V Geospatial information provision: international comparisons of national mapping agencies

Section Contents

• Introduction
• Institutional arrangements for provision of geospatial information
• Freedom of information
• Cost recovery and pricing
• Copyright
• Participation in value-added services and products
• Conclusions

Introduction

In the time available, it was not possible to review the overseas equivalents of all the organisations described in section IV. This section reviews briefly the current position of national mapping agencies in a number of countries. The results are indicative rather than definitive. In Table 5.1 we compare the UK with the US, Australia, France, New Zealand and Germany, using the following key factors:

• institutional arrangements for provision of geospatial information;
• policy on freedom of information;
• cost recovery and pricing;
• copyright; and
• participation in the provision of value added services.

Institutional arrangements for provision of geospatial information

Nations have tackled the provision of geospatial information in different ways. Current institutional arrangements vary because of many factors including, for example, different historical imperatives and traditions of government structures.

The US Geological Survey (USGS) is responsible for the 1:250000, 1:100000 and 1:24000 scale topographic maps which are provided on a consistent basis for the US, with the exception of some parts of Alaska. That area is mapped at a scale of 1:62,500. More detailed maps are provided by government and others at a state and local level. Most cadastral mapping is done by local government. This division of responsibility has led to some problems of inconsistency which have become, on occasions, a major issue, as highlighted by recent flood disasters. There are now various initiatives to address this problem:

• the Office of Management and Budget created a Federal Geographic Data Committee, which is responsible for co-ordinating various surveying, mapping and geospatial data activities of federal agencies;
• there is a National (geo)Spatial Data Infrastructure to foster awareness of existing geospatial datasets and to enhance their consistency and widespread use; and
• there is a programme for sharing datasets.

These initiatives are relatively recent and were driven largely by an Executive Order of the President. We understand that they involve significant cost.

Figure 5.1 International comparisons of national or regional mapping agencies

† 'detailed' can be and is defined differently in the various countries considered. Here it is used to refer to maps originally constructed at a resolution consistent with British maps at about 1:10000 scale or larger.

In Australia, the federal Surveying and Land Information Group (AUSLIG) had responsibility for small scale mapping and for co-ordination of standards. More detailed maps were provided at a state level, but a group of state, territory and federal mapping organisations has come together for the specific purpose of creating a consistent, digital, national dataset for the Australian Bureau of Statistics in preparation for the 1996 Census. This dataset has provided a 'first pass' edition of Australia's National Spatial Data Infrastructure which is being used for a variety of public good and commercial purposes.

Germany also operates on a federal model because the Länder have the main responsibility for geospatial data collection. There do, however, exist integrated national datasets for topographic data at small scales and a co-ordination framework exists for cadastral information.

Topographic and cadastral mapping are undertaken by separate agencies in France. The Institut Géographique National (IGN) has a nation-wide responsibility for topographic mapping and is supported by six regional offices.

The Department of Survey and Land Information in New Zealand is responsible for topographic and cadastral mapping and land registry. This combination of responsibilities has made it easier for the Department to boost cost recovery levels substantially overall.

There is currently, however, no other country from this group which enjoys the same benefits of a single, consistent, detailed, national topographic 'framework' database of the quality provided by Ordnance Survey in Great Britain.

Freedom of information

France and Germany do not currently have Freedom of Information Acts (FoI), although the issue is under consideration in France. Canada, New Zealand and Australia all passed Acts in 1982. A Freedom of Information Act of itself, however, need not necessarily imply a US-style federal government system where:

• information is treated as a "public good" with open access to government data;
• prices are set to recover only reproduction and distribution costs;
• there is no copyright; and
• there is no power to restrict access to federal data or the uses that are made of data (except where national security or privacy issues prevail).

In New Zealand, for example, the freedom of information legislation is consistent with the concept of users paying higher prices. The mapping agency states that the legislation has few implications for them as price is not regarded as a barrier to access to information. On the other hand, recently proposed changes to pricing policies in Australia may mean the introduction of "costs of supply" or "dissemination cost" pricing for environmental data. These proposals have been made to remove any possibility that price is a barrier to access such data.

Cost recovery and pricing

In Australia, prices were set by state mapping organisations to recover dissemination costs plus an element for data maintenance and enhancement, and cost recovery in New South Wales, for example, was around 25%. As noted above, recent proposals relating to environmental data seem to be moving policy on pricing of this type of data in Australia further towards the US model. Constraints on public funds, nevertheless, mean that there are still pressures to reduce costs.

New Zealand has a similar cost recovery level to the UK, but, as noted above, the mapping agency also includes the land registry function which may tend to raise the average rate of cost recovery. New Zealand is moving, however, to full recovery of all current costs of database management and maintenance. The issue of whether the database is valued as a capital item is currently being considered by government. From 1996, the department will be divided into two separate parts:

• data collection, production and dissemination; and
• marketing, administration and quality control.

Data collection will be undertaken by a newly formed state owned enterprise which will supply data to the department on a two year contract. The contract will then be open to competitive tender. Privatisation of the data production is considered to be the next logical step.

In France, revenues are secured from government through five year contracts. Under the current agreement, cost recovery is 47% and this is planned to increase to 51% by 1997. The basic principle is that charges must cover the marginal cost of reproduction, storage, printing, sales and marketing and make some contribution to the compilation of maps. In the case of digital maps, a significant part of the income has to cover data capture costs.

In Germany, cost recovery of the surveying and mapping agencies is low, with the collection and maintenance of geospatial data being largely publicly funded. The Surveying and Mapping Agency of Nordrhein-Westfalen has, for example, a cost recovery of only 10%.

Copyright

Copyright raises many complex technical and legal issues. From an economics point of view, however, the need for copyright protection flows logically from the policy on pricing. Without copyright protection or some other form of Intellectual Property Rights, prices in excess of dissemination costs cannot be sustained. There are wider questions about the length and scope of protection.

Despite freedom of information legislation, in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, agencies are able to copyright data and, therefore, could achieve charges above costs of dissemination. At this early stage, however, no great thought seems to have been given to the possible consequences of making available some information (e.g. pollution data) under FOIA which in turn necessitates making freely available other information (e.g. the map base). The significance of these interactions may well be considerable. In Britain, for example, the advent of the Code of Practice on Open Government led to many requests to local authorities and others for information which could only be supplied in conjunction with other information (e.g. Ordnance Survey mapping) which was exempted in the Code as being commercial in nature.

Participation in value-added services and products

With the exception of the US, all the national mapping agencies shown in Figure 5.1 are involved in the provision of valued-added services and products. Even in the government of the USA some recent developments show federal bodies moving towards value-added activities in conjunction with the private sector. Many state governments now charge for their geospatial data and are involved in some value-added activities. This reflects a general pressure on agencies to increase cost recovery levels.

In France, the IGN is competing directly with the private sector in the provision of value added services and products. It is facing a decrease in government funding and, hence, pressure to cut costs. It is of the view that it cannot recover sufficient costs through the sale of traditional products to traditional users and, therefore, can only meet its financial objectives through the supply of value added information products at prices for some products and areas that exceed "production" costs.

In Australia, the mapping organisations have been encouraged to help provide value-added services and products, given pressures on government funds, and are understood to be competing directly with the private sector in some market segments. The latest restructuring in New Zealand will separate out all commercial activities and introduce major contracting out. The core department will have a strictly regulatory and administrative function and will not compete with the private sector. Wherever possible, operational activities will be contracted outside the department.

Conclusions

The key conclusions we draw from this section on international comparisons are:

• institutional arrangements to support the provision of geospatial information vary widely not least because of differing historical imperatives and different traditions in government structures;
• there is, nevertheless, significant government involvement, either at federal, state or local level, in the provision of geospatial data in all the countries covered;
• of the countries considered, Great Britain undoubtedly has one of the most consistent and detailed national 'framework' topographic datasets;
• Freedom of Information legislation and associated statutes and practices in the US federal government have been accompanied by a dissemination cost pricing constraint on US Geological Survey which has led to low cost recovery levels;
• in New Zealand, by contrast, Freedom of Information legislation has not been accompanied by similar price constraints and the mapping agency is moving towards full cost recovery although the land registry function has made a major contribution. The free supply of some related information may however have consequences and 'knock-on' effects;
• Australia may be about to formalise a policy similar to the US federal government model of pricing at "cost of supply" or dissemination cost for environmental data; and
• there is a wide variety of practice in terms of relationships with private sector value-added providers from, on the one hand, supplying basic data to, on the other, a few examples of direct competition in order to try and boost revenues to meet financial targets set by government.