COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT On the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23
Date: 2016-08-10
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, 10.8.2016  SWD(2016) 273 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation  Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT On the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23  {COM(2016) 478 final/2} {SWD(2016) 243 final/2}  
 
 
Evaluation of DIRECTIVE 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial 
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) and underpinning the report on the 
implementation 

Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ - 3 - 

1.1. Purpose of the evaluation ..................................................................................................................... - 3 - 

1.2. Scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................................................ - 3 - 

2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ........................................................................................... - 3 - 

2.1. Description of the initiative ................................................................................................................. - 3 - 

2.2. Baseline ............................................................................................................................................... - 9 - 

3. PROCESS, METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................... - 13 - 

4. IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS ..................................................................................................... - 16 - 

5. EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................... - 34 - 

5.1. Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... - 34 - 

5.1.1.   Effectiveness of actions to establish a legal framework for sharing spatial data across the 

EU (Specific Objective 1) ............................................................................................................. - 34 - 

5.1.2.   Effectiveness  of  actions  to  establish  Member  States  internal  and  EU  level  coordination 

(Specific Objective 2) ................................................................................................................... - 37 - 

5.1.3.   Effectiveness of actions to identify the spatial data sets (Specific Objective 3) ........................... - 39 - 

5.1.4.   Effectiveness of actions to document the identified spatial data sets (Specific Objective 4) ........ - 42 - 

5.1.5.  Effectiveness  of  actions  to  make  the  documented  spatial  data  accessible  online  (Specific 

Objective 5) .................................................................................................................................. - 43 - 

5.1.6.   Effectiveness  of  actions  to  bring  spatial  data  sets  organised  in  interoperable  data  models 

online (Specific Objective 6) ........................................................................................................ - 44 - 

5.1.7.   Summary of the evaluation of effectiveness ................................................................................. - 45 - 

5.2. Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................... - 47 - 

5.2.1.   Costs and benefits ......................................................................................................................... - 47 - 

5.2.2.   Comparison to the ex-ante evaluation ........................................................................................... - 51 - 

5.2.3.   Cost-effectiveness of specific provisions ...................................................................................... - 51 - 

5.2.4.   Administrative burden .................................................................................................................. - 53 - 

5.2.5.   Available resources ....................................................................................................................... - 53 - 

5.3. Relevance ........................................................................................................................................... - 55 - 

5.3.1.   Need for EU action ....................................................................................................................... - 55 - 

5.3.2.   Relevance of objectives and actions ............................................................................................. - 57 - 

5.4. Coherence .......................................................................................................................................... - 59 - 

5.4.1.   Coherence within the environmental policy domain ..................................................................... - 59 - 

5.4.2.   Coherence within the other policy domains .................................................................................. - 61 - 

5.5. EU Added Value ................................................................................................................................ - 64 - 

6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. - 66 - 

- 2 - 

 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Purpose of the evaluation 

The  Directive  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European 
Community,  INSPIRE  Directive1  came  into  force  15  May  2007.  It  is  implemented  in 
various  steps  with  full  implementation  expected  by  21  October  2020.  The  actions 
envisaged  by  this  instrument  aim  at  removing  obstacles  hampering  the  sharing  of  data 
between and across all levels of government According to Article 23 of the Directive, the 
Commission had to present a report on the implementation of INSPIRE to the European 
Parliament  and  to  the  Council  by  15  May  20142.    In  addition,  this  Commission  Staff 
Working Document (SWD) provides the evaluation identified in the Regulatory Fitness 
and  Performance  (REFIT)3  programme  in  20134.  It  aims  at  assessing  whether  the 
INSPIRE Directive is still fit-for-purpose at the half way mark of its implementation.  

1.2. Scope of the evaluation 

The evaluation is looks at the status of implementation and performance of the INSPIRE 
Directive broadly in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines5. 

To  this  end,  the  SWD  presents  objectives,  framework  and  methodology  of  the  policy 
evaluation.  It  recalls  the  policy  context  and  objectives  of  the  Directive,  including  its 
intervention  logic.  Based  on  an  analysis  of  the  evidence  collected,  it  answers  the  key 
evaluation questions on assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence 
as well as the EU added value of the objectives and actions pursued.   

2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

2.1. Description of the initiative 

Developing  and  implementing  EU  environment  policy  is  dependent  on  a  solid 
knowledge  and  evidence  base  from  a  large  number  of  areas,  not  only  in  air,  water  or 
nature but also in all economic sectors which influence the state of the environment.  
Since  2002,  the  EU  Sustainable  Development  Strategies6,7  and  the  6th  Environmental 
Action Programmes8addressed these issues and identified the need for better information 

1   Directive 2007/2/EC, OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p.1 
2   The finalisation was delayed due to extensive analysis that was carried out also as a result of inclusion 

of the INSPIRE Directive in the REFIT programme.  

3   COM(2012)746 final - EU Regulatory Fitness  
4   Communication  -  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT)    and  Staff  Working 

Document (SWD) (COM(2013)685 of 2 October 2013) 

5   COM(2015)111. Note: The decision to carry out an evaluation under its REFIT programme in 2013 
was  well  before  the  adoption  of  the  Commission  Guidelines  for  Better  Regulation  in  May  2015 
(COM(2015)111). As a consequence, this evaluation could not fully anticipate all the methodological 
and data needs now enshrined in the guidelines. Despite these issues, the evaluation guidelines have 
been used to the widest extent possible in the finalisation of the evaluation. 

6   Commission  Communication  "A  sustainable  Europe  for  a  better  world:  A  European  strategy  for 

Sustainable Development" (COM(2001) 264) 

7   2009 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy COM (2009) 400 

- 3 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
to  support  the  integrated9  knowledge-base  for  environmental  policies.  As  a  result,  the 
Commission  came  forward  with  a  proposal  for  the  INSPIRE  Directive  in  200410 
focussing mainly on 'spatial data', i.e. information related to a location or area on Earth11. 

A wide range of environmental, geographical, social and economic spatial data exists or 
is  being  collected.  Such  location-based  information  is  relevant  for  environmental 
policies, covering many thematic areas (water, air, biodiversity, waste, emissions, impact 
assessments,  natural  and  technological  hazards,  public  access  to  environmental 
information, etc.). Also policies having an impact on the environment (such as transport, 
agriculture, energy, land-use planning, regional development, etc.) systematically collect 
spatial  data  which  are  valuable  in  the  context  of  environment  policy  development  and 
implementation. 

The INSPIRE Directive was designed to address specifically the thematic environmental 
policies needs for spatial data by removing the four major obstacles to the availability of 
such data: 

1.  A wide variety of organisational, cultural, institutional, financial and legal obstacles 
hampered  the  sharing  and  re-use  of  spatial  data  by  public  authorities  and  public 
stakeholders. 

2.  Spatial  data  was  difficult  to  find  online  on  the  Internet  and  it  was  poorly  or  not 

documented.  

3.  Many  public  authorities  did  not  have  online  services  in  place  allowing  others, 

including the public to discover, to access and use their spatial data.  

4.  Spatial  data  was  often  organised  in  incompatible  formats  making  it  difficult  to 

combine different spatial data sets in the absence of a common vocabulary. 

The  intervention  logic  for  the  INSPIRE  Directive  (Figure  1)  sets  out  the  different 
measures of the Directive and how they were expected to interact.  

8  Decision 

1600/2002/EC 

laying 

down 

the 

Sixth  Community  Action 

Programme  

(OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p.1) 

Integrated across policy and economic sectors 

9  
10   COM(2004)516 
11    INSPIRE Directive Article 3(2), definition of 'spatial data': 'any data with a direct or indirect reference 
to a specific location or geographical area'. For example: spatial data can be a polygon with coordinates 
defining the borders of a protected site, the exact location of a point of emission into the environment, the 
borders of an industrial site, facility, building or an administrative unit. But it can also be data collected 
on species occurring within and referenced to such a protected site or the measurements taken by a sensor 
at  the  point  of  emission,  it  can  be  administrative  data  related  to  an  industrial  facility  or  statistical  data 
related  to  the  geographical  area  of  the  administrative  unit  such  as  for  example,  population  density or  a 
value describing the air quality at such a location during a certain period. 

- 4 - 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                              
What are spatial data and why do we need to share them across borders?  

Spatial data are everywhere and we use them on a daily basis. Spatial data are data that 
are linked to a specific location, e.g. an address, the location of a building, a road, a river, 
an  industrial  or  commercial  facility,  a  monitoring  station  or  a  cadastral  parcel.  For 
thousands of years, we used maps or an atlas for this purpose. With the digitalisation, it 
has  become  much  easier  to  manage  and  use  spatial  data.  Nowadays,  we  take  it  for 
granted to navigate using satellite navigation or to check the location of anything on the 
internet  using  our  electronic  devices.  The  modern  world  needs  increasingly  up-to-date 
spatial  data.  We  want  to  know  where  things  are  and  what  is  happening  there  (e.g.  the 
weather forecast or bathing water quality at our holiday destination). 

Consider the example of the volcano eruption in Iceland in 2010. Immediately, data on 
air pollution and visibility were needed across Europe. This was urgent for services such 
as air traffic control but also for understanding the impacts the eruption was having on air 
quality and hence the health of citizens. The easier and quicker such data could be shared 
across  borders,  the  better  decisions  could  be  taken.  The  same  applies  in  many  other 
environmental  issues  which  have  a  cross-border  effect,  be  it  flooding,  pollution  or  the 
tracing of migratory birds.12  For the European Environment Agency, about  80 %  of all 
the environmental data and information that it uses has a spatial dimension13. 

In order to use such spatial data, they need to be standardised. At national level, this is 
mostly the case but when using data across borders, standardisation is often missing. In 
the past, we could find different terms, definitions, attributes or scale levels and all of this 
in different languages. As a result, spatial data did not match across borders and hence it 
was difficult to use them for electronic services.  

The  general  objective14  of  INSPIRE  Directive  is  the  establishment  of  an  EU 
infrastructure for spatial information based on compatible Member States infrastructures 

12   For further illustration, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xew6qI-6wNk 
13   http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/seis-initiatives/inspire-directive 
14   INSPIRE Directive preamble (5) and  Article 1 

- 5 - 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
and useable in an EU and trans-boundary context 'for the purposes of EU environmental 
policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment'. 

In  order  to  achieve  this,  the  INSPIRE  Directive  pursues  the  following  six  specific 
objectives: 

1.  To establish a coherent legal framework for sharing spatial data across the EU. 

2.  To put in place coordination structures at Member States and EU level. 
3.  To identify the spatial data needed15. 
4.  To document the identified spatial data through metadata16. 

5.  To ensure that the documented spatial data is accessible online through information 
technology,  ,  IT  services  allowing  its  discovery,  view  and  download  and,  where 
needed transformation. 

6.  To organise the documented spatial data in interoperable data models with a common 

vocabulary and online accessible through the IT services. 

These objectives are translated into 14 'actions', which are the specific provisions of the 
INSPIRE  Directive  with  obligations  mainly  on  Member  States  but  also  on  EU 
institutions.  Those  actions  should  be  implemented  according  to  an  agreed  timetable,  in 
several  ‘steps’  as  laid  down  in  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  its  implementing  rules17. 
Overall, the actions can be combined to five distinctive steps. The first one is related to 
actions  of  legal  and  administrative  nature  such  as  transposition,  the  establishment  of 
coordination  structures  and  the  establishment  of  a  data  policy.  Steps  2-5  relate  to  a 
sequential set of actions all related to ‘spatial data’. They have to be identified (step 2) 
and documented (step 3). Thereafter, online services (step 4) have to be established and 
finally  the  spatial  data  should  be  transformed  (step  5)  in  accordance  with  agreed  data 
models in order to facilitate the re-use of the data. Since these actions have to be taken 
for different data themes18 (see Annex I, II and III of the Directive) at different times, the 
illustration of the specific steps, actions and outputs can be somewhat complex. Hence, a 
simplified  overview  of  main  implementation  steps  and  outputs  is  presented  in  figure  1 
and a more detailed overview is provided in the box below and in Annex 1, Part A. At 
the time of this evaluation, only four out of the five steps had to be completed and the 
fifth was still in the future (2020) covering a large volume of spatial data. 

15   According to the thematic scope defined in the Annexes I, II and III of the Directive and detailed in 

INSPIRE - "Data Specifications" –D2.3: Definition of Annex Themes and Scope', 2008 

16   Metadata provides structured information allowing the spatial data to be discovered online, to know its 

origins, the conditions for use and to evaluate its fitness for purpose. 

17   The  Directive  requires  that  common  Implementing  Rules  (IR)  are  adopted  in  a  number  of  specific 
areas (Metadata, Data Specifications, Network Services, Data and Service Sharing and Monitoring and 
Reporting).  These  IRs  are  adopted  as  Commission  Decisions  or  Regulations.  The  Commission  is 
assisted in the process of adopting such rules by a regulatory committee composed of representatives 
of  the  Member  States  and  chaired  by  a  representative  of  the  Commission  (this  is  known  as  the 
Comitology procedure). 

18   The three annexes of the Directive cover 34 spatial data themes. Annex I contains basic data themes 
e.g.  coordinate  reference  systems,  addresses,  cadastral  parcels  or  transport  networks;  Annex  II  has 
geographic  data  themes  e.g.  elevation  or  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. 

- 6 - 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Steps and actions required by the INSPIRE Directive (see details in Annex 1):  
Step 1: transpose Directive (action 1), set up coordination structures (action 2) and adopt 
(and  implement)  legal  measures  to  remove  the  procedural  obstacles  to  the  sharing  of 
spatial data (action 3); 

Step  2:  identify  their  spatial  data  relevant  for  environmental  policies  and  those  actions 
having an impact on the environment according to themes listed in the annexes19 of the 
Directive (action 4); 

Step  3:  document  the  spatial  data  that  it  can  be  accessed  on  the  Internet  together  with 
information  about  various  aspects  of  the  data  such  as  their  source,  geographical 
coverage, quality and use conditions in line with the metadata specifications20 (action 5: 
for Annex I and II data by 2010 and action 6 for Annex III data by 2013); 

Step 4: implement interoperable online services allowing the discovery, visualisation and 
download of spatial data (discovery and view services-action 7: for Annex I and II data 
by  2011  and  action  8:  for  Annex  III  by  2013.  Download  and  transformation  services-
action 9 for Annex I and II data by 2012 and action 10: for Annex III data by 2013); 
Step  5:  gradually  organise  and  publish  the  spatial  data  in  common  data  models21  for 
greater  interoperability  and  productivity  gains  (for  newly  created  or  extensively 
restructured data-action 11: for Annex 1 by 2012 and action 12: for Annex II and III by 
2015. For all existing data-action 13: for Annex I by 2017 and action 14: for Annex II 
and III by 2020). 

The generic intervention logic described in Figure 1 is the basis for the evaluation where 
the  following  elements  have  been  assessed:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance, 
coherence  and  EU  added  value.  A  detailed  intervention  logic  is  provided  in  Annex  1, 
Part B. Before assessing these elements,  the status of implementation in  relation to the 
actions which were already required before 2014 is described mainly on the basis of the 
Member State reports from 2013 or later where additional data existed.  

19   The three annexes of the Directive cover 34 spatial data themes. Annex I contains basic data themes 
e.g.  coordinate  reference  systems,  addresses,  cadastral  parcels  or  transport  networks;  Annex  II  has 
geographic  data  themes  e.g.  elevation  or  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. 
20   Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008  
21   Commission Regulation 1089/2010 

- 7 - 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 1: INSPIRE Implementation major milestones and outputs 

What  is  a  European  spatial  data  infrastructure  (as  promoted  by  the  INSPIRE 
Directive) and why do we need it?  

A  European  Spatial  Data  Infrastructure  is  about  standardisation.  It  is  about  making  it 
easier to find, use and share the available data from administrations and governments, in 
particular across border and throughout the whole of the European Union. The idea is to 
develop an approach which follows a number of common principles: 

-   Data  should  be  collected  only  once  and  kept  where  it  can  be  maintained  most 

effectively. 

-   It should be possible to combine seamless spatial information from different sources 

across Europe and share it with many users and applications. 

-   It should be possible for information collected at one level/scale to be shared with all 

levels/scales (from local to regional, to national to the EU level). 

-   Geographic  information  needed  for  good  governance  at  all  levels  should  be  readily 

and transparently available. 

-   Available geographic information should be easy to find and it should be clear how it 
can be used to meet a particular need, and under which conditions it can be acquired 
and used. 

The  EU's  2007  INSPIRE  Directive22  has  translated  these  principles  into  legislation.  It 
builds  the  foundation  for  the  creation  of  a  European  Spatial  Data  Infrastructure  for  the 
European  Union.  This  will  enable  the  sharing  of  environmental  spatial  information 

22   http://inspire.ec.europa.eu 

- 8 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
among  public  sector  organisations  and  better  facilitate  public  access  to  spatial 
information across Europe. A European Spatial Data Infrastructure23 will assist in policy-
making across boundaries. 

This  approach  to  sharing  of  governmental  data  is  now  becoming  extended  through  the 
EU's 2015 Digital Single Market strategy24. Building on similar principles, the EU's 2016 
eGovernment  Action  Plan25  identifies  the  establishment  of  a  European  Spatial  Data 
Infrastructure  through  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE  an  important  action.  This  will 
help  modernise  public  administrations,  connect  services  across  borders  and  engage 
citizens  through  digital  interactions  with  governments  across  the  EU.  Moreover,  the 
European  Interoperability  Framework  will  build  on  the  standardisation  efforts  already 
achieved through the INSPIRE Directive. In very simple terms the Directive covers not 
only the location of the monitoring stations for instance for air quality, but also the data 
generated by these stations, information on air quality, etc. 

The  development  of  such  a  European  spatial  data  infrastructure  should  create,  amongst 
other benefits, the reduction of administrative burdens and the creation of new business 
opportunities (see section 5.2 for more details). E.g. in Ireland, investments in connecting 
the  digital  infrastructure  between  authorities  reduced  the  time  to  prepare  a  report  on 
industrial  installations  for  the  European  Union  from  months  to  days26.  Businesses  are 
now  using  such  administrative  data  to  provide  better  services  to  the  public  (such  as 
combining  predictions  on  weather  and  air  quality  or  integrating  real-time  traffic 
information  in  business  processes  such  as  updating  satellite  navigations  with  road 
construction  sites)27.  Also  insurers  are  increasingly  using  geographical  data  to  improve 
profitability  by  improving  their  understanding  of  risks  at  locations  and  verifying  the 
content  of  claims.  Moreover,  real  estate's  companies  are  increasingly  factoring  in 
environmental  information,  e.g.  when  determining  house  prices  (e.g.  whether  they  are 
situated in  a flood risk  area)28 and utility network operators are levering spatial data to 
avoid excavation damage29.  

2.2. Baseline 

During  the  preparation  and  transposition  phases  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  (between 
2004  and  2010),  the  Commission  conducted  yearly  state-of-play  studies30,  covering  27 
EU, four EFTA and one Candidate countries. The studies assessed the state and the rate 
of progress made by those countries in relation to the identified obstacles. 

23   http://ec.europa.eu/isa/index_en.htm 
24   https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market 
25   https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/infographic-egovernment-action-plan-2016-2020-

glance 

26   SWD(2016) 166, p. 10. 
27   E.g.  https://www.plumelabs.com/  or  https://www.simacan.com  or  http://tn-its.eu/the-jrc-led-

transportation-pilot-in-video/ 

28   E.g.http://www.directionsmag.com/entry/dutch-kadaster-tackles-european-inspire-initiatives-for-

spatial-data-infras/122509 ;  

29   E.g. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/150019/ 
30   INSPIRE State-of-play summary and  country reports 2004-2011 

- 9 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
The  state-of-play  summary  report31  of  December  2007  is  used  for  establishing  a 
baseline for the national spatial data infrastructures as it reflects the situation at the time 
of entry into force of the Directive. 

Some  key  findings  of  the  report,  for  which  19  EU  and  two  EFTA  countries  provided 
information, are summarised below: 

With regard to specific objective 1 - A coherent legal framework for sharing spatial data  

At  the  time,  spatial  data  policies  were  highly  heterogeneous  or  missing  across  the  EU. 
They were not only different between countries but in some cases also between regions 
in  the  same  country.  Different  data  policies  were  applied  for  different  types  of  spatial 
data.  There were  no  or few  activities  to  better  align  data  policies  across  Member  State 
borders. 

The main differences existed for the restrictions that can be made on data sharing and the 
charges  that  are  required  for  the  provision  of  data  sets  and  services  by  the  Member 
States.  
For  example,  seven  Member  States32  had  different  terms  and  conditions  for  the  public 
sector including different pricing policies or data that was only available for other public 
authorities.  Five  Member  States33  did  not  have  special  terms  for  the  public  sector  but 
applied  the  same  conditions  as  for  data  requests  from  the  private  sector.  Only  in  three 
Member  States34  a  coordination  body  addressing  issues  related  to  data  policies  was  in 
place.  
Three Member States35 saw a possibility to incorporate data sharing arrangements in new 
legislation  and  four  countries36  considered  harmonising  the  terms  and  conditions  for 
spatial data sharing using a single model licence. 

With regard to specific objective 2 - Coordination structures at Member States and EU 
level 

The report showed that coordination structures similar to those required by the INSPIRE 
Directive started to emerge in some Member States. They were, however, operational to 
varying degrees and with different levels of user involvement. In nine Member States37 
cross-departmental structures were being set-up but not all of them had a formal mandate 
yet.  

With regard to specific objective 3 - The spatial data needed for policies is identified 

The  definition  of  spatial  data  is  broad  ("data  with  a  direct  or  indirect  reference  to  a 
specific  location  or  geographical  area",  Article  3.2)  and  the  scope  of  the  Directive  is 
wide (cf. Article 4.1). Hence, it is difficult to identify a baseline and benchmark success 
in relation to the identification of spatial data sets given the difficulties in identifying an 
upper limit or total number of datasets falling within scope of the Directive. Having said 

31   Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play 2007 
32   BE, CY, LT, SL, IT, FR, SI 
33   CZ, DK, NL, PL, PT 
34   CY, PT, ES 
35   DK, FI, CZ 
36   DK, FI, NL, ES 
37   ES, DE, NL, CZ, IT, IE, UK, BE, FR 

- 10 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
this,  it  was  possible  to  establish  a  baseline  which  allows,  at  least,  analysing  relative 
progress.  
In 2007, 21 countries38 had identified 1635 data sets covering all 34 different themes of 
the INSPIRE Directive's annexes I, II and III (INSPIRE data themes). Out of these, 1384 
were  unique  data  sets  from  311  stakeholders  and  738  network  services  from  231 
organisations.    There  were  considerable  differences  between  countries  regarding  the 
coverage of the 34 INSPIRE data themes.  

For example, nine out of the 21 countries did not identify data sets for more than ten of 
the 34 data themes as illustrated in Figure 2. In particular the identification of data sets in 
the  themes  listed  in  Annex  III  (which  includes  the  data  most  relevant  for  environment 
policies) was very limited as illustrated in Figure 3. 

Figure 2: Number of data themes covered in the annexes of the INSPIRE Directive without 
data sets reported - Source: Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play 2007 

38   The survey also included EEA/EFTA and Candidate Accession countries. 

- 11 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure  3:  Number  of  countries  for  which  no  data  set  is  reported  for  the  theme  listed  in 
Annex III of the INSPIRE Directive - Source: Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State 
of Play 2007 

With regard to specific objective 4 - The identified spatial data is documented 

The documentation of data sets through ‘metadata’ was in the early stages. Only a small 
part  of  the  spatial  data  was  documented.  For  the  some  1635  identified  data  sets  and 
services, 66.7% were reported to have some documentation. If metadata were available, 
they were highly heterogeneous and mostly not following international standards or were 
not  harmonised  in  content.  Of  the  identified  datasets,  only  35.5%  met  international 
standards (i.e. EN ISO 19115).  

There were important differences between the countries as illustrated in Figure 4. 

Figure 4: % of the data sets and services for which ISO (in accordance to standard EN ISO 
19115) metadata exist - Source: Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play 2007 

- 12 - 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
With regard to specific objective 5 - The documented spatial data is accessible online 

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

With regard to specific objective 6 - Interoperable spatial data 

The  2007  report  showed  increased  activities  in  data  standardization  in  general.  Some 
organisations already used harmonised data exchange formats within their domains (such 
as  meteorological  services,  marine  hydrographic  offices,  statistical  offices,  space 
agencies,  some  mapping  agencies).  However,  there  was  no  agreed  initiative  within  the 
EU  or  beyond  which  systematically  addressed  interoperability  across  spatial  data  sets 
and  services.  A  few  countries,  organisations  and  projects  reported  initial  strategies and 
actions in this area39. However, a cross-thematic semantic interoperability framework for 
services and spatial data, with unique identifiers, typologies, agreed data structures and 
content encoding did not exist. 

3. PROCESS, METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS 

All  Member  States  reported  on  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  in 
accordance with Article 21.3 (deadline: May 2013)40. At the same time, the Commission 
decided  to  combine  the  preparation  of  the  implementation  report  (in  accordance  with 
Article  23)  with  an  evaluation  conforming  to  the  approaches  laid  down  by  European 
Commission on policy evaluations at the time. Later that year, the INSPIRE evaluation 
was formally included in the  Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) 
programme41.  
Following the latest Commission guidelines42, the evaluation addresses the effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the INSPIRE Directive at its half 
way implementation mark.  The evaluation questions are listed in Annex 2.  

An overview on the process to prepare this REFIT evaluation is provided in Annex 3. A 
Steering Group composed of the Commission’s DG Environment and DG Joint Research 
Centre (JRC) as well as the European Environment Agency (EEA) was set up and other 
Commission services were regularly informed, e.g. through the established Commission 
Inter-Service  Group  COGI43  (Commission  Inter-Service  Group  on  Geographical 
Information), chaired by Eurostat.  

39   2007 1st INSPIRE Conference, ESDI for the Environment  
40   See 

annual 
http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/182/list/indicators 

national 

reports 

and 

all 

monitoring 

results 

at: 

41   Communication  -  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT)    and  Staff  Working 

Document (SWD) (COM(2013)685 of 2 October 2013) 

42   New guidelines covering all aspects of Better Regulation including evaluation were adopted in 2015. 

They can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm. 

43   Eurostat -  Statistical requirements compendium, 2015, Page 146  

- 13 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
Moreover,  consultation  with  the  Member  States  took  place  through  the  INSPIRE 
National  Contact  Points  (NCP)44  and  the  established  Expert  Groups  supporting  the 
INSPIRE implementation.  
As first steps, a review of the INSPIRE relevant documents45 and the INSPIRE library46 
(e.g. the annual State-of-Play studies and Member State monitoring and implementation 
reports)  and  the  annual  INSPIRE  conferences  archive47  took  place  as  desk  research. 
Moreover,  an  open  public  internet  consultation48  took  place  (from  2/12/13  -  24/2/14, 
Annex  4)  and  a  study  contracted49  with  a  focus  on  analysing  in  more  detail  some 
INSPIRE services reported by the Member States. 
The results of all this work was published as an official EEA/JRC Technical report50 in 
November 2014 and therefore largely responding to the substantial requirements set out 
in  Article  23.  This  report  is  a  key  information  source  for  this  policy  evaluation  as  its 
findings are based on the INSPIRE relevant documentation sources. Where relevant and 
necessary, this evaluation SWD is complemented with evidence from other documented 
sources.  Every  effort  was  made  to  follow  the  new  Guidelines  to  the  widest  extent 
possible  in  the  finalisation  of  the  evaluation.  However,  since  the  substantial  work  had 
already  been  completed  by  then  and  no  new  data  had  been  collected  since,  this 
evaluation  could  not  fully  anticipate  all  the  methodological  and  data  needs  now 
enshrined in the Guidelines (see more details in Annex 5).  

Moreover,  the  following  limitations  should  also  be  taken  into  account  when  reviewing 
this evaluation: 

  The  3-yearly  country  reports  improved  in  quality  between  2010  and  2013.  
Despite  differences  in  the  level  of  detail,  the  majority  of  the  reports  can  be 
considered as a good basis for comparison. The most important limitations regard 
the findings on cost-efficiency, where despite the availability of a methodological 
guidelines51  and  preparatory  workshop52,  Member  States  reported  that  cost 
figures are difficult to obtain and compare. On benefits, most countries report in 
qualitative  terms,  with  the  general  observation  that  INSPIRE  is  not  yet 
sufficiently implemented to assess benefits in quantitative terms. 

44   INSPIRE National Contact Points 
45   The evaluation disposed of an extensive source of data and information acquired from the 2004-2010 
State-of-Play studies,  pre-INSPIRE and INSPIRE international conferences (1999-2013), national and 
cross-border  conferences,  official  country  reports  (2010,  2013),  yearly  country  monitoring  reports 
including indicators (since 2010), data sets and services provided through the EU Geo-portal, reports 
from  EU  and  national  related  projects  and  activities,  EU-national-international  policy  documents, 
public  consultations  and  an  independent  assessment  on  the  technical  implementation  of  INSPIRE 
(2013). 

46   INSPIRE library 
47   INSPIRE Conference archive 
48   Summary Report INSPIRE Public Consultation 2013 
49   INSPIRE  Evaluation:  Summary  of  findings  for  EU  Member  States  -  Assessing  data  and  services 

metadata resources through direct observations, 17/09/2014. 

50   Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation. EEA/JRC Technical report, 10/2014. 
51   INSPIRE: Template for country reports 25.01.2013 
52   Cost and Benefits of implementing the INSPIRE Directive Workshop, 15-16/10/2012 

- 14 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
  The  yearly  monitoring  indicator  reports53,  available  since  2010,  also  improved 
considerably in quality. However, issues on completeness and interpretation (for 
example on what data set should be reported under which INSPIRE data theme) 
remain  an  issue.  In  addition,  the  quantitative  indicators54  on  availability  and 
conformity  of  data  sets  and  services  were  not  collected  online  yet  because  the 
infrastructure and IT tools were not in place in time.  The online service is now 
available and will facilitate information gathering, processing and comparison of 
data.  
Information on the use of the data and services is provided in the 3-yearly reports. 
Despite  the  detailed  guidance  in  the  template51  for  country  reports,  the 
information  on  the  use  of  infrastructure  for  policy  purposes  is  highly  variable 
from  one  country  to  another.  This  depends  largely  on  the  state-of-play  of  the 
implementation of the IT services and actual use in applications. 

 

  The  quantitative  indicators  extracted  from  the  EU  Geo-portal55,  provide  another 
comparable  quantitative  basis.  However,  as  shown  in  the  assessment  study56, 
there  are  discrepancies  between  the  yearly  monitoring  reported  data  sets  and 
services and those made available through the EU Geo-portal. Also here, different 
interpretations  by  those  entering  the  metadata  on  what  needs  to  be  catalogued 
under  which  INSPIRE  data  theme,  make  it  sometimes  difficult  to  compare 
between countries. 

  The  findings  from  the  public  consultation57  in  2013  suffered  to  certain  extent 
from  a  lack  of  geographical  and  thematic  comparability  (with  a  relatively  low 
participation58 of some countries and/or on certain data themes).  

Despite  these  issues,  it  was  possible  to  present  a  substantial  analysis  of  the 
implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  based  on  data  until  2014,  i.e.  the  national 
reports  of  2013  and  the  annual  reports  of  2014,  and  to  identify  some  strengths, 
weaknesses, opportunities and challenges.  

53   INSPIRE Monitoring and reporting 
54   Commission Decision regarding INSPIRE monitoring and reporting 05.06.2009 
55   EU Geo-portal 
56   INSPIRE  Evaluation:  Summary  of  findings  for  EU  Member  States  -  Assessing  data  and  services 

metadata resources through direct observations, 17/09/2014. 

57   Report INSPIRE public consultation, 2013  
58   There  were  698  completed  replies  by  the  end  of  the  consultation  from  more  than  30  countries  (27 
within the EU, 3 in the European Economic Area, 4 other European countries, and 2 from US/Canada). 
Thirty  percent  of  replies  came  from  only  two  countries  (Germany  and  Spain)  with  over  100  replies 
each. 14 countries provided between 10 and 40 replies, and 13 countries provided fewer than 10. This 
skewed distribution does not allow a country by- country analysis of the results. It should also be noted 
that  some  countries  had  a  process  of  internal  consultation  leading  to  a  few  consolidated  replies 
reflecting a wider body of opinion than the simple number of replies would suggest. Source:  Report 
INSPIRE public consultation, 2013 

- 15 - 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
4. IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS 

The INSPIRE Directive is implemented through the steps and actions related to the six 
specific objectives presented in section 2.1. 

This section summarises the current situation and progress made towards reaching these 
specific objectives mainly based on the national reports provided by the Member States.   
To this end, the Commission adopted on 5/6/2009 the implementing rule59 for reporting 
and monitoring by 15/5/2010 which specified detail and content. On this basis, Member 
States  sent  their  first  national  reports  in  201060.  Since  then,  the  Member  States  also 
provided  annual  monitoring  reports.  This  evaluation  considered  the  first  (2010)  and 
second (2013) national reports as well as the annual monitoring reports until 2014. The 
large majority of the Member States was able to provide all these pieces of information 
in accordance with the Commission Decision85 and in a timely manner (Figure 5).  

Figure 5: Monitoring and reporting by countries (EU + EEA/EFTA)  (White fields indicate 
that no report was provided). 

Specific Objective 1 - A legal framework for sharing spatial data across the EU 

Action (step 1): Member States had to transpose INSPIRE in national law by 15/5/2009.  

Only  one  Member  State  (Denmark)  completed  this  task  on  time.  16  Member  States 
finalised  their  transposition  within  a  year,  and  3  Member  States  of  the  remaining  10 
needed almost two years before communicating their laws (see table 1). Croatia became 
the  28th  Member  State  of  the  EU  on  1  July  2013  and  notified  transposition  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive on time (i.e. in May 2013). As main reasons for the delays, Member 
States informed of political (e.g. change of government following elections), legal (e.g. 
constitutional  requirements  to  transpose  in  parliamentary  processes  at  national  and 
regional level) and administrative (e.g. extended consultation procedures or delays in the 
administrative processes) delays.  

59   Commission Decision 2009/442/EC 
60   2010 Member States reports 

- 16 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 1: Overview of delays in notification of transposition by Member States 

Notification delay 
On time 

Up to 3 months delay 

Up to 6 months delay 

Up to 9 months delay 

Up to 12 months delay 

Up to 18 months delay 

Up to 24 months delay 

Member State(s) 
DK, HR* 

PT 

MT, NL, SK, UK 

BE, BG, ES, HU, IT, LV, RO, SI 

AT, CY, CZ 

EL, FI, IE, PL, LT, LU, SE  

DE, EE, FR 

Note:  *HR  only  had  to  notify  transposition  at  their  date  of  accession  and  did  so  on  time 
(notwithstanding actual conformity with the Directive).  

The  Commission  supported the  transposition  process  through  two  dedicated  workshops 
and  assessed  conformity  of  transposition  after  the  formal  notification  of  each  Member 
State. 26 cases of non-conform transposition61 were addressed by means of a structured 
dialogue (EU Pilot62) to resolve the underlying issues.  

By the end of 2015, eight EU Pilots (CZ, DE, FI, FR, LT, PL, PT, UK) were still open 
where specific provisions in the INSPIRE Directive seem to be missing in the domestic 
laws, and/or where they seem to have been incorrectly, or incompletely transposed. There 
is currently one Member State (Finland (Aaland)) addressed by a Letter of Formal Notice 
focusing on the legal framework for data accessibility in an INSPIRE compliant manner.  

The non-conformity resulted from different problems with diverging levels of complexity 
including  availability  of  services  and  data  for  the  purposes  of  public  access  and  data-
sharing  between  authorities  as  well  as  the  incomplete  or  incorrect  transposition  of 
annexes.  In  the  majority  of  cases  the  EU  Pilot  process  gave  the  opportunity  to  have  a 
constructive  dialogue  where  the  outcome  in  most  of  the  cases  involved  amending 
legislation  to  ensure  the  necessary  conformity.  The  outstanding  issues  regarding 
conformity concern these legal or technical issues.  

Action  (step  1):  Member  States  should  have  adopted  by  15/5/2009  measures  for  the 
sharing  of  spatial  data  sets  and  services  precluding  any  restrictions  likely  to  create 
practical obstacles occurring at the point of use, to the sharing of spatial data sets and 
services between public authorities.  

This  action  requires  the  correct  transposition  of  Article  17  of  the  Directive  and  these 
issues  were  identified  in  some  of  the  non-conformity  cases  (see  above).  Moreover,  the 
review, and where necessary revision (in case of practical obstacles), of the data policies 
of  those  organisations  holding  the  spatial  data  sets  is  essential  to  apply  this  provision 
correctly.  

61   Except EL and HR 
62   EU  pilot:  If  a  possible  infringement  of  EU  law  is  identified  by  the  Commission  or  reported  in  a 
complaint, the Commission attempts to quickly resolve the underlying problem with the Member State 
concerned by means of a structured dialogue (EU Pilot). 

- 17 - 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
In  addition  to  the  Directive,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Commission  Regulation63 
regarding  the  access  to  spatial  data  sets  and  services  of  the  Member  States  by  EU 
institutions  and  bodies  under  harmonized  conditions  that  entered  into  force  on 
19/10/2011. This Regulation sets out that metadata must include the conditions applying 
to access and use for EU institutions and bodies and, in particular:  

  Member  States  are  requested  to  provide  access  to  spatial  data  sets  and  services 
without delay and at the latest within 20 days after receipt of a written request;  

  Mutual agreements may allow an extension of this standard deadline.  
 

If  data  or  services  can  be  accessed  under  payment,  Community  institutions  and 
bodies  have  the  possibility  to  request  Member  States  to  provide  information  on 
how charges have been calculated.  

  While fully safe-guarding the right of Member States to limit sharing when this 
would  compromise  the  course  of  justice,  public  security,  national  defence  or 
international  relations  Member  States  are  encouraged  to  find  the  means  to  still 
give  access  to  sensitive  data  under  restricted  conditions,  (e.g.  providing 
generalized datasets)  

  Upon request, Member States should give reasons for these limitations to sharing. 

However, these implementing rules only regulate access and use by EU institutions and 
bodies.  It  is  mainly  on  national  level  where  public  authorities  experience  outstanding 
data policy obstacles which also affect the access and use at EU level. The implementing 
rule was complemented by guidelines for implementation and one on good practices. 
According to the 2011 state-of-play report, fifteen64 Member States out of twenty-seven 
declared  to  have  a  framework  or  policy  for  sharing  spatial  data  between  public 
authorities  in  place  in  2010.  The  majority  of  the  remaining  Member  States  reported 
'partial'  frameworks.  The  report  further  noted  that  several  countries  started  to  take 
measures  to  improve  sharing  between  public  authorities  through  simplified  licensing 
mechanisms65. 

The  EEA/JRC  Technical  evaluation  report  based  on  the  2013  Member  States  reports, 
confirms a positive trend, yet notices that Member States adopted heterogeneous policies 
between  public  authorities  depending  on  the  types  of  spatial  data  and  levels  of 
government involved, for example: 
-  Nine Member States66 adopted legislative frameworks that include data and service 
policies  complemented  in  the  UK67  and  NL  with  a  general  licencing  framework68. 
Ten Member States69 have adopted or are preparing the basis for open data policies. 

63   Commission Regulation (EU) No 268/2010 - as regards the access to spatial data sets and services of 

the Member States by Community institutions and bodies under harmonized conditions 

64   DE, DK, ES,FR, IT, NL, SE, CY, CZ, EE, HU, IT, PL, SI, SK 
65   For example: The 2011 UK Location Strategy provides guidance to support the public authorities in 

licensing their data based on an UK Government Licensing Framework. 

66   SE, FR, FI, IE, LT, LU, LV, DE, ES 
67   UK Public Sector End User Licence  INSPIRE 
68   For example: The UK Location Council endorsed the UKGLF as the licensing framework for the use 

of spatial information covered by the INSPIRE Regulations 

69   DK, FR, FI, IE, UK, NL, DE, DE, ES, AT 

- 18 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
Fifteen Member States70 adopted for the public sector overall sharing arrangements. 
Ten  Member  States71  have  –  or  are  integrating  their  data  policies  in  broader 
eGovernment 
individual 
arrangements between the public authorities. 

initiatives.  11  Member  States72  extensively  use 

-  However, the policies sometimes apply to a limited set of INSPIRE data themes such 
as for example: topographic maps, geographical names, addresses, ortho-imagery. In 
addition, it remains in several cases unclear if all spatial data falling under the scope 
of INSPIRE are covered, which arrangements apply for which data sets and if they 
are coherently applied by all organisations and/or regions. In a number of countries, 
there  are  different  arrangements  for  sharing  agreed  between  central  and  regional 
governments,  different  ones  from  region  to  region  and  within  the  regions  again 
differences depending on the types of data and authorities involved. 

Eight  Member  States73  reported  in  2013  the  removal  of  data  policy  obstacles  while  17 
Member  States74  reported  outstanding  issues  with  regard  to  removing  data  policy 
obstacles (see table 2). 

Table  2:  Grouping  of  Member  States  according  to  main  obstacles  identified  in  their  data 
policy (based on 2013 reports) 

Underdeveloped legal framework 
Complex and heterogeneous license models 
Various cost recovery models 
Reticence to share, lack of enforcement  
Other legal issues 

RO, SI, IT, BG 
UK, SK, CZ, FR, LT, HU, AT 
UK, DE, HU, LV, AT 
BE, EL, CY 
FR 

PT and MT did not report particular issues related to data policies. BG reported that, at 
this stage, it cannot provide a list of barriers to the sharing of spatial datasets and services 
between the public authorities or  from the public  authorities to  the EU  institutions and 
bodies. 

In  summary,  this  screening  of  the  national  data  policies  for  sharing  data  demonstrated 
that they are highly variable and heterogeneous. However, only a more in-depth analysis 
of the current situation can identify the most relevant obstacles and ascertain whether the 
flexibility provided by the Directive (cf. Article 17.2 - 'do not create practical obstacles 
at the point of use') is applied correctly.     

70   AT, BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FR, DE, LV, LT, PL, PT, SK, ES, UK 
71   SE, DK, FI, IE, DE, UK, CY, EL, AT, CZ 
72   AT, EE, BG, CZ, SL, HU, SK, LT, MT, RO , BE 
73   DK, EE, ES, FI, NL, LU, PL, SE 
74   AT BE BG CZ CY DE  FR EL FR IT HU  LT LV RO SI  SK UK 

- 19 - 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Specific  objective  2  -  Coordination  structures  in  Member  States  and  EU  level 
coordination  

Action  (step  1):  The  Commission  had  to  establish  an  INSPIRE  Regulatory  Committee 
(Article  22)  and,  together  with  the  EEA,  set  up  coordination  structures  to  support  the 
implementation process through the national contact points (Article 19).  
The Commission established the INSPIRE Regulatory Committee in 200875. Moreover, 
the  Commission  set-up  a  participatory  and  transparent  process  for  the  involvement  of 
stakeholders76  in  the  development  of  the  INSPIRE  implementing  rules  adopted77  
between 2008 and 2014. 

Member States identified national contacts points by 15 May 2009 as required.  

The  EU  level  coordination  of  stakeholder  participation  to  the  implementing  rules 
development  has  been  a  major  collaborative  effort  between  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States.  Between  2007  and  2014,  over  240  Member  State  and  stakeholders 
experts  involved  in  this  Commission's  coordinated  effort  produced  forty  detailed 
guidance documents, which were submitted for public reviews78 and tests on feasibility 
and  impacts.  Over  10.000  comments  have  been  resolved  in  an  open  and  transparent 
participatory  process,  which  has  resulted  in  the  step-wise  adoption  of  ten79  legal  acts, 
including  amendments  (Commission  Regulations  and  Decisions)  by  the  Commission 
following for most, also a scrutiny review by Council and European Parliament. 

The  Directive  sets  three  target  dates  by  which  implementing  rules  should  have  been 
adopted by the Commission. The other rules were adopted by the Commission according 
to  the operational  logic for implementing INSPIRE. For  example,  network services for 
discovery and view were adopted ten months after the meta-data regulation. Download 
and  transformation  followed  twelve  months  later.  The  monitoring  and  reporting 
implementing rule was adopted one year before Member States had to produce their first 
implementation report. 

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

75   European Commission – Comitolgy Register 
76   INSPIRE  Work  Programme  Transposition  Phase  2007-2009  and  Update  to  the  INSPIRE  Work 

programme 2007-2009: status of the Implementing Rules Development. 

77   INSPIRE Roadmap for adoption implementing rules 
78   In the period 2007-2014 19 public consultations were held 
79   INSPIRE implementing rules adoption roadmap 

- 20 - 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 3: Overview on the adoption process for the different Implementing rules 

Implementing rules80 

Target 
date 

Adoption 
date 

Committee opinion 

Metadata 

15/5/2008 

3/12/2008 

Data  and  service  specifications 
Annex I 

Data  and  service  specifications 
Annex II/III 

15/5/2009 

23/11/2010 

15/5/2012 

21/10/2013 

Network services 

 - Discovery & View 

 - Download & Transformation 

 - Invoke spatial data service 

Harmonised 
conditions 

access 

and 

use 

Monitoring and reporting 

19/10/2009 

23/11/2010 

10/12/2014 

29/3/2010 

5/6/2009 

No abstentions or 
negative opinions 

No abstentions 
negative opinions 

No abstentions or 
negative opinions 

No abstentions or 
negative opinions 

No abstentions or 
negative opinions 

No abstentions or 
negative opinions 

All  implementing  rules  were  endorsed  without  negative  opinions  or  abstentions  by  the 
Member  States  represented  in  the  INSPIRE  Regulatory  Committee  and  passed  where 
required with success the scrutiny of the European Parliament and Council. The review 
and endorsement process included as well extensive implementation guidelines81, which 
did not go through the legislative procedure and are therefore not binding. 

The  delayed  adoption  of  the  implementing  rules  shifted  the  final  date  for  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  by  approximately  1.5  years.  This  did  not  create 
additional  burden  on  Member  States  as  the  Directive  set  the  deadlines82  for 
implementation  in  function  of  the  dates  of  adoption  of  the  implementing  rules  by  the 
Commission.  

To  further  support  the  coordinated  implementation,  the  Commission  and  the  European 
Environment  Agency  (EEA)  set  up  the  INSPIRE  Maintenance  and  Implementation 
Framework (MIF)83 in 2013. The MIF provides a platform for collaboration at EU level 
to support and facilitate the implementation process and share good practices. 

The  two  main  pillars  of  the  MIF  are  a  Commission  expert  group  called  INSPIRE 
Maintenance  and  Implementation  Group  (MIG)  with  representatives  nominated  by  the 
INSPIRE national contact points for a technical (MIG-T) and a policy related sub-group 
(MIG-P).  This  is  complemented  by  a  pool  of  experts  drawn  from  the  stakeholder 

80   INSPIRE Implementing Rules 
81   INSPIRE Technical Guidelines 
82   For example; Article 6 - Member States shall create the metadata referred to in Article 5 in accordance 
with  the  following  timetable:  (a)  not  later  than  two  years  after  the  date  of  adoption  of 
implementing rules… 

83   Maintenance and Implementation Framework, MIF 

- 21 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
community through an open call. The European Parliament is kept informed and experts 
invited to participate. 

The  basis  of  the  work  of  the  MIG  and  its  sub-groups  is  a  Maintenance  and 
Implementation  Work  Programme  (MIWP)84  that  is  based  on  implementation  support 
issues submitted by INSPIRE stakeholders.  

Action (step 1): Member States had to monitor through their coordination structures the 
implementation  and  use  of  their  INSPIRE  infrastructure  and  report  to  the  Commission 
and the public in accordance with Article 21 of the Directive. 
To this end, the Commission adopted on 5/6/2009 the implementing rule85 for reporting 
and monitoring by 15/5/2010 which specified detail and content. On this basis, Member 
States  sent  their  first  national  reports  in  201086  and  informed  the  Commission  that  the 
functioning national coordination structures, expected by 15/5/2009, became operational 
between  2009  and  2011  (with  the  exception  of  BE  and  HU).  Member  States 
implemented  different  structures  and  mechanisms  for  coordination  depending  on  their 
institutional  context  (e.g.  federal,  non-federal,  more  or  less  regionalised).  87,88,89  In  18 
Member States90 one department was given the lead. 

To  coordinate  the  contributions  of  the  public  authority  users  and  producers,  the 
majority91  of  the  Member  States  set-up  a  national  coordination  body  with  the 
participation of different ministries politically responsible at the national level for those 
organisations  or  represented  directly  or  indirectly  through  their  organisations.  In 
federal/regionalised  Member  States92,  also 
local  authority 
organisations  were  included  in  the  coordination  structure,  with  the  responsibility  for 
cross-departmental93 coordination at their level of government. In a number of Member 
States (e.g. UK, SK, FR, IE, DK, NL, CZ) environmental ministries are in the lead. In 
other countries ministries responsible for agriculture and forestry (FI), mapping and land 
surveying  (e.g.  ES,  SE,  ES,  LT,  SL,  EL),  public  administration  (PL)  or  information 
technology and communication (MT, BG) are leading the coordination effort. 
A  survey94  carried  out  for  the  2011  state-of-play  report,  showed  that  most  of  the  26 
participating  Member  States  put  mechanisms  in  place  to  involve  the  user  communities 

the  regions  and/or 

84   Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme, MIWP 
85   Commission Decision 2009/442/EC 
86   2010 Member States reports 
87   According  to  the  2011  survey  on  coordination,  funding  and  sharing  measures,  the  surveying  and 
Mapping Agencies are leading in 14 countries, Environmental Agencies in 10, and ICT Agencies in 
Bulgaria and Malta. 

88   2010 and 2011 State-of-play reports 
89   Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation. EEA/JRC Technical report, 10/2014. 
90   DK, FI, SE, PT, HU, AT, EL, LU, PL, RO, SI, SK, LT, EE, LV, CY, MT and BG 
91   Except BE, HU 
92   Such as AT, DE, FR, GR, UK, ES, UK, IT 
93   For  example  for  France,  status  2012:  Consider  the  regional  level  as  the  key  level  for  the  successful 
implementation  of  INSPIRE.  For  the  27  regions,  17  established  a  regional  coordination  structure,  3 
have  two  extending  to  the  local  authorities,  6  were  in  the  course  of  establishing  a  coordination 
structure, one still outstanding. 

94   INSPIRE & NSDI State of Play: D3.2 - Detailed survey on use and usability of INSPIRE & NSDI 

- 22 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
(Figure  6).  In  23  Member  States  the  users  were  represented  in  the  coordination 
structures, in ten Member States specific user groups were set-up while fourteen Member 
States involved existing user associations. Eleven Member States set up user forums and 
feedback  is  collected  through  surveys  and  procedures  for  handling  complaints  (for 
example  in  SE95).    Eighteen  Member  States  focussed  mainly  on  the  public  sector  with 
some  including  the  academic  sector,  while  eighteen  out  of  twenty-five  Member  States 
also involved the private sector. 

Figure 6: Mechanisms to involve users 

With regard to the provision of information to the national stakeholders, most96 Member 
States have established online national information websites97 on INSPIRE with varying 
degrees  of  functionality  and  content.  The  majority98  of  the  websites  provide  up-to-date 
information  on  the  national  status  of  implementation,  action  plans,  events,  links  to  EU 
level, national and regional spatial data portals and documentation sources. 

The  Member  States  provided  also  feedback  on  the  implementation  and  use  of  the 
INSPIRE services by the stakeholders99. 

For  example,  FR  reported  in  2014  5.3  billion  'hits'  for  INSPIRE  network  services 
compared to 2.4 billion in 2013. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency reported 
in 2013 a more than 100-fold increase in request for services since their launch at the end 
2011. The Flanders region (BE) reported an increase in the number of downloads from 
6683 in 2010 to 30083 in 2011 by public authority users in the Flemish administration. 

95   SE carries out annual user surveys and integrates that information together with information from the 
regulatory  yearly  monitoring  in  a  dashboard  using  the  Balanced  Score  Card  methodology.  Three 
perspectives are taken into account: the data and services aspects, user satisfaction and cooperation. In 
the survey, nine questions relate to the level to which the availability and usability of data and services 
corresponds to user demand and expectations. The user survey includes also possibilities to comment 
on the implementation of INSPIRE and NSDI. Besides the involvement of user representatives in the 
coordinating 
complaint  mechanism.  Source: 
http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/192/292  

structure, 

a  user 

forum 

there 

and 

is 

96   Except BE (websites at regional WL,VL,BXL level), IE 
97   INSPIRE in your country 
98   Except HU, RO, BG, IE 
99   Public authorities, the public and for cross-border purposes (as requested in the Commission Decision  

2009/442/EC on reporting and monitoring) 

- 23 - 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
CZ  reported  an  increase  from  589  million  service  requests  in  2011  to  1.08  billion  in 
2012.  FI  reported  1.7  million  searches  through  the  discovery  services  in  2012,  475 
million  view  service  request  (a  70%  growth  over  2011),  and  although  not  yet  fully 
implemented,  there  were  five  times  more  download  service  requests  (4  to  20  million) 
between 2011 and 2012.  A number of countries (DE, ES, UK, EL) however experienced 
difficulties  in  coordinating  reliable  quantitative  feedback  on  the  use  of  the  network 
services through off line procedures. 

With regard to feedback on the actual use of the spatial data sets by the stakeholders for 
the purpose of environmental policies and/or policies which may have an impact on the 
environment the majority100 of the Member States reported a wide range of examples of 
applications  and 
the 
environment101,  INSPIRE  data  portals,  or  portals  for  specific  thematic  applications). 
However,  only  six102  provided  direct  references  to  environmental  directives  or  related 
reporting activities. 

to  portals  (e.g.  portals  providing 

information  on 

links 

Specific Objective 3 - The spatial data needed for policies is identified. 

Action  (step  2):  According  to  the  INSPIRE  implementation  roadmap  (Figure  1)  all 
digital spatial data sets falling under the 34 spatial data themes and scope of INSPIRE 
should  have  been  identified,  documented  and  made  available  online  by  the  Member 
States through network services conform with INSPIRE by 3 December 2013. 

Spatial data sets are the core of INSPIRE. Without data there is no content, and without 
content the infrastructure has no meaning. Spatial data sets from the 34 themes defined 
by INSPIRE are to be used and combined to answers particular questions in support of 
local, national and European environmental policies and policies or activities which may 
have  an  impact  on  the  environment.  Steps  2  to  5  (or  specific  objectives  3,  4,  5  and  6) 
include all the actions that are required in relation spatial data. These actions need to be 
implemented  step-by-step  over  time  to  fully  deliver  on  the  objectives  set  out  by  the 
Directive.   

As a first action (or step 2), Member States had to identify the relevant spatial data sets 
falling under the remit of the INSPIRE Directive (cf. Article 3.3 and 18). As such, there 
is no pre-defined list or upper limit of spatial data sets. Hence, spatial data are identified 
step-by-step  and  may  also  reduce  in  number  over  time  if  they  are  combined  or  re-
organised (e.g. when many local data sets are combined into a new regional one).    

All  Member  States  reported  the  identification  of  some  datasets  at  the  first  deadline  but 
numbers  were  up  from  the  original  1635  but  still  generally  very  low  (below  10000  in 
2009). They were certainly incomplete given the broad definition of spatial data and the 
wide  scope  of  the  Directive  (cf.  Article  4.1).  However,  it  is  difficult  to  identify  a 
benchmark success or a target for the deadline in relation to the identification of spatial 
data  sets  given  the  difficulties  in  identifying  an  upper  limit  or  total  number  of  datasets 
falling within scope of the Directive.  

Gradually, the Member States identified an increasing number in datasets (see table 4). 
The  total  volumes  of  identified  and  documented  spatial  data  sets  remained  relatively 

100   25/28  AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL,  ES, FI, FR,  HU, HR,  , LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, 

SE, SI, SK, UK 

101   For example: Scotland's Environment Web 
102   BG  (WFD,  Floods),  EE  (Floods),  PL  (EIA),  UK  (Floods,  Noise,  WFD,  Air  Quality),  FR  (WFD, 

MSFD, NL (Air quality reporting). 

- 24 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
stable and rather low (below 1000) between 2010 and 2013 (for 20 Member States less 
than  120  datasets  per  country  per  year  -  see  Figure  7).  Only  two  Member  States 
(Germany and Spain) reported more than 1000 spatial data sets from the outset.  

10000

1000

100

10

1

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

2010

2013

Figure  7:  Evolution  2010-2013  –  Volume  of  spatial  data  sets  with  metadata  (logarithmic 
scale) 

Since  2013,  eight  Member  States  (AT,  DE,  FR,  UK,  FI,  PT,  PL,  IT)    have  brought  a 
significant  amount  of  new  data  sets  online  while  the  others  still  seem  to  lag  behind  as 
shown in Figure 8.  

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Other Member States

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

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Figure 8: Total volume of spatial datasets identified by EU Member States 

At EU level, this resulted in an important increase in the number of data sets identified 
and reported from 13.914 data sets in 2010 to 56.220 reported in 2014. However, there 
were important differences between countries as shown in Figure 7 and in more detail in 
Table  4.  As  mentioned  above,  it  is  underlined  that  an  increase  in  datasets  alone  is  not 
necessarily  a  measure  of  success.  Some  Member  States  have  reduced  the  number  of 
datasets  simply  by combining  fragmented or  dispersed  datasets which can  produce less 
datasets  but  each  (new)  dataset  having  a  better  quality  and  helping  to  achieve  the 
objectives  of  the  Directive  with  regards  to  interoperability.  A  more  detailed  analysis 
would be necessary to identify such trends in a quantitative manner.  

- 25 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Numbers of reported documented spatial data sets 2010 to 2014 

Country 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

1  AT 

2  BE 

3  BG 

4  CY 

5  CZ 

6  DE 

7  DK 

8  IE 

9  EE 

10  EL 

11  ES 

12  FI 

13  FR 

14  HR 

15  HU 

16  IT 

17  LT 

18  LU 

19  LV 

20  MT 

21  NL 

22  PL 

23  PT 

24  RO 

25  SE 

26  SI 

27  SK 

28  UK 

304 

322 

437 

335 

1366 

20 

635 

37 

751 

5290 

107 

609 

179 

890 

100 

184 

104 

558 

58 

728 

217 

181 

75 

169 

258 

297 

357 

449 

232 

2078 

22 

635 

35 

732 

4373 

288 

1222 

298 

316 

476 

230 

231 

2860 

20 

35 

630 

3514 

270 

3217 

89 

150 

556 

342 

564 

230 

159 

629 

361 

234 

45 

9154 

11239 

111 

159 

44 

533 

1166 

347 

6957 

155 

105 

104 

61 

539 

1431 

389 

16042 

162 

107 

1563 

1352 

5247 

17133 

104 

199 

134 

182 

67 

770 

219 

179 

91 

183 

446 

105 

207 

141 

9 

142 

51 

774 

208 

290 

87 

207 

105 

227 

145 

12 

197 

244 

106 

215 

154 

70 

192 

582 

1414 

1529 

187 

236 

87 

219 

174 

244 

108 

216 

1117 

2562 

4154 

Total EU 

13914 

14857 

17026 

31464 

56220 

- 26 - 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member States have been giving initially priority to identifying the spatial data covered 
by  the  13  spatial  data  themes  of  Annex  I  and  II103  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  This  is 
illustrated in Figure 9 where in 2012 the proportion of Annex I,II data was still relatively 
high compared to data sets covered by the 21 Annex III spatial data themes.  

100

80

60

40

20

0

2012 -   I,II

2012 - III

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

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 9:  % of Annex I,II versus Annex III spatial data sets in 2012 

The  monitoring  results  of  2014  for  the  year  2013  show  for  several  Member  States  an 
important increase in the proportion of Annex III data sets as shown in Figure 10. 

100

80

60

40

20

0

2014 -  I,II

2014 - III

T
A

E
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

U I
T
H

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 10: % of Annex I,II versus Annex III spatial data sets in 2014 

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

103   Annex  I  and  II  covers  13  spatial  data  themes  such  as  transport  networks,  buildings,  addresses, 
hydrography, cadastral parcels, administrative units, protected sites, digital elevation, and bathymetry, 
land cover, geology and images taken by satellite or airborne sensors. 

- 27 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Objective 4 - The identified spatial data is documented 

Action  (step  3):  By  3  December  2013,  all  the  identified  spatial  data  sets  need  to  be 
documented conform to the implementing rule on metadata (Reg. No 1205/2008). Spatial 
data sets falling under annexes I and II had to be compliant already in December 2010.  

Documenting  identified  spatial  data  allows  it  to  be  found  online  more  easily.  To  find 
spatial  data  sets  they  need  to  be  documented  conform  to  documentation  standards  and 
content  ('metadata').  The  documentation  should,  for  example,  allow  the  users  to  assess 
the  quality  of  the  data  and  to  be  informed  about  the  use  conditions.  To  this  end,  the 
Commission adopted an implementing rule104 as regards metadata on 3/12/2008.  

As mentioned earlier, there has been a steady growth in the number of spatial data sets 
since 2010 (Table 4) and most of them were documented with some kind of metadata. 

In  the  end  of  2010,  overall  nine  countries  (on  24  countries  that  reported  these  figures) 
had metadata for more than 70% of the reported spatial data sets and services, whereas 
eleven countries were below the 50% mark (see figure 11). The situation was better for 
the datasets of Annex I and II, where 19 countries score more than 70%. Also it could be 
shown  that  the  situation  had  improved  drastically  between  2009  and  2010  for  nine 
countries,  however,  all  Member  States  were  trailing  behind  the  deadline  to  a  larger  or 
lesser extent. 

Since  then,  the  situation  improved  step-by-step.  Based  on  the  yearly  monitoring 
reports105 of the Member States for the year 2012, on average 77% of INSPIRE Annex I, 
66%  of  INSPIRE  Annex  II,  and  39%  INSPIRE  Annex  III  data  were  documented  with 
INSPIRE  metadata in  2012. In  2012 only  9 out of 27 countries  had more than 90% of 
their  Annexes  I  and  Annex  II  data  sets,  which  were  placed  in  the  infrastructure, 
documented with metadata.   

Ultimately,  all  the  identified  data  sets  had  to  have  metadata  which  were  in  conformity 
with  the  above-mentioned  Implementing  Regulation.  In  2013,  only  12  Member  States 
had over 80% of their documentation conform. Moreover, the conformity with metadata 
standards for the data sets falling under data themes in Annex I and II of the Directive are 
generally higher than those falling under Annex III (see table 4.1 of JRC/EEA report)106. 
Hence,  the  full  implementation  of  the  metadata  standards  remains  an  issue  in  many 
Member States as shown in Figure 11.  

104   Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 of 3 December 2008 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards metadata, OJ L 326, 04/12/2008, p. 12–30 
105   Monitoring:  According  to  Commission  Decision  2009/442/EC  of  5  June  2009  implementing  the 
INSPIRE Directive, EU Member States have to report annually a number of indicators for monitoring 
the implementation and use of their infrastructures for spatial information. The information provided 
includes a list of spatial data sets and services belonging to those infrastructures. 

106   Footnote 50 

- 28 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
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 11: Evolution 2010-2013 - % of spatial data sets with conform metadata 

Specific objective 5 - The documented spatial data is accessible online 

Action  (step  4):  By  December  2013,  Member  States  needed  to  have  online  IT  network 
services  for  discovery,  view  and  download  in  place  for  all  of  their  documented  spatial 
data sets in line with the relevant implementing rules.  

For  the  spatial  data  for  which  metadata  was  created,  interoperable  online  network 
services needed to be implemented. Moreover, it is a prerequisite that the identification 
(step 2) and the documentation (step 3) have been completed for a given dataset. Hence, 
all  the  results  (percentages)  given  below  need  to  take  account  that  there  are  already 
significant  gaps  in  identifying  and  documenting  the  datasets.  The  implementation  gaps 
are therefore cumulative.   
The  Commission  adopted  on  19/10/2009107  (discovery,  view)  and  on  08/12/2010108  
(download,  transformation)  the  implementing  rule  as  regards  the  network  services 
complemented with technical Guidelines to support their implementation. 

Depending on the type of services and spatial data sets, the Member States had to meet 4 
different deadlines by which services should have been implemented: 

1.  Discovery  and  view  services  had  to  be  implemented  by  9  November  2011  for 
INSPIRE Annex I-II data and by 3 December 2013 for INSPIRE Annex III data. 

2.  Download and (where applicable) transformation services had to be implemented by 
28  December  2012  for  INSPIRE  Annex  I-II  data  and  by  3  December  2013  for 
INSPIRE Annex III data. 

In  accordance  with  Article  15(1)  of  the  Directive,  these  services  had  to  be  made 
accessible through the EU Geo-portal. 

Based  on  the  monitoring  reports  provided  by  the  Member  States  for  the  year  2012,  on 
average 63 % of the metadata for the spatial data sets and services were available through 
the discovery services. There has been a positive evolution in a number of Member States 
as  in  2013,  80  to  100%  of  the  documented  spatial  data  sets  had  discovery  services 
allowing them be found  online as shown in  Figure 12. Nevertheless,  only 12 out  of 28 
countries  had  more  than  90  %  of  the  metadata  for  datasets  compliant  with  the  earlier 
steps available through the discovery services.  

107   Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 of 19 October 2009 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of 

the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Network Services 19.10.2009 

108   Commission  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  976/2009  as  regards  download  services  and 

transformation service 08.12.2010 

- 29 - 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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 12: Evolution 2010-2013 - % of spatial data sets with discovery services 

In 2010 on average, only 27 % of the spatial data sets were available through the view 
services  and  only  eight  Member  States  had  more  than  50  %  of  their  spatial  data  sets 
available through view services. Since then, however, there has been a positive evolution 
noticeable as shown in Figure 13.  

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 13: Evolution 2010-2013 - % of spatial data sets with view services 

A similar trend is noticeable for download services. However, only about a quarter of the 
Member  States  have  60  to  a  100%  of  their  reported  spatial  data  sets  accessible  for 
download with a majority below 50% as shown in Figure 14. 

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 14: Evolution 2010-2013 - % of spatial data sets with download services 

On average 41 % of the services were in conformity with the implementing rules, with 
10  countries  having  less  than  3  %  of  their  services  in  conformity.  In  some  Member 
States, a decrease is observed because of potentially lower number of data sets or delays 
in  providing  download  services  for  newly  identified  data  sets.  There  is  no  detailed 

- 30 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
analysis  as  regards  the  different  progress  for  the  data  sets  falling  under  different  data 
themes set out in annex I, II and III.  

Specific objective 6 - Spatial data organised in interoperable data models and available 
online 

Action (step 5): Member States needed to harmonise their data sets by transforming new 
data sets (newly collected or extensively restructured) into data models in line with the 
implementing  rules  on  interoperability  (Reg.  No  1089/2010  as  last  amended  by  Reg. 
(EU)  No  1312/2014).  For  existing  data  sets,  a  transitional  period  of  seven  years  was 
foreseen, i.e. for Annex I+II data sets by 2017 and for Annex III data sets by 2020.  

Important  efficiency  gains  are  expected  once  spatial  data  is  harmonised  or,  in  other 
words,  organised  in  common  data  models109.  This  leads  to  interoperability  where  data 
sets  can  be  shared  more  easily  across  borders  or  disciplines  which  makes  (end-user) 
applications less costly to implement. It also helps reducing duplication in data collection 
and promotes the broad dissemination and use of data.  
To this end, the Commission adopted on 08.12.2010110 for INSPIRE Annex I, II and on 
10/12/2013111 for Annex III the implementing rules as regards interoperability of spatial 
data  sets  and  services.  The  implementing  rule  was  complemented  with  technical 
guidelines to support its implementation. In addition, in the context of the Maintenance 
and Implementation Framework, the Commission implemented the INSPIRE Interactive 
Data  specification  site112  which  offers  the  INSPIRE  data  providers  with  IT  tools  and 
documentation  to  implement  the  INSPIRE  data  specifications.  Several  training 
packages113  and  IT  tools114  to  facilitate  the  transformation  of  spatial  data  sets  to 
INSPIRE  have  been  developed  and  put  to  operational  use  by  the  public  and  private 
sector (in many cases with EU co-funding). 

Depending on the type of spatial data sets, the Member States have to meet four different 
deadlines  for  transforming  their  existing  spatial  data  sets  in  the  interoperable  data 
specifications. 
1.  By 23 November 2012, newly created115 or extensively restructured INSPIRE Annex 

I data had to be organised according to INSPIRE data specifications. 

2.  By  21  October  2015,  newly  created  or  extensively  restructured  INSPIRE  Annex  II 

and III data had to be organised according to INSPIRE data specifications. 

109   The Basic Data Programme – A Danish Infrastructure Model for Public Data, page 42,  2014 
110   COMMISSION  REGULATION  (EU)  No  1089/2010  of  23  November  2010  implementing  Directive 
2007/2/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  interoperability  of  spatial  data 
sets and services 08.12.2010 

111   COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1253/2013 of 21 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) 
No 1089/2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and 
services 10.12.2013 

112   INSPIRE Interactive Data specification site 
113   LINKVIT, SMEspire, eENVplus,  
114   HUMBOLDT Alignment Editor (HALE), FME INSPIRE solutions pack, GO Publisher 
115   'Newly  created'  applies  to  ALL  spatial  data  collected  AFTER  the  adoption  of  INSPIRE  on  15  May 

2007. 

- 31 - 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
3.  By 23 November 2017, ALL INSPIRE Annex I data should be organised according to 

INSPIRE data specifications. 

4.  By  21  October  2020,  ALL  the  INSPIRE  Annex  II  and  III  data  should be  organised 

according to INSPIRE data specifications 

In this evaluation, only the first deadline can be assessed. Based on the monitoring tables 
provided  by  the  Member  States  for  the  year  2012,  only  14  Member  States  reported  on 
their state of compliance with the INSPIRE data specifications for Annex I. The degrees 
of full conformity are generally low which however at this stage of the implementation 
does  not  necessarily  constitute  a  compliance  issue  as  such  obligations  only  applies  to 
spatial  data  sets  newly  created  or  extensively  restructured  since  the  adoption  of  the 
Directive. The percentage shown in the table below consequently illustrates the situation 
for all Annex I spatial data reported. 

Table 5: Percentage of conformity with implementing rules for all Annex I spatial 
data reported in 2012 

Country 

AT  BE  BG  CZ  DE  DK  FI 

IR  LV  NL  PL  RO  SK  ES 

2 
Conformity % 
Source: EEA/JRC Technical evaluation report 

5 

5 

2 

1 

25 

1 

5 

8  13  18  8  25  1 

Figure 15 presents the overall state-of-play of implementation for all annexes by 2013. It 
is  not  surprising  that  the  overall  percentage  of  documented  data  sets  which  have  been 
harmonised is low. Most Member States also reported that they do not have any or many 
"new" data sets. Hence, the transformation of existing data sets was still a future action 
that  most  Member  States  had  not  started.  However,  despite  all  efforts  that  have  been 
taken  to  address  the  issues  of  feasibility  and  proportionality  when  preparing  the 
implementing  rules  in  relation  to  this  step,  several  Member  States  reported  that  the 
agreed rules are still challenging and they expect the implementation to be more time and 
resource consuming than they had anticipated when deciding on the rules.  

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 15:   Evolution 2010-2013 - % of spatial data sets conform to common data models 

(all annexes). 

Overall summary of the implementation results 

In  summary,  progress  has  been  made  in  implementation,  particularly  in  some  Member 
States. However, the implementation gaps in most Member States are significant. They 
are  the  result  of  accumulated  delays  in  the  implementation  process  and  underline  the 

- 32 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
differences  in  speed  and  quality  of  implementation.  The  findings  in  relation  to  the 
different implementation steps can be summed up as follows: 

  All  Member  States  now  have  coordination  structures  in  place,  but  their 
effectiveness  is  variable.  In  particular,  coordination  between  national  mapping 
agencies  and  environment  data  managers  can  be  improved  in  many  Member 
States. 

  The national data policies for sharing data are highly variable and heterogeneous. 
Many  Member  States  reported  important,  outstanding  data  policy  issues  that 
hamper  the  efficient  sharing  of  spatial  data  between  public  authorities  and  with 
the public. 

  Significant progress has been made as regards the spatial datasets identified and 
reported  yearly,  with  close  on  60 000  spatial  datasets  being  reported  in  2014 
against less than 1 400 in 2007. However, for many Member States, the numbers 
remain low (less than 150), and with limited thematic coverage compared to some 
of the better performing countries. 
Implementation  of  the  documentation  obligations  is  at  an  advanced  stage;  yet 
only 12 Member States had documented 80 to 100 % of their reported spatial data 
in line with the INSPIRE Directive by 2014. 

 

  Member States made progress on the online discovery services available for their 
identified  and  documented  datasets.  These  services  give  users  access  to  the 
documentation.  The  overall  availability  of  digital  services  for  viewing  and 
downloading  spatial  data  for  further  use  was  less  advanced.  This  is  mainly  the 
result of the cumulative delays and shortcomings in the previous implementation 
steps. Also here there are noticeable differences between the Member States and 
the type of services concerned. 

  The interoperability of the spatial datasets has not advanced much mainly because 

the main implementation deadlines are still in the future (2017, 2020). 

Based on the trends observed already in 2013 and 2014 and newer information that the is 
now available to the Commission services (and which are reported by the Member States 
since May 2016), the dynamics of the implementation has increased and good progress 
has  been  made,  in  particular  as  regards  the  identification  of  data  sets  (step  2)  and  the 
metadata  compliance  (step  3).  The  main  challenges  remain  with  the  interoperability 
provisions and with the data policies.   

- 33 - 

 
 
 
 
 
5. EVALUATION 

The  progress  made  over  time  towards  achieving  the  objectives  and  targets  set  out  in 
INSPIRE  Directive  has  been  presented  already  in  section  4  (implementation  results). 
This  section  builds  on  these  results  and  evaluates  the  findings  in  relation  to  the  five 
evaluation  criteria  taking  into  account  additional  evidence,  such  as  the  results  of  the 
public consultation. 

5.1. Effectiveness 

The evaluation on effectiveness looked at mainly at comparing this progress to the initial 
expectations and aims at identifying the main factors have contributed to or stood in the 
way of achieving the specific objectives. The specific evaluation questions were:  

-  What  progress  has  been  made  over  time  towards  achieving  the  objectives  and 
targets set out in INSPIRE in various Member States? Is the progress made in 
line with initial expectations and is the geographical coverage of implementation 
consistent? 

-  Which  main  factors  have  contributed  to  –  respectively  stood  in  the  way  of 
achieving  these  objectives?  (for  example,  gaps,  complexity    or  inconsistency  in 
the  measures  or  working  methods  of  INSPIRE,  the  timely  and  coherent 
transposition in national legislation) 

They are assessed together for each of the specific objectives.  

Overall, the effectiveness was often reported in relation to the parallel national policies 
on  open  data  and  eGovernment.  For  administrative  reasons  (different  competent 
authorities)  and  the  low  relevance  of  environmental  issues  in  a  wider  policy  context, 
many  Member  States  kept  both  processes  separate.  Some  Member  States,  however, 
including  some  of  the  more  advanced,  demonstrated  that  there  was  ample  scope  for 
creating  ‘win-win’  approaches  where  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
becomes a building block for eGovernment activities. This is also confirmed by looking 
at the more detailed implementation steps.  

5.1.1. Effectiveness  of  actions  to  establish  a  legal  framework  for  sharing  spatial  data 
across the EU (Specific Objective 1) 

There are two main actions evaluated under this specific objective, the transposition and 
the data sharing policies.  

Overall,  the  transposition  process  has  been  delayed  for  most  Member  States.  Some 
countries116  explained  explicitly  that  the  delays  in  the  2011  State-of-play  report117  and 
the 2010 Member States reports were mainly due to constitutional situation and related 
administrative challenges, as the INSPIRE Directive needed to be transposed at several 
levels of government (regional and national). No evidence has been found that the delays 
have  been  specific  to  the  transposition  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  delays  in 
transposition occur also in other areas for a variety of administrative, technical, legal or 
political reasons. However, the delays in transposition had an impact on the setting up of 
the coordination structures and vice versa.  

116   BE, AT DE, FI, UK and ES 
117   See Footnote 30  

- 34 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
The state-of-play reports118  showed that  although the Member States  already had some 
coordination  in  place  in  2007,  the  structure,  role  and  mandates  of  those  coordination 
bodies were still under discussion at the time of the entry into force of the Directive. The 
most  difficult  issues  during  transposition  were  reaching  agreement  between  the  public 
administrations  at  all  relevant  levels  of  government  (within  and  across  borders)  on  the 
coordination  structures  and  the  measures  for  sharing  spatial  data  sets  and  services 
including whether and how to grant public access.   

Once the Directive was transposed, the Commission identified issues of non-conformity 
in most Member States (all except Greece and Croatia, see section 4). However, most of 
these  issues  could  be  resolved  easily  because  they  were  mostly  of  legal  and  technical 
nature  (e.g.  wording).  None  of  these  issues  prevented  Member  States  from  starting  to 
implement  the  Directive.  However,  the  delays  in  transposition  and  the  adaptation 
necessary  after 
the 
implementation process either and distracted attention away from other required action. 
Having  said  this,  several  Member  States  with  late  transposition  and  issues  of  non-
conformity  were  able  to  implement  the  Directive  much  better  than  the  rest  and  are 
amongst the frontrunners now (namely AT, DE, FR, UK, FI, PT, PL).  

identified  non-conformity  did  not  help 

the  Commission 

The  adoption  of  measures  for  the  sharing  of  spatial  data  sets  and  services  was  also 
affected by the transposition process.  

The implementation progress showed that the national data policies for sharing data are 
highly  variable  and  heterogeneous.  In  some  cases  there  is  evidence  that  it  does  not 
comply  with  the  obligations  set  out  in  Article  17  of  the  Directive  (i.e.  Member  States 
have  to  ensure  that  any  restrictions  likely  to  create  practical  obstacles  occurring  at  the 
point of use, to the sharing of spatial data sets and services between public authorities are 
precluded)  because  obstacles  are  still  reported,  whether  it  be  fees  that  are  required  or 
restrictions of use are in place even between public authorities. This is confirmed by the 
feedback from the public consultation. 

The users participating to the public consultation responded as follows to the question: 
'data policy is no obstacle for use'.  

Table 6: Responses to the statement 'data policy is no obstacle for use'.   

INSPIRE Annex 

I 
II 
III 

No 
21% 
22% 
19% 

Partially 
30% 
33% 
40% 

Yes 
50% 
45% 
41% 

The variations between annexes are not very strong, clearly illustrating that a majority of 
users still experience data policy obstacles when wanting to use INSPIRE data  

The responses of the data producers are generally consistent with user experience, albeit 
slightly more positive:  

-  Only  53%  of  the  data  producing  organizations  declared  to  have  a  policy  allowing 
access with no restrictions at the point of use in accordance with Article 17(2) of the 
Directive. 

-  The arrangements for the sharing of spatial data sets and services have to be open to 
public authorities of other Member States (Article 17(4).) However, according to the 

118   Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play 2007 

- 35 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
data producers responding to the public consultation only 67% of the data policies of 
the organizations allow the access, exchange and use of spatial data sets and services 
by the public authorities of other EU Member States.  

-  The arrangements for the sharing of spatial data sets and services have to be open on 
a  reciprocal  and  equivalent  basis  (Article  17(5)).  However,  according  to  the  data 
producers responding to the public consultation only 54% of the data producers grant 
the EU institutions and bodies and bodies established by international agreements the 
same terms as the public authorities within their country. 

there  are  still  practical  obstacles  identified 

Where 
they  range  from  charging 
disproportionate  fees  to  technical  obstacles  or  restricting  the  re-use  of  the  data.  Such 
diverse and heterogeneous data policies also created an additional administrative burden, 
since  each  individual  data  policy  requires  specific  administration  (e.g.  system  of 
collecting the fees) which a more harmonised, open data policy usually does not need.  

The  2011  state-of-play  report  already  raised  the  concern  that  the  Member  States  were 
mainly focused on fulfilling the technical obligations and requirements of the INSPIRE 
implementing  rules  and  not  on  the  general  purpose  of  facilitating  data  sharing  through 
more effective arrangements and data policies. 

The  heterogeneity  of  the  measures  taken  by  the  Member  States  and  the  outstanding 
issues seem to be the result of the significant degree of flexibility laid down in Article 
17(3)  of  the  Directive.  For  example,  the  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  licence 
and/or to require payment from, the public authorities or EU institutions and bodies. The 
Directive  does  not  require  Member  States  explicitly  to  simplify  their  licencing 
frameworks.  It  allows  Member  States  to  charge  for  spatial  data  sets  and  services  to 
ensure their quality and supply, including eventually a 'reasonable return on investment' 
and  respecting  the  self-financing  requirements  of  public  authorities.  Only  spatial  data 
sets  and  services  provided  by  Member  States  to  EU  institutions  and  bodies  in  order  to 
fulfil  their  reporting  obligations  under  EU  legislation  relating  to  the  environment  are 
explicitly exempt of charging. 

The Commission proposal included a more harmonised way for promoting "open data" 
and a proposal for an implementing rule to establish common licensing conditions. It did 
not contain the various options and flexibility on data sharing which are now present in 
Article  17(3).  During  the  negotiations,  additional  flexibility  was  introduced  by  the  co-
legislator to take account of the diversity of situations and data policy cultures across the 
EU.  The  implementation  process  has  now  shown  that  the  complexity  of  licensing 
conditions  and  the  wide  range  of  data  policies  and  charging  policies  can  still  be  an 
obstacle for effective data sharing in a large number of Member States. At the same time, 
several Member States have used the opportunity to review and simplify their data policy 
often following the "open data" approach.  

In  terms  of  external  factors,  a  number  of  Member  States  are  implementing  open  data 
policies for public sector data in general119 and/or in the context of wider eGovernment 
initiatives. This seems to have influenced progress positively over time. However, such 

119   Driven by the EU Digital Agenda/Digital Single Market:  'The Commission's work in the area of open 
data  is  focussing  on  generating  value  through  re-use  of  a  specific  type  of  data  –  public  sector 
information,  sometimes  also  referred  to  as  government  data.  That  is  all  the  information  that  public 
bodies produce, collect or pay for. Examples are: geographical information, statistics, weather data,.." 
which  includes  "Achieving  efficiency  gains  through  sharing  data  inside  and  between  public 
administrations"  and  "  •Fostering  participation  of  citizens  in  political  and  social  life  and  increasing 
transparency of government". 

- 36 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
policies  are  not  necessarily  covering  all  spatial  data  covered  by  INSPIRE  and 
derogations similar to those120 referred to in Article 17(3) of the INSPIRE Directive can 
be  applied  according  to  the  Directive  on  the  Re-use  of  Public  Sector  Information 
(Directive 2003/98/EC, known as the 'PSI Directive' revised by Directive 2013/37/EU). 
In other countries, complex and heterogeneous national data policies and the absence of 
a pan-European data policy hinder the free flow of data — a concern also recognised in 
the wider Digital Single Market. 

Due  to  the  variety  of  situations  and  the  "burden  of  proof"  being  with  the  Commission 
that the conditions of Article 17(3) are not complied with, it is not possible to determine 
the lack of compliance without further in-depth analysis. However, it is evident that the 
current legal provisions did not ensure that data sharing has become significantly easier 
across the EU. To the contrary, the situation seems to be more complex than before and 
the consistency with other legal frameworks is also not entirely ensured.  

Moreover,  the  lack  of  enforcement  was  reported  as  additional  factor  by  two  countries 
(EL, CY) which established a comprehensive license framework by law. 

In  summary,  these  complex  and  diverse  data  policies  linked  to  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
still creates practical obstacles at the point of data use and needs further attention. 

5.1.2. Effectiveness  of  actions  to  establish  Member  States  internal  and  EU  level 
coordination (Specific Objective 2) 

As  set  out  in  section  4,  the  progress  on  the  main  actions  under  this  objective  was 
presented in relation to setting up national and EU coordination structures.  

The effectiveness of the national coordination structures in place and coordinating the 
contributions  of  the  users  and  producers  varies  from  country  to  country.  Some  good 
examples  exist  as  well  as  many  areas  for  improvement.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  2013 
public consultation121 which inquired about the effectiveness of the coordination efforts 
at  national  level.  Figure  16  shows  that  there  is  some  variation  in  the  perception  of  the 
effectiveness of the coordination among national-level public sector organizations, local 
public sector  ones,  and the private sector  on the extent to  which the implementation of 
INSPIRE is well coordinated. As shown, the level of agreement and strong agreement to 
the question declines from 70% for public sector national organisations, to 44% for both 
local public sector, and private sector. This suggests that there is room for improvement 
in engaging better both local level122  and private sector in the INSPIRE implementation. 
This observation is further supported as national coordination has been identified by the 
stakeholders in the public consultation as the second biggest issue for the implementation 
of  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  Another  issue  of  concern  is  the  coordination  between 
environmental authorities and other authorities (such as mapping agencies) in particular 
in  those  countries  where  the  environment  authorities  have  not  been  identified  as 
competent  authority  for  implementing  the  Directive.  This  often  led  to  a  lack  of 
clarification and conflicting priority setting between relevant authorities at national level, 
in particular those responsible for environmental data (e.g. identifying minimum required 
environmental  datasets  to  be  covered  by  INSPIRE).  In  Denmark,  e.g.,  the  focus  was 
initially on Annex I and II datasets (see figure 9) and only lately extended to focus on the 

120   European legislation on reuse of public sector information – Summary of  Directive 2013/37/EU 
121   Summary Report INSPIRE Public Consultation 2013 
122   Example of local level good practice coordination: UK Local Governments Association –  A guide to 

INSPIRE compliance in Local Government 

- 37 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
more environmentally-relevant datasets in Annex III (see figure 10). This was a result of 
an  increased  coordination  effort  in  Denmark  between  the  Agency  for  Data  Supply  and 
Efficiency  (the  Danish  competent  authority  working  on  INSPIRE)  and  the  Danish 
environmental authorities since 2014.  

Figure 16: Responses to question on national coordination in INSPIRE public consultation 
by type of organisation. 

The delays accrued during the transposition of the Directive may have had an influence 
on the effectiveness of the coordination efforts. Coordination requires a strong mandate 
for those organisations in charge as well as the necessary financial resources. A number 
of  Member  States  (e.g.  ES,  PT,  CY,  IE,  EL)  referred  to  a  lack  of  resources  for 
coordination actions as a result of the economic crisis. Moreover, re-organisations driven 
by political changes affected coordination effectiveness during a certain period in several 
Member States (e.g. PT, IT, EL, BG, HU, CY). 

The  coordination  is  also  not  always  comprehensive  or  it  is  difficult  to  collect  relevant 
data  to  demonstrate  its  effectiveness.  Some  Member  States  (DE,  SE)  reported  having 
focussed their coordination efforts during the reporting period mainly on the production 
of metadata and implementation of services. Other stated that the uptake of the services is 
still  in  an  initial  low  phase  (e.g.  UK)  and/or  that  systematic  monitoring  on  the  use  of 
spatial data through INSPIRE services for particular applications is either not done (ES), 
limited to internal work processes (NL), or where they are implemented in the context of 
open  data  initiatives  feedback  on  the  actual  use  of  data  is  generally  not  collected  (e.g. 
AT, UK, DE). 

The  EU  coordination  required  a  number  of  actions  leading  to  the  establishment  of  a 
Committee  which  had  to  adopt  of  a  number  of  implementing  rules  as  well  as  the 
establishment of an implementation support mechanism at EU level. The adoption of the 
implementing rules was somewhat delayed (between 0.5 and 1.5 years) in comparison to 
the  target  dates  set  by  the  Directive  but  this  did  not  have  a  significant  negative 
consequence  for  the  implementation  because  the  Directive  already  foresaw  an  fixed 
period for implementation from the moment of adoption of the respective implementing 
rule. 

The delays were generally not caused by lack of resources or circumstances external to 
the  project.  However,  some  of  the  use-cases  proved  to  be  more  complex  than  initially 
anticipated. Certain technical domain standards turned out to be not sufficiently mature 

- 38 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
and  needed  more  testing.  The  time  to  test  the  technical  specifications,  to  consult  the 
stakeholders  and  conduct  ex-ante  feasibility  and  benefit  assessments  took  longer  than 
initially estimated. 

The  additional  coordination  structures  to  support  the implementation  (Maintenance  and 
Implementation  Framework)  remain  in  place  in  2016.  They  work  effectively  and  are 
widely  appreciated  across  the  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  many  Member  States 
highlighted  the  need  for  improving  EU-level  coordination  (the  European  Commission 
and EEA) in guiding Member States towards priorities in identifying the spatial datasets, 
in particular for environmental and related policies (e.g. in relation to reporting).  

5.1.3. Effectiveness of actions to identify the spatial data sets (Specific Objective 3)  

The  main  action  under  this  objective  is  set  out  in  Article  18  of  the  Directive  which 
requires Member States to identify their relevant spatial data sets falling within the scope 
of the 34 themes defined in the INSPIRE Annexes. This action is an essential first step 
regarding those actions dealing with data management because the identified spatial data 
sets are the basis for taking the subsequence actions in a stepwise approach (see specific 
objectives 4, 5 and 6).    
Member  States  followed  different123  strategies  to  identify  their  spatial  data  sets.  Some 
Member  States  (e.g.  ES,  DE,  FR,  BE)  reported  initially  data  sets  resulting  from  an 
inventory of spatial data across all 34 INSPIRE themes. Other Member States (e.g. NL, 
LT)    had  initially  a  more  restricted,  step-wise  approach,  focussing  on    a  more  limited 
thematic coverage of data sets mainly related to the INSPIRE Annex I data themes or on 
those which they intended to reorganise as national authentic data sets first (NL124).  In 
2010 most of the spatial data sets (50%) were reported by only two countries125 (Table 
4).  From  2012  onwards  a  number  of  Member  States  (DE,  FR,  IT,  UK,  PT,  AT,  PL) 
reported increasing numbers of documented spatial data sets while others had only small 
increases or in two cases (ES, CZ) a reduction of the number of spatial data sets due to 
their  efforts  in  reorganising  their  data  sets.  At  EU  level  this  resulted  in  an  important 
increase in the number of data sets identified and reported from 13.914 data sets in 2010 
to  56.220  reported  in  2014  with  however  important  differences  between  countries  (as 
shown in Table 4). 

The  volume  of  spatial  data  sets  as  an  indicator  for  effective  implementation  should  be 
interpreted  with  careful  considerations  on  how  the  spatial  data  sets  are  managed  or 
available  in  a  Member  State.  A  low  numbers  of  spatial  datasets  identified  and 
documented in some countries may indicate a coordination and implementation problem. 
However,  a  small  increase  or  even  a  reduction  in  data  sets  can,  in  some  cases,  also 
indicate an improvement in the availability and usability of the data sets since they have 
been  consolidated  by  bringing  together  many  diverse  data  sets  and  sources  into  one  or 
several national ones which are more harmonised. In fact, such consolidation efforts are 
still  necessary  in  some  Member  States  since  the  current  decentralised  hosting  of 
important data sets reduces the effective use and interoperability of such data.  

123   INSPIRE 2011 State-of-play report 
124   NL  however  already  identified  Annex  III  data  sets  –  for  example:  data  related  to  meteorology  and 

atmosphere  - see: KNMI Impact Analysis INSPIRE – Internal report, 2008 

125   ES (38%) followed by DE (12%) 

- 39 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
There is a lack of analytical evidence to explain the choices made by the Member States 
in identifying their spatial data sets falling under the scope of INSPIRE. However, some 
factors influencing this action can be derived from the evaluation: 

Strategic choices and timing considerations – Several Member States focussed initially 
on a limited number of spatial data sets, mostly those covered by INSPIRE Annex I. A 
number  of  Member  States  only  started  to  involve  the  environmental  data  user  and 
producing organisations at a much later stage given the difference in timing between the 
implementation  of  the  three  INSPIRE  Annexes.  A  number  of  Member  States  reported 
early  (as  from  2010)  identified  spatial  data  from  all  INSPIRE  annexes  whether  or  not 
metadata was already created. Others only reported spatial data sets for which metadata 
was created, first Annex I and only later Annex II and III. 

Lack of environmental policy focus - Not sufficient focus has possibly been given to the 
spatial data requirements of environmental policies126 even in countries where driven by 
eGovernement  and/or  'open  data'  initiatives  a  larger  number  of  INSPIRE  data  sets 
became available. These external factors  – such as initiatives on open data – may have 
received a higher political priority than INSPIRE with its focus on mostly environment-
related data.  

Coordination  factors  -  In  most  Member  States  environmental  and  other  stakeholder 
ministries and agencies are reported to be part of the coordination structure. In practice 
however, the identification of spatial data sets for environmental policies seem to  have 
suffered from the lack  of coordination between those responsible for INSPIRE and the 
various  thematic  environmental  communities,  expert  groups  and  committees  which  are 
interacting with the Commission and the EEA on reporting and implementation issues. 

Timing  issues  -  Member  States  possibly  did  not  sufficiently  take  into  account  the 
deadline  of  December  2013  by  which  all  identified  and  documented  spatial  data  sets 
should have been fully on-line 'as–is'. They remained focussed on the 2020 deadline for 
full implementation whereby all identified data sets have been interoperable. 

Reluctance  to  share  –  Some  Member  States  reported  a  reluctance  to  report/identify 
spatial data sets for sharing by spatial data producers (thematic, different administrative 
levels) for various reasons (business models, lack of transparency, impact on resources, 
resistance to change - current data management practices). 

Spatial data sets are produced and used by a large number and variety of organisations 
which in most cases are both producers and users127 of their own spatial data (Figure 17) 
and  in  many  cases,  also  use  those  produced  by  others.  This  complex  relationship  of 
demand and supply emphasises the importance of coordination in order to identify and 
bring online those spatial data sets most relevant for the user communities. 

As  shown  in  Figure  17,  which  illustrates  user  demand  versus  the  producer  supply,  the 
user  demand  is  generally  higher  for  INSPIRE  Annex  I  and  II  spatial  data  given  their 
wide  range  of  application  going  beyond  environmental  policies.  However,  also  for  the 
more  diversified  21  INSPIRE  Annex  III  spatial  data  themes  there  is  an  important 
demand for spatial data sets more directly related to environmental policies.  

126   As initially documented in INSPIRE D.2.3 "Data Specifications" – Definition of Annex Themes and 

Scope" 2008 and refined in the INSPIRE Technical Guidelines 2013. 

127   Based on the analysis of the EU level  INSPIRE register of spatial data interest communities (SDIC: 
513) and organisations with a legal mandate (LMO: 280) for spatial data falling under one or more of 
the INSPIRE data themes. The 2013 public consultation confirms this assessment with similar results 
as shown Figure 17 (User demand versus producer supply for INSPIRE spatial data). 

- 40 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
As  to  the  relevancy  of  the  spatial  data  sets  for  environmental  policies  and  policies  or 
activities  which  may  have  an  impact  on  the  environment,  Figures  9  and  10  show  that 
since 2013 proportionally more INSPIRE Annex III are being reported. As a significant 
part  of the spatial data relevant  for environmental policies is covered by the Annex III 
data  themes  this  suggests  a  positive  evolution.  However,  there  are  still  important 
differences  between  the  Member  States  also  with  regard  to  the  thematic  coverage  of 
Annex  III  data  and  the  direct  relevance  of  the  identified  data  for  reporting  and 
implementation  of  environmental  legislation.  Often  such  environmental  data  could  not 
be  (easily)  found  despite  that  fact  that  they  should  have  been  made  available  "as  is" 
already. This means that even without implementing the next steps (specific objectives 4, 
5 and 6), these data should at least be accessible for use.  

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Mineral Resources
Energy Resources
Species distribution
Habitats and biotopes
Bio-geographical regions
Sea regions
Oceanographic geographical features
Meteorological geographical features
Atmospheric conditions
Natural risk zones

Area management / restriction / regulation…
Population distribution and demography
Agricultural and aquaculture facilities
Production and industrial facilities
Environmental monitoring Facilities
Utility and governmental services
Human health and safety
Land use
Soil
Buildings
Statistical units
Geology
Orthoimagery
Land cover
Elevation
Protected sites
Hydrography
Transport networks
Cadastral parcels
Addresses
Administrative units
Geographical names
Geographical grid systems
Coordinate reference systems

PC N°Users

SDIC/LMO N°Users

PC N°Producers

SDIC/LMO N°Producers

0

500

1000

1500

- 41 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  17:  User  demand  versus  producer  supply  for  INSPIRE  spatial  data  (PC:  public 
consultation  of  2013,  SDIC:  spatial  data  interest  communities,  LMOs:  legally  mandated 
organisations) 128 

5.1.4. Effectiveness  of  actions  to  document  the  identified  spatial  data  sets  (Specific 
Objective 4) 

Once  the  spatial  data  sets  were  identified,  the  next  action  was  to  ensure  that  they  are 
documented in accordance with the Implementing Regulation129 as regards metadata. To 
assist  this  implementation  step,  technical  guidelines.  a  metadata  editor130  and  metadata 
validator  were  developed  and  agreed  at  EU  level.  Nevertheless,  the  implementation 
progress  was  mixed  across  all  Member  States  (see  section  4).  These  outcomes  were 
confirmed  by  the  2013  public  consultation  which  yields  comparable  results  as  users 
considered 68% - 67% - 49% of the data documented (but not necessarily conform131) for 
INSPIRE Annex I-II-III data respectively. 

Specific issues were also evident on the metadata for services where in 2012 on average 
only  56%  of  the  services  were  documented  with  INSPIRE  metadata,  with  8  countries 
facing significant delays (deadline was 2009 for Annex I and II). However, as shown in 
Figure 18, the situation has been improving significantly during the years 2013 and 2014 
with  more  and  more  Member  States  making  discovery  services  available  providing 
access to 80 – 100% of the documented metadata for spatial data sets and services.   

128   The INSPIRE  register of  organisations (SDIC/LMO) was established falling a continuous open call 
for interest since 2006 to allow wide variety of organisations to participate in the implementation of 
the INSPIRE Directive and, in particular, the technical preparation of implementing rules.   

129   Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 of 3 December 2008 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards metadata, OJ L 326, 04/12/2008, p. 12–30 

130   The INSPIRE Metadata editor makes it possible to create INSPIRE compliant metadata 
131   Respondent  to  the  public  consultation  cannot  assess  if  metadata  is  conform  to  the  technical 

specifications. 

- 42 - 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Figure 18: Conformity of metadata for spatial data services evolution 2010 to 2014. 

With  regard  to  completing  their  metadata,  Member  States  seem  to  have  followed 
different approaches. Some considered it a priority to bringing data and services into the 
infrastructure,  even  when  not  fully  documented.  Others  applied  more  stringent  quality 
checks before doing this. Other issues related to an initial lack of training and skills to 
understand  the  documentation  specifications  and  guidelines,  the  willingness,  time  and 
resources needed to create this meta-data and an initial lack of software tools for these 
purposes as well as for verifying the quality of the documentation. Some of these issues 
have been overcome in the meantime.  

5.1.5. Effectiveness  of  actions  to  make  the  documented  spatial  data  accessible  online 
(Specific Objective 5) 

For  the  spatial  data  for  which  metadata  was  created,  interoperable  online  network 
services  needed  to  be  implemented.  Since  2010,  there  has  been  significant  progress  in 
accessing  different  services  online  but  there  are  still  significant  shortcomings  for  the 
different  services  (discovery,  view  and  download)  as  described  in  section  4.  Those 
trends,  such  as  the  lower  level  of  availability  of  download  services  in  comparison  to 
discovery  services,  are  consistent  with  the  response  of  the  data  providers  to  the  public 
consultation: 

-  51  %  responded  that  their  organisation’s  spatial  data  sets  and  services  were 
discoverable through web services with a significant portion indicating an incomplete 
discoverability (not all INSPIRE data they manage can be discovered).   

- 43 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
-  53 % indicated that their organisation’s spatial data sets were viewable through some 

web services with a significant portion indicating an incomplete access.  

-  32  %  reported  that  their  organisation’s  spatial  data  sets  were  downloadable  with  a 

significant percentage indicating the non-availability for download.  

-  48  %  responded  that  their  discovery  services  were  also  compliant  with  the 
implementing rules, 43 % declared that their view services were compliant with the 
implementing  rules  and  37  %  indicated  that  the  download  services  were  compliant 
with the implementing rules. 

With regard to the access through the EU Geo-portal only 41 % of the services reported 
in 2012 can be found back in the portal with a very wide disparity across countries (from 
0% to 92%). In addition, of those only 62% could be accessed and only 5% were in-line 
with the (non-binding) technical guidance provided. 

This affects the effectiveness of the implementation overall and the EU Geo-portal as a 
single entry point to the EU spatial data infrastructure. This also affects the usability and 
usefulness of the EU Geo-portal. As a result, only 31% of the respondents to the public 
consultation used the EU Geo-portal at some time and individual feedback suggests that 
they were often not finding what they were looking for. 

The  main  factors  for  the  insufficient  implementation  of  this  step  in  the  Directive  were 
similar  to  those  under  other  steps,  namely  the  lack  of  sufficient  financial  and  human 
resources.  On  one  hand,  the  economic  crisis  played  a  role,  on  the  other  hand  where 
INSPIRE relevant data is managed by a large number of smaller organisations, resources 
are an issue when online web services need to be set up and kept online.  Other factors 
mentioned in the public consultation regard the lack of skills, training and software tools 
for setting up services and for checking the validity of the services against the INSPIRE 
implementing rules. 

5.1.6. Effectiveness of actions to bring spatial data sets organised in interoperable data 
models online (Specific Objective 6) 

The  main  deadlines  for  reorganising  spatial  data  sets  according  to  interoperable  spatial 
data models conform to the implementing rule are set in the future132. The past deadlines 
(23/11/2012,  21/10/2015)  to  transform  datasets  only  applied  to  spatial  data  sets  which 
are  'newly  created  or  extensively  restructured'.  Hence,  it  is  not  surprising  that 
implementation levels in 2013 were still low (see section 4).  

Data  producers  participating  to  the  public  consultation  seem  to  confirm  the  current 
status. When responding (33 % of all producers) to the question on the % of data already 
brought in-line with the data specifications, less than 4% indicated that more than 75% 
of  their  data  sets  were  already  in  conformity,  33%  reported  less  than  25%  conformity 
while 40% of them did not know if such actions were going on in their organisation. 

A main factor with regard to the 2012 and 2015 deadlines is the fact that Member States 
decide  whether  or  not  a  spatial  data  set  is  newly  created  or  heavily  restructured.  For 
example LT reported that no new official data sets were created or restructured.  

The  (future)  implementation  steps  are,  without  a  doubt,  the  most  challenging  and 
resource intensive step which is why the Directive foresaw that the implementing rules 
should  be  "feasible  and  proportionate  in  terms  of  their  likely  costs  and  benefits"  (cf. 

132   23/11/2017 for Annex I spatial data sets, 21/10/2020 for Annex II and III spatial data sets. 

- 44 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
Article  7.2).  Hence,  a  number133  of  Member  States  as  well  as  the  public  consultation 
results emphasise the need for capacity building, including training for raising skills and 
resources in general.  

Moreover,  feedback  from  Member  States  also  confirmed  that  there  are  still  significant 
efforts  and  costs  involved  in  transforming  existing  datasets  to  meet  the  future 
requirements  (deadlines  in  2017  and  2020).  They  also  expressed  concern  regarding  the 
higher complexity and the feasibility of adapting all spatial data to common data models 
by  2017  (Annex  I)  or  2020  (Annex  II  and  III)  as  previously  anticipated.  Hence,  the 
deadlines  will  be  difficult to  achieve  for  most  Member  States,  e.g.  due  to  the technical 
complexity  of  the  interoperability  implementing  rules  and  guidelines  that  require  the 
application  of  IT  tools  and  skills  that  are  often  absent.  The  different  starting  points  of 
Member  States  in  terms  of  preparedness  of  meeting  the  deadlines  set  by  the  Directive 
were  also  identified  as  another  reason  for  the  upcoming  challenges.  Hence,  many 
Member States and users call for a flexible, pragmatic and user-driven application of the 
existing data specifications. 

Positive factors influencing progress are the increasing availability of INSPIRE-specific 
IT  tools  developed  by  the  public  and  private134  sector  with  and  without  EU  level 
financial support. Such tools make it easier to transform data or, once available, can be 
used by other data owners provided they are "open source". A large number of training 
courses developed by the  public135 and private136 sector are becoming available as online 
e-learning  platforms  while  the  transformation  of  existing  spatial  data  sets  conform  to 
INSPIRE  has  been  undertaken  in  several  projects  at  local,  regional137,  national138  and 
European139 scales. 

As regards the overall implementation gaps and delays related to the steps 2 to 5 (specific 
objectives 3 to 6), several Member States reported that the economic crisis and pressure 
on national budgets had a major impact on the allocation of required, up-front investment 
(e.g.  in  IT  infrastructure  and  technical  skills  development  in  administrations).  Where 
such  investments  have  taken  place,  improvements  in  the  implementation  effectiveness 
have been noted. This aspect will also be discussed in the efficiency section.  

5.1.7. Summary of the evaluation of effectiveness 

At this half-way point in the implementation process, the evaluation of effectiveness of 
the  Directive  varies  significantly.  Overall,  there  is  good  progress  since  there  are  clear 
improvements as compared to the situation in 2007 and the availability and management 

133   AT, CY, EE, EL,  ES,  FR,  HU, HR, LT, LV,  PT, SI, UK 
134   ArcGIS for INSPIRE 
135   INSPIRE and Data Management” Training,  
136   INSPIRE  Training  with  GO  Publisher,  GeoSolultions  INSPIRE  Support,  LINKVIT,  GeoSmartCity 
INSPIRE  Training,  GISIG  E-learning  platform,  GGP  INSPIRE  Training  and  support,  Compass 
INSPIRE Solutions 

137   Providing  INSPIRE-compliant  access  to  utility  services:  the  case  of  sewage  networks  in  Flanders, 

Belgium 

138   Dutch cadastre INSPIRE conform, The German Marine Data Infrastructure, UK National Biodiversity 
Network  to  deliver  INSPIRE  compliance  for  species  data,  Geodateninfrastruktur  Deutschland: 
INSPIRE success story – Implementing e-reporting of air quality based on INSPIRE at national level 
139   One-Geology  Europe,  European  Location  Framework,  ELF,  Reporting  and  exchanging  air  quality 

information using e-Reporting 

- 45 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
of spatial data is now more advanced. Some Member States have also demonstrated that 
effective  implementation  is  possible.  However,  the  overall  level  of  progress  (as  also 
presented  in  section  4)  is  very  heterogeneous,  generally  below  expectation  and 
implementation  gaps  in  most  Member  States  are  significant.  They  are  the  result  of 
accumulated delays in the implementation process and underline the differences in speed 
and  quality  of  implementation.  Significant  challenges  remain  in  particular  with  the 
interoperability provisions and with the data policies.   

There  are  many  factors  influencing  this  low  level  of  effectiveness  which  can  often  be 
related  to  implementation  efforts  (and  investment)  by  Member  States.  Most  have  not 
done  enough  in  this  respect,  and  can  close  their  implementation  gaps  through,  for 
example, more investment in skills and infrastructure, better coordination, improving the 
free flow of data by updating their data policies, better streamlining with national policies 
on  eGovernment  and  open  data.  Moreover, 
that  some 
implementation  efforts  which  are  not  due  until  2020  may  be  costly  and  difficult  to 
achieve, in particular in relation to data harmonisation. Hence, collaboration between the 
Commission services, the Member States and the user communities may be useful to set 
priorities and ensure that the existing data specifications  can be implemented in a more 
flexible,  pragmatic  and  user-driven  way  so  as  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  this 
upcoming implementation step. 

indications 

there  are 

- 46 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2. Efficiency 

5.2.1. Costs and benefits  

What  are  the  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive in various Member States?   

The  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
were determined on the basis of reported Member State figures for the period 2010-2012. 
Overall, the information was patchy and diverse. Hence it was not possible to calculate 
EU-wide  figures  for  costs  and  benefits,  nor  was  it  not  always  possible  to  compare  the 
information available.  

On costs, most of the Member States reported some information except for HU and DK. 
However, in several cases the costs are not systematically measured and/or different cost 
breakdowns have been applied. In other cases, the figures are provided only for part of 
the infrastructure or examples for a number of involved organisations (RO, DE).  Also 
one-off costs and maintenance costs can often not be distinguished. It was also noted that 
it  is  difficult  to  separate  cost  due  to  INSPIRE  from  investments  in  data  infrastructure 
which was anyhow planned and made.  
On the basis of the available information, reported costs on average annual basis140 (SE: 
4.7, AT: 2.5. DE: 2.3 (national DE components only) FR: 13.5 LT: 0.497, LU: 0.9 FI: 
1.63  CZK:  2.8,  SI:  2.5  U.K:  2.8141  in  €  million/year  for  the  period  2010-2012)  were 
below  the  initial  impact  assessment  estimates142  of  €4  to  8  million  per  year  at  the 
national  level  depending  on  the  size  of  the  Member  State  and  of  €60000-94000  per 
region of 250000– 350000 inhabitants. 

On  benefits,  Member  States  reported  mostly  in  qualitative  terms.  They  generally 
consider that benefits are yet to be fully realised but that they are starting to emerge in 
terms  of  improved  data  access,  better  cooperation  across  the  public  sector,  skills  and 
capacity  building,  less  duplication  of  work,  improved  information  for  supporting 
environmental policy, better e-government services to citizens and business. 
A few Member States143 reported quantitative impact assessments, presenting estimates 
of future benefits: 

-  With respect to improved environmental management the UK Environment Agency 
for  England  and  Wales  estimated  that  the  benefits  of  implementing  INSPIRE  in 
reducing  environmental  risk  are  equivalent  to  £5.1  million/year144.  The  2012  UK 
Benefits  Realisation  Strategy145  estimates  annual  quantifiable  benefits  across  UK 
government  departments  at  £m  470-510.  Evidence  of  cost-saving  and  increased 
efficiencies  at  the  local  levels  are  also  emerging,  for  example  the  Barrow  Borough 

140   Note: member States who did report, mostly reported costs for a 3 year period 2010-2012. 
141   20% of UK Location Programme 2009-2014 budget 11.0 million/5 years 
http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/reports/stateofplay2011/rcr11UKv122.pdf  
142   Contribution to the extended impact assessment of INSPIRE, 24/09/2003 
143   UK, NL, SE, LT 
144   http://www.poweredbyinspire.eu//documents/0403-sustainability-carlyle.pdf. 
145   UKLP - Benefits Realisation Strategy, 2012 

- 47 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
Council  attributed  £26.000  (or  £0.38  per  inhabitant)  annual  cost  savings  from 
implementing INSPIRE services146. 

-  NL  reported  a  consolidated  government  view  to  the  public  consultation  process147 
noting benefits through the collaboration and harmonisation between different layers 
of  government  and  competent  authorities.  Harmonisation  has  led  to  more  efficient 
generation  of  management  information  and  creates  benefits  for  the  private  sector, 
saving  them  the  effort  of  data  integration;  new  (mobile)  applications  are  being 
developed on the basis of the information now available. The 2009 NL Cost-benefits 
analysis148 for INSPIRE predicted that until 2013, the annual costs would exceed the 
benefits and increase the negative cumulative balance of both. From 2014 onwards, 
the benefits would be higher and the negative cumulative balance should decrease as 
shown in Figure 19. An update of this cost-benefit analysis149 was recently published 
following  the  finalisation  of  this  evaluation.  It  concludes  that  the  costs  are  higher 
than originally anticipated. The total annual costs range from €3 to 5 million euro in 
the period from 2010 to 2024. Between 2010 and 2015, these were actually realised 
costs  whereas  the  remainder  are  predictions  which  are  higher  compared  to  the 
predictions in the previous study. On the benefits side, INSPIRE does indeed ensure 
that  data  are  more  interchangeable,  that  the  comparison  and  the  quality  of  data  are 
better and the availability is higher. Overall, the total value of benefits is lower than 
previously estimated. However, the new study is also highlighting that many benefits 
still  cannot  be  quantified.  They  conclude  that  better  management  of  benefits  is 
needed  to  direct  investments  into  those  areas  most  beneficial  for  the  different  user 
groups.  

Figure 19: Phasing of the costs and benefits over time in the basic model (amounts in 
EUR million) in The Netherlands – Source NL 2013 INSPIRE report, page 22. 

-  SE conducted an ex-ante/ex-post benefit survey with public authorities. SE considers 
that the envisaged benefits of the infrastructure have been realised. The spatial data 
cooperation  has  paid  dividends  both  internally  and  externally.  There  are  also 

146   See http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2012/presentations/66.pdf 

 147 “INSPIRE, The Dutch way” - Observations on implementing INSPIRE in the Netherlands, The Dutch 

response to the Public consultation on the implementation of INSPIRE  

148   Costs-benefits analysis INSPIRE in The Netherland, 2009. 
149   Rapport: Kosten-Baten Analyse INSPIRE Nederland 2016 

- 48 - 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
examples of increased benefits for third parties. Access to a greater volume of spatial 
data via the spatial data cooperation has opened the eyes of certain organisations to 
new possibilities and areas of application and is also contributing to better and more 
reliable decisions. The biggest efficiency benefits resulted from changes in the data 
policy having to  sign  only  one agreement150 at fixed licence  fee to  obtain access to 
the whole pool of spatial information offered by all contributing organisations. Other 
benefits, in terms of results, regard more and better quality data available, improved 
dialogue and networking, better cooperation on data collection.  INSPIRE has led to 
lower  costs  for  the  private  sector  in  case  they  needed  public  data.  Moreover, 
improved crisis management and shortened response times in serving information to 
the  public  were  also  observed  by  the  authorities  as  a  result  of  the  INSPIRE 
implementation. 

-  LT reported that according to their cost-benefit analysis of INSPIRE at least 10000 
working days are saved nationally per year with an expected annual increase of such 
savings at a rate of 5-10%. 

-  As  part  of  its  eGovernment  strategy,  DK  reported  to  the  UN151  the  release  of  a 
variety of public sector data for free and open reuse. The release was supported by a 
business  plan  that  indicated  an  annual  potential  for  economic  growth  due  to  open 
data  in  excess  of  €100  million  from  2020  onwards.  Among  the  data  that  are  now 
accessible to citizens, private sector companies and public authorities are, e.g., spatial 
data covered by INSPIRE such as topographic data  and the national digital elevation 
model.  DK  also  changed  the  data  policy  of  the  Danish  Geodata  Agency  from 
revenue-based  to  open  and  free  funded  by  public  appropriations  also  in  order  to 
implement the respective INSPIRE provisions. 

Other  examples  of  Member  States  which  reported  in  more  qualitative  terms  on  the 
benefits observed and anticipated: 
-  Seven Member States152 reported efficiency gains between Open Data initiatives and 
INSPIRE in cases where the same standards are used. In such cases, some countries 
reported an increase  in skills and capability,  a real benefit with  more public bodies 
collaborating  and  using  these  skills  and  capabilities  in  providing  other  data  and 
information  related  services.  Overall,  this  led  to  more  efficient  access  to 
information153  as well as better and cheaper eGovernment services for citizens and 
businesses,  thus  improving  transparency  and  creating  business  opportunities  using 
environmental data. This boosted research and innovation potential. 

-  Organisations  involved  in  reporting  on  air  quality  to  the  EU  levels  in  the  UK,  BE, 
NL,  DE154  and  IT  reported  efficiency  gains  and  improved  sharing  across  borders 
when  applying  INSPIRE  solutions.  BG  observed  improved  efficiency  in  the 
reporting under the European environmental legislation in several organisations. 

150   Country Report of Sweden on the Swedish Spatial Data Infrastructure to United Nations Committee of 

Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM), 2015 

151   Country  Report  of  Denmark  to  the  United  Nations  Committee  of  Experts  on  Global  Geospatial 

Information Management (UN-GGIM), 2014 

152   DE, DK, ES, FI, NL, SE and UK. 
153   The Basic Data Programme — A Danish Infrastructure Model for Public Data, 2014. 
154   Geodateninfrastruktur Deutschland: INSPIRE success story – Implementing e-reporting of air quality 

based on INSPIRE at national level 

- 49 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
-  PL  reported  on  reduced  costs  for  obtaining  reference  data  and  cost  savings  within 
municipalities  as  well  as  better  policy  outcomes  through  improved  access  and 
feedback from citizens on planning documents and positive effects on the availability 
of data for environmental impact assessments. PL and RO report on benefits from the 
integration  of  INSPIRE  services  with  the  agricultural  subsidy  Land  Parcel 
Information  System  (LPIS).  The  efficiency  of 
improved  and 
environmental aspects were taken better into account. Similar benefits were reported 
from administrations involved in forest fires hazard management. 

the  systems 

-  LU reported INSPIRE and its resulting national geoportal as an important factor  in 
the national administrative simplification programme while the use of geospatial data 
by administrations, private sector and citizens continues to rise.  

-  FR  reported  benefits  from  faster  discovery  of  the  data,  easier  use  of  the  data, 
limitation  of  the  restrictions  and  reduction  of  the  cost  barriers  thanks  to  mastering 
new tools and rising competence on environmental themes. The optimisation of the 
business exchanges between partners, the reduction in duplications of data lead to an 
increase in dissemination, better reuse and time savings. An increase in the quality of 
the data and their accuracy and an increase in the interest of users are also benefits 
found. 
In  AT,  the  costs-benefit  ratio  of  INSPIRE  is  at  present  considered  to  be 
unfavourable, noting that significant benefits can arise only when a larger number of 
harmonised data files are available.  

- 

-  FI reported an increasing awareness of spatial data and its possibilities.  
-  LT noted a positive impact on the labour market. 
-  DK  considered  benefits  of  an  effective  infrastructure  for  spatial  information, 
including the contribution of INSPIRE, extending beyond public digitisation and into 
growth and innovation for undertakings and citizens. 

These examples demonstrate that some of the expected benefits are gradually emerging. 
Some  countries  have  also  demonstrated  that  their  investment  into  an  improved  spatial 
data infrastructure has reduced the time and investment needed to prepare reports to the 
EU  level.  E.g.  in  Ireland,  investments  in  connecting  the  digital  infrastructure  between 
authorities  reduced  the  time  to  prepare  a  report  on  industrial  installations  for  the 
European Union from months to days155. 

Although the feedback to the public consultation does not allow for a country-to-country 
comparison,  the  responses  with  regard  to  costs  and  benefits  seem  to  align  with  the 
overall  trends  reported  by  the  Member  States.    For  example,  both  user  and  producers 
rank  better  data  discovery  and  access  as  the  largest  benefit  realised  so  far.  This  is 
followed  by  benefits  derived  from  greater  interoperability  through  the  use  of 
international standards and improvements in internal data management processes. Other 
benefits  identified  range  from  business  research  opportunities,  better  cross-border 
governmental, knowledge transfer and the combined impact of Open Data and INSPIRE. 

However, when asked if 'the benefits of INSPIRE will be greater than the costs', 16% of 
the respondents to the public consultation tend to disagree, 38% have no opinion while 
38% agree that this would be the case.  

This result does not come as a surprise given the variable progress made in the Member 
States  and  the  fact  that  according  to  the  ex-ante  cost-benefit  assessment  and  those 
conducted by NL (2009) and UK, INSPIRE benefits will only start to out weight costs 
approximately later in the implementation process. Such benefits would also require that 

155   See footnote Error! Bookmark not defined. 

- 50 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
investments are made and that obstacles with regard to access to and use are sufficiently 
removed.  Whilst  the  outlook  is  positive  as  49%  of  the  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation  agreed  that  'INSPIRE  has  helped  me/my  organisation  in  becoming  more 
efficient and effective' while 24% tend to still disagree and 27% expressing no opinion, 
the recently published update of the cost-benefit analysis from the Netherlands156 sheds 
some  questions  onto  this  outlook.  Since  they  have  now  found  higher  costs  than 
anticipated  which  are  not  outweighed  by  the  benefits,  the  management  of  investments 
towards those areas with most benefits becomes even more important. 

5.2.2. Comparison to the ex-ante evaluation  

Are the results achieved so far commensurate with the resources put forward and in 
line with the ones expected from the ex-ante evaluation of INSPIRE? 

The costs and benefits in the ex-ante evaluation of INSPIRE were based on the extended 
impact  assessment157  for  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  Directive  presented  in  2004. 
The proposal  had some important difference in comparison to the Directive which was 
finally  adopted.  For  example,  the  proposal  included  a  more  harmonised  way  for 
promoting  "open  data"  and  a  proposal  for  an  implementing  rule  to  establish  common 
licensing conditions, It did not contain the various options and flexibility on data sharing 
which  are  now  present  in  Article  17(3).  As  there  was  no  impact  assessment  on  the 
adopted  Common  position158    in  2006  or  the  Directive  in  2007,  figures  on  costs  and 
benefits estimated in the INSPIRE ex-ante impact assessment and those reported by the 
Member States in 2013 do not have exactly the same baseline. 

As mentioned above, 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  assessment159.  The  wide  variety  of  investment  costs  reported  by  the  Member 
States  in  2013  suggests also that  there  has  been  a  lack  of  investment  in  many  Member 
States  which  may  partially  explain  the  gaps  in  implementation  documented  in  the 
sections  on  state-of-play  and  effectiveness.  As  also  demonstrated  before,  the  benefits 
from  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  can  only  materialise  after  initial 
investments in the spatial data infrastructure and the necessary skills of the staff running 
this infrastructure have taken place. It was not possible to do a more detailed analysis of 
what  influenced  the  investments  or  the  lack  thereof.  It  seems,  however,  plausible  that 
investment costs can be reduced where synergies are created with related initiatives, such 
as open data and promotion of eGovernment.    

5.2.3. Cost-effectiveness of specific provisions 

Can  any  specific  provisions  in  INSPIRE  be  identified  that  make  cost-effective 
implementation more difficult? 

156   See footnote 149 
157   SEC(2004) 980 
158   Inter-institutional  File:  2004/0175(COD)  -  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament  pursuant  to  the  second  subparagraph  of  Article  251  (2)  of  the  EC  Treaty  concerning  the 
common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  establishing  an  infrastructure  for  spatial  information  in  the  Community  (INSPIRE),  14 
February 2006. 

159   Contribution to the extended impact assessment of INSPIRE. 

- 51 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
The  public  consultation  and  Member  States  reports  point  to  several  main  factors 
influencing the cost-effective implementation of the INSPIRE Directive:  

1)  Effective  data  policy  on  sharing  issues  continue  to  score  highest  on  the  list  of 

obstacles.  

2)  Addressing 

the  skills  gap  for  dealing  with 

the 

technical  complexity  of 

implementation, in particular in smaller organisations. 

3)  Avilability of sufficient resources also for capacity building.  

4)  Effective coordination and communication mechanisms. 

5)  Flexible spatial data harmonisation provisions and development of tools which would 
allow  more  efficient  application  of  the  alignment  to  data  model  provisions 
("simplification of use"). 

Underlying  these  issues  are  either  the  INSPIRE  specific  provisions,  the  objectives  and 
actions  on  data  sharing  (i.e.  Article  17),  the  existing  coordination  structures  in  the 
Member States (which influences resource allocation and capacity building), as well as 
the agreed implementing rules as well as guidelines (see earlier sections). Whilst all the 
implementing  rules  were  unanimously  endorsement  by  the  INSPIRE  Regulatory 
Committee based on feasibility tests conducted by organisations in the Member States at 
the time, there are now some indications that efforts and costs involved in applying these 
rules may be higher than expected. In particular the data "interoperability" specifications 
(or  better,  the  specification  transforming  spatial  data  to  conform  to  common  data 
models), which was mentioned under step 5 above, is proving to be the most costly and 
challenging step. Member States have to comply with these provisions only by 2017 or 
2020  (depending  on  the  data  concerned).  In  recent  expert  group  discussions160  they 
indicated  that  their  national  experiences  over  the  past  three  years  in  simultaneously 
harmonising such data would involve high costs and practical difficulties which was not 
always balanced by the benefits that the higher degree of interoperability created (e.g. the 
efficiency gains). The experts suggested that there was a lack of clear priority setting at 
national and EU level, i.e. it was not possible to identify the most important datasets for 
end-user  applications  amongst  the data  themes,  in  particular  those  of  Annex  III,  where 
the  highest  user  needs  and  benefits  can  be  expected.  The  experts  called  on  closer 
collaboration between the EU level and the national level implementation and suggested 
to  assess  together  the  feasibility  and  benefits  of  implementing  related  provisions  at 
reasonable costs. Furthermore, it was discussed that in addition to such a "simplification 
of rules", the "simplification of use" (see above) can be another avenue to be explored by 
working together towards common tools, guidance and trainings.  

The perceived technical complexity of the implementing rules is also strongly related to 
a lack of capacity and skills (see point 2 in list above). Moreover, investments (see point 
4) to build up the capacities skills are needed to deal with the technical implementation 
issues related to the management of metadata, network services and data interoperability. 
Without such efforts INSPIRE would not have the desired benefits. 

With  regard  to  (see  point  1)  the  current  provision  for  data  sharing,  their  cost-
effectiveness depends on the choices made by the Member States. The provisions of in 
particular Article 17 could be assessed in more detail and compared with the most cost-
effective  implemented  practices  implemented  in  Member  States.  Also  the  original 
proposals  from  the  Commission,  i.e.  the  development  of  some  generic,  harmonised, 

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

- 52 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
"open  data"  national  licensing  conditions  may  be  worth  considering  again  at  national 
level.  

Finally,  improving  coordination  and  communication  (see  point  3)  can  positively  affect 
the  cost-effectiveness.  Sharing  of  experiences  and  aligning  efforts  and  investments 
across administrations and borders can have further positive impacts on the cost-effective 
implementation,  for  example  the  RO  LPISweb161  is  a  result  of  a  twinning  project  with 
DE. Actions to this end are on-going and are planned in the INSPIRE Maintenance and 
Implementation Framework. This could be complemented by strengthening cross-border 
collaboration on priority issues and on applications. 

5.2.4. Administrative burden  

What kind of administrative burden and costs for public authorities and other public 
users have been identified? 

The main administrative burden for  the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive falls 
on  public  authorities.  The  main  administrative  costs  would  relate  to  the  monitoring  or 
reporting obligations under INSPIRE. Moreover, the perception of burden varies but is 
generally related  to  the costs  of  coordination, IT  infrastructure,  service implementation 
and harmonisation. Precise cost figures, which would allow applying the Standard Cost 
Model162, were not reported or available. At the time, the ex-ante impact assessment did 
also not include a separate cost item for reporting or administrative burden. 

Four countries(FI, LT, SE, SK) provided estimates of the financial costs of monitoring 
and reporting combined. SE reported 0.75% (mio€ 0,033 of 4,7, LT 0,9% (mio€ 0,045 of 
0.4975) , FI 4% (mio€ 0,067 of 1.63) of the implementation cost. This indicates that the 
administrative burden appears to be low. Overall, these administrative costs identified for 
the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  are  far  lower  than  the  benefits  and  administrative 
cost savings that can be achieved through a modern and shared spatial data infrastructure 
(see above). 
Nevertheless,  Member  State  experts163    call  on  the  Commission  to  review  the  existing 
monitoring and reporting obligations  based on Commission  Decision  2009/442/EC.  In 
particular the three-annual national report is considered too burdensome and duplicating 
information  also  gathered  under  the  monitoring  framework  with  the  help  of  the  EU 
Geoportal164  and  the  EEA's  dashboard.  This  also  related  to  wider  discussions  on  the 
streamlining of environmental reporting which are currently under evaluation in a Fitness 
Check on environmental monitoring and reporting165.    

5.2.5. Available resources 

Have the resources needed to implement INSPIRE been available? 

It has already been discussed above that the investments into implementation appear to 
be (too) low in many Member States (cf. section 5.2.2). This is confirmed by the ex-ante 
cost-benefit  assessments  which  have  been  conducted  by  some  Member  States  (FI,  FR, 

161   LPIS - Land Parcel Information System in  Romania  
162   EC Reducing Administrative Burdens -– Standard Cost Model http://ec.europa.eu/smart-

regulation/refit/admin_burden/scm_en.htm  

163   As discussed at the INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Expert Group in December 2015. 
164   http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/ 
165   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/fc_overview_en.htm 

- 53 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
NL,  SE,  UK).  However,  most  Member  States  did  not  report  on  the  actual  investments 
made.  

On  the  basis  of  the  concrete  outputs  so  far,  it  is  clear  that  the  situation  varies  from 
country to country. A number of Member States166 seem to have been more successful in 
mobilising  resources,  in  particular  those  where  INSPIRE  was  recognised  as  a  major 
component  for  eGovernment  and  Open  data  strategies.  By  combining  investments 
between the INSPIRE implementation and the eGovernment action planning, economies 
of scale can be created167. In many countries (such as AT, BE, DE, ES, FR, IT and UK) 
resource allocation is also a regional issue and differences can be noted from region to 
region. A number of Member States commented on the negative impact of the economic 
crisis as regards  the investments that have  been undertaken (e.g. BG, CY, ES, GR,  IE, 
IT, PT, RO). 

EU funding has been able to mitigate some of these issues and several projects have been 
supported  by  EU  programmes.  A  few  Member  States  (such  as  BG,  LT,  RO)  and  some 
regions  in  DE  reported  on  the  use  of  Cohesion  funding  for  parts  of  their  INSPIRE 
implementation without however specifying the amounts directly allocated to INSPIRE. 
Several Member States reported the participation of a number of organisations to projects 
with  EU  level  funding  from  other  instruments  (eContent,  CIP168,  eInfrastructures,  the 
research  framework  programmes169,  LIFE+,  ISA170,  Space,  ISPA171)  without  further 
budgetary information. Such projects 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. 

166   UK, SE, DK, FI, DE, NL, AT, LV, EE, LT, LU, BE (VL) and SI 
167   Which is one of the reasons why the INSPIRE implementation now features in the EU's eGovernment 

Action Plan (COM(2016)179). 

168  For  example:  Competiveness  and  Innovation  Programme:  ENERGIC  OD  -  European  NEtwork  for 
Redistributing Geospatial Information to user Communities - Open Data, Start date: 2014-10-01, End date: 
2017-09-30,  

169  For  example:  SANY  -  Sensors  Anywhere  ,  FP6-IST  ,  Start  date:  2006-09-01,  End  date:  2009-08-31, 
SMARTOPENDATA  -  Linked  Open  Data  for  environment  protection 
,  FP7-
ENVIRONMENT,  Start date: 2013-11-01, End date: 2015-10-31  
170   Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations 
171   Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) 

in  Smart  Regions 

- 54 - 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
5.3. Relevance 

Relevance  looks  at  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  and  how  they 
evolved over time, taking into account external factors. To recall, the INSPIRE Directive 
has  the  general  objective  to  establish  and  EU  infrastructure  for  spatial  information  to 
underpin  the  knowledge  base  for  environment  policy.  It  addresses  this  goal  through  its 
specific objectives and actions.  

5.3.1. Need for EU action 

To  what  extent  does  INSPIRE  still  match  current  needs  and  do  they  continue  to 
require action at EU level?  

From  a  policy  perspective,  the  INSPIRE  Directive  remains  or  is  even  increasingly 
relevant.  This  is  most  clearly  shown  through  the  Commission  priorities  relating  to  the 
2015 EU Digital Single Market172 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.  
Moreover, the 2011 assessment173 of the 6th Environment Action Programme 2002-2012 
emphasised again the need for a more extensive knowledge base for policies.  It refers to 
the  further  implementation  of  INSPIRE  as  an  instrument  for  improving  environment 
information  systems  as  environmental  information  is  often  incomplete  and  not  always 
available  on  time.  The  Seventh  Environment  Action  programme  2013-2020174    follows 
up  by  further  stressing  the  need  to  have  credible,  comparable  and  quality-assured  data 
and  indicators  more  readily  available  and  accessible  to  those  involved  in  defining  and 
implementing  policy.  It  recognises  progress  made,  yet  emphases  the  fact  that  data 
collection  and  quality  remain  variable  and  that  the  multiplicity  of  sources  can  make 
access to data difficult. It refers directly to INSPIRE as part of an enabling framework to 
further  develop  the  EU-wide  electronic  data  exchange  with  enough  flexibility  to 
encompass new areas.  

The  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  important  for  the  ability  of  Member 
States to compile greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, in particular the data needing to be 
reported  under  LULUCF  Decision  No  529/2013/EU  (greenhouse  gas  emissions  and 
removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry) and 
the GHG Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (EU) No 525/2013. 

The 2012 Commission Communication on 'Improving the delivery of benefits from EU 
through  better  knowledge  and 
environment  measures:  building  confidence 
responsiveness'175,  emphasises 
implementation, 
compliance promotion and the more systematic information and active dissemination of 
information to ensure up-to-date and comparable information across Europe.  

relevance  of 

INSPIRE 

the 

for 

172   COM(2015) 192 
173   The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme FINAL ASSESSMENT, COMM (2011) 531 

Final  

174   Seventh Environment Action programme 2013-2020, DECISION No 1386/2013/EU 
175   Commission Communication on Improving the delivery of benefits from EU environment measures: 

building confidence through better knowledge and responsiveness 

- 55 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
Moreover,  the  application  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  potentially  important  for 
achieving  the  aims  of  the  on-going  Fitness  Check176  for  environmental  monitoring  and 
reporting being carried out as part of the Better Regulation agenda.177  

From  the  perspective  of  policies  or  actions  having  an  impact  on  the  environment,  the 
continued  relevance  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  reported  in  many  policy  documents 
(e.g. marine/maritime216, transport178, health, climate action, development, research and 
innovation,  enlargement,  development, 
telecommunications,  humanitarian  aid, 
agriculture, security, and space policies).  
For  example,  the  EU  Space  policy  includes  the  Copernicus  programme179    and  is 
implemented with the European Space Agency and other non-EU agencies active in the 
area.  It  represents  a  considerable  EU  investment  to  build  up  an  earth  observation 
capacity in space to deliver data and information services for policies based on satellite 
observations.  According  to  the  Copernicus  Regulation,  the  data  and  service  policy  as 
well  as  the  implementation  of  the  services  have  to  conform  with  INSPIRE  rules.  Such 
information delivery requires an unimpeded access to the non-space spatial data which is 
not part of the data collection of the programme. Implementing INSPIRE in a way that it 
serves Copernicus is therefore highly important for the EU Member States to fully reap 
the benefits from the Copernicus programme.  

INSPIRE also has international relevance. It contributes, from an EU perspective, to the 
Group  on  Earth  Observation  (GEO)180  initiative  and  United  Nations  Committee  of 
Experts  on  Global  Geospatial  Information  Management  (UN-GGIM)181  initiatives  and 
drew  the  attention  of  the  World  Bank,  which  supports  its  application  as  a  'good 
governance' practice in its relevant projects182 world-wide. 

There are also external drivers which constitute a source of new requirements or 'needs' 
at  EU  level  which  did  not  exist  to  this  extent  at  the  time  of  the  development  of  the 
Directive.  For  example,  the  EU  'Better  Regulation'183    agenda  is  increasingly  relevant 
driver  for  delivering  the  INSPIRE  objectives184  as  it  potentially  improves  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency 
to  spatial  data  for  policy 
through  better  access 
implementation,  assessment  and  development.  Evidence  on  benefits  reported  by  the 
Member States shows that already at this stage, where implementation is more advanced, 
it  allows  data  be  brought  more  efficiently  together  for  reporting185  under  various 
environmental  acts  with  a  potential  to  reduce  administrative  regulatory  burden.  Among 
the  main  benefits  reported  (for  the  administrations,  business  and  citizens)  are  gains  in 

176   See Roadmap 
177   See Commission Work Programme 2016 (COM(2015) 610, Annex 2) 
178   DIRECTIVE 2010/40/EU  on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in 

the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport 

179   Regulation (EU) No 377/2014 establishing the Copernicus Programme  
180   See for example: http://www.eurogeoss.eu/default.aspx 
181   UN-GGIM: EUROPE 2014 – 2017 Work Plan 
182   World Bank Group – Croatia Partnership Country Program Snapshot, April 2015 
183   Commission  Communication  on  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT)  -

 COM(2014)368 

184   Reducing environmental risk through INSPIRE (quantified benefits) UK Environment Agency, 2013.  
185   Geodateninfrastruktur Deutschland: INSPIRE success story – Implementing e-reporting of air quality 

based on INSPIRE at national level 

- 56 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
time both in searching and accessing the right and necessary metadata and data; increased 
flexibility  because  many  types  of  users  can  make  use  of  the  same  infrastructure; 
improved  openness  and  transparency  because  such  data  are  open  to  the  public;  and 
improved integrity and trust because the infrastructure is continuously improved.  
The  relevance  is  also  confirmed  by  the  public  consultation186  which  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.  

5.3.2. Relevance of objectives and actions 

To what extent are the general and specific objectives of INSPIRE still relevant to the 
issues (obstacles) they address? 

Building  on  the  previous  section,  the  relevance  of  the  general  and  specific  objectives 
remains true and is widely recognised since spatial infrastructure is not yet in place and 
the  obstacles  originally  identified  are  still  persistent  at  this  half  way  point  of 
implementation.  This  is  supported  by  the  public  consultation  where  92%  of  the 
respondents  consider  that  the  specific  objectives  of  INSPIRE  Directives  for  making 
spatial  data  and  services  more  easily  accessible  are  still  pertinent  (2%  disagreed).  The 
Member State reports and the national coordination structures (18 out of 19 participating 
countries187) which participated to the public consultation strongly confirm this.  

Are the actions of INSPIRE still appropriate? 

Similarly, it has been demonstrated above that also the actions taken under the five steps 
and  linked  to  the  specific  objectives  are  still  relevant  at  this  half  way  point  in  the 
implementation.  Also  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
'actions are still appropriate to meet the objectives' with 49% agreeing, 13% disagreeing 
and 21% having no opinion.  

The percentage of disagreement/no opinion may indicate that some actions have not yet 
lead  to  the expected  outcomes  and  impacts.  For  example,  on  the  positive  side,  79%  of 
respondents  considered  that  INSPIRE  improved  availability  and  accessibility  (9% 
disagree) to spatial data and services and that there is a growing uptake in other policy 
areas  and  concrete  applications  in  the  Member  States  such  as  transport,  utility 
management,  telecommunications,  spatial  planning  and  eGovernment.  The  main  policy 
area  for  which,  to  date,  the  INSPIRE  actions  have  not  resulted  in  as  much  success,  is 
environment. Also on the negative side, users still encounter obstacles when they need to 
use  spatial  data  covered  by  the  INSPIRE  Annexes  I  to  III,  as  illustrated  in  the  table 
below.  

186   94 %  agree  —  1 %  disagree  —  5 %  no  opinion:  page  28  Summary  Report  INSPIRE  Public 

Consultation 2013. 

187 16 Member States, AT, BE – no opinion, CZ, DK, FI, DE+ 4 regional, PL, PT, RO, SL, SI, ES, UK, 

LV, LU, NL)  +NO +Serbia 

- 57 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 7:  
data use188 

User  Responses  to  INSPIRE  public  consultation  by  perceived  obstacles  to 

This result is directly related to the action on data and services policies for sharing. The 
current actions are laid down for government-to-government sharing which continue to 
be  relevant  but  seem  to  lack  effectiveness,  as  discussed  above.  From  a  general 
perspective,  this  is  confirmed  by  several  Member  States  reports  and  the  public 
consultation in which 50 % of users still find policy obstacles, in total or in part, to data 
sharing.  Similarly,  only  little  more  than  half  of  the  respondents  from  data  producing 
organisations  indicate  that  their  organisation  has  a  policy  in  place  addressing  the 
INSPIRE  requirements.  It  will  be  necessary  to  assess in  more  detail  whether this  issue 
relate to poor or outstanding implementation or to more fundamental aspects related to 
the way the provisions are laid down in the Directive (see also in sections 0, 5.1.1 and 
5.1.7).  

Also coordination remains crucial for realising the outputs of the other INSPIRE actions 
as  well  as  for  taking  into  account  external  factors  (e.g.  eGovernment  policy 
developments).  There  is,  however,  the  need  to  strengthen  cross-border  coordination  as 
indicated through the public consultation where 55 % recognise the INSPIRE potential to 
improve access and use of spatial data across borders and only 20 % consider INSPIRE 
well-coordinated between neighbouring countries.  

Overall,  the  actions  related  to  spatial  data  sets  are  also  still  appropriate  but  lack 
effectiveness  and  efficiency.  This  also  applies  to  the  specific  action  on  reporting  and 
monitoring on the implementation and  use  of INSPIRE, remain relevant.  However, the 
process  could  be  assessed  in  view  of  further  reducing  administrative  burden  and 
increasing  effectiveness  in  terms  of  delivering  information  required  under  the  Better 
Regulation initiative. 

188   Summary Report INSPIRE Public Consultation 2013, page 22 

- 58 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
5.4. Coherence 

To  recall,  Article  1(1)  of  the  Directive  specifies  that  INSPIRE  needs  to  serve  'the 
purposes  of  Community  environmental  policies  and  policies  or  activities  which  may 
have  an  impact  on  the  environment'.  The  ‘coherence’  analysis  examines  the  extent  to 
which INSPIRE is coherent internally, e.g. how the INSPIRE actions operate together to 
achieve their objectives. The external dimension relates to the interaction with other EU 
environmental  legislation  and  other  policies  or  interventions  which  have  similar 
objectives.  

The internal coherence of the Directive has proven to be sound because Member States 
largely follow its steps (see above) and has not been analysed further. 

5.4.1. Coherence within the environmental policy domain 

To what extent is INSPIRE coherent with other environmental policies and initiatives?  

From a legislative perspective, following the entry into force of the INSPIRE Directive, 
there  is  an  increasing  number  of  more  recent  or  revised  existing  EU  environmental 
legislative  acts  and  implementation  guidelines189  explicitly  referring  to  INSPIRE.  In 
particular,  these  references  introduce  requirements  for  spatial  data  needed  for  the 
implementation of measures and/or reporting. This is the case for:  

 
 

 

 
 
 

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MSFD 2008/56/EC,  
the guidelines of the Water Framework Directive, WFD 2000/60/EC and Floods 
Directive 2007/60/EC,  
the  2011/850/EU  Commission  Implementing  Decision190  as  regards 
reciprocal exchange of information and reporting on ambient air quality,  
the site information format for NATURA 2000 sites191,  
the reporting system192 for Industrial Emission Directive, IED 2010/75/EU, and  
the Directive 2012/18/EU (SEVESO III) on the control of major-accident hazards 
involving dangerous substances on 'the way information is managed'. 

the 

Although  such  legal  references  are  not  strictly  necessary,  as  all  EU  legislation  applies 
even  without  being  mentioned  in  other  pieces  of  legislation,  the  references  to  the 
INSPIRE  Directive  in  the  strategies,  guidance  documents,  preambles  or  the  bodies  of 
legal  acts  adopted  after  INSPIRE  are  making  legal  obligations  more  visible  and 
stimulating  the  coordination  and  collaboration  between  concerned  organisations  in  the 
Member States. Overall, this has a positive effect on the coherent application of the laws.  

189   Common strategy for implementing Directive 2000/60/EC  - Updated Guidance on Implementing the 

Geographical Information System (GIS) Elements of the EU Water policy 

190   2011/850/EU:  Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  12  December  2011  laying  down  rules  for 
Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the 
reciprocal  exchange  of  information  and  reporting  on  ambient  air  quality  (notified  under  document 
C(2011) 9068)  

191   COMMISSION  IMPLEMENTING  DECISION  concerning  a  site  information  format  for  NATURA 

2000 sites  (2011/484/EU)  

192   ENV.C.3/SER/2014/0004 Call for tender- SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
ELECTRONIC  REPORTING  TOOLS  FOR  THE  INDUSTRIAL  EMISSIONS  DIRECTIVE 
2010/75/EU (reporting period 2013-2016) 

- 59 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
However,  from  an  operational  implementation  perspective,  this  coherence  does  not 
necessarily  appear  in  practice  without  further  efforts.  Therefore,  the  Commission 
initiated a number of INSPIRE-based reporting pilot  projects,  in collaboration with the 
EEA and Member States starting in 2009 on air quality. Other actions are undertaken in 
the  context  of  the  Maintenance  and  Implementation  Work  Programme,  in  particular 
improving  coherence  for  reporting  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  Urban 
Waste  Water  Directive  (as  part  of  the  evolution  of  the  Water  Information  System  for 
Europe), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Industrial Emission Directive 
in  coherence  with  reporting  under  SEVESO  III  and  the  E-PRTR  Regulation.  On 
NATURA  2000  and  other  protected  sites,  a  number  of  national  site  management 
information systems incorporated INSPIRE services and data specifications. References 
to  INSPIRE  unique  identifiers  for  protected  sites  are  already  part  of  the  reporting 
obligation. 

the  INSPIRE  Regulation193  regarding 

Despite these efforts, the current reporting systems are only partially making use of the 
INSPIRE rules and specifications and more work is needed. This is no surprise and has 
several  reasons.  First, 
interoperable  data 
specifications only entered into force between 2010 and 2014 (depending on which   data 
themes in the annexes of the INSPIRE Directive were covered). As a consequence, the 
implementation deadline for most of the environmental data themes which are covered in 
the reporting obligations for the above-mentioned pieces of legislation are in Annex III 
and need to be transformed only by 2020. Second, the INSPIRE services through which 
such  harmonised  spatial  data  could  be  harvested  by  reporting  applications  are 
outstanding  partially  because  of  the  above-mentioned  timelines.  Third,  as  pointed  out 
before, not all relevant spatial sets for reporting have as yet been identified by Member 
States. They have often not been made a priority since the reporting process was (and is) 
largely  carried  out  without  using  the  national  spatial  data  infrastructures.  Fourth,  the 
reporting  cycles  of  the  various  pieces  of  legislation  are  not  aligned  with  the 
implementation  of  INSPIRE.  Hence,  several  reporting  deadlines  apply  every  year  until 
2020  and  no  transitional  arrangements  have  yet  been  agreed  on  how  to  move  from  a 
reporting process before INSPIRE to one that makes best use of the INSPIRE tools and 
services.  Unless  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE  is  accelerated,  the  reporting  systems 
will have to be based pragmatically on other traditional data and information collection 
procedures and IT solutions, at least for a transitional period. 

Nevertheless,  as  documented  in  the  section  on  efficiency  (cf.  5.2),  several  Member 
States194  already  reported  initial  benefits  from  INSPIRE  related  to  reporting,  including 
reporting  to  the  public  as  part  of  the  obligations  under  the  Public  Access  to 
Environmental  Information  Directive  2003/4/EC.  This  is  particularly  important  as  the 
Commission195    launched  a  Fitness  Check196  of  reporting  obligations  in  the  field  of 
environment policy. The INSPIRE Directive has been identified as a key tool to assist in 
making the monitoring and reporting process more efficient. 

193   Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 as last amended by Regulation (EU) No 1312/2014. 
194   AT, BG, DE, UK, LT,PT 
195   COM(2015)215 and Commission Work Programme 2016 (COM(2015) 610, in particular Annexes 2 

and 5 thereof. 

196   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/fc_overview_en.htm 

- 60 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
In addition to the above, the consistent application of INSPIRE rules in conjunction with 
the  Public  Access  to  Environmental  Information  Directive197,  in  particular  the  active 
dissemination  provisions  (see  Article  7),  provide  the  potential  to  facilitate  data  sharing 
and better inform and empower citizens.   

5.4.2. Coherence within the other policy domains 

To  what  extent  is  INSPIRE  coherent  with  wider  EU  policies  and  other  interventions 
which have similar objectives?  

Several  other  EU  policies  and  strategies  not  falling  under  the  environmental  acquis, as 
well  as  guideline  documents  refer  to  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  The  degree  to  which  this 
happens varies from references in the recitals of the acts to the INSPIRE Directive as a 
relevant  framework  to  'without  prejudice'  or  'to  be  taken  into  account'  clauses198  in  the 
legal act.  

Through this, overall coherence with the most relevant policies is ensured, at least from a 
legislative  point  of  view.  Improvements  in  the  practical  applications  are  still  possible 
across the board. Areas of particular relevance for coherence are: 

-  Coherence  with  the  2015  EU  Digital  Single  Market  (DSM)  strategy:  The 
Communication199  and  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document 
(SWD)200  
emphasise  the  importance  of  essential  cross-sector  interoperability  and  standards  in 
areas  such  as,  inter  alia,  environment,  transport,  health,  energy,  and  the  need  for 
integrating European and national portals to work towards a 'Single Digital Gateway' 
to  create  a  user  friendly  information  system  for  citizens  and  business.  The  SWD 
refers  to  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  the  need  for  public  authorities  to  improve  the 
sharing and re-use of their data. INSPIRE and its interoperability framework between 
public  sector  entities,  once  fully  implemented,  may  contribute  to  translating  the 
presented ingredients of public sector modernisation such as the 'One Stop Shop' and 
'Once Only' concepts into reality. Therefore, the full implementation of the INSPIRE 
Directive  has  been  included  as  one  of  the  actions  in  the  most  recent  eGovernment 
Action  Plan201.  Moreover,  links  have  been  established  to  the  initiatives  of  the 
European  Open  Science  Cloud  and  the  European  Data  Infrastructure,  under  the 
‘European Cloud initiative’202.  

-  Coherence  from  a  Digital  Economy  perspective:  INSPIRE  is  globally  coherent 
with  and  relevant  for  the  EU  "Open  data"203  initiative  and  Directive  2013/37/EU 
amending  Directive  2003/98/EC  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information204,205. 

197   Directive 2003/4/EC 
198   Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning 

199  Communication on A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe , COM(2015) 192 final 
200   Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  A  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  for  Europe  -  Analysis  and 

Evidence,  COM(2015) 192 final  
201   See action 19 in COM(2016) 179 
202   COM(2016) 178 
203   Communication on Open Data, COM(2011) 882 final  
204   Directive 2013/37/EU amending Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information   
205   INSPIRE  Empowers  Re-Use  of  Public  Sector  Information,  Bastiaan  van  loenen,  Michel  Grothe, 

International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2014, Vol.9, 86-106 

- 61 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
INSPIRE  services  are  effectively  implemented  in  support  of  the  implementation  as 
reported  by  the  majority  of  the  Member  States.  INSPIRE  services  combined  with 
Open data policy start to find their application even at local scales206,  207. The Open 
Data initiative, launched by the Commission in December 2011 as one of the pillars 
of  EUs  data  economy,  is  to  an  enable  better  governance  and  financial  growth. 
Geospatial data account for an estimated 80% of public sector information208 and are 
considered  the  most  significant  category  of  open  public  data  due  to  their  high 
production,  procurement  and  update  costs,  as  well  as  their  relevance  in  multiple 
thematic  areas  and  domains.  The  availability  of  such  high  value  data,  for  which 
INSPIRE  provides  a  service  and  interoperability  infrastructure,  has  the  potential  to 
create  and  sustain  a  multi-billion  market  of  applications  and  services209.  Some 
inconsistencies  as  regards  the  data  policies  (and  the  related  derogations)  exist  in 
relation to the Directive on the re-use of public sector information which may need 
further attention. This relates to broader issues on the free flow of data, identified as a 
priority issue for the Digital Single Market.   

-  Coherence  with  the  European  Interoperability  Framework,  EIF210:  The  EIF 
defines  an  agreed  overall  approach  to  interoperability.  It  sets  the  principles  of  a 
conceptual  model  for  European  public  services  and  describes  interoperability  on 
different levels: legal, organizational, semantic and technical. It considers that at all 
these levels barriers for interoperability exist and solutions have to be developed. For 
example, legal interoperability concerns how to deal with differences in legislation. 
INSPIRE  is  an  important  element  in  cross-sector  interoperability  between  public 
the  EU  Interoperability  Solutions  for  public 
administrations.  Consequently, 
Administrations  (ISA)  and  ISA2  programme  has  contributed  substantially  to  the 
implementation  of  a  number  of  activities  in  the  Maintenance  and  Implementation 
Work  Programme  of  INSPIRE.  In  particular,  the  European  Union  Location 
Framework (EULF) and Reusable INSPIRE Reference Platform (ARE3NA) projects 
relate  to  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive,  EULF  from  a  policy  and 
usage  perspective  and  ARE3NA  in  promoting  the  reuse  of  technical  components. 
This  contribution  continues  in  the  context  of  its  successor,  the  ISA2  programme 
which includes the ELISE project. The ISA action dedicated to the definition of the 
DCAT Application profile for data portals in Europe (DCAT-AP)211 (a specification 
based  on  the  Data  Catalogue  vocabulary  (DCAT)  for  describing  public  sector 
datasets  in  Europe)  enables  cross-data  portal  search  for  data  sets  including  those 
made  available  under  INSPIRE,  making  them  better  searchable  across  borders  and 
sectors. 

-  Coherence  with  other  policies  and  initiatives:  INSPIRE  is  mentioned  in  the 
context  of  numerous  EU  initiatives,  policies  and  legislation  such  as  the  Global 

206   Local government needs structure to exploit data , New Local Government Network (NLGN), Report, 

April, 2015.  

207   INSPIRE and Open data – Local action, Ashfield District Council publishes data under the European 

INSPIRE Directive and as Open Data, Updated March 2015. 

208   EU Project Publica Mundi, Publishable Summary, 2014 
209   2012 - RE-USE OF PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION – Catalogue and highlights of studies, cases 

and key figures on economic effects of changing policies, 2012 

210   COM(2010) 744, Towards interoperability for European public services 
211   https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/description 

- 62 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  in  2011212  and  in  2014  as 
Copernicus213,    the  Group  on  Earth  Observation  (GEO)214  initiative,  the  Common 
Information  Sharing  Environment  for  the  EU  maritime  domain  (CISE)215  ,  the 
European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  (EMODnet)216  ,217,    the  Common 
Agricultural  Policy  -  integrated  administration  and  control  system218,  Directive 
2014/89/EU  establishing  a  framework  for  maritime  spatial  planning  and  integrated 
coastal  management219,  Regulation  1255/2011220  establishing  a  Programme  to 
support  the  further  development  of  an  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  ,  Directive 
2010/40/EU221  and  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2015/962222  on 
Intelligent  Transport  Systems,  the  European  Observation  Network  for  Territorial 
Development  and  Cohesion  (ESPON  Programme)223  which  supports  policy 
development  related to  EU Cohesion Policy initiatives, Humanitarian Aid224, in  the 
policy  domain  of  energy  (e.g.  geothermal  database,  building  specifications  with 
regard  to  energy  efficiency)  and  public  health  (e.g.  cancer  registry,  registry  of 
Genetically Modified Organisms, the Connecting Europe Facility programme with its 
Access  to  re-usable  public  sector  information  Digital  Service  Infrastructure  making 
available searchable references to European public datasets including INSPIRE ones 
through a multilingual harmonised pan-European data portal 225). 

212   Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 
on the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011 to 2013). 
213   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1407245998429&uri=CELEX:32014R0377 
214   See for example: http://www.eurogeoss.eu/default.aspx 
215   Common Information Sharing Environment for the EU maritime domain, CISE  
216   COM(2014) 254 final: Innovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our seas and oceans 
for jobs and growth. "Three further EU initiatives, the Copernicus Marine Service, the Data Collection 
Framework  for  fisheries16  and  WISE-Marine  for  environmental  data  will  be  integrated  with 
EMODnet  using  common  standards  such  as  INSPIRE  and  comply  with  the  principles  of  the  Shared 
Environmental Information System " 

217  Directive  2014/61/EU  on  measures  to  reduce  the  cost  of  deploying  high-speed  electronic 

communications networks  

218   Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009  
219   Directive  2014/89/EU  establishing  a  framework  for  maritime  spatial  planning  and  integrated  coastal 

management 

220   REGULATION (EU) No 1255/201, Article 3(c) 'a comprehensive and publicly accessible high quality 
marine data and knowledge base which facilitates sharing, reuse and dissemination of these data and 
knowledge among various user groups using existing data, thus avoiding duplication of the databases; 
for  this  purpose,  the  best  use  shall  be  made  of  existing  Union  and  Member  State  programmes, 
including INSPIRE and GMES'. 

221  Action Plan and Directive 2010/40/EU on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport 

Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport 

222   Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/962 with regard to the provision of EU-wide real-time 

traffic information services. 

223   INSPIRE SDIC – ESPON Programme  
224   Union civil protection legislation (Decision on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism) and Guidance for 

Recording and Sharing Disaster Damage and Loss Data 

225   https://data.europa.eu/europeandataportal 

- 63 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
An important spin-off of this growing coherence are references to INSPIRE in EU level 
funding  programmes  (environment,  cohesion  and  regional  development,  humanitarian 
aid  and  disaster  management226,  agriculture,  maritime,  research  and  innovation, 
information  society,  health,  transport,  enlargement227  and  neighborhood  policy).  This 
increases the  number of  projects of which a subset is listed on the INSPIRE Forum228, 
supporting  the  development,  implementation  and  application  of  INSPIRE  for  a  wide 
range  of  policies.  It  also  helps  overcome  the  investment  deficit  which  was  discussed 
earlier.  

5.5. EU Added Value 

The  evaluation  of  the  EU  added  value  examines  again  the  justification  for  EU  level 
intervention also in the light of changes since the Directive was adopted. As such, EU-
added  value  looks  for  effects  which  can  reasonably  be  argued  to  have  occurred  due  to 
INSPIRE rather than any other factors. In particular, cross-border and EU level use cases 
can  demonstrate  where  the  application  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  has  an  added  value 
which would have not been possible without EU level action. 

The  EU  added  value  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  will  fully  emerge  only  when  the  EU 
infrastructure for spatial information based on compatible Member State infrastructures 
is  fully  established.  As  demonstrated  earlier,  this  is  not  yet  the  case  as  the  envisaged 
implementation process is only partially completed. Moreover, many Member States are 
falling  behind  the  interim  implementation  milestones.  Unsurprisingly,  there  are  only 
limited EU level benefits which have materialised to date. For example with the partial 
exception of air quality, EU level reporting, has not yet benefited significantly from the 
INSPIRE Directive. Thus, the full potential of EU added value has not materialised yet.  

On  the  positive  side,  Member  States,  in  particular  those  where  implementation  has 
progressed  most,  reported  positive  effects  in  breaking  down  their  internal  obstacles 
preventing the more effective sharing of their spatial data between public administrations 
and across borders (including in some cases across their regional borders). Simplification 
and harmonisation of data policies and licenses combined with a technical infrastructure 
allowing easier discovery, access and use of spatial data are attributed to a large extent to 
INSPIRE.  This  has  also  generated  a  number  of  cross-border  collaborations  and 
improvements  when  it  comes  to  environmental  data  sharing  (e.g.  BE,  DE,  IT,  NL  and 
UK  reported  efficiency  gains  and  improved  sharing  across-borders  when  applying 
INSPIRE solutions to air quality data sharing).   

The  INSPIRE  Directive  implementation  also  offered  added  value  as  it  pooled  the 
expertise  of  Member  States  together  through  the  EU  level  coordinated  development  of 
the implementing provisions and its follow-up Maintenance and Implementation support 
work programme. This has produced a number of solutions and tools which could be re-
used by Member States. Moreover, the many platforms of collaboration (e.g. through EU 
funded  projects)  have  enabled  the  promotion  of  best  practices,  the  development  of 
common (re-useable) tools, a better common understanding, the sharing of guidance and 
increased  possibilities  for  learning  from  each  other.  This  has  generated  an  EU  level 
capacity  and  knowledge  pool  and  created  an  wide  network  of  specialists  which  is 

226   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER SEC(2010) 1626 final - Risk Assessment and Mapping 

Guidelines for Disaster Management  

227   INSPIRATION project  
228   INSPIRE Forum –  projects  

- 64 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
illustrated  by  the  high  interest  and  the  growing  number  of  participants  in  the  annual 
INSPIRE Conferences229 which are co-hosted between the European Commission and a 
host country.  

International  standardisation  bodies  in  this  field,  whose  standards  are  combined  in  the 
largest 
implementing  provisions  and  guidelines,  consider 
interoperability230 cross-border test-bed globally. INSPIRE raises the wide-spread use of 
those  standards,  stimulates  the  portability  of  technical  solutions  and  thus  reduces  costs 
and redundancies. 

INSPIRE  as 

their 

At  the  same  time,  the  current  EU  added  value  has  not  yet  translated  into  a  situation 
where  the  benefits  at  EU  level  clearly  outweigh  the  costs  of  implementation.  The 
disparities  in  the  past and  current  level  of  investments  by  the  Member  States  and  their 
regions  risk  further  delay.  Only  if  all  (or  at  least  most)  Member  States  have  a  fully 
functioning spatial data infrastructure in place can the EU level benefits be reaped, e.g. 
through  dedicated  EU  level  applications.  This  is  already  happening  in  some  selected 
fields, such as Intelligent Transport Systems (which is using INSPIRE), where dedicated 
investments  were  made.  Also  the  Information  Platform  for  Chemical  Monitoring231  is 
using basic INSPIRE features to access a multitude of data sources which facilitates risk 
assessment  of  chemicals  in  the  context  of  the  REACH  Regulation232.  Step-by-step,  a 
number of other uses for data covered by the INSPIRE Directive can be further exploited 
at EU level e.g. environmental 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. 

EU level funding has contributed to support implementing the infrastructure as well as to 
building  capacity  and  training.  However,  this  was  not  sufficient  to  avoid  the 
geographically uneven build-up of the infrastructure. 

As  explained  earlier,  the  delays  can  partially  be  explained  with  the  fact  that  crucial 
INSPIRE  implementing  provisions  were  only  adopted  recently  (the  last  one  in  the 
beginning  of  2014).  Since  then,  the  rate  of  progress  shown  by  a  number  of  Member 
States is promising.  

In addition to EU-wide application and uses, the INSPIRE Directive was also designed to 
create  EU  added  value  through  improved  cross-border  cooperation  spatial  data 
management, not just in the environmental field. Whether it is sharing data on air quality, 
marine  pollution  or  flood  risk  management,  environmental  solutions  often  need  cross-
border  collaboration.  However,  the  lack  of  a  wider-spread  implementation  of  INSPIRE 
based information services for these purposes still limits its cross-border added value.  

To  overcome  these  issues,  national  priority  setting  which  differs  greatly  in  terms  of 
identifying  those  spatial  datasets  most  needed  for  cross-border  applications  or  for 

229   http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/501 
230 "An interoperability framework can be defined as a set of standards and guidelines that describes the 
way  in  which  organisations  have  agreed,  or  should  agree,  to  interact  with  each  other."  Source: 
EUROPEAN  INTEROPERABILITY  FRAMEWORK  FOR  PAN-EUROPEAN  eGOVERNMENT 
SERVICES, 2004. 

231   https://ipchem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
232   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm 

- 65 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
reporting activities at EU level (i.e. some focus on air quality233, others on marine data234) 
can  be  coordinated  better  across  the  EU  or  between  Member  States.  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’.    

6. CONCLUSIONS 

The  full  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  designed  to  deliver  an  EU 
infrastructure  for  spatial  information  by  the  end  of  2020  based  on  compatible 
infrastructures in the Member States and useable in an EU  and trans-boundary context. 
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. 

Overall,  the  application  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  did  lead  to  an  increased  availability 
and  better  access  to  spatial  data  and  services  compared  to  the  2007  baseline  situation. 
However,  good  progress  in  implementation  has  been  made  in  only  the  few  Member 
States where the necessary investments were made and implementation of the Directive 
and  where  it  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. 

Looking at the specific objectives and the related actions, some specific conclusions can 
be drawn.  

A coherent and effective legal framework for sharing spatial data and services across 
the  EU  is  fairly  advanced  but  not  yet  fully  established.  In  particular  the  legal 
arrangements  for  data  sharing,  such  as  data  policies,  are  still  too  complex  and/or  too 
heterogeneous in many Member States to be effective.  

Coordination  at  the  national  and  EU  level  is  well  established  but  leaves  room  for 
improvements,  in  particular  in  relation  to  national  coordination  with  open  data  and 
eGovernment initiatives.  

The identification of relevant spatial data sets advanced in most Member States with 
the  increasing  volume  of  spatial  data  sets  brought  into  the  infrastructure,  in  particular 
since  2013.  However,  there  are  significant  differences  between  the  Member  States  and 
there remain issues regarding the relevancy and completeness of the identified data sets 
for environmental policy purposes.  

The  documentation  of  the  identified  spatial  data  sets  and  services  (metadata)  has 
increased  steadily  and  is  one  of  the  areas  most  advanced  in  the  implementation.  
However, there are therefore still efforts needed to close this implementation gap and to 
generally improve the availability and quality of the metadata.  

The  availability  of  online  network  services  is  incomplete  and  varied.  Only  a  part  are 
currently  accessible  through  INSPIRE  network  services  for  discovery,  view  and 

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

based on INSPIRE at national level. 

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

- 66 - 

 
 
 
                                                      
download. Also here there important differences noticeable between the Member States 
and the type of services concerned.  The access through these services via the EU Geo-
portal also varies significantly. 

The  interoperability  of  the  spatial  data  sets  is  not  far  advanced  mainly  because  the 
main  implementation  deadlines  are  still  in  the  future  (2017,  2020).  The  evidence 
suggests that important efforts will be required to meet these future deadlines and targets. 
Whilst  there  is  general agreement  that  important  efficiency  gains  can  be  realised,  once 
spatial  data  is  organised  in  common  data  models,  Member  States  and  stakeholders 
expressed  concerns  regarding  the  (perceived)  complexity  and  the  feasibility  of 
implementation of the agreed INSPIRE data models and guidelines.  

As a result of all these shortcomings, 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. 

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.  EU  level  funding  for  the  implementation  and  maintenance  of  INSPIRE  have 
helped the Member States to close some implementation gaps and increase the synergies 
between related policy instruments (e.g. those implemented in the Digital Single Market). 

Overall,  the  actions  required  by  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  remain 
relevant.  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. 

In  conclusion,  this  evaluation  has  demonstrated  that  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  still 
largely fit for purpose but that further efforts have to be made at EU and Member State 
level  and  some  fine-tuning  may  need  to  be  considered  to  overcome  the  areas  where 
effectiveness, to date, is suboptimal such as with regard to data policies. 

- 67 - 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

ANNEX 1 

PART A: DETAILED INSPIRE IMPLEMENATION ROADMAP 

(Source: EEA/JRC Technical report, 10/2014)  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

PART B: DETAILED INSPIRE INTERVENTION LOGIC  
(MS= MEMBER STATES, EC= EUROPEAN COMMISSION) 

Establish an EU infrastructure for spatial information. 

General Objective: 

Specific objectives (addressing obstacles): 
-

A coherent legal framework for sharing  spatial data and services across 
EU in place 

Needs: 

Obstacles: 
-

- MS coordination structure and EU level coordination established 
-
-
-
-

Environment relevant spatial data identified 
Spatial data documented (‘metadata’) 
Spatial data accessible online for discovery, view, download 
Spatial data organised in interoperable data models and online 

-
-
-
-
-

Knowledge-based policy needs for spatial data  

No legal framework for sharing spatial data across 
the EU 
Lack of coordination at national and EU levels 
Spatial data for environmental policies not identified 
Spatial data not documented 
Spatial data cannot be found and downloaded online 
Spatial data cannot be combined with other spatial 
data 

2

Actions for specific objectives: 
Specific Objective 1 (step 1): 
- MS conform and timely transpose Directive in national legislation 
EC supports transposition and assesses conformity of transposition 
-
- MS adopt arrangements/data policies to use of spatial data & services by 

-

public authorities and for online access to services for the public 
EC develops and adopts implementing rule for harmonised access to 
spatial data and services for EU institutions and bodies 

- MS provide access to spatial data and services conform with – and 

according to timing of implementing rule 

Specific Objective 2 (step 1): 
- MS set up and run national coordination structures 
-

EC sets up and runs EU level coordination (Committee, expert group, 
adoption of implementing rules, stakeholder participation to 
implementing rules development, maintenance and implementation 
support) 
EC develops and adopts implementing rule for monitoring and reporting 

-
- MS monitor implementation and use of spatial data and services & 

External factors: 
-

Evolution of thematic environmental legislation, 
including reporting requirements 
Evolution of other 'digital data policies' such as re-use 
of public sector data directive, EU interoperability 
framework, EU Digital Single Market, Open Data 
initiative at EU and national levels 
Evolution of other policies (transport, agriculture, 
maritime, space, health, disaster management, 
research, security , climate change) 
Concerns of stakeholders (e.g. confidentiality, on 
administrative burden, lack of skills/capacity) 
Budgetary constraints at both EU and MS ends 
Lack of political support/ priority setting at MS level 
Evolution of IT standards and technological progress 

-

-

-

-
-
-

report to EC and public 

Specific Objective 3 (step 2): 
- MS to identify their spatial data in function of the needs of 

environmental policies and policies and actions having an impact on the 
environment – corresponding to all spatial data themes in the Annexes I 
to III of the Directive. 
Specific Objective 4 (step 3): 
-

EC participatory development of metadata implementing rule & 
adoption 

- MS document all the spatial data identified according to metadata 

implementing rule according to timing laid down in implementing rule 

Specific Objective 5 (step 4): 
-

EC participatory development of network services implementing rule & 
adoption 

- MS document their network services and publish their spatial data and 
services online to make spatial data available for discovery, view and 
download conform to network services implementing rule 

- MS make them available through EU geo-portal established by EC 
Specific Objective 6 (step 5): 
-

EC participatory development of interoperable data specifications and 
spatial data services  implementing rule & adoption 

- MS transform spatial data to interoperable data specifications and 

document the spatial data services conform with – and according to 
timing laid down in implementing rule. 

Expected results/impacts: 
- More effective participation by the public and 

-

-

stakeholders in environmental decision-making  
Stakeholders have efficient access to spatial data 
and services – cost savings for public authorities 
Administrative burden reduction thanks to coherent 
legal framework for sharing 

- More efficient production of better quality 

information that can be put into different contexts, 
e.g. for reporting and at EU/national and regional 
levels  leads to greater transparency and 
accountability, improved policy making and a better 
environment 
Improved availability and access of spatial data and 
services generates benefits in other areas e.g. 
research and innovation, eGovernment, 
eCommerce, eHealth, climate change mitigation and 
adaptation 

-

- More business with spatial data for SME's and IT 

service and technology providers 

Outputs/consequences: 


Coherent legal framework  for sharing  across governments and spatial data needed for policies accessible through interoperable spatial data 
and services underpinned  and supported by coordination and  guidance at EU and national levels 
Better information base for dealing with trans-boundary environmental issues – improved collaboration between MS, regions and EU levels 
Public & private sector can discover what spatial data is available, are informed about use conditions and quality,  and can access it through 
the services for wider use and information purposes  




69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

ANNEX 2 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The following evaluation questions were agreed:  

Effectiveness (to which extent have objectives been achieved?) 
-  What progress has been made over time towards achieving the objectives and targets 
set  out  in  INSPIRE  in  various  Member  States?  Is  the  progress  made  in  line  with 
initial expectations and is the geographical coverage of implementation consistent? 
-  Which main factors have contributed to – respectively stood in the way of achieving 
these objectives? (for example, gaps, complexity  or inconsistency in the measures or 
working  methods  of  INSPIRE,  the  timely  and  coherent  transposition  in  national 
legislation) 

Efficiency (have the objectives been achieved at reasonable costs?) 
-  What are the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the INSPIRE 
Directive  in  various  Member  States?    (For  example,  did  INSPIRE  have  a  positive, 
quantifiable impact on the efficiency of public authorities and other public users?) 
-  Can  any  specific  provisions  in  INSPIRE  be  identified  that  make  cost-effective 

implementation more difficult? 

-  Are results achieved so far commensurate with the resources put forward and in line 

with the ones expected from the ex-ante evaluation of INSPIRE? 

-  What kind of administrative burden and costs for public authorities and other public 

users (enterprises including SMEs, private citizens etc.) have been identified? 

-  Have the resources needed to implement INSPIRE been available? 
-  Can the INSPIRE Directive and implementing rules be made more cost-efficient? 
Relevance (INSPIRE objectives and actions still pertinent to the needs?) 
-  To  what  extent  does  INSPIRE  still  match  current  needs  and  do  they  continue  to 

require action at EU level?  

-  To  what  extent  are  the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  INSPIRE  still  relevant  to 

the issues (obstacles) they address?  

-  Are the actions of INSPIRE still appropriate? 
Coherence 
-  To what extent is INSPIRE coherent internally?  
-  To  what  extent  is  INSPIRE  coherent  with  other  environmental  policies  and 

initiatives? 

-  To what extent is INSPIRE coherent with wider EU policies and other interventions 

which have similar objectives?  

EU added value 
-  What is the EU-added value of INSPIRE in comparison to what could be achieved at 

Member States national and/or regional level activities? 

-  To what extent do the issues addressed by INSPIRE continue to require action at EU 

level? 

70 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

ANNEX 3 

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROCESS TO PREPARE THE 
EVALUATION OR FITNESS CHECK 

Lead DG:  European Commission Directorate-General Environment, DG ENV 

Organisation 

A policy evaluation project, conform to the standing operation procedures for European 
Commission policy evaluations was launched in DG ENV in March 2013. 
According to these procedures, Terms of Reference235 (TOR) were prepared. 

These TOR presented the purpose and use of the evaluation, the activities which require 
evaluation,  the  scope  of  the  evaluation,  the  documents  and  data  sources  used,  the 
evaluation questions, the  methods and phases of  the evaluation and the organisation of 
the evaluation.  

A  Steering  Group  was  set  up  by  the  Commission  on  08/08/2013,  with  the  mandate  to 
validate the TOR and project documents, to provide access to information as required by 
the  evaluator,  to  support  and  monitor  the  work  of  the  evaluator  and  to  assists  with  the 
assessment of the quality of the draft and final Policy Evaluation Report. 

The Steering Group was composed of DG ENV, JRC and EEA representatives in  liaison 
with  the  Commission  Inter-Service  Group  COGI236    (Commission  Inter-Service  Group 
on Geographical Information), chaired by Eurostat. COGI has been since the conception 
of  INSPIRE  the  Commission  internal  consultation  and  advice  group  on  INSPIRE.  In 
addition, the policy evaluation points of contact of all Commission services were invited. 

In  the  spirit  of  the  collaborative  and  transparent  process  in  which  INSPIRE  has  been 
developed, the Commission associated the INSPIRE National Contact Points (NCP)237 to 
the Steering Group.  

An 'Evaluator' is required for all policy evaluations. Evaluations may be conducted by an 
external  Evaluator,  under  contract  to  the  Commission  or  may  be  conducted  internally. 
The INSPIRE policy evaluation applied a mixed model. 

As Evaluator,  the TOR presented the INSPIRE  Coordination Team, INSPIRE CT (DG 
ENV, JRC and since 2013 the EEA – previously Eurostat), which has been providing the 
EU level coordination of INSPIRE since conception. 

The EEA as an independent organisation has the general task to assist its member states 
and Commission with the assessment of the environmental policies and policies having 
an impact on the environment (Article 3 of the EEA Regulation). As such, the European 
Environment Agency, EEA was leading the policy evaluation study. 

235   Terms  of  Reference  :  Policy  Evaluation  for  the  INSPIRE  Article  23  -  2014  Commission  Report  to 

Council and European Parliament 

236   COGI:  services  represented:  SG,  DIGIT,  COMP,  DEVCO,  EAC,  REGIO,  ENER,  ELARG,  AGRI, 
EEAS, CNECT, SANCO, ECHO, EMPL, R&I, HR, OIB, COMM, MARE, JRC, DEVCO,  MARKT, 
REGIO,  COMP,  ESTAT,  MOVE,  OP,  EASME,  EAC,  GROW,  OIL,  EMPL,  TAXUD  ,  CLIMA, 
TAXUD 

237   INSPIRE National Contact Points 

71 

 
 
 
                                                      
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

Following  the  delivery,  steering  group  consultation  and  publication  of  the  policy 
evaluation study report, this Commission Staff Working document (SWD) was prepared 
to accompany the INSPIRE Article 23 Report to Council and European Parliament. 

Agenda Planning – Timing 

Milestone  Date 

Description 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

08/04/2013  Meeting  -  INSPIRE  Committee/NCP  -  Policy  Evaluation 

project - TOR  

08/08/2013 

Start activities Policy Evaluation Project Steering Group 

08/11/2013 

02/12/2013 

12TH  MEETING  OF  THE  COGI 
GROUP 
- Project documents approved by Steering Group 
Launch public consultation238 (12 weeks) 

INTERSERVICE 

24/02/2014 

End public consultation 

20/05/2014 

17/6/2014 

22/06/2014 

INTERSERVICE 

13TH  MEETING  OF  THE  COGI 
GROUP  
– State of Play of  Policy Evaluation project 
Report239 Public consultation published 
Draft  Policy  Evaluation  study  report240  presented  for 
review/quality control to Steering Group 

1/10/2014 

Final Policy Evaluation study report published  

17/06/2014 

14TH  MEETING  OF  THE  COGI 
INTERSERVICE 
GROUP  -  Draft  INSPIRE  Policy  Evaluation/REFIT  Staff 
Working Document, SWD to Steering group for comments. 

Publication  of  Article  23  Report  to  Council  and  European 
Parliament accompanied with SWD. 

11 

2016 

Milestone 1:  Stakeholder  information  – TOR of  Policy  Evaluation  Project endorsed by 
the  INSPIRE  Article  22  Committee  and  Article  19.2  National  Contact  Points  at  10th 
Meeting of the Committee. 

Milestone 2: Establishment of the Policy Evaluation Steering Group by the Commission. 
The  TOR  foresees  a  Steering  Group  composed  of  DG  ENV,  JRC  and  EEA 
representatives,  including  the  Commission  Inter-Service  Group  COGI  (Commission 
Inter-Service Group on Geographical Information), chaired by Eurostat. COGI has been 

238   REFIT/policy  evaluation    INSPIRE  -  public  consultation  press  release  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-

release_IP-13-1216_en.htm 
239   Report public consultation: 

http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/reports/consultations/INSPIRE_Public_Consultation_Report_final.pdf 
240   Note: The study report was initially planned for May 2014.  However, due to the inclusion of INSPIRE 
in  the  REFIT  process  in  October  2013  the  TOR  and  roadmap  for  its  delivery  were  adjusted  to  take 
account of the specific REFIT requirements. 

72 

 
 
 
                                                      
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

since the conception of INSPIRE the Commission internal consultation and advice group 
on  INSPIRE.    In  addition,  the  Directorate  General  Evaluation  Correspondents,  were 
invited  to  propose  additional  members  for  the  policy  evaluation  Steering  Group  and/or 
provide comments to the project documents. 

-  The Terms of Reference (TOR) of the mid-term INSPIRE Policy Evaluation Project . 
-  The Background document to a public consultation as foreseen in the TOR. 
-  The draft ‘questionnaire’ prepared in view of the public consultation. 
-  Draft  TOR  for  an  external  contract  “direct  observations  of  a  sample  of    INSPIRE 

services and data sharing measures” 

-  The  draft  “INSPIRE  Implementation  Public  Consultation”  document  contains  a 
section  as  it  appeared  on  the  YOURVOICE  website  and  a  section  with  a  draft 
‘Questionnaire’ as it became available YOURVOICE. 

Milestone 4 and 5: Public consultation241  - All official languages. 

Milestone 8: On behalf of DG ENV, the EEA conducted, with the technical support of 
the JRC a technical policy evaluation study. Following a review by Steering Group and 
processing of the comments received, the study report was presented and discussed with 
the stakeholders at the INSPIRE conference in May 2014. It was published in November 
2014 as an official EEA/JRC Technical report242. 

Evidence used in the evaluation/Fitness Check 

Given  the  abundant  availability  of  INSPIRE  relevant  documents  and  data  sources 
preference  was  given  to  desk  research,  complemented  with  a  survey  organised  as  a 
public consultation (see SDW Annex 2) and an independent contract study with a focus 
on a sample of direct observations of INSPIRE services reported by the Member States. 

The  evaluation  disposed  of  an  extensive  source  of  data  and  information  acquired  from 
the  2004-2010  State-of-Play  studies, 
  pre-INSPIRE  and  INSPIRE  international 
conferences (1999-2013), national and cross-border conferences, official country reports 
(2010,2013),  yearly  country  monitoring  reports  including  indicators  (since  2010),  data 
sets  and  services  provided  through  the  EU  Geo-portal,  reports  from  EU  and  national 
related  projects  and  activities,  EU-national-international  policy  documents,  public 
consultations  and  an  independent  assessment  on  the  technical  implementation  of 
INSPIRE (2013). 

External expertise  
The independent contract study243 provided external expertise with a focus on a sample 
of direct observations of INSPIRE services reported by the Member States. 

241   Public consultation: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/201/consultation/59835  
242   Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation. EEA/JRC Technical report, 10/2014. 
243   INSPIRE  Evaluation:  Summary  of  findings  for  EU  Member  States  -  Assessing  data  and  services 

metadata resources through direct observations, 17/09/2014. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

ANNEX 4 

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

The public consultation met all standing Commission standards (procedures applicable in 
2013). The questionnaire and detailed statistics, graphs and findings and conclusions are 
available 
Implementation 
INSPIRE 
http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/201/consultation/59835 

Consultation 

Public 

in: 

on 

Who was consulted 

A  questionnaire  designed  and  translated  in  all  EU  official  languages  and  open  to  all, 
addressing producers, users and coordinating bodies of spatial data and services  – both 
from the public and private sectors, including the general public.  

There  were  698  completed  replies  by  the  end  of  the  consultation  from  more  than  30 
countries  (27  within  the  EU,  3  in  the  European  Economic  Area,  4  other  European 
countries,  and  2  from  US/Canada).  Thirty  percent  of  replies  came  from  only  two 
countries  (Germany  and  Spain)  with  over  100  replies  each.  14  countries  provided 
between  10  and  40  replies,  and  13  countries  provided  fewer  than  10.  This  skewed 
distribution does not allow a country by- country analysis of the results. It should also be 
noted  that  some  countries  had  a  process  of  internal  consultation  leading  to  a  few 
consolidated replies reflecting a wider body of opinion than the simple number of replies 
would suggest. 

Most respondents came from the public sector (68%) but it is noticeable that 13% also 
came from private citizens. The table below provides the absolute number of respondents 
by  type  (Numbers  are  rounded  to  nearest  whole  number  so  percentages  do  not  add  to 
100.) 

Public sector organisation 

Private sector organisation  

Academic sector organisation  

Private citizen 

An INSPIRE National Co-ordination organisation 

473 

68% 

81  

29  

88  

27 

12% 

4% 

13% 

4% 

How the consultation was done 

The  questionnaire  was  published  in  all  official  EU  languages  on  the  European 
Commission web site for public consultations “Your Voice” and promoted internally in 
the Commission through the Steering Group which endorsed the questionnaire, through 
the INSPIRE website, INSPIRE Forum, and with direct mails to the INSPIRE national 
contact points, mailing lists of experts and participants to the INSPIRE conferences and 
registered Spatial data Interest Communities and Legally Mandates organisations, to the 
EEA  EIONET  and  to  all  expert  groups  and  committees  involved  on  the  environmental 
acquis. The Member States national contact points were requested as part of the Steering 
Group to further promote the participation of the stakeholders in their countries. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

What did we consult on 

The questionnaire firstly collected general information on the respondent, their status as 
well  their  interest  (as  user  and/or  producer,  coordinating  body)  for  each  of  the  data 
themes  covered  by  INSPIRE.  They  were  asked  to  comment  on  their  previous  eventual 
involvement in the development and implementation of INSPIRE. 

Secondly,  the  respondents  were  asked  to  express  their  views  on  a  5-point  scale  (agree 
strongly, agree, no opinion, disagree, disagree strongly) with regard to the progress made 
on 
the  specific  INSPIRE  objectives  –  documentation,  network  services,  data 
specifications – the presence and effectiveness of data sharing policies.  

For examples:  User Perspectives on documentation and services for INSPIRE Annex I 
Themes. 

As ‘users’ they were asked to provide this for each of the data themes of interest.  

As  ‘producers’  they  were  asked  to  comment  on  the  INSPIRE  ‘readiness’  of  their 
documentation network services, data specifications and data policies.  

For  example:  Data  Producer  Responses  on  Existence  of  Data  Sharing  Policy  in  their 
Organisation towards Other Public Administrations 

In  addition  general  opinions  related  to  the  REFIT  criteria  -  relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence issues were asked. 

75 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

Three  open-ended  questions  were  also  provided  to  allow  views  on  the  key  challenges 
encountered  in  implementing/using  INSPIRE,  key  benefits,  and  key  suggestions  for 
changes for the future. For further detail see the full report of the 'Public Consultation on 
INSPIRE Implementation': 

http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/201/consultation/59835 

What are the results?  

Almost 700 responses were received to the consultation from public and private sector, 
academia, and private citizens. The key messages from the public consultation are: 

Relevance:  -  There  was  almost  unanimous  view  across  all  participants  in  the  public 
consultation  that  the  objectives  of  INSPIRE  of  making  spatial  data  and  services  more 
easily shared and used are still pertinent (92% agree, 2% disagree) 

Effectiveness: - INSPIRE is starting to work and addresses the key barriers identified at 
the outset of this initiative that prevented the sharing and use of the spatial information 
needed to support environmental policies and policies affecting the environment. 

Most  progress  has  been  done  in  documenting  data,  and  making  such  data  discoverable 
and viewable through web services. There are however delays, particularly for Annex I 
and II data that should all have become available by the time of the survey. Delays are 
also  present  for  Annex  III,  both  for  completing  the  metadata  and  for  making  data 
available via download services. 

76 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

The  area  of  greater  concern  is  the  delay  by  the  Member  States  in  putting  in  place 
measures necessary to remove obstacles to the sharing of data at the point of use among 
public administrations. Only about half of the data producers indicated that such policy 
measure  had  been  put  in  place  in  their  organisation,  and  this  was  felt  by  users  still 
finding  data  policy  as  a  major  barrier.  Taking  into  consideration  that  such  measures 
should have been in place since 2009, this delay is clearly significant. 

Improving  communication,  and  sharing  of  best  practice,  reducing  as  far  as  possible 
complexity  of  technical  specifications,  and  improving  coordination  are  key  suggested 
changes. 

Efficiency: - INSPIRE is delivering benefits to public administrations through improved 
data  management  processes  and  increased  skills/competences  in  managing  and 
publishing spatial data and related services.  46% of respondents agree that the benefits 
will be greater than the costs while 16% disagree and 38% did not express an opinion. 

Coherence:  -  With  regard  to  the  EU  Digital  Single  Market  initiative:  -  70%  of  the 
respondents  agree  that  INSPIRE  contributes  to  more  general  eGovernment  initiatives 
with 7% disagreeing. 83% agree that INSPIRE contributes to more open data policies for 
the public sector with 5% disagreeing.  With regard to other policies:  - 70% agree that 
INSPIRE  improves  access  to  information  for  policies  other  than  environment  with  7% 
disagreeing.  With  regard  to  innovation  73%  agree  on  the  positive  impact  of  INSPIRE 
with 8% disagreeing. 

77 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

ANNEX 5 

METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED IN PREPARING THE EVALUATION 

Applied Method: 

The  Commission  evaluation  practices  allow  for  a  wide  range  of  evaluation  methods. 
Such  methods  could  include  desk  research,  Delphi  panels,  SWOT  analysis,  statistical 
analysis, surveys, interviews, direct observations, field studies etc. Several244 analytical 
methods  can  be  applied  to  assess  performance:  Cost-benefit  analysis  (CBA),  Multi-
criteria analysis (MCA), Least cost analysis (LCA), Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), 
Counterfactual analysis (CA) and SWOT analysis (SWOT). 

The  purpose  of  the  retrospective  INSPIRE  policy  evaluation  at  its  current  stage  of 
implementation  is  the assessment of  the performance of the policy intervention against 
the objectives and targets laid down in the implementation roadmap. 

Given  the  interim  stage  of  implementation  of  INSPIRE,  the  nature  of  the  policy 
instrument (a Directive complemented with implementing rules adopted as Commission 
Regulations  and  Decisions),  and  taking  into  account  the  available  information,245 
preference has been given to apply a Multi-criteria analysis, MCA. 

MCA  is  a  technique  to  reach  a  judgement  based  on  an  explicit  set  of  objectives  and 
associated criteria. MCA allows the simultaneous assessment of effectiveness, efficiency 
and  coherence  of  the  policy  and to  capture  and evidence  distributional  impacts  (e.g.  in 
terms  of  stakeholder  types,  EU  regions/countries  or  time).  MCA  can  also  be  used  to 
assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  implementation  process  where  different  implementation 
approaches have been pursued. 

MCA  can  be  applied  as  the  INSPIRE  implementation  entails  a  number  of  specific 
objectives and quantitative targets/criteria which have to be met by a given deadline as 
documented  in  Annex  4:  The  detailed  intervention  logic  of  INSPIRE  of  this  SWD.  A 
number of these objectives are more qualitative, for example the Coordination objective 
and the Data and Services Policy objective. Others, such as the Documentation objective, 
the  Interoperable  services  objective  and  Interoperable  spatial  data  objective  are 
monitored  through  quantitative  indicators  available  at  a  Member  State  level  and  in  the 
EU Geo-portal. 

The  use  of  CBA,  Cost-benefit  analysis  had  to  be  excluded  at  this  stage  of  the 
implementation  of  INSPIRE  given  the  lack  of  comparable Member  State  data reported 
for  monetizing  direct  benefits  and  direct  costs  from  an  economic,  social  and 
environmental impact perspective. A methodology for conducting a CBA was developed 
and prepared246 with the Member States in view of the 2013 report and made available 247 
with  other  monitoring  and  reporting  guidance  documents  and  reporting  templates.  The 

244  European  Commission  Better  Regulation  Toolbox:  Useful  analytical  methods  to  compare  options  or 

assess performance 

245  3  yearly  Member  State  reports,  yearly  reported  monitoring  indicators,  state-of-play  studies,  public 
consultation  and  a  technical  study  evaluating  the  existing  components  of  the  respective  INSPIRE 
infrastructures with  a  focus  on  a  sample  of direct  observations of INSPIRE  services reported by  the 
Member States. 

246   Workshop on 'Cost and Benefits of implementing the INSPIRE Directive', JRC, 2012. 
247   INSPIRE Monitoring and Reporting – legislation, guidelines and supporting documents. 

78 

 
 
                                                      
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation and Fitness Check of INSPIRE 

Member  State  Report  Temple  section  12  Cost/Benefit  Aspects  (Article  16)  provided 
guidance  on  cost  and  benefits  categorisations  and  breakdowns.  As  an  alternative, 
Member  States  could  apply  a  REFIT  focussed  approach  by  reporting  on  a  number  of 
Efficiency,  Effectiveness  and  Broader  benefits  categories  more  in  line  with  a  Cost-
effectiveness  analysis  (CEA)  than  with  a  CBA.  Where  individual  Member  States 
conducted CBA and/or CEA, their findings and references to their studies are included in 
the SWD section on efficiency. 

With regard to administrative burden resulting from INSPIRE, the 'Standard Cost Model 
for  assessing  administrative  costs  imposed  by  EU  legislation'248  could  be  applied  to  a 
certain  extent  to  the  Monitoring  and  Reporting  Objective  of  INSPIRE.  Some  Member 
States provided more detail on the administrative costs incurred by public authorities for 
meeting and monitoring and legal reporting to the Commission. 

Analytical Methods: 

The interim INSPIRE policy evaluation did  not use  any analytical  tool specified in the 
Better Regulation Toolbox249.  

248   European Commission Better Regulation Toolbox: Standard Cost Model for assessing administrative 

costs imposed by EU legislation 

249   European Commission Better Regulation Toolbox: The use of analytical models in impact assessment 

or evaluation. 

79