Outlook

[hfu]

• We need a Common Platform to conduct an exercise.
• We need a Community of Practice to have a Common Platform.
• The Task Group can share what it has to the whole WG-Disasters to expand the Community of Practice.
• We can have a simulated exercise to see how applicable the Strategic Framework.

[hfu]

Quanhong Zheng, China write:

1. Is this Common Platform used for knowledge and information sharing in a secure network?
2. I am thinking about what kind of scenario-based exercise will we conduct and how we cooperate with each other?

[hfu]

• I do not think something is decided on Common Platform. I suppose we need to discuss from scratch although some of us already have some platform for their tasks outside the Task Group. Maybe the concept of Asia-Pacific Geospatial Information Platform in UN-GGIM-AP might help.
• We still have no idea about the scenario-based exercise. I do not think that a single scenario covers everything, having participation from all members. Some of us can demonstrate what we have, but we do not have a single scenario in which everyone can participate. (But, this is one important finding from our journey so far. Challenges are different so we are different.)

[qhong21]

1. For my undersatanding, the Geospatial Information Common Platform is a 2D or 3D geoinformation system which integrates the fundermental geospatial data (image, terrain, road, river, building, placename...) and different kinds of thematic data, e.g. disaster data inluding earthquake, landslides, floods, ...etc. We can share data based on this platform. For this purpose, data reference, data standard should be taken into consideration.
2. As for scenario-based exercise, we can choose one type of disaster. For instance, in case of an earthquake occurs, how we response? The mechanism, procedure, data, technology, ....

[hfu]

Many thanks, @qhong for the ideas!

Common Platform / Domestic Platform

I am not even sure about the Common Platform itself. We might have each Domestic Platform and we just overlay selected data from the Common Platform. Due to language diversity in the Asia Pacific, I am more inclined to have a Common Platform to supplement the Domestic Platform. In China, the Common Platform might supplement Tianditu 天地図 while the Common Platform might supplement GSI Maps 地理院地図 in Japan.

We might first share a common understanding of how the Common Platform shall supplement domestic infrastructure, and then we can discuss how the Common Platform shall be sponsored. What do you think?

Regarding the data standard, we might gather supported standards first. Before that, we might need a collection of Domestic Platforms the Common Platform shall support.

Type of Disaster

Thank you. Let's discuss on this separately at #8.

[qhong21]

Thank you @hfu very much. I am glad that we can have this kind of discussion and makes us more clear about what we are going to do.

Yes ,you are right, we have the Geospatial Information Public Service Platform in China which is called "天地图". It offers geospatial information and services for government, industries and public at different level. Each provincial goinformation authorities is responsible for its own platform construction, and then it will be combined to national platform. I think it maybe similar to GSI Maps 地理院地図 in Japan.

As for international geospatial common platform, I think it is the same principle. We need to combine all these platforms from different countries into one integrated common platform.

[hfu]

Many thanks, @qhong21. From this discussion, I just came across an idea of the following 3-tier model of data-platform-users.

I believe that users shall use the platform they use daily, even in the case of disasters. Therefore, even when users use data provided from the Common Platform, the best way is to consume the data via the Domestic Platform. We might need a minimum interface for the Common Platform for the users without their Domestic Platform, but we shall not let our users use two different interfaces for a single disaster, especially when the disaster is so huge where international cooperation is required. What do you think?

[qhong21]

Many thanks for your prompt response @hfu. Yes, the Common Platform would be connected to any other Domestic Platform with navigation buttons.

[qhong]

Not sure why I receive this email. Please remove me from your mailing list. Thanks!

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 3:17 AM qhong21 notifications@github.com wrote:

Many thanks for your prompt response @hfu https://github.com/hfu. Yes, the Common Platform would be connected to any other Domestic Platform with navigation buttons.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ggim-exercise/work-plan-2020/issues/4#issuecomment-718465471, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIVGHI3ZKRIZDXTJQCUNGDSNEQITANCNFSM4S7KGK3Q .

[qhong21]

@hfu Hi, Hidenori, I think something is wrong, the comments from qhong with "not sure why I receive this email...." was not from me. Sorry.

[hfu]

Please excuse me for my confusion in the user names.

[hfu]

Getting down to substantial issues again, probably we can be based on the following facts:

1. Geospatial information is relatively language-independent and so culture-independent.
2. User interface and text information are relatively language-dependent and culture-dependent.

I suppose that the Common Platform works best if the Platform is largely language-independent. And this is where Domestic Platforms works best to support the actual operations.

[qhong21]

It's true, the discussion is moving towards more realistic items.

1. First, We agree that the Common Platform is nessessary for sharing and alalyzing disaster data in case of an emergency, right?
2. Second, How to consturct the Common Platform which should use the common language and integrate all geospatial information? Shall we construct it from the scratch or make use of some of the exsiting platforms?
3. Maybe we can focus on Asia Pasific area and set a step by step goal.

[hfu]

1. I am not still sure the Common Platform is necessary because we haven't decided on the technical requirement about the Common Platform. I agree that data sharing might help our disaster response, but we are not still sure that a Common Platform helps. The Common Platform is just a method for data sharing. If we can share data without a Common Platform, it would be even better than with a Common Platform. Regarding analysis, I think it depends on the financial arrangement of the Common Platform. We need to check whether what is the best financial arrangement. As of now, we are relying on domestic financial arrangements. We need to make sure whether a better international financial arrangement is our priority.
2. I suppose we should make clear why (for what purpose) we need to construct a Common Platform and what is the technical requirement for the Common Platform. I believe that how to construct follows why and what. How would be easier than why and what. We can discuss whether we should build upon existing platforms after we make clear why and what.
3. I agree with your idea of focusing on Asia and the Pacific area. On the other hand, we need to leave no one left behind. I also agree with your idea about step-by-step goals. We will be able to define such goals after we make clear why, what, and how.

[hfu]

Propositions which looks rather obvious to be true

• We do not have a Common Platform in the Asia-Pacific area.
• It is a good idea to share technologies.
• Some Member States have Domestic Platforms while others don't.

Propositions which looks less obvious to be true - we can focus on analyzing these propositions

• It is a good idea to share data - for what specific purposes?
• It is a good idea to have a Common Platform - why, what, and how?

Some questions we can consider

• Are Common Platforms working well where they exist?

[qhong21]

Good question, why, what and how?

1. Why? Let's go back to the main goal of the WG-Disasters: to ensure the availability and accessibility of quality geospatial information and services across all phases of disaster risk reduction and management. The major work item of task group B is to design and prepare scenario-based exercises on different hazards to test and improve the Strategic Framework per country and region. So task group B is to design scenario-based exercises to achieve the goal of ensuring available, accessible of qulity geospatial information and services at international , regional and local level. Then comes the question how to conduct the goal? I think the Common Platform would play a role to meet the demand. It is a fundamental geospatial platform which can be used as a basemap. Other thematic services like disaster could be integrated with this platform as overlay layers. In this regards, it helps sharing data by uploading and downlading data which depending on the authority. Why sharing? It again goes back to the purpose of the Woring Group.

[qhong21]

Maybe we have to figure out "why" first.

[AlanMillsUK]

Apologies that I have limited time to address the workplan and being on GMT makes it difficult to hold a dialogue with my colleagues in Asia but please let me make a few suggestions for consideration. I shall try and hep frame our workplan activities (the "What" and "How" but first to help to flesh out the "Why" which are the identification of the Community of practice make up and what is sets out to achieve:

"Community of Practice" (Jan-Feb)

1. Definition needed of participants - National Mapping Agencies, Data providers, Disaster Management IM specialists, NGOs with GIS background

2. Terms of Reference- what are the purposes of the group - what major topics are we aiming to discuss/share solutions

• Understanding of the needs of disaster managers and humanitarian operators National disaster law and responsibilities, localisation/subsidiarity of response, humanitarian needs and law, sectoral needs (Urban Search and Rescue, Water, Nutrition, Food Security, Migration, Shelter, Health, infrastructure, emergency telecommunications, camp coordination, protection, education, early recovery).
  Understand established mechanisms - National preparedness plans, response planning, initial assessment, Post disaster needs assessment, coordination requirements, logistics flows, market analysis, financing.

• How to share accurate, timely , disaggregated data to disaster management (for risk reduction, resilience, planning and response) to all the "community" - not just national government but local government, international organisations, civil society/NGO community involved in disaster management

• Identification of best practice to deal with Information management issues (as raised by the IGIF) in disaster management Governance, sharing, ethics, policy, standards

• Sharing of technical innovations and practical/procedural solutions Platforms, systems, portals, innovative data solutions, automatic data derivation processes (e.g. from satellite and UAV data)

• sustainability of systems - programmes for updating information portals, data feeds, monitoring and evaluation of systems

Now the what: (Feb- Apr)

1. Establishment of Community of practice - Hidenori I think you have already established the platforms through the Team and Github sites... what we need to do in this period is identify others to join - either through targeted invites or in the communications strategy. One other consideration in this work period is how to establish a steerage of the CoP; again I think we have some progress on this but more thought could be given in this workplan

The second element we need to get going is to set up some discussion topics (based on the ToR above) that then people could throw in ideas discussion points and solutions. Towards the end of the period (before UNGGIM 11th Session) we could think about consolidating the useful knowledge gained into a report.

2. Platform. I too wonder whether a single "platform" is a way to go as not only are there a number of platforms and portals in existence already, but also not everyone needs access to all areas, and it would be a bureacratic burden to manage. I would suggest we look at an exercise to identify the different platforms around the world which exist - you have named a couple, I know of others which are international, regional and national. And also as has been mentioned the basemap portal should be shared with all possible applications not just disaster specific, so it may be better to build on generic data sharing platforms and use the CoP to discuss how to interoperate between them, or pull in data from different sources to solve national or specific applications.

so suggest:

• exercise to catalogue portals , their nature, reach, completeness etc.
• discussion on how best to use these

3. Scenario Using the suggestion of an earthquake scenario in Japan, and using the existing platforms aim to have an online table top exercise where we step through several stages over 2-3 sessions, say 3-4 hours each. These could be:
4. Preparedness - Have teams work out what data are needed for a country to be prepared for a disaster, looking at the extent of data for resilience, for being able to respond, for coordination, and liaison between different levels of governmetn.
5. Initial Response - have a simulation of an eathquake and see what data and tools are necessary to give a picture of the extent of the damage and calculate numbers affected, identify what infrastructure has been damaged.
6. Post Disaster Needs Assessment - feed the information from the initial response along with other parameters to identify how some financial cost can be associated with the disaster, and some teams can identify the amount of rebuild for various infrastructure etc.

Each session would involve a briefing (possibly sent out as materials beforehand) , a discovery period (to get people familiar with the tools and data) , a real play and a debrief - the debrief could be used within each team to discuss some of the surrounding issues - how easy was it to get data, what was missing, are there any sharing/policy/ethical issues that came up.

Mode for this - still need to work out what communication method to use (Zoom/Teams) and any portals to share data and interactive interfaces to produce outputs. Some development of dummy data would be necessary unless you could identify data gathered for an actual earthquake.

It would be useful if a report could be written.

I'd suggest if you take forward these ideas to the general WG Disaster workplan meeting we can then identify if there are any overlaps or synergies with other tasks (e.g. are there ideas to discuss issues surrounding implementation of the IGIF that other task groups would be better suited to lead?)

Development - March to June Delivery - July Report - July/August.

Communication strategy

1. Broadcasting for the establishment of the CoP and its themes , and how to get involved
2. Publicity about the scenario and its successful conclusion would be needed.

These are some ideas for how to crystalise how the workplan could be framed and I put them for comment back to the group.

[hfu]

Many thanks, @qhong21 and @AlanMillsUK for your inputs.

I would like to take a few days before digest what has been inputted.

Regarding why we need a common platform I am still not sure if we need one. It may depend on the definition of the platform itself. I feel that all the users should use the platform they already use, rather than trying to use a new one.

One new platform might be good, but zero new platforms might be even better if it works.

I do not think we can define participants. Rather we need to describe participants because we have no choice on participants. We need to leave no one behind and we won't be able to prioritize any type of participants.

[qhong21]

@hfu @AlanMillsUK Good morning ,and Good evening?

1. About the Platform. I agree with AlanMills that we can look at an exercise to identify what kind of platform do we need. To build a Platform is not our goal. If the Platform is helpful to achieve the purpose of WG-Disasters, then it is nessesary, otherwise why shoud we do this?
2. About the Participants. As AlanMills has defined, National Mapping Agencies, Data providers, Disaster Management IM specialists, NGOs with GIS background, all people who are interested in the exercise are welcome.

[hfu]

Along with the kind suggestion by @AlanMillsUK , I am submitting the following table to the WG-Disasters Bureau for their review and discussion. Thanks.

[hfu]

@AlanMillsUK and @qhong21, today I explained the table above and it was well-received. Thanks so much for your help. All that I received from the WG bureau is that it is OK to have our milestone in August 2021 which is not so surprising. I think we have full freedom as the Task Group to proceed. Another piece of advice is that we should contact ESCAP because they have a concept of the Asia-Pacific Geospatial Information Platform.

[qhong21]

@hfu Good news! It's not easy to conduct a real exercise. At lease we could move forward step by step.

[AlanMillsUK]

Great news, Hidenori. Let's start to establish some milestones and activities to really get moving in the new year. Agree interesting to develop the ESCAP relationship. Have you seen the recently launched GEOCRIS for the Caribbean (CDEMA/CARICOM) funded by the World Bank. The link is here - https://geocris2.cdema.org/

[hfu]

Happy to see vector tiles on GEOCRIS by the way :-)