steps. The products of
these, with the positive interest and commitment demonstrated
in this meeting, should be used in approaching donors for additional
funding which will be required as project plans evolve.AcknowledgementsAt
the conclusion of the Workshop, there was general consensus that
it had been of substantial benefit and provided a good basis for
project activities. This is thanks to the contributions made by
all attendees. We are most grateful to speakers who delivered
their background papers as requested, and to chairpersons and
rapporteurs (particularly those who "volunteered" for
those duties in the working group sessions) for their prompt delivery
of the notes upon which this report is based.
On behalf of the
participants who travelled to Arendal, I would like to thank the
staff of GRID-Arendal for their preparation before, and support
during, the Workshop. We are also all grateful to the Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs whose support for this project made
the Workshop possible.
Gwynneth M. Martin
Project Advisor
INTRODUCTION
Background
A key recommendation from the CGIAR/NORAGRIC/UNEP meeting on "Digital
Data Requirements for GIS Activities in the CGIAR", held
in Oslo and Arendal in September 1992, was that funding external
to current CG allocations be sought from donors to resource implementation
plans. Specifically these concerned the compilation, distribution
and use of datasets identified as priority requirements for CG
Centers. A UNEP project proposal document was prepared and, in
late 1994, funding was secured from the Government of Norway through
a UNEP Trust Fund. Matching project funds from the World Bank
have now also been confirmed. GRID-Arendal is the implementing
agency.The project is aimed to establish long-term co-operative
links between UNEP and the CGIAR, particularly in the use of the
GRID and CG networks to compile, distribute and maintain high
quality natural resource and socio-economic digital datasets and
to assist CG Centers ensure capacity is in place to use such datasets
in agricultural research activities.It is over two years since
the meeting in Arendal which gave the impetus for the original
proposal. Over that period, individual Centers have evolved and
progressed with respect to datasets in use, the technology in
place and existing institutional capacity. Therefore the intent
of the workshop/meeting (referred to as Arendal II) in Arendal
in early May was to initiate project activities and to ensure
project plans are consistent with the current situation.Input
to the workshop was also provided from a meeting held in Washington
in March of this year under USAID and CGIAR sponsorship. The topic
was Use of Remote Sensing Technologies and GIS Databases and the
resulting report indicated the following three generic categories
of CG Centers' needs related to GIS: - datasets and remote sensing
products provided by external organisations - capacity building
in GIS modelling and analysis - networking needs, both internally
between CG Centers and between Centers and other data holders.Each
of these was to be pursued in more detail in Arendal II.1.2 Workshop
Objectives and Structure
Workshop Objectives and Structure
The
primary objective of the workshop was to provide a sound basis
for project planning and implementation. With this in mind and
with the indicated directions emerging from the Washington meeting,
the main thrusts of Arendal II were: - establishing understanding
of the current situation i.e. revisiting relevant activities and
existing capabilities in CG and UNEP/GRID Centers - determining
CG Centers' priority needs for data and information in the key
subject matter areas and discussion of how these may best be met
-ensuring awareness of the communication facilities available
and exploring possible mechanisms for networking of various types
- investigating the type and level of capacity required in Centers
and how these might be put in place and operate effectively -
formulation of conclusions and discussion of project scope, approach,
planning and resourcing.Invitations were extended to all CG Centers,
to GRID Centres and to external experts and Institutions both
within and outside the UN system. A list of attendees is given
in the Appendix I.
Workshop Reporting
The reporting of workshop proceedings is in two parts - this report
plus a reference package. This report follows the lines of the
workshop program (see Appendix II), giving a summary of each session.
The reference package consists of written text of the presentations
as prepared by speakers in advance and delivered to the workshop.
A list of contents is included in Appendix III and the reference
numbers used in this report (ref. #) refer to that list. Any of
these documents can be obtained from GRID-Arendal on request.
OPENING AND INTRODUCTION
Welcoming Remarks
The Director of GRID-Arendal,
also Chairman of the Project Steering Committee, Svein Tveitdal,
opened the Workshop, welcomed participants and expressed his pleasure
at the number of Centers and Institutions represented. He briefly
reviewed the results of Arendal I and the recent workshop in Washington,
and outlined the format and organisation of the sessions to come.
CGIAR Perspectives
(ref 1) Jack Doyle
drew the workshop participants' attention to the changes which
have taken place regarding the nature and direction of the CGIAR
research agenda. The changes have led CGIAR from being largely
a food producer to now also focusing on conservation and sustainable
management of soil, water and other natural resources. The future
directions of the CGIAR and the purpose of this meeting correspond
to the report from the Task Force on Sustainable Agriculture under
the section entitled "Need for Better Information".
The speaker concluded that the workshop should focus on the problems
as defined in that document and that the meeting offered an opportunity
to define ways in which information technology could assist in
solving the problems of poverty, malnutrition and environmental
conservation.
UNEP Perspectives
Based
on the expected approval of the coming Governing Council in May,
Barry Henricksen presented the new directions for UNEP's revised
strategy and its program for 1996 - 1997. He reviewed the history
of UNEP's Earthwatch - its funding, mission, the shifts of emphasis,
and finally the components comprising the "new" UNEP
Division of Environment Assessment. These are
a) assessment and
reporting,
b) data and information management,
c) capacity building
and servicing and
d) UN system-wide Earthwatch coordination.
UNEP
is entering into a partnership with CGIAR. In 1996 UNEP will express
its commitment by co-sponsoring CGIAR as a preliminary step towards
a larger initiative.
Keynote address: "Data needs of the
food insecure"
(ref 2)Stein Bie highlighted the current global situation reflecting
undernutrition and the relationship between health and access
to food. Donor countries have reduced their funding both to national
and international agricultural research. The challenge of this
Arendal II meeting is to develop tools which will enable us to
set a better global research agenda which will contribute to greater
food security and thus to better health and more welfare. Datasets
for the food insecure must also include factors that relate to
management - socio-economic data, relating to their general conditions
of life and agricultural policies. The research agenda in the
CGIAR has in the past only to a small extent been determined by
the food insecure. The speaker emphasized the need for datasets
to include the feedback we can expect from participatory rural
appraisal and other similar methods, including the ability to
focus on the needs of particular groups of people: the old, the
young, the women. In this 50th UN anniversary year, we can look
back on 20 years of development of research tools we need in this
field. This is a normal lag time in agricultural research. The
time is ripe. We must get datasets operational for the food insecure.
Now is the time to harvest.
Project overview and status
Otto
Simonett presented the status of the CGIAR/UNEP project: "Use
of Geographic Information Systems in Agricultural Research Management".
He listed five project objectives and the suggested long-term
and short-term outputs. The workplan for 1995 is in three "streams"
- dataset production, management and networking, and capacity
building. Conclusions and recommendations from this meeting will
be used to define more fully the detailed activities to be undertaken,
and to modify the workplan as necessary.
REVIEW OF CURRENT STATUS
OF CG INSTITUTES AND THE
GRID NETWORK
CG Institutions
Representatives
of the 12 Centers participating in the Workshop each gave a presentation
describing various aspects of their Center's GIS related activities.
This included data holdings, software and hardware in place, staff
resources, institutional arrangements, specific projects, techniques
in use, etc. The twelve speakers and Institutes were: Bill Bell
- CIAT Robert Hijmans - CIP (ref 3) Zaid Abdul-Hadi - ICARDA
(ref 4) John Corbett - ICRAF (ref 5) S.M.Virmani - ICRISAT Gamini
Batuwitage - IIMI (ref 6) Christian Nolte - IITA (ref 7) Brian
Perry - ILRI (ref 8) Mark Perry - IPGRI (ref 9) Kam Suan-Pheng
- IRRI (ref 10) Peter Goldsworthy - ISNAR (ref 11) Nick van der
Giesen - WARDA (ref 12)The following issues arose in discussion.
There was a wide variation in the level of hardware and software
in place in Centers and this could present problems in sharing
methodologies when levels are very different. This problem was
emphasised further in looking to CGIAR working with external partners
such as National agencies many of whom have only low levels of
technology.
The lack of skilled human resources within Centers was identified
as a common problem. Again this extended to Centers' work at national
levels and the question of whether GIS related training was part
of the Centers' role was raised. It was generally agreed that
research needs were a priority for scarce Center resources. The
suggestion was made that training could be undertaken by commercial
organisations and at least one Center had had good results from
such an approach.
Organisational positioning of GIS varied from a large, clearly
identified Unit to being only used for a specific project in one
section. If a "centralised unit" is established, there
is a variety of ways in which it could operate e.g. core funding
vs. project funding, total service providers vs. delivery of user
tools, etc.
Several points were highlighted in relation to accessibility
of datasets. For many purposes, available global-level datasets
are not suitable; regional and national level resolution are required
but not commonly available. Accessing data held by National agencies
was often difficult for legal and security reasons. When data
was available, the format for delivery could be a problem for
the "smaller" GIS operations. (The format provided by
GRID was given as an example!)
A specific question was raised concerning the availability
to Centers of ARC/INFO software. This had been promised some time
ago at a very preferential rate but needed further follow-up.
The CGIAR/UNEP project might be an appropriate umbrella for this.
It was further suggested that a positive approach would be to
be prepared to establish a central CG distribution point.
GRID network
Barry Henricksen took the
lead in describing the current structure of the GRID network and
the activities undertaken (ref. 13). These include data distribution,
data cataloguing and referencing, data harmonisation, analytical
support services and, increasingly, capacity building in GIS,
RS and data management in support of UNEP's Environment Assessment
Programme. Norberto Fernandez added some further comments, particularly
relating to the identification of institutional contacts in Latin
America and the Caribbean.
EXISTING DATASETS AT GLOBAL,
REGIONAL & NATIONAL LEVELS
Structure of Session
This session
was conducted in two parts, each organised with invited speakers
first giving presentations on specific categories of data; workshop
participants then divided into three groups for discussion and
each group reported the conclusions reached in a final plenary
period. The following key areas were suggested as topics for the
working groups: - priority data needs (strategic and operational)
- what is used now; shortcomings - what is missing; possible sources
and possible methodologies.
Expert Presentations
Seven
separate data categories were addressed by the invited speakers.Cartographic
data (ref. 14)Sindre Langaas reviewed three readily available
cartographic databases - Digital Chart of the World, World Vector
Shoreline and the 30 Arc-second Digital Elevation Model - suitable
for strategic needs (1:1 million scale). He outlined their sources,
discussed their strengths and weaknesses and outlined future developments
likely in this area. The speaker included in his presentation
three overheads addressing data quality issues.Climate data
(ref. 15)Trevor Booth put emphasis on the available long-term
climatic normals and historic climate data as being of prime importance
in agricultural research, and discussed how they might be used,
describing applicable analysis tools. In his opinion, the use
of high quality climatic data was needed to meet CGIAR requirements
and this needed collaborative effort. He gave four recommendations
for areas of work to be encouraged in this regard: the development
of a moderate resolution DEM, improved interpolation methods,
better documentation, and easily available "low-end"
software.Soils data (ref. 16) Vincent van Engelen began
his presentation by commenting on the nature of what is commonly
found under the title of "digital soils database". These
are usually digitised soil maps and do not make a comprehensive
information system. He went on to outline the datasets available
at the global and regional levels and described current developments,
particularly in FAO (raster version of SMW in preparation) and
ISRIC (linking profile data to global database). At a national
level, several larger scale (1:100,000 to 1:1,000,000) SOTER-type
databases are under development but it is not clear whether, and
how, such data will be made freely available.Population data
(refs. 17, 18 & 19)Uwe Deichmann put forward a definition
of the spatial and non-spatial components of a dataset to meet
(some) potential uses in agricultural research, and went on to
outline available datasets in that context. He suggested the following
actions to facilitate the development and maintenance of population
databases: - development of a guideline database template - investigation
of options to convert from administrative unit based data to raster
surfaces - compilation of existing national level datasets to
form consistent regional coverages.Ron Witt reviewed GRID's experience
(with that of other groups) in assembling datasets relating to
human population. Currently he is involved in planning to compile
a global population density dataset and outlined three possible
levels of end-product. The first is a minimum case, giving a snapshot
of population at a given point in time; the second level would
be two such snapshots at a distinct interval apart; and the third
possibility moves to a much larger endeavour encompassing multiple
demographic variables and their temporal nature. More definitive
statements of user needs are required to define the required product.Robert
Fox discussed the availability of population-related data in Latin
America, outlining his experiences in the area. His recommendation
concerning compilation of such datasets was to start "bottom-up"
with national institutions, acquire existing data from multiple
sources, and analyse and process them to make an internally consistent
dataset. Bob also talked about communication of the population
information, illustrating his comments with the type of graphics
he felt were necessary and effective.Crop Distribution data
(ref. 20)Terry Taylor described the activities undertaken
in the Remote Sensing Program of the Foreign Agricultural Service
mission of the USDA. This involves interpretation and analysis
of satellite data to give, for instance, production estimates
of specific crops in given areas. Data products from the program
are potentially available and it was evident that this could be
a significant source of data of interest to CG Centers.Land
Use data (ref. 21)Ashbindu Singh presented a review of international
initiatives in global land cover mapping and monitoring, and also
of the variety of satellites with details of their time period,
resolution, etc. He described the datasets available now and in
the near future from GRID-Sioux Falls, including a land cover
database for the American continents.Biodiversity data (ref.
22)Richard Luxmoore described the activities undertaken by
WCMC in compiling and distributing datasets, pointing out some
of the problems of establishing standards, ensuring accurate documentation,
maintaining datasets, etc. He described available datasets which
may be relevant to Centers' needs and which are, in principle
freely available subject to copyright restrictions or any limitations
imposed by the source. The principal GIS software used by WCMC
is ARC/INFO and the Centre has developed an interface to manage
and access data held. This, with the data, is known as the Biodiversity
Map Library. Richard proposed that future collaboration with the
CGIAR could include provision of BML to any Center which has the
facilities which the package needs.
Findings of Working
Groups
The unanimous conclusion
reached by all groups was that there is a very large amount of
required data currently in existence and available in varying
degrees. A catalogue (metadatabase) is needed, starting with those
datasets immediately available. Specific follow-up is needed in
some areas to investigate and arrange availability and the project
(bringing together UNEP and the CGIAR) provides the mechanism
for a formal, coordinated approach to potential data sources.
Centre priorities need to be clearly defined with respect to filling
data gaps.Specific conclusions related to the different data categories
were as follows.Cartographic - these data are "essential",
"a key element" - useful at (available) global resolution;
needed at other (larger) scales - investigate Defence Mapping
Agency as a data sourceClimate - the need for daily weather data
was endorsed - large quantities of data available; collaboration
with centres of expertise required to ensure the data are used
to full advantageSoils - limited data available - investment
in the infrastructure to support data collection is declining
(this applies to climate data also) - consideration should be
given to support data collection by national institutions and
to advance SOTER program - there is a need for more than "surface"
information; data on the regolith is also requiredPopulation -
"critical", "top priority" - long-term needs
go beyond population to other socio-economic parameters - evolving
area with considerable development on-going - ensure Center needs
are given priority in the GRID projectLand use - harmonisation
of classification systems needed (FAO and UNEP are working on
tables of equivalence's; WCMC has experience in this for specific
project requirements) - high resolution satellite data required
to effectively monitor changeCrop distribution - follow-up required
with USDA especially if data for developing countries might be
availableBiodiversity - data needed to fulfil the CGIAR's response
to Agenda 21 - possibility of Centers' use of BML to be investigatedIn
addition it was pointed out that hydrologic data was another
category of data of interest and the availability of datasets
relating to discharge rates, groundwater, etc. should be investigated.
ELECTRONIC HIGHWAY
Network
Development
Arnt Brox outlined
the current plans in UNEP for implementation of a new computer
and telecommunications infrastructure, UNEPnet. An important part
of this is MERCURE, a satellite based network to provide for communications,
including transmission of environmental information, between distributed
UNEP regional offices and other data Centres. The network will
be a meshed/star topology with several (A-class) regional hubs,
linking to low-cost (B-class) stations. Internet standards have
been adopted. In addition to providing extensive capability (user
services) for UNEP offices, the implementation plans include provision
for a user interface which will allow access from governments,
NGO's, funding organisations, etc. There are security provisions
in the network design, allowing for secure traffic between UNEPnet
centres as well as to the Internet.It was noted that there are
organisational implications and risk involved as the implementation
will necessitate and stimulate change within UNEP.In the short
term (by the end of 1995), with the establishment of a station
in Nairobi, Geneva and possibly Arendal, there is to be improved
e-mail and fax handling, trial operation of a document management
system, electronic conferencing and establishment of UNEP Web
services. UNEPnet is expected to be fully operational by the end
of 1997.
Paul O'Nolan outlined the current plans in the CGIAR for
an Integrated Voice and Data Network (IVDN), aimed to give global
connectivity to all Centers. The network will provide international
direct dialing, audio conferencing, video conferencing (to some
extent), electronic mail, Internet services and extensive reporting
facilities. Financial justification has shown that the total cost
will be in line with current voice communication costs. Implementation
will involve the establishment of a Network Operations Centre,
NOC, in California, to which each Centre will be linked. The configuration
in the Centers will be dependent upon factors such as the legal
and regulatory environment, availability of circuits, and site
size. As with UNEPnet, a security firewall is included in the
network plans.The IVDN will provide the required infrastructure,
not only for internal coordination among Centers, but also for
provision of a global information service for international agricultural
research.Implementation of the IVDN will begin in July 1995 with
an initial group of four Centers and the network will be extended
incrementally to all Centers over the following 18 months. It
is expected to be fully operational by the end of 1996.
Demonstrations of World Wide Web
Two
organisations represented at the Workshop - the Consortium for
International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) and the
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) - had prepared to
give demonstrations of accessing data and information through
World Wide Web (WWW). CIESIN is an NGO which is devoted to the
challenge of "providing access to and enhancing the use of
information world-wide, advancing understanding of human interactions
in the environment and serving the needs of science and public
and private decision making". A special focus is on socio-economic
data and linking those with natural science information. The number
of users accessing CIESIN through WWW is growing rapidly. WCMC
is jointly funded by IUCN, UNEP and WWF and, as well as carrying
out research and analysis activities, acts as a clearing house
for their conservation related data. As in the case of CIESIN,
they have increasing numbers of users accessing information through
Internet.Susan Schram of CIESIN was able to connect to her home
organisation and ably demonstrated queries and showed responses.
Due to technical problems on the Internet, the connection could
not be made to WCMC. This made the point that these types of communication
problem are not uncommon and that some patience and persistence
may be required when accessing information sources, especially
from developing countries.
CAPACITY BUILDING in GIS
& COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
Presentations
Bill Bell's presentation
on requirements for training had to be cancelled due to illness.
Otto
Simonett gave an overview of the on-going GRID-Arendal project
on GIS capacity building in Central and Eastern Europe, describing
the methodology as it might apply to the CGIAR/UNEP project (ref.
23). The overall goal of the UNEP programme is to produce a global
SoE report by the year 2002 based on information from the countries
themselves. The approach has been to strengthen the bonds to,
and the capacity of, the national ministries of environment, although
efforts are made to include other relevant agencies equally. The
role of UNEP/ENRIN is primarily one of coordinating and assisting.
This has involved initial contacts, conducting assessments of
environmental information needs and capacities, organising regional
workshops and providing terms of reference for detailed needs
assessments, feasibility studies and development of proposals.
These are then carried out by experts in the countries and, if
proposals are funded, a 3-5 year implementation is expected. It
was noted that there is considerable donor interest, but that
very specific targets are required to successfully attract funds.In
the discussion immediately following the presentation, it was
agreed that there were some similarities with the CGIAR/UNEP project
and that the general framework applies. Short term outputs relating
to Centers should include some statement of requirements to be
brought together to build proposals on a coordinated system-wide
basis.
Findings of Working Groups
Following
the single presentation, participants again moved into working
groups. The groups were tasked with discussing the Centers' capacity
building needs and recommending the type of project activities
which should be undertaken to meet those needs. The following
summarises the conclusions presented.
Training is needed at all levels, from building management
awareness to hands-on usage of specific technology. A first step
would be to define these requirements in detail. However, emphasis
should be given to awareness building, application based training
(targeted to specific CG demands), and building expertise in Centers
currently with "smaller" facilities. It was also stressed
that any training activities should be undertaken in Centers themselves,
not at external locations, as this would enable participation
of more Centre staff. That approach may also provide opportunity
for bringing staff of several Centers together, promoting interaction.
On the whole, in terms of provision of facilities, it seemed
that this was the responsibility of Centers themselves. However
the project should look to using a coordinated approach to obtain
favourable rates, beginning with follow-up of the ARC/INFO license
offer (see 3.1). The project should also ensure that analysis
tools generally applicable are made available in the same way
as commonly required datasets.
The idea of an "institutional model" was explored.
Should there be a single Center with extensive GIS facilities?
several regional lead Centers? each Center aim to establish a
GIS Unit? No definite conclusion was reached and it was felt that
the solution needed to be demand driven, from identification of
problems, data requirements and methodologies within each Center.
However it was suggested that there is a need for a "critical
mass" in any Center and this is suggested to be around three
people.
GRID-Arendal, as the project implementing agency, should coordinate
the production of newsletters, information sheets, etc. which
would strengthen and encourage links between all collaborating
agencies, and also publicise the spectrum of applications in which
the technology is applied across the CG system.
The importance of establishing and strengthening relations
at a national level was stressed. All possible mechanisms should
be used to ensure more effective exchange of information and technology.
The need for a metadatabase was reiterated (see 4.3).
NEW ISSUES
CGIAR's Systemwide Information
Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER)
Mark
Perry introduced the CGIAR's Systemwide Information Network for
Genetic Resources, SINGER (ref. 24). SINGER is planned to operate
in the framework of the CG SystemWide Genetic Resources Programme
(SGRP); will enhance the genetic resources work of the CGIAR;
and provide a tool that will allow collaborators greater access
to the collections and related information. It is a complex endeavour
involving integrating information management activities amongst
multiple institutions in different geographic locations (11 Centers
in 11 different countries). Each of the Centers has, over the
years, developed their own information system to manage their
germplasm collection. These use differing hardware and software,
and the data elements differ to varying degrees. Resolution of
differences whilst preserving existing Center genetic resources
data management autonomy will be a challenge.The spatial elements
within SINGER are expected to include data on germplasm origin
- the site at which the germplasm was collected. This is commonly
held as latitude and longitude at the degree/minute level. Although
the speaker began by expressing some hesitation concerning the
direct relevance of his presentation to the workshop objectives,
it was most positively agreed that many aspects were of great
interest and very relevant to the UNEP/CGIAR project. The "system-wide"
approach is similar and although the emphasis in other sessions
might have been on spatial elements, the handling of non-spatial
descriptors and harmonisation of data items is recognised as also
being of prime importance.In discussion, the importance of the
information accompanying genetic resource material was stressed.
It was also suggested that in cases where the georeferencing was
of low quality (as had been mentioned by the speaker), there were
some possible solutions for improvement.
Linking spatial
data with models
Paul
Dyke gave a presentation on the current stateofthe-art linkages
between spatial data and complementary models of various kinds
which may be used at all levels of decision making in the CGIAR
context (ref. 25). The models can be dynamic simulation models,
statistical models, socioeconomic models, etc. The presentation
emphasised the way in which these were linked to GIS i.e. the
latter provides input data to the model and is used as a tool
for visualisation, but the model itself is not an integrated part
of the GIS.Several points were put forward for consideration.
One was that metadata is becoming increasingly important, not
just as an index for existing data, but as data are more and more
used for analyses other than those for which they were originally
collected. Another was that datasets are becoming larger and larger,
and with this increasing size, there are mounting problems of
transfer and handling. In relation to this, Paul put forward the
proposal that the watershed unit be adopted as a common basic
building block for assembly and distribution of datasets. In an
agriculturalenvironmentaleconomic context, such a geographic unit
is more relevant than soilunits or administrative units.During
the following discussion the idea of using watersheds, in a nested
hierarchical structure, was supported by several speakers as a
suitable unit for CGIAR applications, particularly given the evolving
ecoregional approach to research.
Information needs in decision
support for dairy production in Africa
Crawford Revie began his presentation (ref. 26) by pointing out
that traditional database management systems, DBMS, and GIS provide
capabilities to store, manipulate and analyse data which is essentially
structured, and that there is considerable need to be able
to better deal with less structured data such as descriptive information,
fuzzy values, probabilistic estimates etc. A Hybrid Information
System, HIS, was defined as an integrated package of software
components which would meet this requirement. The suggested components
are databases, DBMS, GIS, expert systems, mathematical models
and multi-media systems. The University of Strathclyde, in collaboration
with ILRI, has developed an experimental HIS for analysis of animal
health issues relating to East Coast fever and trypanosomiasis.It
was acknowledged that the integration of the different components
may involve considerable difficulties, particularly for example
in combining rulebased expert systems with mathematical models.
It was also stressed that database quality documentation was of
particular importance as the quality of many answers provided
by an HIS lies in the reliability of the database containing
both wellstructured GIS data and fuzzy knowledge with fuzzy geographic
representation.In the discussion following, it was suggested that
GIS had been oversold in the past and that there was now more
realism concerning its capabilities. The last two presentations
had shown that, to meet the future needs of Centers, GIS is one
of several tools to be used. The approach of integrating the required
components, such as in the HIS described would seem to be the
path to follow in order to move towards true decision support
systems.
CONCLUSIONS, PROJECT PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION
Conceptual Overview
In response
to a request from the meeting organisers, Henry Nix presented
his perceptions of the meeting and project. He began by putting
forward a problem-solving framework (Figure 1) which included
databases (a primary focus of this meeting) but in the total context
of development of applications to solve problems. The following
points were made in relation to the figure: - the problem(s) must
be clearly defined - the models often cannot be used because of
lack of data - the model with the database enables prediction
- the prediction must be validated - a prescription can then be
developed and applied.
Figure 1In relation to project planning
and implementation, the framework would be useful in considering
the roles of the various players - the CG Centers, UNEP-GRID,
National Institutions and other Agencies - and the ways in which
GIS technology could be used. Also Dr Nix, with acknowledgement
to SINGER, suggested the project make SINGIS, System-wide Network
for GIS, an identifiable target. Dr Nix went on to summarise issues
which had arisen during the course of the preceding sessions.
The lack of primary attribute data.This had been extensively
discussed.
The use of interpolation and extrapolation techniques.The
success of these has been such that there is a danger that the
importance of source data has been downgraded.
"Institutional disfunction".Organisations are essentially
vertically structured (discipline-oriented) and problem solving
needs to cut horizontally.
Housekeeping problemsThese include issues such as standards,
data exchange, custodial responsibilities.
Capacity buildingAgain, this had been extensively discussed.
CommunicationAs presented in session 5, the electronic network
developments will give new opportunities in the near future.Finally
Dr Nix linked with some of the points made in session 7, and suggested
that one of the challenges of the future was to move from what
he described as sequential, or spaghetti, use of models to a "side-by-side"
approach in which integration of technology allowed tools and
data to be used as best suited the problem.
Recommendations
for CGIAR/UNEP Project Planning
Jack Doyle summarised the conclusions and recommendations which had
emerged from the preceding plenary sessions. These should act
as guidelines for the detailed project planning to be undertaken
in the near future.
1. A catalogue of available datasets (along
the lines of the GRID metadatabase) should be built, beginning
with current holdings in CG and GRID Centers.
2. With respect to
data needs, there is follow-up required with identified data sources
to make existing required datasets available. In areas where there
are deficiencies, data gaps or the required datasets do not exist,
the project may fund compilation activities. These should be driven
by Center priorities and the Steering Committee is open to suggestions
in this regard, especially as participants have an opportunity
to reflect on this meeting and discuss needs with their colleagues.
If possible, proposals should reflect System-wide needs, and results
should be feasible in a relatively short time-frame.
3. With respect
to capacity building, requirements have been broadly specified
and these should be defined in greater detail. A project strategy
and program to meet those needs can then be developed. The recommendations
from working groups (see 6.2) concerning an application-oriented
approach, in Centers, should be kept in mind.
4. Several suggestions
have been made in relation to how the group of CG Centers, GRID
Centres and external agencies function together. These relate
to Otto Simonett's "Management and Networking" stream
in his project planning proposal. (Networking is meant in the
general sense of communication, whether by electronic means or
otherwise.) In this regard, the recommendations concerning issuance
of a newsletter, a pamphlet to raise management awareness of the
project, etc., should be acted upon.There was general agreement
that the summary accurately reflected the directions in which
participants would like to see the project move.There was additional
discussion on project funding. It is apparent that the current
level of project funding will permit a small step forward. Project
planning must take into account the requirement to first produce
results which can be used to demonstrate the usefulness and potential
of work in this area and second, develop proposals which will
attract future funding from donors. Such proposals should look
towards the goal of integrating GIS and other information technologies
into decision support systems which can play a role in meeting
CGIAR objectives.
Last updated May 10, 1996 by Lorant Czaran /
APPENDIX I
WORKSHOP ATTENDEES:
Dr. William
Bell, CIAT
Robert Hijmans, CIP
Zaid Abdul-Hadi, ICARDA
Dr. John
Corbett, ICRAF
Dr. S.M. Virmani, ICRISAT
Mr. Gamini Batuwitage,
IIMI
Dr. Christian Nolte, IITA
Dr. Brian Perry and Mr. Russ Kruska,
ILRI
Mark C. Perry, IPGRI
Dr. Suan-Pheng Kam, IRRI
Peter Goldsworthy,
ISNAR
Dr. Nick Van de Giesen, WARDA
Stein Bie, FAO
Trevor Booth,
CSIRO
Uwe Deichmann, NCGIA
Paul T. Dyke, Blackland Research Centre
Vincent
W.P. Van Engelen, ISRIC
Norberto Fernandez, ROLAC
Robert Fox, George
Gettinby, University of Strathclyde
Crawford Revie, Dept. of Information
Service
Guido Gryseels, FAO
Sindre Langaas, UNEP/GRID-Arendal
Richard
Luxmoore, WCMC
Henry Nix, CRES
Paul O'Nolan, ISNAR
Mark C. Perry,
SINGER
Susan Schram, CIESIN
Ashbindu Singh, GRID-Sioux Falls
Terry
Taylor, USDA
Ron D. Witt, GRID-Geneva
John J. Doyle, ILRI/ESDAR
Ruth
Haug, NORAGRIC
Barry Henricksen, GRID Headquaters
Peter G. Jones,
CIAT
Svein Tveitdal, GRID-Arendal
Otto Simonett, GRID-Arendal
Gwynneth
Martin, The Orbis Institute
Claudia Heberlein, GRID-Arendal
Karen
Folgen, GRID-Arendal
APPENDIX II
WORKSHOP PROGRAM
Monday May 8
Arrival
19.30 Welcome reception and informal dinner at Tyholmen Hotel
Tuesday May 9
08.00 Session 1 - Opening and introduction
Chair: Peter Jones, CIAT
Rapporteur: Karen Folgen, GRID-Arendal
08.00 Welcoming remarks. Svein Tveitdal, GRID-Arendal
08.15 CGIAR perspectives. Jack Doyle, ESDAR, Washington D.C.
08.30 UNEP perspectives, Barry Henricksen, UNEP, Nairobi
08.45 Keynote address: Data needs of the food insecure,
Stein Bie, FAO, Rome
09.15 Project overview and status, Otto Simonett, GRID-Arendal
09.30 Coffee Break
10.00 Session 2 - Review of current status of CG institutions
and the GRID network
Chair: Svein Tveitdal, GRID-Arendal
Rapporteur: Claudia Heberlein, GRID-Arendal
10.00 CIAT, William Bell
10.15 CIP, Robert Hijmans
10.30 ICARDA, Zaid Abdul-Hadi
11.00 ICRAF, John Corbett
11.15 ICRISAT, S.M. Virimani
11.30 IIMI, Gamini Batuwitage
11.45 IITA, C. Nolte
12.00 ILRI, Brian Perry
12.30 Lunch
13.30 IPGRI, Mark Perry
13.45 IRRI, Kam Suan-Pheng
14.00 ISNAR, Peter Goldsworthy
14.15 WARDA, Nick Van de Giesen
14.30 Presentation of the GRID-network, Barry Henricksen
15.00 Coffee Break
15.30 Session 3 - Expert presentations on existing data sets
at global, regional and national levels in priority areas:
Chair: Henry Nix, CRES, ANU, Canberra, Australia
Rapporteur: Gwynneth Martin, Project Advisor
15.30 Cartographical data and data quality issues, Sindre Langaas,
GRID-Arendal
15.50 Climate data, Trevor Booth, CSIRO, Australia
16.10 Soils data, Vincent Van Engelen, ISRIC, Netherlands
16.30 Working groups
Workshop to be divided in groups to define center requirements/priorities
and draft follow up recommendations
17.30 Plenary presentation and discussion
18.30 Transport from hotel to the home of Svein Tveitdal for
an
19.00 Informal dinner
Wednesday May 10th
08.00 Session 3 - Expert presentations continue
Chair: Henry Nix, CRES, ANU, Canberra, Australia
Rapporteur: Gwynneth Martin, Project Advisor, Canada
08.00 Population Data, Uwe Deichman, NCGIA, USA, Ron Witt, GRID-Geneva,
Robert Fox, Consultant, USA
08.45 Land use (remote sensing) data, Asbindhu Singh, GRID Sioux
Falls, USA
09.05 Crop distribution, Terry W. Taylor, USDA/FAS, USA
09.25 Biodiversity data, Richard Luxmoore, WCMC, UK
09.45 Coffee Break (Travel agent present)
10.15 Workshop to be divided into groups to define center requirements/priorities
and draft follow- up recommendations
11.30 Plenary presentation and discussion
12.30 Lunch
13.15 Transport from hotel to GRID-Arendal
13.30 Session 4 - The Electronic Highway and its impact on
CG/GRID strategies
Venue: GRID-Arendal
Chair: Svein Tveitdal, GRID-Arendal
Rapporteur: Barry Henricksen, GRID-PAC
Presentations/Demonstrations: UNEP, CGIAR, CIESIN, WCMC
13.30 UNEP, Christopher Smith, GRID-Arendal
13.45 CGIAR, Paul O'Nolan, CGIAR Task Force
14.15 CIESIN, Susan Schram, CIESIN
14.30 WCMC, Richard Luxmoore, WCMC
14.45 Coffee Break
15.00 Plenary Discussion to define center requirements/priorities
for communication and networking and draft follow up recommendations
16.00 Transport from GRID-Arendal to hotel
17.00 Boat Trip w/shrimps and "spekemat"
Thursday May 11th
08.00 Session 5 - Capacity building in GIS and communication
technologies
Chair: Sindre Langaas, GRID-Arendal
Rapporteur: Claudia Heberlein, GRID-Arendal
08.00 Requirements for training in analyzing and modelling techniques
and telecommunication technologies, Bill Bell, CIAT, Colombia
08.30 The UNEP/ENRIN capacity building approach in central and
eastern Europe.
Otto Simonett, GRID-Arendal
09.00 Group work to define center needs/requirements and draft
recommendations
10.00 Coffee Break
10.30 Plenary discussion
11.00 Session 6 - New issues
Chair: Otto Simonett, GRID-Arendal
Rapporteur: Sindre Langaas, GRID-Arendal
11.00 CGIAR’s system-wide Information Network for Genetic
Resources - Present Status, Immediate Plans and Future Integration,
Mark Perry, IPGRI, Italy
11.40 Linkage of spatial data with models, Paul Dyke, Blackland
Research Center, Texas, USA
12.20 Information Needs in Decision Support for Dairy Production
in Africa,
George Gettinby, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
13.00 Lunch
14.00 Session 7 - Conclusions, Project planning and implementation
Chair: Jack Doyle, ESDAR
Rapporteur: Otto Simonett, GRID-Arendal
14.00 Conclusions Data requirements, capacity building, network
development
15.00 Coffee Break
15.30 Recommendations on future activities
16.30 Closing Remarks
19.00 Dinner at Tyholmen Hotel
APPENDIX III
REFERENCE PACKAGE
- CGIAR perspectives. Jack Doyle, ESDAR
- Data needs of the food insecure, Stein Bie, FAO
- GIS Use at the International Potato Center (CIP), Robert Hijmans
- Status of GIS Activities in ICARDA, Zaid Abdul-Hadi
- ICRAF, John Corbett
- Data, Capacity Building and Networking Needs for the use of
GIS in Agricultural Research: IIMI, Gamini Batuwitage
- IITA, C. Nolte
- GIS at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI),
Brian Perry
- Review of current status of CGIAR institutions and the GRID
network: IPGRI, Mark Perry
- GIS related activities at IRRI: current focus, priorities
and needs, Kam Suan-Pheng
- Notes for UNEP/GRID meeting Arendal 1995: ISNAR, Peter Goldsworthy
- WARDA, Nick Van de Giesen
- The Environment Assessment Programme of UNEP, Barry Henricksen
- Cartographical Data and Data Quality Issues, Sindre Langaas, (Postscript file to download!) GRID-Arendal
- Climate Databases for use in Agricultural Management and Research,
Trevor Booth, CSIRO & Peter Jones, CIAT
- Soils Data, Vincent Van Engelen, ISRIC
- Population Data, Uwe Deichman, NCGIA
- Concept Paper on a GIS Database for Population-related Studies:
the Need for a Global Human Population Density Dataset, Ron Witt
& Hy Dao, GRID-Geneva
- Notes on assembling a Population Distribution Database for
African, Asian and Latin American Countries, Robert Fox, Consultant
- Land Use (Remote Sensing) Data, Asbindhu Singh, GRID Sioux
Falls
- The FAS Remote Sensing Program, Terry W. Taylor, USDA/FAS
- Georeferenced data at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Richard Luxmoore, WCMC
- The UNEP/ENRIN Capacity Building Approach in Central and Eastern
Europe, Otto Simonett, GRID-Arendal
- CGIAR’s system-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources
- Present Status, Immediate Plans and Future Integration, Mark
Perry, IPGRI
- Linkage of spatial data with models, Paul Dyke, Blackland
Research Center
- Information Needs in Decision Support for Dairy Production
in Africa, George Gettinby et al, University of Strathclyde
Last updated June 25, 1996 by Lorant Czaran /