EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.11.2022 SWD(2022) 721 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union (Interoperable Europe Act) {COM(2022) 720 final} - {SEC(2022) 720 final} - {SWD(2022) 720 final} - {SWD(2022) 722 final}



Table of Contents 1.Introduction 1.1.Societal context 1.2.Political context 1.3.Legal context 2.Problem definition 2.1.What is the problem 2.2.What are the problem drivers? 2.2.1. Inefficient governance of interoperability efforts 2.2.2. Lack of common minimum interoperability specifications, shared solutions, standards 2.2.3. Lack of an ‘interoperability by default’ approach in the design and implementation of EU policies 2.3.How will the problem evolve in the future? 3.Why should the EU act? 3.1.Legal basis 3.2.Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 4.Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1.General objective 4.2.Specific objectives

5.What are the available policy options? 5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 5.2.Option 1: Non-legislative 5.3.Option 2: Legislative initiative - New legal framework for an interoperable EU public sector infrastructure and strengthened EU policy coordination 5.4.Option 3: Legislative initiative - New legal framework introducing a common European Interoperability Architecture for all public services 5.5.Options discarded at an early stage 6.What are the impacts of the policy options? 6.1.Impacts of Option 0 - baseline scenario 6.2.Impacts of Option 1: Non-legislative actions 6.3.Impacts of option 2: New legal framework for an interoperable EU public sector infrastructure 6.4.Impacts of option 3: Legal interoperability requirements for public sector bodies 7.How do the options compare? 7.1Coherence 7.2Effectiveness 7.3Efficiency 7.4Subsidiarity 7.5Stakeholder support expected 8.Preferred option 9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? Annexes

Annex I. Procedural information Lead DG: Directorate General for Informatics Organisation and timing Consultation of the RSB Evidence, sources and quality Annex II. Stakeholder consultation Summary of the stakeholder strategy Summary of the feedback on the Inception impact assessment Consultation activities for the EIF evaluation and Impact assessment Results: EIF Evaluation Results: Impact Assessment Input of the Expert Group co-design process Annex III. Who is affected and how? Citizens Businesses and SMEs Public sector authorities Annex IV. Methodology Overview of information and data sources Primary data Secondary data

Data validation Methods Main limitations Annex V. Recommendations of the Expert group on interoperability of public services Introduction Purpose and scope of these policy recommendations We share a common vision for the next interoperability policy Chapter I: Reinforce the European cooperation on interoperability Chapter II: Make the most of interoperability for better EU policies Chapter III: Upgrade the current EU interoperable solutions offering Annex VI Political and policy context History of Interoperability Policy



Glossary Acronym Meaning AI Artificial Intelligence CEF Connecting Europe Facility CEMR Council of European Municipalities and Regions CEPS Centre for European Policy Studies CIO(s) Chief Information Officer(s) COVID-19 Coronavirus disease CPSV Core Public Services Vocabulary DESI Digital Economy and Society Index DG Directorate-General DG DIGIT Directorate-General for Informatics DIF Domain-specific interoperability framework DIGIT.D2 Directorate-General for Informatics, Directorate D Digital Services, Unit D2 Interoperability DSM Digital Single Market EC European Commission EDIH European Digital Innovation Hubs EEA European Economic Area eID Electronic identification EIF European Interoperability Framework EIF4SCC European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities EIRA European Interoperability Reference Architecture EIS European Interoperability Strategy EQ Evaluation question EU European Union GDPR General Data Protection Regulation HORIZON 2020 The EU funding programme for research and innovation (2014 - 2020) HORIZON Europe EU’s key funding programme for research and innovation (2021 to 2027) ICT Information communication technology IMAPS Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service ISA² Programme on interoperability solutions and common frameworks for European public administrations, businesses and citizens LORDI Local and Regional Digital Indicators Framework NGOs Non-governmental organisations MIMs Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms NIFs National Interoperability Frameworks NIFO National Interoperability Framework Observatory OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OSLO Open Standards for Linked Organisations PSI Directive Directive on the Reuse of Public Sector Information (subsequently revised and renamed as the Open Data Directive 2019) ROI Return on Investment RFS Request for Services DIGIT/1/2020 SDG Single Digital Gateway SMEs Small and medium-sized enterprises SRSP Structural Reform Support Programme TSI Technical Support Instrument UN United Nations



1.1. Introduction This Impact Assessment accompanies the legislative proposal for an Interoperable Europe Act. The initiative aims to address the issues and capitalise on the opportunities arising from the ever-increasing digital transformation of the public sector in Europe. It focuses on interoperability, which is a cross-cutting enabling factor and a key precondition for digital transformation to work across borders and sectors. In addition, in the context of the European Strategy for Data, it will contribute to unleash the potential of the new existing and proposed instruments (namely the Data Governance Act and the proposal for Data Act) by facilitating their implementation through the setup of an interoperability governance and an ecosystem of interoperability resources.

Interoperability is the ability of systems and organisations to cooperate, share information and knowledge across functional, sectorial and physical borders. It goes beyond technical means; it needs agreements between different organisations, agreed data descriptions, laws that allow for those data exchanges and a culture of cooperation. Moving beyond its technical aspects, it expresses a powerful concept: interoperability enables to have solid common digital foundations on which it is possible to build better digital services. Digitisation is reshaping all aspects of society, including the way public administrations work with one another and how public services are delivered to citizens, business, and to one another across borders and sectors. In the same way, EU citizens’ and businesses’ expectations of their governments are shifting. When travelling, submitting their tax declarations, accessing healthcare services, enrolling in a foreign university, setting up a business in another EU country, citizens and businesses want the same user-friendly, secure, seamless experience from their public services as from any other digital service. The role of interoperability in enabling the achievement of public values should not to be underestimated. The aim of strengthening interoperability in this area is to ensure digital public services work across borders for all in Europe, by fostering a coherent, human-centric approach to interoperability built in by design from policymaking to policy implementation all over Europe, establishing a clear governance and an ecosystem of solutions and specifications. Interoperability is fundamental in making this a reality. A human-centric approach is what allows, for instance, a Swedish citizen to have her academic title - acquired in Germany - automatically recognised and valid in Italy, where she can work, and then retire - in Spain - where she enjoys her pension benefits and health coverage. Along the same lines, without interoperability across all Member States of the European Digital COVID certificates, we would not have been able to re-open so fast safe travel across borders in Europe. Interoperability determines the effectiveness of the emerging – virtual and physical – data infrastructures across Europe. Regulating public sector interoperability is also a fundamental prerequisite for enhancing and completing the Digital Single Market. This initiative aims to focus on improving the digital infrastructure supporting interoperability cross-borders in Europe in line with the European Strategy for Data. In summary, the proposed Interoperable Europe Act would focus on the following areas: ·Ensure a coherent, human-centric EU approach to interoperability from policymaking to policy implementation; ·Establish an interoperability governance structure designed to enable public administrations from all levels and sectors as well as private stakeholders to work together — with a clear mandate to agree on shared interoperability solutions (e.g. frameworks, specifications, applications, or guidelines); and, ·Co-create an ecosystem of interoperability solutions (open standards, data and services) for the EU’s public sector, so that public administrations at all levels in the EU and other stakeholders can contribute to and re-use such solutions, innovate together and create public value. 1.1. Societal context Member States and the European Union have been working for more than two decades to support the modernisation of administrations through digital transformation and foster the deep interconnections needed for a truly European digital space. The European Commission in particular has had five dedicated financing programmes to support the development of interoperability (including the ISA and ISA² programs) and will continue to develop it through the Digital Europe Programme. A European Interoperability Framework (EIF) has been in place for more than 15 years to support governments in building integrated public services. Member States have increasingly called for strengthened EU level cooperation and coordination of interoperability relevant aspects across policies . The COVID-19 pandemic increased the speed of digitalisation, pushing public administrations to adapt to the online paradigm, lockdown after lockdown. The digital transformation of the public sector enabled by interoperability is therefore seen as integral to the post-COVID recovery. While resilience is the capacity to act under stress and sovereignty is the capacity to act independently, interoperability is an enabling factor for both of them, as the pandemic has exposed and Member States have recognised . Interoperability is mentioned repeatedly in the key reform areas around digital transformation included by Member States in their plans for the Recovery and Resilience Facility where an unprecedented EUR 50 billion are set aside for digital transformation of the public sector. 1.2. Political context The importance of ensuring interoperability of network and information systems supporting digital public services and data has been mentioned and recognised by the European Council and Member States on numerous occasions over the last few years. The Tallinn Declaration of 6 October 2017 on eGovernment, the conclusions of the European Council conclusions of 9 June 2020 on ‘Shaping Europe’s digital future’, or of October 2021 or the 2020 Berlin Declaration on ‘Digital Society and Value-Based Digital Government’ all point to the need to ensure interoperability to support the exchange of data, ensure digital sovereignty, and strengthen resilience of the public sector. Strengthening the interoperability of public services in Europe is part of the work on the Commission’s priority to create ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’. It is one of the initiatives announced in the 2020 digital strategy ‘Shaping Europe’s Digital Future’, where the Commission promises to present a reinforced interoperability strategy ‘to ensure coordination and common standards for secure and borderless public sector data flows and services’. At the same time, in the connected European Data Strategy, one of the actions identified is ‘(as regards public services) a strengthened European Interoperability Framework’. The Commission, in its Communication ‘2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade’ (9 March 2021) pointed out the need to establish a strengthened EU interoperability policy to support the digitalisation of public services which is one of the four cardinal points of the Digital Compass. Consequently, the Commission included the initiative in its 2022 work programme, aiming to present a legislative proposal by Q2 2022 (see REFIT annex) . The European Council and the European Parliament both recognised the pivotal role of digitalisation in helping to relaunch and modernise the EU economy following the COVID‑19 crisis. Interoperability is key to the digitalisation of public sector. In October 2021, the expert group on Interoperability of European public services, which consists of representatives of digital transformation leaders in the Member States’ national administrations, unanimously endorsed the recommendations for the next interoperability policy (see Annex V) and called on the Commission to take concrete actions through:

-A reinforced shared governance of EU interoperability (Member States / Commission); -Interoperability and digital-ready by-default rules to improve EU policymaking; -A better offering of interoperability ‘products’ for reuse by public administration. 1.3. Legal context Although interoperability has been explicitly mentioned as a precondition for numerous EU policies, the topic has not been addressed by binding overarching EU policy provisions. Past EU interoperability programmes helped find a common understanding on interoperability and to build and test solutions in cooperation with Member States that are today part of many EU policies, for example INSPIRE (Directive 2007/2/EC) and eIDAS (Regulation (EU) No 910/2014). The non-binding European Interoperability Framework has been part of the EU interoperability policy since 2010 and has been revised last in a communication issued in 2017 (COM/2017/134). The EIF encompasses a set of principles, models and recommendations aimed at guiding the EU public administrations, as well as all levels of administration, in the design and provision of key digital and interoperable public services. The implementation of the EIF has been supported by different funding instruments, like the ISA² programme and, more recently, by the Digital Europe Programme. However, the recent evaluations of the ISA² programme and the EIF show that the goal of having ‘interoperable European digital services’ is still far from being achieved and the informal approach to collaboration is not enough to allow Member States to deliver on the high level of ambition for digital public services set out in the Digital Decade communication and expected by citizens. Furthermore, recent initiatives further demonstrate that a coherent approach towards interoperability is key to most EU policies but especially relevant for the successful implementation of EU digital policies and funding programmes: ·2018 – the Single Digital Gateway and the once-only principle; Regulation on the free flow of non-personal data (FFD); ·2019 – the EU Cybersecurity Act and the Open Data Directive; ·2020 – Digital Services Actand the Data Governance Act ; ·2021 – proposals for a framework for a European Digital Identity; the EU Digital COVID Certificate Regulation; a Regulation laying down harmonised AI rules; ·2021 – Proposal for a Regulation (Data act); Proposal for the 2030 Policy Programme ‘Path to the Digital Decade’; and, ·Funding programmes: Digital Europe Programme, Recovery and Resilience Facility, Horizon Europe, Technical Support Instrument and other instruments (regional development, agriculture, etc.). Most of the current EU legislation with an impact on digital transformation, ranging from legislation around data, digital identity, to sectorial proposals like for the digitalisation of cross-border justice systems have included measures on interoperability. Some have referred to the EIF but not all. When it comes to the implementation of these policy proposals by the EU public sector there is often a lack of coordination across sectors. The proposed Interoperable Europe Act is designed to facilitate the interoperable implementation of those policies and programmes, to enable their coherent implementation as well as that of future initiatives by setting up a persistent structured cooperation around public sector interoperability. Due to the cross-cutting nature of interoperability, this proposal also aims to facilitate the digital implementation of European policies both across borders and across sectors. The aim is to foster the take-up of interoperable solutions in future policy developments, and equally enhance consistency with not only the proposed policy, but also consistency among policies and specifically their general digital implementation. In this context, we are assessing the impacts of different policy options for the EU public sectors interoperability policy. This assessment includes the results of the evaluations of the implementation of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF - COM(2017) 134 ) and of the ISA² funding programme (2016-2020), which supported the EIF implementation measures. 2.2. Problem definition The evaluations of the current interoperability policy – the EIF - and its main implementation mechanism - the ISA² programme – show that Member States have issued digital strategies and laws that are to a high degree aligned with the EIF. A number of solutions supporting interoperability at EU level have been put in place with their support.

However, the results of the evaluations show clearly that the EIF, as a communication therefore not binding, has only supported voluntary implementation of interoperability. This is not sufficient to help remove cross-border and cross-sector barriers for the EU public sector and has led to persistent limited interoperability of public services in Europe. This problem is affected by the three following drivers: ·Inefficient governance of interoperability efforts between EU policies, the European Commission and Member States for all administrative levels (national, regional, local) and sectors. ·Lack of common minimum interoperability specifications, shared solutions, standards ·Lack of an ‘interoperability by default’ approach in the design and implementation of EU policies Both the problem and problem drivers show that the current policy approach, based solely on voluntary measures at Member States level and no coordination at EU level, is not fit for purpose. They increase costs and reduce efficiencies at all levels of public administrations in the European Union, add administrative burdens on citizens, businesses and administrations themselves, delay the implementation of European policies by the Member States and the accomplishment of the Digital Single Market, limit the potential to innovate and hinder the EU’s digital sovereignty. The above problem, along with its causes and consequences, is summed up in the problem tree ( Figure 1 ), which shows the issues faced when implementing interoperability of European public services in the current policy context. 2.1. What is the problem The main problem this initiative aims to tackle is the limited interoperability of network and information systems supporting digital public services in the EU. Interoperability is defined as ‘the ability of organisations to interact towards mutually beneficial goals, involving the sharing of information and knowledge between these organisations, through the business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data between their ICT systems’. Interoperability is crucial in the implementation of digital government policies. ‘Building a digital state without interoperability is like building a house without a foundation – it will not work’ (Keegan McBride, 2021 ). Currently there are no studies that differentiate precisely the impact of interoperability from the one of the overall digital transformation of the public sector, but numerous sources highlight interoperability as a key enabling factor and a pre-condition for success on the path to successful digital public sector transformation. This is even more the case when we look at cross-border interoperability of digital public services. Thus, limited interoperability of services and data of public administrations in EU leads to limited digital public services, incapable of reaching their full potential and deliver on European goal of having a Digital Single Market. This problem is quite visible when looking at both the level of implementation of digital public services in EU and the results of the evaluations of the EIF and ISA² programme, which show there is still an important gap to fill. In the latest Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) the EU average for cross-border digital public services is below 60 out of 100. Looking at the situation of EU border regions in 2021 a Commission report 43 underlines that ‘in the 2020 public consultation, respondents identified difficulties in accessing reliable public transport as the main obstacle to using cross-border public services, closely followed by the lack of joint digital services.’ It also highlights that the lack of cross-border interoperability of digital systems in border regions, particularly of those dealing with employment services, leads to difficulties in identifying available jobs or reaching out to potential employees due to the lack of job market integration and of coordination amongst services. In the latest EUPACK study of 2021, we can see a big gap between in Digital public services provision between Member States, varying from a low of 48 to a high of 89 out of 100 with an average at 72. This hampers their overall societal and state resilience.

The JRC report that has analysed in depth Digital Government transformation in the EU found that the provision of digital public services across the EU is hampered by several factors, many of which, like administrative silos, fragmented decision-making and lack of coordination, can be linked to insufficient interoperability. The stakeholders consulted in the context of the evaluation of the EIF report that the framework’s voluntary nature and the scope of its recommendations contribute only to a limited extent to the establishment of the Digital Single Market (DSM), most likely due to the limited amount of interoperable cross-border services available. A higher ranking on digital performance does not always mean that a Member State’s digital services will be available in cross-border cases. The numbers of the 2021 eGovernment Benchmark report confirm this: only 43% of services are online for cross-border users. Currently, only a quarter of the services (24%) enable access with eIDs from multiple European countries. Even though since 29 September 2018, all EU citizens of countries who have notified their eID scheme to the Commission pursuant to the eIDAS regulation should be able to use them in other Member States. This is both a question of availability of eID for citizens but also an interoperability issue as was pointed out in the impact assessment for the new proposal on Digital Identity. Although the EIF has given value to the EU, cross-border interoperability remains limited and driven by sectoral needs. It has been driven by specific EU legislation like the eIDAS and now the Single Digital Gateway regulations. For example, several studies assessing how ready Member States are to connect to and exchange data ‘once-only’ showed a lack of legal and semantic interoperability alignment (different data models and evidence types implemented in the Member States). From the EIF evaluation, we also see that countries that have aligned their National Interoperability Framework with the European one have more citizens interacting with public administrations online. There is a visible positive correlation between the overall performance in the maturity of digital public administrations and their adoption of an EIF-inspired framework. The lower ranked Member States (e.g. Romania) have not put in place a robust interoperability framework, while the frontrunners (e.g. Spain, Estonia, the Netherlands) have well established frameworks that make a difference. The next step in the path to fully digitalised governments is to move towards providing proactive services to citizens and businesses, services which bring state support when it is needed. For instance Estonia, where digital public services are amongst the most advanced in the world, enables citizens to complete tax forms, renew a passport, and access family benefits in only a few clicks assisted by the app Bürokratt which they define as an ‘interoperable network of AI applications’. These types of proactive services are currently used by only 6% of the examined government services and are not possible without interoperability. With limited interoperability at national and European level, citizens and businesses will be stuck exchanging PDFs as evidence, which is a common practice in the digitalisation of sectorial policies for instance, instead of moving to fully automated end-to-end digital processes and services. The described problem persists even though the European Commission has been continuously working to address the issue for more than 25 years: The stakeholders consulted during the EIF evaluation perceive that the policy has brought limited benefits to the development of a coherent European public services ecosystem and the achievement of interoperable, user-centric public services in the EU. The current EIF recommendations, principles and the conceptual model have only partially helped meet the goals established when the framework was created in back 2005, then revised in 2010 and 2017. Even within countries and across sectors interoperability is not ensured. For example, less than half of the services (44%) participate in a single sign-on scheme, meaning that users often need to re-authenticate when switching between websites of different competent authorities even within the same ‘Life event journey’. As citizens’ expectations and upcoming requirements (like the ones brought by the Single Digital Gateway Regulation), are difficult to meet because of limited interoperability, the EU foregoes the benefits of interoperable digital public services. This translates into a loss of significant time savings for citizens and businesses. Two examples can be highlighted: ·through the implementation of the Estonian interoperability platform X-Road it is estimated that Estonians are saving 844 person-years of working time annually; ·further digitalising public services in Germany, which has one of the lowest levels of interoperability amongst Member States, is estimated to potentially enable cuts of over 80 million hours per year for citizens in their interaction with public authorities, help save up to EUR 1 billion in administrative costs for businesses and 64 million hours per year for public administrations themselves. 2.2. What are the problem drivers? The problem of limited interoperability of services and data of public services in Europe described above is driven by a number of factors analysed further below. 2.2.1. Inefficient governance of interoperability efforts

The evaluation of the EIF emphasizes the inefficiency of current governance of interoperability efforts between EU policies, the European Commission and Member States for all administrative levels (national, regional, local) and sectors. Limited coordination and cooperation on interoperability efforts between and within Member States and with the EU level, when introducing digital solutions for public services is one of the identified drivers of the limited interoperability persisting at EU level. Cross-border projects face particular challenges that affect the timing and efficiency of delivery. The involvement of more than one Member State, and often of multiple regional and/or local authorities, can particularly impact the timely delivery of digital public services. Any delay or obstacle on one side of a border will necessarily impact project delivery and the implementation of EU policies. We have seen this time and time again with the delays in the development of the implementing act on the ‘once-only-principle’ for the Single Digital Gateway or the issues with sharing data. Policy support measures often include digital solutions and specifications which are inscribed in EU or national laws before being taken up by the teams that have to implement them (often services equivalent to DG DIGIT at Member State level). And when cross-borders or cross-sectoral exchanges of information or services are needed, interoperability is automatically at play. At European Commission level, we estimate that 47.2% of policies have a digital impact. Today there is no systematic coordination or cooperation to ensure solutions and specifications (and in general everything that can be grouped together as ‘interoperability resources’) are shared and reused when implementing EU policies. Nothing similar to the governance structure for IT in the European Commission exists for the work with the Member States. The EIF evaluation shows that the governance of the selection and adoption of standards and specifications is currently not sufficient . Various models of interoperability governance exist within Member States between different levels of government. In some cases, interoperability is mandated through legislation, in others coordination mechanisms exist with cities and/or regions working together to develop common standards, templates and models, promoting interoperability between them, and with central government. The EIF evaluation showed that in some cases a lack of internal interoperability coordination within Member States further enhances the disconnect between the high-level guidance and actual execution. Often Member States, even at national level in centralised states, have more than one entity (e.g. Ministry or Agency) leading digital transformation efforts, which sometimes leads to a lack of coordination. The EIF evaluation shows a further disconnect between the high-level guidance provided by the EIF and actual execution, particularly at the regional and municipal levels. Cross-border interoperability is not solely a matter for the national level of the administrations in the Member States. Data and services are routinely interacting between regional and local administrations in different Member States. Thus, interoperability between national administrations is not sufficient if interoperability at the local level does not work. Signatories of Living-in.EU emphasized that due to this inefficient governance investments in digital transformation at local level have a low impact and lead to sub-optimal outcomes for citizens in the quality of public service delivery . The coordinated digital response to the COVID-19 pandemic within and amongst Member States is a topical example of the advantage of governance, coordination and cooperation on interoperability across public and private organisations in the face of major shared challenges. This coordinated response, however, was emergency-driven and not based on established and structured joint approaches. Indeed, the absence of such structures does not necessarily prevent successful crisis response or the digitalisation of individual public services per se. However, analysis finds that not addressing interoperability ‘by design’ in upstream coordination risks building disconnected data and operational islands across administrations. Using non-compatible specifications, standards and tools in an uncoordinated way, risks leading to costly and/or isolated ad-hoc solutions, lock-in situations and missing out on scale effects. Negative consequences may be felt by administrations themselves but more so by end-users, who increasingly expect the same kind of seamless service experience when dealing with public administrations which they are used to from private sector offers. 2.2.2. Lack of common minimum interoperability specifications, shared solutions, standards The OECD states that ‘one of the most frequently cited barriers to data sharing and reuse is the lack of common standards, or the proliferation of incompatible standards’. This is confirmed by the 2020 public consultation for the European strategy for data, where 91.5% of the respondents agreed that standardisation is necessary to improve interoperability and ultimately data reuse across sectors. 91.1% of respondents agreed that future standardisation activities need to better address the use of data across sectors of the economy or domains of society. Meanwhile, the limited availability and take-up of common minimum interoperability specifications, shared solutions and standards for the public sector particularly at the levels of regional and local administrations has been confirmed as a key challenge in the evaluations of ISA² and the EIF. This challenge has not been addressed by the Open Data Directive (Directive (EU) 2019/1024). Also, the future EU Data act limits its scope to commercial data held by public authorities. This implies that Member States would not be supported with concrete guidelines, solutions or specifications to ensure interoperability of their public data. The Proposal for a European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC) is a first initiative that gives guidance to interoperability specifications. While the principles, the layered interoperability model, and the conceptual model for integrated public services in the EIF provided sufficient high-level conceptual guidance, there is still a gap when it comes to the practical implementation of the EIF at the service level with reusable common interoperability solutions and specifications . Stakeholders commenting on the inception impact assessment provided several concrete ideas on how to achieve this goal: ‘all EIF recommendations should be provided with a reference implementation standard’, another stakeholder goes further and asks that ‘all EU policy should come with a reference solution to guide its digital implementation’. Missing interoperability specifications and standards can also hinder the development and use of innovative technologies, such as blockchain, AI or APIs. That then can help also public administrations that are already highly digitalised without an ‘interoperability by default’ approach because they need to overcome the challenge of legacy solutions (e.g. the difficulties experienced in the implementation of the Single Digital Gateway Regulation by the more digitally advanced Member States). Another important factor contributing to the lack of development and uptake of common interoperability solutions consists of the limited incentives and capacities for public administrations. An important finding from the ISA² final evaluation in this regard is that EU funding instruments today do not contain sufficient incentives to ensure the development of solutions in line with the EIF . The Expert group on interoperability of European public services particularly highlighted that EU policies often come with competing and non-interoperable standards. For instance, Estonia highlighted in a contribution to the expert group that 8 different cross-border data exchange protocols are being used of enforced in just one domain from different Commission initiatives. The current EU policy agenda contains a substantial number of initiatives that provide the Commission with a mandate to adopt standards or technical specifications for IT systems used by public administration. For example, technical specifications for the renewed digitalisation of judicial cooperation or a future European Social Security Pass announced in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan . Even though all of the mentioned initiatives aim to align with each other, there is no mechanism today to ensure that the solutions proposed are interoperable, which can lead to new barriers to interoperability. Therefore, cooperation and effective alignment between sectorial and cross-domain public sector data, standards and specifications is needed. Such cooperation mechanism should ideally involve the experts from the Member States’ administrations already involved in implementing the parallel work strands listed above. This is an explicit call from the Expert group policy recommendations to ensure consistency, prevent creation of sectoral silos and reduce implementation burdens on their side.

2.2.3. Lack of an ‘interoperability by default’ approach in the design and implementation of EU policies Member States have prominently called upon the Commission and other institutions, most recently in the Berlin Declaration, to ensure that ‘policies and legislative acts proposed by the European Commission are digital-ready and interoperable by default’. The consultation activities and the work with the Member States experts showed that public administrations are struggling to translate requirements from EU policies into concrete interoperable digital services. They expect that this problem could be solved by changing the way EU policies are designed, learning from the Danish approach to digital-ready legislation that was recently evaluated. The EIF and ISA² evaluation confirm this assumption: interoperability actions are the most beneficial and effective if clearly linked with EU policies. The evaluation however also confirms that the EIF is underutilised across sectors and even by Commission services. Interoperability by design was emphasised as vital for effective cross-border contact tracing apps in the EU. The argument around the EU Digital COVID certificate included standardisation and interoperability. Due to the voluntary participation in the implementation of the EIF and the voluntary take up at EU level of interoperability resources developed through the Interoperability programmes (ISA² and predecessors), a coherent approach to the topic is missing, beyond what has been set up through specific sectorial obligations (e.g. justice, transport). Even when digital resources are foreseen in EU legislation, they do not apply ‘interoperability by default’ principles as there is currently no uniform legal and technical framework to establish them. For instance, the EIF as the main point of reference of the current interoperability policy is mentioned only 18 times in the EU common acquis (see Figure 7 ). It is not mentioned at all in the Single Digital Gateway Regulation or the eIDAS Regulation. To put this into perspective, the Spanish law on digital public administration refers 136 times to the Spanish National Interoperability Framework (NIF), and interoperability is mentioned 899 times, while the latest Spanish act on the topic (the Royal decree 203/2021) mentions interoperability 88 times and the NIF 24 times. This increase inclusion of ‘interoperability by default’ has led to considerable momentum gain in Spain’s public sector digitalisation efforts over the same period, visible in the annual DESI figures (2015: 60%, 2020:82%). Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the implementation of the EIF based on the CEPS EurLex dataset and the EurLex website. This finding is not caused by a lack of EU policies addressing digitalisation issues. As it is quite visible from the legal and political context, there is a large number of EU and Member States policies which have a digital impact. Before the current COVID-19 crisis the keyword digital was appearing in 14.5% of announced EU policy proposals, now their share went up to 47.2%. This is also reflected in the feedback received from the Member States in the Interoperability expert group (especially in their recommendations) and throughout the public consultations. ‘We need an interoperability policy that is focused on enabling smooth, interoperable implementation and delivery of digital public services at European level without adding new obligations on Member States and that helps increase our overall digital maturity’ – Recommendations from the expert group on Interoperability of European Public Services (October 2021). The Member States have repeatedly highlighted that in general much of the challenge in terms of interoperability can be related to issues with legal implementation. Differences in national legislation result in different national processes and standards for data-handling, which make interoperability across borders more difficult. Another side effect of having many EU policies that have an impact on digitalisation of the public sector is that there is an increase in reporting obligations on the public administrations of the Member States. Member States authorities need to provide data, mostly by replying to surveys, for the establishment of DESI, the National Interoperability Framework Observatory, for the upcoming Digital Compass, Single Digital Gateway Regulation, etc. Beyond EU policies they also provide data to the OECD digital government, UN e-government, Berlin Declaration monitoring surveys. There is only anecdotical automated data collection or sharing of collected data between these mechanisms. 2.3. How will the problem evolve in the future? In the literature there is no argument for less action on interoperability and digital transformation of the public sector or for an expectation that the existing problems could be resolved by individual actors alone. Without common action and shared ownership of interoperability policies at EU level, the gap between the needs of citizens, businesses and especially public administrations across Europe will continue to grow. Data sharing and re-use is paramount to shape Europe’s digital future . However, data remains fragmented across numerous domains as well as across borders. One of the most frequently cited barriers holding back better data use is the lack of common standards, or the proliferation of incompatible standards. For example, inconsistent data formats are impediments to the creation of longitudinal data sets, as changes in measurement and collection practices make it hard to compare and aggregate data’ . Moreover, the value of data becomes more important in data-centric societies in which more evidenced decisions can be made. However, numerous relevant data are still not fully used by the public sector for their delivered services and developed policies. In order to unlock the wealth of data, public sector interoperability is indispensable. The problem drivers described above are linked to a constant increase in data traffic and to the mobility of citizens and businesses in the EU. This automatically leads to a constant increase in the usage and requests for cross-border services and exchanges of data. For instance, there is a significant number of people who cross borders for the purposes of tourism – 64.7% of EU citizens aged 15 or more did so in 2019 and there is an upward trend in the total number of nights that tourists spend in a country other than their own (from 100 in 2005 to 157.8 nights in 2019). In times of COVID-19, most tourists will be requested to show their ‘Green passes’. They can use the app from their home country to do so, thanks to the interoperable EU-level standards that those apps are based on. But tourists might also be required to show that the car they are using can enter a certain zone of the city restricted to electric vehicles etc. Interoperability could help here and in a large number of other use cases to provide real time clearance, data and services.

Furthermore, by relying on the internet (as a borderless structure), including for their work, individuals are increasingly requiring cross-border services. The number of people living in a foreign country is also trending upwards – Eurostat has found that, in 2019, 3.3% of EU citizens of working age (20 to 64) lived in another Member State, as compared to 2.4% in 2009. With more and more people finding themselves in a cross-border situation, it is to be expected that the usage of cross-border services and exchange of data will increase, placing an even greater burden on public administrations. 3.3. Why should the EU act? 3.1. Legal basis The problems described in Chapter 2 show a need for EU action to foster interoperability of network and information systems supporting public digital services in the Union across all levels and sectors of government. The EU’s competence to act in relation to interoperability of trans-European networks is set out in Articles 170 - 172 of the TFEU, which requires the EU to ‘contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks’ in the area of telecommunications. Article 171(2) states that ‘Member States shall, in liaison with the Commission, coordinate among themselves the pursued polices at national level which may have a significant impact’ on the objective of the establishment of trans-European networks, and the ‘Commission may, in close cooperation with the Member States, take any useful initiative to promote such coordination’. Hence, action to ensure a coherent, human-centric approach to interoperability from policymaking to policy implementation, accompanied by a clear governance to streamline shared interoperability frameworks, solutions, guidelines and specifications for digital public services across EU borders is within the scope of the EU’s right to act. The EU shares competence in this area with the Member States. The Union has used this legal base and its predecessor since 1994 to create funding programmes supporting the development and dissemination of interoperability solutions for public administrations and businesses as well as the set-up of cross-border digital services infrastructures. The Court of Justice of the European Union decided with its judgment in the case C-22/96 of 28 May 1998 that Union measures contributions to the ‘telematic interchange of data between administrations in the Community’ (IDA)’ fall within the ambit of the trans-European networks for telecommunication Articles 170 – 172 TFEU and that Art. 114 TFEU cannot be used. Under this legal base, the EU can go beyond providing funding; the Union can establish guidelines, identify projects of common interest, implement any measures necessary to ensure the interoperability, take initiatives to promote coordination between Member States, and cooperate with third countries for similar purposes (Article 171 TFEU). In the framework of other trans-European networks binding standards necessary to ensure the interoperability for the respective sectors (e.g. energy and transportation) and governance frameworks with clear roles and mandates have been established. For example, the Digital Europe Programme based among others on Art. 172 TFEU defines a wide scope of potential actions for the interoperability of European public service. Highlighting that interoperability -‘concerns all levels of administration: Union, national, regional and local’, -‘is to be understood in broad sense, spanning to technical and legal layers and encompassing policy elements,’ -removing ‘barriers to a functioning internal market’, -‘facilitates cross-border cooperation and the promotion of European standards and the successful implementation of policies’ -‘offers great potential for avoiding cross-border electronic barriers, further securing the emergence of new, and the consolidation of developing, common public services at Union level’, -needs ‘a holistic cross-sector and cross-border approach’, -action facilitates ‘cross-fertilisation between different national initiatives’. The objectives of this initiative to contribute to a Digital Single Market and to connect remote areas fit well with the objectives of trans-European networks that shall help to reach the objective of the Internal Market (Article 26 TFEU) and economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU (Article 174 TFEU). The interoperability-related activities under Digital Europe Programme will contribute to the implementation of the future interoperability policy though a series of projects on legal, organisation, semantic and technical interoperability. 3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action The evaluation of the European Interoperability Framework shows that the digital (and interoperable) transformation of the EU public sector requires greater EU cooperation, common rules and initiatives. The concrete needs across all levels and sectors of public administrations that recently became more prominent during the COVID-19 crisis are a telling example. The COVID-19 crisis has shown that cooperation and governance mechanisms are needed not just to improve basic public services but also to build resilience and the capability to deal with unexpected emergencies. During the pandemic, countries with more digitalised and interconnected governmental administrations and services reported less service disruptions. The pandemic also highlighted the need for better governance of response mechanisms across the EU. The lack of data consistency hampered the EU’s capacity to respond cooperatively early in the outbreak. Interoperability by design was emphasised as vital for effective cross-border contact tracing apps in the EU. The work around the EU Digital COVID certificate mainly consisted of working out a standard, interoperable technical approach among the Member States. The Tallinn Declaration of 2017 and the Berlin Declaration of December 2020, the call of the Living-in.EU movement and the recommendations of the expert group on interoperability of European public services show that public administrations across EU countries see a need for coordinated EU action. In the same line, the EIF evaluation notes that in the absence of a common approach, the development of a cohesive landscape of digital and interoperable public services across the EU would be hindered by divergent measures taken at the national level. In addition, enhanced interoperability can significantly contribute to overarching goals for the Digital Single Market, the digital agenda of the EU, fostering innovation, ensuring digital sovereignty and acting as a crucial enabler for new initiatives, such as the European Data Spaces announced by the Commission in its Communication on a European Strategy for Data. National and/or sub-national interventions alone would not be able to address the relevant policy problem.

3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action The evaluations of the EIF and ISA² confirm the added value of an EU-level intervention for interoperability. Building on the experience of implementing the EIF and ISA², an EU level initiative for interoperability is likely to achieve its objectives at lower costs than comparable national or sub-national initiatives, by creating economies of scale and economies of learning generated by cooperation. The recent political communications are also based on this assessment. Beyond that, the cross-border dimension cannot be addressed only through the efforts of national or sub-national governments. Even if national, regional, and local public administrations strive to improve their approach to digital and interoperable public services, without coordination, the strategies and solutions selected may impede the cross-border interoperability landscape. An EU involvement in cross-border interoperability serves both for coordination, ensuring a consistent approach to interoperability throughout the EU and on international level, and as a stimulant offering direction and support. EU action cannot and should not aim to replace local responsibilities but can reinforce subsidiarity by enabling local actors to better meet the needs of citizens and businesses. This resonates in the explicit call for building a common EU interoperability coordination, e.g. in the Tallinn and Berlin declarations, the Living-in.EU manifesto and the Interoperability expert group recommendations. 4.4. Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1. General objective The Commission aims for ‘a reinforced EU governments interoperability strategy to ensure coordination and common standards for secure and borderless public sector data flows and services’. The general objective of the initiative on strengthening interoperability for the EU public sector is to address the issues faced by the Member States and the European institutions when delivering digital public services across borders in Europe. It will contribute to the objectives set in Article 171 and 172 TFUE to establish and develop any measures that may prove necessary to ensure the interoperability of the trans-European network as well as to promote the interconnection and interoperability of national networks. Network is understood holistically as the digital public service infrastructure underlying the delivery of public services. It has all the components of an interrelated system that enable public services to be delivered electronically. These include underlying legal, organisational and semantic requirements as well as the technical setup. A successful policy in this area would: -enable public administrations across the EU to exchange data in a secure way, respecting privacy and fundamental rights; -allow for seamless user-centric services and the sharing of common solutions developed with EU funding; and -foster data driven decision-making, foresight and participatory processes. It would further help to reduce administrative burdens and costs for citizens and businesses, facilitate cross-border cooperation, enable the successful implementation of European policies, accelerate the digital transformation of public services and ensure their resilience in case of disruptions brought on by crises like the current COVID-19. It would also support a more efficient design and implementation of EU policies. Cross-border interoperability is not solely enabled via centralised Member State digital infrastructures. The digital solutions of today also use a decentralised approach. This entails data exchange between local administrations in different Member States without necessarily going through national nodes. This underlines the importance of common solutions across all administrative levels, particularly for specifications and applications. Needs for cross-border digital interactions are increasing and they require solutions that can fulfil these needs. Interoperability cannot and should not replace horizontal and sectorial actions that will continue to be decisive to build a European Digital Single Market. Nonetheless a smart interoperability policy can provide the needed foundations to facilitate policy implementation and enforce links between different policies. It helps build digital-ready and interoperable-by-default policy initiatives at all levels (legal, organisational, semantic, technical). This initiative would help tackle the problem and drivers identified in Chapter 2, and ensure a coordinated approach to EU interoperability to help EU and Member States institutions deliver better services to citizens and businesses across Europe. 4.2. Specific objectives The EIF evaluation, the ISA² evaluation, the stakeholder consultations and the recommendations from the Expert group on Interoperability of European public services conclude that, in order to help EU public administrations deliver better services, EU action is needed in three concrete areas: ·Ensure a coherent, human-centric EU approach to interoperability from policymaking to policy implementation; ·Establish an interoperability governance designed to enable public administrations from all levels and sectors as well as private stakeholders to work together – with a clear mandate to agree on shared interoperability resources (e.g. IT solutions, specifications, standards or guidelines); and,

·Co-create an ecosystem of interoperability resources (solutions, open standards, data and services) for the EU’s public sector, so that public administrations at all levels in the EU and other stakeholders can contribute to and re-use such resources, create public value and innovate together. Interoperability across different policy areas can only be achieved if there are a political will, clear guidelines, and clearly identified interoperability resources which are taken up systematically. A successful policy would establish effective safeguards and mechanisms to ensure that EU policies set ‘interoperable by default’ requirements for the implementation of policies, and that the digital implementation of EU policies by public administrations or other stakeholders across the Union is efficiently supported through an established interoperability governance and resources. It would offer administrations the needed guidance and tools, respected and referenced across all policy areas. It would support the design and implementation of EU policies that are digital-ready by default. As interoperability is about different entities working together towards a shared goal, in a complex system like the EU public sector, and in full respect of subsidiarity, it can only be achieved through a sound multi-level governance. A successful policy would offer a clear governance setup co-owned by Member States and the EU, offering all stakeholders space to contribute their ideas and concerns, with transparent processes leading to joint interoperability resources. Well crafted, governance is empowering because it clarifies rules, responsibilities, input and outcomes, and accountability. It helps all involved actors understand decision-making processes and offers opportunities for engagement. A successful interoperability policy would need to be an integrator for all relevant initiatives, offering an agile cooperation structure, transparency and inclusiveness, and support take-up of the outcomes. 5.5. What are the available policy options? The policy options identified include non-legislative and legislative actions providing for voluntary or mandatory use of interoperability solutions and specifications. The options are described in detail below. 5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed? Option 0 (baseline scenario) No action is taken to increase the interoperability of the services of public interest in Europe. The Commission would not propose any new specific measures to address the problems discovered in the recent evaluation of the EIF and the ISA² programme or the recommendations from the expert group. The baseline is characterised by the following aspects: -The 2017 EIF remains in place with no change; -The Interoperability Action Plan, would not be updated and therefore be outdated. -Some supporting actions continue under the Digital Europe Programme such as the National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO) and the EIF toolbox; -Work continues with the expert group on Interoperability of European public services; -No support measures as regards Digital readiness for EC policy proposals are undertaken, beyond what is already available in the updated Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox; and, -Limited and informal support from the EC Interoperability Unit provided to other digital policies with high interoperability stakes (e.g. semantic work package of Digital Single Gateway Once Only Principle), if requested by policy DGs. The formal ISA² Committee where Member States participated in strategic steering of the programme and follow up of interoperability actions, ceased to exist at the end of the programme in 2020. It would not be replaced so there will be no direct governance with Member States on Interoperability actions. There would be a limited steering via the Digital Europe Programme committee which coordinates the implementation of the whole programme where interoperability actions represent a very small part of the overall financing and the level of engagement with Member States on this particular topic is limited. As ISA² has come to an end in December 2020, some of the existing EIF implementing actions covered by ISA² will continue to be supported in the new Digital Europe Programme but there would be no coherent catalogue of interoperability resources put in place. 5.2. Option 1: Non-legislative This option is a continuation of the baseline option, with the addition of several non-binding policy statements from the Commission. The uptake in public administrations across the EU remains voluntary.

The Commission adopts a Communication which would: -Update the European Interoperability Framework; -Update the outdated Interoperability Action Plan; -Call for the uptake of open-source software; -Call for coordination with local public administrations by publishing the European Interoperability Framework for Smart cities and Communities (EIF4SCC) ; -Announce the intention to work on synergies between the Commission’s existing and future monitoring and reporting systems on digital public sector initiatives, including specific indicators on interoperability; and, -Offer ad-hoc support of the expert group on Interoperability of European public services in the design of policies with a high interoperability stake. A new version of the EIF could address some of the shortcomings detected in the EIF evaluation and take on board some of the recommendations of the expert group . The EIF could be restructured into a more concrete and practical framework focused on facilitating implementation, include calls for open-source software and specifications and to facilitate the implementation of open and interoperable services that provide incentives for the take-up of common specifications. Monitoring would be underpinned by revised key performance indicators and ‘SMART goals’ (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely) to facilitate the assessment of its outcomes. A revised action plan for Interoperability could be put in place to define actions further needed under the Interoperability specific objective of the Digital Europe Programme . To improve the coordination with local public administrations, the framework for smart cities EIF4SCC, developed under the ISA² programme in conjunction with the Living-in.EU community, could be published as an annex to the communication. It would allow the current interoperability expert group to cooperate more easily with the Living-in.EU community which, to a certain degree, would help address the specific interoperability challenges faced at local level and promote some collaboration across different levels of government. For digital-ready policy making the expert group on interoperability of European public services could provide ad-hoc support early in the design of some EU policies with high interoperability stake cross-borders or across different sectors. This would necessarily remain voluntary and occasional. 5.3. Option 2: Legislative initiative - New legal framework for an interoperable EU public sector infrastructure and strengthened EU policy coordination Option 2 would consist of a package with a policy communication on strengthened EU interoperability policy coordination and a legislative act that would foster a coherent EU approach to interoperability by proposing the setup of an interoperable EU public sector infrastructure. The legislative act would act on three main pillars – governance, solutions and support measures: -Establish a multi-level governance setup for EU public sector interoperability, with clear roles and mandates. In this governance, Member States and EU institutions and agencies set the strategic goals and agree on concrete measures that can ensure the cross-border interoperability of their digital public service infrastructures; a governance body or board would be established and it would be composed of representatives from the Member States, and the Commission to define the general direction and cooperation on interoperability to promote the digital interconnection and interoperability of networks and infrastructures supporting digital services in the Union. This board would cooperate closely with existing future bodies established under Union law in the areas of data policy or digital government, such as the Data Governance Act or the AI Act; -Enact the obligation for Member States to designate a national coordinator of digital transformation (e.g. a national ‘Chief Information Officer’) at Member State level and appoint him/her as member of the governance board; -Set up an ecosystem of interoperability solutions that support cross-border digital public services: this will include the European Interoperability Framework and its specialisations, and it will add the possibility for the governance to recommend specifications and applications which can be used to foster interoperability across sectors and administrative levels, while not being mandatory; -Put in place interoperability support measures that set out a clear process on how EU wide projects in the framework of the Regulation can support interoperable and digital EU policy implementation across the EU public sector. To support 36 innovative interoperability solutions the governance can authorise the set-up of regulatory sandboxes in cross-border contexts. A peer-review system and provisions on training enhance two further important interoperability enablers (skills and knowledge exchange); -A requirement for public administrations to assess their alignment with the recommended interoperability resources and those mandated by EU laws in specified cases (e.g. linked to EU funding or linked to cross-border public sector infrastructures); -An obligation for Member States to reference interoperability resources on a common platform (e.g. Joinup ) if they have been developed with the support of EU funding; -A basis for making future EU funding conditional to public sector digitalisation projects being aligned and/or contributing to the development of shared interoperability resources; -Legal clarity for the sharing and re-using of publicly owned interoperability resources, it would support the use of the latest version of European Union Public Licence (EUPL) to enhance legal clarity and mutual recognition of licences in the Member States;

-A legal mandate for the Commission to develop international cooperation in interoperability; and, -A monitoring mechanism in close alignment with the Digital Compass. The policy communication would: -Set out the Commission’s policy aims on public sector interoperability, supporting coherence across sectoral and horizontal EU policies, innovative projects, and accelerating the implementation of public sector digital transformation (such as the Recovery and Resilience Programmes and the Digital Decade), including in the Commission and its own policy-making. -Establish an Interoperability agenda to support funding programmes with public sector digitalisation in scope As in Option 1 - Call for the uptake of open-source software, address coordination with local public administrations via the Interoperability framework for smart cities and communities (EIF4SCC), call for synergies between monitoring and reporting systems the Commission has on digital public sector initiative. Option 2 would establish the needed legal certainty for structural cooperation: Member States CIOs together with the European Commission would form a common interoperability governance like an interoperable Europe Board with a mandate to identify and propose recommended interoperability resources (solutions specifications, frameworks…), propose measures to foster the share and reuse of interoperable solutions, propose measures to enhance interoperability capabilities of public sector bodies, support the work of the European Data Innovation Board, on interoperability solutions for the common European Data Spaces, as well as any other Union body working on interoperability solutions relevant for the public sector. The Board would be supported by a community of experts that would enable the involvement of a broader set of stakeholders for the operational tasks. Governance means co-ownership of senior (CIO level) Member State representatives with clear roles and responsibilities, transparent decision-making and involvement of practitioner communities to test, evaluate and develop shared interoperability solutions. It would introduce obligations on Member States to designate national coordinators which would become full members of the main governance body. They would also be obliged to reference the interoperability resources developed with EU funding on a common platform, which would allow all participants to share and reuse solutions and specifications in a more consistent way. Regions and cities, academic experts, civil society, as well as GovTech and open-source experts should be appropriately associated to this cooperation structure. These stakeholders can help develop solutions to facilitate the interoperable implementation of EU policies or work on other shared needs, following the example of the cyber-security competence community established with Regulation (EU) 2021/887. While more and more policies have, among their objectives, to contribute to the EU’s digital transition, it is crucial that they also have a clear interoperability legal reference to link to, as it is the case for IT security or data protection and privacy issues. The multi-level governance mechanism would help facilitate the coordination between public administrations in Europe and the European Commission in the digitally supported implementation of EU policies. It would set incentives to align the national/local infrastructures with agreed interoperability resources to support cross-border and cross-sector digital services and it would foster the co-design of new innovative solutions fit for wide reuse. Where sectors see the need for harmonised standards, they can inject this need into relevant EU fora with the support of the governance. With all resources being issued in machine-readable format on an official platform with agreed change procedures, it allows for the flexibility needed to keep up with technological developments. This implies that standards and specifications which are today issued in legal text (e.g. implementing or delegated acts) or just published on various online sites, would be issued in machine-readable code. This implies that when developing IT systems supporting the implementation of EU policies, public administrations could implement the code directly. The legal instrument could lead to the introduction of policy conditionalities in future EU funding programmes. In this case, public administrations requesting EU funding and assistance for their efforts to modernise and digitise their systems and processes would need to argue how they plan to comply with - or contribute to - the agreed interoperability resources. The interplay of option 2 and other EU or national policies that set interoperability requirements would be very considerably enhanced in comparison with Option 1. Interoperability policy would provide cross-cutting support to EU policies through mature, referenceable specifications that evolve continuously, in a transparent process, based on the needs of EU policies and EU public administrations. 5.4. Option 3: Legislative initiative - New legal framework introducing a common European Interoperability Architecture for all public services Option 3 would be the furthest reaching and most centralistic approach to attain the objectives in Chapter 4. It would also have the form of a legislative act, building on Option 2, while making interoperability requirements more binding for the Member States. More specifically, this option would integrate both the multi-level governance for EU public sector interoperability, and Community Projects (cf. Option 2), but then add a specific mandate for a trans-European interoperable government network to set standards (minimum interoperability requirements) for the development of services of public interest to be then implemented by all public administrations in the Union. The concrete standards would be imposed through implementing acts. This option would include the following elements: -A multi-level governance for EU public sector interoperability (based on the outline of option 2;

-Establishment of a common European Interoperability Architecture (EIA) for the infrastructure of EU public services ; -Set-up of an EU Interoperability Architecture Board co-owned by Commission and Member States CIOs; -Mandatory alignment of all EU policy requirements with EIA, exceptions must be granted by the Interoperability Architecture Board; -Member States required to establish National Interoperability Architectures (NIA) in alignment with EIA, as well as national Architecture Boards that monitor the alignment of national initiatives with the respective NIA; and, -Where applicable, EU policy initiatives must contain a reference digital implementation solution. Member States designate national coordinators for interoperability cooperate in a dedicated EU interoperability governance setup similar to the one described above under option 2. As a body, they would be mandated to adopt a European interoperability architecture (building on the existing European Interoperability Reference Architecture EIRA ) as a blueprint for building and developing interoperable digital public services at all levels. This will be complemented by mandatory common (minimum) interoperability requirements. All Member States would be required to adopt a national interoperability strategy or framework compliant with EU requirements. This would mean, for instance, introducing an obligation for any EU and national policies and digital services infrastructure to be compliant with the EIA and the standards established via implementing decisions. The EU Interoperability Architecture Board would have the mandate to decide on conflicting standards. The alignment of the national approaches and infrastructures would be reached through the requirement to establish national governance structures, building where possible on existing bodies and processes in the Member States. This option would also introduce strong interoperability targets for Member States in order to monitor the implementation of the provisions included in the policy. This option would also have direct effects on the implementation of all EU policies with high interoperability stake, such as digital identity and data spaces: standards foreseen in those policies would need, by law (and not only by an internal Commission commitment – see option 2), to be aligned with EU minimum interoperability requirements which would become mandatory. 5.5. Options discarded at an early stage Inspired by the institutional setup created for cyber security or high-performance computing the option of establishing a common body or a joint undertaking was among the initial options assessed. However, actions performed by, e.g., a joint undertaking cannot replace but only complement an overall coherent approach to interoperability and progress might be slowed down by difficult budgetary discussions. Therefore, this option was discarded at the current point in time but should be reassessed in the future, which is explicitly mentioned in Chapter 9. It was also discussed to what extent the right for data portability, established in Art. 20 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) could be extended to personal data used by public administrations. This would give citizens and businesses a right to have their personal data processed in a machine-readable format. It would however contradict the explicit exception for data processed in performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority in the GDPR and would need a recast of the latter. This would go beyond the scope of the initiative. 6.6. What are the impacts of the policy options? The impacts of a public sector interoperability policy are more difficult to identify and quantify than those of many other EU initiatives. A study by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) analysed the economic impact of location interoperability overall based on 20 case studies. It finds that, due to its very nature as an enabling factor across many policy fields, the impact of interoperability is hard to isolate from other elements of a policy and interoperability is never an aim in itself but always an enabling precondition. Interoperability in its many forms is an important enabler; yet, it is the interoperable policies and public services that are delivering the benefits and consuming resources. Nevertheless, the evidence available is rather conclusive. For instance, in terms of economic impact, the study by the JRC finds that, if all solutions are made interoperable, even with conservative estimates, citizens could save up to 24 million hours per year due to improved interoperability. This would represent monetary savings in the order of EUR 543 million annually. For businesses, the establishment of a full interoperable economy would lead to time savings of 30 billion hours. In monetary terms, this translates into savings of EUR 568 billion annually. Improvements in public sector performance due to interoperability could lead to an increase of 0.4% in GDP. Overall, the potential positive benefits derived from increased interoperability for the public sector in the EU are considerable. For instance, converting these estimates to monetary terms, a 1% improvement in the indicators used, because of better interoperability, would imply an increase of the EU GDP in the range of EUR 21 to 56 billion. The final evaluation of the ISA² programme and the evaluation of the EIF show a crucial role of interoperability action during the COVID--19 pandemic. Not acting, therefore could also have wider repercussions, affecting the resilience of the public administrations and foregoing the opportunity to strengthen capabilities. The impacts of the different policy options are analysed below (for a full overview see Annex III Who is affected and how?). 6.1. Impacts of Option 0 - baseline scenario If no action is taken the objectives outlined in Section 4 will not be achieved as the Member States’ take-up of interoperable resources and specifications when implementing EU policies remains patchy and voluntary unless more binding requirements are brought by sectoral policy initiatives. Sectoral initiatives may, as a result, be uncoordinated and deepen the interoperability gap. Member States can continue to implement solutions and specifications in diverging ways. Their ability to exchange data cross-borders depends on their respective levels of digitalisation, bilateral agreements between Member States’ administrations or sectoral policy initiatives of the EU and thus remains uncertain. Continuing with the status quo of the 2017 EIF and an outdated Interoperability Action Plan would not address the main problems identified in the evaluations of the EIF and the ISA² programme. Even though future actions on interoperability are planned to be funded also outside the Interoperability Action Plan, for example as part of the Digital Europe Programme, such interoperability action would have no specific governance or ensure coordination across different funding programmes and policies. Informal and necessarily limited support could on an ad-hoc basis be provided to policy DGs by DG DIGIT’s Interoperability unit for the implementation of sectoral digital measures, if requested by the policy DGs. To date, this support is generally requested too late in the process to be able to make a difference and ensure interoperable-by-default and digital-ready policies.

Due to the already high-level of 2017 EIF implementation on the conceptual level, little costs can be directly linked to keeping the baseline scenario (see Table 2). On the EU level the costs for monitoring and facilitating the access to guidance can be assumed to fall within the range of costs noted for the implementation of the NIFO action during the ISA² programme. The NIFO action relied on a budget of approximately EUR 2.5 million between 2016 and 2020. However, the indirect costs and unresolved administrative burden linked to an outdated interoperability policy are likely to be considered significant and would potentially grow over time. The literature shows strong negative mostly indirect economic impacts of the baseline scenario due to untapped potential for cost reduction. The overall feedback to both targeted and public consultations also shows that limited negative impacts may be expected with respect to the costs of interacting with public administrations, the costs borne by public administrations in providing services, and research and innovation (with average scores of -0.2 on a scale from -2 to 2, based on 121, 120 and 115 responses for each area, respectively). Even though it seems likely that social and environmental impacts and the right of individuals to freely move in the EU would not be negatively affected through the baseline option, the potential benefits outlined in the introduction of this chapter would not be unlocked. In this option there are very limited incentives for the Union or its Member States to take a more coordinated approach on the design, approval and take-up of shared interoperability resources when implementing their policies. Ongoing policies will have an impact on interoperability of data and public services cross-borders and across sectors at an EU level (Digital Services Act, Data Governance Act and future Data act, Open Data Directive, Digital Identity, Digitalisation of justice cross-borders, Single Digital Gateway Regulation etc.), limited to their own specific scope without any coordination between measures that impact implementation on the ground. Member States have complained repeatedly about the lack of coordination at Commission level (see recommendations from the expert group) and will continue to lack pragmatic guidance on implementation, leading to more delays for sectoral policies. For instance, 18 Member States have had infringement proceedings open on 30/09/2021 owing to the lack of transposition measures for the Open Data Directive adopted in 2019. 6.2. Impacts of Option 1: Non-legislative actions Option 1 would be mainly a continuation of the current policy approach, updating the current instruments without adding substantially new ones. This approach, very much in line with what has been put in place in 2017 with the current version of the EIF, has been proven via the evaluations to provide limited contributions, when it comes to developing more effective, simplified and user-friendly digital public services at the national, regional and local levels. In consequence this would mean that the possible positive economic impacts of such interoperable services would most probably continue to remain untapped. This assessment has been confirmed by the consulted stakeholders in both the targeted and public consultations: option 1 is expected to bring only limited positive impacts on the free movement of goods, services, capital, and workers across the Member States, and on research, development and innovation (with an average score of 0.5 on a scale from -2 to 2, based on 112 responses). Under this option, the uptake of interoperability by public administrations across the EU would remain voluntary as in the baseline and would most likely produce limited effects, in line with the results of the current policy set-up for Interoperability shown in the evaluation results for the EIF and ISA². The interplay of Option 1 and other EU or Member State policies when it comes to design, approval and take-up of shared interoperability resources will not substantially differ from the base-line scenario. While an updated EIF would make more coherent links with the policy developments since 2017, option 1 would not ensure that those policies would be implemented in compliance with the EIF or could build on a more formal input from a public sector community on the topic. The direct costs of the current interoperability policy (EIF implementation) for EU countries can be quantified more easily and are very low (see Table 1). Citizens Businesses Public administrations Quantitative Comment Quantitative Comment Quantitative Comment Costs Direct compliance costs: Implementation of the EIF (one-off costs) 0 No direct compliance costs applicable. No direct compliance costs applicable. No direct compliance costs applicable. EUR 24 000 – EUR 169 000, corresponding respectively to 150 and 550 person-days. The costs of implementation of the EIF vary depending on whether the Member State updates drafts of existing national documents and strategies based on the EIF or designs national documents and strategies based on the EIF without relying on any other prior such documents. General comment: The costs of implementing the EIF are borne by public administrations only. Benefits Direct benefits: additional EU users of the Internet to interact with their public administrations (recurrent benefits, but expected to decrease over the time) A 10% improvement in the quality of online public services would encourage approximately 4.3 million to 5 million more EU citizens per year This result is part of an econometric analysis run on 21 EU Member States, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. General comment: It is important to note that although no benefits are quantified for businesses and public administrations, the evaluation supports qualitatively that benefits exceed the costs for public administrations and bring substantial benefits to both businesses and citizens. Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the implementation of the EIF Also, for the impacts on the costs of interacting with public administrations and the costs of doing business in the EU, option 1 is not expected to bring results much beyond the limited contributions already achieved under the new EIF from its adoption in 2017 to 2020. The 119 stakeholders contributing to the targeted and public consultations rate those impacts with an average score of 0.3 on a scale from -2 to 2. An effective mechanism to ensure synergies across funding programmes and EU policies could significantly enhance the potential benefits. Option 1 only implies costs for public administrations (variable from country to country) and no potential additional burdens on businesses and citizens. The potential costs incurred by public administrations in implementing this option are expected to be low and are based on the voluntary take-up of new guidance and its implementation in at least some areas of activities of public administrations. With regards to the Commission, there would be upfront costs involved in revising the EIF and costs in monitoring the progress of its implementation in line with current costs. With respect to social impacts, Option 1 is expected to contribute to improve to a limited extent the quality of the services provided by public administrations via updated guidance and a common and human-centric EU approach to public sector interoperability. Respondents to both the targeted and public consultations confirm that positive impacts may materialise (with an average score of 0.5 on a scale from -2 to 2, based on 119 responses). An updated EIF would allow for updated guidance and recommendations to be provided for the development of digital and interoperable public services based, among others on the learnings drawn from the evaluation of the EIF as well as the final evaluation of the ISA² programme. Turning to environmental impacts, Option 1 is likely to have either limited positive or no sizeable impacts on the green transition. The assessment focused on the potential (indirect) impacts on the green transition in the EU, e.g., the role played by interoperability in the development of the common European data spaces (with a common European Green Deal data space foreseen in this framework). Common EU guidance on interoperability could contribute to achieving some of the goals set through the European Green Deal. Finally, when it comes to impacts on fundamental rights the most imminent impact can be seen on Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), namely the ‘right to good administration’. Measures to support the digitalisation of public services can be seen as enablers of the right to good administration, having the potential to contribute to the key principles of good administration that include impartiality, fairness, and reasonable time of resolving affairs. No further action on the EIF and its related principles could also have negative impacts, for instance on Art. 9 CFR, the right to protection of personal data; and Art. 22, CFR the right to linguistic diversity. When it comes to the right to move freely in the EU, studies on SMEs show that non-interoperable administrative procedures hinder European SMEs to do business in other EU countries and thus affect their right of freely acting in the Single Market. Option 1 is technically feasible as it is mainly a continuation of current policy, and likely to be politically feasible as it only introduces small changes, not expected to face strong opposition. However, looking at the far-reaching recommendations of the expert group on interoperability of public services and European Parliament voices on the topic, it is not unlikely that the Parliament or the Council would ask for more ambitious measures.

In summary, this option would mostly be a continuation of the current system with all its benefits and drawbacks, with some small improvements through updating of the current Interoperability Framework setup. Its scope would however be limited as an update cannot ensure that the framework stays future-proof and coherent, nor can it generate an overall closer cooperation on the topic. 6.3. Impacts of option 2: New legal framework for an interoperable EU public sector infrastructure In focusing on strengthened cooperation without centrally imposing uniform implementation obligations, this option responds to the subsidiarity needs of public sector digital transformation: Member States are sovereign in designing their government setup; creating distributed but connected – interoperable – public sector ecosystems allows meeting local needs while delivering on the objectives of interoperability. This option is expected to generate an improved sense of ownership of interoperability by offering a platform for structured cooperation on interoperability across the EU. The benefit lies in more direct involvement in the development of interoperability initiatives, facilitating the take-up of jointly piloted interoperability solutions. The speed of developments may depend on the configuration of the governance and on the prioritisation of issues taken up by it. Option 2 could be combined with introducing conditionalities for respecting interoperability requirements to receive EU funding or a label to certify solutions that fulfil the requirements are set-up by the collaboration platform on interoperability. Against this background, the feedback from stakeholders indicates that Option 2 would likely bring positive effects across all categories of impacts considered (see Annex II Stakeholder consultations). Overall, responses from the citizens consulted through the public consultation tend to be the most positive, followed by responses received from representatives of EU public authorities (engaged in both the targeted and the public consultations). And this is the option which is most in line with the recommendations of the expert group. In terms of economic impacts, Option 2 is expected by stakeholders to have particularly positive effects on the free movement of goods, services, capital and workers across the Member States and on research, development and innovation (with average scores of 1 and 0.9 on a scale from -2 to 2, based on 116 and 117 responses, respectively). The positive impacts are expected from enhanced cooperation across the EU, contributing to improving the development and delivery of digital and interoperable public services. Similarly, Option 2 is likely to lead to a reduction in the costs of interacting with public administrations as well as the costs of doing business in the EU (according to feedback from stakeholders showing average scores of 0.9 and 0.8 on a scale from -2 to 2, based on 122 and 115 responses, respectively). Some positive overall economic impacts are especially expected from introducing conditionalities. These include positive impacts on innovation and research (as confirmed by respondents to both targeted and public consultations, with an average score of 1 on a scale of -2 to 2, based on 117 responses). To the extent that more interoperable projects and services are developed, this may lead to cost reductions both for public administrations as well as businesses and citizens interacting with public administrations. By establishing a common governance with the mandate to issue agreed positions on the use of interoperability resources, those resources could also be mandated for future EU funding programmes. In this case, public administrations requesting EU funding and assistance for their efforts to modernise and digitise their systems and processes would need to argue how they plan to comply with or contribute to the agreed interoperability resources. Such a measure would ensure that digitalisation efforts in public administrations build on existing solutions, reduce the risk of duplication of work and contribute to a harmonised approach to interoperability. In addition, relying on conditionalities can also ensure that solutions already funded at the EU level are used. The result would be an emerging distributed trans-European network of public administrations and services. This is further supported by examples from Member States on cost-savings linked with interoperable digital services, summarised in Table 2 . Geographical coverage Implemented solutions Cost savings Belgium Digital government solutions Estimates for 2016: ·EUR 4.6 million for businesses; and ·EUR 28 million for citizens. Estonia Digital signatures 2% of Estonia’s GDP saved (according to 2018 estimates) The UK Digital strategies and implementation of key principles: digital-by-default public services GBP 1.7 billion to GBP 1.8 billion saved every year The Netherlands and Belgium Digital strategies and implementation of key principles: once-only principle Estimates from 2017: EUR 163 million (Netherlands) and around EUR 100 million (Belgium) saved per year Spain Digital strategies and implementation of key principles: e-administrations, once-only principle, and interoperability platforms EUR 22 billion saved between 2008 and 2011, with: ·60% e-administration; ·20% implementation of once-only principle; ·20% to interoperability platforms. EU Digital strategies and implementation of key principles: once-only principle and digital-by-default public services Estimates from 2014: ·EUR 5 billion saved per year linked to the once-only-principle; and ·EUR 10 billion saved per year linked to the digital-by-default principle. EU The use of open source software Estimated benefits from an increase of 10% in open source software contributions: ·An additional 0.4% to 0.6% GDP per year in the EU; ·Over 600 additional ICT start-ups per year in the EU. Source: Study supporting the impact assessment for a future interoperability strategy The impacts on the costs borne by public administrations in providing public services need to be considered in terms of both shorter-term implications and potential longer-term benefits. In the shorter run, public authorities may incur costs in setting up the mechanism for structured cooperation among administrations in the EU and the Member States. These costs would be offset over the longer term by the benefits generated through the improved cooperation and the development and implementation of common interoperability measures for public services, thus reducing duplications of efforts and unnecessary burdens. In addition, measures such as interoperability checks on EU legislation and EU funding would ensure that EU funds are spent in a much more cost-effective way, thus generating benefits such as facilitating data sharing across sectors and the re-use of digital tools. Overall, the feedback from stakeholders is positive, suggesting at least some reduction in the costs borne by public administrations in providing public services (with an average score of 0.5 on a scale from -2 to 2, based on 118 responses). This assessment is complemented by estimations of the benefits that are likely to result from Option 2 (the summary of the estimations is presented in section 7.3 and Annex 4). In this case, the scenario for the potential costs incurred assumes a higher commitment to implementing common interoperability solutions based on the enhanced cooperation mechanism on interoperability among EU and Member States’ public administrations. This option is not expected to generate additional costs for citizens and businesses compared to the baseline situation. Regarding social impacts, Option 2 is likely to lead to a significant increase in the quality of the services provided by public administrations compared to the ‘no-change’ scenario. The findings from the evaluations of the ISA² programme and the EIF as well as the stakeholders consulted confirm this assessment (with an average score of 1.1 on a scale from -2 to 2, based on 116 responses). Both evaluations emphasise the need for enhanced governance and cooperation to help build a coherent landscape of public sector interoperability across the EU. This can in turn improve the provision and quality of public services. Furthermore, the specialised literature underlines the importance of governance mechanisms and cooperation for the success of digital government strategies and implementation of interoperability requirements. Interoperability can be a key enabler for generating public value for stakeholders, including to better equip public administrations to address social challenges (the Dutch Government Data Agenda focuses particularly on the role of data to tackle social issues). Interoperability can also contribute achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, seen as essential to foster positive social impacts according to the UN. As far as environmental impacts are concerned, the measures proposed in Option 2 are likely to have positive effects on the green transition in the EU. Interoperable processes, and in particular, interoperable data play a significant role across policy areas, including the green transition. For instance, the 2021 Ministerial Declaration on A Green and Digital Transformation of the EU reinforces the need to share data ‘through standardised and interoperable common European data spaces to unleash the potential from data on realising the European Green Deal’. The role of interoperable data is also emphasised in the context of the Zero Pollution Action Plan. Combining different types of data (for instance pollution-related data and spatial data) can bring innovations that help alleviate environmental impacts from pollution. Establishing a common, machine-read