INSPIRE Implementation in Europe Obligation or Opportunity?

INSPIRE Implementation in Europe Obligation or Opportunity?Lessons learnt from the State of Play

(2002-2012)

Danny Vandenbroucke

Spatial Applications Division, KU Leuven

Co-chair INSPIRE DT MR

Project Leader INSPIRE SoP

PCC Plenary Meeting Cyprus

Outline

• Ten years INSPIRE State of Play: – Status and some Best Practice examples accross Europe

• Cost/benefits considerations

• Opportunities and the role of cadaster agencies

• Conclusions

Ten years State of Play

• INSPIRE SoP– Initiated to study the (emerging) NSDI in Europe– Started in August 2002– Was repeated annually with a break of almost two years

• 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011

• Assessing the building blocks of 32 (34) countries in Europe– Organisational, legal & funding, data, metadata, services, standards

and environmental issues– 32 indicators reflecting the status and development

• Looking back 10 years– Did we approach the objectives of INSPIRE? Lessons to be learnt?

• Best Practices detected• Which critical reflections can be made?


• Methodology

MR8 indicators

34 countryreports

DesktopStudy

DetailedSurvey

SoP32 indicators

Assessment:IndicatorsQualitative

|Conclusions

Recommendations

MRReports

MR8 indicators

34 countryreports

DesktopStudy

DetailedSurvey

SoP32 indicators

Assessment:IndicatorsQualitative

|Conclusions

Recommendations

MRReports


Country

Standards

(VI)

Environm

ental data (V

II)

Country

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32AT ATBE BEDE DEDK DKES ESFI FIFR FRGR GRIE IEIT ITLU LUNL NLPT PTSE SEUK UK

CY CYCZ CZEE EEHU HULT LTLV LVMT MTPL PLSI SISK SK

BG BGRO ROHR HRMK MKTR TR

CH CHIS ISLI LINO NO

In better agreement than in 2003In much better agreement than in 2003In less agreement than in 2003In much less agreement than in 2003Change due to removal of 'unknown', error correction or second opinionTwice changed due to removal of 'unknown', error correction or second opinionNo change compared to 2003, or changes reversed

Organisational issues (I) Legal issues and funding (II) Reference data & core thematic data (III) Metadata (IV) Access services (V)

Trends and NSDI developments

• Overall trends– Countries at different speeds and with different approaches

• This is not necessarily a problem

– Potentially competing and overlapping goals for different SDI initiatives

• INSPIRE <> NSDI, INSPIRE <> eGov, INSPIRE <> GMES, …

– Changed leadership and involvement of major user communities• From NMA having the lead to shared responsibilities

– Dynamic sub-national initiatives and emerging local developments• Challenge to integrate and streamline• FR: Of the 35 members of the Council, 8 represent the local authorities

Each country is an habitat on its own: hence there exists a country-specific culture of sharing data with

public sector and other users


• Overall trends– The users and user communities of INSPIRE & the NSDI are not

always very clear• They only start to emerge, if they emerge at all

– Open data and open data policies, open source software, open standards

• What will be the impact ?

– Fast technological developments• Linked data, cloud computing, sensor web, augmented reality, smart locations …

The complex and pressing societal problems, together with the fast technological developments

require a dynamic, flexible and effective development of INSPIRE linked to and integrated

with other initiatives


• Organisation– Different organisational approach in different countries

• Hierarchy <> network

– Shared responsibilities and division of tasks• Environmental agencies take legal lead• Operational lead mostly in the hands of the NM(C)A

– Large majority of the countries involve users• Knowledge about the users, usage and user needs is limited• Formally and through other channels: e.g. forums, social networks, …• Good Practice: SE monitors user satisfaction as part of a BSC approach

– Involvement of non-public sector could improve• Private sector only partially active• No structured involvement universities for education / research

INSPIRE is a success story when it comes to stakeholder involvement. Also most countries

succeeded in building their NSDI as a network of stakeholders


• Legal issues and funding– Transposition phase can be considered almost finalised

• Quality of the transposition not known

– It remains a concern that there are very few implementation strategies and plans

• Good Practice: UK location strategy

– More and more countries take into account other legal aspects• PSI, privacy, IPR issues, …

– Framework for sharing between public authorities improved• E.g. Belgium, Spain, France, Lithuania and Poland made considerable progress

– Funding remains a concern – also indicated by Member States

Practice of sharing is not really known. There has been overall improvement but still too many barriers exist.


• Spatial data– 2010: 13796 data sets reported

• Different approaches, there are many more existing data sets• Best Practice – NL: authentic registers and other data sets – other options exist !

– The thematic coverage of the data is relatively good– The spatial coverage of the data is no problem– Interoperability of spatial data sets – matching the data specs

• This work has to start yet!

• Metadata– Variable among the Member States

• 15 countries have metadata for more than 70%

– Conformity• 14 and 15 countries reach 70% for Annex I and II• Best Practice – PT: network of metadata managers

dedicated tools


• Network services– Discovery of spatial data sets and services remains a concern

• For 9 of the 24 countries more than 70% of the data sets and services can be discovered through such a service

– Viewing and downloading services• More and more are emerging and they are reported (800 > 2300)• Only two countries for which >70% of the data sets can be viewed + downloaded• Best Practice - ES, example of Carto Ciudad - Nationwide integrated spatial data

accessible through network services• Most successful service in Spain is a service of the Cadaster

– Other services emerge as well

• Standardisation – increased active involvement

Technological components are being developed at a fast pace

Best Practices

• In almost all countries Best Practices can be detected– France API offer for integrating services in own portals and

applications

– The use of registers for glossaries, M&R, conformity testing, … , in Germany

– The validation tool for checking data and metadata conformity in The Netherlands

– The metadata editor and metadata managers network in Portugal

– The monitoring of the usage of services and related funding model in Norway

– The application of testbeds for implementing SOA and the network approach, Belgium (also NL, DE)

– Tiling and cashing mechanisms for high performance

– Security and authentication mechanisms: UK, DE, BE

Best Practices

• Overall assessment – Top three – first tier

• Germany, Spain and Norway

– Second tier• Czech Republic, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, Denmark, Portugal

– Third tier• Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, France

Critical reflections

• Focus should be on sharing– To much focus on fulfilling the technical obligations and requirements

of the INSPIRE implementing rules?

• Increased involvement of user communities– No such thing as ‘the single user community’ for the NSDI– Involve the user communities as much as you can!

• We need a maximum of stakeholders involved– Private and academic sector have an important role to play– Let those sectors build added value on top of the infrastructure !

• Knowledge and skills gap that might impede the successful development of INSPIRE & NSDI

Public

Academic

Private

Critical reflections

• What is in, what is out ?– Cover all spatial data sets and services useful and used for

environmental and related policies, covering the 34 themes – From the user perspective and according to the INSPIRE

principles consider as many data sets as possible to be part of INSPIRE

• Making existing components accessible– Many spatial data sets and network services are available.

However, many of them can’t be discovered yet, and many can’t be viewed or downloaded

• A strategy is needed for doing so, adding many different views to the data• It is advisable to integrate services as much as possible in existing

applications or to develop new applications

• Creating a test environment (ref. OGC approach)

Outline




• Conclusions

Cost Benefit

• Important but difficult question– What is the expected impact of INSPIRE implementation?– What is the real impact? On what?

• Extended Impact Assessment INSPIRE

• Many other attempts were made to quantify/qualify

Cost Benefit

• Early Impact studies in countries (2009)– Examples developed in CZ, FI, PL, UK– Poland

• analyzed by a team appointed by the Surveyor General of Poland• influence on the state budget for INSPIRE specific tasks• additional burden on the state budget

• simplify the flow of information• increase of competitiveness of the economy• increasing the number of jobs

reduced need for collecting the same reference data repeatedly, construction of maintenance of duplicating IT systems,

efficient monitoring of the environment, implementation of policies concerning environmental protection,

protection of citizens, crisis management, execution of trans-European projects

Cost Benefit

Cost calculationsPoland

Cost Benefit

• Detailed survey on use and usability (2011)– Qualitative assessment

• Can you describe two examples of business processes in which components of the INSPIRE & NSDI are used?

• What are the benefits of the infrastructure from the perspective of G2G, G2C and G2B?

• What are the improvements that can be made to the infrastructure?

• Use of a WMS in the River Information System (RIS)• "X-border GDI" offering access to spatial and related data on industrial and

commercial parcels using web services

Cost Benefit

• Assessment of the gains for G2G, G2B, G2C

0 5 10 15 20

Efficiency

Effectiveness & quality

Flexibility

Innovation

Sustainability

Client friendliness

Openness & transparency

Integrity and trust

No answer

G2G

G2C

G2B

Cost Benefit

• Gains in time for searching and accessing the necessary spatial data – … and in consequence improve the efficiency of the processes

• Access to the latest data and complete metadata – … allows users to use the right data

• Flexibility is said to increase – … because so many different types of users can make use of the

same infrastructure

• Contributes to openness & transparency– … since open to the public through the services

• Improved integrity and trust – … also because the infrastructure is improved continuously

Cost Benefit

• Particular examples from countries– BG: establishment of efficient transportation schemes for public

transport and therefore also help reducing air pollution– CH: inventory of historic transport routes of national and regional

importance by using a thematic geoportal – without (+2 million€)– CZ, NO: integration of the SDI components in the systems and in

decision making processes (CZ: Building Act)– DE: planning of surface mining, promotion of renewable energy

and information service on flood-prone areas– NL: Due to the BAG – Building and Address Registry - Citizens

only provide information once; information is re-used by different public authorities; prevents fraud and raises tax revenues

But how?

Cost Benefit

• Workshop on cost/benefits reporting for INSPIRE– Organised by JRC 15-16/10/2012

– Reporting obligation 2013

– Interesting examples from Denmark and Finland

– Discussions of how we might do it in the future

– More guidance on how to report C/B

• Working mostly by example– Efficiency gains

• Time saved in internal queries• Time saved in internal processes• Time saved in serving the public• Reduced cost of integrating data• Better re-use of existing datasets

– Effectiveness and broader benefits

Parcels Addresses

Roads Hydrography

Data FlowsAnalysis

Analysing business processes

Outline




• Conclusions

Opportunities

• The uptake of INSPIRE components is starting– Some new businesses emerge

• E.g. geoSparc developed new technology and is building new applications using among others INSPIRE components

• E.g. Goolzoom.com – exposing INSPIRE services and bringing it to the citizens

• Fast technological developments– Linked data – Sensor Web– VGI and crowdsourcing– 3D and 4D developments– Augmented Reality– Smart Grid, smart cities, smart location

Cadaster Agencies

• Cadaster agencies play a vital role– They have key data sets for INSPIRE– They have already different applications / systems in place that

have proved to work well– They are supporting already many user communities

• Financial Departments for taxation• Land valuation; housing market• Common Agricultural Policy (LPIS)• …

• Improved integration in other business applications– The cadastral parcel is everywhere!– More services for the citizens – connect all relevant information

regarding a parcel– Linking to new technologies, e.g. augmented reality

Outline




• Conclusions

Conclusions

• No final conclusions needed!– INSPIRE is developing and being implemented everywhere– Components are becoming available– It is time to start using them in real business processes

• INSPIRE is a story that is being written ...• … and will continue to be (re-)written over the next years

We will achieve all the objectives of INSPIRE the day that each stakeholder of the INSPIRE network

can say that it can leave the network without having any impact at all …

Thank [email protected]

INSPIRE Implementation in Europe Obligation or Opportunity?

Documents

Transcript of INSPIRE Implementation in Europe Obligation or Opportunity?