Updates from Day 4 at the 2025 Session of UNGEGN
The day kicked off with a special presentation from Norway on geographical names education, showing how interactive engagement can foster awareness and respect for place names as both cultural heritage and tools for sustainable development.
We then explored strategies for building effective work programmes, including recommendations for constructing inclusive and sustainable geographical names authorities—a key theme for many Member States.
Side events included “The World Geographical Names Database and a Unique Identifier for Cities”, which took a deep dive into the tables proposal for a Global Unique Identifier for Cities and detailed how the Secretariat is working with Member States to enhance the management of geographical names globally.
The Group also reviewed the evaluation of the implementation of UNGEGN resolutions and recommendations, and considered the social and economic benefits of supporting sustainable development through toponymy.
We heard updates to toponymic guidelines from Norway, Poland, Finland, Czechia, Austria, and Estonia, and discussed other key issues such as:
• Legal frameworks for geographical names standardization in Norway
• Monitoring and evaluation practices in Indonesia
• The use of awards to recognise excellence in geospatial data and innovation—also from Indonesia
These examples highlight the diverse approaches being taken around the world to strengthen the visibility, governance, and impact of geographical names.
The day kicked off with a special presentation from Norway on geographical names education, showing how interactive engagement can foster awareness and respect for place names as both cultural heritage and tools for sustainable development.
We then explored strategies for building effective work programmes, including recommendations for constructing inclusive and sustainable geographical names authorities—a key theme for many Member States.
Side events included “The World Geographical Names Database and a Unique Identifier for Cities”, which took a deep dive into the tables proposal for a Global Unique Identifier for Cities and detailed how the Secretariat is working with Member States to enhance the management of geographical names globally.
The Group also reviewed the evaluation of the implementation of UNGEGN resolutions and recommendations, and considered the social and economic benefits of supporting sustainable development through toponymy.
We heard updates to toponymic guidelines from Norway, Poland, Finland, Czechia, Austria, and Estonia, and discussed other key issues such as:
• Legal frameworks for geographical names standardization in Norway
• Monitoring and evaluation practices in Indonesia
• The use of awards to recognise excellence in geospatial data and innovation—also from Indonesia
These examples highlight the diverse approaches being taken around the world to strengthen the visibility, governance, and impact of geographical names.
No comments:
Post a Comment