REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, Internet, data collection, exchange of information, information network, information system, national implementing measure, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2016  COM(2016) 478 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 {SWD(2016) 243 final}  
 
 
1.  Introduction 

Environmental  problems  do  not  stop  at  borders.  Solving  them  often  requires  cooperation 
between countries, which is more successful when it is easy to share data across borders and 
organisations.  There  are  benefits  associated  with  the  effective  and  efficient  collection  and 
sharing  of  data  linked  to  a  particular  location  (spatial  data).  Besides  facilitating  better 
environmental management, this can create synergies with  the EU’s Digital  Single Market1 
strategy,  such  as  developing  innovative  new  products  and  services  that  create  high-quality 
jobs and improve European competitiveness. 

The  Directive  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European 
Community (the  INSPIRE Directive)2 supports the application of knowledge-based policies 
and monitoring of activities that have an environmental impact. It sets out actions to remove 
obstacles  to  the  sharing  of  spatial  data  between  all  levels  of  government  within  and  across 
Member States. 

The Commission included the INSPIRE Directive in its Regulatory Fitness and Performance 
Programme (REFIT)3 in 2013 to assess whether this instrument remains fit for purpose at the 
halfway  mark  of  its  implementation.  This  report  presents  the  implementation  progress4  and 
summarises the results of the evaluation. 

2.  Background 
Before 2007,5 spatial data was difficult to find online at national and EU level, and were often 
poorly  documented.6  They  were  often  kept  in  incompatible  formats,  making  it  difficult  to 
combine  different  spatial  datasets.  Many  public  authorities  did  not  have  online  services  in 
place  enabling  people  to  discover, access,  use  and  share their  spatial  data  (within countries 
and across borders). There was therefore no EU spatial data infrastructure, meaning that, for 
example, data on cross-border rivers did not link up.   

1   COM(2015) 192 
2   2007/2/EC. 
3   SWD(2013)401 
4   As required by Article 23 of Directive 2007/2/EC. 
5   As documented in the Impact Assessment. 
6  

i.e. through metadata which provide information on one or more aspects of the spatial data. 

- 2 - 

 
 
                                                            
Also Annex III spatial data are documented 
can be discovered, viewed and downloaded 
through operational services. 
3/12/2013 (step 4, Art. 11) 

Download services for documented Annex 
I-II spatial data are operational. 
28/12/2012 (step 4, Art. 11) 

Annex I-II spatial data are 
documented 
3/12/2010 (step 3, Art. 6a) 

9/11/2011 (step 4, Art. 11) 
Discovery & View services for 
documented Annex I-II spatial 
data are operational. 

15/05/2009 (step 1 + 2) 
- The Directive is transposed into national law. 
- Coordination is in place. 
- Measures for sharing are adopted. 
- Spatial data is identified. 

23/11/2017  
(step 5, Art. 7.3) 
Annex I  and 
21/10/2020  
Annex II and III  spatial 
data are organised in 
interoperable data 
models and available 
through services. 

Figure 1: INSPIRE implementation roadmap7 – major milestones 

To address this situation, the Directive, which is underpinned by several implementing rules 
(e.g. on reporting or metadata)8, requires Member States to (see Figure 1): 

(1)  set  up  coordination  structures  and  adopt  and  implement  legal  measures  to  remove 

procedural obstacles to the sharing of spatial data; 

(2)  identify their spatial data relevant to environmental policies and policies and actions with 
an environmental impact according to themes listed in the annexes9 of the Directive; 

(3)  document  the  spatial  data  so  that  they  can  be  accessed  on  the  internet  together  with 
information  on  aspects  such  as  their  source,  geographical  coverage,  quality  and 
conditions of use, in line with the metadata specifications10; 

(4)  implement  interoperable  online  services  allowing  the  discovery,  visualisation  and 

download of spatial data; 

7   http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/44 
8   http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/3 
9   The  Directive’s  three  annexes  cover  34  spatial  data  themes.  Annex  I  contains  basic  data  themes,  e.g. 
coordinate reference systems, addresses, cadastral parcels and transport networks; Annex II has geographic 
data themes, e.g. elevation and land cover; Annex III covers environmental, health and energy data themes 
e.g.  monitoring  facilities,  industrial,  agricultural  or  aquaculture  facilities,  natural  risk  zones,  habitats  or 
energy resources. 

10   Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 

- 3 - 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
(5)  gradually organise and publish the spatial data according to common data models11 for 

greater interoperability and improved productivity. 

The Directive covers an enormous number of potential spatial datasets and, from the outset, 
no  upper  limit  or  total  number  could  be  identified.  The  Directive  needs  to  be  fully 
implemented  by  20217.  This  evaluation  is  based  on  information  available  at  the  mid-way 
point of implementation (i.e. 2013/14). 

3.  Implementation 

Transposition 

The  Directive  had  to  be  transposed  by  15  May  2009  but  significant  political,  legal  and 
administrative  delays  meant  that  most  Member  States  missed  the  deadline,  with  only 
Denmark transposing it on time. The average delay in communicating the national legislation 
was 12 months — ranging from 3 - 24 months12. 

The Commission pursued Member States for failing to transpose the directive in a fully 
compliant manner, and in 2016 is still addressing outstanding transposition issues in nine 
Member States (CZ, DE, FI, FR, HR, LT, PL, PT, UK). 

The outstanding issues on conformity concern minor detailed, legal or technical issues, and 
do not prevent the Member States concerned from implementing the Directive. 

The  main  reasons  for  the  delays  relate  to  several  issues,  including  political  determination, 
administrative delays and changes in government. 
Implementing steps13 

Although  progress  has  been  made  in  implementing  the  Directive  by  2014,  none  of  the 
deadlines listed in Figure 1 have been met by all Member States. The linkages between the 
different steps mean that this has a cumulative impact as, even where progress at a later step 
is good, it affects a smaller than expected number of spatial datasets. The various steps are 
detailed below. 

Step  1  —  Creating  coordination  structures  and  data  policies  for  sharing  between  public 
authorities 

The Directive covers  a broad range of spatial data which  is  managed by a large number  of 
public authorities at national, regional and local level. The necessary coordination structures 
and data-sharing policies were generally put in place with the transposition (see above). 

However, the effectiveness of national coordination efforts varied. Of particular concern were 
issues in some Member States affecting the collaboration between national mapping agencies 
and the environment information bodies (e.g. ministries and agencies). 

11   In accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 as last amended by  Regulation (EU) No 

1312/2014. 

12   See  also  chapter  4.1  in  the  Mid-term  evaluation  report  on  INSPIRE  implementation  —  Joint  EEA-JRC 

report (as EEA Technical report No 17/2014). 

13   Note: all data are based on the national reports from May 2013 or the annual state-of play reports latest in 
2014. Member States have made progress since then and are required to update the situation in their 2016 
reports.  

- 4 - 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  national  data  policies  for  sharing  data  are  very  variable  and  heterogeneous  and  most 
Member States still report problems in this area. Reflecting the wide flexibility of approaches 
provided  in  the  Directive  (see  Article  17.2),  policies  range  from  fully  open  and  free  access 
and  use,  to  full  cost  recovery,  raising  revenue  and  various  types  of  public-private 
partnerships.  The  Commission  has  not  made  a  detailed  assessment  of  the  conformity  of 
national policies with the Directive. 

Step 2 — Progress in identifying the required spatial data 

All  digital  spatial  datasets  falling  under  the  34  spatial  data  themes  should  have  been 
identified, documented and made available online through services by December 2013. 

While it is difficult to benchmark success given the difficulties in identifying an upper limit 
or  total  number  of  datasets  falling  within  scope  by  2014,  the  total  number  of  datasets 
exceeded 56 220 (Figure 2). Approximately 90 % of these however relate to the datasets of 
just eight Member States. Following an initial surge, the volume of reported spatial datasets 
for the remaining (20) Member States remained relatively stable or even declined14 in some 
countries between 2010 and 2014 (Figure 2), and were generally rather low at less than 120 
datasets per country.  

60000

40000

20000

0

Other Member States

AT, DE, FR, UK, FI, PT, PL, IT

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Figure 2: Total volume of spatial datasets (all annexes) reported by Member States 

In  line  with  the  deadlines  and  steps  identified  above,  Member  States  made  progress  in 
providing  environmental  data  themes  such  as  the  location  of  and  data  on  sources  of 
emissions. However, the most environmentally relevant data (mostly covered by Annex III) 
are often not  yet accessible  (steps 2, 3 and 4, deadline 2013).  This  will also make  the next 
step of making these data interoperable (step 5, deadline 2020) more difficult. 

Step 3 — Documentation of spatial data (metadata) 

Documenting identified spatial data enables them to be found online more easily. Although 
the  number  of  documented  spatial  datasets  has  grown  steadily,  in  2013  only  12  Member 
States had over 80 % of their documentation in conformity, against a target of 100 % for all 
Member States (Figure 4).   

14   A  decline  of  data  may  reflect  situations  where  countries  have  consolidated  many  dispersed  data  sets  into 

one (or few) national datasets. This could then be beneficial for the implementation.    

- 5 - 

 
 
                                                            
100

80

60

40

20

0

2010

2013

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

Figure 4: 2010-2013 trends — % of spatial datasets with conforming metadata 

Step 4 — Creation of internet services providing access to view and download spatial data 

By December 2013, Member States also needed to have online services for discovery, view 
and download in place for all of their documented spatial datasets.  

Progress in this step has been better, with 15 Member States providing discovery services for 
80 to 100 % of their documented spatial datasets by the deadline (Figure 5).  

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

2010

2013

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

Figure 5: 2010-2013 trends — % of spatial datasets with discovery services 

The  overall  accessibility  of  spatial  datasets  through  view  and  download  services  is  even 
lower, with only about half of Member States publishing 60 to 100 % of their reported spatial 
datasets through view services (Figure 6). 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

2010

2013

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

Figure 6: 2010-2013 trends — % of spatial datasets with view services 

The situation for download services is also below expectations, with only about a quarter of 
Member States  having 60 to a 100 %  of their reported spatial data accessible for download 
(Figure 7). 

- 6 - 

 
 
 
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

2010

2014

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

Figure 7: 2010-2013 trends — % of spatial datasets with download services 

Step 5 — Availability of spatial data in common data models 

Transforming spatial data to conform to common data models is the most challenging task. 
Member  States  have  until  2020  at  the  latest  to  complete  this  step.  At  this  early 
implementation stage, the low conformity level of spatial data is not surprising (Figure 8). 

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2010

2013

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

Figure 8: 2010-2013 trends — % of spatial datasets conforming according to common data 
models — mandatory by 2017 onwards (all annexes) 

4.  Regulatory fitness 

This section provides a summary of the evaluation. More details are available in the related 
staff working document.15   

Effectiveness 

Before the Directive took effect, only a limited number of spatial datasets (1 384 identified in 
200716)  were  documented,  online  services  covered  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  identified 
spatial datasets and data policies presented considerable obstacles to their widespread use. 

By  2013,  effectiveness  had  increased  across  all  Member  States  depending  on  their 
implementation efforts (and investment), as is illustrated by the over 56 000 datasets reported 
for 2013. The requirements and timelines of the Directive did not pose fundamental problems 
for  the  eight  Member  States  that  identified  over  90 %  of  the  total  datasets17.    For  many 
Member  States  however,  progress  against  the  defined  steps  and  timetable  has  not  met 
expectations.  Complex  and  heterogeneous  national  data  policies  and  the  absence  of  a  pan-
European data policy hinder the free flow of data — a concern also recognised in the wider 
Digital Single Market. The least effective part of the implementation process relates to data 
policies.  Many  datasets  and  services  are  still  not  easily  accessible  (i.e.  without  legal  or 

15   SWD(2016) 243 
16   Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play 2007 
17   The conformity of the national legislation is still under discussion in some of these Member States, but this 

did not affect their ability to implement the Directive well (see section 3 on ‘transposition’). 

- 7 - 

 
 
 
                                                            
financial  barriers),  which  is  a  prerequisite  for  creating  added  value  from  these  data  in  the 
internal  market.  These  complex  and  diverse  data  policies  also  create  an  additional, 
unnecessary administrative burden compared with a broader open data policy. 

Other reasons for the implementation gaps: 

 

  Delays  in  transposing  and  setting  up  effective  administrative  structures  due  to 
political,  legal  and  economic  challenges  at  national  level  (see  section  3,  step  1). 
Several  Member  States  reported  that  the  economic  crisis  and  pressure  on  national 
budgets also had an impact on the allocation of required, up-front investment (e.g. in 
IT infrastructure and technical skills development in administrations); 
Insufficient  coordination,  clarification  and  priority  setting  between  relevant 
authorities  at  national  level,  in  particular  those  responsible  for  environmental  data 
(e.g. identifying minimum required datasets); 
Inefficient  EU-level  coordination  (the  European  Commission  and  EEA)  in  guiding 
Member States towards priorities in identifying the spatial datasets for environmental 
and related policies (e.g. for reporting); 

 

  An ambitious set of deadlines which was valid when the Directive was adopted may 
not be pertinent anymore for all Member States, e.g. due to the technical complexity 
of the interoperability implementing rules and guidelines that require the application 
of  IT  tools  and  skills  that  are  often  absent.  Added  to  this  are  the  different  levels  of 
preparedness  of  Member  States  with  regard  to  meeting  the  deadlines  set  by  the 
Directive. 

Some  of  the  less  advanced  Member  States  also  reported  competition  with  parallel  national 
policies  on  open  data  and  eGovernment  for  administrative  reasons  (different  competent 
authorities), and the low relevance of environmental issues in a wider policy context. Others 
(including  some  of  the  more  advanced)  demonstrated  that  competition  is  unnecessary  — 
there is ample scope for creating ‘win-win’ approaches where INSPIRE becomes a building 
block for eGovernment activities. 

Member States also questioned the effectiveness of future data harmonisation (step 5) due to 
the  significant  effort  and  cost  involved  in  transforming  existing  datasets  to  meet  the  new 
requirements (deadlines in 2017 and 2020). Many acknowledged that greater interoperability 
is needed to achieve efficiency gains. They also expressed concern regarding the complexity 
and the feasibility of adapting all spatial data to common data models by 2017 (Annex I) or 
2020 (Annex II and III). They called for a flexible, pragmatic and user-driven application of 
the existing data specifications. 

Efficiency 

The  quantitative  evaluation  of  costs  and  benefits  was  difficult  to  do  due  to  a  lack  of 
comprehensive  and  comparable  data.  Given  the  stage  of  implementation,  most  of  the 
currently available studies are based on estimates or predictions, and quantified benefits data 
are scarce. 

The reported implementation costs varied from 0.5 to 13.5 million €/year with most Member 
States  reporting  between  2  to  3  million  €/year.  In  most  cases  this  is  below  the  original 
estimates which  ranged from 4 to 8  million €/year in the initial impact assessment18, and is 
likely to be related to poorer progress than expected. 

18   Contribution to the extended impact assessment of INSPIRE. 

- 8 - 

 
 
                                                            
The information provided on benefits, which was mainly qualitative and based on estimates, 
included the following points:    

  More  efficient  access  to  information19  leading  to  better  and  cheaper  eGovernment 
services  for  citizens  and  businesses,  thus  improving  transparency  and  creating 
business opportunities using environmental data. This boosts research and innovation 
potential. 

  An 

improved  evidence  base  for  policy  development,  decision-making  and 
implementation, reducing costs and improving the quality of assessments (e.g. in the 
area of environmental (impact) assessments and (risk) management)20.  

  Better  cooperation  between  public  authorities  and  between  different  sectors  (e.g. 
spatial  planning,  transport,  agriculture  and  environment)21,  and  administrative  cost 
savings  (through  less  duplication  of  work)  while  improving  accessibility  and  data 
quality. 

  Building  up  technological  skills,  competences  and  capacity  building  in  public 

administrations. 

Several  countries  including  the  Netherlands  appear  to  have  followed  a  fairly  predictable 
pattern, with annual costs exceeding the benefits in the beginning, but benefits increasing in 
the  second  phase  of  implementation  (after  2013).  While  early  investment  (in  IT 
infrastructure,  transformation  of  data  and  skills  development)  was  expected,  only  a  few 
Member States reported that they had made this investment. Several Member States reported 
synergies22  between  the  EU  and  national  strategies  on  Open  Data23  (including  the  revised 
Directive  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information)24  which  had  helped  to  increase  the 
benefits while sharing the implementation costs with the investment needed anyhow for the 
broader  open  data  policies.  The  2012  UK  Benefits  Realisation  Strategy25  estimated  that 
annual  quantifiable  benefits  across  UK  government  departments  were  470-510  million 
£/year. 

As  mentioned  under  step  5,  data  harmonisation  is  the  most  costly  and  challenging  step. 
Although  Member  States  have  to  comply  with  these  provisions  only  by  2017  or  2020 
(depending  on  the  data  concerned),  in  recent  expert  group  discussions26  they  foresaw  that 
simultaneously harmonising such an enormous amount of data would involve high costs and 
practical difficulties. It was suggested that one way to overcome this future challenge is to set 
clear priorities, i.e. to identify the most important datasets for end-user applications amongst 
the data themes, in particular those of Annex III. 

19   The Basic Data Programme — A Danish Infrastructure Model for Public Data, 2014. 
20   E.g.  in  relation  to  environmental  impact  assessments  carried  out  of  EU  legislation,  a  study  indicated 
potential savings of 15 % in time and some 150 m €/year in costs at EU level (JRC Technical Report  — 
EUR24327 EN — 2010). 

21   E.g. the Land Parcel Information System in Romania used the INSPIRE Directive to manage agricultural 

subsidies and identify environmental improvements. Other Member States reported similar projects. 

22   For  example:    57 %  of  INSPIRE  data  is  OPEN  in  Finland  and  served  through  INSPIRE  services  or 
INSPIRE and Open data; Ashfield District Council in the UK publishes data under the European INSPIRE 
Directive and as Open Data. 

23   COM(2011) 882 
24   2013/37/EU 

26   As discussed at the INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Expert Group in December 2015. 

- 9 - 

 
 
                                                            
 
EU  funding  has  been  able  to  mitigate  some  of  these  issues  and  several  projects  have  been 
supported by EU programmes (e.g. ISA27, Horizon 2020, LIFE+). Such projects28 can help to 
develop  solutions  and  tools  that  can  be  used  by  all  Member  States  (reusable  components), 
which  can  improve  efficiency  across  multiple  policy  sectors.  However,  these  opportunities 
are not used systematically by Member States. 

Relevance 
The public consultation29 demonstrated substantial support for the objectives of the Directive, 
considering  them  still  relevant  for  removing  the  obstacles  to  data  sharing  that  hamper 
effective  and  efficient  implementation  of  environmental  policy.  Moreover,  EU  policy 
developments show that the objectives of the INSPIRE Directive have become increasingly 
relevant over time, and are included in Commission priorities relating to the 2015 EU Digital 
Single Market strategy. It identified the need  to increase  cross-sector interoperability in  the 
public sector (with the revision of the European Interoperability Framework) where INSPIRE 
is of major relevance. Promoting eGovernment services and the need to apply the ‘digital by 
default’ and ‘use once’ principles are all enshrined in the INSPIRE Directive. 

The 7th Environment Action Programme has reiterated the need to improve the evidence base 
for  environment  policy.  Moreover,  the  application  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  potentially 
important  for  achieving  the  aims  of  the  on-going  Fitness  Check30  for  environmental 
monitoring and reporting being carried out as part of the Better Regulation agenda.31  

Coherence 

The  internal  coherence  of  the  Directive  has  proven  to  be  sound  because  Member  States 
largely follow its steps. 

In relation to other environmental legislation, the Directive aims to contribute to cross-border 
and EU legal and technical interoperability. However, progress in adapting data management 
in  the environmental field has  only been  partial.  While reference to the INSPIRE Directive 
became commonplace after 2007, its practical application is only just starting e.g. in the field 
of reporting. 

The  consistent  application  of  INSPIRE  rules  in  conjunction  with  the  Public  Access  to 
Environmental Information Directive32, in particular the active dissemination provisions (see 
Article  7),  provide  the  potential  to  facilitate  data  sharing  and  better  inform  and  empower 
citizens.   

In  relation  to  the broader set of EU  policies, the INSPIRE  Directive is generally consistent 
with the objectives of the European Interoperability Framework and the broader objectives of 
the EU Digital Single Market. Moreover, links have been established to the new initiatives of 
the European Open Science Cloud and the European Data Infrastructure, under the ‘European 
Cloud  initiative’33  and  the  eGovernment  Action  Plan34.  Specific  issues  that  may  need 

27   Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations 
28   Examples  include:  the  European  Union  Location  Framework  (EULF)  and  Reusable  INSPIRE  Reference 
Platform (ARE3NA), the European Geological Data Infrastructure, EGDI, Scotland’s Environment Web . 
29   94 %  agree  —  1 % disagree —  5 % no  opinion:  page  28  Summary  Report INSPIRE Public  Consultation 

2013. 

30   See Roadmap 
31   See Commission Work Programme 2016 (COM(2015) 610, Annex 2) 
32   Directive 2003/4/EC 
33   COM(2016) 178 

- 10 - 

 
 
                                                            
attention  include  consistency  of  access  to  data  policies,  also  set  out  the  Public  Sector 
Information Directive. This relates to broader issues on the free flow of data, identified as a 
priority issue for the Digital Single Market.   

EU added value 

Given  the  timing  of  this  report  in  the  INSPIRE  implementation  process,  analysing  the  EU 
added value actually delivered is not possible. The potential improvements in EU and cross-
border spatial data management offered by the INSPIRE Directive remain significant, not just 
in the environmental field. Whether it is sharing data on air quality or flood risk management, 
environmental  solutions  often  need  cross-border  collaboration.  While  this  is  not  yet 
consistently provided, there is evidence that issues arising from (earlier and current) different 
national  approaches  prevent  this  happening.  A  number  of  uses  for  data  covered  by  the 
INSPIRE Directive can be further exploited at EU level through reporting, supporting impact 
assessments  or  evaluations,  research  and  innovation.  In  particular  the  chance  to  exploit  the 
potential of data received through the Copernicus programme is important since these remote 
sensing data often need to be combined with spatial data to add value and context. 
There  are  currently  few  end-user  applications35  that  allow  harvesting  the  potential  of  data 
using  the  INSPIRE  approach  at  EU  level.  On  reporting,  some  pilot  projects  have  been 
completed,  such  as  the  air  quality  reporting  pilot,  but  none  has  reached  full  operational 
maturity. National priority setting differs greatly in terms of identifying those spatial datasets 
most  needed  for  cross-border  applications  or  for  reporting  activities  at  EU  level  (i.e.  some 
focus  on  air  quality36,  others  on  marine  data37).  Finally,  collaboration  between  the 
Commission and Member States has generally been seen as positive but can be strengthened 
further by, for example, developing implementing tools and components together rather than 
each Member State ‘reinventing the wheel’.    

5.  Conclusions 

The evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive confirms that the overall relevance of the Directive 
to meeting policy needs in an efficient manner remains high, and is expected to increase with 
time,  given  the  drive  towards  a  digital  economy  as  set  out  by  the  Digital  Single  Market 
strategy which includes important elements of the Directive. 

Good  progress  in  implementation  been  made  in  only  the  few  Member  States  where  the 
necessary  investments  were  made  and  implementation  of  the  Directive  was  aligned  with 
wider  national  action  on  open  data  policies  and  better  eGovernment  services.  The 
implementation  gaps  identified  are  significant  and  result  from  accumulated  delays  in  the 
process, underlining the differences in speed and quality of implementation. 

As  a  result,  overall  effectiveness  has  suffered.  In  particular,  the  significant  remaining 
obstacles  created  by  the  data  policies  in  many  countries  impede  effective  progress  and 
perpetuate  the  administrative  burden  because  data  cannot  be  easily  shared  between 
administrations.  Nonetheless,  some  Member  States  have  shown  that  the  process  is  possible 
and report positively on the resultant benefits, if only in qualitative terms. 

34   See action 19 in COM(2016) 179 
35   E.g. the Information Platform for Chemical Monitoring using basic INSPIRE features to access a multitude 

of data sources. For other examples, see footnote 28. 

36   Geodateninfrastruktur  Deutschland:  INSPIRE  success  story  —  Implementing  e-reporting  of  air  quality 

based on INSPIRE at national level. 

37   The German Marine Data Infrastructure and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, 2015 

- 11 - 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                         
This  is  confirmed  by  the  evaluation  of  efficiency  from  front-runner  Member  States  that 
invested  in  implementation  early  on,  developed  more  open  data  policies  and  aligned  the 
INSPIRE Directive with their national priorities on open data and the drive for eGovernment. 
Upfront costs however are higher than benefits since data will have to be made available in 
the  required  ways  first  before  being  used  for  end-user  applications.  Many  Member  States 
made insufficient investments, probably because of the economic crisis. 

The  evaluation  of  coherence  has  uncovered  areas  needing  attention,  in  particular  the 
development of the data policies creating  obstacles in  the internal (digital) market which is 
also of relevance to the ‘free flow of data’ initiative. 

Finally,  future  EU  added  value  can  be  significant.  Addressing  the  above-mentioned  issues 
and focusing on end-user needs and applications in a cross-border and EU context can assist  
implementation and help prioritise resources and investments. 

6. Recommendations and next steps 

Based  on  the  evaluation  results,  it  is  clear  that  greater  effort  at  all  levels  by  all  actors  is 
needed  in  the  future.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  proposes  a  number  of  actions  for  both 
Member States and at EU level.   

As  a  prerequisite,  all  Member  States  need  to  step  up  their  efforts  in  implementing  (e.g.  on 
their coordination activities) and critically reviewing the effectiveness of their data policies. 
This applies in particular to those Member States lagging behind the most if they are to meet 
future  implementation  deadlines.  In  addition,  Member  States,  in  consultation  with  the 
Commission, are recommended to: 
1)  give priority to environmental spatial38 datasets, in particular those linked to monitoring 

and reporting, and those identified in relevant global processes.39  

2) 

improve coordination between the national INSPIRE implementation and eGovernment, 
open data and other relevant processes at national level. 

To complement national efforts, the Commission will: 

A.  evaluate the shortcomings of the national data policies in relation to Article 17 of the 
Directive in more detail and explore synergies with the ‘free flow of data’ initiative40 
under the Digital Single Market with the view to resolving these issues through that; 
B.  review,  and  possibly  revise,  the  INSPIRE  rules41,  in  particular  on  spatial  data 
harmonisation,  to  take  into  account  the  implementing  risks  and  complexities  with  a 
view to reducing them (simplifying requirements); 

C.  assist  the  Member  States  in  applying  and  implementing  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
(simplification of use), e.g. by the use of common tools, and promote priority setting 
together with the Member States. 

D.  work  closely  with  Member  States  to  explore  opportunities  arising  from  the  use  of 
existing  EU-level  funding  programmes  to  help  capacity  building  and  close  the 

38   and make them at least accessible ‘as is’ to other public authorities and the public through digital services in 

line with the INSPIRE Directive. 

39   E.g.  in  the  context  of  the  Copernicus  programme,  the  Global  Geospatial  Information  Management  (UN-

GGIM) and the Group on Earth Observation. 

40   See Inception Impact Assessment of Free Flow of Data Initiative 
41   See section 2 and footnote 8 

- 12 - 

 
 
                                                            
INSPIRE 
Administrations). 

implementation  gaps 

(e.g. 

through 

the 

Interoperability  Solutions 

Other actions in the context of the Digital Single Market will also contribute to implementing 
the INSPIRE Directive (e.g. the eGovernment Action Plan and the European Interoperability 
Framework).  The  Commission  together  with  the  Member  States  will  also  promote  the 
inclusion  of  INSPIRE  services  and  data  harmonisation  in  relevant  EU  initiatives  (e.g. 
Copernicus,  Horizon  2020),  Commission  departments,  European  agencies  and  international 
partners to the EU. 

These  and  other  relevant  actions  will  be  discussed  between  the  Commission  departments, 
assisted by the European Environment Agency and the Member States in the context of the 
ongoing INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Framework42 following the adoption of 
this report. 

42   INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Framework (MIF) 

- 13 -