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
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?
Ten years State of Play
• Methodology
MR
Reports
Reports
MR
88indicators
indicators
Desktop
Desktop
Study
Study
Detailed
Detailed
Survey
Survey
34
34country
country
reports
SoP
32
32indicators
indicators
Assessment:
Indicators
Qualitative
|
Conclusions
Recommendations
Recommendations
Ten years State of Play
7
8
9
Legal issues and funding (II)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Reference data & core thematic data (III)
17
18
19
20
21
22
Metadata (IV)
23
24
25
26
Access services (V)
27
28
29
30
31
32
Country
Organisational issues (I)
3
4
5
6
Environment
al data (VII)
2
Standards
(VI)
Country
1
AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
GR
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
SE
UK
AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
GR
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
SE
UK
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LT
LV
MT
PL
SI
SK
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LT
LV
MT
PL
SI
SK
BG
RO
HR
MK
TR
BG
RO
HR
MK
TR
CH
IS
LI
NO
CH
IS
LI
NO
In better agreement than in 2003
In much better agreement than in 2003
In less agreement than in 2003
In much less agreement than in 2003
Change due to removal of 'unknown', error correction or second opinion
Twice changed due to removal of 'unknown', error correction or second opinion
No change compared to 2003, or changes reversed
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
Trends and NSDI developments
• 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
Trends and NSDI developments
• 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
Trends and NSDI developments
• 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.
Trends and NSDI developments
• 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
Trends and NSDI developments
• 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
Private
Academic
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
• 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
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
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
• simplify the flow of information
• increase of competitiveness of the economy
• increasing the number of jobs
Cost Benefit
Cost calculations
Poland
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
Data Flows
Analysis
Parcels
Addresses
Roads
Hydrography
Analysing business processes
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
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
• 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
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 you!
[email protected]