SDI Convergence - Nederlandse Commissie voor Geodesie - KNAW

to play a larger part in the development of spatial information policy for the Department
as a whole.
The Victorian Spatial Information Strategy for 2004 to 2007 (VSIS) differed from its
predecessor in several important ways. The VGIS strategies had focussed largely on
issues of management and custodianship associated with the eight fundamental data
sets that are the core of the State’s SDI, but the VSIS was much broader in scope and
presented a whole of industry approach rather than a governmental model. The implementation
of the VSIS and the preparation of the latest strategy for 2008-2010 have
been overseen by the whole of industry body, the Victorian Spatial Council, that was
set up in 2004. Its membership includes representatives drawn from state government
(3), local government (2), federal government (1), academia (2), the professions (2)
and the private sector (2). An independent chairman of the Council has been appointed
by the Secretary of the State Department of Sustainability and Environment.
The experiences of Victoria indicate that a combination of internal and external factors
affects the evolution of SDIs over time. Internally, those involved participate in a process
of learning by doing that takes account of the experiences of earlier stages of SDI
implementation. Externally, important changes in the nature of the SDI may be a consequence
of the restructuring of other activities within government as a whole. The interaction
between these two strands will govern the trajectory of SDI development.
6. SOME CHALLENGES FACING SDI IMPLEMENTATION
SDIs have attracted a lot of attention from governments all over the world over the last
ten years. This raises the inevitable question as to how far they will be able to deliver
the promised benefits over time. Bregt and Crompvoets (2004) have argued that some
SDIs may have already raised unrealistic expectations and their benefits that are not
proven. These are likely to attract few stakeholders and can be classified as ‘hype’. In
contrast, the successful ‘hit’ SDIs will be those that have developed in response to realistic
expectations and can deliver proven benefits. Most or all the relevant stakeholders
are likely to be involved in such SDIs.
In practice, as the discussion in section 3 of this article shows, SDI outcomes are likely
to be much more complex in practice because of the nature of the implementation
processes. The discussion of multi level governance in section 4 of this article suggests
that successful SDI implementation will be heavily dependent upon the extent to which
sub national agencies are actively involved. The challenges that arise at the sub national
level are highlighted in the findings of the Advanced Regional SDIs workshop
that was organised by the Joint Research Centre last year (Craglia and Campagna,
2009) and are the central focus of attention in the current ESDInet+ project that is
funded by the European Commission (www.esdinetplus.eu).
The findings of these and other studies suggest that effective SDI implementation is
often facilitated in countries such as Australia and Germany where many important
administrative responsibilities are devolved to the state level and established institutions
already exist at this level for policy making and implementation. However, it
should also be noted that the information infrastructures that come into being at this
level are often different in many respects from those at the national level (De Man,
2007) and also that these fall essentially into the type 1 governance category. Consequently,
further challenges may have to be overcome in these situations in order to respond
to the needs of type 2 governance agencies.
226