EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 10.8.2016 SWD(2016) 273 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT On the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23

{COM(2016) 478 final/2}

{SWD(2016) 243 final/2}



Evaluation of DIRECTIVE 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) and underpinning the report on the implementation Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose of the evaluation 1.2. Scope of the evaluation 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 2.1. Description of the initiative 2.2. Baseline 3. PROCESS, METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS 4. IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS 5. EVALUATION 5.1. Effectiveness 5.1.1. Effectiveness of actions to establish a legal framework for sharing spatial data across the EU (Specific Objective 1) 5.1.2. Effectiveness of actions to establish Member States internal and EU level coordination (Specific Objective 2) 5.1.3. Effectiveness of actions to identify the spatial data sets (Specific Objective 3) 5.1.4. Effectiveness of actions to document the identified spatial data sets (Specific Objective 4) 5.1.5.Effectiveness of actions to make the documented spatial data accessible online (Specific Objective 5) 5.1.6. Effectiveness of actions to bring spatial data sets organised in interoperable data models online (Specific Objective 6) 5.1.7. Summary of the evaluation of effectiveness

5.2. Efficiency 5.2.1. Costs and benefits 5.2.2. Comparison to the ex-ante evaluation 5.2.3. Cost-effectiveness of specific provisions 5.2.4. Administrative burden 5.2.5. Available resources 5.3. Relevance 5.3.1. Need for EU action 5.3.2. Relevance of objectives and actions 5.4. Coherence 5.4.1. Coherence within the environmental policy domain 5.4.2. Coherence within the other policy domains 5.5. EU Added Value 6. CONCLUSIONS 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1.Purpose of the evaluation The Directive establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community, INSPIRE Directive came into force 15 May 2007. It is implemented in various steps with full implementation expected by 21 October 2020. The actions envisaged by this instrument aim at removing obstacles hampering the sharing of data between and across all levels of government According to Article 23 of the Directive, the Commission had to present a report on the implementation of INSPIRE to the European Parliament and to the Council by 15 May 2014. In addition, this Commission Staff Working Document (SWD) provides the evaluation identified in the Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme in 2013. It aims at assessing whether the INSPIRE Directive is still fit-for-purpose at the half way mark of its implementation. 1.2.Scope of the evaluation The evaluation is looks at the status of implementation and performance of the INSPIRE Directive broadly in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines. To this end, the SWD presents objectives, framework and methodology of the policy evaluation. It recalls the policy context and objectives of the Directive, including its intervention logic. Based on an analysis of the evidence collected, it answers the key evaluation questions on assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence as well as the EU added value of the objectives and actions pursued.

2.BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 2.1.Description of the initiative Developing and implementing EU environment policy is dependent on a solid knowledge and evidence base from a large number of areas, not only in air, water or nature but also in all economic sectors which influence the state of the environment. Since 2002, the EU Sustainable Development Strategies, and the 6th Environmental Action Programmesaddressed these issues and identified the need for better information to support the integrated knowledge-base for environmental policies. As a result, the Commission came forward with a proposal for the INSPIRE Directive in 2004 focussing mainly on 'spatial data', i.e. information related to a location or area on Earth. A wide range of environmental, geographical, social and economic spatial data exists or is being collected. Such location-based information is relevant for environmental policies, covering many thematic areas (water, air, biodiversity, waste, emissions, impact assessments, natural and technological hazards, public access to environmental information, etc.). Also policies having an impact on the environment (such as transport, agriculture, energy, land-use planning, regional development, etc.) systematically collect spatial data which are valuable in the context of environment policy development and implementation. The INSPIRE Directive was designed to address specifically the thematic environmental policies needs for spatial data by removing the four major obstacles to the availability of such data: 1.A wide variety of organisational, cultural, institutional, financial and legal obstacles hampered the sharing and re-use of spatial data by public authorities and public stakeholders. 2.Spatial data was difficult to find online on the Internet and it was poorly or not documented. 3.Many public authorities did not have online services in place allowing others, including the public to discover, to access and use their spatial data. 4.Spatial data was often organised in incompatible formats making it difficult to combine different spatial data sets in the absence of a common vocabulary. The intervention logic for the INSPIRE Directive (Figure 1) sets out the different measures of the Directive and how they were expected to interact.



What are spatial data and why do we need to share them across borders? Spatial data are everywhere and we use them on a daily basis. Spatial data are data that are linked to a specific location, e.g. an address, the location of a building, a road, a river, an industrial or commercial facility, a monitoring station or a cadastral parcel. For thousands of years, we used maps or an atlas for this purpose. With the digitalisation, it has become much easier to manage and use spatial data. Nowadays, we take it for granted to navigate using satellite navigation or to check the location of anything on the internet using our electronic devices. The modern world needs increasingly up-to-date spatial data. We want to know where things are and what is happening there (e.g. the weather forecast or bathing water quality at our holiday destination). Consider the example of the volcano eruption in Iceland in 2010. Immediately, data on air pollution and visibility were needed across Europe. This was urgent for services such as air traffic control but also for understanding the impacts the eruption was having on air quality and hence the health of citizens. The easier and quicker such data could be shared across borders, the better decisions could be taken. The same applies in many other environmental issues which have a cross-border effect, be it flooding, pollution or the tracing of migratory birds. For the European Environment Agency, about 80 % of all the environmental data and information that it uses has a spatial dimension. In order to use such spatial data, they need to be standardised. At national level, this is mostly the case but when using data across borders, standardisation is often missing. In the past, we could find different terms, definitions, attributes or scale levels and all of this in different languages. As a result, spatial data did not match across borders and hence it was difficult to use them for electronic services. The general objective of INSPIRE Directive is the establishment of an EU infrastructure for spatial information based on compatible Member States infrastructures and useable in an EU and trans-boundary context 'for the purposes of EU environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment'. In order to achieve this, the INSPIRE Directive pursues the following six specific objectives:

1.To establish a coherent legal framework for sharing spatial data across the EU. 2.To put in place coordination structures at Member States and EU level. 3.To identify the spatial data needed. 4.To document the identified spatial data through metadata. 5.To ensure that the documented spatial data is accessible online through information technology, , IT services allowing its discovery, view and download and, where needed transformation. 6.To organise the documented spatial data in interoperable data models with a common vocabulary and online accessible through the IT services. These objectives are translated into 14 'actions', which are the specific provisions of the INSPIRE Directive with obligations mainly on Member States but also on EU institutions. Those actions should be implemented according to an agreed timetable, in several ‘steps’ as laid down in the INSPIRE Directive and its implementing rules. Overall, the actions can be combined to five distinctive steps. The first one is related to actions of legal and administrative nature such as transposition, the establishment of coordination structures and the establishment of a data policy. Steps 2-5 relate to a sequential set of actions all related to ‘spatial data’. They have to be identified (step 2) and documented (step 3). Thereafter, online services (step 4) have to be established and finally the spatial data should be transformed (step 5) in accordance with agreed data models in order to facilitate the re-use of the data. Since these actions have to be taken for different data themes (see Annex I, II and III of the Directive) at different times, the illustration of the specific steps, actions and outputs can be somewhat complex. Hence, a simplified overview of main implementation steps and outputs is presented in figure 1 and a more detailed overview is provided in the box below and in Annex 1, Part A. At the time of this evaluation, only four out of the five steps had to be completed and the fifth was still in the future (2020) covering a large volume of spatial data. Steps and actions required by the INSPIRE Directive (see details in Annex 1): Step 1: transpose Directive (action 1), set up coordination structures (action 2) and adopt (and implement) legal measures to remove the procedural obstacles to the sharing of spatial data (action 3); Step 2: identify their spatial data relevant for environmental policies and those actions having an impact on the environment according to themes listed in the annexes of the Directive (action 4); Step 3: document the spatial data that it can be accessed on the Internet together with information about various aspects of the data such as their source, geographical coverage, quality and use conditions in line with the metadata specifications (action 5: for Annex I and II data by 2010 and action 6 for Annex III data by 2013); Step 4: implement interoperable online services allowing the discovery, visualisation and download of spatial data (discovery and view services-action 7: for Annex I and II data by 2011 and action 8: for Annex III by 2013. Download and transformation services-action 9 for Annex I and II data by 2012 and action 10: for Annex III data by 2013); Step 5: gradually organise and publish the spatial data in common data models for greater interoperability and productivity gains (for newly created or extensively restructured data-action 11: for Annex 1 by 2012 and action 12: for Annex II and III by 2015. For all existing data-action 13: for Annex I by 2017 and action 14: for Annex II and III by 2020). The generic intervention logic described in Figure 1 is the basis for the evaluation where the following elements have been assessed: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. A detailed intervention logic is provided in Annex 1, Part B. Before assessing these elements, the status of implementation in relation to the actions which were already required before 2014 is described mainly on the basis of the Member State reports from 2013 or later where additional data existed.

What is a European spatial data infrastructure (as promoted by the INSPIRE Directive) and why do we need it? A European Spatial Data Infrastructure is about standardisation. It is about making it easier to find, use and share the available data from administrations and governments, in particular across border and throughout the whole of the European Union. The idea is to develop an approach which follows a number of common principles: - Data should be collected only once and kept where it can be maintained most effectively. - It should be possible to combine seamless spatial information from different sources across Europe and share it with many users and applications. - It should be possible for information collected at one level/scale to be shared with all levels/scales (from local to regional, to national to the EU level). - Geographic information needed for good governance at all levels should be readily and transparently available. - Available geographic information should be easy to find and it should be clear how it can be used to meet a particular need, and under which conditions it can be acquired and used. The EU's 2007 INSPIRE Directive has translated these principles into legislation. It builds the foundation for the creation of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure for the European Union. This will enable the sharing of environmental spatial information among public sector organisations and better facilitate public access to spatial information across Europe. A European Spatial Data Infrastructure will assist in policy-making across boundaries. This approach to sharing of governmental data is now becoming extended through the EU's 2015 Digital Single Market strategy. Building on similar principles, the EU's 2016 eGovernment Action Plan identifies the establishment of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure through the implementation of INSPIRE an important action. This will help modernise public administrations, connect services across borders and engage citizens through digital interactions with governments across the EU. Moreover, the European Interoperability Framework will build on the standardisation efforts already achieved through the INSPIRE Directive. In very simple terms the Directive covers not only the location of the monitoring stations for instance for air quality, but also the data generated by these stations, information on air quality, etc. The development of such a European spatial data infrastructure should create, amongst other benefits, the reduction of administrative burdens and the creation of new business opportunities (see section 5.2 for more details). E.g. in Ireland, investments in connecting the digital infrastructure between authorities reduced the time to prepare a report on industrial installations for the European Union from months to days. Businesses are now using such administrative data to provide better services to the public (such as combining predictions on weather and air quality or integrating real-time traffic information in business processes such as updating satellite navigations with road construction sites). Also insurers are increasingly using geographical data to improve profitability by improving their understanding of risks at locations and verifying the content of claims. Moreover, real estate's companies are increasingly factoring in environmental information, e.g. when determining house prices (e.g. whether they are situated in a flood risk area) and utility network operators are levering spatial data to avoid excavation damage. 2.2.Baseline During the preparation and transposition phases of the INSPIRE Directive (between 2004 and 2010), the Commission conducted yearly state-of-play studies, covering 27 EU, four EFTA and one Candidate countries. The studies assessed the state and the rate of progress made by those countries in relation to the identified obstacles. The state-of-play summary report of December 2007 is used for establishing a baseline for the national spatial data infrastructures as it reflects the situation at the time of entry into force of the Directive. Some key findings of the report, for which 19 EU and two EFTA countries provided information, are summarised below: With regard to specific objective 1 - A coherent legal framework for sharing spatial data At the time, spatial data policies were highly heterogeneous or missing across the EU. They were not only different between countries but in some cases also between regions in the same country. Different data policies were applied for different types of spatial data. There were no or few activities to better align data policies across Member State borders. The main differences existed for the restrictions that can be made on data sharing and the charges that are required for the provision of data sets and services by the Member States. For example, seven Member States had different terms and conditions for the public sector including different pricing policies or data that was only available for other public authorities. Five Member States did not have special terms for the public sector but applied the same conditions as for data requests from the private sector. Only in three Member States a coordination body addressing issues related to data policies was in place. Three Member States saw a possibility to incorporate data sharing arrangements in new legislation and four countries considered harmonising the terms and conditions for spatial data sharing using a single model licence. With regard to specific objective 2 - Coordination structures at Member States and EU level

The report showed that coordination structures similar to those required by the INSPIRE Directive started to emerge in some Member States. They were, however, operational to varying degrees and with different levels of user involvement. In nine Member States cross-departmental structures were being set-up but not all of them had a formal mandate yet. With regard to specific objective 3 - The spatial data needed for policies is identified The definition of spatial data is broad ("data with a direct or indirect reference to a specific location or geographical area", Article 3.2) and the scope of the Directive is wide (cf. Article 4.1). Hence, it is difficult to identify a baseline and benchmark success in relation to the identification of spatial data sets given the difficulties in identifying an upper limit or total number of datasets falling within scope of the Directive. Having said this, it was possible to establish a baseline which allows, at least, analysing relative progress. In 2007, 21 countries had identified 1635 data sets covering all 34 different themes of the INSPIRE Directive's annexes I, II and III (INSPIRE data themes). Out of these, 1384 were unique data sets from 311 stakeholders and 738 network services from 231 organisations. There were considerable differences between countries regarding the coverage of the 34 INSPIRE data themes. For example, nine out of the 21 countries did not identify data sets for more than ten of the 34 data themes as illustrated in Figure 2. In particular the identification of data sets in the themes listed in Annex III (which includes the data most relevant for environment policies) was very limited as illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 2: Number of data themes covered in the annexes of the INSPIRE Directive without data sets reported - Source: Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play 2007 Figure 3: Number of countries for which no data set is reported for the theme listed in Annex III of the INSPIRE Directive - Source: Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play 2007 With regard to specific objective 4 - The identified spatial data is documented The documentation of data sets through ‘metadata’ was in the early stages. Only a small part of the spatial data was documented. For the some 1635 identified data sets and services, 66.7% were reported to have some documentation. If metadata were available, they were highly heterogeneous and mostly not following international standards or were not harmonised in content. Of the identified datasets, only 35.5% met international standards (i.e. EN ISO 19115). There were important differences between the countries as illustrated in Figure 4.



With regard to specific objective 5 - The documented spatial data is accessible online The documentation is a pre-requisite for developing online services. Therefore, it is not surprising that IT services to discover spatial data, view and, in particular, to download them were only partially available. For the 21 countries for which data were available, only 55.7% identified data sets could be discovered online, 49.2% could be viewed and only 27.2% could be downloaded (or parts thereof).

With regard to specific objective 6 - Interoperable spatial data The 2007 report showed increased activities in data standardization in general. Some organisations already used harmonised data exchange formats within their domains (such as meteorological services, marine hydrographic offices, statistical offices, space agencies, some mapping agencies). However, there was no agreed initiative within the EU or beyond which systematically addressed interoperability across spatial data sets and services. A few countries, organisations and projects reported initial strategies and actions in this area . However, a cross-thematic semantic interoperability framework for services and spatial data, with unique identifiers, typologies, agreed data structures and content encoding did not exist. 3.PROCESS, METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS All Member States reported on the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in accordance with Article 21.3 (deadline: May 2013). At the same time, the Commission decided to combine the preparation of the implementation report (in accordance with Article 23) with an evaluation conforming to the approaches laid down by European Commission on policy evaluations at the time. Later that year, the INSPIRE evaluation was formally included in the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) programme. Following the latest Commission guidelines , the evaluation addresses the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the INSPIRE Directive at its half way implementation mark. The evaluation questions are listed in Annex 2. An overview on the process to prepare this REFIT evaluation is provided in Annex 3. A Steering Group composed of the Commission’s DG Environment and DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) as well as the European Environment Agency (EEA) was set up and other Commission services were regularly informed, e.g. through the established Commission Inter-Service Group COGI (Commission Inter-Service Group on Geographical Information), chaired by Eurostat. Moreover, consultation with the Member States took place through the INSPIRE National Contact Points (NCP) and the established Expert Groups supporting the INSPIRE implementation. As first steps, a review of the INSPIRE relevant documents and the INSPIRE library (e.g. the annual State-of-Play studies and Member State monitoring and implementation reports) and the annual INSPIRE conferences archive took place as desk research. Moreover, an open public internet consultation took place (from 2/12/13 - 24/2/14, Annex 4) and a study contracted with a focus on analysing in more detail some INSPIRE services reported by the Member States. The results of all this work was published as an official EEA/JRC Technical report in November 2014 and therefore largely responding to the substantial requirements set out in Article 23. This report is a key information source for this policy evaluation as its findings are based on the INSPIRE relevant documentation sources. Where relevant and necessary, this evaluation SWD is complemented with evidence from other documented sources. Every effort was made to follow the new Guidelines to the widest extent possible in the finalisation of the evaluation. However, since the substantial work had already been completed by then and no new data had been collected since, this evaluation could not fully anticipate all the methodological and data needs now enshrined in the Guidelines (see more details in Annex 5). Moreover, the following limitations should also be taken into account when reviewing this evaluation: The 3-yearly country reports improved in quality between 2010 and 2013. Despite differences in the level of detail, the majority of the reports can be considered as a good basis for comparison. The most important limitations regard the findings on cost-efficiency, where despite the availability of a methodological guidelines and preparatory workshop, Member States reported that cost figures are difficult to obtain and compare. On benefits, most countries report in qualitative terms, with the general observation that INSPIRE is not yet sufficiently implemented to assess benefits in quantitative terms. The yearly monitoring indicator reports, available since 2010, also improved considerably in quality. However, issues on completeness and interpretation (for example on what data set should be reported under which INSPIRE data theme) remain an issue. In addition, the quantitative indicators on availability and conformity of data sets and services were not collected online yet because the infrastructure and IT tools were not in place in time. The online service is now available and will facilitate information gathering, processing and comparison of data. Information on the use of the data and services is provided in the 3-yearly reports. Despite the detailed guidance in the template51 for country reports, the information on the use of infrastructure for policy purposes is highly variable from one country to another. This depends largely on the state-of-play of the implementation of the IT services and actual use in applications. The quantitative indicators extracted from the EU Geo-portal, provide another comparable quantitative basis. However, as shown in the assessment study, there are discrepancies between the yearly monitoring reported data sets and services and those made available through the EU Geo-portal. Also here, different interpretations by those entering the metadata on what needs to be catalogued under which INSPIRE data theme, make it sometimes difficult to compare between countries. The findings from the public consultation in 2013 suffered to certain extent from a lack of geographical and thematic comparability (with a relatively low participation of some countries and/or on certain data themes). Despite these issues, it was possible to present a substantial analysis of the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive based on data until 2014, i.e. the national reports of 2013 and the annual reports of 2014, and to identify some strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges.

4.IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS The INSPIRE Directive is implemented through the steps and actions related to the six specific objectives presented in section 2.1. This section summarises the current situation and progress made towards reaching these specific objectives mainly based on the national reports provided by the Member States.

To this end, the Commission adopted on 5/6/2009 the implementing rule for reporting and monitoring by 15/5/2010 which specified detail and content. On this basis, Member States sent their first national reports in 2010. Since then, the Member States also provided annual monitoring reports. This evaluation considered the first (2010) and second (2013) national reports as well as the annual monitoring reports until 2014. The large majority of the Member States was able to provide all these pieces of information in accordance with the Commission Decision85 and in a timely manner (Figure 5). Specific Objective 1 - A legal framework for sharing spatial data across the EU Action (step 1): Member States had to transpose INSPIRE in national law by 15/5/2009. Only one Member State (Denmark) completed this task on time. 16 Member States finalised their transposition within a year, and 3 Member States of the remaining 10 needed almost two years before communicating their laws (see table 1). Croatia became the 28th Member State of the EU on 1 July 2013 and notified transposition of the INSPIRE Directive on time (i.e. in May 2013). As main reasons for the delays, Member States informed of political (e.g. change of government following elections), legal (e.g. constitutional requirements to transpose in parliamentary processes at national and regional level) and administrative (e.g. extended consultation procedures or delays in the administrative processes) delays.



Notification delay Member State(s) On time DK, HR* Up to 3 months delay PT Up to 6 months delay MT, NL, SK, UK Up to 9 months delay BE, BG, ES, HU, IT, LV, RO, SI Up to 12 months delay AT, CY, CZ Up to 18 months delay EL, FI, IE, PL, LT, LU, SE Up to 24 months delay DE, EE, FR Note: *HR only had to notify transposition at their date of accession and did so on time (notwithstanding actual conformity with the Directive). The Commission supported the transposition process through two dedicated workshops and assessed conformity of transposition after the formal notification of each Member State. 26 cases of non-conform transposition were addressed by means of a structured dialogue (EU Pilot) to resolve the underlying issues. By the end of 2015, eight EU Pilots (CZ, DE, FI, FR, LT, PL, PT, UK) were still open where specific provisions in the INSPIRE Directive seem to be missing in the domestic laws, and/or where they seem to have been incorrectly, or incompletely transposed. There is currently one Member State (Finland (Aaland)) addressed by a Letter of Formal Notice focusing on the legal framework for data accessibility in an INSPIRE compliant manner. The non-conformity resulted from different problems with diverging levels of complexity including availability of services and data for the purposes of public access and data-sharing between authorities as well as the incomplete or incorrect transposition of annexes. In the majority of cases the EU Pilot process gave the opportunity to have a constructive dialogue where the outcome in most of the cases involved amending legislation to ensure the necessary conformity. The outstanding issues regarding conformity concern these legal or technical issues. Action (step 1): Member States should have adopted by 15/5/2009 measures for the sharing of spatial data sets and services precluding any restrictions likely to create practical obstacles occurring at the point of use, to the sharing of spatial data sets and services between public authorities. This action requires the correct transposition of Article 17 of the Directive and these issues were identified in some of the non-conformity cases (see above). Moreover, the review, and where necessary revision (in case of practical obstacles), of the data policies of those organisations holding the spatial data sets is essential to apply this provision correctly. In addition to the Directive, the Commission adopted a Commission Regulation regarding the access to spatial data sets and services of the Member States by EU institutions and bodies under harmonized conditions that entered into force on 19/10/2011. This Regulation sets out that metadata must include the conditions applying to access and use for EU institutions and bodies and, in particular: Member States are requested to provide access to spatial data sets and services without delay and at the latest within 20 days after receipt of a written request; Mutual agreements may allow an extension of this standard deadline.

If data or services can be accessed under payment, Community institutions and bodies have the possibility to request Member States to provide information on how charges have been calculated. While fully safe-guarding the right of Member States to limit sharing when this would compromise the course of justice, public security, national defence or international relations Member States are encouraged to find the means to still give access to sensitive data under restricted conditions, (e.g. providing generalized datasets) Upon request, Member States should give reasons for these limitations to sharing. However, these implementing rules only regulate access and use by EU institutions and bodies. It is mainly on national level where public authorities experience outstanding data policy obstacles which also affect the access and use at EU level. The implementing rule was complemented by guidelines for implementation and one on good practices . According to the 2011 state-of-play report, fifteen Member States out of twenty-seven declared to have a framework or policy for sharing spatial data between public authorities in place in 2010. The majority of the remaining Member States reported 'partial' frameworks. The report further noted that several countries started to take measures to improve sharing between public authorities through simplified licensing mechanisms. The EEA/JRC Technical evaluation report based on the 2013 Member States reports, confirms a positive trend, yet notices that Member States adopted heterogeneous policies between public authorities depending on the types of spatial data and levels of government involved, for example: -Nine Member States adopted legislative frameworks that include data and service policies complemented in the UK and NL with a general licencing framework. Ten Member States have adopted or are preparing the basis for open data policies. Fifteen Member States adopted for the public sector overall sharing arrangements. Ten Member States have – or are integrating their data policies in broader eGovernment initiatives. 11 Member States extensively use individual arrangements between the public authorities. -However, the policies sometimes apply to a limited set of INSPIRE data themes such as for example: topographic maps, geographical names, addresses, ortho-imagery. In addition, it remains in several cases unclear if all spatial data falling under the scope of INSPIRE are covered, which arrangements apply for which data sets and if they are coherently applied by all organisations and/or regions. In a number of countries, there are different arrangements for sharing agreed between central and regional governments, different ones from region to region and within the regions again differences depending on the types of data and authorities involved. Eight Member States reported in 2013 the removal of data policy obstacles while 17 Member States reported outstanding issues with regard to removing data policy obstacles (see table 2). Underdeveloped legal framework RO, SI, IT, BG Complex and heterogeneous license models UK, SK, CZ, FR, LT, HU, AT Various cost recovery models UK, DE, HU, LV, AT Reticence to share, lack of enforcement BE, EL, CY Other legal issues FR PT and MT did not report particular issues related to data policies. BG reported that, at this stage, it cannot provide a list of barriers to the sharing of spatial datasets and services between the public authorities or from the public authorities to the EU institutions and bodies. In summary, this screening of the national data policies for sharing data demonstrated that they are highly variable and heterogeneous. However, only a more in-depth analysis of the current situation can identify the most relevant obstacles and ascertain whether the flexibility provided by the Directive (cf. Article 17.2 - 'do not create practical obstacles at the point of use') is applied correctly.



Specific objective 2 - Coordination structures in Member States and EU level coordination Action (step 1): The Commission had to establish an INSPIRE Regulatory Committee (Article 22) and, together with the EEA, set up coordination structures to support the implementation process through the national contact points (Article 19). The Commission established the INSPIRE Regulatory Committee in 2008. Moreover, the Commission set-up a participatory and transparent process for the involvement of stakeholders in the development of the INSPIRE implementing rules adopted between 2008 and 2014. Member States identified national contacts points by 15 May 2009 as required. The EU level coordination of stakeholder participation to the implementing rules development has been a major collaborative effort between the Commission and the Member States. Between 2007 and 2014, over 240 Member State and stakeholders experts involved in this Commission's coordinated effort produced forty detailed guidance documents, which were submitted for public reviews and tests on feasibility and impacts. Over 10.000 comments have been resolved in an open and transparent participatory process, which has resulted in the step-wise adoption of ten legal acts, including amendments (Commission Regulations and Decisions) by the Commission following for most, also a scrutiny review by Council and European Parliament. The Directive sets three target dates by which implementing rules should have been adopted by the Commission. The other rules were adopted by the Commission according to the operational logic for implementing INSPIRE. For example, network services for discovery and view were adopted ten months after the meta-data regulation. Download and transformation followed twelve months later. The monitoring and reporting implementing rule was adopted one year before Member States had to produce their first implementation report.

As presented in the table below, three implementing regulations were adopted with approximately 0.5 to 1.5 years of delay in relation to the target dates in the Directive.



Implementing rules Target date Adoption date Committee opinion Metadata 15/5/2008 3/12/2008 No abstentions or negative opinions Data and service specifications Annex I 15/5/2009 23/11/2010 No abstentions negative opinions Data and service specifications Annex II/III 15/5/2012 21/10/2013 No abstentions or negative opinions Network services - Discovery & View - Download & Transformation - Invoke spatial data service 19/10/2009 23/11/2010 10/12/2014 No abstentions or negative opinions Harmonised access and use conditions 29/3/2010 No abstentions or negative opinions Monitoring and reporting 5/6/2009 No abstentions or negative opinions All implementing rules were endorsed without negative opinions or abstentions by the Member States represented in the INSPIRE Regulatory Committee and passed where required with success the scrutiny of the European Parliament and Council. The review and endorsement process included as well extensive implementation guidelines, which did not go through the legislative procedure and are therefore not binding. The delayed adoption of the implementing rules shifted the final date for the implementation of the Directive by approximately 1.5 years. This did not create additional burden on Member States as the Directive set the deadlines for implementation in function of the dates of adoption of the implementing rules by the Commission. To further support the coordinated implementation, the Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA) set up the INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Framework (MIF) in 2013. The MIF provides a platform for collaboration at EU level to support and facilitate the implementation process and share good practices. The two main pillars of the MIF are a Commission expert group called INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Group (MIG) with representatives nominated by the INSPIRE national contact points for a technical (MIG-T) and a policy related sub-group (MIG-P). This is complemented by a pool of experts drawn from the stakeholder community through an open call. The European Parliament is kept informed and experts invited to participate. The basis of the work of the MIG and its sub-groups is a Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme (MIWP) that is based on implementation support issues submitted by INSPIRE stakeholders. Action (step 1): Member States had to monitor through their coordination structures the implementation and use of their INSPIRE infrastructure and report to the Commission and the public in accordance with Article 21 of the Directive. To this end, the Commission adopted on 5/6/2009 the implementing rule for reporting and monitoring by 15/5/2010 which specified detail and content. On this basis, Member States sent their first national reports in 2010 and informed the Commission that the functioning national coordination structures, expected by 15/5/2009, became operational between 2009 and 2011 (with the exception of BE and HU). Member States implemented different structures and mechanisms for coordination depending on their institutional context (e.g. federal, non-federal, more or less regionalised).,, In 18 Member States one department was given the lead. To coordinate the contributions of the public authority users and producers, the majority of the Member States set-up a national coordination body with the participation of different ministries politically responsible at the national level for those organisations or represented directly or indirectly through their organisations. In federal/regionalised Member States, also the regions and/or local authority organisations were included in the coordination structure, with the responsibility for cross-departmental coordination at their level of government. In a number of Member States (e.g. UK, SK, FR, IE, DK, NL, CZ) environmental ministries are in the lead. In other countries ministries responsible for agriculture and forestry (FI), mapping and land surveying (e.g. ES, SE, ES, LT, SL, EL), public administration (PL) or information technology and communication (MT, BG) are leading the coordination effort. A survey carried out for the 2011 state-of-play report, showed that most of the 26 participating Member States put mechanisms in place to involve the user communities (Figure 6). In 23 Member States the users were represented in the coordination structures, in ten Member States specific user groups were set-up while fourteen Member States involved existing user associations. Eleven Member States set up user forums and feedback is collected through surveys and procedures for handling complaints (for example in SE). Eighteen Member States focussed mainly on the public sector with some including the academic sector, while eighteen out of twenty-five Member States also involved the private sector. Figure 6: Mechanisms to involve users With regard to the provision of information to the national stakeholders, most Member States have established online national information websites on INSPIRE with varying degrees of functionality and content. The majority of the websites provide up-to-date information on the national status of implementation, action plans, events, links to EU level, national and regional spatial data portals and documentation sources. The Member States provided also feedback on the implementation and use of the INSPIRE services by the stakeholders. For example, FR reported in 2014 5.3 billion 'hits' for INSPIRE network services compared to 2.4 billion in 2013. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency reported in 2013 a more than 100-fold increase in request for services since their launch at the end 2011. The Flanders region (BE) reported an increase in the number of downloads from 6683 in 2010 to 30083 in 2011 by public authority users in the Flemish administration. CZ reported an increase from 589 million service requests in 2011 to 1.08 billion in 2012. FI reported 1.7 million searches through the discovery services in 2012, 475 million view service request (a 70% growth over 2011), and although not yet fully implemented, there were five times more download service requests (4 to 20 million) between 2011 and 2012. A number of countries (DE, ES, UK, EL) however experienced difficulties in coordinating reliable quantitative feedback on the use of the network services through off line procedures. With regard to feedback on the actual use of the spatial data sets by the stakeholders for the purpose of environmental policies and/or policies which may have an impact on the environment the majority of the Member States reported a wide range of examples of applications and links to portals (e.g. portals providing information on the environment, INSPIRE data portals, or portals for specific thematic applications). However, only six provided direct references to environmental directives or related reporting activities. Specific Objective 3 - The spatial data needed for policies is identified.

Action (step 2): According to the INSPIRE implementation roadmap (Figure 1) all digital spatial data sets falling under the 34 spatial data themes and scope of INSPIRE should have been identified, documented and made available online by the Member States through network services conform with INSPIRE by 3 December 2013. Spatial data sets are the core of INSPIRE. Without data there is no content, and without content the infrastructure has no meaning. Spatial data sets from the 34 themes defined by INSPIRE are to be used and combined to answers particular questions in support of local, national and European environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. Steps 2 to 5 (or specific objectives 3, 4, 5 and 6) include all the actions that are required in relation spatial data. These actions need to be implemented step-by-step over time to fully deliver on the objectives set out by the Directive. As a first action (or step 2), Member States had to identify the relevant spatial data sets falling under the remit of the INSPIRE Directive (cf. Article 3.3 and 18). As such, there is no pre-defined list or upper limit of spatial data sets. Hence, spatial data are identified step-by-step and may also reduce in number over time if they are combined or re-organised (e.g. when many local data sets are combined into a new regional one). All Member States reported the identification of some datasets at the first deadline but numbers were up from the original 1635 but still generally very low (below 10000 in 2009). They were certainly incomplete given the broad definition of spatial data and the wide scope of the Directive (cf. Article 4.1). However, it is difficult to identify a benchmark success or a target for the deadline in relation to the identification of spatial data sets given the difficulties in identifying an upper limit or total number of datasets falling within scope of the Directive. Gradually, the Member States identified an increasing number in datasets (see table 4). The total volumes of identified and documented spatial data sets remained relatively stable and rather low (below 1000) between 2010 and 2013 (for 20 Member States less than 120 datasets per country per year - see Figure 7). Only two Member States (Germany and Spain) reported more than 1000 spatial data sets from the outset. Figure 7: Evolution 2010-2013 – Volume of spatial data sets with metadata (logarithmic scale) Since 2013, eight Member States (AT, DE, FR, UK, FI, PT, PL, IT) have brought a significant amount of new data sets online while the others still seem to lag behind as shown in Figure 8. Figure 8: Total volume of spatial datasets identified by EU Member States At EU level, this resulted in an important increase in the number of data sets identified and reported from 13.914 data sets in 2010 to 56.220 reported in 2014. However, there were important differences between countries as shown in Figure 7 and in more detail in Table 4. As mentioned above, it is underlined that an increase in datasets alone is not necessarily a measure of success. Some Member States have reduced the number of datasets simply by combining fragmented or dispersed datasets which can produce less datasets but each (new) dataset having a better quality and helping to achieve the objectives of the Directive with regards to interoperability. A more detailed analysis would be necessary to identify such trends in a quantitative manner.



Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1 AT 304 297 298 556 629 2 BE 322 357 316 342 361 3 BG 437 449 476 564 4 CY 230 230 234 5 CZ 335 232 231 159 45 6 DE 1366 2078 2860 9154 11239 7 DK 20 22 20 111 104 8 IE 635 635 159 9 EE 37 35 35 44 61 10 EL 751 732 630 533 539 11 ES 5290 4373 3514 1166 1431 12 FI 107 288 270 347 389 13 FR 609 1222 3217 6957 16042 14 HR 89 155 162 15 HU 179 150 105 107 16 IT 890 1563 1352 5247 17133 17 LT 100 104 105 105 106 18 LU 184 199 207 227 215 19 LV 104 134 141 145 154 20 MT 9 12 70 21 NL 558 182 142 197 192 22 PL 58 67 51 244 582 23 PT 728 770 774 1414 1529 24 RO 217 219 208 187 174 25 SE 181 179 290 236 244 26 SI 75 91 87 87 108 27 SK 169 183 207 219 216 28 UK 258 446 1117 2562 4154 Total EU 13914 14857 17026 31464 56220 Member States have been giving initially priority to identifying the spatial data covered by the 13 spatial data themes of Annex I and II of the INSPIRE Directive. This is illustrated in Figure 9 where in 2012 the proportion of Annex I,II data was still relatively high compared to data sets covered by the 21 Annex III spatial data themes. The monitoring results of 2014 for the year 2013 show for several Member States an important increase in the proportion of Annex III data sets as shown in Figure 10.

This is positive evolution as several of the Annex III spatial data themes which had to be available in 2013 cover environmental data such as the location and data on sources of emissions, on the quality of air, water, soils, on the status of the biodiversity, on waste and on data for the assessments of natural risks such as floods etc. However, given the larger number of data themes and the expected higher number of spatial data sets that fall under Annex III, absolute number are still very low and fall behind expectations.



Objective 4 - The identified spatial data is documented Action (step 3): By 3 December 2013, all the identified spatial data sets need to be documented conform to the implementing rule on metadata (Reg. No 1205/2008). Spatial data sets falling under annexes I and II had to be compliant already in December 2010. Documenting identified spatial data allows it to be found online more easily. To find spatial data sets they need to be documented conform to documentation standards and content ('metadata'). The documentation should, for example, allow the users to assess the quality of the data and to be informed about the use conditions. To this end, the Commission adopted an implementing rule as regards metadata on 3/12/2008. As mentioned earlier, there has been a steady growth in the number of spatial data sets since 2010 (Table 4) and most of them were documented with some kind of metadata. In the end of 2010, overall nine countries (on 24 countries that reported these figures) had metadata for more than 70% of the reported spatial data sets and services, whereas eleven countries were below the 50% mark (see figure 11). The situation was better for the datasets of Annex I and II, where 19 countries score more than 70%. Also it could be shown that the situation had improved drastically between 2009 and 2010 for nine countries, however, all Member States were trailing behind the deadline to a larger or lesser extent. Since then, the situation improved step-by-step. Based on the yearly monitoring reports of the Member States for the year 2012 , on average 77% of INSPIRE Annex I, 66% of INSPIRE Annex II, and 39% INSPIRE Annex III data were documented with INSPIRE metadata in 2012. In 2012 only 9 out of 27 countries had more than 90% of their Annexes I and Annex II data sets, which were placed in the infrastructure, documented with metadata. Ultimately, all the identified data sets had to have metadata which were in conformity with the above-mentioned Implementing Regulation. In 2013, only 12 Member States had over 80% of their documentation conform. Moreover, the conformity with metadata standards for the data sets falling under data themes in Annex I and II of the Directive are generally higher than those falling under Annex III (see table 4.1 of JRC/EEA report). Hence, the full implementation of the metadata standards remains an issue in many Member States as shown in Figure 11. Specific objective 5 - The documented spatial data is accessible online Action (step 4): By December 2013, Member States needed to have online IT network services for discovery, view and download in place for all of their documented spatial data sets in line with the relevant implementing rules. For the spatial data for which metadata was created, interoperable online network services needed to be implemented. Moreover, it is a prerequisite that the identification (step 2) and the documentation (step 3) have been completed for a given dataset. Hence, all the results (percentages) given below need to take account that there are already significant gaps in identifying and documenting the datasets. The implementation gaps are therefore cumulative. The Commission adopted on 19/10/2009 (discovery, view) and on 08/12/2010 (download, transformation) the implementing rule as regards the network services complemented with technical Guidelines to support their implementation. Depending on the type of services and spatial data sets, the Member States had to meet 4 different deadlines by which services should have been implemented:

1.Discovery and view services had to be implemented by 9 November 2011 for INSPIRE Annex I-II data and by 3 December 2013 for INSPIRE Annex III data. 2.Download and (where applicable) transformation services had to be implemented by 28 December 2012 for INSPIRE Annex I-II data and by 3 December 2013 for INSPIRE Annex III data. In accordance with Article 15(1) of the Directive, these services had to be made accessible through the EU Geo-portal. Based on the monitoring reports provided by the Member States for the year 2012, on average 63 % of the metadata for the spatial data sets and services were available through the discovery services. There has been a positive evolution in a number of Member States as in 2013, 80 to 100% of the documented spatial data sets had discovery services allowing them be found online as shown in Figure 12. Nevertheless, only 12 out of 28 countries had more than 90 % of the metadata for datasets compliant with the earlier steps available through the discovery services. In 2010 on average, only 27 % of the spatial data sets were available through the view services and only eight Member States had more than 50 % of their spatial data sets available through view services. Since then, however, there has been a positive evolution noticeable as shown in Figure 13. A similar trend is noticeable for download services. However, only about a quarter of the Member States have 60 to a 100% of their reported spatial data sets accessible for download with a majority below 50% as shown in Figure 14. On average 41 % of the services were in conformity with the implementing rules, with 10 countries having less than 3 % of their services in conformity. In some Member States, a decrease is observed because of potentially lower number of data sets or delays in providing download services for newly identified data sets. There is no detailed analysis as regards the different progress for the data sets falling under different data themes set out in annex I, II and III. Specific objective 6 - Spatial data organised in interoperable data models and available online Action (step 5): Member States needed to harmonise their data sets by transforming new data sets (newly collected or extensively restructured) into data models in line with the implementing rules on interoperability (Reg. No 1089/2010 as last amended by Reg. (EU) No 1312/2014). For existing data sets, a transitional period of seven years was foreseen, i.e. for Annex I+II data sets by 2017 and for Annex III data sets by 2020. Important efficiency gains are expected once spatial data is harmonised or, in other words, organised in common data models . This leads to interoperability where data sets can be shared more easily across borders or disciplines which makes (end-user) applications less costly to implement. It also helps reducing duplication in data collection and promotes the broad dissemination and use of data.

To this end, the Commission adopted on 08.12.2010 for INSPIRE Annex I, II and on 10/12/2013 for Annex III the implementing rules as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services. The implementing rule was complemented with technical guidelines to support its implementation. In addition, in the context of the Maintenance and Implementation Framework, the Commission implemented the INSPIRE Interactive Data specification site which offers the INSPIRE data providers with IT tools and documentation to implement the INSPIRE data specifications. Several training packages and IT tools to facilitate the transformation of spatial data sets to INSPIRE have been developed and put to operational use by the public and private sector (in many cases with EU co-funding). Depending on the type of spatial data sets, the Member States have to meet four different deadlines for transforming their existing spatial data sets in the interoperable data specifications. 1.By 23 November 2012, newly created or extensively restructured INSPIRE Annex I data had to be organised according to INSPIRE data specifications. 2.By 21 October 2015, newly created or extensively restructured INSPIRE Annex II and III data had to be organised according to INSPIRE data specifications. 3.By 23 November 2017, ALL INSPIRE Annex I data should be organised according to INSPIRE data specifications. 4.By 21 October 2020, ALL the INSPIRE Annex II and III data should be organised according to INSPIRE data specifications In this evaluation, only the first deadline can be assessed. Based on the monitoring tables provided by the Member States for the year 2012, only 14 Member States reported on their state of compliance with the INSPIRE data specifications for Annex I. The degrees of full conformity are generally low which however at this stage of the implementation does not necessarily constitute a compliance issue as such obligations only applies to spatial data sets newly created or extensively restructured since the adoption of the Directive. The percentage shown in the table below consequently illustrates the situation for all Annex I spatial data reported. Table 5: Percentage of conformity with implementing rules for all Annex I spatial data reported in 2012 Country AT BE BG CZ DE DK FI IR LV NL PL RO SK ES Conformity % 2 5 1 5 2 25 1 5 8 13 18 8 25 1 Source: EEA/JRC Technical evaluation report Figure 15 presents the overall state-of-play of implementation for all annexes by 2013. It is not surprising that the overall percentage of documented data sets which have been harmonised is low. Most Member States also reported that they do not have any or many "new" data sets. Hence, the transformation of existing data sets was still a future action that most Member States had not started. However, despite all efforts that have been taken to address the issues of feasibility and proportionality when preparing the implementing rules in relation to this step, several Member States reported that the agreed rules are still challenging and they expect the implementation to be more time and resource consuming than they had anticipated when deciding on the rules. Overall summary of the implementation results In summary, progress has been made in implementation, particularly in some Member States. However, the implementation gaps in most Member States are significant. They are the result of accumulated delays in the implementation process and underline the differences in speed and quality of implementation. The findings in relation to the different implementation steps can be summed up as follows: All Member States now have coordination structures in place, but their effectiveness is variable. In particular, coordination between national mapping agencies and environment data managers can be improved in many Member States. The national data policies for sharing data are highly variable and heterogeneous. Many Member States reported important, outstanding data policy issues that hamper the efficient sharing of spatial data between public authorities and with the public.

Significant progress has been made as regards the spatial datasets identified and reported yearly, with close on 60 000 spatial datasets being reported in 2014 against less than 1 400 in 2007. However, for many Member States, the numbers remain low (less than 150), and with limited thematic coverage compared to some of the better performing countries. Implementation of the documentation obligations is at an advanced stage; yet only 12 Member States had documented 80 to 100 % of their reported spatial data in line with the INSPIRE Directive by 2014. Member States made progress on the online discovery services available for their identified and documented datasets. These services give users access to the documentation. The overall availability of digital services for viewing and downloading spatial data for further use was less advanced. This is mainly the result of the cumulative delays and shortcomings in the previous implementation steps. Also here there are noticeable differences between the Member States and the type of services concerned. The interoperability of the spatial datasets has not advanced much mainly because the main implementation deadlines are still in the future (2017, 2020). Based on the trends observed already in 2013 and 2014 and newer information that the is now available to the Commission services (and which are reported by the Member States since May 2016), the dynamics of the implementation has increased and good progress has been made, in particular as regards the identification of data sets (step 2) and the metadata compliance (step 3). The main challenges remain with the interoperability provisions and with the data policies.



5.EVALUATION The progress made over time towards achieving the objectives and targets set out in INSPIRE Directive has been presented already in section 4 (implementation results). This section builds on these results and evaluates the findings in relation to the five evaluation criteria taking into account additional evidence, such as the results of the public consultation. 5.1.Effectiveness The evaluation on effectiveness looked at mainly at comparing this progress to the initial expectations and aims at identifying the main factors have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving the specific objectives. The specific evaluation questions were: -What progress has been made over time towards achieving the objectives and targets set out in INSPIRE in various Member States? Is the progress made in line with initial expectations and is the geographical coverage of implementation consistent? -Which main factors have contributed to – respectively stood in the way of achieving these objectives? (for example, gaps, complexity or inconsistency in the measures or working methods of INSPIRE, the timely and coherent transposition in national legislation) They are assessed together for each of the specific objectives. Overall, the effectiveness was often reported in relation to the parallel national policies on open data and eGovernment. For administrative reasons (different competent authorities) and the low relevance of environmental issues in a wider policy context, many Member States kept both processes separate. Some Member States, however, including some of the more advanced, demonstrated that there was ample scope for creating ‘win-win’ approaches where the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive becomes a building block for eGovernment activities. This is also confirmed by looking at the more detailed implementation steps. 5.1.1.Effectiveness of actions to establish a legal framework for sharing spatial data across the EU (Specific Objective 1) There are two main actions evaluated under this specific objective, the transposition and the data sharing policies. Overall, the transposition process has been delayed for most Member States. Some countries explained explicitly that the delays in the 2011 State-of-play report and the 2010 Member States reports were mainly due to constitutional situation and related administrative challenges, as the INSPIRE Directive needed to be transposed at several levels of government (regional and national). No evidence has been found that the delays have been specific to the transposition of the INSPIRE Directive and delays in transposition occur also in other areas for a variety of administrative, technical, legal or political reasons. However, the delays in transposition had an impact on the setting up of the coordination structures and vice versa. The state-of-play reports showed that although the Member States already had some coordination in place in 2007, the structure, role and mandates of those coordination bodies were still under discussion at the time of the entry into force of the Directive. The most difficult issues during transposition were reaching agreement between the public administrations at all relevant levels of government (within and across borders) on the coordination structures and the measures for sharing spatial data sets and services including whether and how to grant public access. Once the Directive was transposed, the Commission identified issues of non-conformity in most Member States (all except Greece and Croatia, see section 4). However, most of these issues could be resolved easily because they were mostly of legal and technical nature (e.g. wording). None of these issues prevented Member States from starting to implement the Directive. However, the delays in transposition and the adaptation necessary after the Commission identified non-conformity did not help the implementation process either and distracted attention away from other required action. Having said this, several Member States with late transposition and issues of non-conformity were able to implement the Directive much better than the rest and are amongst the frontrunners now (namely AT, DE, FR, UK, FI, PT, PL). The adoption of measures for the sharing of spatial data sets and services was also affected by the transposition process.

The implementation progress showed that the national data policies for sharing data are highly variable and heterogeneous. In some cases there is evidence that it does not comply with the obligations set out in Article 17 of the Directive (i.e. Member States have to ensure that any restrictions likely to create practical obstacles occurring at the point of use, to the sharing of spatial data sets and services between public authorities are precluded) because obstacles are still reported, whether it be fees that are required or restrictions of use are in place even between public authorities. This is confirmed by the feedback from the public consultation. The users participating to the public consultation responded as follows to the question: 'data policy is no obstacle for use'. Table 6: Responses to the statement 'data policy is no obstacle for use'. INSPIRE Annex No Partially Yes I 21% 30% 50% II 22% 33% 45% III 19% 40% 41% The variations between annexes are not very strong, clearly illustrating that a majority of users still experience data policy obstacles when wanting to use INSPIRE data The responses of the data producers are generally consistent with user experience, albeit slightly more positive: -Only 53% of the data producing organizations declared to have a policy allowing access with no restrictions at the point of use in accordance with Article 17(2) of the Directive. -The arrangements for the sharing of spatial data sets and services have to be open to public authorities of other Member States (Article 17(4).) However, according to the data producers responding to the public consultation only 67% of the data policies of the organizations allow the access, exchange and use of spatial data sets and services by the public authorities of other EU Member States. -The arrangements for the sharing of spatial data sets and services have to be open on a reciprocal and equivalent basis (Article 17(5)). However, according to the data producers responding to the public consultation only 54% of the data producers grant the EU institutions and bodies and bodies established by international agreements the same terms as the public authorities within their country. Where there are still practical obstacles identified they range from charging disproportionate fees to technical obstacles or restricting the re-use of the data. Such diverse and heterogeneous data policies also created an additional administrative burden, since each individual data policy requires specific administration (e.g. system of collecting the fees) which a more harmonised, open data policy usually does not need. The 2011 state-of-play report already raised the concern that the Member States were mainly focused on fulfilling the technical obligations and requirements of the INSPIRE implementing rules and not on the general purpose of facilitating data sharing through more effective arrangements and data policies. The heterogeneity of the measures taken by the Member States and the outstanding issues seem to be the result of the significant degree of flexibility laid down in Article 17(3) of the Directive. For example, the Directive allows Member States to licence and/or to require payment from, the public authorities or EU institutions and bodies. The Directive does not require Member States explicitly to simplify their licencing frameworks. It allows Member States to charge for spatial data sets and services to ensure their quality and supply, including eventually a 'reasonable return on investment' and respecting the self-financing requirements of public authorities. Only spatial data sets and services provided by Member States to EU institutions and bodies in order to fulfil their reporting obligations under EU legislation relating to the environment are explicitly exempt of charging. The Commission proposal included a more harmonised way for promoting "open data" and a proposal for an implementing rule to establish common licensing conditions. It did not contain the various options and flexibility on data sharing which are now present in Article 17(3). During the negotiations, additional flexibility was introduced by the co-legislator to take account of the diversity of situations and data policy cultures across the EU. The implementation process has now shown that the complexity of licensing conditions and the wide range of data policies and charging policies can still be an obstacle for effective data sharing in a large number of Member States. At the same time, several Member States have used the opportunity to review and simplify their data policy often following the "open data" approach. In terms of external factors, a number of Member States are implementing open data policies for public sector data in general and/or in the context of wider eGovernment initiatives. This seems to have influenced progress positively over time. However, such policies are not necessarily covering all spatial data covered by INSPIRE and derogations similar to those referred to in Article 17(3) of the INSPIRE Directive can be applied according to the Directive on the Re-use of Public Sector Information (Directive 2003/98/EC, known as the 'PSI Directive' revised by Directive 2013/37/EU ). In other countries, complex and heterogeneous national data policies and the absence of a pan-European data policy hinder the free flow of data — a concern also recognised in the wider Digital Single Market. Due to the variety of situations and the "burden of proof" being with the Commission that the conditions of Article 17(3) are not complied with, it is not possible to determine the lack of compliance without further in-depth analysis. However, it is evident that the current legal provisions did not ensure that data sharing has become significantly easier across the EU. To the contrary, the situation seems to be more complex than before and the consistency with other legal frameworks is also not entirely ensured. Moreover, the lack of enforcement was reported as additional factor by two countries (EL, CY) which established a comprehensive license framework by law. In summary, these complex and diverse data policies linked to the INSPIRE Directive still creates practical obstacles at the point of data use and needs further attention. 5.1.2.Effectiveness of actions to establish Member States internal and EU level coordination (Specific Objective 2) As set out in section 4, the progress on the main actions under this objective was presented in relation to setting up national and EU coordination structures. The effectiveness of the national coordination structures in place and coordinating the contributions of the users and producers varies from country to country. Some good examples exist as well as many areas for improvement. This is confirmed by the 2013 public consultation which inquired about the effectiveness of the coordination efforts at national level. Figure 16 shows that there is some variation in the perception of the effectiveness of the coordination among national-level public sector organizations, local public sector ones, and the private sector on the extent to which the implementation of INSPIRE is well coordinated. As shown, the level of agreement and strong agreement to the question declines from 70% for public sector national organisations, to 44% for both local public sector, and private sector. This suggests that there is room for improvement in engaging better both local level and private sector in the INSPIRE implementation. This observation is further supported as national coordination has been identified by the stakeholders in the public consultation as the second biggest issue for the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. Another issue of concern is the coordination between environmental authorities and other authorities (such as mapping agencies) in particular in those countries where the environment authorities have not been identified as competent authority for implementing the Directive. This often led to a lack of clarification and conflicting priority setting between relevant authorities at national level, in particular those responsible for environmental data (e.g. identifying minimum required environmental datasets to be covered by INSPIRE). In Denmark, e.g., the focus was initially on Annex I and II datasets (see figure 9) and only lately extended to focus on the more environmentally-relevant datasets in Annex III (see figure 10). This was a result of an increased coordination effort in Denmark between the Agency for Data Supply and Efficiency (the Danish competent authority working on INSPIRE) and the Danish environmental authorities since 2014.

The delays accrued during the transposition of the Directive may have had an influence on the effectiveness of the coordination efforts. Coordination requires a strong mandate for those organisations in charge as well as the necessary financial resources. A number of Member States (e.g. ES, PT, CY, IE, EL) referred to a lack of resources for coordination actions as a result of the economic crisis. Moreover, re-organisations driven by political changes affected coordination effectiveness during a certain period in several Member States (e.g. PT, IT, EL, BG, HU, CY). The coordination is also not always comprehensive or it is difficult to collect relevant data to demonstrate its effectiveness. Some Member States (DE, SE) reported having focussed their coordination efforts during the reporting period mainly on the production of metadata and implementation of services. Other stated that the uptake of the services is still in an initial low phase (e.g. UK) and/or that systematic monitoring on the use of spatial data through INSPIRE services for particular applications is either not done (ES), limited to internal work processes (NL), or where they are implemented in the context of open data initiatives feedback on the actual use of data is generally not collected (e.g. AT, UK, DE). The EU coordination required a number of actions leading to the establishment of a Committee which had to adopt of a number of implementing rules as well as the establishment of an implementation support mechanism at EU level. The adoption of the implementing rules was somewhat delayed (between 0.5 and 1.5 years) in comparison to the target dates set by the Directive but this did not have a significant negative consequence for the implementation because the Directive already foresaw an fixed period for implementation from the moment of adoption of the respective implementing rule. The delays were generally not caused by lack of resources or circumstances external to the project. However, some of the use-cases proved to be more complex than initially anticipated. Certain technical domain standards turned out to be not sufficiently mature and needed more testing. The time to test the technical specifications, to consult the stakeholders and conduct ex-ante feasibility and benefit assessments took longer than initially estimated. The additional coordination structures to support the implementation (Maintenance and Implementation Framework) remain in place in 2016. They work effectively and are widely appreciated across the Member States. At the same time, many Member States highlighted the need for improving EU-level coordination (the European Commission and EEA) in guiding Member States towards priorities in identifying the spatial datasets, in particular for environmental and related policies (e.g. in relation to reporting). 5.1.3.Effectiveness of actions to identify the spatial data sets (Specific Objective 3) The main action under this objective is set out in Article 18 of the Directive which requires Member States to identify their relevant spatial data sets falling within the scope of the 34 themes defined in the INSPIRE Annexes. This action is an essential first step regarding those actions dealing with data management because the identified spatial data sets are the basis for taking the subsequence actions in a stepwise approach (see specific objectives 4, 5 and 6). Member States followed different strategies to identify their spatial data sets. Some Member States (e.g. ES, DE, FR, BE) reported initially data sets resulting from an inventory of spatial data across all 34 INSPIRE themes. Other Member States (e.g. NL, LT) had initially a more restricted, step-wise approach, focussing on a more limited thematic coverage of data sets mainly related to the INSPIRE Annex I data themes or on those which they intended to reorganise as national authentic data sets first (NL). In 2010 most of the spatial data sets (50%) were reported by only two countries (Table 4). From 2012 onwards a number of Member States (DE, FR, IT, UK, PT, AT, PL) reported increasing numbers of documented spatial data sets while others had only small increases or in two cases (ES, CZ) a reduction of the number of spatial data sets due to their efforts in reorganising their data sets. At EU level this resulted in an important increase in the number of data sets identified and reported from 13.914 data sets in 2010 to 56.220 reported in 2014 with however important differences between countries (as shown in Table 4). The volume of spatial data sets as an indicator for effective implementation should be interpreted with careful considerations on how the spatial data sets are managed or available in a Member State. A low numbers of spatial datasets identified and documented in some countries may indicate a coordination and implementation problem. However, a small increase or even a reduction in data sets can, in some cases, also indicate an improvement in the availability and usability of the data sets since they have been consolidated by bringing together many diverse data sets and sources into one or several national ones which are more harmonised. In fact, such consolidation efforts are still necessary in some Member States since the current decentralised hosting of important data sets reduces the effective use and interoperability of such data. There is a lack of analytical evidence to explain the choices made by the Member States in identifying their spatial data sets falling under the scope of INSPIRE. However, some factors influencing this action can be derived from the evaluation: Strategic choices and timing considerations – Several Member States focussed initially on a limited number of spatial data sets, mostly those covered by INSPIRE Annex I. A number of Member States only started to involve the environmental data user and producing organisations at a much later stage given the difference in timing between the implementation of the three INSPIRE Annexes. A number of Member States reported early (as from 2010) identified spatial data from all INSPIRE annexes whether or not metadata was already created. Others only reported spatial data sets for which metadata was created, first Annex I and only later Annex II and III. Lack of environmental policy focus - Not sufficient focus has possibly been given to the spatial data requirements of environmental policies even in countries where driven by eGovernement and/or 'open data' initiatives a larger number of INSPIRE data sets became available. These external factors – such as initiatives on open data – may have received a higher political priority than INSPIRE with its focus on mostly environment-related data. Coordination factors - In most Member States environmental and other stakeholder ministries and agencies are reported to be part of the coordination structure. In practice however, the identification of spatial data sets for environmental policies seem to have suffered from the lack of coordination between those responsible for INSPIRE and the various thematic environmental communities, expert groups and committees which are interacting with the Commission and the EEA on reporting and implementation issues. Timing issues - Member States possibly did not sufficiently take into account the deadline of December 2013 by which all identified and documented spatial data sets should have been fully on-line 'as–is'. They remained focussed on the 2020 deadline for full implementation whereby all identified data sets have been interoperable. Reluctance to share – Some Member States reported a reluctance to report/identify spatial data sets for sharing by spatial data producers (thematic, different administrative levels) for various reasons (business models, lack of transparency, impact on resources, resistance to change - current data management practices). Spatial data sets are produced and used by a large number and variety of organisations which in most cases are both producers and users of their own spatial data (Figure 17) and in many cases, also use those produced by others. This complex relationship of demand and supply emphasises the importance of coordination in order to identify and bring online those spatial data sets most relevant for the user communities.

As shown in Figure 17, which illustrates user demand versus the producer supply, the user demand is generally higher for INSPIRE Annex I and II spatial data given their wide range of application going beyond environmental policies. However, also for the more diversified 21 INSPIRE Annex III spatial data themes there is an important demand for spatial data sets more directly related to environmental policies. As to the relevancy of the spatial data sets for environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment, Figures 9 and 10 show that since 2013 proportionally more INSPIRE Annex III are being reported. As a significant part of the spatial data relevant for environmental policies is covered by the Annex III data themes this suggests a positive evolution. However, there are still important differences between the Member States also with regard to the thematic coverage of Annex III data and the direct relevance of the identified data for reporting and implementation of environmental legislation. Often such environmental data could not be (easily) found despite that fact that they should have been made available "as is" already. This means that even without implementing the next steps (specific objectives 4, 5 and 6), these data should at least be accessible for use. 5.1.4.Effectiveness of actions to document the identified spatial data sets (Specific Objective 4) Once the spatial data sets were identified, the next action was to ensure that they are documented in accordance with the Implementing Regulation as regards metadata. To assist this implementation step, technical guidelines . a metadata editor and metadata validator were developed and agreed at EU level. Nevertheless, the implementation progress was mixed across all Member States (see section 4). These outcomes were confirmed by the 2013 public consultation which yields comparable results as users considered 68% - 67% - 49% of the data documented (but not necessarily conform) for INSPIRE Annex I-II-III data respectively. Specific issues were also evident on the metadata for services where in 2012 on average only 56% of the services were documented with INSPIRE metadata, with 8 countries facing significant delays (deadline was 2009 for Annex I and II). However, as shown in Figure 18, the situation has been improving significantly during the years 2013 and 2014 with more and more Member States making discovery services available providing access to 80 – 100% of the documented metadata for spatial data sets and services. With regard to completing their metadata, Member States seem to have followed different approaches. Some considered it a priority to bringing data and services into the infrastructure, even when not fully documented. Others applied more stringent quality checks before doing this. Other issues related to an initial lack of training and skills to understand the documentation specifications and guidelines, the willingness, time and resources needed to create this meta-data and an initial lack of software tools for these purposes as well as for verifying the quality of the documentation. Some of these issues have been overcome in the meantime. 5.1.5.Effectiveness of actions to make the documented spatial data accessible online (Specific Objective 5) For the spatial data for which metadata was created, interoperable online network services needed to be implemented. Since 2010, there has been significant progress in accessing different services online but there are still significant shortcomings for the different services (discovery, view and download) as described in section 4. Those trends, such as the lower level of availability of download services in comparison to discovery services, are consistent with the response of the data providers to the public consultation: -51 % responded that their organisation’s spatial data sets and services were discoverable through web services with a significant portion indicating an incomplete discoverability (not all INSPIRE data they manage can be discovered). -53 % indicated that their organisation’s spatial data sets were viewable through some web services with a significant portion indicating an incomplete access. -32 % reported that their organisation’s spatial data sets were downloadable with a significant percentage indicating the non-availability for download.

-48 % responded that their discovery services were also compliant with the implementing rules, 43 % declared that their view services were compliant with the implementing rules and 37 % indicated that the download services were compliant with the implementing rules. With regard to the access through the EU Geo-portal only 41 % of the services reported in 2012 can be found back in the portal with a very wide disparity across countries (from 0% to 92%). In addition, of those only 62% could be accessed and only 5% were in-line with the (non-binding) technical guidance provided. This affects the effectiveness of the implementation overall and the EU Geo-portal as a single entry point to the EU spatial data infrastructure. This also affects the usability and usefulness of the EU Geo-portal. As a result, only 31% of the respondents to the public consultation used the EU Geo-portal at some time and individual feedback suggests that they were often not finding what they were looking for. The main factors for the insufficient implementation of this step in the Directive were similar to those under other steps, namely the lack of sufficient financial and human resources. On one hand, the economic crisis played a role, on the other hand where INSPIRE relevant data is managed by a large number of smaller organisations, resources are an issue when online web services need to be set up and kept online. Other factors mentioned in the public consultation regard the lack of skills, training and software tools for setting up services and for checking the validity of the services against the INSPIRE implementing rules. 5.1.6.Effectiveness of actions to bring spatial data sets organised in interoperable data models online (Specific Objective 6) The main deadlines for reorganising spatial data sets according to interoperable spatial data models conform to the implementing rule are set in the future. The past deadlines (23/11/2012, 21/10/2015) to transform datasets only applied to spatial data sets which are 'newly created or extensively restructured'. Hence, it is not surprising that implementation levels in 2013 were still low (see section 4). Data producers participating to the public consultation seem to confirm the current status. When responding (33 % of all producers) to the question on the % of data already brought in-line with the data specifications, less than 4% indicated that more than 75% of their data sets were already in conformity, 33% reported less than 25% conformity while 40% of them did not know if such actions were going on in their organisation. A main factor with regard to the 2012 and 2015 deadlines is the fact that Member States decide whether or not a spatial data set is newly created or heavily restructured. For example LT reported that no new official data sets were created or restructured. The (future) implementation steps are, without a doubt, the most challenging and resource intensive step which is why the Directive foresaw that the implementing rules should be "feasible and proportionate in terms of their likely costs and benefits" (cf. Article 7.2). Hence, a number of Member States as well as the public consultation results emphasise the need for capacity building, including training for raising skills and resources in general. Moreover, feedback from Member States also confirmed that there are still significant efforts and costs involved in transforming existing datasets to meet the future requirements (deadlines in 2017 and 2020). They also expressed concern regarding the higher complexity and the feasibility of adapting all spatial data to common data models by 2017 (Annex I) or 2020 (Annex II and III) as previously anticipated. Hence, the deadlines will be difficult to achieve for most Member States, e.g. due to the technical complexity of the interoperability implementing rules and guidelines that require the application of IT tools and skills that are often absent. The different starting points of Member States in terms of preparedness of meeting the deadlines set by the Directive were also identified as another reason for the upcoming challenges. Hence, many Member States and users call for a flexible, pragmatic and user-driven application of the existing data specifications. Positive factors influencing progress are the increasing availability of INSPIRE-specific IT tools developed by the public and private sector with and without EU level financial support. Such tools make it easier to transform data or, once available, can be used by other data owners provided they are "open source". A large number of training courses developed by the public and private sector are becoming available as online e-learning platforms while the transformation of existing spatial data sets conform to INSPIRE has been undertaken in several projects at local, regional, national and European scales. As regards the overall implementation gaps and delays related to the steps 2 to 5 (specific objectives 3 to 6), several Member States reported that the economic crisis and pressure on national budgets had a major impact on the allocation of required, up-front investment (e.g. in IT infrastructure and technical skills development in administrations). Where such investments have taken place, improvements in the implementation effectiveness have been noted. This aspect will also be discussed in the efficiency section. 5.1.7.Summary of the evaluation of effectiveness At this half-way point in the implementation process, the evaluation of effectiveness of the Directive varies significantly. Overall, there is good progress since there are clear improvements as compared to the situation in 2007 and the availability and management of spatial data is now more advanced. Some Member States have also demonstrated that effective implementation is possible. However, the overall level of progress (as also presented in section 4) is very heterogeneous, generally below expectation and implementation gaps in most Member States are significant. They are the result of accumulated delays in the implementation process and underline the differences in speed and quality of implementation. Significant challenges remain in particular with the interoperability provisions and with the data policies. There are many factors influencing this low level of effectiveness which can often be related to implementation efforts (and investment) by Member States. Most have not done enough in this respect, and can close their implementation gaps through, for example, more investment in skills and infrastructure, better coordination, improving the free flow of data by updating their data policies, better streamlining with national policies on eGovernment and open data. Moreover, there are indications that some implementation efforts which are not due until 2020 may be costly and difficult to achieve, in particular in relation to data harmonisation. Hence, collaboration between the Commission services, the Member States and the user communities may be useful to set priorities and ensure that the existing data specifications can be implemented in a more flexible, pragmatic and user-driven way so as to increase the effectiveness of this upcoming implementation step.



5.2.Efficiency 5.2.1.Costs and benefits What are the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in various Member States?

The costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive were determined on the basis of reported Member State figures for the period 2010-2012. Overall, the information was patchy and diverse. Hence it was not possible to calculate EU-wide figures for costs and benefits, nor was it not always possible to compare the information available. On costs, most of the Member States reported some information except for HU and DK. However, in several cases the costs are not systematically measured and/or different cost breakdowns have been applied. In other cases, the figures are provided only for part of the infrastructure or examples for a number of involved organisations (RO, DE). Also one-off costs and maintenance costs can often not be distinguished. It was also noted that it is difficult to separate cost due to INSPIRE from investments in data infrastructure which was anyhow planned and made. On the basis of the available information, reported costs on average annual basis (SE: 4.7, AT: 2.5. DE: 2.3 (national DE components only) FR: 13.5 LT: 0.497, LU: 0.9 FI: 1.63 CZK: 2.8, SI: 2.5 U.K: 2.8 in € million/year for the period 2010-2012) were below the initial impact assessment estimates of €4 to 8 million per year at the national level depending on the size of the Member State and of €60000-94000 per region of 250000– 350000 inhabitants. On benefits, Member States reported mostly in qualitative terms. They generally consider that benefits are yet to be fully realised but that they are starting to emerge in terms of improved data access, better cooperation across the public sector, skills and capacity building, less duplication of work, improved information for supporting environmental policy, better e-government services to citizens and business. A few Member States reported quantitative impact assessments, presenting estimates of future benefits: -With respect to improved environmental management the UK Environment Agency for England and Wales estimated that the benefits of implementing INSPIRE in reducing environmental risk are equivalent to £5.1 million/year. The 2012 UK Benefits Realisation Strategy estimates annual quantifiable benefits across UK government departments at £m 470-510. Evidence of cost-saving and increased efficiencies at the local levels are also emerging, for example the Barrow Borough Council attributed £26.000 (or £0.38 per inhabitant) annual cost savings from implementing INSPIRE services. -NL reported a consolidated government view to the public consultation process noting benefits through the collaboration and harmonisation between different layers of government and competent authorities. Harmonisation has led to more efficient generation of management information and creates benefits for the private sector, saving them the effort of data integration; new (mobile) applications are being developed on the basis of the information now available. The 2009 NL Cost-benefits analysis for INSPIRE predicted that until 2013, the annual costs would exceed the benefits and increase the negative cumulative balance of both. From 2014 onwards, the benefits would be higher and the negative cumulative balance should decrease as shown in Figure 19. An update of this cost-benefit analysis was recently published following the finalisation of this evaluation. It concludes that the costs are higher than originally anticipated. The total annual costs range from €3 to 5 million euro in the period from 2010 to 2024. Between 2010 and 2015, these were actually realised costs whereas the remainder are predictions which are higher compared to the predictions in the previous study. On the benefits side, INSPIRE does indeed ensure that data are more interchangeable, that the comparison and the quality of data are better and the availability is higher. Overall, the total value of benefits is lower than previously estimated. However, the new study is also highlighting that many benefits still cannot be quantified. They conclude that better management of benefits is needed to direct investments into those areas most beneficial for the different user groups. -SE conducted an ex-ante/ex-post benefit survey with public authorities. SE considers that the envisaged benefits of the infrastructure have been rea