The term “Spatial Data Infrastructure” (SDI) is often used to denote the relevant base collection of technologies, policies and institutional arrangements that facilitate the availability of and access to spatial data. SDI describes the overall methodology, process, existing practice, terms, policies of Nepal.

1. Ramji Ghimire
Ashmita Rijal
Tejendra Budhamagar
Alaya Banstola
1
A Volunteer Presentation On

2.  A Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is an enabling platform for data sharing. It
is based on a dynamic, hierarchic and multi-disciplinary concept that includes,
people, data, access networks, institutional policy, technical standards and
human resources dimensions which aims to facilitate and coordinate the
exchange and sharing of spatial data between stakeholders in the spatial data
community. [Department of Geomatics, University of Melbourne]
2

3.  Difficulty in search and discover of spatial data.
 Lengthy process for procuring spatial data
 Islands of Spatial Data: lack of standards, quality, harmonization, compatibility, encoding.
 Many organizations collect same or overlapping data
 Digitalization in every sector. And Customer expectations
 Had to spend a lot of resources in development of each GI systems. That means a lot of
duplication and loss of resources eventually affecting the time, budget and the efficiency of the
system. (RR Chatkuli)
3

4.  Too much Duplication of data = Waste
 Ad hoc data sharing had many difficulties.
 Best data often collected in greatest detail at local level but not accessible to regional
or national folk.
 Indexes/metadata to available GI unknown until recently.
 Different standards and specifications
 Different systems
 Inconsistent data
 High operational costs
 Lack of information linking
 Lack of coordination and collaboration
4

5. 5

6. NTDB
1996
6
IT policy
2000
Ninth
Plan
(1997-
2002)
Tenth
Plan
(2002-
2007)
Tenth
Plan
(2002-
2007)
NGII
Program
2002
Systematic
Map
Digitalizati
on and
Digital
Mapping
Project
1999
8th Periodic
Plan: GIS
Activities
Initiation
1992-1997

7.  In the year 2002, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal initiated the National Geographic
Information Infrastructure (NGII) programme with one of the pronounced objectives of avoiding
duplication in spatial data creation and usage through the networking of different GI Systems in
the country. )
 At the initial phase, the fundamental dataset in the NGII in Nepal were the National Topographic
Database (NTDB) and National Census Database (NCDB).
 In addition 1:5,000 scale orthophoto database for all the densely populated urban areas and
1:10,000 scale orthophoto database for all the less-densely populated semi-urban areas was also for
part of spatial database coverage of NGII.
 A NGII or national geographic information system in Nepal when operational was not only change
the information handling scenario but had been making impact on the decision making system in
all organizations in the country.
7

8. 8

9.  To reduce redundancy in geospatial data production
 Participation of all spatial data producers in one platform
 Sharing of available geospatial Information through one window
9

10. 10
Geoportal
www.ngii
p.gov.np
2005
NRs. 3.6M
Worth data
sold
2004
EC handed
over
mapping
component
to the Govt.
2005
Geoportal
https://nati
onalgeoport
al.gov.np/
2018
54 datasets,
10549 data
views,
12602
downloads
in
Geoportal
Till date
NeLIS
2021
Digital
Mapping
and Service
Delivery
Directives
2021
LRIMS
2015
TODAY

11.  Nepal Geospatial Portal has been developed with the technical support of
ICIMOD.
 The development of the Nepal Geospatial Portal is the enhancement of previous
NGIIP portal. This is being made a single platform for all the important
Geospatial Information about Nepal.
 National Geographic Infrastructure Information Program (NGIIP) was
established as geoportal for delivering the geospatial resources to users. Later it
was modified on July 2018. The latest one is quite good and informative. The URL
of geoportal is http://nationalgeoportal.gov.np/. Geoportal is the key source for the
data sharing and querying. Geoportal are characterized by technical and
functional. Considering the followed standard is Web Map Service.
11

12. 12

13.  it has followed only ISO 19115.
 Here standard only defines the following components like
 dates, identification, extent, quality, spatial resolution, coordinate system.
 Rest of ISO standards are not there for defining the elements like cataloguing of the features,
web mapping application, online data processing etc. In case of OGC standards partially
following the web map service but rest of service like web feature service, web coverage
service, Cataloguing web service etc. are still missing.
13

14.  Nepal has suffered from a decade long arm-conflict since 1996-2006
 Political Instability and long transitional period since 2007-2015,
 Recent Earthquake 2015 struck Nepal and again affected the 31 districts out of 75
districts)
 COVID 19 in 2019 which stayed for more than 2yrs.
 Despite of our efforts,
 We could not be able to update our geospatial information and products in time thus are outdated.
Now it demands updated and reliable geospatial information and products
14

15.  During the process of building SDI and continuous operation, there are the
following challenges
 Satisfying the user demands because user demand is very high since technological
advancement.
 The continuous sustainability from the stakeholder though change in time and politics.
 The financial crisis may lead to failure of project in future.
 The technology is changing rapidly day by day and how to cope with that.
 The lack of education master’s degree in geoinformatics may lead to lack of trained and
skilled manpower.
 There is still lack of many standards and services. The standards are not fully
meeting the OGC and ISO.
 NSDI of Nepal Comparing with INSPIRE NSDI is very traditional and
traditional.
 The security of the geoportal is also critical factor because already hacked onetime
earlier. 15

16. 16

17. 17

18. 1. A broader geoinformation policy framework is still to be enunciated (pronounced) at the
national level. However, knowing that a national geoinformation policy cannot be borrowed
from others, it should be developed within the national context.
2. Effective national policies, strategies, and organizational structures need to be established at
the national level for the integration or national spatial data collection, use, and distribution
and sharing.
3. We need to expand the development and speed the creation and Implementation of standards
(content, quality, performance, and Exchange), procedures, and specifications for spatially
referenced digital data, and create a series of incentives, particularly among national agencies,
that would maximize the sharing of spatial data and minimize the redundancy of spatial data
collection.
4. Procedures should be established to foster ready access to information describing spatial data
available within government and the private sector through existing networks, thereby
providing online access by the public in the form of directories and catalogs.
18

19. The scope of the current activities is to pilot such an infrastructure with topographic and
census data at the first priority. Such data will be made available and shared with all the
users. On the second stage, the ministry of Local Development, the ministry of Education,
the ministry of Health, the ministry of Agriculture and the ministry of Population and
Environment will be incorporated on the infrastructure. -Department of Survey, Nepal
The future focus for spatial information managers on the delivery of a virtual world which
facilitates decision making at a community level within a national context. This requires
integration of the natural and built environmental data sets and the need for an SDI that
facilitates this integration. The technology exists to create this virtual world but this is not
enough in itself without the sustained input from both data producers and users (CRC-SI
2005).
The benefits of a virtual world include the representation of feature-based structures of the
world as well as the administration and institutional aspects of such features, enabling both
technical and institutional (e.g. policies) aspects to be incorporated into decision-making. It
is this aspect of research that is often identified as more challenging than complex technical
issues (Rajabifard et al. 2005).
The Association of Europe’s National Mapping Agencies, Land (2005) recognizes the need to
focus on institutional rather than just technical challenges in building SDIs and delivering
interoperable information.
The need for a high degree of multilevel stakeholder participation in SDI implementation.
19

20.  It must also be recognised that the vision of a bottom up SDI, driven more by sub-national
governments, differs markedly from the top down one that is implicit in much of the current
SDI literature. While the top down vision emphasises the need for standardisation and
uniformity the bottom up vision stresses the importance of diversity and heterogeneity
given the very different aspirations of the various stakeholders and the resources that are
at their disposal.
 Onsrud and Rushton (1995) define the issues involved in data sharing in the following
terms: 'Sharing of geographic information involves more than a simple data exchange. To
facilitate sharing, the GIS research and user communities must deal with both the technical
and institutional aspects of collecting, structuring, analysing, presenting, disseminating,
integrating and maintaining spatial data.’
 Understanding of the relationships between different SDI jurisdictions, knowing more
about SDI development issues and knowing about the potential and applicability of each
SDI development model are important for effective SDI development and drive the
flexibility required in the second generation of SDI development.
 Whatever happens, every country will increasingly require some form of strategic National
SDI coordination (and leadership). Whether this is a re-engineered national mapping
agency or a consortium of the major large-scale producers, there will always be the need for
a nation wide SDI focus at the national political level. Current examples and drivers of this
national strategic role include counter terrorism and emergency response, natural resource
management across jurisdictions (such as salinity and water issues) and development of
oceans policy, especially within countries who rely on the oceans as a major source of food.
20

21.  There has however been a movement away from national small-scale data to more people
relevant large-scale information, generally derived at a sub-national level. The
development and availability of this people relevant data together with the creation of an
enabling platform or “Virtual Jurisdiction” as described within the third generation of SDI
development is creating new opportunities for greater private sector involvement in SDI
development. There is the need to build an enabling platform which will need to be the
primary domain of sub-national governments, creating access to fundamental largescale
datasets across linked jurisdictions.
 “If the NSDI is to be truly successful for the nation, it must be embraced by state and local
government and the populace as a whole.”
--Wally Bowen, Mountain Area Information Network, North Carolina, writing to the Federal
Geographic Data Committee, 1996.
 An effective framework for co-operation between the public and private sectors is essential
for accelerating the implementation of a sustainable NSDI;
21

22. Thank you very
much for your
kind attention.
Any queries are
welcome
please!!! 22