COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to EU information, data collection, public sector, research and development, single market

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1552 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a  

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL amending 
European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector 
information 

{COM(2011) 877 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1551 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

1.6. 

2. 

Procedural issues and consultation............................................................................... 5 

Background .................................................................................................................. 5 

Implementation of the Directive .................................................................................. 6 

Public consultation ....................................................................................................... 7 

Expertise....................................................................................................................... 7 

Commission Inter-Service Group ................................................................................ 8 

Impact Assessment Board ............................................................................................ 8 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 

2.1. 

Definition of public sector information........................................................................ 9 

2.2.  Who is affected .......................................................................................................... 11 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

Analysis of the current PSI market ............................................................................ 11 

Assessment of the impact of the current Directive .................................................... 12 

Estimated market developments ................................................................................ 13 

Remaining problems .................................................................................................. 15 

2.6.1. 

Insufficient clarity and transparency.......................................................................... 15 

2.6.2.  Locked resources........................................................................................................ 16 

2.6.3.  Excessive charging and lack of a level playing field ................................................. 17 

2.6.4. 

Insufficient enforcement of re-use provisions............................................................ 18 

2.6.5. 

Incoherent approach across the Member States ......................................................... 19 

2.7. 

Subsidiarity assessment.............................................................................................. 19 

2.7.1.  Necessity of action at the EU level ............................................................................ 19 

2.7.2.  EU added value .......................................................................................................... 20 

2.7.3. 

International obligations............................................................................................. 21 

2.8. 

Conclusions on the problem....................................................................................... 21 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 22 

General objectives...................................................................................................... 22 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 23 

Operational objectives................................................................................................ 24 

Consistency of PSI policy objectives with other EU policies.................................... 25 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
3.4.1.  PSI policy and EU objectives of a horizontal nature such as the Europe 2020 Strategy 
and promoting democratic principles......................................................................... 25 

3.4.2.  PSI policy and the EU rules competition rules .......................................................... 25 

3.4.3.  PSI policy and open data policy................................................................................. 25 

3.4.4.  PSI policy and environmental policy ......................................................................... 26 

3.4.4.1.  The PSI Directive and the Directive on public access to environmental information26 

3.4.4.2.  The PSI Directive and the INSPIRE Directive .......................................................... 26 

3.4.5.  PSI policy and the integrated maritime policy........................................................... 26 

3.4.6.  PSI policy and the common transport policy ............................................................. 26 

3.4.7.  PSI policy and the initiative on open access to scientific information ...................... 27 

3.4.8.  PSI policy and the policy on digitisation and cultural heritage ................................. 27 

3.4.9.  PSI policy and the long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering 

economy ..................................................................................................................... 28 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Alternative policy options .......................................................................................... 28 

Option 1: No policy change: no changes to the Directive (baseline)......................... 28 

Option 2: Discontinuing existing EU action: repeal of the PSI Directive ................. 29 

Option 3: Soft law measures ...................................................................................... 29 

4.3.1.  Guidelines on licensing .............................................................................................. 29 

4.3.2.  Guidelines on cost calculation for allowable charges ................................................ 30 

4.3.3.  Guidance on data formats........................................................................................... 30 

4.4. 

Option 4: Legislative amendments............................................................................. 31 

4.4.1.  Obligation to define the scope of public tasks by legislation..................................... 31 

4.4.2.  Obligation to deliver data in machine-readable formats where possible and 

appropriate.................................................................................................................. 32 

4.4.3.  Extending the scope of the Directive ......................................................................... 32 

4.4.3.1.  Extending the scope to public service broadcasters................................................... 32 

4.4.3.2.  Extending the scope to the educational and research sector ...................................... 33 

4.4.3.3.  Extending the scope to the cultural sector.................................................................. 34 

4.4.4.  Amending the general principle ................................................................................. 37 

4.4.5.  Amending the principles governing charging ............................................................ 39 

4.4.5.1.  Principle of charging based on marginal costs........................................................... 40 

4.4.5.2.  Reversal of the burden of proof ................................................................................. 43 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
4.4.6.  Requirement to establish an effective redress system and to designate independent 

PSI regulators ............................................................................................................. 43 

4.5. 

Option 5: Packaged solution ...................................................................................... 44 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

Assessment of policy options..................................................................................... 44 

Option 1: No changes to the Directive (baseline) ...................................................... 44 

Option 2: Discontinuing existing EU action (repeal of the PSI Directive)................ 46 

Option 3: Soft law measures ...................................................................................... 47 

Option 4: Legislative amendments............................................................................. 48 

Option 5: Packaged solution ...................................................................................... 53 

Implementation costs ................................................................................................. 54 

5.6.1.  Option 1: No changes to the Directive (baseline) ...................................................... 54 

5.6.2.  Option 2: Discontinuing existing EU action (repeal of the PSI Directive)................ 54 

5.6.3.  Option 3: Soft law measures ...................................................................................... 54 

5.6.4.  Option 4: Legislative amendments............................................................................. 54 

5.6.5.  Option 5: Packaged solution ...................................................................................... 56 

5.7. 

5.8. 

6. 

7. 

Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 56 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 61 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 61 

Annexes...................................................................................................................... 62 

Annex 1: Implementation of the Directive............................................................................... 63 

Annex 2: Overview of the results of the public consultation................................................... 65 

Annex 3: Key findings of the studies ....................................................................................... 70 

Annex 4: Examples of difficulties in accessing PSI for re-use (pricing and licensing 
conditions)................................................................................................................................ 75 

Annex 5: Charging policies in the cultural sector .................................................................... 77 

Annex 6: Overview of charging tendencies by public sector bodies ....................................... 79 

Annex 7: Machine-readable formats ........................................................................................ 83 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION 

1.1. 

Background  

Directive  2003/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  re-use  of  public 
sector information (‘the PSI Directive’ or ‘the Directive’) was adopted on 17 November 2003. 
The  Directive  aimed  to  facilitate  the  re-use  of  PSI  throughout  the  EU  by  harmonising  the 
basic  re-use  conditions  and  removing  major  barriers  to  re-use  in  the  internal  market.  The 
Directive  contains  provisions  on  non-discrimination,  charging,  exclusive  arrangements, 
transparency,  licensing  and  practical  tools  to  facilitate  the  discovery  and  re-use  of  public 
documents.  

The Directive is not a freedom of information act. It does not affect national rules on access to 
information,  but  builds  on  them.  Public  sector  information  cannot  be-reused  unless  it  is 
accessible or has been publicly disseminated. However, not all accessible documents are re-
usable,  e.g.  those  containing  personal  data  or  material  protected  by  intellectual  property 
rights. 

The Directive is a building block of the Digital Agenda and of the Europe 2020 Strategy for 
achieving  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth1.  The  legal  framework  established  by  the 
Directive aims to unlock the economic potential of government-owned data by making these 
resources  available  for  commercial  or  non-commercial  re-use  on  permissive  terms  so  as  to 
stimulate innovation. The economic importance of open data resources, of which government 
data are a component, is now widely recognised. For instance, according to a 2010 report by 
The  Economist,  data  have  become  ‘an  economic  raw  input  almost  on  par  with  capital  and 
labour’2, while the Digital Britain Final Report recognises data as ‘an innovation currency … 
the lifeblood of the knowledge economy’3. However, beyond fuelling innovation and creativity 
that  stimulate  economic  growth,  open  public  data  also  make  governments  transparent, 
accountable and more efficient.  

In order to fully unlock the potential of government data, the EU needs to act according to a 
coherent  approach  based  on:  (1)  creating  the  best  legal  framework  in  favour  of  re-use  of 
public  data;  (2)  coordinating  measures  undertaken  at  Member  State  and  EU  level  to  help 
public  sector  bodies  embrace  the  open  data  concept  and  (3)  mobilising  available  financing 
instruments  to  support  R&D  and  innovation  in  tools  for  open  data  and  tools  based  on  open 
data.  

The  first  challenge  is  to  provide  the  market  with  the  optimal  legal  framework  that  will 
facilitate  and  stimulate  actual  commercial  and  non-commercial  re-use  of  public  open  data. 
Ultimately, therefore, the Directive and its revision are aimed at catalysing a change of culture 
in  the  public  sector,  creating  a  favourable  environment  for  value-added  activities  resulting 
from the re-use of public information resources. 

Article  13  of  the  Directive  mandated  a  review  of  the  application  of  the  Directive  by  1  July 
2008.  The  review  was  carried  out  by  the  Commission  and  published  as  Communication 

1 
2 
3 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm  
http://www.economist.com/node/15557443. 
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/report/. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
COM(2009) 2124. It found that despite the progress made a number of barriers still persisted, 
namely attempts by public sector bodies to maximise cost recovery, as opposed to benefits for 
the  wider  economy;  competition  between  the  public  and  the  private  sector;  practical  issues 
hindering re-use, such as the lack of information on available PSI; and the mindset of public 
sector bodies failing to realise the economic potential. 

The Commission concluded that a further review should be carried out by 2012 when more 
evidence on the impact, effects and application of the Directive would be available.  

This impact assessment (IA) report examines possible options for dealing with problems and 
challenges  identified  during  the  second  review  of  the  Directive  announced  in  the  2009 
Communication.  This  review  of  the  PSI  Directive  is  a  key  action  of  the  Digital  Agenda  for 
Europe (key action 1c). Under the Roadmap set for the Digital Agenda, the review of the PSI 
Directive would be concluded by 2012 in accordance with the conclusions of the 2009 review 
Communication.  However,  in  view  of  in  view  of  the  large  economic  potential  of  unlocking 
public sector data and its contribution to the 2020 Agenda, the current review was frontloaded 
to 2011. 

In particular, the report examines whether it is necessary to extend the scope of application of 
the  Directive,  amend  the  general  principle  or  amend  the  charging,  licensing  and  other 
provisions  of  the  Directive  with  a  view  to  making  the  internal  market  for  the  re-use  of  PSI 
function more efficiently and stimulating the development of the European content industry. 

1.2. 

Implementation of the Directive  

All Member States have implemented the PSI Directive, although only four of them met the 
deadline of 1 July 2005 (for methods of implementation, please refer to Annex 1).  

The  Commission  opened  17  infringement  cases5  for  failure  to  notify  national  measures 
transposing the Directive. The Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) delivered four judgments for 
failure to notify6. 

In addition, the Commission opened a further five cases, this time for incorrect transposition 
of the Directive. Two of those cases (against Italy and Sweden) were successfully closed in 
September  2010  after  new  national  legislation  was  adopted  correctly  transposing  the 
Directive, two other cases (against Estonia and Slovakia) are at early stages of the procedure 
and one case (against Poland) is currently pending before the ECJ. 

The  less  than  perfect  implementation  of  the  Directive  was  mainly  due  to  the  novelty  of  the 
topic  of  re-use  of  public  sector  information  at  the  time  the  instrument  was  adopted  and  the 
initial confusion between the concepts of re-use of information and access to information.  

In  line  with  the  Commission  Communication  on  better  monitoring  of  the  application  of 
Community  law  (COM(2002)  725),  the  Commission  has  been  closely  monitoring  the 

4 
5 

6 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0212:FIN:EN:PDF. 
Non-communication of implementation measures initially concerned BE, CZ, DE, GR, ES, IT, CY, LV, 
LT,  LU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PT  and  HU,  and  non-conformity  of  national  implementing  measures  with  the 
Directive concerned IT, PL and SE. 
For non-communication of implementation measures regarding BE, ES, DE and AT. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
implementation  process  and  providing  technical  assistance.  It  has  also  pursued  intensive 
administrative cooperation with Member States.  

In addition, the Commission has undertaken several actions to support the proper application 
and implementation of the PSI Directive (list in Annex 1).  

1.3. 

Public consultation  

A  wide-ranging  public  consultation  on  the  review  of  the  Directive  was  held  in  accordance 
with established Commission standards. The consultation was open from 9 September 2010 
until 30 November 2010. All interested parties, including governments, public sector content 
holders  (including  from  currently  excluded  sectors),  commercial  and  non-commercial  re-
users, experts and academics as well as citizens, were invited to contribute.  

The  consultation  yielded  598  replies,  which  were  published  on  the  Commission’s  PSI 
website. They reflect the different actors present in the PSI value chain: PSI content holders 
(8 %), other public authorities not holding any PSI (4 %), PSI re-users (13 %), academics and 
experts (23 %), citizens (48 %) and respondents identified as ‘other’ (4 %). 

In  summary,  responses  to  this  consultation  demonstrate  that  although  compared  with  the 
previous review the culture of re-use has made headway in many Member States (in particular 
the UK, France, Denmark), much remains to be done to maximise the potential of PSI re-use 
and  to  fully  exploit  the  rules  established  by  the  2003  PSI  Directive,  several  provisions  of 
which require amendment or clarification. 

Public sector bodies and re-users alike called for clarification of and guidance on the charging 
and  licensing  principles  and  on  data  formats.  A  higher  rate  of  responding  re-users  than  PSI 
holders were in favour of amending the Directive, in particular on the issue of changing the 
general  principle  (to  make  accessible  information  re-usable)  and  of  adopting  additional 
measures (towards opening up public data resources and practical measures facilitating re-use 
such  as  asset  lists  of  available  documents,  simplified  or  no  licensing  conditions,  marginal 
costs, etc.) although the rates are not very representative as many PSI holders did not answer 
many  of  the  individual  questions.  An  overview  of  results  of  the  consultation  is  attached  in 
Annex 27. 

1.4. 

Expertise  

The Commission has conducted the following studies to assess the different aspects of the PSI 
re-use  market,  including  its  economic  value:  MEPSIR,  Study  on  Exclusive  Agreements, 
Economic  Indicators  and  Case  Studies  on  PSI  pricing  models,  Study  on  pricing  models  for 
PSI, Study on market value of PSI, Study on re-use of cultural material8. Key findings of the 
studies are reproduced in Annex 3. 

In  addition,  the  LAPSI9  (Legal  Aspects  of  Public  Sector  Information)  thematic  network 
looked  into  some  specific  legal  issues  during  the  first  quarter  of  2011.  These  included 
questions  on  (1)  possible  exceptions  to  a  default  rule  of charging  marginal  costs,  (2) public 

7 
8 
9 

A full report is available at http://tinyurl.com/PSIconsultation. 
A full report is available at http://tinyurl.com/culturePSI. 
http://www.lapsi-project.eu/. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
tasks and non-discrimination, (3) whether or not public undertakings should be covered by the 
PSI Directive, and (4) licensing.  

Finally,  further  data  have  been  gathered  through  networking,  cooperation,  coordination  and 
awareness-raising activities with Member States and stakeholders. The ePSIplatform provides 
wide-ranging PSI data across the EU10.  

1.5. 

Commission Inter-Service Group  

An Inter-Service Steering Group was set up in August 2010 to prepare the impact assessment 
for the review of the PSI Directive. The following DGs and services were invited: the SG, the 
LS, COMP, DIGIT, EAC, ENTR, ENV, JUST, MARE, MARKT and RTD. The first meeting 
of the Steering Group took place on 4 August 2010 and subsequent meetings were held on 4 
March, 8 June and 13 July 2011. The text of the IA Report was submitted to the members of 
the IA Steering Group for a final round of comments on 19 July. 

The  Steering  Group  contributed  to  major  steps  in  the  preparation  of  the  impact  assessment 
and in particular to the questions for the public online consultation on the review as well as 
the draft impact assessment report. 

1.6. 

Impact Assessment Board 

The meeting of the Impact Assessment Board took place on 31st of August 2011. The Board 
issued  a  positive  overall  opinion  stating  that  the  impact  assessment  report  presents  an 
adequate  level  of  assessment.  The  Board  also  indicated  several  recommendations  for 
improvement. The present report takes into account all the recommendations of the Board. In 
particular the  context of the proposal was clarified  and  definitions  were  improved.  Also  the 
presentation of policy options was enhanced and the issue of expected costs for PSI holders 
and  relations  between  the  PSI  and  environmental  policies  were  clarified.  The  present  report 
also improved monitoring and evaluation arrangements.  

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The following problems and barriers persist with respect to PSI re-use:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Insufficient clarity and transparency, including practical issues, 

Licensing terms that are restrictive or unclear, or lacking altogether, 

Lack of information on available data,  

Lack of a robust complaints procedure,  

Locked resources, 

Excessive  charging  and  lack  of  a  level  playing  field,  including  attempts  by  public 
sector  bodies  to  maximise  cost  recovery,  as  opposed  to  benefits  for  the  wider 
economy,  

10 

http://www.epsiplatform.eu/. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Unfair competition practices between the public and the private sector, 

Incoherent approach within and across the Member States,  

Ineffective enforcement mechanisms. 

In this report, the Commission must assess whether, in the light of developments in the PSI 
re-use market and of experience with the application of the current Directive, there is a need 
to amend its provisions. In considering this issue the Commission has to take into account the 
changes in the re-use markets brought about by the Directive and to assess whether barriers 
remain and, if so, what they are and how best they can be tackled.  

2.1. 

Definition of public sector information  

Public Sector Information (PSI) is publicly funded information produced or collected by the 
public sector. Data produced or collected by state owned companies operating under market 
conditions  and  subject  to  private  and  commercial  laws  are  not  covered  by  this  definition. 
Public bodies are the largest producers of information in Europe.11 PSI includes a plethora of 
data, listed in the table below. The list is indicative and not exhaustive and individual domains 
are not exclusive, e.g. the category “Natural resource information” includes information that 
can be part of “Scientific information” and “Research data” or “Geographic information”.  

I
S
P
F
O
N
O
I
T
A
T
I
O
L
P
X
E
L
A
C
R
E
M
M
O
C

I

Cartographic information 

Land registry data 

Geographic information 

Spatial data 

Meteorological and 
environmental information 

Economic and business 
information 

Topographical information 

Geological information 

Oceanographic data 

Hydrographic data 

Environmental quality data 

Weather data 

Financial information 

Business register data 

Company information 

Economic and statistical data 

Industry and trade information 

Transport network information 

Traffic and transport information 

Traffic data 

Legal system information 

Car registration data 

Case law 

Legislation 

Patent and trademark data 

Crime Data/Statistics 

Scientific  information  and  research  data  –  currently  outside  the  scope  of 

11 

Study  on  commercial  exploitation  of  Europe's  Public  Sector  Information,  PIRA  International,  2000: 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/pira_study/commercial_final_report.pdf  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the PSI Directive 

Political content 

Cultural content – currently 
outside the scope of the PSI 
Directive 

National proceedings of governments 

Non-procedural data 

Museum material 

Gallery material 

Library resources 

Archival content 

Non-PSI  data  is  e.g.  transactional  data  of  private  companies  including  information  about 
customers, suppliers and operations.12  

Re-use of public sector information means any creative use of data by e.g. adding value to the 
data,  combining  data  from  different  sources  to  produce  a  desired  result  and  developing 
applications,  for  both  commercial  and  non-commercial  purposes.  ‘Re-use’  centres  on 
exploiting  the  economic  value  of  public  information  where  PSI  serves  as  ‘raw  material’  to 
develop new products and services. Whereas public bodies are the creators and suppliers of 
the original material, the private sector plays a major role as an intermediary and information 
processor  between  the  source  of  the  information  (public  body)  and  the  end  users  (figure 
below). Public bodies also integrate the value chain vertically and provide products directly to 
final users13.  

Payment

Commercial re-use 
of public sector 
information

Public body
Public body

Private 
Private 
company
company

End user
End user

Information

Free Access or 
Payment

Public body
Public body

End user
End user

Content

Making available 
public sector 
content

Minor / possible flow

Major / established flow

Source: Review of recent studies on PSI re-use and related market developments, G. 
Vickery 

Businesses use PSI in three main ways: for own business purposes; to produce products for 
consumers;  as  an  input  to  produce  products  for  industry.  'Own  business  use'  include  e.g. 
retailers with ordering systems, which allow them to adapt rapidly to changes in demand for 
products  where  the  key  factor  is  the  weather  (e.g.  sales  of  ice-cream,  barbecues  and  other 
summer goods). These retailers use weather data to predict short-term demand patterns. 

Suppliers  of  goods  or  services  which  appeal  to  particular  population  groups,  e.g.  elderly 
people, may make use of population and social trend statistics to estimate long-term demand. 

12 

13 

"Big  Data:  the  next  frontier  for  innovation,  competition  and  productivity",  Report  of  the  McKinsey 
Global Institute, May 2011 
Review of recent studies on PSI re-use and related market developments, Graham Vickery, Information 
Economics, July 2011. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Businesses also use PSI as an input into products developed for industry, use of maritime data 
from international hydrographic offices to produce a range of naval navigation products such 
as radars or autopilot systems for the commercial shipping industry.  

2.2.  Who is affected 

Products  and  services  based  wholly  or  partly  on  PSI  (e.g.  GPS,  weather  forecasts,  financial 
and insurance services, ‘apps’) generate new businesses and jobs, increase consumer welfare 
and enhance citizens’ public engagement. Public sector content has an important role in the 
digital age as a driver of not only economic, but also civic activity. 

Key stakeholders comprise Member States, their national administrations and all their public 
sector bodies as they are the source of the data in question. These institutions are affected to 
the  extent  that  they  must  devise  a  structure  to  make  the  data  they  produce  and/or  collect 
suitable for re-use and to process the re-use requests.  

Secondly, PSI re-users, both commercial and non-commercial, are affected in that their rights 
regarding the re-use of PSI are defined in the provisions of the Directive. A reliable supply of 
quality data is furthermore a prerequisite for the development of markets for re-use of PSI. 

Thirdly, consumers and citizens at large are affected in at least two fundamental ways. On the 
one  hand,  re-use  of  PSI  results  in  an  improved  offer  of  attractive  and  useful  products  and 
services,  which  enhance  consumer  and  business  welfare.  Moreover,  PSI  re-use  positively 
impacts governance by enhancing the ability of citizens to engage in the political process and 
by requiring greater transparency and governmental accountability. 

2.3. 

Analysis of the current PSI market14  

Estimated on the basis of the latest available studies, the narrowly defined EU27 direct PSI-
related market was worth around €28 billion in 2008. Taking 7% per year as a lower estimate, 
the  EU27  PSI  market  could  have  grown  to  €32 billion  by  2010,  provided  that  PSI  markets 
continued  to  be  unaffected  by  the  recession.  With  respect  to  individual  Member  States, 
estimates of the value of the PSI re-use market in the UK range from €750 million in 200515 
to €6 billion in 2010. 

In  2009,  the  Spanish  Government  analysed  a  sector  defined  as  ‘the  set  of  companies  that 
create applications, products and/or value-added services for third parties, using public sector 
information’,  including  business/economic,  legal,  geographic/cartographic,  meteorological 
data, social data/statistics and transport data. According to the results of the analysis, business 
turnover directly associated with these activities is € 550-650 million, 35-40 % of total activity 
amounting  to  € 1.6 billion,  and  the  size  of  the  sector  is  similar  to  the  video  game  software 
development industry and online advertising16.  

Although  care  needs  to  be  taken  with  these  estimates  as  they  come  from  a  wide  range  of 
sources  using  different  methodologies,  it  is  clear  that  even  the  narrow  PSI-based  market  is 

14 
15 

16 

Op.cit. Graham Vickery, July 2011 
The commercial use of public information (CUPI), Report of the UK OFT, December 2006, 
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft861.pdf 
Source: ‘Annual Report on Digital Contents in Spain 2010’, ONTSI. Data for 2009: total € 8.0 billion, 
video games (software) 8 % (€ 640 million), online advertising 8.2 % (€ 656 million): www.ontsi.red.es. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
economically important and the direct economic ‘footprint’ is probably larger due to PSI use 
and re-use activities in other industries and in government.  

On the other hand, direct revenues to governments from PSI are relatively low and are much 
lower  than  the  estimated  first-  and  second-order  benefits  from  access  to  PSI.  Upper-end 
estimates  calculated  from  the  most  comprehensive  data  available  suggest  that  EU-27 
government  revenues  are  of  the  order  of  € 1.4 billion  based  on  revenues  in  the  Netherlands, 
and even higher at around € 3.4 billion if based on the United Kingdom. These two countries 
have been relatively effective in collecting revenues, and revenues for the EU-27 are likely to 
be considerably lower. Despite the relatively low level of revenues, there are indirect effects 
of  reduced  access  and  pricing  at  more  than  marginal  costs  of  distribution,  including  lower 
growth, reduced employment and reduced dynamism of new information-based industries, in 
addition to foregone government taxation revenues from higher-growth industries.  

2.4. 

Assessment of the impact of the current Directive 

The PSI Directive has harmonised the basic legal framework for re-using PSI in the internal 
market  in  order  to  facilitate  re-use  of  PSI  across  the  EU,  where  the  Member  States  used  to 
apply markedly different rules and practices. 

New re-use friendly legislation has been introduced (BE, SE). FR has introduced the principle 
of marginal costs in its legislation and individual public sector bodies have moved towards a 
marginal  cost  regime,  e.g.  the  Spanish  land  registry,  or  drastically  reduced  their  prices,  e.g. 
the  Austrian  Mapping  Agency  (BEV),  which  reduced  its  prices  by  up  to  97 %  for  certain 
datasets. The decrease in prices has been offset by the huge increase in demand (in some cases 
by 7 000 %) and BEV’s total turnover has remained stable. 

Web  portals  on  available  PSI  as  a  tool  for  finding,  using  and  trading  information  are  being 
created, e.g. in the UK, FR, SI, ES, FIN, IT.  

In the study evaluating the impact of the Directive in three main sectors of PSI — geographic, 
meteorological  and  legal/administrative  information  —  the  different  indicators  monitored  to 
measure  PSI  re-use  highlight  market  growth  and  increased  re-use  in  all  of  these  sectors  in 
recent years17. 

In  the  geographic  sector,  download  volumes  of  PSI  in  2007  had  grown  by  approximately 
350 % since 200218, and in Germany alone the market was estimated to be € 1.5 billion, a 50 % 
increase  since  200019.  National  meteorological  offices  have  reported  increases  in  download 
volumes of 70 % between 2002 and 200720, and the EU meteorological market was estimated 
in  2006  to  be  worth  € 530  million,  a  60 %  increase  since  199821.  In  the  legal  and 
administrative sector, the majority of content holders have made significant changes to their 
data  policies  in  the  last  few  years  and  offer  the  information  now  for  free  on  the  internet. 
Content  holders  have  reported  40 %  growth  in  the  market  since  2002  and  re-users  also 

17 

18 
19 

20 
21 

Assessment  of  the  Re-use  of  Public  Sector  Information  (PSI)  in  the  Geographical  Information, 
Meteorological Information and Legal Information sectors, MICUS, 12/2008. 
Ditto. 
Study  on  ‘Prospects  for  Business  Models  of  German  Companies  in  the  European  and  Global 
Geoinformation Market’, MICUS, Düsseldorf/ Berlin, May 2008. 
Op. cit., MICUS 12/2008 Study. 
Towards  a  stronger  European  market  in  applied  meteorology,  Dr  R.  E.  W.  Pettifer,  Meteorological 
Applications, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp. 305-312. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
confirm  a  steady  increase  in  income22.  In  France,  the  legal  information  sector  is  one  of  the 
most  dynamic  sectors  in  the  professional  digital  information  market,  with  strong  market 
growth, 17 % in 2007, resulting from high value-adding23. 

In new sectors, satellite navigation has seen exponential growth during the past decade as it 
affects  many  economic  sectors  (e.g.  road  transport).  The  worldwide  annual  market  for 
positioning services and equipment climbed from €1bn in 2000 to €20bn in 2005. Recently, 
the  market  has  started  to  gather  speed.  For  example,  over  20  million  personal  navigation 
devices were sold in 2007 — a fivefold increase over 2005.  

In addition, although the main goal of the PSI Directive is of an economic nature, re-use of 
public data is also increasingly perceived as lying at the heart of democratic engagement and 
offering  potential  for  innovative  changes  in  the  delivery  of  public  services  and  for  citizen 
empowerment.  

Nevertheless,  despite  these  achievements,  implementation  of  the  Directive  and  progress  in 
PSI  re-use  across  the  Member  States  has  been  uneven  and  much  of  the  potential  of  PSI 
remains  untapped  as  many  resources  are  locked  in,  difficult  to  find  or  made  available  on 
prohibitive terms, thereby preventing development of the national and EU PSI re-use markets 
(see Annex 1).  

2.5. 

Estimated market developments 

All studies show relatively  rapid growth in PSI-related markets, no matter whether they are 
more or less open. Growth rates are estimated variously in the range of 6-11 %24.  

A  recent  study  estimates  the  total  public  sector  information  related  market  in  2008  at  €  28 
billion across the EU.25 The same study indicates that the overall economic gains from further 
opening up public sector information by allowing easy access are at around € 40 billion a year 
for the EU27. The aggregate direct and indirect economic impacts from PSI applications and 
use across the whole EU27 economy would be in the order of € 140 billion annually. 

Economic valuations also demonstrate that the direct market associated with the use of PSI is 
less  important  than  related  spillovers  and  new  uses  in  a  wide  variety  of  goods  and  services 
industries. Thus future innovations associated with easier access to PSI can be expected to add 
further economic and social benefits to the EU-27 economy26. These estimates are based on 
an  in-depth  review  and  analysis  of  the  most  viable  aggregate  studies  available  of  plausible 
values for the PSI market, the potential gains from freeing up access and estimating the wider 
economic impacts that could accrue from using PSI across the economy.27 

Recently,  an  in-depth  survey  across  the  EU-27  presented  a  picture  of  generally  dynamic 
growth  in  the  geographic  information,  meteorological  information  and  legal  information 
sectors  through  2008.  Unmet  market  demand  for  more  PSI  is  significant,  and  it  was 

22 
23 

24 
25 
26 
27 

EN 

Industries  de 

Op. cit., MICUS 12/2008 Study. 
Groupement  Français  des 
l’Information 
professionnelle en France: Le marché en 2007 et les tendances. 
Ditto. 
Review of recent studies on PSI re-use and related market developments, G. Vickery, August 2011. 
Ditto. 
Op.cit. Vickery 

(GFII),  L’information  électronique 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
recommended  that  PSI  holders  focus  on  crucial  issues  of  licensing  and  pricing  and  provide 
greater support for PSI re-use28. 

In the sub-area of environmental impact assessment studies the market was worth € 1 billion 
per  year  in  2009.  Improved  access  to  information,  saving  up  to  € 200 million  per  year, 
including  sub-national  assessments,  could  increase  market  values  by  a  factor  of  1029.  In  the 
satellite  navigation  sector,  by  2025  the  market  in  Europe  is  predicted  to  reach  € 135  billion 
and support many new jobs30. 

In  the  geospatial  sector,  benefits  could  be  increased  by  some  10-40 %,  depending  on  the 
estimation  method,  by  improving  access  and  data  standards.  Better  policies  in  the  area  of 
geospatial  applications  in  local  government  could  help  the  productivity  gains  from 
applications almost double over the next five years. Large markets are also estimated in the 
financial, energy and construction sectors31. 

PSI  is  an  important  raw  input  for  the  development  of  applications.  Even  if  North  America 
remains the lead market, the Markets and Markets report (2011) estimates that the European 
mobile  applications  market  is  expected  to  become  the  largest  market  by  2015,  at  US$  8.4 
billion, and to grow at a compound annual rate of 33.6 percent during 2010-201532.  

A  range  of  detailed  national  studies  points  to  growing  markets  and  new  applications.  For 
example  in  Denmark  the  energy  sector  indicated  that  better  access  to  PSI  could  be  of 
significant value, with the energy industry estimating that in conjunction with the construction 
industry  the  potential  national  market  for  energy  improvements  drawing  on  various 
government  data  sources  is  € 0.54-2.7 billion.  For  the  United  Kingdom  welfare  gains  to  the 
whole  economy  of  moving  to  marginal  cost  pricing  and  easier  access  were  estimated  to  be 
worth  at  the  upper  end  € 5.1-6.7  billion  per  year,  with  middle  range  estimates  of  € 1.8-2.25 
billion. Although the UK PSI access and licensing system remains somewhat different from 
other  EU-27  countries,  UK  estimates  of  the  positive  impacts  of  removing  barriers  to  access 
are likely to be a realistic proxy across the EU-27, due to the general nature of disincentives to 
use,  lack  of  information,  poor  interoperability  etc.  that  have  stifled  easy  use  of  PSI.  At  a 
different level there are quantifiable benefits in time saved in work and leisure activities from 
making information flows simpler and more efficient. In Norway, for example, time savings 
of as little as 2 hours per person per year were conservatively estimated to be worth around 
€ 32.5 million in 201033.  

Overall,  exploiting  the  potential  in  the  PSI  market  is  seen  to  require  lower  pricing  and  less 
restrictive  licensing  agreements.  Countries  including  France  and  the  United  Kingdom  have 
radically  overhauled  their  PSI  access  systems,  and  other  countries  including  Denmark, 
Norway and Spain have made access easier and less costly. A number of countries have also 

28 
29 

30 
31 
32 
33 

Ditto. 
Craglia,  M.,  L.  Pavanello  and  R.  S.  Smith  (2010),  “The  Use  of  Spatial  Data  for  the  Preparation  of 
Environmental  Reports  in  Europe”,  European  Commission  Joint  Research  Centre  Institute  for 
Environment  and  Sustainability,  Ispra,  Italy,  available  at:  http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/SDI/ 
publications/JRC_technical%20report_2009%20EIASEA%20survey.pdf 
Galileo Facts&Figures. 
Op. cit. Vickery. 
http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/mobile-applications-228.html. 
Ditto. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
stressed the international dimensions of PSI access, both in accessing international data, and 
in developing international markets for national data34. 

2.6. 

Remaining problems  

In practice, a company seeking to develop a commercial online product that draws on public 
data across all the EU Member States is likely to be confronted with the following obstacles:  

• 

Insufficient clarity and transparency 

•  Locked resources  

•  Excessive charging and lack of level playing field 

• 

• 

Insufficient enforcement of re-use provisions 

Incoherent approach across the Member States 

Despite the provisions of the Directive, practical barriers to re-use persist at different stages of 
re-use.  The  replies  to  the  public  consultation  were  a  key  source  of  information  about  these 
barriers. The following ones were most frequently listed. 

2.6.1. 

Insufficient clarity and transparency 

Although  data  portals  have  been  developing,  re-use  is  still  hindered  by  lack  of  information 
about  what  data  are  actually  available.  Further  down  the  line,  re-users  still  encounter 
restrictive  or  unclear  rules  governing  access  and  conditions  of  re-use;  discouraging,  unclear 
and inconsistent pricing of information when re-use of information is chargeable and complex 
and lengthy licensing procedures or the impossibility to obtain licences.  

In this respect, re-users responding to the consultation frequently indicated that inconsistency 
in  licensing  terms  and  standards  is  one  of  the  major  obstacles  facing  commercial  re-users, 
particularly those creating pan-European services. In a UK survey, over a third of respondents 
reported problems with PSI holders and over two thirds of these said that they were serious35. 
Among  the  problems  listed  were  the  lack  of  knowledge  about  what  information  PSI  bodies 
hold,  inability  to  obtain  PSI  in  a  sufficiently  unrefined  form  and  on  appropriate  licensing 
terms  to  make  their  products  and  services  financially  viable  (only  more  expensive  and 
sophisticated products are available)36. 

Euroalert.net is a brand owned by Gateway SCS3, focused on delivering innovative and cost-
efficient  information  services  designed  to  add  value  to  public  sector  information  generated 
within  the  framework  of  public  contracts  published  in  EU  Member  States  as  well  as  the 
information  generated  by  EU  Institutions  own  activity.  According  to  Euroalert.net  it  is  not 
always  possible  to  sign  a  license  agreement  as  some  data  holders  are  not  still  aware  about 
open  data  policies  or  are  simply  not  willing  to  release  data  for  commercial  re-use.  In  many 
cases this has been identified as the most important barrier to re-use public sector information, 
once the technical issues have been solved. 

34 
35 
36 

Ditto 
Op. cit. OFT CUPI, p. 6 
Ditto 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A specific problem arises with respect to the issue of public tasks. The scope of application of 
the  Directive  is  currently  defined  by  reference  to  activities  falling  within  the  scope  of  the 
public task of the public sector bodies concerned, as defined by law or by other binding rules 
in  the  Member  State  or,  in  the  absence  of  such  rules,  as  defined  in  line  with  common 
administrative  practice  in  the  Member  State  in  question.  The  reference  to  Member  States’ 
administrative practice for the purpose of defining what constitutes a public task has led some 
public  sector  bodies  to  refer  to  the  concept  of  public  task  in  order  to  restrict  the  scope  of 
application  of  the  Directive  and  escape  provisions  prohibiting  cross  subsidies  and  other 
preferential  treatments  in  regards  of  their  own  commercial  activities.  This  situation  of 
insecurity with respect to which data do fall within the Directive’s scope has negative impacts 
on re-use possibilities and reduces incentives for commercial re-use. 

Overall, the whole process of obtaining permission to re-use public sector information is still 
often likely to be time-consuming and bureaucratic. Indeed, as demonstrated by the findings 
of a study, small and medium-sized enterprises are likely to find the process too complex and 
shelve their product simply because they would not have the resources to follow the process 
through to conclusion37.  

In the United States access to and re-use of federal government information is enhanced by a 
clear  and  simple  legislative  framework.  Citizens  and  businesses  enjoy  a  broad  right  to 
electronically  access  this  information  and  have  extensive  possibilities  to  re-use  it  for 
commercial  purposes.  There  are  no  restrictions  on  re-using  public  sector  information 
generated  by  federal  agencies.  Fees  for  re-use  are  limited  to,  at  most,  marginal  costs  for 
reproduction and dissemination. Since 2009, 389 730 raw and geospatial datasets have been 
published and 1 019 government apps have been developed. 

2.6.2.  Locked resources 

The Directive exempts several types of data from its scope of application: data protected by 
third-party intellectual property rights, data protected under accessibility regimes and privacy 
protection  laws  and  data  from  three  excluded  sectors  of  activity  —  public  broadcasting, 
educational  and  research  establishments  and  cultural  institutions.  Of  these  exemptions,  the 
specific  feature  of  the  excluded  sectors  is  that  they  are  indeed  re-usable  public  sector 
information  and  are  already  to  a  varying  extent  subject  to  re-use,  albeit  under  unregulated 
conditions, in particular public domain cultural material.  

There were several reasons for excluding the three sectors from the scope of the Directive.  

Exclusion  of  cultural  institutions  resulted  from  the  fact  that  much  of  the  cultural  material 
remained outside the scope of the Directive due to third party IP rights. The remaining public 
domain material was predominantly in analogue formats, which in any case restricted re-use 
possibilities.  In  addition,  at  the  time  of  nascent  re-use  markets  and  related  insecurities, 
cultural  institutions  were  anxious  about  preserving  their  ability  to  control  the  way  in  which 
their  collections  were  being  used.  In  the  meantime,  digitisation  of  cultural  heritage  has 
resulted in the availability of significant amounts of valuable digital cultural material that is 
either  public  domain  or  protected  by  institutions'  own  rights  and  which  is  increasingly  re-
used,  including  in  commercial  products  such  as  smartphone  applications.  Also,  cultural 

37 

Op.cit. Deloitte 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
institutions have increasingly embraced the re-use market to raise extra funds and because re-
use contributes to the fulfilment of their main public task – dissemination of culture 

Exclusion  of  public  service  broadcasters  (PSBs)  was  mandated  by  their  special  status 
guaranteed by the system of public broadcasting, which grants PSBs exclusive competence to 
organise  the  commercial  exploitation  of  their  material,  within  the  framework  of  the  EU 
competition rules. In addition, third-party intellectual property rights (e.g. music rights) form 
an  integral  part  of  virtually  all  broadcast  material  so  nearly  all  broadcast  material  held  by 
PSBs that could potentially be suitable for the re-use would be excluded. These considerations 
have not changed since the Directive was adopted in 2003. 

Finally,  the  research  and  educational  sector  was  excluded  partly  by  virtue  of  intellectual 
property  or  other  third-party  rights  covering  much  of  the  material,  but  mainly  because  the 
research sector features its own dynamics and has a well established system for disseminating 
and exploiting research findings and results. Access to research results and scientific journals 
has  received  much  attention  from  scientists,  publishers  and  policymakers  and  is  being 
discussed  within  a  separate  channel,  different  from  the  generic  discussion  of  availability  of 
public data for re-use.  

2.6.3.  Excessive charging and lack of a level playing field 

Despite some encouraging examples of individual public sector bodies releasing their data for 
free  or  at  marginal  costs  of  distribution,  in  some  markets  re-users  complain  about  charges 
being set at a level that effectively constitutes a barrier to re-use, in particular for SMEs.  

Small companies, particularly start-up companies, cannot flourish when PSI holders practice 
prohibitive  charges.  This  criticism  was  for  example  made  by  re-users  in  the  meteorological 
sector  (see  Annex  4  for  details).  High  prices  may  result  in  a  stagnation  of  the  sector,  with 
negative consequences for national treasuries.  

Some public bodies apply a unit price that is reasonable for a single unit, but not for the entire 
database. As a consequence, the total price of the full data set is prohibitive. For instance, the 
full  database  of  CENDOJ  (in  charge  of  the  Spanish  legal  database)  would  cost  €3.4m, 
although  one  unit  (i.e.  a  single  sentence)  would  be  perfectly  affordable  at  €1.5.  The  same 
circumstance  applied  to  the  former  charging  regime  of  the  French  land  registry,  where  the 
entire digital map would have cost a re-user €5.7m (the price of a single map was €9.5) and, 
therefore, despite interest on the part of re-users, was never bought38. 

A  study  concluded  that  in  those  cases  where  cost-recovery  regimes  are  still  applied,  the 
calculation  basis  for  setting  PSI  re-use  charges  appears  to  be  weak.  The  public  bodies 
concerned were mostly unable to explain the basis for cost allocation and, in some cases, the 
setting of charges seemed to be geared towards filling budget gaps rather than a cost-oriented 
tariff as is required under the Directive39. 

Many public sector bodies do not distinguish adequately between the information for which 
they  are  the  sole  supplier  (unrefined)  and  their  information  products  and  services  to  which 
they have added value (refined), which are or could also be provided by the private sector if it 
had access to the unrefined data on suitable terms. This has a knock-on effect for pricing as 

38 
39 

Op. cit. Deloitte. 
Pricing of Public Sector Information Study, Deloitte, July 2011. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
public sector bodies fail to separate their unrefined and refined information operations, even 
at  an  accounting  level.  Costs  are  therefore  not  always  allocated  between  the  unrefined  and 
refined information operations of the public body, which cannot ensure that the prices charged 
reflect the relevant costs of their provision. It also means that it is not possible to determine 
whether  the  prices  of  unrefined  information,  for  businesses  producing  refined  information 
products,  are  consistent  with  those  charged  internally  within  a  PSI  holder  that  produces 
refined information products.  

This specific problem  arises when public sector bodies combine the exercise  of  their  public 
tasks (funded from the state budget) with commercial revenue-raising activities, which are not 
in  themselves  prohibited  by  the  PSI  Directive.  There  is  evidence  where  the  issue  has  been 
investigated  at  national  level  but  re-users  are  unlikely  to  come  forward  for  fear  of  negative 
consequences  on  their business relationship with the incumbent public  bodies. The example 
below  demonstrates  the  difficulties  that  re-users  face  in  obtaining  PSI  for  re-use  in  some 
markets. It also illustrates the reluctance to bring proceedings against public bodies that do not 
comply  with  the  re-use  provisions,  for  reasons  of  reliance  on  the  supply  of  data  from  the 
public body (a monopolist on the market) and insufficient or ineffective redress mechanisms. 

Problems  were  also  identified  in  a  UK  2006  Report,  which  found  that  a  PSI  body  had  an 
explicit licensing exception policy that prevents businesses from competing with the current 
value-added products of the PSI holder itself or with any it intends to market.40 Also in the 
UK, businesses have been unable to gain licences of sufficient length to allow them to tender 
for  a  major  government  contract  in  competition  with  the  PSIH  from  whom  they  need  the 
licences.41  

Problems  with  downstream  access  conditions  and  transparent  wholesale  pricing  were  also 
identified  with  regard  to  the  Swedish  national  mapping  agency  (monopolist  on  several 
downstream  markets)  and  the  Swedish  meteorological  and  hydrological  institute.  The 
Swedish  Agency  for  Public  Management  (Statskontoret)  found  that  private  companies  had 
difficulty  entering  the  market  for  processed  geographic  and  meteorological  information 
because  of  difficulties  in  accessing  data  from  the  two  PSI  bodies  and  of  the  lack  of  well-
defined boundaries between data production and data processing42. 

While competing with the private sector on the markets for products and services based on the 
PSI  that  they  produce  and/or  collect,  these  public  sector  bodies  tend  to  impose  pricing  and 
licensing  conditions  that  prevent  a  level  playing  field  and  ultimately  prevent  or  eliminate 
competition  on  these  markets.  The  missing  or  weak  competition  on  many  re-use  markets 
ultimately has negative impacts on the economies at large.  

2.6.4. 

Insufficient enforcement of re-use provisions 

The lack of an efficient and effective redress system was one of the major problems with the 
PSI re-use system identified by respondents to the public consultation, in particular re-users, 
citizens and experts (see Annex 2).  

40 
41 
42 

Op. cit. OFT CUPI, p. 6 
Ditto 
Competition  at  the  Public/Private  Interface,  2005  Report,  Statskontortet  (Swedish  Agency  for  Public 
Management), available at http://www.statskontoret.se/upload/Publikationer/2005/200519A.pdf  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Although  Member  States  have  functioning  general  redress  systems,  only  some  have  set  up 
specific authorities to hear complaints against public bodies infringing the rules for re-use of 
PSI. While e.g. the Slovenian43 and French44 independent authorities are exemplary insofar as 
redress systems are concerned, re-users in most Member States face cumbersome and lengthy 
proceedings ill suited for dealing with their complaints, which often require swift results. The 
lack  of  an  effective  redress  mechanism  in  some  Member  States  (time  to  decision,  effective 
competencies  of  bodies)  prevents  re-users  from  enforcing  their  rights  against  monopoly 
suppliers of PSI, leading to inefficiencies on some markets, resulting in negative impacts on 
competition  and innovation  and  ultimately on consumer welfare (see Annex 6 for examples 
on the market for meteorological information). 

In  addition,  due  to  the  differences  in  the  judicial  systems  of  individual  Member  States,  the 
plaintiffs  often  face  significant  costs  and  difficulties  in  identifying  competent  courts  or 
authorities and applicable rules of procedure, with negative impacts on the internal market for 
re-use of PSI.  

2.6.5. 

Incoherent approach across the Member States 

Implementation  and  application  of  the  Directive  and  progress  in  PSI  re-use  across  the  EU 
Member States has been uneven, thereby preventing development of a true pan-EU PSI re-use 
market  and  leaving  much  of  the  potential  of  PSI  untapped.  The  varying  pace  at  which 
individual Member States are embracing the PSI re-use  policy risks  further  fragmenting the 
internal  market  to  the  detriment  of  businesses,  consumers  and  citizens.  Examples  of 
incoherencies  abound,  e.g.  some  Member  States  practise  charging  at  marginal  costs  as  a 
default  principle;  some  have  extended  the  principle  of  re-usability  to  generally  accessible 
material;  effective  and  efficient  redress  systems  are  secured  only  in  some  Member  States; 
discoverability of public data is very unequal from one Member State to another; some data 
are re-usable in one Member State but not in another (e.g. transport data).  

These  inconsistencies  and  changing  rules  result  in  higher  transaction  costs  for  re-users 
engaging in cross-border activities, lowering the incentives  to undertake them  as companies 
cannot  develop  stable  and  sustainable  PSI-based  business  models45.  This  fragmentation 
negatively  impacts  the  ability  to  scale  up  of  national  businesses  in  the  EU  Member  States. 
When  constrained  to  operate  within  national  borders  or  only  a  number  of  Member  States, 
businesses fail to grow and the benefits of the internal market and its 500 million consumers 
remain illusionary. 

2.7. 

Subsidiarity assessment  

2.7.1.  Necessity of action at the EU level 

The PSI Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU (formerly Article 95 TEC). 
The revision will build on this legislation and the aim of the revising measure is to eliminate 
persisting  and  emerging  differences  between  Member  States  on  the  exploitation  of  public 
sector  information,  which  hamper  the  realisation  of  the  full  economic  potential  of  this 
resource. Furthermore, the objectives of the revising instrument are to facilitate the creation of 
EU-wide products and services based on PSI, to enhance an effective cross-border use of PSI 

43 
44 
45 

Information Commissioner, http://www.ip-rs.si/?id=195. 
Commission d’Accès aux Documents Administratifs, CADA, http://www.cada.fr/index.htm. 
Op. cit. Deloitte. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for value-added  products and services, to limit distortions  of  competition  on  the  EU  market 
and  to  prevent  the  deepening  of  disparities  among  Member  States  in  dealing  with  re-use  of 
PSI.  

The content of the revision corresponds to those aims. 

The economic importance of open data, and in particular of government data, as a basis for 
new information services and products is now more widely recognised than in 2002, when the 
Commission made its proposal for a Directive. While the basic framework rules for the re-use 
of  public  sector  information  have  been  harmonised  at  EU  level,  several  issues  remain  and 
some have emerged.  

As  a  result,  the  existing  legal  framework  is  considered  by  stakeholders  to  no  longer 
sufficiently  provide  conditions  that  can  maximise  the  potential  benefits  of  public  data 
resources  in  Europe.  With  the  development  of  PSI-based  activities,  some  of  the  current 
substantive rules hamper the development of activities based on re-use of PSI and lead to a 
fragmented  internal  market  as  individual  interested  Member  States  adopt  more  advanced 
rules.  It  is  thus  clear  that  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  actions  cannot  be  achieved  at  the 
Member States' level. 

2.7.2.  EU added value  

The current charging regime, based on cost maximising allowed by the rules of the Directive 
is  considered  inadequate  for  incentivising  activities  based  on  re-use  of  public  data.  In  fact, 
currently  several  Member  States  have  individually  moved  to  the  marginal  costs  charging 
regime while others have maintained the cost recovery regime (see Annex 1). Only action at 
EU level in the form of a binding harmonising provision can ensure that the default charging 
rule and exceptions are coherent across the EU in order to stimulate re-use activities. 

Moreover, in some Member States public bodies have discretion as to whether to permit re-
use46.  As  a  result,  ‘there  is  an  obvious  lack  of  harmonisation  amongst  the  Member  States 
regarding re-use of public data, which may also apply to (public) traffic data’47. Action at EU 
level is necessary to guarantee e.g. that re-use is allowed for core valuable public sector data 
across  Member  States  and  that  individual  commercially  active  public  bodies,  such  as 
meteorological  or  geographic  institutes,  do  not  hamper  the  development  of  innovative 
products and services.  

Also, difficulties with obtaining effective redress in several Member States when PSI re-use 
rules are infringed deter re-users from engaging in ambitious re-use projects across the EU.  

Further harmonisation of the basic principle, the charging regime, the scope or enforcement 
mechanisms  in  order  to  alleviate  the  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market  and  to  stimulate 
cross-border PSI-based products and services cannot be achieved at Member State level alone.  

As  regards  the  scope,  the  object  of  the  revision  is  not  to  regulate,  directly  or  indirectly,  the 
right of access to the public documents, which remains the sole and exclusive competence of 

46 

47 

UK Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005, ‘A public sector body may permit re-use’ 
(regulation 7(1)). 
Study  regarding  guaranteed  access  to  traffic  and  travel  data  and  free  provision  of  universal  traffic 
information, Lyon, 11 October 2010. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States. The revised provisions would apply to re-use of documents where these are 
generally accessible, including under national access rules. 

Also, the object of the revision is not to regulate processing of personal data by public sector 
bodies  or  the  status  of  intellectual  property  rights,  which  are  not  affected  either  in  their 
existence, ownership or exercise beyond the boundaries of the existing rules of the Directive. 

This  impact  assessment  demonstrates  that  without  targeted  action  at  EU-level,  regulatory 
activities at national level, which have already been initiated in a number of Member States, 
might  result  in  even  more  significant  differences  that  already  exist.  Those  existing  national 
provisions  will  in  the  absence  of  further  harmonisation  disturb  the  operation  of  the  internal 
market. At the same time, the EU action is restricted to the elimination or prevention of the 
identified obstacles. 

2.7.3. 

International obligations 

The  PSI  Directive  sets  conditions  for  re-use  of  PSI,  some  of  which  may  be  covered  by 
intellectual  property  rights.  By  doing  so,  the  Directive  impacts  the  way,  in  which  public 
bodies  may  exploit  their  intellectual  property  rights  but  leaves  intact  the  question  of  their 
existence  and  ownership.  As  a  result,  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Directive  must  comply 
with the international obligations of the EU in the area of intellectual property rights, and in 
particular  with  the  applicable  provisions  of  the  TRIPS  Agreements  and  of  the  Berne 
Convention,  which  set  the  boundaries  for  exceptions  or  limitations  to  intellectual  property 
rights  in  national  regimes.  These  exceptions  and  limitations  may  only  apply  if  they  do  not 
impact the normal exploitation of a work and if they do not unduly prejudice the legitimate 
interests of rightsholders. 

The  directive  presently  under  review  recognises,  when  setting  boundary  conditions  of 
fairness, transparency, non-discrimination or prohibition of exclusive arrangements, that "The 
Directive does not affect the existence or ownership of intellectual property rights of public 
sector bodies, nor does it limit the exercise of the rights in any way beyond the boundaries 
set by this Directive" [emphasis added]. This question has been developed in further detail in 
section 4.4.4 below.  

2.8. 

Conclusions on the problem 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Although  the  overall  PSI  market  is  progressing,  opening  up  PSI  by  allowing  easy 
access  at  marginal  cost  can  bring  gains  of  around  € 40  billion  for  the  EU-27,  and 
aggregate direct and indirect economic impacts from PSI applications and use across 
the  whole  EU-27  economy  are  of  the  order  of  € 140 billion,  showing  clearly  that 
there are large economic benefits to be gained from easier access to and greater use 
of PSI.  

Lack  of  clarity  and  transparency  as  well  as  persisting  restrictions  prevent  the  EU 
from  reaping  all  the  benefits  from  the  potential  in  re-use  of  PSI.  Among  the  most 
important  impediments  are:  the  lack  of  a  level  playing  field  where  public  bodies 
compete  with  the  private  sector,  excessive  pricing,  restrictive  licensing  provisions, 
lack of information on available data and insufficient redress mechanisms. 

The  varying  pace  and extent to which individual Member States are embracing  the 
PSI re-use policy and promoting a more open data culture risks further fragmenting 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
the internal market and hamper the business's ability to scale up to the detriment of 
businesses, consumers and citizens.  

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The following chart presents an overview of the general policy objectives, specific objectives 
and operational objectives. 

Stimulate job 
creation/smart 
economic growth 

Prevent distortions of 
competition on the 
EU market 

Stimulate content 
market for PSI based 
products and services 

Stimulate cross-
border exploitation of 
PSI 

Strengthen 
transparency and 
non-discrimination in 
PSI delivery 

Limit anti-
competitive 
behaviour of 
"hybrid" PSI bodies 

Reduce transaction 
costs for re-use of PSI 

Ensure wide 
availability of PSI for 
re-use  

Strengthen redress 
and enforcement 
mechanisms 

Reduce discrepancies 
in treatment of same 
data across Member 
States 

Stimulate 
standardisation of 
licensing conditions 
across Member 
States 

General Objective 

Specific Objective 

Operational Objective 

3.1. 

General objectives 

Public sector information is a key primary material for digital content products and services 
with  large  hitherto  unexploited  potential.  The  general  objective  of  this  EU  action  is  to 
contribute  to  economic  growth  and  job  creation  by  improving  the  conditions  for  the 
exploitation of PSI and facilitating the further development of the internal market for products 
and services based on its re-use. The policy of opening up PSI for re-use has also a positive 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
effect  on  transparency,  efficiency  and  accountability  of  governments  and  contributes  to 
citizen empowerment. 

The  general  objective  is  fully  in  line  with  the  EU’s  horizontal  strategies,  in  particular  the 
Commission’s  Europe  2020  Strategy  launched  on  3  March  2010  with  the  aim  of  turning 
Europe  into  a  ‘smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  economy  delivering  high  levels  of 
employment, productivity and social cohesion’48. 

One  of  the  building  blocks  of  this  new  strategy  is  the  new  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe 
(DAE)49,  which  defines  a  number  of  ‘Key  Performance  Targets’  for  attaining  the  digital 
single market. The review of the PSI Directive is one of the key actions of the Digital Agenda 
for Europe50 and has been flagged as one of the core elements to unlock the potential of the 
single market51. On 4 February 2011, the European Council invited the Commission to make 
rapid progress in key areas of the digital economy to ensure the creation of the digital single 
market by 2015, including the availability of public sector information52. 

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

The general objective of stimulating content markets based on PSI re-use leads to a number of 
specific objectives:  

(a) 

Prevent distortions of competition on the EU market 

In order to stimulate innovation and render PSI re-use attractive for businesses, re-users must 
be  able  to  operate  on  a  level  playing  field  with  incumbent  ‘hybrid’  public  sector  bodies. 
Commercial  re-users  in  particular  must  be  guaranteed  transparent  and  non-discriminatory 
treatment  and  generally  face  conditions  conducive  to  innovation  through  unrestrained 
competition.  

This objective can  be  achieved  by strengthening the transparency and non-discrimination in 
the delivery of PSI and by limiting the anti-competitive behaviour of PSI bodies. These two 
operational objectives can be achieved by imposing stricter requirements on PSI bodies with 
respect to the ways, in which PSI is made available for re-use. These requirements relate to 
the  pricing  structures  and  their  application  (indiscriminately  to  re-users  and  to  own 
commercial  activities),  the  burden  of  proving  compliance  of  the  pricing  structure  with  the 
rules of the Directive in case of conflict with a re-user. These objectives will be reflected in 
the monitoring indicators discussed further in section 6.  

(b) 

Stimulate the digital content market for PSI based products and services 

The objective of stimulating economic growth and job creation through PSI re-use will not be 
attained unless several conditions along the chain of exploitation of PSI, both commercial and 
non-commercial, are fulfilled. In particular, there must be data to re-use and the PSI Directive 
aims  to  unlock  as  much  PSI  as  possible,  including,  if  appropriate,  in  the  sectors  hitherto 

48 

49 
50 
51 

52 

See  Communication  from  the  Commission:  Europe  2020  —  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and 
inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020, 3.3.2010. 
See http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm. 
Ditto. 
Letter from President Barroso to the Members of the European Parliament, issued in parallel with the 
State of the European Union speech to the plenary, MEMO/10/393, Brussels, 7 September 2010. 
Conclusions of the European Council (4 February 2011), EUCO 2/11, CO EUR 2, CONCL 1. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
excluded from the scope of application of the Directive but where re-use is practised. Those 
data  must  then  actually  be  discoverable  and  effectively  available,  so  licensing  terms  and 
pricing conditions as well as data formats, where applicable, must allow and facilitate every 
type of re-use. In addition, for re-use to be advantageous for businesses and consumers alike, 
transaction  costs,  including  financial  (fees)  and  non-financial  costs  (e.g.  formats,  licensing 
conditions),  must  remain  as  low  as  possible.  Finally,  in  case  of  conflict,  re-users  must  be 
granted an efficient and effective redress mechanism to be able to enforce the rights stemming 
from  the  PSI  Directive.  These  objectives  will  be  reflected  in  the  monitoring  indicators 
discussed further in section 6.  

(c) 

Stimulate cross-border exploitation of PSI 

A  true  and  thriving  internal  market  for  PSI  re-use  will  not  emerge  unless  regulatory  and 
practical barriers to re-use across the EU are removed. This is particularly important in view 
of the fact that businesses in the EU face scalability problems due in part to language barriers 
but mainly to regulatory divergences across Member States. In order to enable them to expand 
beyond  national  borders  and  compete  at  EU  and  global  level,  the  barriers  to  the  internal 
market for re-use of PSI must be abolished.  

The ultimate aim is therefore to ensure that, where possible, the same types of commercially 
or non-commercially valuable data are not only available, but are available on similar, if not 
the  same,  terms  and  conditions,  thus  significantly  reducing  transaction  costs  and  legal 
uncertainty  and  providing  incentives  for  businesses  and  consumers  to  invest  and  innovate 
across  Member  States,  thereby  removing  the  obstacles  to  the  full  realisation  of  the  internal 
market for re-use of PSI.  

3.3. 

Operational objectives 

For  each  of  the  specific  objectives  presented  above,  a  number  of  operational  objectives  or 
‘measures’ can be identified.  

Specific objective 

Operational objectives  

-Strengthen transparency and non-discrimination in PSI delivery 

-Limit anticompetitive behaviour of ‘hybrid’ public sector bodies 

Objective 
Prevent 
1: 
distortions of competition on 
the EU market 

Objective  2:  Stimulate  the 
digital  content  market  for 
and 
PSI-based 
services 

products 

Objective 3: Stimulate cross-

-Reduce transaction costs for re-use of PSI 

-Ensure wide re-usability of public sector material 

-Strengthen redress and enforcement mechanisms 

-Limit anticompetitive behaviour of ‘hybrid’ public sector bodies 

-Stimulate standardisation of licensing conditions 

-Reduce  discrepancies  in  treatment  of  same  type  of  data  across 
Member States 

-Reduce  discrepancies  in  treatment  of  same  type  of  data  across 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
Specific objective 

Operational objectives  

border exploitation of PSI 

Member States 

-Stimulate  standardisation  of  licensing  conditions  across  Member 
States 

-Strengthen redress and enforcement mechanisms 

3.4. 

Consistency of PSI policy objectives with other EU policies  

The PSI Directive aims to promote the widest possible availability of PSI for commercial and 
non-commercial re-use to stimulate content markets and create new jobs.  

The objectives of the PSI Directive are consistent with horizontal EU objectives, including the 
Europe  2020  Strategy,  liberalisation  of  services  of  general  interest  and  the  promotion  of 
democratic  principles.  The  PSI  Directive  is  also  in  line  with  other  EU  policies,  not  least  in 
several  specific  areas  such  as  environmental  policy,  common  transport  policy  and  EU 
competition  rules.  It  also  aims  at  fostering  the  European  economy  in  times  of  crisis  in  line 
with the EU policy on long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering economy. 

3.4.1.  PSI  policy  and  EU  objectives  of  a  horizontal  nature  such  as  the  Europe  2020 

Strategy and promoting democratic principles 

One of the objectives of the PSI re-use policy is to contribute to business and job creation by 
enabling  new  products  and  services  to  emerge  based  on  the  exploitation  of  public  sector 
resources on transparent, effective and non-discriminatory terms. In this way, the PSI policy 
contributes  to  the  employment  and  innovation  objectives  laid  down  in  the  Europe  2020 
Strategy.  

Making  public  all  generally  available  documents  held  by  public  sector  bodies  is  a 
fundamental instrument for enhancing participatory democracy. Although the main objective 
of the PSI re-use policy is of an economic nature, the policy also promotes the widest possible 
access  to  information  —  a  prerequisite  for  re-use  —  and  thus  contributes  to  the  wider  EU 
policy of promoting democratic principles.  

3.4.2.  PSI policy and the EU rules competition rules 

One of the aims of the PSI Directive is to limit distortions of competition on the EU market 
and thus to create a level playing field for all potential re-users of PSI. 

In this regard, particular provisions of the PSI Directive constitute a specific formulation of 
the more general EU rules on competition, namely Article 10(2), which bans cross-subsidies, 
and Article 11, prohibiting (with exceptions) exclusive agreements.  

3.4.3.  PSI policy and open data policy 

The  Commission  has  been  at  the  forefront  of  open  data  development  through  a  series  of 
initiatives, in particular the PSI Directive, but also our action on scientific information and the 
re-use of cultural material (Europeana). The goals of the Commission’s open data strategy are 
to  (1)  encourage  the  public  sector  across  the  EU  to  embrace  the  open  data  concept,  (2) 
increase transparency and administrative efficiency by releasing public data for re-use, and (3) 
create optimal conditions for innovation and business development based on re-use.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
The PSI Directive and its revision is the main regulatory cornerstone of the open data policy. 

3.4.4.  PSI policy and environmental policy 

The  PSI  Directive,  together  with  Directive  2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to  environmental 
information (the Aarhus Directive) and Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for 
Spatial Information in the EU (INSPIRE), form a set of EU measures aimed at ensuring the 
widest possible dissemination of certain information held by public bodies. These Directives, 
although not sharing common immediate objectives, complement one another and pursue the 
common objective of greater transparency and availability of public data.  

3.4.4.1.  The PSI Directive and the Directive on public access to environmental information 

The Directive on public access to environmental information contributes to greater awareness 
of  environmental  matters,  the  free  exchange  of  views,  more  effective  participation  by  the 
public in environmental decision-making, and, ultimately, a better environment. It contributes 
to  the  Commission’s  policy  on  the  re-use  of  PSI  as  wide  access  to  information  is  a 
precondition  for  its  re-use  and  environmental  data  constitute  a  very  important  source  of 
information for the creation of new products and services.  

3.4.4.2.  The PSI Directive and the INSPIRE Directive 

Concerning  the  sharing  of  data  between  public  authorities  when  they  are  performing  their 
public tasks, the two measures are perfectly complementary since they cover similar subject 
matter but have distinct scopes of application.  

Concerning public access to spatial information, the INSPIRE Directive, in relation to the PSI 
Directive,  plays  a  similar  role  to  that  of  the  Directive  on  public  access  to  environmental 
information and contributes to re-use policy. 

The  PSI  Directive  is  of  crucial  importance  for  the  much-needed  overall  coherence  of  the 
forthcoming  Shared  Environmental  Information  System,  of  which  the  PSI  Directive  is  a 
building block. 

3.4.5.  PSI policy and the integrated maritime policy 

In September 2010 the Commission issued a Communication to the European Parliament and 
the  Council  —  Marine  Knowledge  2020  —  aimed  at  unlocking  the  potential  of  Europe’s 
marine knowledge. The three-pronged approach, seeking to make it easier and less costly to 
use marine data, foster competitiveness among marine data users and enhance understanding 
of Europe’s seas and oceans, is consistent with and reinforces the Commission’s policy for re-
use of PSI. 

3.4.6.  PSI policy and the common transport policy 

One  of  the  40  initiatives  put  forward  in  the  new  Transport  White  Paper53  is  creating  the 
framework  conditions  to  promote  the  development  and  use  of  intelligent  systems  for 
interoperable  and multimodal  scheduling, information, online reservation systems and smart 

53 

White  Paper:  Roadmap  to  a  Single  European  Transport  Area  —  Towards  a  competitive  and  resource 
efficient transport system, COM(2011) 144 final, 28.3.2011. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ticketing. This could include a legislative proposal to ensure that private service providers can 
access travel and real-time traffic information. 

This  initiative  is  directly  related  to  the  Action  Plan54  for  the  Deployment  of  Intelligent 
Transport Systems (ITS) for road transport and its interfaces with other modes, adopted by the 
Commission  in  December  2008,  and  to  Directive  2010/40/EU55  of  7  July  2010  on  the 
framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport 
and for interfaces with other modes of transport. These two instruments aim to speed up and 
coordinate  the  deployment  of  ITS  applications,  including  EU-wide  real-time  traffic 
information services and EU-wide travel information services. 

Under Directive 2010/40/EU, the Commission will adopt binding specifications inter alia for 
‘the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services’ and for ‘the provision of EU-
wide  travel  information  services’  to  address  the  provision  of  traffic  regulation  data  by  the 
transport authorities and guaranteed access for private companies to relevant public data. 

Such specifications, but also a possible follow-up legislative proposal to ensure access to and 
re-use  of  public  transport  information,  could  contribute  significantly  to  the  Commission’s 
policy on the re-use of PSI, by extending the area in which citizens or companies would have 
the  right  to  access  specific  transport  information  (new  sources  of  information  for  new 
products and services based on particularly dynamic content related to e.g. road traffic data or 
public  transport  data)  and  re-use  it.  This  objective  is  in  line  with  the  objectives  of 
Commission policy on re-use of PSI.  

3.4.7.  PSI policy and the initiative on open access to scientific information 

The Commission’s objective in the area of scientific information is to maximise the benefits 
of  information  technologies  (internet,  supercomputing  networks,  data  mining)  for  better 
access to and easier re-use of scientific knowledge. ‘Open access’ policies pursue the goal of 
making  scientific  articles  and  research  data  freely  accessible  to  the  reader  on  the  web.  The 
Commission  intends  to  take  steps  to  promote  access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific 
information,  including  publications  and  data  arising  from  research  projects  funded  from  the 
EU budget.  

The  Commission’s  objectives  in  this  area  are  very  closely  in  line  with  those  of  the  PSI 
Directive  in  the  sense  that  both  aim  towards  making  public  information  more  widely 
accessible and available in Europe for re-use. 

3.4.8.  PSI policy and the policy on digitisation and cultural heritage 

The  digitisation  of  cultural  collections  makes  knowledge  resources  from  Europe’s  cultural 
institutions  —  books,  maps,  audio,  films,  manuscripts,  museum  objects,  etc.  —  more  easily 
accessible  to  all  for  work,  study  and  leisure.  At  the  same  time  digitisation  turns  these 
resources  into  a  lasting  asset  for  the  digital  economy,  creating  huge  opportunities  for 
innovation. The real exploitation of digital cultural assets is still embryonic, though. Business 
models are being explored and commercial activities are just starting. The goals of ensuring 
wide  availability  of  public  sector  information  (the  PSI  Directive)  and  of  putting  digitised 

54 
55 

COM(2008) 886 final/2 — Corrigendum of 20.3.2009. 
OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 1. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
cultural  assets  at  the  disposal  of  creative  and  innovative  businesses  (digitisation  policy)  are 
entirely consistent and mutually reinforcing.  

3.4.9.  PSI  policy  and  the  long-term  sustainability  of  public  finances  for  a  recovering 

economy 

The 2010 Commission's Communication on the long-term sustainability of public finances for 
a recovering economy calls on the Member Sates to reduce their debt ratios by adjusting their 
policies  to  the  Stockholm  strategy.  This  strategy  includes  (i)  deficit  and  debt  reduction,  (ii) 
increases in employment rates and (iii) reforms of social protection systems.  

The PSI policy aims at fostering growth and innovation. Opening up of public sector data is 
an opportunity for business to create new products and services. It promotes new technologies 
and  entrepreneurial  culture  within  the  European  companies.  The  PSI  policy  also  aims  at 
reduction of administrative burden and in that regard at cutting administrative spending.  

In  certain  situations  the  PSI  policy  may  have  consequences  for  national  budgets,  notably 
resulting from the revised charging policy of the PSI Directive. However, the  medium-term 
gains  from  opening  up  of  public  data,  including  higher  tax-returns,  outweigh  any  possible 
direct loss of revenue. Therefore the PSI policy is fully in line with the EU financial policy for 
a recovering economy. 

4. 

ALTERNATIVE POLICY OPTIONS 

This section examines a range of options for addressing the problems highlighted in previous 
sections. Apart from repealing the Directive (also considered below) the options broadly fall 
into  two  categories,  i.e.  options  involving  maintaining  the  current  provisions  and  options 
involving changes ranging from simple technical ‘tweaks’ to substantial amendments. For the 
purposes of this impact assessment these options will be grouped as follows: 

(1)  No policy change: maintaining the current approach without changes (baseline) 

(2)  Discontinuing existing EU action: repeal of the PSI Directive 

(3)  Soft law measures in the form of guidance/recommendations 

(4)  Amendments to the PSI Directive 

(5)  Packaged solution consisting of:  

(a)  Soft law measures 

(b)  Amendments to the PSI Directive. 

4.1. 

Option 1: No policy change: no changes to the Directive (baseline) 

In 2009, after the first review of the Directive, the Commission concluded that the progress 
made and implementation of the Directive were uneven and identified a number of remaining 
barriers. As evidence on the impact, effects and application of the Directive was insufficient, 
the Commission decided to carry out another review by 2012 to consider whether legislative 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
amendments  are  necessary,  taking  into  consideration  the  progress  made  in  the  meantime  in 
the Member States. 

For  the  purposes  of  re-use  of  public  sector  information,  this  option  of  ‘no  policy  change’ 
would  mean  that  the  current  provisions  of  the  Directive  would  remain  applicable  and  their 
national transposition instruments would have to be applied. 

4.2. 

Option 2: Discontinuing existing EU action: repeal of the PSI Directive 

The PSI Directive has set the basic conditions for PSI re-use throughout the EU and has led to 
a  change  in  policies  and  legislation  in  the  Member  States.  Without  the  Directive,  Member 
States would be free to repeal or amend national implementing legislations on PSI re-use.  

This particular option would effectively result in the removal of all the regulatory obligations 
currently contained in the Directive and the national transposing instruments.  

4.3. 

Option 3: Soft law measures 

These  instruments,  e.g.  Commission  guidelines  or  recommendations,  would  provide 
additional information and/or interpretation of some of the provisions of the PSI Directive, i.e. 
Article 5 on available formats (guidance on machine readable formats), Article 6 on charging 
(guidance  on  the  cost  calculations  )  and  Article  8  on  licenses  (guidance  on  recommended 
licensing conditions). Awareness raising actions are not considered under this option because 
the ongoing action (e.g. ePSI Platform) will continue to be deployed and perhaps new actions 
will be launched notwithstanding the result of the current review of the legislative framework. 

Some 65% of respondents to the consultation who answered the question about the need for 
soft law measures were in favour.  

Respondents  in  all  categories  suggested  that  soft  law  measures  in  the  form  of  guidance  or 
recommendations  could  be  adopted  for  e.g.  licensing  models,  technical  formats,  price 
calculations (including for calculating marginal costs). Respondents also generally called for 
more  awareness-raising  actions,  including  exchange  of  best  practices,  expertise,  and 
experience to connect exemplary public sector bodies with those that have not yet made their 
data available. The following individual soft law measures can be envisaged. 

4.3.1.  Guidelines on licensing  

Currently, the market indicates that licensing conditions remain one of the main obstacles to 
PSI re-use. Indeed, not only re-users, but also PSI bodies indicated in the public consultation 
that  they  would  welcome  guidance  on  suitable  licensing  conditions  as  overly  restrictive 
licensing conditions traditionally practised by a large number of public bodies are one of the 
major barriers to the development of businesses based on re-use of public information. 

However,  imposing  top-down  binding  legislative  measures  relating  to  concrete  licensing 
models  is  first  of  all  objectionable  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and, 
secondly, unsuitable in this case as it is paramount to ensure that licensing regimes can adapt 
to the necessary evolution on the PSI market and to the diversity of data, the re-use of which 
may be subject to licensing. As a result, the Commission should give preference to indicating 
in the Directive that a set of guidelines on licensing conditions would be developed within a 
separate dedicated process, in collaboration with all interested stakeholders. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
The  guidelines  would  not  apply  as  default  rules;  rather  they  would  provide  a  frame  of 
reference  and  PSI  bodies  would  be  encouraged  to  follow  the  guidelines,  unless  they  have 
reasonable  grounds  for  doing  otherwise  (‘comply  or  explain’  principle).  In  addition,  to 
increase  their  effectiveness,  Member  States  should  be  advised  to  set  up  audit  mechanisms, 
whereby the decisions by PSI bodies in the above areas would be monitored. 

Such  guidance  would  therefore  directly  help  to  address  the  problem  of  a  major  practical 
barrier to re-use and contribute to achieving the objectives of stimulating development of the 
market for PSI re-use and the cross-border exploitation of PSI. 

4.3.2.  Guidelines on cost calculation for allowable charges  

Guidelines on cost calculations would define the types of costs that can be taken into account 
for  calculating  fees  for  re-use  based  on  marginal  costs  and  on  cost  recovery.  In  addition,  a 
recommended  definition  of  what  constitutes  a  reasonable  return  on  investment  would  be 
provided.  

PSI bodies in particular, but also re-users and academics, frequently listed guidance on cost 
calculation  as  necessary  and  important.  In  the  absence  of  such  guidance,  many  PSI  bodies 
(even  those  with  some  re-use  experience)  face  uncertainties  about  how  to  comply  with  the 
charging  provisions  of  the  Directive.  PSI  re-users  on  the  other  hand  relate  that  there  are 
significant  differences  in  pricing  structures  of  public  bodies  stemming  from  differing 
interpretations of e.g. marginal costs or reasonable return on investment. According to the re-
users,  theses  differences  have  a  negative  impact  on  re-use  transactions  and  ultimately  on 
incentives  to  undertake  re-use  activities  as  re-users  are  unable  to  make  informed  business 
decisions. 

These  guidelines  would  facilitate  application  of  the  maximum  allowable  charging  rules  laid 
down  by  the  Directive.  They  would  enhance  legal  certainty  for  re-users  and  public  bodies 
alike, increasing the incentives for the former to undertake re-use activities and for the latter 
to make their data available and enter into contractual agreements for the supply of their data.  

Similarly  to  the  envisaged  guidance  on  licensing  conditions,  the  Commission  should  give 
preference to indicating in the Directive that a set of guidelines on cost calculation would be 
developed  within  a  separate  dedicated  process,  in  collaboration  with  all  interested 
stakeholders. The guidance would address an important issue signalled by stakeholders while 
at  the  same  time  respecting  the  principle  of  proportionality  by  preserving  the  flexibility  of 
public sector bodies, which face many different constraints in terms of funding and structure. 

4.3.3.  Guidance on data formats 

One  of  the  most  frequently  made  suggestions  by  all  categories  of  respondents  during  the 
consultation on the review of the Directive was a plea for a requirement to be introduced to 
make PSI available in machine-readable formats wherever possible. 

The current drafting of the provision on available formats encourages public service bodies to 
make  their  documents  available  in  any  pre-existing  format  or  language,  through  electronic 
means where possible and appropriate. 

The  development  of  ICT  technologies  has  vastly  contributed  to  the  development  of  PSI  re-
use.  A  lot  of  data  is  re-used  for  the  purpose  of developing dematerialised  products,  such  as 
apps  with  public  bodies  collecting  and/or  producing  their  data  in  a  digital  format  (‘born 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
digital’  data).  The  utility  and  attractiveness  of  public  data  significantly  increases  if  it  is 
supplied in re-use friendly formats, e.g. machine-readable. 

Guidance  on  formats  would  clarify  the  meaning  of  electronic  formats  in  the  existing 
Directive,  recommending  the  use  of  machine-readable  as  the  most  re-use  friendly  formats. 
Even though it would be less effective than imposing the use of machine-readable formats in 
the  Directive  itself,  such  guidance,  if  applied,  would  contribute  to  stimulating  the  digital 
content market by facilitating the re-use of supplied data.  

The  above  guidance  can  be  issued  either  in  the  form  of  guidelines  or  in  the  form  of  a 
recommendation. The choice of the most suitable instrument will be made at the time of the 
elaboration of the guidelines depending on the exact objectives of the instrument. 

4.4. 

Option 4: Legislative amendments 

This option involves amending the text of the Directive in a way that affects the substance, i.e. 
the rights and obligations established by its provisions. Among such legislative options are: (i) 
extending  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  the  currently  excluded  sectors  (cultural,  educational 
and research establishments as well as public service broadcasters); (ii) establishing a rule of 
charging  based  on  marginal  costs,  possibly  with  exceptions;  (iii)  amending  the  general 
principle  to  make  accessible  documents  re-usable;  (iv)  requiring  data  to  be  published  in 
machine-readable  formats;  (v)  requiring  an  independent  regulator  to  be  appointed  and  an 
effective and efficient redress mechanism to be set up; (vi) reversing the burden of proof of 
compliance with charging requirements; (vii) requiring the scope of public task to be defined 
by  legislative  means  only.  Individual  measures  envisaged  under  this  option  are  analysed 
below. 

Of the 70 % of respondents to the consultation who are in favour of amending the Directive, 
some 79 % favour substantive amendments. The options listed above were among the topics 
most frequently suggested by stakeholders for possible amendments or refer to the problems 
most frequently indicated by respondents. 

4.4.1.  Obligation to define the scope of public tasks by legislation 

In a number of cases public bodies collect information as a public task, operate as monopoly 
wholesale  suppliers  to  commercial  re-users  of  their  information  and  often  at  the  same  time 
sell  to  the  public  products  based  on  their  information  (with  possible  added  value),  in  direct 
competition with their commercial customers.  

Activities  falling  outside  the  public  task  are  subject  to  the  requirements  of  the  Directive, 
which also contains a rule intended to distinguish public task activities from commercial ones. 
Practice  shows  that  the  rule,  which  leaves  such  delineation  to  either  legislation  or 
administrative practice, creates a great deal of confusion and allows commercial activities of 
public sector bodies to escape the re-use conditions. It is generally considered to be one of the 
main points of the Directive that need clarification. 

The organisation of public bodies and the scope of their activities vary widely in the Member 
States. It would be very difficult to find a single all-embracing definition of public tasks that 
could deal satisfactorily with this variety.  

Member States should therefore be required to define the scope of the public task activities of 
their public sector bodies in a binding way and to make this definition public. This could be 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
done  in  a  variety  of  ways  —  as  general  legislation  or  through  decisions  applying  to  a 
particular sector or type of public body, or a series of individual decisions, in accordance with 
the constitutional and other legal rules applying to the organisation of the public sector in the 
Member State. The reference to ‘administrative practice’ as a way of defining the scope of the 
public task is not precise or transparent and should be removed.  

This requirement will facilitate the application of the Directive as the re-use conditions that it 
imposes relate to the supply of documents outside the fulfilment of a body’s public task. As 
such, it will increase legal certainty for operators - both public and private- engaged in re-use 
activities and will limit any practice of artificially inflating the scope of a body’s public task 
and  distorting  the  spirit  of  the  Directive.  This  approach  is  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity.  

4.4.2.  Obligation  to  deliver  data  in  machine-readable  formats  where  possible  and 

appropriate 

One  of  the  most  frequently  made  suggestions  by  all  categories  of  respondents  during  the 
consultation on the review of the Directive was a plea for introducing a requirement to make 
PSI available in machine-readable formats wherever possible. 

The current drafting of the provision on available formats encourages public service bodies to 
make  their  documents  available  in  any  pre-existing  format  or  language,  through  electronic 
means where possible and appropriate. 

Different types of PSI may need to be made available in different formats, depending on the 
type  of  information  being  provided,  and  technical  developments  may  soon  render  any 
imposed format choice obsolete. A more general requirement should therefore be introduced 
whereby public bodies have to provide data in machine-readable formats, wherever possible 
and appropriate. This amendment in fact clarifies what is meant by electronic formats and it is 
particularly  important  in  view  of  the  fact  that  most  public  material  is  born  digital.  Such  an 
amendment would not be without precedent in the Member States, e.g. in late 2010 the UK 
announced  that  the  UK  Freedom  of  Information  Act  would  be  amended  so  that  all  data 
released must be in a re-usable and machine-readable format.  

This amendment will help stimulate the digital content market by facilitating re-use. It is an 
effective and efficient measure as it is likely to achieve the desired effect of facilitating the re-
use of PSI, significantly lowering transaction costs without at the same time exposing public 
sector bodies to recurring costs. It is linked to the need for ‘soft law’ measures to stimulate a 
European approach on what format to use. 

4.4.3.  Extending the scope of the Directive 

4.4.3.1.  Extending the scope to public service broadcasters 

Public service broadcasters (PSBs) enjoy special status defined exclusively by each Member 
State  pursuant  to  the  Amsterdam  Protocol  on  the  system  of  public  broadcasting.  The  PSI 
Directive should not interfere with the remit as defined in the status thus granted to the PSBs. 
Applying  the  rules  of  the  PSI  Directive  setting  the  conditions  under  which  PSBs  would  be 
required to grant access to their content for the purpose of re-use would overlap not only with 
this  remit,  but  also  with  their  competence  to  organise  the  commercial  exploitation  of  the 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
remit, within the framework of the EU competition rules, including the rules on State aid and 
the 2009 Broadcasting Communication. 

Secondly,  third-party  intellectual  property  rights  (e.g.  music  rights)  form  an  integral  part  of 
virtually all broadcast material, i.e. not only of acquired or commissioned productions but also 
of programme material produced entirely by the PSB itself. Given that the PSI Directive does 
not  apply  to  material  covered  by  third-party  IPRs,  this  would  effectively  exclude  nearly  all 
broadcast material held by PSBs that could be potentially suitable for the re-use intended by 
the re-use provisions. Furthermore, allowing commercial re-use of broadcast material would 
require  a  transfer  of  rights  from  a  large  number  of  rightholders  who  contributed  to  creating 
such material, and requiring broadcasters to make available their material would cause serious 
difficulties and generate very high, if not prohibitive, costs56. 

The limited application of the rules of the Directive due to the exclusion of material protected 
by third-party IPRs and the special status of the PSBs would significantly reduce the expected 
benefits of extension. In fact, the measure would be ineffective as extension would result in 
little material being subject to re-use provisions. Moreover, the option would be inefficient as 
the costs for rights clearance of the material held by PSBs would be significant.  

In view of the above, the baseline option of no changes to the Directive is preferred and 
accordingly  the  scope  of  the  Directive  should  not  be  extended  to  public  service 
broadcasters.  

4.4.3.2.  Extending the scope to the educational and research sector 

Data  generated  by  public  bodies  in  the  research  and  educational  sector  comprise  scientific 
data  (observational,  experimental  data,  databases);  scientific  publications;  output  of 
educational establishments such as theses, lectures, conference proceedings; patents as well as 
unpublished  material  or  ‘grey  literature’  (which  includes  pre-prints  and  non-refereed 
publications). This sector also comprises collections of memory institutions such as university 
or  other  educational  libraries.  The  digital  age  has  presented  the  research  sector  with  new 
opportunities and there is widespread recognition that data are a valuable long-term resource. 
Sharing them and making them publicly available is essential if the potential value associated 
with their re-use is to be realised. 

Much  of  the  research  and  educational  material  is  outside  the  scope  of  the  PSI  Directive  by 
virtue of the exclusion of material covered by intellectual property or other third-party rights. 
In addition, although IPR protection does not extend as far as pure research data, which do not 
fulfil all the necessary protection criteria, there are often unclear boundaries between different 
types of data and the status of third-party rights to them. As a result, it is often unclear what 
data would fall within and what remain outside the scope of the PSI Directive. Also, there are 
considerable  differences  in  researchers’  attitudes,  patterns  of  behaviour  and  needs  or  in  the 
existence and robustness of available infrastructure. As a result, the burden of clarifying the 
status of these data for the purpose of making them available for re-use under the rules of the 
PSI Directive exceeds the expected benefits.  

Furthermore, the research sector features its own dynamic and has a well established system 
for disseminating and exploiting research findings and results. Access to research results and 

56 

Response of the EBU to the online consultation of stakeholders. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
scientific  journals  is  receiving  much  attention  from  scientists,  publishers  and  policymakers 
and  is  discussed  within  the  Open  Access  debate.  That  discussion  channel  is  separate  and 
different  from  the  generic  discussion  of  availability  of  public  data  for  re-use  and  it  takes 
account  of  all  the  specificities  and  limitations  of  the  sector  in  a  way  which  is  not  possible 
under the generic PSI debate. 

In  view  of  the  specificities  and  limitations  of  the  research  sector,  the  question  of 
availability  of  research  data  is  best  addressed  through  the  ongoing  parallel  initiatives, 
and the scope of the PSI Directive should not be extended to this sector.  

However, the above arguments do not apply to the public domain collections of university and 
other educational institutions’ libraries (excluding holdings of research data). Such collections 
in  no  way  differ  from  those  of  other  cultural  institutions  that  are  not  part  of  larger  research 
establishments.  University  libraries  and  other  libraries  alike  are  in  fact  memory  institutions 
and  there  is  no  justification  for  not  applying  the  rules  of  the  Directive  to  the  same  type  of 
material  irrespective  of  where  it  is  stored.  As  a  result,  the  non-research  collections  of 
university and other educational institutions’ libraries should be brought within the scope of 
the Directive in the same way as the collections of other cultural institutions  

There also remains the problem of the boundaries of the exclusion of research establishments 
from the scope of the Directive. Some public sector bodies combine research activities with 
carrying out a public task (e.g. collection of meteorological data or statistics) and undertaking 
commercial activities on the downstream market of PSI-based products and services. Some of 
these  public  bodies  claim  immunity  from  the  rules  of  the  PSI  Directive  based  on  their 
designation  as  research  institutions  in  their  statutes.  It  should  not  be  possible  to  distort  the 
spirit of the exclusion of the research sector by simply describing any type of public body as a 
research institute when, in fact, the data it produces or collects are the type of data that the PSI 
Directive seeks to make available for re-use (e.g. meteorological data).  

Defining ‘research  institutes’  at  EU  level  appears  disproportionate to the problem identified 
and would be unlikely to withstand scrutiny under the subsidiarity principle. Moreover, it is 
most  likely  an  impossible  endeavour  given  the  differences  in  traditions  within  the  Member 
States. However, the PSI Directive should state that Member States may not use the mere 
term of research institute to artificially limit the scope of application of the PSI Directive 
to  data  that  are  not  excluded  by  virtue  of  the  exclusion  of  educational  and  research 
establishments. 

4.4.3.3.  Extending the scope to the cultural sector  

The  cultural  sector  as  defined  in  the  Directive  includes  museums,  libraries,  archives, 
orchestras,  operas,  ballets  and  theatres.  This  is  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  institutions  and  the 
exclusion applies to all public sector bodies that fulfil a mission of a cultural nature. Cultural 
institutions hold vast amounts of material valuable for re-use under the terms of the Directive. 
In addition, cultural institutions are becoming increasingly involved in the creation of content 
associated with Web 2.0 and social networking activities. There is also growing recognition of 
underexploited demand in the area of family history/genealogy.  

In the first review of the Directive in 2009, the Commission concluded that its scope should 
not  be  extended  at  that  moment  in  time.  This  conclusion  was  based  on  the  finding  that  the 
administrative burden of extension and the associated costs would not be outweighed by the 
potential  benefits  as  a  large  part  of  the  material  held  by  these  institutions  was  covered  by 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
third-party  intellectual  property  rights,  and  would  therefore  in  any  case  not  fall  within  the 
scope  of  the  Directive.  This  latter  argument  was  backed  by  the  results  of  a  study57  which 
concluded that while ‘PSI held by the cultural sector has a significant potential value for re-
users,  the  advantages  of  including  cultural  heritage  institutions  within  the  scope  of  the 
Directive are currently difficult to assess and require further investigation over time.’ 

At  the  same  time,  the  study  also  found  that  re-use  was  practised  by  the  cultural  institutions 
with  ‘32 %  of  respondents  charg[ing]  for  licences  to  re-use  content,  showing  a  tendency 
among some cultural bodies to distinguish between access and (commercial) re-use in their 
charging  policies.’ The study concluded moreover that the perceived practical and financial 
disadvantages for cultural institutions of extending the scope of the Directive to the cultural 
sector  should  not  be  allowed  in  the  longer  term  to  outweigh  the  possible  advantages  to  the 
wider economy, industry and society and that large-scale digitisation combined with enhanced 
information technology for accessing content may well create conditions where competition 
factors in relation to re-use become more evident.  

In  2010,  the  Commission  launched  a  study  to  assess  the  importance  of  re-use  in  terms  of 
revenues  for  cultural  institutions  and  to  estimate  trends  in  the  development  of  the  re-use 
market  for  cultural  material.  The  study,  covering  a  sample  of  selected  cultural  institutions, 
indicates that very few of them depend on the income they receive from re-use to enable them 
to undertake their public task. The study also found that the income they receive from re-use 
is  in  many  cases  essential  to  enable  future  re-use  and  development  of  services.  In  addition, 
according  to  the  results  of  the  study,  the  approach  that  institutions  have  taken  appears  to 
depend on a very wide range of intrinsic and extrinsic factors — from the strategy of the State 
they are located in, through the nature of the collections, right down to the personalities of the 
people involved at an institution.  

The institution (in the overall sample) with the highest income from re-use generated ~€10m 
in 2009, representing 7.1 % of total income. The institution with the highest share of income 
from re-use generated ~€6m, representing 11.1 % of total income. The institutions that view 
re-use as a significant element of their operations and generate income typically in the range 
of 2-10 % of their gross income (in the range of hundreds of thousands to millions of euros) 
comprise the large national institutions. This is unsurprising, given that they have the largest 
and  best-known  collections,  and  they  have  the  administrative  capability  to  manage  the 
exploitation  of  this  material.  These  institutions  are  also  most  likely  to  undertake  third-party 
re-use, by licensing entire collections to an external organisation that undertakes digitisation 
and then generates income. This income is then used to fund the staff time and effort that is 
required to prepare further collections for digitisation and re-use. 

The  study  also  shows  that  there  are  considerable  variations  in  range  of  income  from  re-use 
generated  by  cultural  institutions.  Even  similar  organisations  can  have  very  different 
approaches to, and financial benefits from re-use. 

See Annex 5 on pricing policies in the cultural sector for a more detailed presentation of the 
studies. 

57 

Economic  and  Social  Impact  of  the  Public  Domain:  EU  Cultural  Institutions  and  the  PSI  Directive, 
Rightscom, 5.5.2009: 
http://www.epsiplus.net/psi_library/reports/economic_and_social_impact_of_the_public_domain_eu_c
ultural_institutions_and_the_psi_directive_may_2009. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
When it comes to barriers to re-use in this sector, the study found that digitisation of content 
was  synonymous  with  enabling  re-use  and  that  the  cost  and  effort  of  digitisation  was  the 
major factor limiting re-use of the material.  

Cataloguing and discoverability of material is an established challenge for the cultural sector. 
All institutions recognise that it is beneficial (and indeed necessary) for potential users and re-
users  to  identify  appropriate  resources.  Most  respondents  have  physical  catalogues  or  staff 
that patrons can approach to find holdings, but a smaller number of respondent institutions is 
able  to  make  the  bulk  of  their  holdings  findable  through  electronic  catalogues  or  an 
institutional  website.  In  some  cases,  discoverability  of  resources  is  restricted  by  an 
organisation’s  income-generating  activities.  For  example,  in  libraries,  the  metadata  for  their 
holdings is a tool for discoverability, but for some national libraries, this metadata is itself a 
product that they sell.  

The study confirmed time and again that the IPR status of holdings provides a challenge that 
can limit the availability of collections for re-use. In addition to the IP presenting a barrier to 
re-use,  organisations  are  deeply  concerned  about  the  administrative  overhead  in  managing 
requests for re-use that require rights clearance activities. 

On the other hand, the study found a fragmented situation with respect to the approaches that 
cultural  institutions  take  to  charging,  often  driven  by  mission.  For  example,  two  national 
libraries charge for re-use of their bibliographic metadata, whereas another two do not. Those 
institutions that hold material with well-developed commercial markets — such as images and 
archives  of  use  in  genealogy  —  were  found  to  be  correspondingly  more  likely  to  adopt 
commercial pricing models. 

Furthermore,  the  study  found  that  exclusive  agreements  are  not  rare  among  cultural 
institutions, many of which have carefully considered the type of exclusivity in licences they 
offer  and  are  able  to  justify  their  choices.  Exclusivity  is  concentrated  in  the  larger 
organisations,  which  also  have  the  skill  and  administrative  resources  to  manage  the 
negotiations and administration required to establish such relationships. 

Archives are a specific subset among the cultural institutions. Generally archiving institutions 
see  re-use  of  their  material  as  an  opportunity  with  a  clear  majority  of  national  archives  in 
favour of the spirit of the Directive, namely extending access to public information to more 
and  more  of  Europe’s  citizens58.  Nevertheless,  they  have  two  main  concerns.  First,  public 
archives  hold  a  great  deal  of  information  in  which  the  copyright  is  privately  owned  that  is 
often mixed with other material in which copyright is publicly owned. Although the Directive 
does  not  affect  existing  copyright,  archivists  fear  having  to  determine  ownership  of 
intellectual  property  rights.  Secondly,  compelling  cultural  bodies  to  make  information 
available  for  re-use  for  free  or  at  marginal  cost  could  seriously  interfere  with  existing 
contractual arrangements and restrict the revenue earned through licensing by those archives 
that  currently  do  this.  This  could  lead  to  less  access  in  future  by  restricting  the  archives’ 
flexibility to invest in further digitisation and access systems. 

As  demonstrated  by  the  findings  of  the  study,  many  cultural  institutions  already  make 
their  public  domain  content  available  for  re-use  and  many  are  actively  seeking  out 
opportunities  to  re-use  their  content  regardless  of  whether  they  intend  to  generate 

58 

European Archives Group, Report of the Working Group on the Re-use of Public Sector Information. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
income from this re-use. In fact, since the Directive was put in place, significant collections 
have been digitised and although digitisation is not in itself re-use, it greatly facilitates it and 
reduces the burden on institutions required to respond to re-use requests.  

More  importantly,  digitisation  projects  have  covered  millions  of  objects  that  are  no  longer 
protected  by  copyright  and  the  amount  of  valuable  public  domain  material  has  thus 
significantly  multiplied  with  respect  to  the  situation  in  2003.  For  example,  Europeana, 
Europe's digital library, museum and archive gives access to more than 19 million digitized 
objects.  The  resulting  digital  material  has  a  huge  potential  for  innovative  re-use  in  sectors 
such  as  learning  and  tourism.  The  commercial  interest  is  also  shown  by  the  massive 
investments  that  companies  such  as  Google  make  into  digitisation.  Institutions  continue  to 
invest in digitisation irrespective of their re-use policies. Once public domain collections are 
digitised,  making  them  available  for  re-use  allows  the  cultural  institutions  to  reap  all  the 
potential returns from their investment without generating unbearable costs.  

Extending the scope appears to most effectively achieve the objectives of encouraging re-use 
of PSI-based products and services in order to stimulate economic growth and job creation in 
Europe. Unlocking data potential is one of the key aims of the EU’s policy on information re-
use. Bringing the cultural sector within the scope of the Directive would make all this publicly 
funded  public  domain  material  available  for  re-use  purposes,  under  the  same  conditions 
applicable across the EU. Commercial and non-commercial re-users alike would be able to re-
use the vast amounts of valuable content under pre-defined rules with increased legal certainty 
and more incentives to provide cross-border products and services based on re-used cultural 
material.  This  would  spear  innovation  across  the  creative  industries  in  sectors  such  as 
learning, tourism and design, as well as the development of innovative services and products 
based on cultural material (e.g. apps for mobile phones).  

On the other hand, it is important to recognise the specificity of the cultural sector resulting 
from  the  administrative  complexities  linked  to  IPR  protection  and  the  mission  of  public 
cultural  institutions,  which  not  only  disseminate  but  also  preserve  the  cultural  heritage  they 
hold. In order to account for this specificity and minimise the administrative burden linked to 
removing the current exemption, cultural institutions should benefit from specific provisions. 
To avoid excessive administrative overhead in managing requests for re-use that require rights 
clearance activities, only public domain material with clear IPR status is to be subject to the 
re-use provisions. To enable cultural institutions to generate funds for making their collections 
available for re-use under conditions that favour re-use, i.e. with clear IPR status or in re-use 
friendly digital formats (such funds are rarely available in sufficient amounts from the public 
purse), cultural institutions should retain the ability to apply cost recovery with a reasonable 
return on investment.  

In  view  of  all  of  the  above  considerations,  in  order  to  best  attain  the  objective  of 
stimulating  PSI  re-use  across  the  EU,  the  scope  of  the  Directive  should  be  revised  to 
encompass  cultural  establishments  with  the  benefit  of  the  currently  applicable  regime 
insofar as charging is concerned.  

4.4.4.  Amending the general principle 

At  present,  Member  States  have  the  possibility  to  exclude  information  from  re-use,  even  if 
this information is already accessible under the access to documents regime. According to the 
current  wording  of  Article  3  of  the  PSI  Directive,  a  general  right  to  re-use  for  both 
commercial  and  non-commercial  purposes  arises  only  if  a  public  sector  body  has  already 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
allowed this information to be re-used. Some Member States or public bodies tend to exploit 
this  provision  as  giving  them  full  discretionary  power  to  decide  whether  or  not  information 
should be re-usable and for what purposes, even if they have already freely disseminated it, 
e.g. online.  

Amending the general principle to make all accessible information re-usable would result in 
the  creation  of  a  genuine  EU  right  to  re-use,  thus  ensuring  uniform  application  of  the  PSI 
Directive across the EU. Such a solution is strongly supported by stakeholders responding to 
the consultation, 90 % of whom consider that information that is generally accessible should 
also be re-usable, and some Member States have already decided to take up this approach in 
their  legislation  (see  Annex  1  for  details).  Strengthening  the  general  principle  in  this  way 
would  provide  legal  certainty  to  re-users  and  public  bodies  alike  and  prevent  valuable  data 
from  being  arbitrarily  withheld  from  re-use.  Any  changes  to  the  charging  rules  or  requiring 
adoption of machine-readable formats will be ineffective as long as public bodies retain any 
degree of discretion in making data available for re-use. This change would therefore not only 
foster  the  widest  possible  availability  of  PSI  for  re-use  purposes  but  is  a  sine  qua  non 
condition to pursue an ambitious pro re-use policy across the EU.  

In terms of efficiency gains in existing operations, improving the accessibility of information 
necessary for e.g. obligatory environmental impact assessments could potentially reduce EU-
27 costs by 20 % or around € 2 billion per year, and if European citizens each saved as little as 
2  hours  per  year  through  faster  and  more  comprehensive  access  to  public  information,  this 
would be worth € 1.4 billion per year59. 

The risks of amending the general principle may be twofold.  

Firstly, they may relate firstly to the lack of uniformity between the scopes of application of 
national  access  to  documents  regimes.  The  PSI  Directive  builds  on  the  national  access  to 
documents  regimes  and  is  without  prejudice  to  them,  so  data  are  re-usable  if  they  are  not 
excluded  from  access  by  the  national  access  and  data  protection  regimes.  This  problem  is, 
however,  marginal  and  most  data  will  receive  similar  treatment  across  the  EU.  Different 
treatment of similar data results from the sole competence of Member States to organise their 
access  and  privacy  protection  regimes  and  is  a  reflection  of  differences  in  the  level  of 
transparency deemed acceptable by individual countries. In this area, the subsidiarity principle 
mandates that this competence be left with the Member States.  

Secondly, there is a risk of a possible incompatibility of the amended general principle with 
the  EU  and  international  rules  governing  protection  of  intellectual  property  rights.  In  this 
respect, the Court of Justice has stated that property rights, including intellectual property are 
a fundamental principle of EU law.60 As a result, amending the general principle to make all 
generally  accessible  data  re-usable  would  limit  the  exercise  of  certain  intellectual  property 
rights and is only justified if it is strictly limited and necessary to attain the objectives of the 
revised Directive.  

In this context, three categories of documents must be distinguished.  

59 
60 

Op. cit. Vickery. 
This principle is now included in Art. 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
First of all, documents protected in full or in part by third party intellectual property rights are 
by  virtue  of  article  1  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive.  This  exclusion  may  not  be 
affected by the amended general principle.  

Secondly, the amended principle would concern documents protected by intellectual property 
rights belonging to employees of the public institutions. Currently, the question of ownership 
of intellectual property rights in works created by public officials is regulated exclusively by 
national rules of Member States and these regimes vary. Neither Member States, nor public 
bodies or re-users have signalled any problems relating to the implementation of the original 
Directive  in  this  respect.  In  fact,  where  the  public  official  retains  rights  to  a  document,  the 
exclusion from Article 1 would apply. Nevertheless, it may be useful to expressly clarify that 
the  rules  of  the  Directive  are  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  employees  in  public  sector 
bodies.  

Thirdly,  the  amended  general  principle  would  concern  documents  protected  by  intellectual 
property rights belonging to public bodies themselves. These institutions do not in principle 
have  the  mission  to  commercially  exploit  the  data  they  produce.  Charging  for  re-use  is  a 
secondary  activity  intended  to  generate  additional  revenue  and  studies  have  shown  that  in 
most  cases  this  represents  only  a  small  part  of  the  total  income  of  the  public  sector  body, 
while, as demonstrated above, their re-use offers great economic potential. 

 Also, the creation or collection of documents for which they may hold intellectual property 
rights has been funded with public funds and, as demonstrated above, their re-use offers great 
economic  potential.  As  a  result,  an  obligation  to  make  their  accessible  data  re-usable,  for 
commercial  or  non-commercial  reasons,  does  not  in  principle  interfere  with  the  normal 
exploitation of their rights and does not unduly prejudice their legitimate interests.61 However, 
feedback  from  the  public  consultation  indicates  that  there  may  be  cases,  however  isolated, 
where  a  public  body  is  self  financed,  in  full  or  in  part,  and  where  proceeds  from  the 
exploitation  of  its  intellectual  property  rights  constitute  a  part  or  the  totality  of  its  own 
resources.  In  this  respect,  those  public  bodies  may  be  required  to  make  these  protected 
accessible documents reusable but they should be given the possibility to charge accordingly 
to  the  market  value  of  those  intellectual  property  rights,  capped  by  the  maximum  charges 
allowed  under  the  Directive.  This  concern  is  reflected  in  the  analysis  of  the  possible 
amendment of the principles governing charges in the section below. 

Establishing  an  EU  right  to  re-use  is  the  most  important  and  indispensable  change  to  the 
Directive as it is the most efficient means of advancing the policy pursued by the Commission 
in the area of re-use of PSI, fostering re-use of public data and ensuring consistency across the 
internal market.  

4.4.5.  Amending the principles governing charging  

The Directive establishes an upper limit on allowed charges based on the costs of collecting, 
producing, reproducing and disseminating the information, together with a reasonable return 
on  investment.  At  the  same  time,  recital  14  of  the  PSI  Directive  urges  Member  States  to 
encourage their PSBs to make documents available at charges that do not exceed the marginal 
costs of reproducing and disseminating them. In addition, on request public sector bodies have 

61 

The so-called three steps test: Article 9 of the TRIPS Agreement, Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Berne 
Convention, Article 5 paragraph 5 of the Directive 2001/29 and Articles 6 paragraph 3 and 7 paragraph 
5 of the Directive 96/9/CE 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to  provide  the  methods  they  used  to  calculate  the  prices  they  are  charging  re-users  for  the 
information they provide.  

Given the current and potential economic value of the commercial re-use of PSI, the choice of 
charging  regime  has  a  direct  impact  on  the  economic  and  social  potential  of  re-use  (see 
below). 

4.4.5.1.  Principle of charging based on marginal costs 

The problem of high prices charged by PSBs was stressed by all categories of respondents to 
the consultation as a real barrier that needs addressing in order to tap the full potential for PSI 
re-use62.  In  addition,  respondents  report  insufficient  transparency  regarding  PSI  pricing 
calculations.  Excessive  pricing  adversely  affects  competition,  innovation  and  growth  of  the 
European PSI market.  

The economic theory regarding the supply of PSI presents several scenarios:  

• 

• 

• 

Profit-maximising: setting a price to maximise profit given the demand faced by a 
public body, where the product being supplied does not face competition. This will 
naturally result in monopoly pricing.  

Cost-recovery:  setting  a  price  equal  to  average  long-term  costs  (including,  for 
example, all fixed costs related to data production). A sub-category of this model is 
partial cost-recovery, where the price is less than average long-term costs but more 
than  marginal  costs.  This  sub-category  also  includes  a  category  whereby  only  the 
costs  related  to  the  facilitation  of  re-use  are  charged  (‘re-use  facilitation  cost-
recovery’), which only includes costs that can truly be allocated to the re-users, e.g. 
the salary costs of the help desk personnel.  

Marginal cost: setting a price equal to the marginal cost of supplying data (cost of 
actually transmitting the data) to an extra user. In today’s digital world information 
products and data are expensive to produce, but, once produced, they are very cheap 
to  disseminate.  When  considering  digital  data,  marginal  cost  is  in  most  cases.  A 
recent study estimates the total public sector information related market in 2008 at € 
28 billion across the EU.63 The same study indicates that the overall economic gains 
from  further  opening  up  public  sector  information  by  allowing  easy  access  are  at 
around € 40 billion a year for the EU27. The aggregate direct and indirect economic 
impacts from PSI applications and use across the whole EU27 economy would be in 
the order of € 140 billion annually.zero. 

• 

Zero pricing: no price is charged for supplying public sector data. 

In  2008,  Cambridge  University  investigated,  at  the  request  of  the  British  Government,  the 
impact of adopting different models for the provision of PSI by UK trading funds, which are 
required to be as financially self-sufficient as possible by selling their data and services and 
eventually providing a return to the UK Treasury. (For more detailed results of the Cambridge 
Study see Annex 6 on overview of charging tendencies). 

62 
63 

Op. cit. MICUS, 12/2008. 
Review of recent studies on PSI re-use and related market developments, G. Vickery, August 2011. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The study concludes that charging no or marginal costs for PSI results in social and economic 
benefits  that  far  outweigh  the  immediate  financial  benefits  attained  by  cost-recovery 
strategies.  However,  critics  of  this  report  have  questioned  the  permanent  sustainability  of  a 
scheme  providing  PSI  at  no  or  marginal  prices  when  the  cost  of  creating  and  maintaining 
quality  PSI  can  be  substantial,  and  when  public  bodies  must  incur  e.g.  costs  necessary  to 
sustain data quality or investment necessary to cope with technological developments.  

The study shows that once PSI is made available by governments under a marginal cost/free 
regime it has considerable economic potential. 

The CUPI report64 by the UK Office for Fair Trading (OFT) concludes that PSI markets still 
have widely unmet potential, e.g. more competition in public sector information re-use could 
double PSI’s contribution to the UK economy in value terms to € 1.5 billion per year.  

The  case  studies  analysed  in  the  2010-2011  Report65  indicate  that  the  potential  benefits  of 
lower  charges  for  PSI  re-use  are  high.  Lower  charges  lead  to  more  economic  activities, 
market dynamism, innovation and employment. Increased tax returns may easily outweigh the 
loss of the public body’s revenues, which in fact appear to be non-existent if the lowering of 
charges is limited to re-use facilitation costs. At the same time, unless zero costing is applied, 
the price mechanism may actually increase revenues rather than lowering them, where higher 
re-use does not seem to entail an increase in costs. Secondly, the transition costs appear to be 
relatively low, especially since, to a large extent, the knowledge and infrastructure is already 
there; it is only about converting the processes and mindset, to serve the re-users in the best 
way. (See Annex 6 for more detailed presentation of effects of PSI policy changes in selected 
public bodies). 

Case  studies  also  demonstrate  that  lowering  charges  brings  benefits  for  different  types  of 
users,  in  particular  SMEs  (BEV,  CENDOJ,  IGN-CNIG  –  Spanish  geographical  institute, 
KNMI  –  Dutch  Met  office,  Met.no  –  Norwegian  Met  office,  Spanish  land  registry).  This  is 
also evidenced by a number of other cases where the price cuts have been less significant (or 
even non-existent) but special schemes have been provided for SMEs to stimulate their re-use 
activities  (e.g.  DWD-  German  geo-information  PSBs,  planned  new  pricing  model).  These 
SMEs  tend  to  introduce  new  business  models  and  re-use  the  data  quite  differently  from 
‘classical’ re-users66. 

A binding provision imposing a default rule of marginal costs as maximum charges for re-use 
of  data  is  one  of  the  most  efficient  means  of  stimulating  the  market  for  PSI-based  products 
and services, including across borders, and of ensuring a level playing field among re-users. 
Marginal costs of distribution in situations where the data already exist in digital format are 
minimal  or  even  zero.  A  shift  to  a  default  rule  will  significantly  reduce  prices  and  provide 
incentives to businesses to invest in new products and services that may not have been viable 
otherwise67.  

Arguably,  a  mandatory  marginal  costs  rule  may  reduce  incentives  for  private  companies  to 
challenge the market for the collection or production of information where incumbent public 

64 

65 
66 
67 

The  commercial  use  of  public  information  (CUPI),  Report  of  the  UK  OFT,  December  2006, 
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft861.pdf. 
Study on Pricing of Public Sector Information, June 2011, Deloitte. 
Op. cit. Deloitte. 
Ditto. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
bodies  hold  monopolistic  positions  and  where  the  data  can  be  duplicated  (because  marginal 
costs of distribution of information are lower than the average total or average variable costs 
of  potential  competitors,  as  used  in  competition  law  to  assess  whether  an  incumbent  is 
abusing  its  position  by  imposing  predatory  pricing68);  any  foregone  incentives  for  private 
undertakings to enter the market are offset by the benefits of the marginal costs mechanism, 
which  stimulates  competition  and  innovation  on  the  downstream  market  for  PSI-based 
products  and  services.  In  cases  where  information  is  deemed  of  public  interest  and  its 
collection or production is a public task, and information cannot in fact be duplicated so that 
its  collection  or  production  does  not  in  principle  attract  competition  on  costs,  where 
appropriate, innovation and competition are in fact stimulated on the downstream market for 
PSI-based products and services by providing access to the required input at minimum or no 
cost.  

Many  Member  States  (e.g.  the  UK,  the  Netherlands,  France,  Denmark  and  Finland)  are 
reconsidering their pricing policies or have already adopted marginal costs for the supply of 
PSI.  While  these  Member  States  have  made  or  will  soon  be  making  the  move  towards 
marginal  costs  as  maximum  charges  for  the  re-use  of  PSI,  diverging  pricing  regimes  will 
significantly raise transaction costs and reduce incentives to undertake re-use based activities, 
thereby  negatively  impacting  the  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  stalling  the 
development  of  the  EU  market  for  products  based  on  PSI-re-use,  with  adverse  effects  on 
consumer welfare and the economy at large.  

At  the  same  time,  the  interests  of  those  public  sector  bodies  that  are  required  to  fund  their 
operations and/or legally required to generate income must also be taken into account in order 
to  ensure  that  quality  data  are  in  fact  produced  and/or  collected  where  such  an  activity  is 
included within the scope of the public task. A mandatory marginal cost standard may make it 
more difficult for the State to generate PSI as it may reduce incentives for public sector bodies 
to  invest  in  the  production  of  PSI,  thereby  undermining  the  very  goal  of  the  Directive.  An 
exception to the default rule of marginal costs is therefore necessary to allow public bodies to 
charge on a cost recovery basis with a reasonable return on investment. A justified possibility 
to  recover  costs  would  prevent  upfront  the  possible  deficits  created  due  to  lack  of 
income/revenue  where  public  sector  bodies  are  partly  or  fully  self-financed.  Such  an 
exception shifts the share of the costs of producing PSI from taxpayers to re-users, who may 
then obtain a commercial benefit from re-using it outside its primary purpose. 

As  a  safeguard  to  maintain  the  exceptional  nature  of  the  departure  from  the  default  rule  of 
marginal costs, those public sector bodies that wish to charge on a cost-recovery basis with a 
reasonable  return  on  investment  should  bear  the  burden  of  proving  to  an  independent  body 
that  this  departure  is  justified  based  on  an  agreed  set  of  criteria.  This  approach  is  currently 
being implemented in the UK. It has proved successful as it has modified the pricing structure 
of public bodies, which did not have a solid rationale for charging based on cost recovery. 

This  measure,  together  with  the  proposed  amendment  of  the  general  principle  and  the 
proposed  extension  of  scope  to  the  cultural  sector,  is  one  of  the  most  efficient  means  of 
stimulating the market for PSI-based products and services, including across borders, and of 
ensuring a level playing field among re-users.  

68 

Communication  from  the  Commission  —  Guidance  on  the  Commission’s  enforcement  priorities  in 
applying  Article  82  of  the  EC  Treaty  to  abusive  exclusionary  conduct  by  dominant  undertakings, 
2009/C  45/02;  see  also  Case  T-83/91  Tetra  Pak  International  SA  v  Commission  [1994]  ECR  II-755, 
upheld by the ECJ in Case C-333/94 [1996] ECR I-5951. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.4.5.2.  Reversal of the burden of proof  

Currently, the burden of proving that charging principles do not comply with the rules of the 
Directive rests on the re-user. However, re-users have often reported considerable difficulties 
in  obtaining  the  information  necessary  to  satisfy  that  burden  of  proof,  which  significantly 
limits the possibility to enforce the rights conferred by the PSI Directive with respect to the 
re-use of PSI.  

In  order  to  attain  the  objective  of  stimulating  the  digital  content  market  for  PSI-based 
products and services, the burden of proof should be reversed so that, in the event of a dispute 
with a re-user, public sector bodies bear the burden of proving that their charges comply with 
the  rules  of  the  Directive.  Public  sector  bodies  are  best  placed  to  bear  this  burden  of  proof 
because of their privileged access to their internal documents and the understanding of their 
charging  structure  as  opposed  to  re-users.  Reversal  of  the  burden  would  therefore  facilitate 
enforcement  of  rights  established  under  the  PSI  Directive  and  also  reduce  the  costs  of 
producing evidence to satisfy that burden and contribute to the economy of proceedings. 

In addition, reversing the burden of proof has a broader relevance for the policy of opening up 
public data resources. It would contribute to catalysing the desired change of mindset among 
the  public  sector  bodies  most  reluctant  to  adopt  pro  re-use  policies.  It  would  reinforce  the 
amendment of the general principle to make all accessible data re-usable and contribute to the 
objective of stimulating the market for PSI-based products and services. 

4.4.6.  Requirement  to  establish  an  effective  redress  system  and  to  designate  independent 

PSI regulators 

The  only  reference  in  the  current  Directive  to  means  of  redress  available  in  the  event  of  a 
dispute concerning the availability of re-usable material is to be found in Article 4 referring to 
requests for re-use, pursuant to which ‘any negative decision shall contain a reference to the 
means  of  redress  in  case  the  applicant  wishes  to  appeal  the  decision.’  Although  the 
formulation  in  itself  implies  that  means  of  redress  must  in  fact  be  available,  the  details  of 
available remedies or authorities competent to hear the complaint are nowhere to be found.  

The lack of an efficient and effective redress system was one of the major problems with the 
PSI re-use system raised by respondents to the public consultation, in particular by re-users, 
citizens and experts. The lack of an effective redress mechanism in some Member States (time 
to  decision,  effective  competencies  of  bodies)  prevents  re-users  from  enforcing  their  rights 
against  monopoly  suppliers  of  PSI,  leading  to inefficiencies on some  markets with negative 
impacts on competition and innovation and, ultimately, on consumer welfare (see Annex 0 for 
examples on the market for meteorological information). 

Although  Member  States  have  functioning  redress  systems,  only  some  have  set  up  specific 
authorities  to  hear  complaints  against  public  bodies  infringing  the  rules  for  re-use  of  PSI. 
While  e.g.  the  Slovenian69  and  French70  independent  authorities  are  exemplary  insofar  as 
redress systems are concerned, re-users in most Member States face cumbersome and lengthy 
proceedings ill suited for dealing with their complaints, which often require swift results. In 
addition,  due  to  the  differences  in  the  judicial  systems  of  individual  countries,  the  plaintiffs 

69 
70 

Information Commissioner, http://www.ip-rs.si/?id=195. 
Commission d’Accès aux Documents Administratifs, CADA, http://www.cada.fr/index.htm. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
often face significant costs and difficulties in identifying competent courts or authorities and 
applicable rules of procedure, with a negative impact on the internal market for re-use of PSI.  

In  order  to  remove  these  obstacles  and  achieve  the  objectives  of  stimulating  re-use  of  PSI, 
including across borders, an effective and efficient system of redress must be put in place for 
the  benefit  of  re-users  and  public  bodies  alike.  Based  on  the  successful  examples  of  the 
Slovenian  or  French  authorities,  the  Directive  should  impose  an  explicit  obligation  on 
Member States to appoint an independent regulator with competencies to (i) decide on appeals 
against the refusal of public bodies to grant re-use and (ii) decide on complaints from re-users 
against charging and licensing conditions. In order to best address the current problem of the 
lack of functioning redress mechanisms, the Directive would indicate the minimum scope of 
competencies and the minimum range of remedies to be granted. On the other hand, in order 
to  safeguard  the  principles  of  subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  conferral,  the  choice  of  the 
authority as well as the actual procedural rules would remain with the Member States, which 
have the sole competence to organise their internal judicial systems. 

4.5. 

Option 5: Packaged solution 

This  option  would  combine  a  systemic  change  in  the  re-use  framework  (Option  4)  with 
additional  guidance  on  the  principles  to  be  applied  by  national  authorities  when  they 
implement them at national level (Option 3). 

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS 

This section presents a qualitative and, where possible, quantitative assessment of the impact 
of each of the five policy options in the light of the policy objectives identified in Section 1.  

The main areas of potential impact are economic and social. In particular, the capacity of PSI-
based products and services to convey economic and social benefits to all consumers must be 
weighed  against  the  costs  resulting  from  potential  losses  in  revenue  incurred  by  releasing 
public data for re-use without charge or at low fees. Any policy in this area must ensure that 
there is a level playing field between hybrid public bodies engaging in commercial re-use of 
data  they  produce  or  collect  with  public  funds  and  their  private  competitors  and  that  a 
disproportionate  burden  is  not  imposed  on  the  public  sector,  thereby  endangering  PSI 
production, investment and innovation. 

5.1. 

Option 1: No changes to the Directive (baseline) 

This option, the baseline scenario of no policy change, would maintain the basic approach to 
re-use of PSI contained in the PSI Directive. Under this framework, a minimum set of rules 
governing  re-use  is  to  be  guaranteed,  including  maximum  allowable  charges,  non-
discrimination  and  transparency  within  public  bodies  with  respect  to  re-use  conditions  and 
practical rules on dealing with re-use requests. Leaving it to the Member States to apply the 
current unchanged framework would allow the PSI re-use concept to evolve in step with the 
public openness policy and technological developments at national level.  

On the other hand, the ‘no policy change’ option would leave Member States with only the 
terms of the Directive to adapt their current national PSI re-use arrangements to take account 
of the increasing economic and social importance of the market for PSI-based products and 
services  in  their  territories.  In  particular,  the  Directive  does  not  provide  guidance  on  non-
restrictive  licensing  conditions;  it  does  not  define  the  costs  allowed  for  recovery  or  a 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
reasonable return on investment; its scope does not extend to sectors where a lot of potentially 
valuable PSI is held and which could be brought within the scope of the Directive.  

In  addition,  with  increasing  realisation  of  the  importance  of  PSI  re-use,  individual  Member 
States have been pursuing more ambitious policies and adopting measures that go beyond the 
minimum  rules  set  by  the  Directive.  Several  Member  States  and  some  individual  public 
bodies  in  other  Member  States  have  adopted  marginal  costs  as  default  allowable  charges, 
several Member States have put in place model licences and e.g. FR has put in place a right to 
re-use  accessible  public  data.  There  is  therefore  a  significant  risk  that  the  no  policy  change 
option would result in increasingly divergent approaches being taken to the issue at national 
level,  based  on  a  variety  of  considerations  and  differing  levels  of  ambition  with  respect  to 
releasing public data for re-use. This can give rise to legal uncertainty and unpredictability for 
the market, in particular commercial re-users.  

The pressure for releasing more public data at low charges and without or under permissive 
licensing  conditions  in  all  Member  States  is  likely  to  grow  as  the  potential  market  for 
commercial and non-commercial products based on re-use of PSI (e.g. apps) develops. More 
broadly, in addition to the acknowledged economic benefits of encouraging re-use, PSI and its 
re-use are increasingly important for the democratic process and for the public transparency 
agenda. 

Any uncertainty, particularly as regards the transaction costs (charges, licensing, type of data) 
of making public data available for businesses could have a chilling effect on innovation and 
investment in this high-potential market as public bodies and re-users alike try to assess the 
implications  of  future  actions  by  Member  States  in this area.  Stifled innovation would have 
negative  impacts  on  general  consumer  welfare  and  on  businesses  reliant  on  innovative  PSI 
products  for  their  offerings.  The  potential  inconsistencies  in  the  application  of  the  existing 
rules and the development of regulatory divergences among Member States could also act as a 
significant barrier to the development of a digital single market within the EU. 

The  option  of  no  policy  change  would  therefore  not  respond  to  the  calls  for  extension  of 
scope, generalisation of charges based by default on marginal costs, for clarification and for 
additional guidance, which emerged from the public consultation process in 2010. Indeed, the 
public  consultation  yielded  significant  results  in  that  respect  with  95%  of  respondents 
expressing support for further action towards opening up public data resources and practical 
measures  facilitating  re-use  for  unlocking  innovation  and  developing  new  services.  In  the 
current  environment,  inaction  would  also  entail  refraining  from  harnessing  the  competitive 
potential of novel markets in a moment in which innovation is clearly essential to counter the 
negative impact of the current economic crisis. 

Advantages 

Disadvantages 

(+)  Existing  minimum  rules  for  re-using  PSI 
preserved 

(-) Increased likelihood of divergent 
approaches at national level 

(+)  Flexibility  to  take  account  of  national 
conditions 

(-) Increased fragmentation of internal market 
for re-use of PSI 

(-) Risk of uncertainty for the market and end 
users 

(-)  Less  dynamic  development  of  PSI  re-use 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
market 

(-) Losses to consumer welfare 

5.2. 

Option 2: Discontinuing existing EU action (repeal of the PSI Directive) 

Under  this  option  the  availability,  affordability  and  accessibility  of  a  common  set  of  rules 
governing  re-use  of  public  sector  information  would  no  longer  be  guaranteed  through  a 
harmonised legal framework at EU level. 

As a result, EU businesses and citizens would no longer enjoy specific rights created by the 
Directive. There would no longer be an enforceable obligation on public bodies to grant re-
use where it is currently prescribed and within prescribed deadlines, or to ensure transparency 
in the application of their charging and licensing conditions; prices for re-use would no longer 
be  capped  at  prescribed  levels.  In  addition,  while  competition  rules  can  offer  re-users  the 
possibility to require access to PSI in the event of abuse of the supplier’s dominant position, 
the rules of the Directive go beyond what can be ordered under competition law by creating a 
specific right to re-use and prohibiting discriminatory practices. Application of these specific 
rules also usually produces more appropriate results more quickly than by applying the rules 
on the abuse of market dominance. Repealing the Directive would result in more potential for 
abuse  by  dominant  incumbents  and  in  less  competition  on  the  market,  thereby  hindering 
development  of  innovative  products  based  on  re-use  of  PSI  and  negatively  impacting 
consumer welfare. 

On the other hand, Member States would retain the discretion to act, in accordance with their 
national  law  and  generally  applicable  EU  law, to  determine  what  measures  should  be  taken 
beyond market forces to ensure re-use of information produced within the public sector within 
their territory.  

Consequently, when compared to the baseline scenario, market players and consumers would 
be faced with an increasingly divergent set of national measures in the field of re-use of PSI. 
This would lead to further fragmentation of the internal market for re-use of PSI, in particular 
in  view  of  the  differences  in  the  internal  organisation  of  Member  States  and  the  scope  of 
national public sectors. The choice of this policy option would therefore not ensure the ‘safety 
net’ of a minimum set of public data, to be delivered within certain deadlines at an affordable 
price  and  under  permissive  conditions  across  the  EU  when  incumbents  in  the  public  sector 
foreclose markets for re-use of data that they have the monopoly to produce or collect. This 
would reduce the potential for re-use of PSI for economic development, for furthering public 
transparency,  efficiency  and  accountability  and  for  citizen  empowerment.  It  would  fail  to 
promote  regulatory  consistency  and  predictability  across  the  Member  States.  Moreover,  the 
consequences of repealing the Directive would affect related initiatives in specific areas (e.g. 
transport,  energy,  and  the  environment)  and  would  run  counter  to  the  general  policy  of 
openness developing across the EU that the PSI Directive underpins.  

Repealing the Directive would therefore remove the conditions that incentivise businesses and 
consumers  to  undertake  activities  based  on  re-use  of  PSI.  This  would  hinder  further 
development  of  the  PSI  reuse  market,  which  is  growing  and  facing  a  lot  of  potential,  but 
which require a minimum of regulatory cohesion across the EU. Indeed, the outcome of the 
public consultation indicates that stakeholders consider that divergent national rules can make 
it  more  complicated  to  grasp  economic  opportunities  and  to  develop  cross-border  products 
and services.  

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
Advantages  

Disadvantages 

(+) More freedom for Member States 

(-) Increased likelihood of divergent approaches at 
national level 

(-) Increased fragmentation of internal market for 
re-use of PSI 

(-) Increased legal uncertainty and regulatory 
unpredictability  

(-) No more safety net at EU level to ensure a level 
playing field on the market for re-use of PSI 

(-) Stifled development of the PSI re-use market 

(-) Losses to consumer welfare 

5.3. 

Option 3: Soft law measures 

This  option  would  build  on  the  current  re-use  of  PSI  provisions  by  providing  additional 
guidance on the principles to be applied by national authorities when they implement them at 
national  level.  This  would  be  done  by  means  of  an  appropriate  Commission  guidance 
instrument  (such  as  guidelines  or  a  recommendation).  Although  not  binding  the  Member 
States,  these  instruments  would  have  indicative  authority  without  requiring  legislative 
changes  to  the  framework  itself.  In  particular,  guidance  would  be  given  on  permissive 
licensing  conditions  for  the  supply  of  PSI,  including  a  model  licence;  on  the  meaning  of  a 
reasonable  return  on  investment  together  with  a  clarification  of  recoverable  costs;  on 
recommended  re-use  friendly  formats.  In  addition,  Member  States  would  be  encouraged  to 
ensure interoperability of the public data (e.g. by processing their non-spatial public data in 
accordance  with  the  rules  governing  their  spatial  data  pursuant  to  the  requirements  of  the 
INSPIRE  Directive)  and  to  release  as  much  data  as  possible  for  re-use  under  the  least 
restrictive conditions possible.  

This option would share the benefits identified in relation to the baseline Option 1, in terms of 
the  ability  for  Member  States  to  take  due  account  of  national  conditions.  It  would  also 
preserve  the  current  role  of  the  set  of  rules  on  re-use  of  PSI  as  a  safety  net.  If  the 
recommendations and guidance were to be followed by the Member States, the option would 
clarify  and  improve  the  implementation  of  the  framework  by  promoting  a  higher  degree  of 
consistency  in  the  implementation  of  re-use  obligations,  while  leaving  public  bodies  and 
Member  States  flexibility  to  adapt  their  re-use  obligations  to  national  circumstances.  The 
setting of a common recommended methodological approach to the calculation of costs to be 
charged  for  delivery  of  data  and  of  a  recommended  set  of  licensing  conditions  would  help 
enhance regulatory certainty for re-users and public bodies alike. Guidance on cost calculation 
would  also  prevent  public  bodies  from  overcharging  for  re-use  of  public  data.  Guidance  on 
recommended  data  formats  would  increase  re-usability  of  supplied  data,  resulting  in  cost 
reductions  for  re-users.  Combined  with  guidance  on  licensing  conditions,  it  would  lead  to 
increased  efficiency  in  dealing  with  re-use  requests,  resulting  in  the  long  run  in  lower 
transaction costs for the public sector.  

This  option  can  be  a  relatively  non-intrusive  and  efficient  way  of  addressing  some  of  the 
problems,  which  arose  during  the  application  of  the  Directive  and  which  stem  from  e.g. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
insufficient  clarity  of  a  term  such  as  reasonable  return  on  investment.  Results  of  the 
stakeholder  consultation  confirm  that  guidance  on  e.g.  licensing  conditions  and  costs 
calculation  is  indeed  necessary.  Indeed,  some  65%  of  respondents  to  the  consultation  who 
addressed  the  question  about  the  necessity  of  soft  law  measures  were  in  favour  of  such 
measures.  

However, because this option does not entail creation of enforceable rights or obligations and 
would  not  amend  any  of  the  current  provisions  of  the  Directive,  it  might  alone  not  be 
sufficient to reach all the objectives identified for this initiative and solve identified problems.  

Commercial and non-commercial re-users alike would not be able to enforce the guidelines on 
licensing  conditions  or  charging  recommendations  if  they  are  not  applied  by  public  bodies, 
which in addition would retain the current discretion to grant re-use of their data. Moreover, 
definition criteria for departing from recommended licensing terms or costs calculation would 
remain  within  discretion  of  individual  Member  States.  Guidance  on  costs  calculation  and 
licensing  measures  would  facilitate  the  act  of  making  data  available  for  re-use  but  alone 
would not exert any pressure on charges and on releasing locked data for re-use. Thereby the 
impact  of  these  measures  on  incentives  to  undertake  re-use  activities,  commercial  and  non-
commercial alike would remain very limited. 

This option also shares the limitations identified in relation to Options 1 and 2 in terms of the 
development of regulatory divergences among MS, in particular in relation to an obligation to 
release public data for re-use, to the scope of application of the Directive and the maximum 
allowable  charging  levels,  which  would  hinder  the  development  of  a  digital  single  market 
within the EU and adversely affect consumer welfare and adjacent markets.  

Advantages  

Disadvantages 

(+)  Existing  minimum  rules  on  re-use  of 
PSI preserved 

(+) Flexibility to take account of national 
conditions 

(+)  Improved  legal  certainty  for  re-users 
and  public  bodies  with  respect  to  cost 
calculations and licensing conditions 

(-) Increased likelihood of divergent approaches 
at national level on scope, charging levels 

(-) Increased fragmentation of internal market for 
re-use of PSI 

(-) Lack of enforceability of the measures 

(-)  Less  dynamic  development  of  PSI  re-use 
market 

(+)  Improved  re-usability  of  data  with 
recommended re-use friendly formats 

(-) Losses to consumer welfare  

5.4. 

Option 4: Legislative amendments 

This option would mandate several changes to the current rules of the Directive: linking re-
use to accessibility of information, bringing cultural public domain material within the scope 
of application of the Directive, imposing a default rule of charging based on marginal costs, 
with  exceptions  to  charging  at  cost  recovery  when  a  public  body  is  at  least  partly  self-
financed,  requiring  Member  States  to  define  the  scope  of  public  tasks  by  legislation  and 
mandating appointment of an independent regulatory authority to ensure enforcement of the 
re-use provisions. Detailed analysis of the main aspects of this option is provided in Annex 5. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
Option 4 would effectively create a systemic change in the re-use framework by adopting a 
bundle of legislative amendments facilitating and fostering re-use within the EU. This option 
would create an enforceable right to re-use public information by linking the concept of re-use 
to  the  concept  of  access  to  information.  It  would  bring  a  wealth  of  valuable  data  under  a 
harmonised framework of re-use rules by extending the scope of application of the Directive 
to  cultural  institutions  and  university  libraries.  It  would  make  re-use  more  affordable  by 
lowering  the  maximum  allowable  charges  to  marginal  costs  of  dissemination.  It  would 
enhance  enforceability  of  the  rules  by  explicitly  requiring  Member  States  to  appoint  a  PSI 
regulator  competent  to  investigate  alleged  infringements  of  re-use  rules  and  by  shifting  the 
burden of proof of compliance to public bodies instead of re-users. Finally, without imposing 
a  binding  requirement  on  Member  States,  the  option  would  explicitly  refer  to  the  use  of 
machine-readable  formats  for  data  delivery  where  possible  and  appropriate.  Results  of  the 
online consultation confirm that lowering allowable charging levels, establishing a right to re-
use, extending the scope of the Directive and enhancing redress are necessary changes in the 
PSI re-use legal framework (see Annex 2). 

Stimulating development of the PSI-based market, including across borders 

This option has by far the highest expected benefits in terms of facilitating and incentivising 
re-use activities compared with Options 1, 2 and 3. An enforceable right to re-use linked to 
well  established  accessibility  rules  would  directly  enhance  legal  certainty  for  re-users,  as 
would  extension  of  the  scope  to  cultural  institutions  by  making  cultural  PSI  subject  to  the 
same re-use rules, including licensing and charging regimes, across the EU.  

Highly priced and ring-fenced PSI creates barriers to entry for new players, thereby limiting 
competition between re-users and keeping prices artificially high. Lower charges and a more 
re-use friendly regulatory framework will increase incentives to engage in PSI re-use and lead 
to more competition and more innovation on the markets for re-use of various types of PSI, 
resulting  ultimately  in  more  and  better  products  for  end-users,  private  consumers  and 
professional  consumers  alike.  In  addition,  lower  charges  and  more  re-use  will  trigger 
significant network effects, in particular with respect to PSI of an infrastructural nature, such 
as  address  data  and  maps,  which  are  ‘capillary  pulled’  into  other  data  environments71.  The 
DECA case is an example of this phenomenon, where the number of users of a central register 
of all Danish address data has exploded from 26 (the first-tier distributors) to 1.100 (second-
tier application builders) to over a million of people (the third-tier end users of Danish GPS 
devices).72  Option  4  is  therefore  the only  one  to  allow  meaningful  intervention  in  favour  of 
stimulating PSI re-use as market effects depend on the accessibility of data, the level of fees 
and the level of restrictions on use.  

Economic analysis demonstrates that lower charges significantly impact re-use, e.g. in those 
cases  where  public  bodies  have  moved  to  re-use  facilitation  costs  or  marginal/zero  costs 
charging, the number of re-users has skyrocketed by factors ranging from 10 to 100 (1 000-
10 000 % increases). 

In  some  cases  effects  on  ‘sectors  of  re-users’  could  be  obtained,  in  particular  in  the 
meteorological  market,  where  the  number  of  first-tier  re-users  is  often  limited.  The  KNMI 

71 
72 

Op. cit. Deloitte 
Op. cit. Deloitte 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
case demonstrates73 that in the 11 years (since 1999) following the shift to re-use facilitation 
costs, the number of re-users went up by a factor of 10, turnover increased by a factor of 4 and 
employment was boosted by a factor of 3. In the DECA case, which also only featured re-use 
facilitation charges, the number of re-users went up by at least a factor of 54, turnover by a 
factor  of  10,  and  employment  by  a  factor  of  3.  In  the  KNMI  case  tax  gains  amount  to  €35 
million  over  a  period  of  11  years,  and  in  the  DECA  case  €14.25  million  over  nine  years. 
Although these figures are modest at macro level, when placed in relation to the investments 
made and costs incurred, the returns are high, also taking into account that this change yielded 
savings (in the KNMI case €3.5 million and in the DECA case €5 million).74 Other examples 
of the expected impacts of more permissive re-use regulation in specific sectors are given in 
sections 0 and 2.5. 

Option  4  will  also  bring  more  SMEs  into  the  re-use  market,  as  evidenced  by  case  studies 
where  lowered  entry  barriers  (lower  charges,  non-restrictive  licensing  conditions,  increased 
legal  certainty)  for  SMEs  were  put  in  place75.  In  turn,  SMEs  positively  impact  market 
dynamism and innovation and enable experiments with business models for value-added PSI 
products, including based on previously unexplored PSI datasets. 

Prevent fragmentation of PSI regulation across the EU  

Option 4 would harmonise the increasingly divergent regulatory re-use regimes in the internal 
market by extending to the whole of the EU a set of rules that have recently been adopted in 
only  a  few  Member  States.  Option  4  is  therefore  the  only  option,  compared  with  those 
assessed  above,  that  would  prevent  increasing  discrepancies  in  national  re-use  regulations, 
thereby reducing transaction costs and enhancing legal certainty for cross-border re-users.  

At the same time, this option shares the benefits identified in relation to the baseline Option 1 
and  Option  3,  in  terms  of  the  ability  for  Member  States  to  take  due  account  of  national 
conditions. This is a consequence of the nature of the instrument — a directive par excellence 
allows national differences to be accounted for when it is implemented in the national regime.  

Positive impact on general consumer welfare 

Option  4  is  most  likely  to  positively  affect  consumer  welfare  and  surplus.  A  2010  KPMG 
study  estimated  that  the  land  registry’s  online  access  and  digital  certification  service  was 
saving Spanish taxpayers at least 157 million Euros a year (against a land registry budget of 
118  million  for  the  same  year).  Another  cost-benefit  analysis  conducted  by  RSO  and  Cap 
Gemini showed that the land registry’s electronic office was saving the taxpayer about 7 758 
million Euros76.  

Positive impact on transparency and openness 

Option  4  is  also  most  likely  to  enhance  the  openness,  transparency  and  accountability  of 
governments. An enforceable right to re-use, combined with more re-use friendly conditions 
in terms of licensing, charging and redress, is most likely to increase as much non-commercial 

73 
74 
75 
76 

idem 
idem 
Op. cit. Deloitte 
Ditto. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
as  commercial  re-use,  thereby  positively  impacting  citizen  engagement  and  the  democratic 
process. 

Positive impact on public bodies 

Option  4  also  carries  the  biggest  likelihood  of  a  positive  impact  on  actual  revenues  and 
efficiencies  within  public  bodies.  Lower  prices  spur  demand,  which  sometimes  grows 
exponentially, and revenues from the sale of PSI actually increase77. Option 4 is also likely to 
enhance public efficiency, as revenues per public body employee dedicated to the facilitation 
of  re-use  actually  increase  when  charges  are  lowered.  Also,  Option  4  can  lead  to  actual 
improvement of data quality as a result of closer ties with re-users. In fact, quality control is 
stepped up and partly outsourced as deficiencies of supplied data are more often flagged up 
and reported back to the public body by re-users.  

Positive impact on the environment 

Increased  re-use  of  PSI  can  support  the  effort  to  address  the  environmental  challenges.  By 
stimulating innovation in intelligent processing and linking of public data such as e.g. use of 
environmental  pollution  data  with  weather  forecast  data  and  geographical  information  in 
traffic  management  or  energy  consumption  patterns  can  raise  efficiency  and  exploitation 
capacities of environmental monitoring and can influence policy decisions in transport, land 
use,  environment,  health,  carbon  reduction  and  climate  change  or  it  can  assist  the  public  to 
make  informed  travel  or  consumption  choices,  ultimately  contributing  to  the  fight  against 
climate change. Option 4, with lower prices and increased availability for public data for re-
use  is  most  likely  to  stimulate  the  development  of  environmentally  oriented  products  and 
services.  

In this respect, only Option 4, through increased availability of data and their re-use across the 
EU  is  likely  to  support  specific  environmental  or  transport  policy  initiatives.  The  PSI 
Directive, together with Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information 
(the  Aarhus  Directive)  and  Directive  2007/2/EC  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial 
Information in the EU (INSPIRE), form a set of EU measures aimed at ensuring the widest 
possible  dissemination  of  certain  information  held  by  public  bodies  thus  improving  pan-
European policy formulation, analysis, implementation and evaluation.  

Negative impacts 

While Option 4 would ensure convergence of national PSI re-use regimes, it does not share 
one of the benefits identified in  Option 3, which is to  accompany binding provisions  of the 
Directive with guidance on the application of certain provisions.  The lack  of such guidance 
may  lead  to  diverging  applications  of  some  of  the  Directive’s  provisions,  e.g.  diverging 
interpretation of the types of costs to be included within allowable charges or differences in 
terms of licensing conditions for re-use of PSI.  

Moreover,  implementing  Option  4  can  give  rise  to  additional  costs  when  compared  to  the 
baseline option. These costs will vary depending on the current national regulatory framework 
for re-use. Increased availability may involve costs associated with preparation of systems for 
collecting,  storing,  publishing  and  distributing  data.  There  may  also  be  additional  costs  for 

77 

Op. cit. Deloitte, op. cit. Vickery, op. cit. Cambridge Study 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
support  services  due  to  higher  demand.  This  is  further  analysed  in  the  section  on 
administrative burden below.  

By lowering charges, Option 4 may also generate indirect costs, related to e.g. compensating 
public entities for loss of revenue by budgetary transfers to maintain necessary activities. In 
this connection, studies indicate that direct revenues to governments from PSI are relatively 
low  and  are  much  lower  than  the  estimated  first-  and  second-order  benefits  from  access  to 
PSI. Upper-end estimates based on the most comprehensive data available suggest that EU-27 
government  revenues  are  of  the  order  of  € 1.4 billion  based  on  revenues  in  the  Netherlands, 
and even higher at around € 3.4 billion if based on the United Kingdom; revenues for the EU-
27  are  likely  to  be  considerably  lower  than  these  estimates78.  This  is  only  1-2 %  of  the 
aggregate economic impacts from further opening up PSI by allowing easy access at marginal 
cost, which are estimated at € 140 billion79. In addition to the relatively low level of revenues, 
there  are  indirect  effects  of  reduced  access  and  pricing  at  more  than  marginal  costs  of 
distribution,  including  lower  growth,  reduced  employment  and  reduced  dynamism  of  new 
information-based  industries,  in  addition  to  foregone  government  taxation  revenues  from 
higher-growth industries. 

However, analysis of cases of public bodies, which have already implemented lower charges 
and favourable re-use conditions, costs often ultimately decrease – if the volume of re-use and 
re-users  increase  significantly.  Once  the  facilitation  of  re-use  processes  has  been  properly 
organized,  they  become  subroutines  within  the  organization  and  are  to  a  large  extent 
embedded in the public task-funded activities with no extra costs.80 

Advantages  

Disadvantages 

(-) Likelihood of implementation costs 

(-) Likelihood of diverging application of cost 
calculations and licensing regimes 

(+) Improved consistency of approach 
between Member States 

(+) Greater harmonisation 

(+) Better regulatory predictability  

(+) More dynamic development of PSI re-use 
market  

(+)  More  competition  on  the  PSI  re-use 
market 

(+) More involvement of SMEs 

(+) Improved efficiency  

(+) Improved transparency 

(+)  Improved  re-usability  of  data  with 
machine-readable formats  

78 
79 
80 

Op. cit. Vickery. 
Ditto. 
Op. cit. Deloitte 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(+) Taxation from higher-growth industries 

5.5. 

Option 5: Packaged solution  

This  option  would  combine  a  systemic  change  in  the  re-use  framework  (Option  4)  with 
additional  guidance  on  the  principles  to  be  applied  by  national  authorities  when  they 
implement them at national level (Option 3). 

By bundling the two options — legislative amendments and soft law measures — this option 
would share the benefits identified for Options 3 and 4 in relation to the baseline Option 1, in 
terms of establishing a more re-use friendly regulatory framework with all its economic and 
social benefits combined with the benefits of guidance to increase legal certainty and ensure 
convergence in application of the regulatory framework.  

The effective use of PSI, especially during a period of austerity, is increasingly viewed as a 
key driver for stimulating economic growth and promoting social engagement. The challenge 
for the public sector is to remove the barriers that stand in the way of re-use. However, it is 
not  just  about  the  removal  of  obstacles,  it  is  about  ensuring  that  processes  are  in  place  that 
encourage and facilitate proactive re-use81.  

Simply  lowering  PSI  pricing  does  not  lead  automatically  to  growth  of  the  re-use  market. 
Innovation flourishes when the different systemic components are in place and reducing the 
cost of PSI is one component that removes the barrier to innovation, but not a sufficient factor 
per se82. Recommended licensing conditions, guidelines on cost calculation for marginal costs 
and for costs subject to recovery together with guidance on the meaning of ‘reasonable return 
on  investment’  will  reinforce  the  positive  impact  of  the  binding  regulatory  changes  by 
assisting  public  bodies  in  the  actual  application  of  the  provisions  and  will  further  reinforce 
legal certainty for re-users.  

This  option  also  shares  the  risks  of  direct  and  indirect  implementing  costs  identified  with 
respect to Option 4. 

Advantages  

Disadvantages 

(+) Improved consistency of approach 
between Member States 

(-)  Increased  likelihood  of  implementation 
costs 

(+) Greater harmonisation 

(+) Better regulatory predictability  

(+) Improved legal certainty for  re-users and 
public bodies with respect to cost calculations 
and licensing conditions 

(+) More dynamic development of PSI re-use 

The UK Report on the Re-use of Public Sector Information, unlocking PSI potential, 2010  

81 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/psi-report.pdf  
82 

Op. cit. Deloitte. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
market  

(+)  More  competition  on  the  PSI  re-use 
market 

(+) More involvement of SMEs 

(+) Improved efficiency 

(+) Improved transparency 

(+)  Improved  re-usability  of  data  with 
machine-readable formats  

(+) Taxation from higher-growth industries 

5.6. 

Implementation costs 

5.6.1.  Option 1: No changes to the Directive (baseline) 

In  this  case,  the  regulatory  framework  imposed  by  the  original  Directive  has  already  been 
implemented and where a public body has moved to comply with the re-use requirements, the 
costs  have  already  been  borne.  As  public  bodies  need  in  any  event  to  undertake  the  tasks 
involved  in  administering  and  complying  with  the  re-use  rules  in  their  territory  under  the 
existing framework, no additional costs would be incurred. 

5.6.2.  Option 2: Discontinuing existing EU action (repeal of the PSI Directive) 

It is not possible to assess what  would  be  the  impact  on  administrative  costs  of  this  option. 
Even if this  option means the ultimate removal of  the costs of administering  the  system  for 
data supply to re-users, it is not possible to predict what arrangements might be put in place 
by national governments to achieve similar objectives. 

5.6.3.  Option 3: Soft law measures  

Under  this  option,  implementation  of  the  recommended  guidance  on  cost  calculations  and 
licensing conditions could have an impact on the revenues of the public bodies if it leads to a 
reduction of claimed costs.  

It is difficult to estimate the costs or loss of revenues thus incurred but some costs could be 
similar to those incurred through compliance with a binding provision on lower charges for 
re-use, as considered in more detail below.  

5.6.4.  Option 4: Legislative amendments 

Implementation of the package is likely to impose some transition costs for complying with 
the  new  rules:  training  of  staff,  setting  up  the  help  desk,  changes  to  technical  infrastructure 
and legal support. In addition, lowering re-use charges would initially lead to lower revenues. 
To the extent that the public task is partly financed through returns from re-use charges and 
their  own  exploitation  of  value-added  products,  public  bodies  need  financial  guarantees  to 
cover the losses to be incurred. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
The actual administrative burden on public bodies of complying with more ambitious re-use 
rules  is  difficult  to  estimate  and  would  vary  according  to  the  current  situation  of  a  given 
public  body.  In  fact,  a  large  majority  of  public  bodies  will  not  be  concerned  by  the  re-use 
measures  as  they  do  not  collect,  produce  or  hold  any  information  that  is  considered  as  PSI. 
Many of those public bodies that do are already familiar with re-use, most have experience in 
granting re-use and a number have already moved to marginal costs without disrupting effects 
on their activities. Switching to lower fees or new licensing conditions would only generate 
one-off  costs  without  imposing  any  recurring  burden  on  the  public  bodies.  Some  cases 
indicate that costs incurred for facilitating re-use hardly grow at all — in fact often ultimately 
decrease — even if the volume of re-use and the number of re-users increase significantly. In 
fact,  once  the  new  processes  have  been  put  in  place,  they  become  subroutines  within  the 
organisation  that,  to  a  large  extent,  are  embedded  in  the  public  task-funded  activities  and 
involve no extra costs. This also seems to apply to the transaction costs to be incurred when 
charging  for  PSI  re-use  (see  for  instance  practices  by  KNMI-Dutch  Met  office,  DECA, 
SIRCOM-  outsourced  re-use  facilitation  by  a  French  site  analysing  environmental 
information, Destatis – German statistical office, Met.no – Norwegian Met office)83.  

Within  this  option,  public  bodies  will  not  face  a  binding  obligation  to  make  their  data 
available  in  machine-readable  formats  as  this  rule  will  be  indicative  only.  Where  public 
bodies  produce  or  collect  data  in  digital  formats,  adopting  machine-readable  formats  where 
not yet used will also only impose one-off transition costs and may lead to efficiency gains in 
those public bodies that make the investment of switching from analogue to digital data. 

With  respect  to  loss  of  revenues,  studies  indicate  that  although  revenues  obtained  from 
granting  re-use  are  sometimes  substantial  (Dutch  land  registry:  € 17m,  Ordnance  Survey: 
€ 21m), the cost recovery ratio — the amount of revenues from charging for raw data supplied 
to  re-users  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  budget  of  the  organisation  —  is  often  insignificant 
when compared to the full budget of the public bodies concerned (mostly less than 1 %, rarely 
more than 15 %)84. In addition, all case studies where public bodies have lowered their prices 
demonstrate  that  demand  grows  in  larger  relative  proportions,  sometimes  spectacularly. 
Accordingly, where the price elasticity of demand for PSI seems to be fairly large (well over a 
factor of 1), the price cuts will continue to contribute to an increase in revenues. (See Annex 6 
for a table presenting cost recovery ratios of selected public sector bodies). 

Sequential anthology of some assertions of PSI price elasticity:85 

“Lowering the price of public sector geographic data by 60% leads to a 40% annual turnover 
van 
effecten 
growth” 
overheidsinformatie, Ravi Bedrijvenplatform, the Netherlands, 2000). 

beschikbaarstelling 

laagdrempelige 

(Economische 

van 

“It  is  clear  that  there  is  a  significant  increase  in  the  usage  of  data  once  it  was  made  freely 
available.  Comparing  the  average  dissemination  of  2003-2005  with  2005-07  estimates 
(crudely)  gives  an  elasticity  of  2.33  (An  Australian  Perspective  on  Open  Access  to  and  the 
Pricing of Public Sector Information, Brian Fitzgerald, Australia, 2007). 

83 
84 
85 

Op. cit. Deloitte. 
Ditto.  
Op. cit. Deloitte 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Moreover, in the cases studied in the report, the average revenue per re-user, i.e. the amount 
charged  per  re-user,  was  relatively  low  (>€ 5 000  per  year).  On  the  other  hand,  the  average 
revenue per employee dealing with re-use increased for the public bodies offering the re-use 
facilitation  costs  model,  including  e.g.  simple  model  licences  with  little  negotiation  and 
monitoring burden. This is mainly due to efficiency gains from the need for fewer employees 
dealing with re-use. In addition, as lower charges increase re-use, they may in  fact increase 
the public body’s revenues from re-use as demonstrated by e.g. BEV, where price cuts of up 
to 97 % have led to increased PSI sales revenues (+46 % after four years). (See Annex 6 for 
more detailed analysis of transition financing measures of selected public sector bodies). 

On the other hand, the new legislative framework would not impose any compliance costs or 
recurring  administrative  costs  on  businesses  and  consumers.  On  the  contrary,  lower  fees 
would lead to reduced costs for re-users, including also transaction costs where marginal costs 
for dissemination of digital information are zero. 

Option 5: Packaged solution specific licence to be signed. 

5.6.5.  Option 5: Packaged solution 

The administrative costs that would be incurred under this option would not be greater than 
those  arising  under  Option  4,  since  public  bodies would in  any event need to undertake the 
tasks involved in administering and complying with the new regulatory framework for re-use, 
where not already implemented.  

5.7. 

Comparison of options 

Option 1 (status quo) would increase the likelihood of divergent approaches at national level, 
giving  rise  to  regulatory  uncertainty  and  distorting  competitive  conditions  in  the  internal 
market. 

Option 2 (repeal of the Directive) would remove the safety net provided at EU level by the 
minimum  established  PSI  re-use  rules.  By  leaving  Member  States  free  to  act  in  the  area 
previously subject to harmonised EU rules, it would give rise to increased legal uncertainty 
and  divergence  of  national  approaches,  to  the  detriment  of  competition  and  the  internal 
market for re-use of PSI. Repealing the directive is also entirely incoherent with related data 
accessibility and re-usability initiatives pursued at the EU and national level. 

Option  3  (soft  law  measures),  if  applied,  will  facilitate  application  of  the  rules  of  the  PSI 
Directive on licensing and charging but will nonetheless increase the likelihood of divergent 
approaches at national levels, giving rise to regulatory uncertainty and distorting competitive 
conditions in the internal market.  

Option  4  (legislative  amendments)  will  establish  a  re-use  friendly  regulatory  framework:  it 
will broaden the scope of application of the Directive by bringing in cultural material, create 
an opposable EU right to re-use public data, bring down prices for re-use of PSI, enhance the 
effectiveness of the redress mechanism for enforcement of the right to re-use, increase level 
playing  field  with  public  bodies  competing  with  private  re-users  but  carries  a  risk  of 
divergences – and legal uncertainty - in the application of individual provisions, in particular 
on costs calculation and licensing conditions.  

Option  5  (packaged  solution  of  soft  law  measures  and  legislative  amendments)  shares  the 
benefits of Option 4 but will in addition facilitate application of the rules of the PSI Directive 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
on licensing and charging. As a result, it will ensure convergence of national re-use friendly 
regulatory  approaches  throughout  the  internal  market,  thereby  enhancing  legal  certainty, 
increasing incentives and lowering barriers to undertake PSI re-use.  

The  table  below  provides  a  summary  of  main  likely  impacts  and  risks  (with  respect  to  the 
different economic and social dimensions) arising from the four policy options (2, 3, 4 and 5) 
involving  a  change  to  the  status  quo,  as  compared  to  the  “no  change”  Option  1,  which 
provides  a  baseline  scenario  for  the  assessment.  The  signs  represent  a  scale  of  possible 
impacts vis-à-vis the “no change scenario”: + positive impact, O neutral impact, − negative 
impact using option 1 as baseline.  

IMPACTS  AND 
RISKS 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Option 5 

policy 

No 
change 

Repeal  of  the 
Directive 

Soft 
measures 

law 

Legislative 
measures 

Packaged 
solution  

SPECIFIC RE-USE ISSUES 

Data re-
usability 

O No change 

Data 
availability 

O No change 

Transparency  O No change 

−  Risk  of  less 
favourable 
conditions  for  re-
use  of  data;  risk 
of 
re-
reduced 
usability of data 

− Risk of limited 
for 
availability 
re-use 
of 
different  types  of 
PSI 

of 

Risk 

− 
reduced 
transparency 
in 
procedures for re-
use of PSI 

+ 
If  applied, 
introduction  of 
EU guidance on 
costs 
calculation, 
recommended 
data 
and 
recommended 
licensing 
conditions 
facilitates 
and 
stimulates  data 
re-use 

formats 

O No change 

+ 
If  applied, 
introduction  of 
EU guidance on 
cost 
calculations and 
recommended 
licensing 
conditions 
improves 
transparency  of 
PSI provision. 

re-
with 
to 

Improved 

+ 
usability 
reference 
machine-readable 
formats 
possible 
appropriate 

where 
and 

Improved 

re-
with 
to  and 
on 

+ 
usability 
reference 
guidance 
machine-readable 
formats 
possible 
appropriate 

where 
and 

+ 
Improved 
availability  with 
extension  of  scope 
to  public  domain 
cultural material 

+ 
Improved 
availability  with 
extension  of  scope 
to  public  domain 
cultural material 

+ Some increase in 
transparency 
following 
the 
reversed  burden  of 
proof 

in 

+ 
Increase 
transparency 
following 
introduction  of  EU 
guidance  on  cost 
calculations 
and 
recommended 
licensing 
conditions  and  of 
reversed  burden  of 
proof  

Costs and 
benefits for re-
users/consumers 

O No change 

−−  High  risk  of 
loss  to  consumer 
welfare 
and 
economy  at  large 
less 
from 

−  Guidance  on 
cost  calculation 
in 
does 
to 
itself 
fees 
lowered 

not 
lead 

+  Reduction  of 
costs 
to  re-users 
from  lowering  of 
charges; 
default 
improved 

+  Reduction  of 
costs 
re-users 
to 
from  lowering  of 
charges; 
default 
guidance  on  cost 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
dynamic 
development  of 
PSI re-use market 

consumer  welfare 
increased 
from 
competition  on  the 
markets  for  re-use 
based 
products; 
increased  network 
effects 
from 
increased re-use 

for PSI 

to 

− 
Loss 
consumer 
and 
welfare 
at 
economy 
large  from  less 
dynamic 
development  of 
PSI 
re-use 
market 

and 

calculation 
recommended 
licensing 
conditions  would 
increase 
competition 
efficiency 
strengthening 
network effects and 
improving 
consumer welfare  

and 
gains 

Administrative 
burden on 
public bodies 

O No change 

Removes 

+ 
administrative 
burden 
of 
compliance  with 
EU  rules  on  re-
use of PSI 

of 

Risk 

− 
administrative 
of 
burden 
phasing out / new 
re-use 
arrangements 

Current 

O 
administrative 
burden remains 

Redress system 
for re-users 

 O No change 

Legal certainty  O No change 

O  No  change 
unless 
enforcement 
to 
reverts  back 
default 
the 
judicial 
system: 
in  some  Member 
States  this  could 
less 
to  a 
lead 
effective 
enforcement 
re-use  

of 

− 
No 
improvement of 
enforcement 
mechanisms, 
guidance 
enforceability 

lacks 

−−  High  risk  of 
increase  in  legal 
uncertainty  about 
re-use 
possibilities  and 
conditions, 
including 
transaction  costs 
(charges, 
licensing,  type  of 
for 
data), 
of 
availability 

+  Introduction 
of  EU  guidance 
on 
cost 
calculations and 
recommended 
licensing 
conditions 
improves 
certainty 
public 
and re-users 

legal 
for 
bodies 

Increased 

− 
administrative 
of 
burden 
compliance  with 
the  new  regulatory 
framework 

Increased 

− 
administrative 
of 
burden 
compliance  with 
the  new  regulatory 
framework 

−/  +  Depending 
on  the  PSI  sector 
and  price  elasticity 
the  market, 
in 
revenues  from  re-
use  would 
be 
foregone  or  could 
raised  with 
be 
increased re-use 

−/ + Depending on 
the  PSI  sector  and 
price  elasticity  in 
market, 
the 
revenues  from  re-
use  would 
be 
foregone  or  could 
raised  with 
be 
increased re-use 

+  Improvement  in 
the  redress  system 
with  appointment 
competent 
of 
authority 
to 
supervise 
compliance  with 
rules  of  Directive 
and 
hear 
complaints  against 
possible 
infringements; 
right 
enforceable 
to 
and 
re-use 
reversed  burden  of 
improve 
proof 
enforceability 

+  Introduction  of 
re-use 
improved 
(an 
framework 
enforceable 
right 
re-use, 
to 
improved 
redress 
mechanisms) 
would 
increase 
legal  certainty  for 
re-users 

+  Improvement  in 
the  redress  system 
with  appointment 
competent 
of 
authority 
to 
supervise 
compliance  with 
rules  of  Directive 
and 
hear 
complaints  against 
possible 
infringements; 
enforceable right to 
re-use and reversed 
burden  of  proof 
improve 
enforceability 

++  Introduction  of 
re-use 
improved 
framework 
(an 
enforceable right to 
re-use, 
improved 
redress 
mechanisms)  with 
guidance  on  cost 
calculation 
and 
recommended 
licensing 
conditions  would 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
public data 

Speed of 
implementation  

O No change  O No change 

+  EU  guidance 
would 
be 
immediately 
applicable 
(once  adopted 
the 
by 
Commission)  

−  Length  of  the 
legislative  process 
and 
of 
transposition 
would 
period 
the 
postpone 
positive  effects  of 
this option. 

significantly 
increase 
certainty 

legal 

−  Length  of  the 
legislative  process 
and 
of 
transposition 
would 
period 
postpone 
the 
positive  effects  of 
this option. 

+  EU  guidance 
be 
would 
immediately 
(once 
applicable 
adopted  by 
the 
Commission)  and 
beneficial 
for 
implementation 

Competition  O No change 

ECONOMIC ISSUES 

−  Risk  of  legal 
uncertainty 
and 
regulatory 
unpredictability 
Member 
(as 
would 
States 
full 
have 
flexibility 
to 
define  the  rules 
governing re-use) 
having a negative 
on 
impact 
competition. 

Default 
competition  rules 
reduce 
could 
of 
distortions 
competition 
if 
enforced. 

O  No  change, 
if 
although 
applied, guidance 
on 
cost 
calculations 
level 
could 
playing 
with 
public bodies 

the 
field 
‘hybrid’ 

costs 
with 

+  More  re-use 
friendly 
legal 
framework 
(marginal 
regime 
possible 
exceptions, 
improved  redress 
mechanism) 
in 
States 
Member 
has  been  shown 
stimulate 
to 
innovation 
and 
promote 
on 
competition 
PSI 
re-use 
market. Improved 
regulatory 
predictability  and 
transparency 
in 
the 
re-use 
markets  would 
level  the  playing 
field  with  public 
bodies 

on 

redress 

costs 
with 

re-use 
legal 

++  More 
friendly 
framework 
(marginal 
regime 
possible 
exceptions, 
improved 
mechanism; 
guidance 
favourable 
licensing 
costs 
conditions, 
calculation) 
in 
Member  States  has 
to 
been 
stimulate 
innovation 
promote 
competition on PSI 
market. 
re-use 
Improved 
regulatory 
predictability  and 
transparency  in  the 
markets 
re-use 
would 
the 
playing  field  with 
public bodies 

shown 

level 

and 

Investment and 
innovation 

O No change 

−−  High  risk  of 
legal  uncertainty 
regulatory 
and 
unpredictability 
(as 

Member 

O / + If applied, 
guidance  on  cost 
calculations  and 
licensing 
conditions)  could 

+  More  re-use 
friendly 
legal 
framework 
(marginal  costs, 
extended  scope, 

++  More 
friendly 
framework 
(marginal 
extended 

re-use 
legal 

costs, 
scope, 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
provide 
incentives 
more 
activities 
innovation  

for 
re-use 
and 

would 
States 
full 
have 
flexibility 
to 
define  the  rules 
governing  re-use 
of  PSI),  with  a 
negative 
impact 
on  incentives  for 
innovation 
and 
investment in PSI 
products 
re-use 
and services 

better 
enforceability  of 
rights)  stimulates 
re-use 
and 
provides 
incentives 
more 
activities, 
promoting 
innovation 
attracting 
investment in PSI 
re-use activities 

for 
re-use 

and 

Internal market 

 O No change 

−−  High  risk  of 
increased 
fragmentation  of 
internal  market 
for  PSI  re-use  as 
re-users  would 
face 
more 
divergent 
national regimes 

of 

Risk 

− 
increased 
fragmentation  of 
internal  market 
for  PSI  re-use  as 
re-users  would 
face 
more 
divergent 
national regimes 

If 

+ 
applied, 
guidance  on  cost 
calculations  and 
recommended 
licensing 
conditions  would 
some 
stimulate 
in 
convergence 
the 
internal 
market  

+  The  new  legal 
framework would 
lead 
to  greater 
harmonisation  of 
rules on re-use of 
PSI  and  improve 
consistency 
of 
approach 
between  Member 
by 
States 
extending 
the 
applied 
rules 
individually 
by 
some  Member 
States  across  the 
EU 

better 
of 
enforceability 
rights,  guidance  on 
re-use 
friendly 
conditions and cost 
calculations) 
stimulates 
re-use 
and provides strong 
incentives for more 
re-use 
activities, 
promoting 
innovation 
attracting 
investment  in  PSI 
re-use activities 

and 

to 

++  The  new  legal 
framework  would 
greater 
lead 
harmonisation 
of 
rules  on  re-use  of 
improve 
PSI  and 
consistency 
of 
approach  between 
Member  States  by 
extending  the  rules 
applied 
by 
individually 
Member 
some 
States  across 
the 
EU  and  providing 
on 
guidance 
application  of  the 
the 
provisions  of 
(cost 
Directive 
and 
calculations 
re-
for 
licensing 
are 
use),  which 
applied 
now 
unevenly 
and 
inconsistently 
across the EU 

Citizen 
empowerment/ 
public 
accountability 

O No change 

SOCIAL ISSUES 

− Removal of the 
legal 
re-use 
framework 
negatively 
impacts 
democratic 
process 
limiting 
amount 
available data 

by 
the 
of 

the 

O/+  Guidance 
cost 
on 
calculation 
has 
limited impact on 
data  availability 
non-
for 
re-
commercial 
use 
but 
recommended 
licensing 
conditions  could 
re-use 
improve 
and 
conditions 
non-
stimulate 

+  The  new  legal 
framework would 
non-
stimulate 
re-
commercial 
associated 
use 
with 
openness 
and  government 
transparency  by 
creating 
an 
enforceable  right 
to 
and 
re-use 
improving 
redress solutions 

+  The  new  legal 
with 
framework 
guidance 
on 
licensing 
conditions  would 
and 
stimulate 
facilitate 
non-
commercial  re-use 
with 
associated 
openness 
and 
government 
transparency 
by 
an 
creating 
enforceable right to 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
re-
commercial 
associated 
use 
with 
openness 
and  government 
transparency 

re-use 
and 
improving  redress 
solutions 

Employment 
and labour 
market 

O No change 

− Removal of the 
re-use 
legal 
framework  could 
back 
hold 
existing  business 
activities,  leading 
to  fewer  jobs  in 
re-use 
the  PSI 
sector 

O  Guidance  on 
costs 
and 
licensing  would 
most  likely  not 
be  sufficient  to 
re-use 
stimulate 
the 
markets 
extent 
that 
appreciable 
effects  on 
would ensue 

jobs 

to 

Impact on the 
environment 

O No change 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

− Removal of the 
re-use 
legal 
framework  will 
support 
remove 
sector-
for 
policy 
specific 
initiatives, 
such 
as INSPIRE  

O No change 

+  Enhanced  new 
legal  framework, 
in  particular  re-
use 
friendly 
charging, leads to 
appreciable 
an 
in 
increase 
commercial 
re-
job 
and 
use 
creation  in  some 
sectors 

+  Enhanced  new 
legal framework, in 
re-use 
particular 
charging 
friendly 
and licensing, leads 
to  an  appreciable 
increase 
in 
commercial  re-use 
and  job  creation  in 
some sectors 

can 

+  By  stimulating 
innovation, 
a 
re-use 
more 
friendly 
framework 
impact 
environmental 
services 
products 
support 
environmental 
policies  

and 
and 

+  By  stimulating 
innovation,  a  more 
friendly 
re-use 
framework 
can 
impact 
environmental 
services 
products 
support 
environmental 
policies  

and 
and 

5.8. 

Conclusion 

The Impact Assessment indicates that Option 5 (packaged solution of soft law measures and 
legislative  amendments)  offers  the  best  balance  between  promoting  re-use  of  PSI, 
harmonisation and legal certainty in the light of national circumstances. 

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

A  core  indicator  of  progress  towards  meeting  the  identified  objectives  is  the  correct 
transposition  and  application  of  the  Re-use  of  Public  Sector  Information  Directive.  The 
INFSO  Management  Plan  regularly  monitors  the  implementation  of  the  PSI  Directive  with 
this indicator, and this will also be done for the revised Directive. 

The  following  indicators,  which  may  be  refined  in  collaboration  with  Member  States' 
representatives86, will allow to measure progress in the re-use of public sector information and 
related policies across the European Union: 

• 

86 

EN 

Number of data portals and of available datasets; 

Collaboration with the Member States on a common set of the PSI re-use indicators is foreseen under 
the European E- Government Action Plan 2011-2015. 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Quality  of  the  datasets  evaluated  according  to  a  set  of  criteria  including  machine 
readability and the possibility of having user feedback; 

Level of re-use (number of downloads of data, number of downloads of applications, 
turnover of companies); 

Cross-border use of data; 

Number of exceptions from the general rule on pricing, and their economic impact; 

Degree of standardisation of licensing conditions, use of open licenses; 

Level  of  activity  of  redress  and  enforcement  mechanisms,  including  the  degree  of 
independence of regulatory bodies and effectiveness of their decisions. 

Number and character of complaints and other reports from citizens and business to 
the Commission.  

Data will be gathered in the following ways: 

– 

– 

– 

reporting obligation on Member States to be included in the amended Directive, 

input from stakeholders as part of a regular dialogue and 

independent studies to collect, collate and assess data. 

The  Commission  will  review  the  application  of  the  Directive  and  will  communicate  the 
results  of  the  review  together  with  any  proposals  for  modifications  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council 3 years after the transposition date. 

7. 

ANNEXES 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Annex 1: Implementation of the Directive 

Annex 2: Overview of the results of the public consultation 

Annex 3: Key findings of the studies 

Annex 4: Examples of difficulties in accessing PSI for re-use (pricing and licensing 
conditions) 

Annex 5: Charging policies in the cultural sector 

Annex 6: Overview of charging tendencies by public sector bodies 

Annex 7: Machine-readable formats 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Annex 1: Implementation of the Directive 

Implementing acts in Member States 

Member States have implemented the Directive in different ways: 

- 11 Member States have adopted specific PSI re-use measures (BE, DE, GR, ES, IE, IT, CY, 
LU, MT, RO, UK). 

- 4 Member States have used a combination of new measures specifically addressing re-use 
and legislation predating the Directive (DK, AT, SI, SE) and 8 Member States have adapted 
their legislative framework for access to documents to include re-use of PSI (BG, CZ, FI, FR, 
LV, LT, NL, PT). 

- 4 Member States have notified the Commission only of pre-existing measures (provisions of 
Constitutional Acts, provisions of Freedom of Information/Access to Information Acts), none 
of which specifically addresses re-use (EE, HU, PL, SK). 

Actions to support the proper application and implementation of the PSI Directive: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

PSI group, a Member States’ expert group for the exchange of good practices 
and initiatives supporting public sector information re-use.  

PSI  Platform,  the  European  Public  Sector  Information  (PSI)  platform.  This 
‘one-stop-shop’  web  portal  provides  news  on  European  PSI  developments, 
good  practices,  examples  of  new  products  and  services,  and  legal  cases 
concerning PSI re-use.  

LAPSI network. The project aims to analyse the legal issues related to access 
to and re-use of public sector information, foster debate among researchers and 
players  in  the  field,  among  other  things  through  dissemination  exercises  and 
awareness-raising  events  and  contests,  and  produce  a  set  of  policy  guidelines 
that will help all interested stakeholders in their access and re-use policies and 
practices. 

Exclusive  agreements,  an  exercise  for  assessing  the  existence  of  possible 
exclusive agreements concluded by public sector bodies within certain Member 
States (pursuant to Article 11 of the Directive). 

Economic analysis. Several studies have been undertaken to measure different 
aspects of PSI. See Annex 3. 

General principle provisions in Member States 

In France, the PSI Directive was transposed by Ordonnance 2005-650 on freedom of access 
to administrative documents and on the re-use of public sector information. Article 10 of the 
Ordonnance provides that information featured in documents made or held by public sector 
bodies can be used by any person for purposes other than those of the public tasks for which 
the documents were created or held. The right to re-use public sector information concerns all 
documents to which there is a right to access under the French access to documents regime as 
well as those that were previously publicly disseminated.  

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
In  Slovenia  the  PSI  Directive  was  transposed  by  a  Decree  on  the  provision  and  re-use  of 
public information amending the Access to Public Information Act from 2003. According to 
the  Slovak  legislation,  all  information  held  by  public  sector  bodies,  to  which  access  is 
allowed,  may  also  be  re-used,  with  the  exception  of  archive  material  held  by  a  competent 
archive. 

Other Member States (Spain, Poland) are currently adopting a general principle that makes all 
accessible  information  re-usable  and  others  are  in  favour  of  this  option  (the  Netherlands, 
Denmark). 

Charging regimes in selected individual Member States  

The National Archives oversees implementation of re-use policy in the UK and, through the 
Controller  of  Crown  copyright,  gives  directions  to  central  government  departments  and 
agencies  whose  output  is  covered  by  Crown  copyright.  It  was  decided87  that  most  central 
government information should be available for re-use at marginal cost. In practice this often 
means  free  of  charge,  especially  where  the  information  is  published  online.  Where 
departments and agencies other than trading funds wish to charge for the re-use of data, they 
are  required  to  justify  departures  from  the  marginal  cost  model  against  the  criteria  for 
exceptions for marginal cost pricing88. If their request is accepted, they are required to sign up 
to the Information Fair Trader Scheme, which has a system of verification and investigation 
of  complaints89.  This  policy  aims  to  ensure  that  the  Government  does  not  restrict  or  create 
unnecessary  barriers  to  re-use.  Many  public  bodies  have  changed  their  policy  from  a  cost 
recovery policy to a marginal cost approach, with resounding success.  

France: linked to the creation of the data.gouv.fr portal, a decree has laid down the principle 
of distribution without charge of central government information. All new charging policies 
must be justified and have to be submitted for approval90. 

The Netherlands has announced it is moving towards charging only marginal costs or less, in 
line with the preamble to the Directive, which recommends this approach. 

87 
88 

89 
90 

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/cost-pricing.htm. 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/criteria-exceptions-marginal-
cost-pricing.pdf. 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/ifts/members.htm. 
Décret  n°  2011-577  du  26  mai  2011  relatif  à  la  réutilisation  des  informations  publiques  détenues  par 
l’Etat et ses établissements publics administratifs. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 2: Overview of the results of the public consultation 

The  consultation  was  published  on  the  Commission’s  ‘Your  Voice  in  Europe’  webpage 
(http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=psidirective2010).  A  press  release  was 
issued. The launch was publicised also on Twitter, on the Commission’s Information Society 
PSI  website 
the 
ePSIplatform  portal.  In  addition,  all  types  of  stakeholders  were  informed  about  the 
consultation  and  invited  through  their  associations  and  by  individual  email  messages  to 
submit their views. A report summarising the results of the consultation was also prepared and 
published on the same site91. 

(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm)  and  on 

The overwhelming majority of respondents (over 90 %) stated that PSI re-use has not reached 
its  full  potential  and  support  further  action  to  stimulate  re-use  and  promote  cross-border 
provision  of  PSI-based  products  and  services,  although  responses  to  the  last  topic  showed 
some difference of opinion among the PSI bodies.  

3.1 Has PSI re-use reached its full potential in Europe?

agree strongly
2%

agree
3%

no opinion
6%

disagree strongly
45%

disagree
44%

••• 11

agree strongly 
72%

disagree 
2%

disagree strongly
2%

no opinion 
1%

agree 
23%

Could further action towards opening up public data resources and practical 
measures facilitating re-use contribute to unlocking innovation? 

91 

http://tinyurl.com/PSIconsultation. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
In  general,  most  respondents  favour  amendments  to  the  Directive,  although  support  for 
amendments ranges according to the category of respondents from some 40% of PSI content 
holders up to over 70% of re-users.  

Should further action be taken at Community level to 
promote cross-border products and services re-using PSI?

disagree
2%

disagree strongly
4%

agree strongly
46%

no opinion
8%

agree
40%

more substantive amendments to the Directive?

and/or technical adjustments to the Directive clarifying 
some of the provisions?

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

79,57%

9,14%

no

yes

respondents

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

76,88%

yes

respondents

5,38%

no

Suggestions  for  legislative  amendments  and  for  additional  soft  law  guidance  did  not  differ 
significantly among specific categories of respondents. Respondents flagged many issues that 
in their view remain problematic, but several topics stand out clearly from the submissions.  

Respondents across all categories (88 %) support changing the general principle to make all 
accessible information available.  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
Disagree
Strongly 4%

N.A.4%

Disagee 3%

N.O. 1%

Agree 27%

Agree
Strongly 61%

Opinion  was  almost  equally  strongly  (almost  80 %)  in  favour  of  extending  the  scope  of  the 
Directive, with most support for including research and educational establishments and least 
for public broadcasters. Interestingly, PSI content holders are generally divided half in favour 
and  half  against  extending  the  Directive’s  scope  to  any  of  the  sectors.  This  difference  of 
opinion  stems  from  the  fact  that  some  opposing  PSI  holders  currently  belong  to  one  of  the 
excluded  sectors  and  wish  to  maintain  this  status  or  represent  those  PSBs  that  reluctantly 
make  their  data  available  and  are  in  principle  opposed  to  the  open  data  concept.  Those  PSI 
bodies  in  favour  of  extension  have  generally  embraced  the  aims  of  the  PSI  Directive  and 
comply with its provisions. In their opinion, sectoral exclusions are not justifiable. 

More specifically on the question of scope, respondents generally favour an extension of the 
Directive,  with  little  difference  among  opinions  regarding  each  excluded  sector  but  with 
differences in levels of support: least support from PSI holders (around 50 % for each sector) 
and most from academics and citizens (bordering on 80 % for each sector). Representatives of 
the excluded sectors essentially repeated the arguments against extending the scope that were 
used  to  justify  the  initial  exclusion  of  these  sectors  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive,  i.e.  the 
preponderance  of  third-party  intellectual  property  rights  covering  materials  held  by  these 
public  bodies.  An  additional  argument  against  extending  the  scope,  to  do  with  protecting 
privacy and personal data, was put forward by representatives of public archives.  

public service broadcasters?

14%

6%

9%

7%

80%

84%

27%

5%

68%

34%

12%

44%

41%

16%

43%

no opinion

diagree

agree

PSI holder PSI reusers

academic

citizens

others

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
educational and research establishments?

6%
7%

5%
9%

87%

86%

20%

8%

72%

39%

8%

53%

31%

14%

55%

no opinion

diagree

agree

PSI holder PSI reusers

academic

citizens

others

cultural establishments?

24%

4%

72%

16%

6%

13%

7%

78%

80%

31%

10%

49%

37%

8%

55%

no opinion

diagree

agree

PSI holder PSI reusers

academic

citizens

others

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Another strongly supported issue is the promotion of re-use friendly formats with over 83% of 
respondents  calling  for  formats  to  be  machine  readable  and/or  based  on  open  standards 
software.  In  parallel,  respondents,  including  PSI  content  holders,  called  for  the  need  to 
harmonise  and  standardise  the  formats  and  licensing  terms  to  prevent  fragmentation  of  the 
internal market for data re-use. Mainly PSI re-users  and  academics (with fewer PSI bodies) 
also pointed out that restrictive and/or un-harmonised licensing terms are frequently a barrier 
to re-use and that acceptable conditions should be more precisely spelled out in the Directive. 
Many respondents across categories called  for  standardisation of  licensing terms,  frequently 
suggesting  the  Creative  Commons  framework.  Among  the  re-users  and  the  academics, 
respondents called for stronger obligations regarding redress mechanisms and transparency. A 
recurring remark from re-users is the difficulty to locate a competent interlocutor within PSI 
content holders.  

The question of charging received much attention from all respondents. It is clear from many 
submissions that clarification and guidance on many charging issues is required, including on 
charging  strategies  versus  open  access  or  on  admissible  tariffs.  Although  views  tend  to 
diverge across categories of respondents, some 70% of respondents opposed the rule of full 
cost recovery together with a reasonable return on investments and some 66% supported free 
re-use  for  non-commercial  purposes.  Respondents  were  almost  equally  divided  on  the 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
marginal  costs  option.  PSI  bodies  called  for  guidance  on  charging  to  take  into  account  not 
only the type of data in question (e.g. raw versus value added data), but also the type of end 
use (public, academic, business), and the way data is delivered . PSI re-users also called for a 
distinction  between  raw  and  value  added  data. Moreover,  together  with  the  academics,  they 
were the most numerous to call for the marginal costs principle. This multitude of proposals 
demonstrates that no one size fits all (e.g. core data / raw data versus value added; type of end 
use) and these differences must be accounted for in order not to inhibit data re-use.  

Support (in % of responses received) for different charging regimes 

% 

Agree 
strongly 

Agree  No 

Disagree 

Disagree 

No 
answer 

TOTAL 

opinion 

strongly 

cost 

(i) at charges based on 
recovery, 
full 
together 
a 
reasonable  return  on 
investment? 

with 

(ii) at charges based on 
full cost recovery? 

(iii)  at  charges  based 
on 
cost 
partial 
recovery? 

(iv)  at  marginal  costs 
for  reproducing  and 
the 
disseminating 
documents? 

(v) at marginal costs as 
the  basic  rule  with 
certain 
limited 
exceptions? 

(vi) for  free as  regards 
both  commercial  and 
non-commercial re-use 

(vii) for free as regards 
non-commercial re-use 

3.8 

6.3 

4.6 

24.3 

46.8 

14.2 

100 

3.3 

9.6 

5.3 

31.1 

35.9 

14.8 

100 

2.6 

13 

9.7 

29.9 

27.5 

17.3 

100 

12.7 

26.7 

10.3 

19.5 

16.6 

14.2 

100 

7 

25.3 

13.7 

23.1 

16 

14.9 

100 

30.4 

20 

9 

16.8 

11.3 

12.5 

100 

49.1 

17.1 

7.8 

6.4 

7.7 

11.8 

100 

Finally, respondents across all sectors generally called for support and deployment measures 
to  promote  PSI  re-use,  including  across  borders.  These  measures  range  from  guidance  on 
many topics (licensing, charging, public task, data quality) to support for the development of 
national data portals and for a European single access point to data. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 3: Key findings of the studies 

– 

MEPSIR 

In  order  to  be  able  to  measure  the  re-use  of  PSI  in  the  Member  States  and  Norway,  the 
Commission  ordered  a  benchmark  study  on  exploitation  of  PSI  (MEPSIR  —  Measuring 
European  Public  Sector  Information  Resources)92.  The  main  objectives of  the study,  carried 
out  in  2006,  were  (1)  to  develop,  document  and  test  a  repeatable  methodology  for 
measurement of PSI re-use and (2) to perform a baseline measurement of PSI re-use in the EU 
and Norway93. The study estimated the overall market size for public sector information in the 
EU to be in the range of € 10 to € 48 billion, with a mean value around € 27 billion, amounting 
to 0.25 % of the total aggregated GDP for the EU and Norway (€ 10 730 billion).  

– 

Exclusive agreements 

In  2009/2010  the  Commission  carried  out  a  comprehensive  study  to  assess  the  existence  of 
possible exclusive agreements concluded by public sector bodies, in the light of Article 11 of 
the  Directive  and  in  accordance  with  the  Communication  on  the  Review  of  the  Directive. 
Article  11  forbids,  as  a  general  rule,  the  existence  of  exclusive  agreements  (EAs)  unless 
necessary for the provision of a service in the public interest, and the transitional period laid 
down in the Directive for terminating existing exclusive agreements ended on 31 December 
2008.  Nine  Member  States  were  surveyed.  Most  of  the  studies  revealed  very  few  potential 
exclusive agreements in the EU, and the assessment indicated that these were not one of the 
major  obstacles  hindering  exploitation  of  the  full  potential  for  PSI  re-use  in  Europe.  The 
studies also provide some insight into current PSI developments in Member States and point 
to those areas that may be preventing PSI re-use in each Member State94. 

– 

Economic indicators and case studies on PSI pricing models 

In 2010, the Commission also finalised and published the final report on economic indicators 
and  case  studies  on  PSI  pricing  models95.  In  all  20  organisations  participated  voluntarily  in 
working groups representing a broad range of operational experience across the EU. Of the 10 
indicators recommended (seven on the supply side and three on the demand side), only three 
provided a direct economic measure, with three indicators usable for regular measurements at 
specific intervals in time.  

In 2010 the Commission launched three other external studies on: (i) assessing the different 
models  of  supply  and  charging  for  PSI  (Deloitte);  (ii)  a  revised  figure  for  the  PSI  market 
value for Europe and (iii) re-use of PSI in the cultural sector. These studies were completed 
during the first half of 2011. 

– 

Pricing of Public Sector Information Study, Deloitte, July 2011 

92 
93 
94

95 

EN 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/actions_eu/policy_actions/mepsir/index_en.htm. 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/actions_eu/policy_actions/mepsir/index_en.htm. 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/facilitating_reuse/exlusive_agreements/inde

x_en.htm. 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/economic_study_report_final.pdf. 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
In  order  to  assess  what  model  of  supply  and  charging  for  public  sector  information  would 
facilitate  the  greatest  re-use  of  PSI,  maximising  its  social  and  economic  value,  the  study 
undertook  21  case  studies  around  the  EU  in  close  cooperation  with  public  sector  bodies 
(PSBs) in four sectors (meteorological, geographic, business registries and other) to compare 
and drive conclusions on the economic effects evident in those PSBs that have shifted towards 
for free and marginal costs pricing models compared to those that practise full or partial cost 
recovery. Therefore, the study looked into the impacts of different charging regimes on both 
the downstream market and the PSBs providing the PSI. 

The study also  performed  a  snapshot analysis of  the  Smartphone  apps  market  based  on  PSI 
and a comparative analysis of some best practice data gov portals.  

It is evident that we are currently witnessing positive political engagement and willingness to 
make  government  information  more  widely  available  and  re-usable  in  Europe,  including 
changes  in  the  pricing  policy  towards  for  free  or  marginal  costs,  which  are  having  positive 
effects on the increasing number of citizens and re-users making use of PSI. This is an evident 
conclusion emerging from this study. 

There is a clear general trend towards lowering charges. Furthermore, there are quite a lot of 
cases that appear to be in an ‘in between’ situation, where non-commercial re-use is allowed 
against zero costs (and only commercial re-use is charged). In almost all cases, PSBs allow 
free access to their PSI. In some cases, free access (i.e. viewing without copying) was in fact 
the  forerunner  to  a  more  liberal  re-use  regime.  In  those  case  studies  where  cost-recovery 
regimes  are  still  applied,  the  calculation  basis  for  setting  PSI  re-use  charges  appears  to  be 
weak. The PSBs concerned are mostly unable to explain the basis for cost allocation. In some 
cases, the setting of charges seems to be geared towards filling budget gaps rather than a cost-
oriented  tariff  as  is  required  under  the  Directive.  In  all  case  studies,  the  PSI  re-use  related 
revenues of PSBs range from relatively small to extremely small when compared to the full 
budget of the PSB concerned. In more than half of the cases these revenues formed less than 
1 % of the PSBs’ entire budget and in only four cases did this cost recovery rate exceed 15 % 
(the highest measurement was 20.7 %). 

In those cases where PSBs have shifted to a lower charging regime, this movement does not 
stand alone, but is rather part of a broader policy change. Quite often this policy change also 
entails a change in the assertion of intellectual property rights and cutting of the provision of 
own value-added products. 

The number of PSBs exploiting value-added products (based on their own raw data) is limited 
and appears to be decreasing over time. In quite a number of case studies these were referred 
to as ‘headache’ products. 

Lowered  charges  significantly  impact  re-use.  In  those  cases  where  PSBs  moved  to  re-use 
facilitation  costs  or  marginal/zero  costs  charging,  the  number  of  re-users  skyrocketed  by 
factors  ranging  from  10  to  100  (1 000-10 000 %  increases).  Furthermore,  economic  effects 
appear to be multiplied exponentially through the huge network effects that they can trigger. 
This  applies  particularly  to  PSI  of  a  infrastructural  nature,  such  as  address  data  and  maps. 
These are ‘capillary pulled’ into other data environments.  

Lowering  charges  also  brings  in  different  types  of  re-users,  in  particular  SMEs.  This  was 
evidenced by a number of cases where the price cuts were less significant (or even absent), 
but  where  special  schemes  for  SMEs  were  put  in  place.  The  snapshot  of  the  apps  market 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
demonstrates that these lowered entry barriers for SMEs positively impact market dynamism 
and innovation and enable experiments with business models that create value-added services 
on top of PSI data as well as showing the hidden value of previously unexplored PSI datasets. 

All  case  studies  where  PSBs  have  lowered  their  prices  demonstrate  that  demand  grows  in 
larger  relative  proportions,  sometimes  spectacularly.  Accordingly,  where  the  price  elasticity 
of  demand  for  PSI  seems  to  be  fairly  large,  the  price  cuts  will  continue  to  contribute  to  an 
increase  in  revenues,  especially  since  current  revenues  appear  to  be  relatively  low.  Once 
charges are zero, revenues will also be zero. 

Conversely, costs appear hardly to increase — in fact, they often ultimately decrease — if the 
volume  of  re-use  and  number  of  re-users  increase  significantly.  Apparently,  once  the 
facilitation of re-use processes has been properly organised, they become subroutines within 
the organisation and are to a large extent embedded in the public task-funded activities with 
no extra costs. Lower charges thus also appear to enhance efficiency, where the revenues per 
re-use  FTE  (PSB  employees  dedicated  to  the  facilitation  of  re-use)  actually  increase  when 
charges are lowered. The concern about lower PSI data quality in the event of increased re-
use, which has often been expressed by PSBs, was not confirmed by the case studies. Rather 
the  opposite  was  reported:  closer  ties  with  re-users  lead  to  improved  data  quality,  since 
deficiencies are immediately flagged up and reported back to the PSB. Hence, quality control 
is partly outsourced when the interest in data quality is shared.  

– 

Review  of  recent  studies  on  PSI  re-use  and  related  market  developments,  Graham 
Vickery, July 2011 

Estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  most  recently  available  studies,  the  narrowly  defined  EU-27 
direct  PSI-related  market  was  worth  around  € 28 billion  in  2008  and  continuing  to  grow, 
suggesting  a  figure  of  around  € 32 billion  in  2010  provided  that  PSI  markets  continued 
growing at earlier rates and were not affected by the recession.  

Although  care  needs  to  be  taken  with  these  estimates  as  they  come  from  a  wide  range  of 
sources  using  different  methodologies,  it  is  clear  that  even  the  narrow  PSI-based  market  is 
economically important and the direct economic ‘footprint’ is probably larger due to PSI use 
and  re-use  activities  in  other  industries  and  in  government.  Furthermore,  overall  economic 
gains from opening up PSI by allowing easy access for free or marginal cost of distribution 
could bring gains of around € 40 billion for the EU-27, depending on the economic impacts of 
current limitations on access and use. 

Aggregate economic impacts from PSI use across the whole EU-27 economy are of the order 
of  € 140 billion,  showing  clearly  that  there  are  large  economic  benefits  to  be  gained  from 
easier access to and greater use of PSI. It is also clear that new applications and uses in a wide 
variety of goods and services industries and future innovations associated with easier access 
to  PSI  are  more  important  than  the  direct  market  associated  with  the  use  of  PSI,  and  wider 
second-order uses can be expected to add further economic and social benefits to the EU-27 
economy.  

All  studies  show  relatively  rapid  growth  in  PSI-related  markets,  estimated  variously  in  the 
range of 6-11 %, with higher growth rates where PSI is made increasingly accessible at lower 
direct cost.  

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
There are more scattered estimates of the gains from the removal of current barriers to access 
and  improving  the  underlying  infrastructure,  and  they  too  are  positive.  For  example  in  the 
geospatial sector, benefits could be increased by some 10-40 %, depending on the estimation 
method,  by  improving  access,  data  standards,  and  building  skills  and  knowledge.  Better 
policies in the area of geospatial applications in local government could help the productivity 
gains  from  applications  almost  double  over  the  next  five  years.  Large  markets  are  also 
estimated in financial, energy and construction sectors.  

On the other hand, direct revenues to governments from PSI are relatively low and are much 
lower  than  the  estimated  first-  and  second-order  benefits  from  access  to  PSI.  Upper-end 
estimates  based  on  the  most  comprehensive  data  available  suggest  that  EU-27  government 
revenues  are  of  the  order  of  € 1.4 billion  based  on  revenues  in  the  Netherlands,  and  even 
higher at around € 3.4 billion if based on the United Kingdom, two countries that have been 
relatively  effective  in  collecting  revenues.  Revenues  for  the  EU-27  are  likely  to  be 
considerably lower than these estimates. Despite the relatively low level of revenues, there are 
indirect  effects  of  reduced  access  and  pricing  at  more  than  marginal  costs  of  distribution, 
including  lower  growth,  reduced  employment  and  reduced  dynamism  of  new  information-
based  industries,  in  addition  to  foregone  government  taxation  revenues  from  higher-growth 
industries.  

Research suggests that foregone government revenues from direct sales of PSI could be raised 
via basic replacement funding, possibly mixed with some kind of ‘updater’ funding models, 
where, for example, businesses updating their company data pay a higher levy. Nevertheless, 
the extra funding involved is estimated to be very small compared with the budgets of public 
sector bodies providing public sector information (usually less than 1 % of their expenditures 
and  a  maximum  of  one  fifth  of  expenditures  in  isolated  cases),  and  even  smaller  compared 
with additional benefits from greater PSI-related economic activity overall. In addition, it is 
worthwhile to improve the IT infrastructure and to rationalise terms of access/use policy for 
intra-government PSI re-use (e.g. between national and local governments), with both direct 
benefits to governments and related spillovers to the private sector. 

– 

Re-use of cultural material 

The study investigating the re-use of PSI in the cultural sector found that very few institutions 
are dependent on the income they receive from re-use to enable them to undertake their public 
task. However, the income that they receive from re-use is in many cases essential to enable 
future re-use and development of services.  

The approach that institutions have taken appears to depend on a very wide range of intrinsic 
and extrinsic factors — from the strategy of the State they are located in, through the nature of 
the  collections,  right  down  to  the  personalities  of  the  people  involved  at  an  institution.  It  is 
important to bear in mind that a sample of this size cannot be representative of such a diverse 
community.  These  results  should  not  be  seen  as  statistically  representative  or  significant; 
rather, they provide a first empirical view of possible trends and practices concerning re-use 
of cultural materials in several EU Member States. 

Most organisations sampled are already re-using material in some way. Based on the survey 
respondents,  the  institutions  with  the  highest  absolute  income  from  re-use  are  typically 
national institutions that have been conducting chargeable re-use activities for many years (in 
one case, since 1765!). This is unsurprising, given that they have the largest and best-known 
collections,  and  they  have  the  administrative  capability  to  manage  the  exploitation  of  this 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
material. These institutions are also most likely to undertake third-party re-use, by licensing 
entire  collections  to  an  external  organisation  that  undertakes  digitisation  and  then  generates 
income. This income is then used to fund the staff time and effort required to prepare further 
collections for digitisation and re-use. 

The institution (in the overall sample) with the highest income from re-use generated ~ €10m 
in 2009, representing 7.1 % of total income. The institution with the highest share of income 
from re-use generated ~ €6m, representing 11.1 % of total income.  

Of  the  organisations  reporting  financial  data  for  this  study,  between  2005  and  2009  some 
showed  growth  in  revenue  from  re-use  activities,  while  others  showed  a  decline.  As  a 
proportion  of  overall  income,  however,  re-use  remained  approximately  level  (<1 %  change) 
for all of the reporting institutions. Many respondents stressed that they were trying to balance 
their public task of disseminating information with their need to generate income to fund the 
future  development  of  services.  As  expected,  many  new  projects  have  been  started  since 
2005,  and  many  more  are  currently  being  planned.  Many  of  these  are  not  yet  generating 
income and, indeed, many are not intended to do so. It is clear, however, that institutions are 
actively seeking out opportunities to re-use their content regardless of whether they intend to 
generate income from this re-use.  

Many respondents expressed in qualitative sections of the survey a sense that digitisation of 
content  was  synonymous  with  enabling  re-use.  Respondents  have  generally  expressed  the 
view  that  material  must  be  digitised  to  reach  as  wide  an  audience  as  possible.  Nonetheless, 
there  are  good  examples  of  ‘analogue’  re-use,  such  as  reproduction  fees,  selling  prints, 
catalogues, etc.  

There was a general view that the cost and effort of digitisation was the major factor limiting 
re-use  of  their  material.  Depending  on  the  capability  and  nature  of  the  organisation,  this 
typically either has prevented the re-use of the material, or has led to third-party re-use. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
Annex 4: Examples of difficulties in accessing PSI for re-use (pricing and licensing 
conditions) 

Some public bodies apply a unit price that is reasonable for a single unit, but not for the entire 
database. As a consequence, the total price of the full data set is prohibitive. For instance, the 
full  database  of  the  CENDOJ  would  cost  €3.4m,  although  one  unit  (i.e.  a  single  sentence) 
would be perfectly affordable at €1.5. The same circumstance applied to the former charging 
regime  of  the  French  land  registry,  where  the  entire  digital  map  would  have  cost  a  re-user 
€5.7m (the price of a single map was €9.5) and, therefore, despite interest on the part of re-
users, was never bought96. 

A national Met Office (names have been removed to protect business secrets) 

In  2009,  the  Commission  received  a  complaint  from  a  pan-European  weather  business  with 
offices in eight European countries and customers worldwide, providing tailored products to 
consumer, media and professional markets.  

Since  2003  the  company  had  been  attempting  to  enter  into  a  business  relationship  with  a 
national Met Office with the intention of purchasing meteorological data for the territory of 
the  Member  State  —  namely  hourly  SYNOP  observations  and  radar  composites.  The  first 
answer from the Met Office came in 2006, when it refused to supply the data. The matter was 
brought to the SOLVIT centre, which was unable to broker an agreement and recommended 
an official complaint to the European Commission for breaching Article 49 of the EC Treaty. 

In 2007 the Met Office issued its first offer. It covered all the requested data types but was 
priced  at  ~  € 20 250  for  national  10  minute  radar  data  compared  to  ~  € 6 700  charged  for  5 
minute  German  radar  data  by  the  Deutsche  Wetterdienst  DWD  (5  minute  radar  data  being 
higher  resolution  and  therefore  more  valuable  than  10  minute  radar  data).  Also,  the  offer 
contained very restrictive licensing conditions (e.g. radar data could only be made available 
with a three-hour delay on the open internet while the Met Office published this information 
in real time on the open internet). 

In 2008, the Met Office provided a new offer with two variants. 30 minute radar images were 
offered at ~ € 4 000 per month but without the right to resell data products to end users (the 
price doubled for the right to resell). In a subsequent offer in 2008, the Met Office offered 30 
minute radar images at ~ € 1 600 per month with no re-use rights associated with the delivery. 

The company eventually signed an agreement with the Met Office after informal intervention 
by a competition authority. The company was reluctant to bring proceedings against the Met 
Office  on  competition  grounds  (refusal  to  supply,  excessive  charging)  given  the  need  to 
maintain commercial relations with the public body and the urgency of obtaining data for re-
use in order to remain on the market (against the expected length of proceedings). 

This  example  demonstrates  the  difficulties  that  re-users  face  in  obtaining  PSI  for  re-use  in 
some markets. It also illustrates the reluctance to bring proceedings against public bodies that 
do not comply with the re-use provisions, for reasons of reliance on the supply of data from 
the  public  body  (a  monopolist  on  the  market)  and  insufficient  or  ineffective  redress 
mechanisms. 

96 

Op. cit. Deloitte. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Effects of high charges in the meteorological sector on SMEs  

According  to  PRIMET,  an  association  of  re-users  of  meteorological  services,  the  charges 
made by the public meteorological offices for re-use of their data constitute a barrier to entry 
the market, especially for the small companies. The absolute minimum data (PSI) required to 
provide quite  basic meteorological services, for which the market value per customer might 
lie  in  the  range  of  € 6 000  to  € 20 000,  would  cost  a  typical  small  company  in  each  of  three 
representative  national  territories  (France,  Luxembourg,  Poland)  between  € 84 000  and 
€ 400 000 at current prices. These costs do not include the further charges for dissemination of 
the data by the suppliers, nor do they include any of the normal business overheads such as 
employment  costs,  social  costs  or  the  costs  of  premises.  The  position  paper  distributed  by 
PRIMET at the Share-PSI workshop in May 2011 sets out the figures in detail97. 

Typical single contract values, of which at least 20 are typically required to be profitable, are 
from  € 6 000  (general  energy  market  in  Poland),  through  € 10 000–15 000  (general  ‘weather 
forecasting’ in Luxembourg) to € 20 000 (highways operations in France). Small companies, 
particularly  start-up  companies,  cannot  flourish  in  such  a  PSI  charging  regime.  As  a 
consequence,  the  value-added  meteorological  market  is  stagnant  and  there  are  major 
opportunity costs accruing to national treasuries that are conservatively calculated to be € 300 
million annually98. 

PRIMET  states  that  these  figures  have  been  obtained  from  the  relevant  official  bodies,  but 
ECOMET,  the  Economic  Interest  Grouping  of  the  National  Meteorological  Services  of  the 
European Economic Area, contests conclusions drawn by PRIMET. According to ECOMET, 
its members offer favourable terms to SMEs, including general discounts enabling starters in 
the  private  sector  to  obtain  large  volumes  of  necessary  data  for  reduced  fees.  ECOMET 
admits  however,  that  prices  for  information  are  the  responsibility  of  individual  ECOMET 
members and are subject to individual and often varying national regulations. 

This dispute illustrates on one hand the considerable degree of discretion in terms of pricing 
policy  which  public  bodies  enjoy  under  the  current  rules  of  the  Directive  and  on  the  other 
hand a need for at least minimal harmonisation at the EU level. The above presented example 
also  shows  that  there  is  a  room  for  dispute  about  the  resulting  effects  on  competition. 
Moreover,  it  reinforces  the  case  for  the  Commission  to  issue  guidelines  on  prices,  for 
reinforcing the obligation of transparency about the way prices are calculated by reversing the 
burden of proof and for an independent regulator who can deal with complaints objectively. 

97 

98 

Pricing  of  PSI  in  the  Meteorological  Sector  blocks  market  development,  R.  E.  W.  Pettifer,  General 
Secretary of PRIMET, Share-PSI workshop, Brussels, May 2011 http://share-psi.eu/papers/primet.pdf 
Workshop: Removing the roadblocks to a pan European market for Public Sector Information re-use. 
Position  Paper  —  Pricing  of  PSI  in  the  Meteorological  Sector  blocks  market  development,  Richard 
Pettifer, General Secretary of PRIMET, 2010. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 5: Charging policies in the cultural sector 

Methods  of  generating  income  from  re-use  as  well  as  the  range  of  such  income  vary 
considerably from one cultural institution to another.  

In  some  cases  such  income  may  be  primordial  as  it  will  provide  for  the  necessary  sources 
allowing for digitalisation and re-use. For example, one group of small museums are working 
together to take digital images of their artefacts. The photographer is employed with income 
generated  from  the  sale  of  these  images  (and  postcards  printed  from  them).  Without  the 
income from the re-use, it would not be possible to employ the photographer, so the digitised 
material would not exist to be re-used.  

To illustrate the range of income generated by re-use, the following table sets out the absolute 
and relative importance of re-use for the national libraries that supported this work (figures in 
Euros are rounded). This demonstrates how even similar organisations can have very different 
approaches  to,  and  financial  benefits  from,  re-use  (the  picture  is  similar  for  other  types  of 
institution). 

Of the organisations that provided financial data for the report, between 2005 and 2009 some 
showed growth in revenue from re-use activities, while others showed a decline. As a share of 
overall  income,  however,  re-use  remained  approximately  level  (<1 %  change)  for  all  the 
reporting institutions. The situation is complex across the cultural institutions as rising income 
from many individual projects is sometimes offset by other projects that have declined, or by 
the  decline  in  other  re-use  activities  that  respondents  did  not  describe  in  detail.  More 
importantly,  however,  many  of  the  respondents  saw  their  overall  budgets  increase  over  the 
time period considered while income from re-use activities did not increase proportionately or 
institutions offered re-use without charge. As such, this explains why, even though the total 
income  from  re-use  may  have  risen,  there  is  still  a  fall  in  the  share  of  the  institution’s  total 
income that comes from re-use. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
The Commission's study launched in 2010 indicates also that many new re-use projects have 
been started since 2005, and many more are currently being planned. Many of these are not 
yet generating income and, indeed, many are not intended to do so. It is clear, however, that 
institutions are actively seeking out opportunities to re-use their content regardless of whether 
they intend to generate income from this re-use. Moreover, with regard to the type of re-use 
activities  they  engage  in,  many  respondents  stressed  that  they  were  trying  to  balance  their 
public  task  of  disseminating  information  with  the  need  to  generate  income  to  fund  future 
development of services. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Overview of charging tendencies by public sector bodies 

The  2008  Cambridge  study  examined  the  costs  and  benefits  to  society  and  the  effects  on 
government revenue of the different charging policies99. It concluded in its report that:  

•  the case for pricing no higher than marginal cost (which, for most digital data, will be zero) 

on basic data products is very strong; 

•  there are likely to be large beneficial spillovers in inducing users to innovate new services 

based on the data, as is evidently the case for other ICT services;  

•  the  case  for  hard  budget  constraints  to  ensure  efficient  provision  and  induce  innovative 
product development is weak for public enterprises not subject to regulation and providing 
monopoly services without fear of competition; and  

•  for several services, the Government is already providing effectively a large contribution to 

fixed costs, without allowing the public to enjoy the benefits of efficient pricing.  

The study concludes that charging no or marginal costs for PSI results in social and economic 
benefits  that  far  outweigh  the  immediate  financial  benefits  attained  by  cost-recovery 
strategies.  However,  critics  of  this  report  have  questioned  the  permanent  sustainability  of  a 
scheme  providing  PSI  at  no  or  marginal  prices  when  the  cost  of  creating  and  maintaining 
quality  PSI  can  be  substantial,  and  when  public  bodies  must  incur  e.g.  costs  necessary  to 
sustain data quality or investment necessary to cope with technological developments.  

The study shows that once PSI is made available by governments under a marginal cost/free 
regime it has considerable economic potential: 

Cambridge Study report financial summary of moving to marginal cost 

Trading fund 

Gross benefit 

Cost to Government  Gain to society 

Companies House 

£2.6m 

Met Office 

£1.2m 

Ordnance Survey 

£168m 

UKHO 

£1.082m 

HM Land Registry 

£2.3m 

£0.681m 

£0.26m 

£12.0m 

£0.746m 

£1.1m 

£1.9m 

£1.03m 

£156.0m 

£0.338m 

£1.2m 

DVLA 

£4.3m 

£0.582m 

£3.7m 

The table below shows effects of policy changes in selected cases. 

99 

Models  of  Public  Sector  Information  Provision  via  Trading  Funds,  Cambridge  University,  02/2008, 
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45136.pdf. 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Case 
study 

Policy change 

Effects 

KNMI 

1999 

2010 (cumulative) 

-Switch  from  full  cost  recovery charging to  recovery  of 
the re-use facilitation costs 

-Private sector turnover grew by 400 %  

-Re-user employment boosted by 300 % 

-Leading to an 80 % decrease in price for the full KNMI 
national meteorological dataset  

-Withdrawal from its own commercial activities 

-Selling off the commercial arm. 

-Innovation stimulated 

-Gave rise to new business models 

-Extra tax revenues amounted to total of €35m 

-Internal efficiency gains of €3.5m 

-Re-use department now run by 1.5 FTE  

-Data quality and service delivery enhanced 

-Level of professionalism increased 

DECA 

2002 

2010 (cumulative) 

-Under  free  of  charge  agreement  central  database  of  all 
task 
Danish  addresses  created,  driven  by  public 
ambitions 

-Local  PSBs  compensated  for  losses  and  rewarded  by 
free re-use  

-By distinguishing between the public sector investment 
and  subsequent  exploitation  of  the  facility  created, 
allocating the costs to those that benefit, no need to rely 
on cost recovery above re-use facilitation level 

-Open network of distributors established, acquiring PSI 
against re-use facilitation costs 

-No re-use limitations  

-Turnover of re-use market grew by factor of 10 

-Number of re-users went up by factor of 100 

-FTEs employed by re-users boosted by factor of 8-10 

-Tax gains exceed PSB investment by factor of 4 

-Almost  100 %  decrease  in  variable  charges  and  minimal  fixed 
costs (€0.01m) 

-Self-propelling  and  financing  re-use  system  maximising  the 
multiplier effects downstream  

Met.no 

2007 

2011 (cumulative) 

-Moves  to  most  liberal  re-use  policy,  driven  by  internal 
commitment 

-All  weather  data,  including  most  data  from  ECMWF 
partners, opened up for free and anonymous re-use  

-Steps  forward  in  value  chain,  providing  full  service 
forecasts  to  all  citizens,  forcing  re-users  to  further 
innovate 

-Actively promotes its re-use philosophy in international 
fora  

-Downstream effects are significant where the number of single 
weekly  re-users  exploded  from  around  100  to  almost  3 000 
(factor of 30)  

-Met.no  serves  a  need  felt  throughout  Europe  (and  beyond) 
where over 40 % of re-users are from outside Norway 

-Re-users  appear  to  be  SMEs  integrating  data  in  own  content 
services towards large groups of users (rather than adding high 
resolution value) and app builders 

-Establishing  a  direct  link  with  citizens  assures  quality  of  data 
(feedback) and embeds the public business case (and the public 
funding), protecting against reverse currents 

BEV 

2006 

2009 and 2010 

-Move from a complex full cost recovery pricing regime 
based on the costs of mainly analogue products (such as 
paper maps) to a simplified partial cost recovery pricing 
and licensing model with drastic price cuts of up to 97 %. 

-Regular reviews (2008, 2010) 

-Introduction of web portal 

IGN-CNIG 

-Prior to 2008, all the PSI was for sale. 

-Prior  to  2008  there  were  only  10  re-users  (including 
both  commercial  and  non-commercial  re-users).  Hence 
the increase has been very remarkable. 

-Substantial  increase  in  the  number  of  data  sets  sold:  sales  for 
many  BEV  PSI  products  increased  significantly:  cartographic 
products by factor of 2-15, digital orthoimages by factor of 70, 
digital  land  registry  map  and  elevation  model  by  factor  of  2.5, 
digital landscape model by factor of 10 

-Total  revenues  from  re-use  facilitation  slightly  increased,  in 
spite of big price cuts  

-The bulk of the additional demand comes from Austrian SMEs. 

-The situation today means that over 40 re-users (the majority of 
information  for 
them  being  SMEs)  are  purchasing 
commercial purposes. 

the 

-Since October 2010, the volume of data services and users has 
doubled. 

-Between  2008  and  February  2010,  there  have  been  about 
165 257 requests from 37 417 non-commercial re-users 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
Cost recovery ratios for selected public sector bodies100 

Country 

Public sector body 

Sector 

Cost recovery ratio 

IT 

NL 

UK 

AT 

DE 

DE 

DK 

ES 

ES 

FR 

IT 

NL 

UK 

DE 

NL 

NO 

SI 

ES 

FR 

FR 

DE 

Infocamere 

Business register 

KvK 

Business register 

Companies House 

Business register 

31.31% 

0.96% 

20.73% 

Geographic information 

< 26.5% 

BEV 

BKG 

SenStadt 

DECA 

Geographic information 

Geographic information 

Geographic information 

IGN-CENIG 

Geographic information 

Spanish land registry 

Geographic information 

French land registry 

Geographic information 

Italian land registry 

Geographic information 

Dutch land registry 

Geographic information 

0.24% 

10.38% 

0.82% 

4.12% 

0.00% 

0.55% 

0.50% 

6.57% 

Ordnance Survey 

Geographic information 

16.54% 

DWD 

KNMI 

Met.no 

ARSO 

CENDOJ 

DILA 

SIRCOM 

DeStatis 

Meteorological information 

Meteorological information 

Meteorological information 

Meteorological information 

Legal information 

Legal information 

0.93% 

0.45% 

0.00% 

6.00% 

16.67% 

0.67% 

Information on fuel prices  

15.91% 

Statistical information 

0.11% 

Transition financing measures of selected public sector bodies 

The  table  below  provides  examples  of  the  types  of  financing  measures  involved  when  the 
public body transitioned to a more re-use favorable charging regime.  

Case study name  Charging regime move 

Financing measures 

DECA 

Non-existent  (cid:198)  Re-use  Compensation to municipalities through: 

100 

Op. cit., Deloitte 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
facilitation costs charging 

One-off payment 

Future free use of database  

€3m budget to cover the investments to be made 

Clear self-financing exploitation plan for future re-
users  

Reorganisation  budget  for  privatising  commercial 
arm 

€0.2m budget for investments 

Clear self-financing exploitation plan for future re-
users 

Compensation of €125,000 from the Ministry 

Other transition costs (small amount) were covered 
by own resources 

Introduction  of  tiered  ‘freemium  model’  of  data 
funding  was 
provision 
facilitated  to  enable  ‘free  distribution’  of  lower 
quality data. Full impact yet to be assessed 

in  April  2010  state 

Marginal  costs  charging  and  sales  to  commercial 
re-users have allowed income to be maintained at a 
similar 
(many  small 
to  before  2008 
transactions as opposed to only a few large ones). 

level 

No  additional  state  funding.  Price  cuts  were 
financed by increased demand. 

The transition was financed by own resources. 

PSI sales revenues went up by 46% after 4 years. 

Cost  recovery  +  own  value 
added  products  (cid:198)  re-use 
facilitation costs charging 

recovery  (cid:198)  zero 
Cost 
costing 
re-use 
(+ 
facilitation  costs  charging 
for ‘guaranteed delivery’) 

recovery  (cid:198)  zero 
Cost 
costing  at  the  point  of  use 
for 
less  granular 
products.  Higher  quality 
products still attract a fee  

some 

recovery  (cid:198)  zero 
Cost 
costing/marginal  cost  for 
non-commercial re-users 

recovery  (cid:198)  Cost 
Cost 
recovery (with price cuts of 
up to 97%) 

Partial  cost  recovery  (cid:198) 
zero  costing  (+  premium 
accounts) 

Transition  costs  were  very  low  and  financed  by 
own  resources.  They  were  partly  financed  by 
cutting administrative costs (licensing, online shop 
operation, etc.). 

KNMI 

Met.no 

Ordnance 

UK 
Survey  

IGN-CENIG 

BEV 

Destatis 

Spanish 
registry 

land 

recovery  (cid:198)  zero 

Cost 
costing 

French 
registry 

land 

recovery  (cid:198)  Cost 
Cost 
recovery (with price cuts of 
up to 97%) 

This  has  only  recently  been  implemented  since 
April 2011. It is expected to be evaluated but high 
demand  has  already  been  addressed  thanks  to  the 
mass  downloads  service  while  there  are  few 
operating costs. 

No  additional  state  funding.  Price  cuts  will  be 
financed by expected increases in demand. 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 7: Machine-readable formats 

In order to be able to process data, computers need to receive it (by means of appropriate file 
formats) with enough structure to be able to tell: 

– 

– 

where  a  ‘record’  (i.e.  a  statement  of  fact,  e.g.  information  related  to  a  person’s 
identity) begins and where it ends;  

within each ‘record’, where ‘entities’ (e.g. family name or date of birth in a record 
related to a person’s identity) begin and end. 

In  some  formats,  records  are  stored  in  successive  rows  and  within  each  row,  entities  and 
values are stored in separate  cells,  and appropriate software  applications can extract  data of 
interest  from  these.  A  data  file  format  is  said  to  be  machine-readable  if  and  only  if  it  can 
support  software  applications  in  this  fashion.  Data  encoded  in  files  that  are  structured  in  a 
machine-readable format are machine-readable data.  

Machine-readable  formats  can  be  open  (for  example  Comma  Separated  Values101)  or 
proprietary (as used by various proprietary spreadsheet programs such as XLS); they can be 
formal  standards  (for  example  XML102  or  RDF103)  or  not  (for  example  Comma  Separated 
Values). 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  a  number  of  electronic  formats  that  limit  such  automatic 
processing  because  the  data  cannot  be  extracted  or  cannot  easily  be  extracted  from  these 
documents for further processing. 

Textual  formats  such  as  PDF104  are  not  machine-readable  because  they  do  not  generally 
guarantee  (i)  and  (ii)  above.  Image  formats  such  as  JPEG105  (even  when  they  are  used  to 
display data graphs) are not machine-readable either, for the same reasons. This category also 
includes the use of Flash formats for information on websites as these are not picked up by 
search engines and text often cannot be extracted from them. 

Re-users  have  developed  various  methods  to  extract  structured  data  (or  information  in  a 
database-like form that a computer can read) from sources that are more or less unstructured 
(such  as  government  websites,  PDF  documents,  and  scanned  documents).  This  involves 
identifying  patterns  in  the  unstructured  sources  (such  as  columns  and  rows  in  a  budget 
document)  and  writing  a  computer  program  to  reconstruct  the  underlying  data  sets  on  the 
basis of these patterns. This process (known as screen scraping) can be time-consuming and 
may often require a degree of technical ingenuity. 

101 
102 
103 
104 
105 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_separated_values. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xml. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFIF. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
106 

106 

http://writetoreply.org/beyondaccess/4-2-2-machine-readable-formats/  

EN 

84 

   EN