UN-GGCE Portal

Appearance

Blueprint for a Robust Global Geodetic Supply Chain ​

Work Assignment 1: Guiding Principles ​

Version: 2.5
Date: July 2026
Prepared by: UN-GGCE Technical Writing Team
Reference: Terms of Reference 2 (ToR2) — Work Assignment 1
Supersedes: Version 2.4 (July 2026)

Audience ​

This document serves two readerships: (1) UN-GGCE leadership and technical counterparts already familiar with this engagement; and (2) UN-GGCE staff and Member State stakeholders new to this specific analysis. Readers new to the engagement should read this Purpose & Reading Guide; the six principles that follow provide the full architectural detail underlying its conclusions.

Purpose & Reading Guide ​

This document is the deliverable for Work Assignment 1 of Terms of Reference 2 (ToR2): a principles document establishing the architectural foundation for the robust global geodesy supply chain. It establishes six guiding principles — grounded in existing intergovernmental frameworks rather than invented for this engagement — that define what a robust global geodesy supply chain architecture must do. These principles are operationalised as a quantitative scoring method in the Investment Prioritisation and Risk Rubric (Work Assignment 1b), and applied to specific product workflows in the Critical Product Mapping Report (Work Assignment 2) and the Risk Assessment and Gap Analysis (Work Assignment 3).

Companion Documents ​

  • Work Assignment 1b — Investment Prioritisation and Risk Rubric: converts the six principles below into a consistent, quantitative risk-scoring method.
  • Work Assignment 1 Appendix — EGV Data Levels and Supply Chain Tiers: defines the data-level and tier terminology used throughout the Implementation Criteria below.
  • Work Assignment 2 — Critical Product Mapping Report: applies these principles to the five critical geodetic product workflows.
  • Work Assignment 3 — Risk Assessment and Gap Analysis: reports where current workflows fall short of these principles.

Executive Summary ​

In alignment with the mandate to "avoid further degradation" of the global geodesy supply chain, the United Nations Global Geodetic Centre of Excellence (UN-GGCE) has established six guiding principles that define a robust global geodesy supply chain architecture. Drawing upon established intergovernmental frameworks—including the UN-GGIM Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF), the WMO Unified Data Policy, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction—these principles address the immediate operational risks threatening the sustained delivery of critical geodetic products.

These principles serve as the authoritative design criteria for evaluating current product delivery workflows and defining necessary structural changes across the People, Process, Technology, and Data (PPTD) dimensions.

Foundational Precedents ​

To design an architecture resistant to operational disruption and single points of failure, the guiding principles are rooted in the following internationally recognized frameworks:

  1. UN-GGIM Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF)[^igif]: Principle 6 (Resilience and Sustainability) and Principle 7 (Collaboration and Coordination) establish that critical geospatial infrastructure must not rely on isolated capabilities but must be sustained through cooperative, cross-border partnerships to mitigate systemic risks.
  2. WMO Unified Data Policy (Resolution 1, Cg-Ext 2021) & WIGOS[^wmo]: Mandates distributed global observing systems and redundant Regional Telecommunication Hubs, decoupling critical operational data from dependency on any single contributing nation.
  3. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030)[^sendai]: Priority 4 emphasizes designing critical infrastructure with redundancy to withstand localized shocks without degrading global operational capacity.
  4. Principles for Digital Development[^digital-principles]: Principles such as "Build for Sustainability" and "Use Open Standards, Open Data, Open Source, and Open Innovation" prevent national siloing and vendor lock-in.
  5. UN General Assembly Resolution 69/266[^unga69266]: "A Global Geodetic Reference Frame for Sustainable Development" (2015) explicitly calls for multilateral cooperation, recognizing the necessity of shared risk and distributed resources in sustaining the global geodetic reference frame.

Guiding Principles for the Target State Architecture ​

Principle 1: Geographic Distribution for Technical Performance ​

Observatories and analysis centres must achieve global geometric coverage—including identified gaps in the southern hemisphere and polar regions—to meet the mathematical requirements of geodetic reference frame computation and Essential Geodetic Variable (EGV) product generation.

  • Implementation Criteria: The distribution of observatories, data centres, and analysis centres must be driven primarily by the geometric requirements of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) and the technical demands of each EGV product pipeline, not by the geographic concentration of existing contributing institutions. Regional hubs in under-represented regions, particularly the southern hemisphere, must be established and sustained to close coverage gaps (JDP Objective 1.2). The capacity of each region to maintain continuous observation and data delivery must be formally assessed against the technical requirements of the products it supports.

Principle 2: Political Resilience and Distributed Operational Control ​

No single political jurisdiction shall have sole control over critical functions within the global geodesy supply chain. The architecture must maintain full operational continuity if any Member State withdraws support, faces internal disruption, or is unable to fulfil its commitments.

  • Implementation Criteria: Critical functions—including observation, data archiving, analysis, and combination—must be distributed across multiple independent political jurisdictions. Where a single jurisdiction currently dominates a critical function (for example, sole operation of a combination engine for an EGV product), formal plans for jurisdictional diversification must be developed and implemented (JDP Objective 1.2). Redundant capacity in geopolitically distinct jurisdictions must be demonstrated to be operationally ready—not merely planned—before any single-jurisdiction dependency can be considered resolved.

Principle 3: Centralized Accountability through Multilateral Governance ​

A single, formally designated body holds clear and unambiguous accountability for global geodesy supply chain reliability and product continuity. That body is constituted through and answerable to a multilateral governance council with formal representation across all stakeholder classes. Accountability is concentrated; governance is inclusive. This is distinct from Principle 2: Principle 2 governs operational capacity — whether an alternate jurisdiction can actually step in if one fails — while this principle governs who is answerable when something goes wrong, regardless of which jurisdiction is operating at the time.

  • Implementation Criteria: A formal governance council — with representation from Member State governments, the scientific community (with a formal seat held by the International Association of Geodesy (IAG) to ensure alignment between scientific research and operational delivery), space agencies, and the private sector — holds authority over supply chain standards, SLA frameworks, and reliability thresholds. This council designates a single executive body as the accountable party for supply chain performance; which body that is — the UN-GGCE or an entity formally constituted under it — is a decision for the Consultation Process, not asserted here. That executive body is responsible for assessing adherence to agreed responsibilities, escalating failures, and coordinating remediation when thresholds are breached, including exercising the critical-path designation and withdrawal governance referenced in Principle 5. No Member State or institution may unilaterally override the accountable body's reliability decisions. Responsibilities must transition from best-effort scientific contributions to formalized, long-term operational agreements backed by Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Multilateral Memorandums of Understanding (JDP Objective 1.1).

IAG Review Note (R. Gross, IAG President, May 2026): The designation of the accountable executive body — whether the UN-GGCE directly or a body formally constituted under it — requires a formal decision by the governance council.

Principle 4: Technical Interoperability and Data Accessibility ​

All observatories, data centres, and analysis centres contributing to the supply chain must adopt common technical standards and open data principles, ensuring that data and processing workflows can be redistributed to alternate entities without degradation of output quality or latency.

  • Implementation Criteria: Participating institutions must explicitly adopt Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) data principles (JDP Objective 1.2) and register their capabilities in the ISO Geodetic Register. Harmonized data formats (e.g., RINEX and SINEX), interoperable application programming interfaces (APIs), and compatible software environments are required. Governance must transition from reactive maintenance — where standards are only improved following a system failure — to proactive lifecycle management coordinated through bodies such as the IAG SINEX Working Group. If a primary combination centre becomes inaccessible, a designated backup centre can receive the same data, execute the required analysis, and deliver the product within the agreed latency window. Interoperability requirements must be verified through periodic failover exercises, not assumed from documentation alone.

Principle 5: Minimum Capability Maturity Standards ​

The governance framework requires that all observatories and centres included in critical supply chain paths demonstrate verifiable minimum capability maturity across People, Process, Technology, and Data (PPTD) dimensions. Inclusion in the critical path is a governed status, not a default condition — that status is granted, reviewed, and withdrawn by the accountable executive body established under Principle 3, not by unilateral self-assessment.

  • Implementation Criteria: An observatory or centre's designation as part of the target state architecture requires independently verifiable evidence of maturity across all four PPTD dimensions, assessed against the UN-GGCE capability maturity framework[^sog2026]. This includes: proof of formalized national backing and a long-term funding business case (JDP Objective 1.3); active workforce resilience through mandated succession planning and documented knowledge transfer (JDP Objective 1.4); and technology and data practices that meet the interoperability standards defined in Principle 4. Entities that do not yet meet the minimum threshold may participate in the supply chain in a non-critical capacity, but they may not be designated as primary or sole providers of any EGV product until the threshold is achieved and verified.

Principle 6: Transparency and Performance Accountability ​

The governance framework must establish transparent mechanisms for monitoring supply chain performance, reporting publicly on commitments and results, and holding all parties accountable for agreed responsibilities. The UN-GGCE serves as a proactive advocate for the resilience of this critical infrastructure, explicitly identifying and communicating failure modes to Member States.

  • Implementation Criteria: Regular public reporting on supply chain maturity metrics must be produced, building on and extending the State of Geodesy assessment cycle[^sog2026]. The UN-GGCE must proactively identify systemic vulnerabilities — such as single-provider dependencies or standardisation gaps — and advocate for their remediation at the intergovernmental level, regardless of which body the Consultation Process ultimately designates as the accountable executive under Principle 3. Data centres and analysis centres must be subject to independent audits of performance against agreed SLAs, with results made publicly available. Funding contributions and allocations across Member States and institutional partners must be published transparently. Formal review mechanisms must be established to assess performance against agreed targets—including observatory uptime, data timeliness, and product accuracy—with a defined process for escalation and remediation when targets are not met (JDP Objective 1.1).

Appendix: Broader Research Foundations ​

The guiding principles and overall maturity assessment of the global geodesy supply chain are informed by a comprehensive review of socio-economic impact studies, critical infrastructure risk assessments, and enterprise architecture standards. Key references include:

  • Socio-Economic Impact:
    • London Economics (2023): The economic impact on the UK of a disruption to GNSS[^london-econ]
    • EUSPA Market Reports: GNSS and Earth Observation market revenues and dependencies[^euspa]
    • NIST Technical Notes: Evaluation of dependencies of critical infrastructure timing systems on GPS (NIST TN 2187)[^nist2187]
  • Infrastructure Risk & Governance:
    • UK National Risk Register (2023): Assessment of systemic risks to critical national infrastructure[^uk-nrr]
    • US Congressional Reports: Resilient Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Systems (CRS IF11854)[^crs-pnt]
  • Data & Enterprise Architecture:
    • FAIR Data Principles: Guidelines for ensuring data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable[^fair]
    • TOGAF & DMBOK: Enterprise architecture (The Open Group)[^togaf] and Data Management Body of Knowledge (DAMA)[^dama]
  • UN-GGCE Primary Research & Strategy:
    • International Association of Geodesy (IAG): geodesy.science[^geodesy-science] — The scientific organisation responsible for the field of geodesy, including the Global Geodetic Observing System (GGOS) which defines Essential Geodetic Variables (EGVs) and coordinates involved institutions.
    • Global Geodesy Needs Assessment (2024)[^needs-assessment]: Consultation data from over 500 stakeholders across 110 countries.
    • UN-GGCE Strategy and Operating Plan v1.0[^strategy-plan]: The core operational strategy for the UN-GGCE.
    • 1st Joint Development Plan for Global Geodesy[^jdp]: Detailed plan outlining objective-based actions.
    • Hidden Risk Report[^hidden-risk]: Analysis of unseen vulnerabilities within the global geodetic infrastructure.

[^sog2026]: United Nations Global Geodetic Centre of Excellence, 2026, State of Geodesy 2026: A Baseline Maturity Assessment, Bonn, Germany, https://www.un.org/globalgeospatial/sites/default/files/2026-05/stateofgeodesy.pdf [^igif]: UN-GGIM, Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF), https://ggim.un.org/UN-IGIF/ [^wmo]: World Meteorological Organization, 2021, Unified Data Policy (Resolution 1, Cg-Ext 2021), https://library.wmo.int/records/item/58166 [^sendai]: UNDRR, 2015, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015--2030, https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/what-sendai-framework [^digital-principles]: Principles for Digital Development, https://digitalprinciples.org/ [^unga69266]: UN General Assembly, 2015, Resolution 69/266: A Global Geodetic Reference Frame for Sustainable Development, https://undocs.org/A/RES/69/266 [^london-econ]: London Economics / UK Government, 2023, The Economic Impact on the UK of a Disruption to GNSS, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-economic-impact-on-the-uk-of-a-disruption-to-gnss [^euspa]: EUSPA, EO and GNSS Market Report, https://www.euspa.europa.eu/eu-space-programme/eu-space-market-and-users/gnss-and-eo-market-report [^nist2187]: NIST, 2022, Evaluation of Dependencies of Critical Infrastructure Timing Systems on GPS (Technical Note 2187), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.2187.pdf [^uk-nrr]: UK Government, 2023, National Risk Register, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-risk-register-2023 [^crs-pnt]: Congressional Research Service, Resilient Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Systems (IF11854), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11854 [^fair]: GO FAIR, FAIR Principles, https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ [^togaf]: The Open Group, TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Framework, https://www.opengroup.org/togaf [^dama]: DAMA International, Data Management Body of Knowledge, https://www.dama.org/cpages/body-of-knowledge [^geodesy-science]: geodesy.science, https://geodesy.science [^needs-assessment]: United Nations Global Geodetic Centre of Excellence, 2024, Global Geodesy Needs Assessment, https://ggim.un.org/UNGGCE/documents/20240509-Global_Geodesy_Needs_Assessment.pdf [^strategy-plan]: United Nations Global Geodetic Centre of Excellence, Strategy and Operating Plan v1.0, https://ggim.un.org/UNGGCE/documents/UN_GGCE_Strategy_ and_Operating_Plan_v1.0.pdf [^jdp]: United Nations Global Geodetic Centre of Excellence, 2024, 1st Joint Development Plan for Global Geodesy, https://ggim.un.org/UNGGCE/documents/Version_1.0_1st_Joint_Development_Plan_for_Global_Geodesy_EN.pdf [^hidden-risk]: United Nations Global Geodetic Centre of Excellence, 2024, Hidden Risk Report v1.1, https://ggim.un.org/UNGGCE/documents/20240620-Hidden_Risk_Report.pdf