And then about work that we've been doing to assess the state of data, land data specifically across country level. And the work that we are doing to scale that up into a sort of a global indicator on data accessibility and data openness. But we're also currently doing some work in Mozambique. Work is not yet complete. So maybe with that and by way of introduction, I'd like to invite Marie up here to just tell us a little bit about what is happening in Mozambique with regards to data on land and what they are doing in Mozambique at the moment. So, welcome. Thank you. So, I'm Maria. In the end, I'm from Mozambique. I work for Terrafilm. So, I will talk a bit about how the data stage access is in Mozambique. I will start by giving you an overall information about how rules are very, how can I say, upfront and talk about this data sharing and data collecting. In Mozambique, the constitution always talks about sharing data. It's a constitutional right to have information about what is the stage of the data. Not only the land data, but all the data percentage of collection and other types of use of land. So, besides the constitution, we've also had the quiz that they talk about for instance how this data should be collected, how this data should be shared among different institutions of government. There is also another quiz that was put in place that talks about the right of the right to access this data. Because we have, it's very difficult to access data. Even if you're doing a research, you go to a ministry or a national agency or somewhere else to ask for information and one gives you the information. There is this degree, but even with this degree, you write a letter to ask to access this data. They will receive your letter, they will say that they will get back to you every day maybe, but they never get back to you. So, it's very, very difficult to get information, especially accurate information. So, one of the things that the land belongs to the state. So, what you get is the right to use and profit from this land, but the land belongs to the state. And the state has to establish a national land disaster. This national land disaster is not only about land. It should be encode all types of uses, I mean fisheries, mines, forestry, everything. But all these institutions, they have to create their own disaster and then send all this data to one institution that will establish the land disaster. But unfortunately, not even the smallest institutions, they have ways of creating data-based systems to help all the information.  This system is established on the province level. So, all the districts have to send data to the province level. But this database is not connected to the national level. So, this interoperability between the databases. And they also need, besides that, besides this interoperability, they work in different ways. You can find one using open source software. The one is using a software that needs a license and there is no disconnection between the database. And that makes it more difficult for them to have all the information together in one place. So, if you go to the national level at this moment and you ask them, how much do you need this, do we have the limited? They can give you a number, but they can't show you. Even the number they will say may be because it's not them who are doing the documentation. What happens is that the NGOs or private companies, and also the individual or persons documentation. And because the system is not working, people that are doing the documentation are keeping the data with them until they have a system that works so then they can send it and have everything together in one database. So, the effort of having systems that collect information and share it with everyone becomes mostly from NGOs and private sector companies. So, the other thing is that the land, the land is low. For us, it's low. I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe it. And that for me was a big concern because how can you be revising something without having a full feature of why it's happening? How can you assure that this review will bring inclusivity, will bring values of natural resources if you don't have a big feature of why it's happening? So, this is why, not now but a while, maybe five years now, there are a few companies that are working for. It's been thinking about this. Everyone has data, but why is this data? So, we started gathering all the information that was possible. So, we started by talking with the government because we told that it would be good for them to be part of this because you can do it, it's public information but we want them also to be part of this process because a lot of the information actually eats with them as well. They don't, it's right, but it's with them. So, we give them tablets, we establish a database where they can take a picture and send us information about the communities that are related. We also did this with NGOs, asking people if you have shapefiles, if you have any data related to forestry sessions related to land, communications, send us and we will see how we can work out of this data. And we end up establishing a portal, which is a portal that is still working on it and we were finally able to sign an MOU of the government, it's been a couple of weeks ago, that we signed the MOU of the government to pull this geoportal out and share all the data that we have with people. We were able to collect more than 2,000 parcels, communities like areas that we don't need them and we also have the documentation related to those communities. And we think that this portal will be very important also for the communities because we have a lot of things that we don't need them. But when you go there and ask them, will you don't need them, they will say yes. Can you show us a paper? Because when you don't need them, they will say a certificate. Can you show us a certificate? No, we don't have a certificate because it takes time for the government to issue the certificate, it can take 30 to 60 days or even more if you don't follow up, even more. And sometimes they don't even give the certificate to the communities. And because a lot of NGOs that are doing the communication, they will lay on the donors' money and it's still a certain period of time. When that period ends, they don't follow up. They don't get communities that we don't need them, but they don't have a certificate. And when a different NGO comes, they will say, no, we don't need them because we don't have a paper, but they don't need it. So in this portal, it will be easy for anyone just to go there and visualize everything, not only about the communities that we don't need them, what is within this community in terms of natural resources, the documents that this community has related to the government, to the population because we are also overlapping the information of our population. So private companies, donors, anyone who wants to plan an activity without including this community can have more insights to produce a better plan to know where it's going and what to do. So basically this is what I have to share with you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Unless there are urgent questions, I think we can open the discussion at the end. But I think what you just presented highlights some of the challenges, the problems, but also the opportunities in a very practical way that kind of motivated the work that we started doing on documenting the data ecosystem. So I work for the Land Portal Foundation, and we are advocates for open land data. But we see land data as driving progress, improving access as not only a right in and of itself, but as a foundation for enabling and the achievement of other rights. But we also seek to engage stakeholders in this process and develop supporting actions to not only advocate for opening up of information about land, but also to build capacity around that. And I think the situation that we are facing is that there's poorly managed data often available, often localized, but it is inaccessible. It is not seen. And I could take it better if anyone's Google's now information on Mozambique will most likely first be directed to a World Bank website or data resource, et cetera. And we have very little information on the country often that is visible. This is partly the way the information is structured on the Internet, how interoperable and open and accessible it is. And so I think for us the challenge is to engage at country level to say what can you do to make your information that you need for the services that you provide more available, more accessible, and you can read more about the Land Portal. But I do want to stress, we've had this discussion over the last couple of days on sort of human rights framework and land in that context. And we often forget that information is a fundamental right in and of itself, but it's also a key enabler of other rights. The SDGs have access to information as a core issue in 16.10.2. The African Charter specifically talks about access to information as one of its fundamental rights. And to strengthen that, the AU has gone as far as to draft the modern law on access to information that countries can use to guide themselves to adopt as a legal framework for protecting access to information. And then the reason I emphasize this is because often in discussions, access to information is presented as a luxury and nice to have something that is additional to but not core because people are talking about access to water, to sanitation, to nutrition, and information is somehow a more esoteric right that comes later and afterwards. And I want to turn that around that if you talk about access to water or sanitation and nutrition, you need to start with access to information. That is the starting point. And I think it's also important for us to remember that access to information in and of itself is not really the goal. It's the means to an end, but it's about using that information to then provide access to services. And in our context, we are talking about services to land. But I think it's instructive to look at the AU level, for example, in Africa and realize at the highest levels that access to information is a fundamental right and is a very important issue. We'll look at some results a little bit later. So the land portal has developed a number of tools to track the state of land information. What we're talking about now is the solely index. We want to measure the openness of land data. We want to do this in a way that is globally comparable and it's derived from the work that we do, which is called the state of land information, but it was a more narrative and descriptive assessment at national level, at countries. And we realize we need to scale up this work. We've piloted about 17 countries, but we realize we need to make these findings more actionable and that's part of the rationale for the development of an index that is benchmark that countries can use as a baseline and as a diagnostic. And then the third level that we work at is to use this diagnostic to then engage at country level to support actions to open up information and that we developed a soft tool called the open-up guide that can be used by countries but can also be used by organizations and talks about standards, et cetera. Please feel free to join us. No problem. So we've kind of compared the map to solely index, which is work that we've already developed with the global data barometer called the land module and we see this not as duplication but really as an effort to complement existing initiatives that exist on monitoring data, tracking the state of data. So we're talking about the SDG tracker, we're talking about Glee, Landex, Pryndex, but they all have their role and they all play a slightly different function. And we are also in discussions actually with Landex how to feed this into the Landex data set and in the GDP. But we also see this as a means for driving discourse about land and about data and information. And it's important because when we speak about data, even though we like to say that data itself is neutral, the organizations, the people that deploy the data are not neutral, they have political agendas. So when we talk about data, we have to talk about ethics, we have to talk about justice and we have to talk about inclusion. But we've also framed this in the context of land data. So we've derived it from the land administrative functions because we said what are the services that we need to deliver in land and so we say, okay, this is the framework for land administration for sustainable development. Those are the services that governments need to render. Let's use that as the basis for defining what is land data and what is the type of categories for land data. So you could say the solely index is guided by these three conceptual frameworks more broadly one is the theory on land administration. What that is, it's an existing theory being adopted by the UN, FEDLA, et cetera. And then we have open data. This is the open data community. What qualifies as open? What does open mean? How do we understand open? So this is criteria such as interoperability. Is the data machine readable? And so we use this to define the categories of land data and then also the criteria for openness. So we are not interested in assessing the spatial accuracy of the data or the precision of the data or the resolution of the data, but we are interested in assessing how open that data is. How available is it? How easy is it for a citizen to access the data or you need to register on a platform and you need to pay a fee. So we use that kind of approach. And then this is anchored in kind of a human rights framework for developing indicators. I think that was also a little bit of talk about that yesterday. So the process that we go through can really be described. I don't like to use phase one and phase two, but it does serve a purpose for demonstrating the flow of our methodology. So the first step is really to understand how much public sector information is available and then to assess how open that information is and finally provide a globally comparable indicator for openness. When we engage with governments, we often, not only governments, many organizations, say, no, we make our data openly available. And when you interrogate that, they publish it to their website, but it's a PDF report and all the graphs and all the tables are embedded within that PDF. And we say, okay, that's public, but it's not really open. And so it's also about developing this understanding of what open means from a technical perspective, not just public. And when we start examining government policies, you start seeing this strong foundation in law, in policy for sharing and making information accessible, but it is often not fully implemented and understood in that way. Also to make sure that our process is as transparent as possible. So we focus on the databases that are, for which government are the custodians. So, you know, we don't look at the World Bank or WRI or these other organizations, you look at government, what data do they have that they make available for citizens to use and we document that data so that when we do the assessment, all the data resources that have been assessed are also available for public scrutiny and we see that as a process where the datasets can be updated, new data that comes online can be reported there and we hope that this is going to be some measure of engagement and we document that and then we score the data according to these 10 criteria for how open it is and I think we will keep all these processes, you know, very public. I think most people won't really dig into it, but if you want to, you can. So we've identified the four core data categories which are tenure data, land use data, land value data and land development data. Of course, not everything applies in every country. We heard from Mozambique, there's not a formal land market per se because all land is owned by the state but assets related to land are still bought and sold and traded. So there are still measures for land market. Also, you look at budget information. Are the budgets made public? Are they online? So how much money is being spent on land development functions or how much money is derived from land development functions? Once again, I'm not interested in the amount itself. We're interested in whether that information is publicly available and accessible. And then we look at the open data criteria of which we have 10. The first one seems obvious, but it's an important distinction. Is the data online? We find in many cases data exists in countries but it's closed, it's on systems, it's on hard drives, it's on intranets but it's not online. Is it accessible, free, timely? Is there complete metadata? Are standards, appropriate standards used? Is the data downloadable in bulk? Do they use APIs? Is there license information? How machine readable is it and do they use URIs? And you can see these are sort of levels of sophistication in terms of openness because it's not a binary. And then in terms of the data governance, we start with looking at sort of international instruments like the African Charter, look at countries that have ratified that and then you look at the national commitment. So is there an ATI law? Is there data protection law? Is there mention of access to information in the land data and legislation and operational practices and procedures between government ministries for swapping and exchanging and transferring data? And we score this either yes, it's fully open or it's partially open or it's only a little open or no, it's not open at all and then this will be computed and weighted and the final score will be derived. In terms of the types of indicators that we have, governance is a structural indicator looking at the governance of data then we have the openness of data which is an outcome indicator and we're also borrowing a module on capabilities which is a process indicator from the GDP to try and give a complete picture about what is the legal framework with regards to openness, what is the outcome with regards to openness and what are the capabilities with regards to opening up data within the government sector. So we ask ourselves four key questions. What is the indicator? It's an indicator that assesses the openness of land data and we want to do this globally. Why? We think that land data in the public domain is very important, it enables use, ensures transparency and can improve decision making. I've already spoken about our methodology and we think this is an important diagnostic tool for policy makers, for land data custodians, for researchers, for practitioners and it's also a way of making these country narratives that we developed more actionable, more implementable. These are the key questions that we ask. So how much data is online and we ask that question about every category of data and so for example, for land tenure data we're not only looking at the disaster, we're also looking at communal lands. So is there a communal land register? Is that data recorded? Is it accessible? Is it available in indigenous lands where that may be applicable? So we have a number of questions like that and also asking questions about whether that data is, if it exists, if it's gender disaggregated. You have access to those information so we want to develop an element around the sort of inclusiveness of the data and not lose that as well. We hope that at the end of the day we can have a number of points of entry into interrogating the data. So you have a big picture global score that you can use for your lobbying and advocacy to say globally land data scores 40 for openness. Whatever that means it's easy to understand but if you really want to dig down you can say well I want to look at Mozambique. How open is land data in Mozambique? So the score is the starting point but then you can use that score to look at the types of land data in Mozambique that are open. Some types might be more open than others or less open. Or you can also look at the open criteria and see well a lot of data is online but it's all in PDFs so you can actually then come up with some interventions to not only make the data publicly available but to improve the technical characteristics of the data to improve its interoperability, its reuse the issues that you mentioned. And I think this can tell us number one about openness but also about the organization's capabilities to open data and then I think most importantly being able to identify some obstacles to openness that can become actions to rally around or to engage in at country level. With map against land tax I'm not going to go into the detail of the mapping or one of the issues that came up that we were missing in our initial drafts was some aspects of the sort of inclusivity which we have since included. There's also some other aspects that we are not going to include these are around whistleblower protections and tolerance for corruption because we do think that it's important to maintain kind of the thematic integrity of the indicator and not include everything that is important that we want to know about but also keep the relevance of the indicator and they are transparency international is working on a corruption indicator so there's no need to kind of duplicate that we're also having conversations with them to make sure that we don't overlap but that we complement. We also mapped against the GDP once again I'm not going to go into the mapping but I think it's to demonstrate that we are really seeking to complement the knowledge and the indicators that are out there rather than to redo the work. So what are the key elements that need to be considered? I think it's important that we make sure that we explicitly include these elements of data justice, data equity and inclusion. There was also a strong issue around climate change but we decided against including climate change data in the indicator because it becomes so broad and we see land data as one of the inputs for mitigating climate change rather than trying to measure that in here as well because then your measurement becomes so broad that it also then becomes a little bit meaningless and we are hoping to implement sort of pilot by the end of this year maybe launch that early next year for about 17 countries by the end of this year and then we want to scale up to collect data for 100 plus countries. 100 sounds like a good enough number to say it's global so 100 plus countries and then we are working on partnerships so we're part of the EC Data Alliance includes the land matrix prindex landex us talking to FAO the global data barometer so we're also really trying to build a broad alliance around the use and the uptake of the indicator which is going quite well so far. So what are the preliminary results and this is not a detailed analysis but I thought it might be interesting for the countries where we've completed work although it's still ongoing just to share some preliminary findings and we see that in 2001 one country out of 54 in Africa had an access to information law and I don't want to say it's because of the modern law on access to information that the African Union drafted but I think it certainly plays a role. We are now at more than 50% of countries in Africa have adopted an access to information law which I think is pretty significant and another eight countries have legislation pending that would put us on 65% of African countries having legislation or in the process of introducing legislation to access information which I think sends a strong signal that this is not a luxury issue this is a fundamental issue for governments to tackle my presentation is a little bit afrocentric because that is where the pilot countries are but that will also change when we scale out globally. Another 36 countries have data information legislation so there is a lot of emphasis obviously on privacy on security there is a lot of concern around that and I think that is normal and completely understandable. What we have seen is that countries where legislation on access to information exists tend to have better results with regards to opening. Now that shouldn't be a surprise because the legislation provides that kind of framework for some countries to just approve and act and there are some countries maybe that only adopted and acted at the end of last year but they have a strong spatial data infrastructure policy and long before they had access to information act, access to information in the land sector was considered a given because the old land legislation says that all land records have to be in the public domain. So even though there wasn't an ATI law a lot of progress had already been made so we also see this important not only for countries but other for pan-African institutions like the Development Bank who has also adopted an access to information, open access to information policy, open by default and in their rationale for adopting this policy they listed seven reasons, five of which were about the internal fulfillment of the bank's mission because often access to information is painted as some sort of service that you do for an external audience for other people to benefit from your work but it's not it's really for you to finish and complete your core mission you need to make information more interoperable, more accessible so I think that's just an interesting point to take note of as well some of the results that we see I hope the graph is clear so the blue and the green, the green is other land data and the purple I should say not blue purple is legal policy data, those are the data categories that we find are the most open so unsurprisingly many countries have quite well developed sort of legal databases where you can find the policies and that is obviously very important but when it comes to land tenure data there's very little available when it comes to land development data there's very little that is actually available of course it's also distributed because some of the development data and applications for development and enforcement issues are dealt at municipal or local authority level not necessarily at central government level and we find that at local authority level capacity tends to decrease the further you go down away from the national government but it is instructive that some progress is already being made and we can see the areas that need improvement and we can work on that land value data is also not particularly open but it's interesting that I think number one more data is available than countries often think when we go in the first response is no we don't have any data it doesn't exist when you start interrogating and understanding that countries usually find out that there's more data than they know about within government even we had a workshop in Senegal and it was quite funny because one of the government departments approached the director in the meeting and said but how can you share this the meeting and we never knew about this that you have this data so when you start having this discussion on access to information it starts opening some of the doors between government departments that are very siloed and often redo what other departments are doing data connection efforts and that is very expensive it's not very efficient it's not very effective but even though there is data it's fragmented it's unstructured it's poorly documented it's unknown it's not known about it's not open but it's public in various ways and then the other line that we hear often is that we have no capacity there's no technical capacity when you start looking a bit closer it might be true to some degree but there's often a lot more capacity but it's about allowing technical staff the freedom to innovate to implement to do what they need to do and to give them the resources to do that so we have accounted I think also in civil society quite strong open data communities that exist in these countries so there's a lot that is happening but it's a little bit invisible to each other and I think through this process we are also forcing a conversation a little bit more to happen at the national level please don't quote me on these results but the preliminary results so as I said please don't quote me she takes a picture to have a record but no please go ahead don't worry not a problem so we see South Africa obviously that started very early with an ATI law probably have the best results but we also saw the presentation yesterday South Africa's progress is actually slowing down they're not doing as well as they used when other countries are catching up and Namibia and Zambia were two countries that performed relatively well but didn't have an ATI law Zambia still doesn't have an ATI law and Namibia had an ATI law I think it was considered like on the 23rd of December last year so it's a very recent law countries that are not doing so well perhaps not unsurprisingly South Sudan but once again the purpose of this is not to rank the countries really against each other but to take that as a diagnostic and say okay where can we improve so for example in South Sudan a lot of policy documents were available are open so you still have a foundation from which to work and it's really about I think engaging in this process but then it's also important to have a benchmark and a global benchmark so that we have a good framework for comparison so I'm not too bad thank you for listening thank you for giving me your time and I think we'll both take questions now that you might have or any comments that you might have yes thank you for your presentation it's a nice presentation what becoming my question is I don't sometimes I'm struggling when doing the open data assessment because there are a lot of conditions yes but no like in the Netherlands if you ask about is it free yes for the parcel owner but no for the others because they need to pay like in Indonesia is it the only information level online yes for me as the landlord but no for the other person because they need to submit the request at the intention why they want to do the open data so based on your solid index I see there is a slightly available limited and open how can I put that yes but the condition in that index it doesn't create any misunderstanding okay yeah so I should get your details so that you can become a consultant for us when we launch the open up guidance we'll do the training of that no I mean it's a good point you know because when you try and develop these questions you develop them in a way that they are easy to answer but the situation on the ground is not so easy to answer is not so clear cut so we've tried to provide some rough guidance to when we do the assessment so for example for it to be fully free we take that to mean you don't need to occupy a special role to access the information anybody can access it if it's partially free it's where you start seeing different roles so I can go on to a portal and access this amount of information if I register on the portal and I become a registered user I perhaps have more options for download due to for whatever there might be additional information that I can download if I am a third level user i.e. I'm a government employee then I have access to the full dataset then we will describe it as partial we also have situations where you have to pay a fee to access the data anybody can be a license fee so for us the assessment is about how free is the data or how open is the data so that's the type of guidance that we try to use but it does require I think with all of these kind of assessments building of a competency between a group of people that are doing the assessment having those discussions doing the training and identifying those issues and agreeing on how to consistently address and score those issues I do think it is engagement but that is kind of a little bit the guidance that we use and it differs from country to country we also find situations where government officials would say no the data is freely available but it's only to officials in the department not to anybody else so we would say okay that would be a little bit available because it's not all accessible for the public but there is and we do think that it's important to break down those silos between government departments as well so if more departments are sharing and have access to information that is something that we would like to see reflected in the scoring of the answers with questions. Hi I'm a professor from Spangorg I work for Spangorg University as a senior founder we have one data in Spangorg we are giving the information fields of the data on this year and I want to ask that you have governments to collect and share the data of these parties I understood do you work with local governments also or you just look at the country level so when we do the assessment we do it primarily at the national level because there is so much variation between local authorities and municipalities and the competencies that you have but for something like say for example land development data how are development applications submitted is that information available we would look at a sample local authority typically we would look at usually say the biggest one to see if that is available when we do the open up work at the moment our partners have been in the beginning national government at the national level but then it starts boiling down to a specific department so the department of land and territorial services or the survey general's office but we have also previously actually discussed to try and implement the guide at local authority level municipality where city that is dealing with these issues at local level would be interested in applying the guide and we've had some preliminary discussions but we haven't had a pilot implementation at the local authority level yet but we do think that would actually be very interesting because also when you engage at in many countries based on the sort of decentralization structure a lot of the resources lie at national level but a lot of the data collection activities and initiatives happen at local authority level and it's about also trying to have a conversation to bridge this what do you need at local authority level how can you aggregate that and feed data into the national system in two details but that is relevant for the national level and vice versa how do you take national level planning spatial plans development plans for the country or for the province and have those feed into and become the basis for your local level planning and this is the kind of information flows that are missing and that we would like to emphasize data it's about opening those flows as well not only a sort of internal external perspective but within government and within local and national government so I think it's a very interesting question that you've raised and something that we think also would be very interesting any others yes thank you for the presentation my questions in the Soviet indexes I for example is there any importance of sharing more data for example sharing all the main names or the location or it's just about the accessibility or if it is free is there any importance so in the assessment we describe the type of information that is made available but we don't strictly assess it at that level of detail so we don't score it better because ownership, let's say the owner's name is part of the public record we do document that to describe the type of information and primarily because we think that conversation about whether you make the owner's name public or conversation and it's going to differ from country to country it's going to differ from the legislative framework that we have so we don't advocate that owner's name should be in some countries it is in some countries it's not if you go to Canada and you look on the open pedestal database the address is on there the size of the plot is on there the dimensions of the plot is on there the coordinates of the plot is on there if you go to Namibia it's not a digital system the digital system is closed but the analogue information is also public record so anybody has the right to access any information on that including the mortgage the rationale for that comes from the perspective that the property needs to be public so that if you have a mortgage on a property you cannot hide that information and sell the property and get away from the responsibility so mortgage information is considered a public right and the public has a right to know but like I said that depends very much on the kind of legal context and framework and there's I think not something that we would say must be or that's what it shouldn't be that's really a national conversation that needs to be had but we do point out look for the services that you are trying to deliver what kind of information and what level of information is needed is it only the location of the plot the use of the plot the type of ownership perhaps so it's a concession it's a lease it's privately owned or in state land that might be submission in some cases for planning purposes but if you have a strong interconnected financial system that is linked to banks and property transactions and the property market then you might want to have ownership information and mortgage information linked to that as you do in some other countries but it also depends on readiness I think you can't jump from having no information to having sort of completely open there is a learning process there's capacity that needs to be developed to not only keep the information but to keep it safely to keep it securely to respect people's rights to privacy and finding that trade-off and that balance that is often privacy to also be probably protected constitutionally and protected legally and it would be remiss of us to now start going in not understanding privacy legislation and culture in a country to say this is what it should be but I think what we want is exactly this kind of dialogue what level of information should be made public and we would like to link that to what level of services would you like to deliver and to make the information available that is needed for the service that must be delivered maybe I'm just curious is there any correlation between the land registration with and the tendency of nations to open their the correlation between the land registration land governance legislation and the comparison of registration in the country like in the media with the tendency of there to open the data to the country we haven't researched a correlation between sort of the legislative framework and the degree of openness we only looked at the data governance framework but the presentation that Mark made yesterday afternoon I don't know who was there and I immediately thought that is very interesting I would like to look at their assessment of land governance progress and the systems that they've described and the framework that they're and try and map that against the degree of openness to see if there's a correlation that maybe countries that are more open have a more mature system or are doing better but I suspect there will not be a neat correlation but it will still be interesting to compare and see what comes out of that but this is if we think that the data is not correct enough so there is some problem in data so can we say that the open data is a good thing because that needs some problem okay so I think we think that the best way to improve the quality of data is to let people use it, inspect it and complain and fix it and you will find a lot of even big organizations now when they want to improve their software or they want to improve their data they release an alpha or beta version to the public and let the hackers work on it and do all that work for free because your data will never be perfect your data will never be good your data depends on the purpose for which the data is to be used so I think from our perspective number one we don't assess the quality of the data in that regard but we do believe that making the data open even if the data is for whatever parameter you are using not accurate enough or of not good enough quality we think there are other uses for which it will probably be good and that the users are best place to decide that but we think that that process of opening up data is actually a very important tool in improving the quality of the data and making it more fit for purpose because we encounter that a lot we can't make our data public because there are too many mistakes part of it is professional pride and embarrassment I don't want to release a product I am the director general of this department I am now exposing myself to the public to my supervisor to my boss to my head of the department that might think now I am incompetent or I didn't do my job well enough so these are internal issues that have to be overcome to say well look opening up the data is not an assessment of the department's competency it is really proof of the department's willingness to improve the data to work on the data and that means it must be accompanied by a liability statement for example by a license that clarifies we talked about license information when you make the data available to say we are releasing this data this is the purpose that we anticipate the data to be used for we don't expect that this data can form the basis for legal boundaries that is still the survey record for example that we have so that you don't start creating false expectations of what you are releasing so make it clear what it is being released what you think it is good for and what you think it is not good for and what you are willing to be liable for and what you are not liable for so a government license on data metadata of the quality of the data and it is really just about describing the data rather than deciding what is good or what is bad by describing what it is that is being released no problem yes maybe it is more to put it on a more general perspective so I see this trend on the data availability that a country goes from the face not available and we come up with levels but in the end some of the country I think put it now as the more intricate data more detailed and more accuracy data and they put it in some kind of famous world what is your maybe general perspective on it like is it okay whether it is like an effect in the openness you mean you put the data behind a paywall I mean I think I think you lose an important opportunity if you do that there is so much research that has shown that the money that is generated doesn't come from selling of data but comes from the services that are developed on the data in other words the real money for the SG's office doesn't or for a country doesn't come from putting data behind a paywall and charging people for it it really becomes data services that are developed everything from the guy in your town that is now using that address data to his pizza delivery service to set up an app to deliver food or to do home repairs because you can do that that's really where the value lies I think data from Canada from Australia showed that oil exploration data they started forcing even private companies that get government concessions to exploration after five years that data was now being released and made available including to their competitors and the industry was chopped like I mean we're giving away our competitive advantage what happened was that within 20 years I'm not a big advocate of the world industry I'm using it as an example boom from about 20 billion to 200 billion because companies were now not spending their time on redoing seismic surveys that somebody else has done and all the environmental damage that goes with that with all the exploration and repeated exploration but they could spend their money on innovation developing other parts of that sector and that's just an example of I think where opening up data getting away from paying wars, getting away from charging for the data really can be a driver actually for innovations that we don't know yet by private people, by individuals, by students by researchers, by industry we use the data to do something that we haven't thought of and that's the driver I think of economies and looking to the future so I think a lot of countries still have the idea a little bit that data is valuable data is important and so we want to charge for the data we don't want to make it a better national level to get about selling the data or charging for the data give it away for free and let people use it and come up with uses in mind that you still want to make sure that everybody is included that people are not left behind that there are no communities that are excluded or open to exploitation but just because somebody sells their land we don't say land shouldn't be titled for example there are risks with opening up information but we think that the risks are bigger by holding information closed because then you really allow the elites to have access to the information only so opening up information it doesn't completely level the playing field but it creates a more level playing field than keeping the information closed which really just gives power to those that have access to political links and to connections and departments I was looking at the government that has done the most assessments of the economic value of opening data is the coordinate survey in the UK and they've done a whole assessment so there is like a significant, I mean probably like at least 30 million pounds or something for a year in direct increase in revenue but there's all kinds of the OECD and the UK have earlier this year published by the research on the economic impacts of opening up data and quantifying the benefits so that information is also available and we also wrote a paper on the state of land ownership data in the vision of the chapter state of open data it's quite dense but it's very short it's a blog but it has a lot of references to articles on innovation and the use of data and the benefits to be derived from data and also shows that the shift has moved really from opening up data to thinking of already the next level of the use and impact of that data what purpose does it serve and I think 20 years ago made that we are bringing both the data portal and the users will come and the research shows that 90% of data portals are underutilized so it's not enough to put the information out there to start but it's also thinking about what do you expect can be done with it what is the service that you want to deliver by making that information available and I think that's an important component in the discussion they also talk about social value studying the social value and environmental value of these issues just I was just thinking about you know how there's that kid who used publicly available information on flights of airplanes to track our celebrities you know and he's causing these problems just like an example a different example I mean you could have unexpected uses of open data it was a yesterday on the day before we had the lady presenting her work on Brazil communities protecting their resources and the focus was on oil platforms offshore and artisanal fishermen and the government said well you know no environmental assessment is needed because these oil platforms are outside of your fishing range and you're not impacted then they plotted the oil tankers routes on top of that and the harbor that they go to and the number of journeys and the lines covered everything from the coast to the oil platform and a lot of spillage takes place and this is an example of shipping information that is accessible and available but that can be very quickly deployed by members of the community to defend their rights or to engage in a discussion with government so yeah it serves lots of purposes I think if we stay here if there are more questions but I don't think we have to stay for the hour and a half so we've had a nice discussion for an hour if there are any other questions if they're not my email is up here I welcome engagement I welcome you know an email drop us a line look at the resources I'm sure the presentations will be made available somewhere I have some hot links in the presentation as well and thank you for the thoughtful and interesting discussion and I really enjoyed being here with you so thank you very much and thank you Maria for sharing those experiences of Mozambique with us


Ṭu Ṣī ā paṭiyalū maughā mil janda hai so aisa koi bhi kaṁ asīni karana chau le jī de nār śrónni ka alilal kam achur nuvīk. Ṣoṁ ki ase dahor devich jo Ṭekshan devi jayu ka alilal alangra hai je kalanu jo kisi nei keetā vali marjī,  mira  única  e onut   Jrīhhā    tī dx τāma  roāivot ṣ Ten Shrī Illā Incā root or  キ Regardless of what happens or of the problems with him, eating, etc., in sl though ṣ Dhaibaaaa k Natürlich, when I see him, I think, how he is presented for  Jedīn ๆ ilight  cuc   Angeles, etc., as igma.  Oil player ṣ 멋 p tôii dīko ṣ Pārbā dh trainings, Chfeeding the women in our house, Ṛn ṣhāriya ṉaaf ṉbāla k Ṛpārbā Ṛi ṉaaf ṉ motor ṣaāv ṉmaqāt160 Ṛpārbā Ṭ Такāli ut ladā ut ladā ṉ transformative akte cando  conte  accordedא� sh 1968 Americans not allowed to come.  farmers are familliar mounting wrong protection system. සයරෙයආ එක්ා ව� cocon Else එක්සර් වබනඔ෇ද කරති, සහලපවයි 我වamız�නක් next he can't lock up their scores. වසොලවයි ප්රී අදා нас නල්සොස්මය of the regional elections වනනතකයු. So theเด asked to quit as a senior వపర అారాయౌ Babe jumping 大 assembly ㅅటం lakepełాసి గణరం Fake Flat


I seek to goers, so we know you've heard of schizophrenia, but have you ever heard of schizoaffective disorder? Or have you ever met anyone who lives with schizoaffective disorder? It's not surprising if you haven't heard of it. As the National Alliance on Mental Illness, NAMI, reports only 0.3% of the US population or 981,600 people will get it during their lifetimes. Before we begin, it's important to know that we're covering a mental illness that can cause serious consequences in the lives of the people affected by it. This means we'll briefly discuss depression and suicide, which may be triggering to some viewers. With that said, let's begin. What is schizoaffective disorder? The diagnostic and statistical manual V, DSM-V, classifies schizoaffective disorder as a psychotic disorder with features of a mood disorder. This means, in addition to the classic symptoms of psychosis, such as hallucinations and delusions, the person who has schizoaffective disorder will also have symptoms of major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, persistent depressive disorder, cyclothemia, or seasonal effective disorder, or SAD. Although the National Center for Biotechnology Information and CBI reported 50% of people diagnosed with schizophrenia also struggle with some form of depression, a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder means the person being diagnosed also experiences at least one of the following. Symptoms and delusions not caused by drugs or a medical condition for two or more weeks when they're not experiencing depression or mania. Mood disorder symptoms, usually depression or mania, for the majority of time when they are experiencing psychosis, serious disorganized and catatonic behavior that isn't caused by drugs or a medical condition, and negative symptoms, which are reduced emotional expression or a lack of interest in reaching normal goals. So what's there to know about living with schizoaffective disorder? There are three phases of psychosis. Psychosis or an impaired relationship with reality that involves hallucinations, delusions, loss of motivation, and social withdrawal. Phase one, prodrome. These are the early signs of psychosis. When someone is going through the prodrome phase, their life may start to feel a little uncomfortable or very disrupted because this is the phase when they'll start to experience flashes of paranoia, problems concentrating, depression, insomnia, anxiety, and when they'll start pulling away from family and friends. Phase two, acute. At this stage, the person with schizoaffective disorder will experience the most disruptive hallucinations, distressing delusions and confused thinking. The person suffering with schizoaffective disorder will feel completely removed from reality during the acute phase, which might look like a total fixation on religion, thinking others are out to get them, having voices tell them they're rotten people, talking to people or spirits that aren't there, or thinking angels or demons are calling to them. They're most likely to feel hopeless or isolated from the ones they love during this stage. Phase three, recovery. This final stage is when the person struggling with schizoaffective disorder actually starts to see the light at the end of the tunnel. With the proper intervention and treatment, many people who have a psychotic break may never have another psychotic episode in their lives. How having symptoms of a mood disorder impacts living with psychosis?  With schizoaffective disorder, it's different from other psychotic disorders because it means the individual living with it also has the symptoms of a mood disorder. How does that change things? The National Institute of Health, NIH, reports that schizoaffective disorder creates extreme shifts in behavior, mood, and energy. What type of shifts depends on which of the two types of schizoaffective disorders the person has been diagnosed with, bipolar and depressive. Schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, presents with manic episodes and depressive episodes. Someone living with this type of schizoaffective disorder will experience dramatic highs or mania as well as episodes of deep depression. Symptoms of mania include increased energy or hyperactivity, irritability, increased grandeur, insomnia, and reckless behavior. This might present as snapping at others, being unable to sit still, believing one is a supernatural figure or famous, and spending money that they don't have. During a manic phase, the person's suffering is more vulnerable to delusion and reckless behavior, which intensifies the effects of psychosis. Schizoaffective disorder, depressive type, presents a psychosis with depressive episodes but no mania. The depressive episodes often present as feelings of hopelessness, decreased ability to function, low energy, problems concentrating, and possibly decreased hygiene. The added challenge of mood disorder symptoms makes individuals living with either type of schizoaffective disorder more vulnerable to isolation due to pushing others away with their mood swings and deep depression. Schizoaffective disorders also means they're more vulnerable to substance abuse and suicidal thoughts than the rest of the population. How living with schizoaffective disorder affects your daily life According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the negative behavioral symptoms of schizoaffective disorder, such as feelings of apathy, feeling little or no pleasure in doing anything, also known as anadonia, or seeming to not react to things in their environment, also known as a blunted effect, or difficulty paying attention, affect the most traumatic effects on the person diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder's life. For example, a girlfriend of someone with schizoaffective disorder may feel hurt or confused when her partner doesn't react with excitement when they tell them about a recent promotion at work, or the boss of someone with schizoaffective disorder might get frustrated with their employee for their constant tardiness or disorganization. Although the person struggling with schizoaffective disorder probably wants to be part of a healthy relationship and most likely wants to be productive, sometimes their symptoms make this impossible. This can lead to increased feelings of not feeling good enough, loneliness, and social isolation. These feelings can ultimately make depressive episodes worse. Living with schizoaffective disorder can be frustrating and challenging. Thankfully, many people have successfully managed the symptoms of this somewhat rare disorder. The NCBI reported most people who successfully managed their schizoaffective symptoms typically use a combination of life skills trainings, therapy, and medications. Did you find this video insightful? If so, feel free to share it with someone who would too. As always, any information provided here is for educational purposes only. If you need mental health counseling or treatment, please reach out to a mental health professional. Keep watching Site2Go channel for more information on mental illness and mental health. Thanks for watching.