JRC DE Unit Max Craglia Maria Teresa Borzacchiello Cost and Benefits of implementing the INSPIRE Directive Workshop, Ispra, 15-16 October 2012 Introduction
Impact of INSPIRE: a bit of history Initial Extended Assessment (XIA) in 2003-04. Estimated costs of some 100m p.a. and benefits 7-10 times greater. Benefits of greater access and quality of information for EIAs alone (approx 25,000 studies p.a.) would pay for INSPIRE. Programme of research to verify assumptions Workshop on SDI cost/benefit & ROI 2006 Regional studies of SDIs in Spain and Italy 2007-09 Workshop of 11 advanced SDIs to confirm evidence 2009 Survey of firms for EIAs and SEAs to confirm benefits 2010 INSPIRE ex-ante Impact Assessment from MS 2009 Analysis of monitoring and reporting data from MS INSPIRE state of Play Annex II/III Testing Specifications 2
Impact of INSPIRE: a bit of taxonomy Main typologies of studies EC (JRC, Eurostat ) studies Study/Data collection from Member States Case studies Main sectors affected Public sector (most studies, focus environmental information) Private sector (a couple of studies) Main methodologies Ex-Ante impact assessment Cost benefit analysis Surveys Desktop studies 3
Main findings from previous studies Few quantitative estimates Ex-ante IA (2004), INSPIRE as a whole Regional studies Catalonia, Lombardy INSPIRE M&R (but see next slide) Benefits always qualitative Very general considerations (digital divide, data sharing & access) often foreseen in the long term, not enough to keep political consensus 4
INSPIRE Reporting by Member States 2010 cost-benefit (1) Costs required classification Metadata Data harmonisation Network services Monitoring and reporting Coordination and horizontal measures
Reporting 2010 cost-benefit (2) Costs reported data Not all MS reported quantitative costs Not all MS considered all categories Different order of magnitude in costs Varying geographical scale (national/sub-national) Varying organisational scale (state level national organisation level, sub-national organisation level) Several different cost classifications and methodologies (if any) Different time interval considered for implementation (impacting on annual averages, RoI etc.) Some countries reported estimated costs, while others also provided incurred costs (impacting on comparability)
Example of costs reported at national level in 2010 (ref. year 2009) Data Harmonisation Metadata Network Services Coordination and horizontal measures Monitoring and Reporting Only Total Cost Reported Reporting Countries 4 6 7 4 2 4* Missing 27 25 24 27 29 - * Total annual costs range from 800,000 to 4,500,000 depending on size of country At the national level there are more missing details than reported! Some MS provided similar figures for sub-national level and some organisations 7
Reporting 2010 cost-benefit (3) Benefits Only qualitative information for most MS A couple of MS have described possible quantitative benefits, without reporting the figures Most mentioned benefits include: Easier and more rapid access to data and information Avoiding duplication of data Increased quality of data Removal of data sharing barriers Money and time savings for users and authorities Improved decision-making
Main findings from 2010 Reporting This was the first round of reporting from the Member States on the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. Whilst guidelines for the yearly monitoring of the implementation exist, there are only limited guidelines in respect to reporting, particularly for cost and benefit considerations. This make the reports difficult to compare and limits our understanding of the issues. Hence need for this workshop to start developing a shared understanding of how to proceed for the preparation of the 2013 reports.
Thank you massimo.craglia@jrc.ec.europa.eu