1. Geospatial, Open-Source Hosting of Agriculture, Resources and Environmental Data Institutional Design Presented by Thomas Hertel Purdue University Presentation at the GEOSHARE Workshop, Purdue University Wednesday, September 10, 2014

2. Our thinking has evolved….. – Initial White Paper envisioned a centralized budget from which we would fund research nodes and activities – However: Raising money takes time and energy Passing money through one institution to others is complex Accountability becomes clouded Individual nodes face many demands/diverse incentives Nodes are better placed to identify specific funding needs But GEOSHARE can effectively link funding agencies with nodes Diversification of funding sources is important for longevity – Suggests a more decentralized institutional model – similar to the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP)

3. GTAP as inspiration for GEOSHARE GTAP founded at Purdue in 1992 : – Aims to lower entry barriers and improve quality of global economic analysis – Maintains analytical data base and supports dozens of different models – # countries has grown from 13 to > 130 – Annual short courses & conferences GTAP network has grown rapidly – Now more than 12,000 in 160+ countries – 1,000 members in Africa – National data sourced from network; data contributors ‘on inside track’ GTAP Consortium key to success – 28 sponsors represent leading national and international agencies – Diversified funding base provides stability – Advisory Board ensures that the project remains policy relevant – No single agency could accomplish what decentralized project now does each year RegionMembersNetwork% Per Million Pop Africa1,02011.7%1.2 Asia3,09435.4%0.8 Europe2,05923.6%3.5 North America 1,72519.8%3.5 Oceania3403.9%10.9 South America 4945.7%1.4

4. Proposed Governance Structure

5. Advisory Board: -Represents stakeholders -Provides leadership & core funding -Proposes/approves nodes -Endorses GEOSHARE data -Approves Executive Director -Includes Scientific Committee Chair

6. Proposed Governance Structure Scientific Committee: -Members = node leaders -Develops scientific standards -Recommends data for endorsement by the Board -Recommends ‘horses for courses’

7. Proposed Governance Structure Management of Project: -Executive Director = CEO -Recruits new Board members -Fund-raising -Assists nodes with grant proposals -Appoints Managing Director and Scientific Coordinator

8. Who would join the consortium? GTAP board members: – National agencies: US (Agr, Energy, EPA, ITC, Commerce), Japan (2), Australia, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, EU Commission – International agencies: Wld Bank, ADB, IDB, IFPRI, OECD, WTO, UNCTAD, UNECA, UNESWA, UN-ITC, FAO – Private sector: KPMG, EPRI, – Universities: MIT, Hohenheim Potential GEOSHARE members: – Private sector – Foundations – National agencies – International agencies – LDC governments and institutions funded by AID agencies and foundations – International centers

9. Design allows for easy expansion of nodes – Nodes which expand regional coverage (e.g., Europe, North America, East Asia) – Nodes which add richness to current themes: Land tenure Poverty Soils – Nodes which expand on current themes: Climate Science Livestock Biodiversity Forestry Nutrition Demographics – Nodes representing closely related communities: GEOGLAM CGIAR: Consortium for Spatial Information

10. Summary Sustained provision of global public goods for analysis of global food and environmental security presents an institutional challenge Incentives are key; some of these will evolve over the course of the project Combination of Advisory Board, Scientific Committee, and University base will allow for long term contributions which remain at the cutting edge of contemporary issues facing private and public sector decision makers