COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information
Date: 2018-04-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: access to information, copyright, data collection, dissemination of information, domestic market, information, information service, public sector, right to reuse information

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.4.2018  SWD(2018) 127 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information {COM(2018) 234 final}  - {SWD(2018) 128 final}   
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 1 

1.1.  Policy context .................................................................................................... 2 
1.2.  Legal context ..................................................................................................... 3 
1.2.1.  Data protection legislation ....................................................................................... 4 

1.2.2.  Other relevant legal instruments .............................................................................. 5 

1.3.  Economic context .............................................................................................. 5 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 7 

2.1.  Ensuring  the  success  of  the  open  data  policy  in  the  evolving  digital 

environment ....................................................................................................... 7 
2.2.  What are the problems and the problem drivers? .............................................. 8 
2.2.1.  Contextual drivers ................................................................................................... 8 

2.2.2.  Problem area No. 1:  Insufficient use of methods for access and re-use of dynamic 
data by machines ................................................................................................................ 9 

2.2.3.  Problem area No. 2: Market entry barriers and fragmentation .............................. 11 

2.2.4.  Problem area No. 3: Insufficient availability of public and publicly funded data for 
re-use  ............................................................................................................................... 13 

2.2.5.  Problem area No. 4: Distortion of competition in the internal market .................. 18 

2.3.  Who is affected and in what ways? ................................................................. 20 
2.3.1.  Public sector .......................................................................................................... 20 

2.3.2.  Private sector, in particular SMEs ......................................................................... 21 

2.4.  How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................ 21 
2.5.  REFIT considerations ...................................................................................... 22 
2.6.  Access to private sector data for public interest purposes ............................... 23 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 24 

3.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 24 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 24 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 25 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 25 

4.1.  General objectives ........................................................................................... 25 
4.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 26 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 27 

5.1.  What is the baseline for assessing options? ..................................................... 27 
5.2.  Description of the policy options .................................................................... 27 
5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage ................................................................. 33 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 33 

6.1.  Economic and data-specific impacts of the retained options .......................... 33 

 
 
 
6.1.1.  Baseline scenario ................................................................................................... 35 

6.1.2.  Policy Option 1 - Packaged solution: lower intensity of regulatory intervention . 36 

6.1.3.  Policy Option 2 – Packaged solution: higher intensity regulatory intervention .... 40 

6.2. 
Impact on SMEs .............................................................................................. 42 
6.3.  Social and environmental impacts ................................................................... 43 
6.3.1.  Baseline scenario ................................................................................................... 43 

6.3.2.  Policy Option 1 - Packaged solution: lower intensity regulatory intervention ...... 43 

6.3.3.  Policy Option 2 – Packaged solution: higher intensity regulatory intervention .... 44 

6.4.  Member States' and stakeholders' views ......................................................... 44 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 46 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ...................................................................................................................... 48 

8.1.  Estimated impact of the preferred option .............................................................. 49 
8.2.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) .................................................. 50 

9.  HOW WILL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ................................................... 51 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 55 

ANNEX 2:  

CONSULTATION ON PSI DIRECTIVE REVIEW ......................................................... 60 

ANNEX 3: VISUALISATION OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE 

PUBLIC ONLINE CONSULTATION ON THE REVIEW OF THE PSI DIRECTIVE .................... 69 

ANNEX 4: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 74 

ANNEX 5: EVALUATION REPORT ......................................................................................................... 80 

ANNEX 6: THE EVOLUTION OF THE DIRECTIVE ON THE  RE-USE OF PUBLIC SECTOR 

INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................. 81 

ANNEX 7: OPEN DATA IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT ............................................................ 83 

ANNEX 8: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 87 

ANNEX 9: SUCCESS STORIES ON OPEN DATA ................................................................................... 97 

 
 
 
 
 
  
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

This  impact  assessment  accompanies  the  proposal  for  a  review  of  the  Directive  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of 
public  sector  information1  (PSI  Directive).  The  Directive  was  adopted  by  the  EU 
legislators in order to harmonise the basic re-use conditions across the EU and to remove 
major barriers to re-use in the internal market, thus ensuring a competitive environment 
conducive to the development of a market for information-based products and services. 
introduced  provisions  on  non-discrimination,  charging,  exclusive 
The  Directive 
arrangements, transparency, licensing and practical tools facilitating the re-use of public 
sector documents. 

The Directive was revised in 2013. The modifications introduced an obligation to allow 
the re-use of public data, access to which is granted under national legislation, expanded 
the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  include  documents  from  public  libraries,  museums  and 
archives, established a default charging rule limited to the marginal cost for reproduction, 
provision  and  dissemination  of  the  information,  and  obliged  public  sector  bodies  to  be 
more  transparent  about  the  charging  rules  and  conditions  they  apply.  The  amending 
Directive was implemented into national legislation by all 28 EU Member States. 

Article 13 of the Directive calls on the European Commission to carry out a review of the 
application of the Directive and to communicate the results, together with any proposal 
for amendments, before 18 July 2018. At the same time, this review is an important part 
of the initiative on accessibility and re-use of public and publicly funded data announced 
by the Mid-Term Review of the Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy.  

In  the  last  years,  the  Commission  took  a  series  of  key  measures  to  improve  the 
framework  conditions  for  data-driven  innovation  in  Europe.  With  the  General  Data 
Protection Regulation2 (GDPR) and the revision of the ePrivacy rules3, the EU has set a 
solid  framework  for  digital  trust  which  is  a  precondition  for  a  competitive  EU  data 
economy. With the objective of further improving the efficient use of data across the EU, 
the  Digital  Single  Market  strategy  put  in  place  a  series  of  important  actions  in  this 
direction.  

The  Commission  is  now  proposing  a  package  of  measures  as  a  key  step  towards  a 
common  data  space  in  the  EU  on  a  scale  that  will  enable  the  emergence  of  new  data-
based products and services. The measures put forward are: 1) a proposal for a review of 
the Directive on the re-use  of public sector  information  (PSI  Directive)4, 2)  a technical 

1 COM (2018) 234. 
2 OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1. 
3 COM(2017)10 final. 
4 COM(2018) 234. 

1 

 
 
                                                            
update of the Recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific information5, 
and 3) guidance on sharing private sector data6. The proposed measures cover different 
types of data and therefore have different levels of intensity. At the same time, they all 
work towards the broader goal of bringing together data, as a key source of innovation 
and growth, from different sectors, countries and disciplines into a common data space.  

The present document builds upon the evaluation of the functioning of the Directive and 
assesses a number of policy options aimed at updating the regulatory framework. 

1.1. 

Policy context 

The  public  sector  in  all  Member  States  produces  vast  amounts  of  data,  e.g. 
meteorological data, digital maps, statistics and legal information. This information is a 
valuable resource for the digital economy. It is not only used as valuable raw material for 
the production of data-based services and applications, but also brings greater efficiency 
to  the  delivery  of  private  and  public  services  and  better  informed  decision-making. 
Therefore,  the  European  Commission  has  been  promoting  the  re-use  of  public  sector 
information for several years.  

Access to and re-use of public sector information together with the EU open data policy 
play  a  major  role  in  improving  transparency  of  public  services  delivery  and  the  use  of 
supporting technology by public sector bodies in general across the EU. There has been a 
general  trend  across  the  EU  indicating  significant  improvement  on  cross-border 
availability  of  digital  public  services  and  accessibility  of  public  websites  from  mobile 
devices.7  

As  an  important  feature,  the  EU  open  data  policy  is  implemented  through  close 
collaboration  with  Member  States,  notably  in  a  dedicated  expert  group8,  through  the 
European Data Portal9 supporting publication of datasets and their discoverability across 
Europe,  and  by  research  and  innovation  actions  under  the  H2020  programme.  The 
Commission  has  also  given  guidance  to  Member  States  on  charging,  formats  and  key 
datasets in Notice 2014/C 240/01. 

Countries outside the EU have also adopted policies and legislation to unleash the power 
of government data, with the United States being the pioneer and others, such as Japan, 
Canada or Australia, following suit (see Annex 7 for a comparative overview). 

The  importance  of  openness  with  respect  to  publicly  held  and  publicly  funded  data,  in 
is  recognised  globally.  In  particular,  OECD  Council 
particular  research  data, 

5 C(2018) 2375. 
6 SWD(2018) 125. 
7https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/new-study-egovernment-services-europe-improving-
cross-border-availability-services  
8 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/public-sector-information-group-main-page  
9 www.europeandataportal.eu   

2 

 
                                                            
Recommendations exist on access to and use of public sector information10 and on access 
to  research  data  from  public  funding11.  Additionally,  G8  leaders  signed  an  Open  Data 
Charter12 which set out five strategic principles that all G8 members are to act on. These 
include  an  expectation  that  all  government  data  will  be  published  openly  by  default, 
alongside  principles  to  increase  the  quality,  quantity  and  re-use  of  the  data  that  is 
released. G8 members have also identified fourteen high-value areas – from education to 
transport, and from health to crime and justice – from which they will release data.  

In its commitments to implement the G8 Open Data Charter13, the EU also committed to 
the publication by the EU Member States of core and high-value datasets in line with the 
G8 principles. Creating a list of such datasets, which would be open and free by default, 
has  the  potential  to  facilitate  the  emergence  of  a  new  range  of  pan-European  data 
products  and  services  developed  on  the  basis  of  mutually  complementary  cross-border 
datasets. However, the OECD Council Recommendations and the Open Data Charter are 
not compulsory for Member States to implement, therefore a stronger instrument proves 
to be necessary at EU level. 

Apart  from  political  commitment,  there  is  also  broad  stakeholder  support  for  the 
inclusion of the datasets defined in the category of 'core data sets', as defined in the G8 
Open Data Charter, so as to ensure their immediate availability in Europe14, with some 
categories standing out as particularly relevant. These include above all geospatial data, 
closely  followed  by  information  in  the  field  of  transport,  statistics,  earth  observation, 
environment and public finances.  

1.2.  Legal context 

The PSI Directive is a legal instrument allowing for the implementation of a horizontal 
policy, with a wide field of application. A detailed discussion on the interplay between 
the  Directive  and  other  EU  legal  acts  and  policies  (in  particular  the  challenges  and 
opportunities  related  to  legislation  on  the  protection  of  personal  data,  the  Database 
Directive and the INSPIRE Directive) is presented in the Evaluation Report annexed to 
this  Impact  Assessment15.  The  evaluation  indicates  that  the  PSI  Directive  is  overall 
coherent with other relevant EU legislation. Nevertheless, a technical clarification on the 
relation  with  in  particular  the  Database  Directive  and  the  INSPIRE  Directive  may  be 
useful. 

10 2008 Council Recommendation of the Council for Enhanced Access and More Effective Use of Public 
Sector Information (C(2008)36). 
11  Recommendation  of  the  Council  concerning  Access  to  Research  Data  from  Public  Funding 
(C(2006)184). See also the 2016 Daejeon Declaration on Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies for 
the Global and Digital Age calling on the OECD to assess the need to revise this Recommendation in order 
to move towards open science and reaping the benefits of Big Data.  
12 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-charter/g8-open-data-charter-and-technical-
annex  
13 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/eu-implementation-g8-open-data-charter  
14 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/consultation-guidelines-recommended-standard-
licences-datasets-and-charging-re-use-public  
15 SWD(2018) 145. 

3 

 
                                                            
1.2.1.  Data protection legislation 
The rules on re-use of public sector information must be applied in full compliance with 
data  protection  legislation.  This  is  made  clear  in  the  text  of  the  PSI  Directive.  The 
relationship  with  the  PSI  Directive  is  also  made  explicit  in  recital  154  of  the  GDPR 
which  states  that  the  PSI  Directive  'leaves  intact  and  in  no  way  affects  the  level  of 
protection of  natural  persons with  regard to  the processing of  personal data  under  the 
provisions  of  Union  and  national  law,  and  in  particular  does  not  alter  the  obligations 
and rights set out in [the GDPR]'. 

The  Article  29  Working  Party  on  Open  Data  and  Public  Sector  Information  Re-use16 
stated in its opinion: 'wherever personal data are involved, data protection law must help 
guide the selection process of what personal data can or cannot be made available for 
reuse  and  what  measures  to  take  to  safeguard  personal  data'.   Any  processing  of 
personal data needs to be based on one of the legal grounds foreseen in the GDPR.  

As  demonstrated  by  the  results  of  the  online  public  consultation,  the  majority  of 
stakeholders agree that the PSI Directive is well aligned with current and new rules on 
the  protection  of  personal  data.  This  suggests  that  the  Directive  contains  sufficient 
safeguards at the level of legislation.  

However, some stakeholders voiced uncertainty over the functioning of the PSI Directive 
in  the  changing  regulatory  environment.  From  the  stakeholder  dialogue  process,  it 
emerged that while the principle of precedence of data protection rules over PSI re-use 
obligations  is  undisputed  and  well  understood,    public  sector  bodies  may  encounter 
practical implementation questions on how to facilitate re-use while ensuring compliance 
with  the  GDPR  in  situations  where  certain  public  registers  also  contain  personal  data 
(e.g.  car  registration  databases  or  hospital  records).  This  most  often  concerns  the 
suitability of techniques that can be used  for anonymization or  ways by which purpose 
limitation  can  be  ensured.  In  some  Member  States  the  legislation  transposing  the  PSI-
Directive  addresses  such  issues  (e.g.  in  Belgium  the  legislation  implementing  the  PSI 
Directive  foresees  that  public  sector  bodies  can  seek  advice  from  the  data  protection 
authority  on  the  specific  techniques  to  be  used17),  while  in  others  this  is  tackled  at  the 
level of the recommended licensing agreements between the data holder and the re-user 
(e.g. Spain18).  

In order to help public sector bodies with applying anonymization techniques, this review 
acknowledges  that  anonymization  has  a  cost  and  that  it  should  be  possible  for  public 
sector  bodies  to  recover  such  costs  as  part  of  the  marginal  costs  or  full  cost  recovery 
principles.  In  addition,  the  support  towards  development  of  privacy-preserving 
technologies is an important part of the Horizon 2020 innovation actions in the field of 

16  Opinion  06/2013  on  open  data  and  public  sector  information  ('PSI')  reuse,  Article  29  Data  Protection 
Working Party, 5 June 2013.  
17 Article 3(3) of the Belgian Federal law " Loi relatif à laréutilisation des informations du secteur public, 
Moniteur belge no 153 of 3 June 2016. 
18 Upcoming Spanish Royal Decree for the Reuse of Public Sector Information in the Central Government 

4 

 
                                                            
the data economy – a wider policy framework to which the review of the PSI Directive 
belongs.   

1.2.2.  Other relevant legal instruments 
In terms of the interplay with intellectual property rights, the PSI Directive excludes from 
the  scope  content  for  which  parties  other  than  the  public  sector  bodies  ('third  parties') 
hold intellectual property rights. Public sector bodies cannot give away what they do not 
own.  

Some specific issues have been signalled in the evaluation process about the interaction 
between the PSI Directive and the Database Directive19. While public sector bodies have 
a right under Article 7 of the Database Directive to prevent extraction and/or reutilization 
of  substantial  content  of  databases  on  which  'there  has  been  qualitatively  and/or 
the  obtaining,  verification  or 
quantitatively  a  substantial 
presentation  of  the  contents',  such  right  cannot  be  invoked  in  order  to  prevent  re-use 
permitted in accordance with the provisions of the PSI Directive. The ongoing reviews of 
both the Database20 and the PSI21 Directives can help to clarify this issue.  

investment 

in  either 

Of  similar  importance  is  the  relation  between  the  PSI  and  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  In 
2007, the INSPIRE Directive laid down general rules aimed at the establishment of the 
Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European  Union,  for  the  purposes  of 
environmental policies and policies which may have an impact on the environment. The 
Directive applies to data held by or on behalf of public authorities for the performance of 
their public tasks. Article 2 and recital 8 of the INSPIRE Directive establishes that it is 
without  prejudice  to  the  PSI  Directive,  the  objectives  of  which  are  complementary. 
However, it must be made sure that the INSPIRE Directive does not enter into conflict 
with  the  PSI  Directive,  and  that  any  spatial  information  held  by  public  bodies  can  be 
reached according to the rules laid out by the PSI Directive.   

1.3.  Economic context 

The European data market is growing fast and could, with the right framework conditions 
in  place,  grow  to  4%  of  the  overall  EU  GDP.22  Since  the  public  sector  is  one  of  the 
economy's  most  data-intensive  sectors23,  the  EU  open  data  market24  is  a  key  building 
block of the overall EU data economy. 

19  Directive  96/9/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  1996  on  the  legal 
protection of databases, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31996L0009  
20 SWD(2018) 146. 
21 COM(2018) 234. 
22 European Data Market study, IDC-Open Evidence, 2017, http://datalandscape.eu/study-reports. 
23 OECD Digital Economy, Outlook 2017, p. 220. 
24 The size of the EU open data market captures the aggregate value of products and services derived from 
open data exchanged in the European Union. The market value does not include the the direct, indirect, and 
induced effects of the open data market on the whole EU data economy. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
Public sector information is used across the economy by a range of companies, but it is 
particularly  important  for  the  growth  of  start-ups  and  SMEs.  An  EU  incubator  for  data 
start-ups  discovered  a  positive  correlation  between  strong  and  proactive  open  data 
policies  in  Member  States  and  the  number  of  successful  applicants  from  those 
countries.25  In  a  recent  survey26  of  450  executives  from  European  digital  start-ups  and 
conventional businesses, 50% confirmed they had used open data to build a new product 
or service. 

It  is  also  a  critical  asset  for  the  development  of  new  technologies  such  as  Artificial 
Intelligence (AI), which requires the processing of vast amounts of high-quality data.27 

Numerous  studies  in  the  last  decade  have  attempted  to  quantify  the  economic  value 
generated  by  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information.28  All  the  studies  converge  in 
concluding  that  the  re-use  of  open  data  leads  to  substantial  economic  and  societal 
benefits. Depending on the methodology used (e.g. the definition of 'open data', the focus 
on the direct impact on the data economy or wider socio-economic impacts, etc.) various 
figures have been put forward. The support study for this IA assesses the current direct 
economic  value  of  open  data29  to  be  52  billion  EUR  a  year  for  the  28  EU  Member 
States.30  

The  European  Data  Portal  2015  study  led  by  CapGemini31  (and  updated  in  201732) 
undertook  a  separate  assessment  of  the  economic  benefits  for  open  data  by  looking  at 
four key indicators and how they could evolve until 2020: direct market size, number of 
jobs created, cost savings and efficiency gains.  

Figure 1- The economic value of open data for EU28+ in 2020 
Source: European Data Portal, Analytical Report No 9: The Economic Benefits of Open Data, 2017 

25 Assessment of the impact of the ODINE programme, 2017, p. 12. 
26 http://opendigital.economist.com/digital-economy  
27https://www.techuk.org/insights/opinions/item/10708-guest-blog-peter-wells-odi-access-to-data-is-key-
to-a-competitive-ai-market   
28  See  the  overview  of  key    studies  in  European  Data  Portal,  Analytical  Report  No  9:  The  Economic 
Benefits of Open Data, 2017. 
29 Value that is generated by developing goods and services based on PSI, chiefly by SMEs. 
30 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
31 Creating Value through Open Data report, European Data Portal, November 2015. 
32 Economic Benefits of Open Data, European Data Portal, December 2017.  

6 

 
 
                                                            
Next  to  the  considerable  economic  benefits,  opening  up  government  data  leads  to  a 
whole range of social benefits33 experienced by the consumers of products and services 
offered by direct open data re-users.  

Open data has the potential to increase the efficiency of government through better policy  
making, including 1.7 billion EUR cost savings for the EU 28 public administrations.34 
Finally,  it  helps  in  bridging  the  gap  between  government  and  citizens  in  terms  of 
information35 and, in general, leads to increased social inclusion and empowerment, civic 
participation, and supports personal decision-making capabilities.36 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION  

2.1.  Ensuring  the  success  of  the  open  data  policy  in  the  evolving  digital 

environment 

The  Evaluation  Report  of  the  PSI  Directive37  (annexed  to  this  Impact  Assessment) 
shows that overall the instrument works well. The report comes to the following key 
conclusions:  

The  PSI  Directive  continues  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  its  main  policy 
objectives, which are to stimulate the digital content market for PSI-based products and 
services,  to  stimulate  cross-border  exploitation  of  PSI  and  to  prevent  distortions  of 
competition  on  the  EU  market.  Since  2015,  Member  States  have  made  substantial 
progress in terms of open data maturity and more datasets of better quality have become 
available. At the same time, the instrument has had a favourable impact on transparency, 
citizen empowerment and public sector efficiency.  

However, there are a number of issues that would need to be addressed in order to fully 
exploit the potential of public sector information for the European economy and society: 
provision  of  real-time  access  to  dynamic  data  via  adequate  technical  means,  increasing 
the supply of high-value public data for re-use (e.g. from semi-private entities executing 
public  tasks  and  research  establishments),  the  existence  of  new  forms  of  exclusive 
arrangements, the use of exceptions to the principle of charging the marginal cost and the 
relationship between the PSI Directive and certain related legal instruments. 

The review should help to address the remaining barriers to the re-use of PSI and address 
the new needs created by technical change. In addition, the review of the Directive can 
address the trend of some Member States embarking on legislative initiatives addressing 
the  re-use  of  new  categories  of  datasets,  while  other  Member  States  are  not.  It  is  also 
important to remember, however, that any intervention designed to address these issues 

33  Granickas,  K.(2013),  ‘Understanding  the  Impact  of  Releasing  and  re-Using  Open  Government  Data’. 
ePSI Platform Topic Report No. 2013/08, August 2013.  
34 Creating Value through Open Data report, European Data Portal, November 2015. 
35 Ibid. 
36  Granickas,  K.(2013),  ‘Understanding  the  Impact  of  Releasing  and  re-Using  Open  Government  Data’. 
ePSI Platform Topic Report No. 2013/08, August 2013. p. 13.  
37 SWD(2018) 145. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
will need to take into account the existing budget constraints for public authorities. While 
certain measures may be highly desirable from the perspective of opening up more public 
sector data and making it more easily re-usable,  the costs of their implementation will 
need to be carefully weighed against the expected benefits, and their intensity may need 
to be modulated respectively.  

2.2.  What are the problems and the problem drivers? 

2.2.1.  Contextual drivers 
The  advent  of  new  technologies,  in  particular  in  the  areas  of  data  analytics  and  the 
Internet of Things, has had a significant impact on the way data can be exploited in the 
economy. Two key consequences of this trend are a growing demand from businesses for 
dynamic data and the need to have access to a larger pool of data. 

Dynamic data is captured by sensors, which become ever smaller, more performant and 
cheaper.38 They hold valuable real-time data from industrial processes, personal activities 
or  physical  phenomena.  This  trend  is  further  enhanced  by  increasing  connectivity  and 
sensor usage. It is estimated that 11 billion devices are currently connected to the Internet 
and  this  should  almost  triple  to  30  billion  by  2020.  The  public  sector,  in  line  with 
widespread digitisation efforts and the impact of initiatives such as Smart Cities, will also 
produce growing amounts of sensor-generated data. Access to such dynamic data can be 
greatly  enhanced  if  public  sector  data  holders  use  application  programming  interfaces 
(APIs),  which  allow  controlled  data  access  and  exchange  leading  to  new  ways  of 
interacting in an online environment.39 

Apart from the rise in commercial exploitation of dynamic data, another contextual driver 
fuelled  by  advances  in  data  processing  technologies40  is  the  need  for  businesses  to  be 
able to combine data from different sources. There are increasing economic opportunities 
in  accessing,  using  and  re-using  large  volumes  of  data  of  different  types  and  from 
different  sources.  Therefore  it  is  important  that different  types  of  data  are  available for 
use  in  the  data  economy.  At  the  same  time,  there  is  considerable  heterogeneity  in  the 
types of data available from one Member State to another41, with some countries moving 
ahead through legislation and making more types of data freely available in new areas of 
public interest, while others are lagging behind. 

In this context, there is an understandable tendency on the part of commercial players to 
seek  preferential  access  to  large  public  datasets.  These  datasets  can  give  a  competitive 
advantage for added-value information services and products, or be used to train artificial 
intelligence  systems.  This  has  led  to  the  emergence  of  cases  in  which  preferential 
arrangements between public sector bodies and commercial players have led to data lock-

38 https://www.theatlas.com/charts/BJsmCFAl   
39 http://nordicapis.com/tracking-the-growth-of-the-api-economy  
40 http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/data-driven-innovation.html  
41 See: Categories of data excluded from re-use, Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 
2017/0061 and findings from the INSPIRE Directive Evaluation exercise SWD(2016) 273 final, p.41. 

8 

 
                                                            
in, thus making the prospect of the exploitation of such data by other actors commercially 
unviable. 

Finally, the long-standing budgetary pressure on public sector bodies encourages some of 
them to cover a part of their operating costs from commercial activities, such as charging 
for the re-use of their data. Although seemingly it would appear that in an environment 
where public authorities are subject to budget constraints, revenue generation from data 
could be a viable source of financing, it has been proved that this approach leads to sub-
optimal  results  from  a  macro-economic  perspective.42  One  of  the  widely  accepted  and 
evidence-based43 principles of the amending Directive 2013/37 EU is that public sector 
bodies  should  not  apply  any  charges  or  limit  them  to  what  is  needed  to  cover  the 
marginal  costs  of  reproduction  and  dissemination  of  the  data.  Since  in  the  digital 
environment such costs are minimal, the charging principle of the PSI Directive can be 
said to be that of zero (or at most marginal cost) pricing. 

These contextual drivers are at the basis of the following four problem areas identified in 
the  evaluation  of  the  Directive and discussed  below:  1)  Insufficient  use  of  methods  for 
access  and  re-use  of  dynamic  data  by  machines;  2)  Market  entry  barriers  and 
fragmentation; 3) Insufficient availability of public and publicly-funded data for re-use; 
4) Distortion of competition in the internal market. All these problem areas prevent the 
full  exploitation of the economic opportunities offered by public sector information and 
create  fragmentation  on  the  single  market,  albeit  to  different  degrees.  The  public 
consultation process has confirmed that the first three are the most significant and would 
require swift regulatory intervention. The fourth one is a new, emerging issue, which has 
had  limited  negative  impact  so  far,  but  given  the  growing  significance  of  data  in  the 
economy it is reasonable to expect that its impact will grow, thus justifying intervention 
at this stage.  

2.2.2.  Problem area No. 1:  Insufficient use of methods for access and re-use of 

dynamic data by machines 

The percentage of dynamic data being made available by public sector bodies, despite its 
high re-use potential, is still very low.44 The Impact Assessment study confirms that the 
delivery of dynamic data is an important challenge for public bodies collecting that type 
of  information  as  many  of  those  are  not  adequately  equipped.45  This  can  be  due  to  the 
technical limitations and requirements that appear when the frequency to update datasets 
is  shorter  than  a  minute,  or  to  the  lack  of  resources.  Additional  drivers  behind  this 
problem are low awareness of the benefits of APIs and low awareness of the value that 
real-time  data  has  for  the  creation  of  commercial  applications.  The  insufficient  use  of 

42 See: Models of Public Sector Information Provision via Trading Funds, Cambridge University, 02/2008, 
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45136.pdf  
43  See:  Annex  6  of  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  previous  review  of  the  Directive: 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-staff-working-paper-impact-assessment-
accompanying-document-proposal-directive  
44 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reuse-open-data-opportunity-spain-alberto-abella  
45 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

9 

 
                                                            
APIs or other methods for access and the re-use of dynamic data by machines has been 
confirmed by stakeholders, in particular from the re-user community, who recognise this 
issue as one of the main barriers for data re-use. This was for instance emphasised in the 
Commission's 2017 public consultation on 'Building a European data economy initiative' 
where  the  summary  report  noted  that  68%  of  respondents  clearly  support  an  increased 
use of APIs.46 

In  a  recent  study  based  on  a  representative  sample  of  the total  volume  of  public sector 
information (20,000 datasets), it was found that while the majority of services generated 
from open data are based on real-time data (66%), less than 1% of the data published in 
open portals are updated in real time.47 While the usability and commercial potential of 
dynamic data is directly related to its immediate availability, there is little awareness and 
competence  among  the  public  sector  institutions  regarding  the  available  tools  and 
methods,  such  as  APIs,  that  could  enable  such  availability.  Given  the  budget  pressure, 
there is also reluctance to invest in new technologies. 

Apart from the fact that public data is not systematically provided through APIs, there are 
considerable differences between Member States in this area.48 This is for example clear 
in the way in which their national portals can be accessed.  Austria tops the list, with 71-
85% of all visits to its portal deriving from machine traffic. Romania comes second, with 
41-55% of its traffic coming via API calls, followed by the UK with 26-40% of visits. 22 
out of 28 Member States had API traffic of less than 10%.49 The figures are encouraging 
in  the  sense  that  the  most  costly  investments  on  the  national  level  have  already  been 
made. Yet, it can be safely assumed that on the lower levels of government, the provision 
of APIs and their actual usage are less widespread, despite clear benefits: cities produce 
data  in  many  forms  and  from  many  sources,  and  the  wide  variety  of  formats  makes  it 
difficult to scale open data applications from city to city.50 

The results of the online public consultation indicate that stakeholders in general ask for 
wider  availability  of  dynamic  data  and  APIs  from  the  public  sector.51  77%  of 
stakeholders  were  in  favour  or  strongly  in  favour  of  further  investments  to  be  made  to 
encourage  public  sector  bodies  to  provide  dynamic  data  in  real  time  and  invest  in 
technical  solutions  facilitating  data  usability,  in  particular  through  APIs.  Respondents 
also  requested  dynamic  data  generated  by  the  public  sector  for  further  re-use.  This 
position was strongly voiced by the PSI re-users in particular. 

46https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-public-consultation-building-
european-data-economy  
47 http://informecotec.es/media/INFORME_REUTILIZACION-DE-DATOS.pdf   
48 See: France (https://api.gouv.fr/apis) and Italy (https://developers.italia.it/en/datigov/)     
49 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/dashboard#2017   
50 Harmonised Smart City APIs – a Cookbook for cities, 
https://www.databusiness.fi/content/uploads/2017/10/20171109_HarmonisedSmartCityAPIs_WEB.pdf  
51 Results of the public online consultation, December 2017. 

10 

 
                                                            
The  findings  of  the  Evaluation  Report52  and  a  dedicated  external  study53  confirm  that 
instead of this being just a legal requirement which is imposed on public sector bodies, 
additional practical support is necessary for many public sector bodies across Europe to 
move  towards  web-based  functionalities  and  a  more  wide-spread  use  of  dynamic  data 
and APIs in general. Public sector bodies seem to need additional assistance to be able to 
offer data as a service and in a dynamic way.  It is important to note that this approach 
cannot apply to all types of PSI (e.g. court decisions), but will be invaluable for others, as 
document-based mechanisms in various cases will not work (e.g. in the case of location 
apps).  

While  other  technological  trends  such  as  the  need  for  machine-readable  data  and 
interoperability have been integrated in the last revision of the PSI Directive, the need for 
timely availability of dynamic data is just mentioned once in recital 12. 

As a consequence, the insufficient  use  of technologies for the  management of dynamic 
data by the public sector results in more difficult access to public data repositories, lower 
machine-readability  of  dynamic  data  and  lower  suitability  of  data  for  processing 
(visualisation, integration into 3rd party applications). This in turn leads to a sub-optimal 
use of dynamic data from the public sector for the creation of value-added services. 

2.2.3.  Problem area No. 2: Market entry barriers and fragmentation  

Public  institutions  holding  high-value  datasets  (such  as  hydrographic  or  meteorological 
data, or digital maps) are often expected or required to maximise revenue from the re-use 
of this data in order to cover part of their operational costs.  

This  is,  however,  unjustified  from  the  macroeconomic  point  of  view.  Public  sector 
information is a non-rivalrous good that can be re-used multiple times and its high price 
elasticity means that a decrease in price triggers a surge in usage. It is produced as part of 
a  public  service,  so  its  creation  does  not  depend  on  market  forces.  Most  importantly, 
cheap or free government data generates extra commercial activity, especially by SMEs, 
which translates into more jobs and revenue from taxes. In addition, the public sector is 
itself  a  key  user  of  the  data,  so  part  of  the  income  for  one  public  sector  body  leads  to 
costs for others, as well as to a suboptimal use of the data for public purposes. Finally, 
charging generates substantial costs for public sector bodies producing the data, since it 
presupposes, amongst other things, that an invoicing and control system is in place. 

These arguments were the basis of the 2013 change from a full-cost charging regime to a 
regime  based  on  (at  maximum)  the  marginal  costs  of  dissemination.  Some  of  the 
arguments are further elaborated in section 6.1 below. 

The current PSI Directive presents a number of exceptions to the rule that public sector 
bodies  can  charge  at  maximum  the  marginal  cost  of  dissemination  for  making  their 
datasets available. This is the case for public sector bodies that are required to generate 

52 SWD(2018) 145. 
53 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

11 

 
                                                            
revenue  to  cover  a  substantial  part  of  their  costs  relating  to  the  performance  of  their 
public  tasks.  While  there  is  no  evidence  that  would  indicate  that  there  has  been  an 
excessive  use  of  exceptions,  the  Impact  Assessment  study  and  the  Evaluation  Report54 
confirm  that  the  use  of  exceptions  has  led  to  incoherent  and  widely  varying  charging 
practices  for  the  re-use  of  similar  datasets  across  the  EU.55  This  is  made  worse  by 
diverging  licensing  practices,  as  confirmed  by  67%  of  respondents  to  the  online 
consultation.  

The  resulting  situation  is  one  where  there  is  market  fragmentation,  with  higher  entry 
barriers  in  some  Member  States  than  in  others,  as  shown  in  the  example  below. 
Moreover,  the  Impact  assessment  study  found  that  heterogeneous  practices  in  terms  of 
charging persist not only between Member States but also between public sector bodies 
within  the  same  state56.  Across  the  EU,  public  organisations  charge  considerably 
different  prices  for  a  dataset  with  the  same  quality  and  type  of  data.  Re-users  from 
different  countries  complained  about  these  different  practices.57  In  addition  to  market 
fragmentation, the charging and licencing practices negatively affect the extent of PSI re-
use by SMEs and start-ups. They result in an uneven playing field among re-users, given 
that  large,  multinational  companies  can  easily  afford  the  acquisition  of  public  datasets, 
which  are  outside  the  reach  of  innovative  SMEs  or  start-ups.  This  translates  into  an 
opportunity cost to be borne by the entire society as a more limited number of innovative 
services and products can be developed.58   

Example No 1: a Swedish company Seapilot produces digital navigation apps based on marine 
chart data from hydrographic offices across the EU. However, widely divergent pricing models 
(e.g. one off payment, royalties, fees linked to updates) and the resulting charges applied (EUR 
2,745 in France to EUR 18,900 in Italy59) make it increasingly difficult to compete on a global 
scale, especially given that equivalent US data is free of charge. 

Example  No  2:  In  Belgium,  the  company  register  is  made  available  for  re-use  at  a  price  of 
75,000 EUR annually60, leading to a situation in which start-ups and SMEs face a market entry 
barrier  so  that  this  dataset  of  high  socio-economic  interest  is  effectively  re-used  by  only  two 
companies. 
As for the views of stakeholders on charging and its impact on market fragmentation, in 
the online public consultation most of the respondents indicated they were in favour of 
abolishing  the  current  exceptions  or  at  least  clarifying  the  circumstances  under  which 
these exceptions could be allowed. However, there was a clear split between PSI holders 
and PSI re-users, with the latter clearly in favour of abolishing or at least clarifying these 

54 SWD(2018) 145. 
55 Still applied across the EU by e.g. meteorological and hydrographic institutes, business registers, legal 
information repositories, mapping agencies, vehicle registration databases. 
56 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
57 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
58 Ibid. 
59 Ibid. 
60 https://economie.fgov.be/fr/themes/entreprises/banque-carrefour-des/services-pour-tous/banque-
carrefour-des-3. Some of the data are, however, available at low cost, in line with the relevant sectoral EU 
legislation   

12 

 
 
                                                            
exceptions  and  the  former  mostly  of  the  opinion  that  they  should  not  be  changed  and 
need no clarification. 

2.2.4.  Problem area No. 3: Insufficient availability of public and publicly funded data 

for re-use 

2.2.4.1 Data held by public undertakings in the transport and utility domains 

Public sector tasks may be carried out not only by public authorities themselves but can 
instead  be  entrusted  to  entities  with  organisational  or  management  links  to  the  public 
sector,  or  those  that  lack  such  links  but  benefit  from  public  funding  (public 
undertakings).  In  some  cases  public  sector  tasks  are  also  performed  by  private  entities 
which  act  on  the  basis  of  special  or  exclusive  rights  or  concessions  from  public  sector 
bodies. This is typically the case in the transport and utility domains (provision of water, 
electricity,  etc.).  Currently,  data  held by public undertakings in  these domains  does  not 
fall under the scope of the Directive. 

Data  held  by  entities  active  in  the  transport  and  utility  domains  is  amongst  the  most 
valuable for stakeholders in the data economy and it can serve as the basis for a number 
of added-value services and applications. Opening up this data is of considerable value 
for  commercial  re-use.  Topics  such  as  environment,  transportation,  energy  or  housing 
were  among  the  domains  most  often  consulted  in  open  data  portals  in  2016.61  National 
figures confirm that data from transport and traffic domains are very popular. In Spain, of 
all the applications with a business model behind, 47% are created with transport data. It 
is also important to remember that due to their link with the public sector, entities active 
in transport and utility domains are subject to a dedicated public procurement regime.62  
Moreover,  historically  these  operators  have  had  to  operate  in  a  stricter  regulatory 
environment  compared  with  other  businesses.  Examples  are  to  be  found  in  the  area  of 
infrastructure  provision  where  ex-ante  or  ex-post  regulation  has  been  established  to 
enhance  competition  and  reduce  monopolistic  or  dominant  positions  in  these  sectors. 
Often  governments  or  public  companies  still  hold  large  shares  in  these  infrastructure 
companies,  or  these  companies  operate  under  concessions  or  other  exclusive  contracts 
with public sector bodies. 

As  explained  in  the  Impact  Assessment  study63,  access  to  data  from  entities  active  in 
transport and utility domains depends on company preferences, Member States' open data 
strategies and legislation, and individual re-user activities. As a result, stakeholders of the 
re-user  community  are  faced  with  a  situation  in  the  EU  where  data  access  and  re-use 
happens  at  different  speeds  in  different  countries  and  opportunities  to  develop  cross-
border  applications  are  limited.  It  has  been  stressed  that  the  potential  of  data-based 
solutions in those sectors, especially in  energy and transport, is  significant,  but  there is 

61 Impact Assessment of ODINE programme. 2017, IDC. 
62  Directive  2014/25/EU  on  procurement  by  entities  operating  in  the  water,  energy,  transport  and  postal 
services sectors and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by 
road. 
63 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

13 

 
                                                            
insufficient  progress  in  opening  up  data  by  the  companies  themselves.  In  the  transport 
sector,  for  example,  the  study  found  that  in  all  Member  States  data  availability  varies 
widely  across  the  transport  modes.  While  examples  of  simple  travel  information 
applications are manifold, intermodal service examples are limited, especially as regards 
door-to-door travel applications. 

The same study64 found that the general interest of public undertakings to generate profits 
to  have  returns  on  the  investments  related  to  the  specific  datasets  represents  a  major 
barrier to sharing their data. Another barrier to sharing data with public organisations is 
the complexity of regulation on public undertakings in general. 

Some  examples  of  what  can  be  done  when  data  from  entities  active  in  transport  and 
utility domains is opened up are provided below.65   

Example  No  1:  A  Copenhagen-based  start-up  Tomorrow66uses  real-time  data  from  energy  grid 
operators to act as a data broker for historical energy data and to offer dynamic APIs to track 
the  origin  of  electricity  in  real  time  and  to  forecast  consumption,  enabling  lower  emissions, 
higher renewables and cheaper electricity.  

Example  No  2:  Transport  for  London  (TfL)67  released  via  an  API  over  200  data  sets  (bus  and 
metro  arrivals,  departures,  status,  cycle  hire  docking  station  status,  etc.)  which  created  a 
community  of  14,400  developers  with  over  600  apps. London  has  gained  around  100  million 
GBP  direct  value  by  technological  investment  and  TfL's  open  data  ecosystem  has  led  to  the 
creation of about 500 directly and 230 indirectly related jobs. TfL praises the effect that the re-
use of its data has had in reducing the commuting time of the passengers and thereby improving 
TfL's efficiency. 
The examples above show the positive developments in these sectors. Still, overall there 
is  a  mismatch  between  the  expectations  of  the  re-users  and  the  data  actually  available. 
For example, in some  Member States only 3.9% of all the open data published is from 
the transport area.68 Save for a few exceptions69, data generated as a result of activities 
carried out in the utilities sector is not generally made available for re-use. Only 23% of 
the  respondents  to  the  public  online  consultation  agreed  that  data  in  these  sectors  was 
currently  available  for  re-use.  The  figure  was  higher  (36%)  for  transport,  while  it  was 
considerably lower (14%) for the utilities. 

The stakeholders also indicated that data from the transport and utilities sector should be 
more widely available. A large majority (71%) of respondents to the online consultation, 
in particular from the re-user community, believe that data generated in the context of the 
provision  of  a  public  task  by  publicly  owned  companies  or  by  independent  economic 
operators, irrespective of the public or private nature of the data holder, should be made 
available for re-use. Similarly, an overwhelming majority of replies (81%) indicate that if 

64 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
65 For other examples, see also Impact Assessment support study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
66 https://www.tmrow.com/#products  
67 https://tfl.gov.uk/  
68 Open data re-use: an opportunity for Spain?, COTEC report, 2017.  
69 https://data.fingrid.fi/en/about  or https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr/pages/accueil/  

14 

 
                                                            
there  were  an  obligation  to  make  data  generated  in  the  context  of  the  provision  of  a 
public  task  available,  such  data  should  be  available  for  all  interested  re-users  for  any 
purpose. Although a minority, there are also more cautious opinions on these issues, in 
particular  from  businesses  in  the  fields  of  transport,  energy,  waste  and  water.  In 
particular stakeholders from the transport sector have expressed concerns. They believe 
that data is crucial for maintaining their competitiveness and as a result any requirements 
to make it more open and re-usable should be carefully balanced, as new obligations in 
this regard may distort competition in the sector. Stakeholders from entities active in the 
transport and utilities sectors have also indicated that imposing data sharing obligations 
on them may have an impact on ensuring the security of critical infrastructure. Moreover, 
some  are  anxious  that  compliance  with  the  new  requirements  will  mean  an  additional 
administrative burden. 

The  lack  of  availability  and  re-usability  of  data  in  the  relevant  areas  has  led  the 
Commission  to  propose  sector-specific  rules.  The  transport  sector  was  covered  by 
legislation on the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services70, which 
will lead to the wide availability of a range of relevant datasets. In the energy sector, a 
recent  proposal  for  a  recast  of  the  Electricity  Directive  includes  provisions  enhancing 
access  to  consumer  data71,  while  in  the  water  sector  the  Commission  has  proposed 
provisions  on  the  sharing  of  water  parameters  data  in  the  context  of  the  review  of  the 
Directive  on  the  quality  of  water  intended  for  human  consumption.72  However,  these 
rules are driven by sector-specific concerns and focus on selected datasets. In the case of 
transport  data,  the  rules  cover  both  public  and  private  entities,  which  has  lowered  the 
ambition level with regard to the availability requirements of some of the data. 

Consequently,  the  full  innovation  potential  of  public  and  publicly  funded  data  in  the 
areas of public transport and the utilities sector is currently not realised, and this amounts 
to missed opportunities, given the economic and societal potential of such data. 

2.2.4.2 Research data 

Scientific  information  produced  with  public  funding  is  an  invaluable  resource  for 
innovation,  for  the  broader  economy  and  for  addressing  societal  issues.  There  is  also 
substantial  evidence  that  data  sharing  is  correlated  with  better  science.73  Nevertheless, 
scientific  information  is  often  not  readily  available  for  re-use,  despite  growing 
acceptance of the Open Access approach to research data both globally and in the EU.74 

This is related to the following factors:  
  Fragmentation of policies due to the dependence on a wide range of institutional and 
(national  or  other)  funding  mandates  and  arrangements,  and  weak  compliance:  the 
funding mandates are often not properly implemented. 

70 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2017/1926/oj  
71 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0864R%2801%29  
72 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/review_en.html  
73 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
74 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/open-science-open-access  

15 

 
                                                            
  Policy  framework  not  fully  fit  for  purpose,  given  that  the  2012  Commission 
Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information75 is no longer 
up to date. Notably, it does not take into account the recent EU policy developments 
in the areas of Open Science, and the spread of machine-generated and dynamic data.  
  Lack  of  focus  on  re-use  since  open  access  mandates  focus  on  access  to  scientific 

information, while re-use of this information is dealt with in disparate ways.  

  Lack  of  incentives/rewards  to  allow  the  re-use  of  research  data:  Many  researchers 
remain reticent on the idea of opening their results due to the lack of awareness on 
the  potential  benefits  of  open  science.  Also  there  are  no  individual  rewards 
compensating for potential loss of competitive advantage of keeping results closed. 

The  Impact  Assessment  study76  confirms  that  there  is  consensus  in  the  literature  about 
the  lack  of  research  data  sharing  and  puts  forward  various  examples  from  bibliometric 
analysis and surveys of researchers, ranging from only 13% up to to 79% of research data 
being  shared.  The  study  also  confirms  that  there  is  a  wide  range  of  underlying  reasons 
impeding the sharing of research data. Among them the most prominent causes seem to 
be the different data sharing cultures in the different disciplines, legal certainty regarding 
copyright over the datasets concerned or the reluctance of companies to share data with 
researchers  when  they  know  that  the  data  will  be  openly  shared.  Many  of  these 
statements have also been expressed in a dedicated workshop on 'Open Research Data'77 
and in a public hearing on the PSI Directive review.78 

The  2012  Commission  Recommendation  on  access  and  preservation  of  scientific 
information has created a framework for open access to research results at the European 
level.  It  has  led  to  substantial  progress  across  the  EU  in  opening  up  research 
information.79  At  the  same  time  Member  States  reports  collected  in  201780  show  the 
limits of the non-binding approach. National policies or overall strategies to encourage or 
mandate Open Access to research data have  been adopted in only  8 out of 28 Member 
States. 

75  C(2012) 4890 final. 
76 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
77 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-workshop-open-research-data-
within-context-directive-reuse-public-sector  
78 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/public-hearing-review-directive-reuse-public-sector-
information  
79 See the Commission staff working document on the review of the Recommendation. 
80 National Points of Reference reports. 

16 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 2 - Member States reporting on national level strategies or policies for open access to research data 

While  it  is  true  that  some  Member  States  also  reported  that  such  open  access  policies 
with respect to research data exist for at least 'some academic institutions and/or research 
centres'  (18  Member  States  reported  this  to  be  the  case),  the  FAIR  principles,  a 
community standard for findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable research data, is 
supported either  at  national or  at  institutional  level in  only 16 Member  States.81  Where 
mandates for open access are in place, they are often not enforced. 44% of respondents in 
the  Figshare  survey  declare  that  they  have  an  institutional  mandate  but  it  is  not 
enforced.82  

Moreover,  data  resulting  from  publicly  funded  research  is  often  not  fully  open  or  not 
open  under  harmonised  and  clear  terms.  This  trend  is  shown  by  the  data  and  analysis 
from  the  OpenAIRE  Infrastructure83  from  October  2017,  where  H2020  publications 
account for 12,000 articles, but only 404 datasets.  

In addition, there are substantial discrepancies in how open publications are available in 
the  different  research  areas,  and  also  to  what  extent  research  data  is  actually  available. 
On  the  one  hand,  there is  a  flourishing  landscape  of  research  data  repositories.  Among 
the  1,381  research  data  repositories84  examined  in  the  project  re3data85,  95.5%  were 
qualified  as  open,  meaning  accessible  without  any  financial  and  technical  barriers  and 
86.2% of their research data content is available in open access data at least partly. On 
the  other  hand,  an  analysis86  of  the  URL  links  embedded  in  papers  published  by  the 
American Astronomical Society over 15 years found that 44% of those links were broken 
10  years  after  the  publication.  15-20%  of  links  pointing  to  curated  data  archives  were 
broken,  while  links  to  project  or  personal  websites  decayed  at  much  faster  rate. 
Bibliometric analysis shows that data from only 13% of articles in top-level journals is 
available.  

Finally, there is a problem of diversity and inconsistency of the licensing practices which 
are not oriented toward favouring re-use.87 This issue was reported as a shortcoming of 
the current policy set-up by stakeholders from the research community in a workshop on 
Open  Research  Data88.  Legal  solutions  vary  among  repositories,  and  even  among 
datasets. Under the FAIR principles89 researchers retain a margin of discretion to decide 
on relevant re-use conditions. In many cases it is not clear what re-users are allowed to 

81 National Points of Reference report (forthcoming). 
82 https://figshare.com/blog/2015_The_year_of_open_data_mandates/143   
83 www.openaire.eu  
84 The project as per February 2018 lists more than 2,000 research data repositories.  
85 Kindling et al., The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015: A re3data Analysis. 
86  Pepe  A,  Goodman  A,  Muench  A,  Crosas  M,  Erdmann  C  (2014)  How  Do  Astronomers  Share  Data? 
Reliability  and  Persistence  of  Datasets  Linked  in  AAS  Publications  and  a  Qualitative  Study  of  Data 
Practices among US Astronomers. PLoS ONE 9(8): e104798.   
87 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, chapter 6.1.2.; Kindling et al., The Landscape of Research 
Data Repositories in 2015: A re3data Analysis.  
88https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-workshop-open-research-data-within-
context-directive-reuse-public-sector  
89 https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples   

17 

 
                                                            
do with the data, or there are unnecessary restrictions. For example, in two recent surveys 
on  curated  data  resources,  respectively  over  30%  and  over  60%  of  respondents  have 
reported to be unsure about the terms of the license to be used.90 

The large majority (81%) of respondents to the online consultation, representing different 
groups of stakeholders, agreed that there should be one common policy for open access 
in  Europe,  binding  on  all  research  funding  organisations  and  academic  institutions  in 
Europe.  This  is  currently  not  the  case.  Given  the  non-binding  nature  of  the 
Recommendation,  EU  leverage  to  remedy  the  above-mentioned  weaknesses  is  limited. 
As  a  result,  the  limited  availability  of  research  data  for  re-use  makes  it  difficult  to 
conduct  further  scientific  research  based  on  such  data  or  to  apply  data  analytics 
technologies and to mix such data with other public or private datasets to produce added-
value services. 

2.2.5.  Problem area No. 4: Distortion of competition in the internal market 
While the value of government data increases with the advances of technology, notably 
due to new fields of application such as the Internet of Things or artificial intelligence, 
the  public  sector  often  lacks  expertise  or  sufficient  funding  to  derive  insights  from  the 
data  it  holds.  New  types  of  partnership  agreements  are  emerging  in  which  companies 
offer  advanced  data  analytics  services/infrastructure in  exchange  for  preferential  access 
to the data. With rapid technological advances and growing opportunities in the field of 
data  analytics,  these  new  kind  of  public-private  parterships  will  become  all  the  more 
frequent. 

The  Impact  Assessment  study91  found  that  in  practice  public  sector  bodies  are  not 
sufficiently  aware  and  trained  to  understand  and  spot  the  potential  risks  related  to  the 
establishment  of  exclusive  arrangements  with  regard  to  the  datasets  that  they  hold.  In 
certain  situations,  public  sector  bodies  are  financially  obliged  to  rely  on  exclusive 
agreements  in  order  to  be  able  to  afford  the  costs  of  new  initiatives  linked  to,  for 
example,  digitisation  or  new  services.  In  such  circumstances,  agreements  that 
inadvertently lead to a situation of exclusivity on the data may pass unnoticed.  

In  order  to  create  a  level  playing  field  among  re-users,  the  PSI  Directive  in  principle 
prohibits exclusive agreements for the re-use of public sector information, as well as any 
other  form  of  discrimination  between  re-users.  This  means  that  publicly  funded  data 
cannot be given to only one or a limited set of companies, and that the conditions for re-
use must be the same for all. 

Taking  into  account  that  the  number  of  public-private  arrangements  which  involve  the 
transfer  of  public  sector  information  will  be  on  the  rise  due  to  the  new  possibilities  of 
data  exploitation  that  the  public  sector  itself  cannot  ensure,  a  targeted  policy  response 
appears necessary. 

90 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
91 Ibid, Annex A. 

18 

 
                                                            
This  is  also  motivated  by  the  fact  that  public  bodies  and  potential  re-users  of  the  data 
believe  that  exclusive  exploitation  of  data  is  very  rarely  justified.  However,  businesses 
commonly  entering  into  exclusive  agreements  tend  to  say  that  this  advantage  in 
exploitation of data is an essential incentive for the private sector to invest into projects 
in which otherwise it would have not invested at all.92 

The stakeholders’ consultation confirms such conflicting views from yet another angle: 
while  Member  States  generally  report  they  are  not  aware  of  exclusive  arrangements 
based on public  sector  information,  other  stakeholders signal  that  problems in  this area 
persist. Just 38% of the respondents to the public online consultation consider that such 
agreements  are  used  only  exceptionally  and  are  limited  to  the  cases  allowed  under  the 
Directive  (digitisation  of  cultural  resources,  public  service  necessity).  Additionally, 
among the respondents to the public consultation who indicated that certain provisions of 
the Directive could be clarified, many referred to the area of exclusive agreements. This 
request was also reiterated by several representatives of the re-use community present at 
the High-level Round-table discussion on Public Sector Information in January 2018.93   

The  contradictory  voices  referred  to  above  can  be  explained  by  the  nature  of  the 
examples mentioned by stakeholders and experts in the context of the Impact Assessment 
study94  and  the  broader  consultation  process.  They  mostly  concern  new  types  of 
agreements  that  are not a classical  relation between  a public sector  body and a re-user, 
but  involve  a  compensation  in  kind  in  exchange  for  preferential  conditions  to  use  the 
data. This kind of situation is not addressed by the current provisions of the Directive. 

The  examples  mentioned  by  stakeholders  come  in  the  first  place  from  the  context  of 
smart  cities.  They  concern  cases  of  the  exclusive  use  of  sensor  data  by  the  company 
installing  the  sensors,  the  exclusive  use  of  data  on  street  lighting,  and  arrangements 
between  certain  cities  and  service  providers  of  navigation  and  localisation  services 
involving privileged use of public data. Some local authorities are actively pursuing these 
kinds of partnerships, in order to limit their costs and to get hold of some of the data from 
private  companies.95  Another  area  concerns  the  use  of  health  records.  Examples  of 
agreements involving public health services and companies in the UK, Belgium and Italy 
have recently attracted the attention of the press and the relevant authorities for reasons 
related in particular to data protection.96 

The  new  types  of  arrangements  where  in  kind  compensation  is  given  in  exchange  for 
preferential use of public data have clear advantages for both the public authority and the 

92 Ibid: p. 254. 
93 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-high-level-round-table-discussion-
public-sector-information-re-use  
94 See: examples in the Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
95  Workshop  on  access  to  privately  held  data  for  public  interest  reasons,  26  June  2017,  presentations  by 
Amsterdam and Hamburg cities. 
96 In the field of health data, such arrangements can be particularly undesirable, as testified by the results of 
the  Commission's  public  consultation    'Transformation  Health  and  Care  in  the  Digital  Single  Market'  in 
which most respondents favour publicly-controlled, non-commercial solutions to ensure innovation based 
on health data,(Synopsis Report upcoming). 

19 

 
                                                            
companies involved. At the same time, they could lead to a situation in which no other 
commercial  re-users  would  have  an  incentive  to  re-use  the  same  dataset  in  a  similar 
manner, which would in practice circumvent the provisions of the PSI Directive on non-
exclusivity and non-discrimination, as illustrated by the example below.  

Example:  One  of  the  largest  National  Health  Service  providers  in  Britain  provided 
Google-owned  artificial  intelligence  company  DeepMind  with  1.6  million  patient 
records to assist in the management of acute kidney injury by using technology to track 
patients’  symptoms  and  send  alerts  to  doctors. Although  this  partnership  does  not  in 
principle exclude  other companies  from  being  provided  access  to  NHS  data  (and  re-
use it), Google’s lead in this regard could distort incentives for competition. Moreover, 
the  NHS  will  have  invested,  and  continues  to  do  so,  resources  and  human  capital  in 
this partnership. 

Another  concern  relates  to  the  different  negotiation  power  and  knowledge  base  of  the 
partners, which could be exploited by the private partner. Due attention needs to be paid 
to contract clauses or situations where preferential use of the data is considered as one of 
the benefits for the private party. 

All of the above confirms that in the context of new types of agreements between public 
authorities and private companies, in which the value of public datasets can be captured 
by one or a limited number of players, the risk of side-lining smaller entities, in particular 
start-ups and SMEs, is considerable. This risk will tend to grow in the near future with 
the expected rise of the number of public-private arrangements that will be made to meet 
with the growing opportunities and following demand in data analytics. 

2.3.  Who is affected and in what ways? 

The PSI Directive broadly affects two sets of stakeholders: public sector bodies and re-
users. The beneficiaries of open data policies can be found in all economic sectors. 

Annex 4 to this document shows in detail how many stakeholders are affected and how. 

2.3.1.  Public sector  
The  main  aim  of  the  Directive  is  to  ensure  the  availability  of  information  held  by  the 
public sector, therefore public sector bodies across the EU are affected by its provisions. 
They  bear  the  compliance  costs  of  the  legislation  including  for  any  changes  to  the 
regulatory framework. At the same time, public sector bodies use open data to improve 
policies  and  the  delivery  of  public  services.  The  rise  of  'data  for  policy'97  initiatives 
testifies  the  growing  importance  of  data  for  the  public  sector  at  large.  In  addition,  the 
research  and  educational  organisations  and  public  undertakings  in  the  transport  and 
utilities sector would be affected as new addressees of the Directive. However, they  are 
also among the beneficiaries of open data policies. 

97 https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2016-
07/dg_digit_study_big_data_analytics_for_policy_making.pdf.  

20 

 
                                                            
2.3.2.  Private sector, in particular SMEs 
A  myriad  of  companies  of  different  sizes  and  expertise  participate  in  the  value  chains 
involving the re-use of public sector information: 

Figure 3 - The Data Value Chain and Data Value Chain Archetypes 
Source: EDP Analytical Report 9: The Economic Benefits of Open Data 

fields, 

in  various 

(e.g.  market/research,  economic/financial, 
Companies  active 
publishing98) typically use open data to improve already existing services, in addition to 
data  derived  from  other  sources.  Most  can  be  classified  as  'aggregators',  with  a 
substantial part using open data as their main input towards developing web- or mobile 
applications.99  Most  companies  benefiting  from  open  data  are  SMEs,  which  represent 
99.8% of companies active on the European data market.100 

2.4.  How will the problem evolve? 

Overall, the effects of technological change and the trend of individual Member States to 
legislate on the availability of data in new sectors could lead to an increasing gap in re-
use conditions in the EU.  

It  is  expected  that  there  will  be  exponential  growth  in  the  volume  of  real-time  data 
without  enough  storage  capacity  for  the  newly  created  data,  which  will  strengthen  the 
need to release the data to those who can make use of it.101 Therefore the use of APIs will 
be increasingly  important and speeding up the take-up of APIs is  necessary  in  order to 
fully reap the benefits of publicly funded data.102  

The persistence of the current market access barrier linked to the cost of data is likely to 
lead to a strengthening of the major economic actors active in the open data markets to 
the detriment of local innovative SMEs and start-ups. 

Data in the transport and utilities sector will continue to grow in importance as a source 
of  innovation  and  new  products  and  services.  The  implementation  of  the  sectoral  EU 
legislation will improve the availability of data, but  the overall potential  of opening up 
data in these sectors for the economy and society may not be fully realised.  

98 ASEDIE, Infomediary Sector Report, 2017. 
99 European Data Portal, Analytical Report 9: The Economic Benefits of Open Data, 2017. 
100 IDC European data market monitor 2017. 
101 https://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/our-story/trends/files/Seagate-WP-DataAge2025-March-
2017.pdf  
102 The French National Register has seen a dramatic increase in data re-use since opening of the public 
API (1 billion hits in 2017, with eCommerce and supermarkets being the main re-users), see: Impact 
Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

21 

 
 
                                                            
The ongoing efforts to make open access to research information a universally accepted 
principle across Europe will lead to further results, but it is likely to be a lengthy process 
and Member States will move at different speeds. Given that researchers themselves are 
largely in charge of the process of implementing Open Access, the re-usability aspects, 
such  as  licensing  conditions  or  technical  usability  (which  are  essential  for  ensuring  the 
impact of research data beyond the research community) may not get sufficient attention.  

The  trend  towards  new  types  of  arrangements  between  the  public  sector  and  private 
companies  involving  preferential  or  exclusive  use  of  public  data  is  likely  to  continue. 
Large  companies  will  intensify  their  search  for  the  most  cost-efficient  sources  of  high-
quality data. At the same time, public sector bodies at all levels of government will look 
for partners who can help them to exploit their data assets, since the performance of the 
primary public tasks often makes it difficult to invest in data analytics capacities.  

2.5.  REFIT considerations 

The  PSI  Directive  currently  affects  two  large  sets  of  stakeholders:  re-users  and  public 
sector  bodies,  but  it  only  imposes  obligations  on  the  latter.  When  considering  these 
obligations, it should be borne in mind that several requirements of the Directive, notably 
those  related  to  the  practical  arrangements  for  making  data  available,  are  part  of  an 
overall  effort  towards  digitising  the  public  administration103  rather  than  specific  PSI 
Directive-related costs. 

While the Evaluation Report104 shows that there is an overall positive appreciation of the 
efficiency of the Directive so far, there are areas in which the reduction of administrative 
burden strictly related to the implementation of the Directive could be achieved: 

Reporting  obligations:  The  current  Directive  includes  a  reporting  provision  (Article 
13.2)  which  obliges  Member  States  to  submit,  every  3  years,  a  report  to  the  European 
Commission on a number of issues that enable the Commission to measure the effects of 
the implementation of the Directive.  

Dealing with individual re-use requests: The necessity to process re-use requests is the 
main administrative burden that can be attributed solely to the PSI Directive (Chapter 2 – 
Requests  for  re-use) and  has  been  estimated  to  be  in  the  range  of  30  hours  in  terms  of 
required time per single request.105  

Charging for re-use: In case the public sector body applies charges for re-use, it incurs 
additional  administrative  burden  such  as  the  processing  of  invoicing,  but  also  costs 

103 See: Policy action 4 of the Tallinn Declaration, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/ministerial-declaration-egovernment-tallinn-declaration  
104 SWD(2018) 145. 
105 See: https://vng.nl/files/vng/20171211_-_notitie_uitvoeringskosten_who_-_def.pdf   
Also, the processing of similar requests (access to information) has been estimated in the UK to be in the 
range of 165€ per single request, https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/freedom-of-information-research  

22 

 
                                                            
related to the monitoring of compliance with the underlying license arrangements at the 
source of the charge.106 

Dealing with complaints: A corollary to the individual re-use requests, and to a lesser 
degree  to  the  use  of  custom  licensing  arrangements,  is  the  higher  risk  of  complaints 
leading to administrative and judicial proceedings (redress procedures).107 

Clarifying the interplay between the PSI Directive and other EU acts (INSPIRE and 
Database Directives): The coherence with these directives makes the application of the 
PSI Directive easier and less-resource consuming, due to higher legal certainty. 

At the same time, commercial entities (mostly SMEs) will considerably benefit from the 
online availability of high-quality data without cost. This will eliminate the need to make 
individual  requests,  as  well  as  any  transactional  costs,  thus  contributing  additionally  to 
the REFIT objectives.  

2.6.  Access to private sector data for public interest purposes 

The  issue  of  access  to  private  sector  data  for  public  interest  purposes  was  part  of  the 
public  online  consultation  on  the  review  of  the  PSI  Directive.  While  public  data  is 
already used to save costs and increase efficiencies within the public sector itself, modern 
policy  making  has  become  a  data-intensive  activity  to  such  an  extent  that  public 
institutions rely more and more on access to private sector data to carry out their tasks. 
This trend was acknowledged by the respondents to the public online consultation, and 
there was strong support for action in this area, with 81% of the respondents indicating 
that specific legal measures need to be put in place in order to facilitate access to private 
sector data for public interest purposes.  

However,  the  wider  stakeholder  engagement  process108  showed  that  there  is  still 
considerable  uncertainty  regarding  the  exact  objectives,  justification  and  practical 
methods under which such transfer could take place. Stakeholders from the private sector 
(e.g.  telecoms  companies)  and  public  undertakings  in  the  transport  and  utilities  sector 
indicated, notably during a recently held public hearing109, that the issue is not ripe for 
horizontal legislative action at the EU level. This is why the subject of access to private 
data  is  not  included  within  the  policy  options  discussed in  this  Impact  Assessment  and 
will be addressed separately within the 2018 Data Package. 

106 The reduction of these 'transaction costs'  motivates  many  public institutions to move towards free re-
use, Pricing Of Public Sector Information Study, Deloitte, 2012. 
107 As shown in the Evaluation Report, redress and litigation costs are also perceived as one of the main 
burdens for the re-users, especially SMEs. 
108 As detailed in section 3 of the Evaluation Report. 
109 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/public-hearing-review-directive-reuse-public-sector-
information  

23 

 
                                                            
3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1.  Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  intervention  is  Article  114  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union. The revision will build on this legislation and any amendment to  this 
Directive should be based on the same legal basis.   

In accordance with Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) any EU action 
should  respect  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  This  involves  assessing  two  aspects:  the 
necessity test and the EU added value test.  

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The  removal  of  the  remaining  obstacles  to  an  open  re-use  of  public  sector  information 
and simultaneously aligning the legal framework to the evolving digital socio-economic 
environment  cannot  be  achieved  by  Member  States  alone.  Diverging  national  legal 
solutions  would  likely  compromise  the  growing  tendency  towards  cross-border  re-use, 
whereas  the  different  levels  of  'open  data  readiness'  across  EU  Member  States  would 
persist  or  deepen,  having  a  negative  effect  on  the  homogeneity  and  competitiveness 
within the Digital Single Market. 

The  evidence  for  such  a  diverging  approach  to  the  furthering  of  open  data  policies  is 
already emerging, as countries such as Finland110, France111 or Denmark112 are enacting 
legislation which aims to enable the data economy to benefit from new sources of data. 
These  efforts,  while  in  line  with  the  overall  objectives  of  the  DSM  strategy,  are  not 
coordinated.  Combined  with  slower  or  non-existent  initiatives  in  other  countries,  they 
risk  undermining  the  level  playing  field  for  commercial  re-users,  as  well  as  the 
development  of  cross-border  applications  in  the  EU  (insufficient  availability  of  source 
data across the Member States makes it economically unviable to produce a cross-border 
service or to replicate an existing data-based service from one Member State to another).  

The  actions  proposed  are  proportionate,  since  national  intervention  will  not  be  able  to 
achieve  the  same  results  (increase  in  openly  re-useable  PSI),  whilst  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  a  competitive  and  non-discriminatory  environment  across  the  entire  Single 
Market. The proposed actions, in particular restricting the use of exceptions to marginal 
cost  charging  and  introducing  the  obligation  to  make  certain  high-value  datasets  freely 
available, can be seen as the next step towards full availability of PSI for re-use: a policy 
objective accepted by the Member States already in 2003 and confirmed in 2013. 

110 Act on Transport Services, https://www.lvm.fi/documents/20181/937315/Factsheet+57-
2017+Act+on+Transport+Services.pdf/bd002762-a6a0-4867-bb49-5c1b86069380       
111 Loi Pour une République numérique, 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichLoiPubliee.do?idDocument=JORFDOLE000031589829&type=gener
al&legislature=14  
112 Basic Data Programme, https://www.digst.dk/~/media/Files/English/Fact_sheet_BasicData_pdf.pdf    

24 

 
                                                            
The  necessity  of  the  Directive  is  unquestioned  by  stakeholders  consulted  in  the  public 
online consultation and in the context of the IA support study. National initiatives in the 
field  of  PSI  would  have  not  been  sufficient  to  address  possible  market  distortions  and 
market  failures  and  offer  a  level-playing  field  to  all  businesses.113  The  necessity  of 
coordinated  action  on  EU  level  is  further  backed  by  the  success  of  previous  legislative 
interventions, as testified by the EDP Open Data Maturity report comparison across the 
years.114  

Moreover,  during  the  consultation  process  a  large  number  of  Member  States  expressed 
their  support  for  the  review  of  the  Directive,  based  on  the  observation  that  the  uneven 
implementation across Member States is creating fragmentation on the single market or 
bottlenecks to market development. In particular, they were supportive of extending the 
scope of the PSI Directive and making some of the high-value datasets obligatory for free 
dissemination115 (see also chapter 6.4). 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The  vast  majority  of  respondents  (87%)  in  the  recent  public  online  consultation, 
representing  different  groups  of  stakeholders,  see  a  clear  EU  added  value  of  the  PSI 
Directive, namely that it has played a role in encouraging the national authorities to open 
up  more  public  sector  data  across  the  EU.  At  the  same  time,  63%  believe  that  it  has 
facilitated  access  to  PSI  from  countries  other  than  the  one  where  the  person  concerned 
lives.  Similarly,  almost  64%  indicate  that  the  PSI  Directive  has  been  conducive  to  the 
creation  of  an  EU-wide  market  for  products  and  services  based  on  PSI.  The  EU  added 
value  of  the  PSI  Directive  was  also  strongly  highlighted  in  the  expert  interviews 
conducted  in  the  context  of  the  support  study  and  presented  in  more  detail  in  the 
accompanying Evaluation Report116. 

Action  at  EU  level  is  also  best  suited  to  guarantee  that  public  data  of  comparable 
thematic scope are available for re-use across Member State borders under similar legal 
and technical conditions so as to facilitate the offering of services based on data sourced 
from  different  EU  countries  or  for  applying  a  data-based  business  model  tested  in  one 
Member State seamlessly to another. 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1.  General objectives 

The  overall  aim  of  this  initiative  is  to  contribute  to  the  strengthening  of  the  EU’s  data 
economy  by  enhancing  the  positive  effect  of  the  re-use  of  public  sector  data  on  the 
economy and society. This will be done by increasing the amount of public sector data 

113 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
114 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/highlights/open-data-maturity-europe  
115 Minutes of the PSI Group meeting, 15 November 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/public-sector-information-group-main-page  
116  SWD(2018) 145. 

25 

 
                                                            
available for re-use, ensuring fair competition and easy access to markets based on public 
sector information, and enhancing cross-border innovation based on data. 

The  initiative  is  part  of  the  DSM  Strategy  that  has  emphasised  the  impact  of  the  data 
economy on the growth of European businesses, modernisation of public services and the 
empowerment of citizens.117 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

The general objectives translate into the following specific objectives: 

a)  Adaptation to technological changes in the field of data management and use 

The production of data is no longer an issue, as data generation via computer networks 
and sensors has become inexpensive. It is rather the ease with which data can be found, 
accessed and combined with  other data that defines its impact on the overall economy. 
This means that for the data to be searchable, understood and contextualised (especially 
by machines), the datasets need to conform to minimum quality standards with regard to 
their format, description and methods of access. 

b)  Lowering  the  existing  barriers  to  accessing  PSI  re-use  market  and  preventing 

the emergence of new ones 

This  specific  objective  aims  at  eliminating  entry  barriers  for  companies,  in  particular 
SMEs  and  start-ups  that  want  to  re-use  public  sector  information.  In  this  context,  the 
charging rules are particularly relevant, including the mechanisms to make certain high-
value datasets available free of charge, in line with the commitment made by the EU in 
the framework of the G8 Open Data Charter. Another issue that needs to be tackled is the 
risk  that  public  sector  information  is  locked  in  because  of  new  types  of  agreements 
between public sector bodies and large companies.  

c)  Making more data available for re-use as raw material for innovation 

Thanks to the PSI Directive, a large array of public sector datasets is available for re-use 
across  Europe.  However,  data  produced  and  held  by  public  undertakings  in  utility 
sectors, as well as publicly funded data resulting from scientific research, is currently not 
covered  by  the  Directive.  Bringing  the  relevant  data  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive, 
while respecting the particular situation of the respective sectors, will enlarge the overall 
pool  of  re-usable  data  produced  either  directly  thanks  to  public  funding  or  within  the 
scope  of  services  of  general  interest  for  the  benefit  of  the  economy  and  reinforce  their 
cross-border re-use. 

117 Mid-term review of the DSM strategy, COM(2017) 228 final. 

26 

 
 
                                                            
5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

5.1.  What is the baseline for assessing options? 

The  baseline  situation  is  described  in  the  evaluation  report  of  the  PSI  Directive118.  It  
shows  where  Member  States  stand  in  terms  of  open  data  maturity,  after  having  made 
considerable  progress  over  the  last  few  years.119  On  the  supply  side  of  public  sector 
information, the current level of open data maturity120 is the baseline for assessing future 
developments. As for the impact of the policies, the baseline used as a benchmark is the 
current direct economic effects of open data of 52 billion EUR a year for the EU 28.121 
This figure is higher than some of the other available calculations of the impact of open 
data policies, but considerably lower than the most optimistic ones.122 

5.2.  Description of the policy options 

(A) Baseline Scenario: Maintaining the current approach without changes  

The option of 'no policy change' would mean that the current provisions of the Directive 
would  remain  applicable.  The  Member  States  would  be  bound  by  the  rules  set  by  the 
2003 Directive, modified by Directive 2013/37/EU.   

(B) Discontinuing existing EU action: Repeal of the PSI Directive 

This  option  would  effectively  result  in  the  removal  of  all  the  regulatory  obligations 
currently contained in the Directive. 

(C) Soft law measures only 

Soft  law  instruments  in  the  area  of  Open  Data  have  been  used  in  the  past.  After  the 
adoption of the amending Directive in 2013 and still within the transposition period, the 
Commission  adopted  a  Notice  2014/C  240/01  'Guidelines  on  recommended  standard 
licences, datasets and charging for the re-use of documents'123 for this purpose. Another 
relevant  soft  law  instrument  is  the  Commission  Recommendation  to  Member  States  on 
access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific  information.124  These  two  documents  could  be 
updated in order to reflect the technological and policy changes that have occurred since 
their adoption. 

118 SWD(2018) 145. 
119 See the 2015 and 2017 figures on open data readiness of the MS in the Evaluation Report, section 5. 
120 See section 5 of the Evaluation Report. 
121 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
122  See  the  European  Data  Portal,  Analytical  Report  No  9:  The  Economic  Benefits  of  Open  Data,  2017, 
giving an overview of the different analyses in this area. The highest estimate of the value of opening up 
public sector data worldwide came from McKinsey (2013), while other studies converged on figures in the 
order of 10s of billions of EUR a year for the EU28, depending on the methodology used and the types of 
data included. 
123 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2014.240.01.0001.01.ENG   
124 C(2012) 4890 final. 

27 

 
                                                            
(D) Packaged solution consisting of both amendments of the PSI Directive and soft law 
(update of the Recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific information) 

For  the  different  issues  outlined  in  the  problem  description,  two  scenarios  of  varying 
degrees  of  intervention  were  identified.  Both  scenarios  contain  hard  and  soft-law 
elements. Despite the fact that it would be conceivable to address the policy objectives by 
a mix of actions scattered across the two options, it was decided to regroup the possible 
intervention  choices  into  two  packages  along  the  lines  of  high  and  low  intensity  of 
regulatory intervention. Given the complexity of the problem areas, such regrouping of 
individual  intervention  areas  was  crucial  for  obtaining  meaningful  feedback  from  the 
stakeholders. Policy option (D) is therefore split into two policy packages having similar 
objectives  but  leading  to  a  different  level  of  impact  in  terms  of  costs,  benefits  and 
administrative  burden.  The  main  elements  of  the  low  and  high-intensity  scenarios  are 
described  below  in  relation  to  each  of  the  intervention  areas  targeted.  They  are  further 
mapped onto concrete legislative amendments to the text of the PSI Directive, included 
in the table on page 31.   

Dynamic data/APIs 

  The  higher  intensity  option  would  oblige  all  public  sector  bodies  of  the  Member 
States  that  already  produce  dynamic  data,  to  make  this  data  available  in  a  timely 
manner and to systematically introduce APIs for that purpose. 

  The  lower  intensity  option  would  create  an  obligation  for  Member  States  to  make 
dynamic  data  available  in  a  timely  manner  and  to  introduce  APIs,  where  possible 
under technical and financial circumstances. For a limited  number of datasets  (high 
value data to be defined in the Delegated Act) there would be a hard obligation to do 
so. 

The options focus on the ways in which the availability and usability of dynamic data can 
be  enhanced,  rather  than  addressing  the  broader  issue  of  optimal  data  formats  and 
publication methods, even if respondents to the online consultation tend to view all these 
factors  as  one  common  'technical  barrier'  to  re-use.  This  is  chiefly  because  the 
insufficient  release  of  dynamic  content  is  a  problem  in  its  own  right  (given  massively 
rising demand for this kind of data) and because the Directive already includes provisions 
specific  to  formats  (Article  5),  while  being  silent  on  dynamic  data  and  use  of  APIs.  In 
addition,  the  Directive  does  not  have  the  ambition  of  harmonising  data  or  metadata 
standards;  instead,  the  Commission  promotes  their  adoption  via  the  ongoing  support 
actions (European Data Portal, ISA2 programme) and soft law (Notice 2014/C 240/01).  

Charging rules 

  Under  both  options,  the charging  rules  would explicitly  mention  the costs linked to 
anonymization of datasets containing personal data as costs that can be recovered by 
a public sector body both under the marginal costs and full cost recovery principles. 
This  acknowledges  the  fact  that  in  many  re-use  scenarios,  datasets  containing 
personal data need to be anonymised and that such anonymization has a cost. 

28 

 
  The higher intensity option would eliminate all the exceptions to the general rule that 

public sector bodies cannot charge more than marginal costs for dissemination. 

  The lower intensity option would tighten the charging rules by eliminating the current 
exception of allowing charges for certain specific documents (deemed unnecessary as 
it does not address a wide range of real-life situations) and by enhancing transparency 
with a requirement for the Member States to publish a list of public sector bodies that 
fulfil  the  requirements  of  article  6(2)(a)  and  can  therefore  charge  above  marginal 
costs.  This  will  only  concern  a  small  number  of  public  sector  bodies  and  therefore 
creating the list will not put a large burden on Member States. These measures would 
be accompanied by the adoption of a limited list of fundamental high-value datasets 
that  should  be  freely  available  in  all  Member  States  (to  be  adopted  through  a 
Delegated Act).125 

Both  options  are  realistic  by  taking  into  account  the  current  trend  of  introducing  a 
'principle of gratuity' in national legislation (e.g. France, Slovenia), coupled with the fact 
that  charges  are  typically  applied  not  evenly  across  the  board  but  rather  by  a  small 
number  (fewer  than  10)  of  public  institutions  in  each  Member  State.126  An  alternative 
option  whereby  charges  from  high-value  datasets  would  have  to  be  used  to  finance  the 
opening up of new datasets in other areas was considered but not retained. While it could 
lead to  a  stronger  data  supply  overall, it  would risk  keeping  the  most  valuable  datasets 
behind a paywall, and monitoring the system would be costly. 

Data in the transport and utilities sector 

  The higher intensity option would cover public undertakings and also private entities 
operating on the basis of concessions in the transport and utilities sector. The full set 
of rules of the Directive would apply. 

  The  lower  intensity  option  would  cover  only  public  undertakings.  A  limited  set  of 
obligations  would  apply:  Public  undertakings  could  continue  to  charge  above 
marginal costs for dissemination and would be under no obligation to release the data 
they  do  not  want  to  release.  2003  rules  of  the  PSI  Directive  would  apply  (as 
explained in the table on p. 31). Moreover, public undertakings would not be covered 
by  the  requirements  applicable  to  the  processing  of  requests  for  the  re-use  of  their 
data. 

The  choice  to  limit  the  extension  of  scope  only  to  public  undertakings  covered  by 
Directive 2014/25/EU was motivated by the need to ensure legal certainty (reference to 
established  legal  definitions  with  related  case  law)  and  the  fact  that  the  services  of 
general  interest  in  the  economic  sectors  referred  to  in  the  said  Directive  are  typically 
carried out by public undertakings rather than solely by public sector bodies. 

125 The option of a list of freely re-usable high-value datasets is based on the existing EU commitment to 
enable  open  re-use  of  14  categories  of  key  datasets,  expressed  in  the  G8  Open  Data  Charter.  NB.:  the 
Delegated Act would be subject to a separate Impact Assessment and consultation process. 
126 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

29 

 
                                                            
Research data 

  The  higher  intensity  option  would  introduce  in  the  PSI  Directive  a  complete  set  of 
provisions to be transposed in binding national legislation mandating all researchers 
in the EU to make all research results – publications and research data – available in 
Open  Access  (a  top-down  European  legislative  Open  Access  mandate).  It  would 
define the legal re-usability of such data within the scientific community and beyond. 
It  would  thus  harmonise  Open  Access  policies  that  are  currently  defined  either  at 
national  level  or  at  the  level  of  individual  research  funders.  It  would  in  particular 
define  a  common  European  framework  on  all  aspects  of  Open  Access,  including 
embargo  periods  for  publications,  opt-outs  from  Open  Access  obligations  and 
sanctions  for  researchers  not  complying  with  the  Open  Access  mandate.  The 
Commission Recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific information 
from  2012  would  address  accompanying  measures,  e.g.  incentives  to  researchers  as 
part  of  policies  and  legislation  on  scientific  career,  the  development  of  relevant 
infrastructures and preservation.  

  The  lower  intensity  option  would  limit  the  hard  law  intervention  through  a  revised 
PSI Directive to only cover research data (and not scientific publications) that have 
been  made  publicly  available  as  a  result  of  Open  Access  funder  mandates  and  to 
ensure  the  legal  re-usability  of  such  research  data  within  the  scientific  community 
and beyond. This would address the issue of quite heterogeneous licensing practices 
for  research  data,  as  reported  also  by  stakeholders.  It  would  still  oblige  Member 
States  to  develop  policies  for  Open  Access  to  research  data  resulting  from  publicly 
funded  research,  but 
this.  An  updated 
Recommendation  to  Member  States  on  access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific 
information  would  guide  Member  States  on  the  elements  ideally  contained  in  an 
Open Access policy. 

leave  flexibility  on  how 

they  do 

Non-exclusivity 

  The  higher  intensity  option  would  prohibit  arrangements  that  lead  to  the  lock-in  of 

public sector information. 

  The  lower  intensity  option  would  set  transparency  requirements  for  public-private 
agreements  involving  public  sector  information  (public  and  transparent  scrutiny  of 
the  process  leading  to  the  conclusion  of  the  contract  and  publication  of  the  actual 
agreement).  

In  all  scenarios  the  legislative  update  would  be  an  occasion  to  clarify  the  relation 
between  the  PSI  Directive  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Database  and  the  INSPIRE 
Directives  on  the  other  hand.  The  intervention  would  clarify  that  the  sui  generis  right 
included in the Database Directive cannot be exercised by public sector bodies to prevent 
or restrict the re-use of documents under the PSI Directive, and that the provisions of the 
PSI Directive, including on charging, fully apply to INSPIRE datasets. 

The identified options are combined into  two main packages, one with all elements of 
lower  legislative  intensity,  and  the  other  one  with  all  elements  of  higher  legislative 

30 

 
intensity, for the reasons described on p. 27 above. The table below gives an overview of 
the two packages and indicates how they would be implemented in the Directive. 

In  order  to  balance  the  rigid  dichotomy  of  a  'soft'  and  'hard'  intervention  logic  and  to 
present  a  more  realistic  choice  to  the  stakeholders,  the  two  policy  options  of  different 
levels  of  intensity  are  accompanied  by  a  soft-law  measure  in  the  form  of  an  updated 
Recommendation  on  access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific  information  and  by  a 
separate Delegated Act with a list of high value datasets. The Delegated Act (part of the 
lower  intensity  option)  can  be  seen  as  a  bridge  between  the  two  main  policy  options, 
since  it  applies  the  solutions  assessed  under  the  'higher  intensity'  scenario,  albeit  to  a 
limited set of reference data.  

The  'intermediate'  intervention  action  consisting  of  a  Delegated  Act  with  a  list  of  high 
value  datasets  reflects  the  fact  that  the  range  of  intervention  measures  cannot  be  easily 
split  into  two  separate  sets  of  actions  along  the intensity  factor.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
included as a part of the 'low intensity' policy option rather than a separate policy option 
in order to facilitate stakeholder feedback (and related cost/benefit assessment) and in the 
light of the requirement that the adoption of the Delegated Act should be preceded by a 
separate  future  Impact  Assessment  (i.e.  an  inclusion  of  a  separate  intermediate  policy 
option at this stage would be premature).  

Policy options of lower and higher regulatory intervention intensity – 
implementation modalities in the PSI Directive 

Lower intensity 

Higher intensity 

Dynamic data 

Charging 

Scope 
(research data) 

Binding measures: Strengthening the current rules on 
data  formats  (Article  5)  by  adding  an  obligation  for 
public  sector  bodies  that  already  produce  dynamic 
data  to  make  all  such  data  available  for  re-use 
immediately  after  collection,  and  to  systematically 
use APIs. 

Binding  measures:  While  not 
the 
principle  of  full  gratuity,  eliminating  the  current 
exceptions  to  the  rule  that  charges  can  cover  at 
maximum the marginal costs of dissemination. 

introducing 

for 

Binding  measures:  Adding  a  reference  in  the 
Directive  to  incentivise  public  sector  bodies  to 
re-use 
make  dynamic  data  available 
immediately  after  collection  (or  at  least  in  a 
timeframe  that  does  not  unduly  impair  the 
exploitation  of  their  economic  potential),  and  to 
use APIs.  
Binding  measures  (intermediate  intensity):  There 
would  be  an  obligation  to  use  APIs  for  the 
availability of high-value datasets (see below). 

Binding  measures:  Stipulating  that  the  default 
rule  is  zero  charges  or  charges  limited  to  the 
marginal  costs.  Limiting  the  range  of  situations 
under which exceptions to marginal cost charging 
would  be  possible  while  specifying  (in  line  with 
Notice  2014/C  240/01)  the  eligibility  of  costs 
covered.  Publishing  the  list  of  public  sector 
bodies  that  could  apply  charges  above  marginal 
costs. 

intensity): 
Binding  measures 
Defining  high  value  datasets  to  be  released  at 
zero charge across the EU via a Delegated Act.  

(intermediate 

Binding  measures:  Extending 
publicly funded research data: 
-  Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  develop 

the  scope 

to 

Binding  measures:  Extending  the  scope  to  publicly 
funded research data by laying down detailed rules on 
Open  Access  (including  options  on  how  to  comply, 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
policies  for  Open  Access 
to  research  data 
resulting  from  publicly  funded  research,  while 
keeping flexibility on the specific details.  
-  For  research  data  that  already  are  accessible 
through  repositories,  the  Directive  would  ensure 
re-usability  within  the  scientific  community  and 
beyond.  
Soft  law:  Update  of  the  Recommendation  on 
Scientific Information 

Scope (data in 
the transport 
and utilities 
sectors): 

Binding measures: Extending the scope to: 
-  public  undertakings  in  the  utilities  sectors 
covered  by  Public  Procurement  Directive 
2014/25/EU127  and  public  undertakings  acting  as 
public  service  operators  under  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1370/2007128. 

for 

re-use, 

transparency, 

The  default  rules  of  the  original  PSI  Directive 
(2003  rules)  would  apply:  where  data  is  made 
available 
non-
discrimination,  maximum  charges  based  on  full-
cost  and  reasonable  return  on  investment,  and 
non-exclusivity  requirements  would  be  required. 
Public undertakings would not be covered by the 
requirements  applicable  to  the  processing  of 
requests for the re-use of their data. 

Non- 
exclusivity: 

There would be a reference to data that should be 
openly available, in line with relevant sectoral EU 
legislation, to ensure that existing obligations are 
respected129. 

Binding measures: Strengthen the current  article 
on  exclusive  arrangements  in  the  Directive  by 
introducing  a  procedural  safeguard.  This  would 
require making public (ex ante, i.e. before taking 
effect)  the  terms  of  arrangements  with  private 
sector  players  involving  the  re-use  of  public 
sector data where there is a risk of the lock-in of 
public sector data. In addition, the final text of the 
agreement should also be publicly available. 

embargo periods, rules on opt-outs from Open Access 
obligations, enforcement). 

Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  ensure  that  all 
publicly  funded  research  data  is  available  in  open 
access and fully re-usable. 
Soft 
Scientific Information 

the  Recommentation  on 

law:  Update  of 

Binding measures: Extending the scope to: 
-  public  undertakings  in  the  utilities  sectors  covered 
by  Public  Procurement  Directive  2014/25/EU  and  to 
private  and  public  undertakings  acting  as  public 
service  operators  under  Regulation 
(EC)  No 
1370/2007; 
-  private  economic  operators  which  have  been 
awarded  a  concession,  as  defined  in  Directive 
2014/23/EU130,  pursuing  one  of  the  activities  in  the 
transport and utilities sectors. 

The  default  rules  of  the  PSI  Directive  would  apply 
(marginal  cost  charging,  transparency,  data  formats, 
processing of requests, etc.). 

There  would  be  a  reference  to  data  that  should  be 
openly  available,  in  line  with  relevant  sectoral  EU 
legislation,  to  ensure  that  existing  obligations  are 
respected. 

Binding  measures:  Strengthen  the  current    article  on 
exclusive  arrangements  to  prohibit  the  conclusion  of 
agreements  between  the  public  sector  bodies  and 
private  companies  that  may  lead  to  the  lock-in  of 
public sector data. 

127  Directive 2014/25/EU on  procurement  by  entities  operating  in  the water,  energy,  transport and postal 
services sectors. 
128 Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road. 
129  Such  as  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1926  of  31  May  2017  in  the  area  of  transport 
data and other EU acts in the areas of water or energy provision mentioned in section 2.2.4.1. 
130 Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                            
5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage 

1) Discontinuing existing EU action 

This  option  would  remove  the  safety  net  provided  at  the  EU  level  by  the  established 
minimum PSI re-use rules. By leaving Member States free to act in the area previously 
subject  to  harmonised  EU  rules,  it  would  give  rise  to  increased  legal  uncertainty  and 
divergence of national approaches, to the detriment of competition in the internal market 
for re-use of PSI, and to the detriment of the functioning of the Digital Single Market. 

2) Soft law measures only 

While  the  use  of  this  option  can  be  a  non-intrusive  way  of  addressing  the  problems 
identified, this option was discarded based on the experience gained with the two existing 
soft law measures. Although they have fulfilled a useful function in providing clarity and 
giving a general direction to Member States, due to their non-binding character they have 
been  taken  up  with  different  intensity  in  the  different  countries.  Also,  they  cannot  be 
relied  upon  by  re-users  who  are  looking  for  legal  certainty.  Finally,  soft  law  measures 
cannot fully prevent the development of regulatory divergences among Member States.  

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

6.1.  Economic and data-specific impacts of the retained options 

Based on the available evidence and the extensive earlier analytical work in this area, the 
Impact  Assessment  study  calculated  a  baseline  of  the  total  direct  economic  value  of 
public sector information for the EU28 of 52 billion EUR in 2018. The direct economic 
value is expected to increase until 2030 to 149 billion EUR (+185%).  

This development is expected to be triggered through different supply and demand side 
factors. On the supply side, an increasing number of public sector bodies is expected to 
open up their data due to the Directive, in addition to the increase in the re-use and value 
of  data  that  is  already  available  for  re-use.  On  the  demand  side,  it  is  expected  that  an 
increasing  number  of  stakeholders  will  take  advantage  of  more  ample  PSI  in  re-usable 
formats and of higher availability of APIs. 

As a consequence, the amount of data from various sources is expected to be higher in 
the future than today, while – simultaneously – its quality is expected to increase as well. 
This is expected to lead to an increased use of PSI by businesses, public authorities, as 
well as end users (through apps). Moreover, a decline of operational costs to acquire and 
process  PSI  is  expected  to  enable  businesses  to  develop  more  and  better  PSI-based 
services. This is expected to result in an increased economic value over time as the user 
base of PSI increases. 

The graph below displays the expected development of direct economic value of PSI in 
the lower intensity and the higher intensity scenario, compared to the baseline scenario. 
The first scenario (policy option 1) is based on a combination of all the lower intensity 
regulatory elements described above. The second scenario (policy option 2) is based on a 

33 

 
combination  of  all  the  higher  intensity  regulatory  elements.  The  estimates  have  been 
modelled as an S-curve. With specific regard to PSI, this means that at some point in the 
future  (+/-  year  2028)  the  economic  value  of  PSI  is  expected  to  grow  at  a  shrinking 
margin. Reasons for this can be, for example, that the most important data sources have 
been opened up and provided in a re-usable format. Moreover, in the saturation phase of 
the  market,  most  consumers  are  expected  to  have  purchased  PSI-based  goods  and 
services.  Therefore,  the  growth  curve  typically  “flattens  out”  in  the  saturation  phase  of 
the market. 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

 225 €  
 200 €  
 175 €  
 150 €  
 125 €  
 100 €  
 75 €  
 50 €  

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Baseline Scenario

Policy Option 1

Policy Option 2

Figure 4 - Impact of the different Policy Options on the direct economic value of PSI (EU28, 2018-2030) 
Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018   

In 2028, i.e. the year in which the relative differences in economic value are expected to 
be largest between the policy options, the value could increase to: 

  EUR  194  billion  if  the  lower  intensity  regulatory  intervention  was  introduced 

(+ EUR 142 billion, 273%); and 

  EUR  215  billion  if  the  higher  intensity  regulatory  intervention  was  introduced 

(+ EUR 163 billion, 313%). 

Both scenarios are considerably better than the baseline scenario, and in terms of impact 
the higher intensity regulatory intervention trumps the lower intensity scenario. 

In  terms  of  job  creation,  today  64,000  persons  are  employed  based  on  PSI  re-use.  In 
2027, i.e. the year in which the relative differences in the number of persons employed in 
the  (data-driven)  economy  are  expected  to  be  largest  between  the  policy  options,  the 
value  could  increase  to  709,000  persons  based  on  the  lower  intensity  regulatory 
intervention  and  795,000  based  on  the  higher  intensity  regulatory  intervention.  This  is 
considerably  higher  than  the  baseline  scenario  (518,000  persons  employed).131  This 
figure  may  seem  very  high,  but  the  example  of  Transport  for  London  mentioned  in 
section  2.2.4.  (730  extra  jobs  created  based  on  TfL  data)  indicates  the  potential  for 
innovation and economic activity powered by open data. 

As for the cost of making PSI available for re-use, under the baseline scenario it will be 
in the region of 3.8 billion EUR by 2030. The lower intensity intervention is expected to 
reduce it to almost 3 billion EUR, and the higher intensity intervention could lead to an 

131 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

34 

 
 
                                                            
 
even greater reduction to 2.5 billion EUR (approx. 21% and 34% lower than the baseline, 
respectively).132 

Three main elements were taken into account in the Impact Assessment study to estimate 
the costs and their development: 

 

 
 

the  number  of  affected  stakeholders  and  their  expected  development  (i.e. 
contracting  authorities,  cultural  institutions,  entities  in  the  transport  and  utilities 
sectors, and research establishments); 
the expected average cost per year to open PSI per stakeholder133; and 
the projected decrease of the annual costs based on the growth model applied for 
this study (see also Annex 8). 

The costs and their development in the baseline scenario are subject to two variables: the 
increasing number of public authorities and businesses affected by / using PSI, as well as 
the decline in costs based on theory and assumptions used in the growth model (see also 
Annex 8). 

Similar to the increase of the economic value of PSI, the decrease in costs to acquire and 
process PSI is driven by both its increased availability and use: through additional public 
sector bodies opening up their data, businesses are expected to be able to develop more 
and  better  PSI-based  services.  These  services  correspond  to  an  increased  need  by  end-
users for such services which, in turn, is expected to translate into increased turnover for 
businesses, and better performance of public sector bodies.134 This does not only improve 
stakeholders  experience  with  PSI  but  also  enables  investments  in  the  quality  and  re-
usability  of  PSI  by  public  sector  bodies.  Thus,  data  provision  and  service  development 
are expected to become more efficient. This is expected to translate into lowered costs for 
both the provision of re-usable PSI, and its acquisition and processing by businesses. 

6.1.1.  Baseline scenario 
Chapter  8.2.1.  of  the  Impact  Assessment  study  includes  a  detailed  description  of  the 
trends  underlying  the  overall  estimated  impact  of  the  baseline  scenario  (treated  for  the 
purpose of the study as a separate policy option). For instance, apart from the beneficial 
effects of the legislative framework already in place, the number of companies using data 
is  expected  to  steadily  increase  by  182%  until  2030  while  the  share  of  employment  in 
knowledge-intensive sectors is expected to increase until 2030 to about 52% of EU's total 
labour force. The baseline scenario does therefore present a growth curve, starting with 
the current total economic value of PSI of 236 billion Euro. It is expected that this value 
could  increase  to  672  billion  Euro  in  2030,  or  to  EUR  150  billion  in  terms  of  direct 

132 Ibid. 
133  Based  on  interviews,  secondary  resources,  feedback  received  during  the  "Open  Research  Data" 
workshop.  The  estimate  included  costs  concerning  hard-  and  software  (IT  equipment,  programs  and 
licences, computers and servers), as well as related services (legal and IT services, audits and tests, APIs). 
In addition, the estimate contained salaries and training costs. 
134 For example, more public services can be provided with better quality and in a faster manner. 

35 

 
                                                            
economic impact (assuming a ratio of 3.5 – 3.8 between direct and indirect value, based 
on earlier studies).  

The following sections of the report, in line with the Impact Assessment study, assess the 
impact of the two policy options defined in chapter 5.2. with reference to the trends and 
figures presented for the baseline scenario in the current section. 

Despite the overall positive trend, the lack of policy reaction to the identified problems 
would  not  allow  the  expected  benefits  of  open  data  to  fully  develop.  For  example,  a 
mismatch between the provision of the kind of data sought after by commercial re-users 
(real-time data streamed via APIs, data relevant for utility sectors such as transport and 
energy)  and  the  kind  of  data  generally  offered  by  public  sector  bodies  can  lead  to  the 
waning  of  interest  in  public  datasets  on  the  part  of  re-users,  especially  if  the  methods 
used to allow acces are outdated.135 

While  the  ongoing  efforts  to  open  up  data  on  the  sectoral  level  (mentioned  in  chapter 
2.2.4.1)  would  contribute  to  the  overall  growth  of  data  re-use,  and  the  associated 
expected  benefits136,  the  disparities  in  data  availability  and  the  risk  of  market 
fragmentation across the EU would not be fully addressed, e.g. in the area of charging the 
status  quo  would  solidify  current  practices  with  regard  to  high-value  datasets.  Larger 
companies with sufficient means to acquire data would fortify their market position while 
the  smaller  commercial  re-users  would  be  forced  to  try  to  innovate  on  other,  less 
attractive datasets. Similar considerations apply to the exclusivity issue. 

6.1.2.  Policy Option 1 - Packaged solution: lower intensity of regulatory intervention 
This  option  combines  all  the  elements,  both  binding  and  non-binding,  with  the  lower 
overall intensity of regulatory intervention. 

This option is likely to increase the availability of dynamic data and the use of modern 
dissemination  tools,  while  taking  into  account  the  technological  maturity  level  of  the 
public sector body in question. A soft obligation (not applicable across the board) would 
have an impact on the bodies holding high value data while minimising costs for smaller 
entities.  It  would  thus  be  a  proportionate  and  efficient  way  of  addressing  this  problem 
area. An obligation can, however, be introduced for a limited number of datasets. 

Focus on APIs 

The main cost-creating element of both policy packages is the implementation and maintenance 
of APIs. Costs involved depend on many different factors including existing data infrastructures, 
operational  costs  due  to  the  scale  of  data  re-use  (number  of  API  requests),  as  well  as  the  data 
itself (number of records, size, frequency of update, etc.).   

Based on current software as a service (SAAS) offers it is possible to establish a range of costs 
depending  on  the  size  of  the  dataset  and  the  number  of  API  requests.  It  is  very  common  for  a 

135 See: Finnish open data re-users' opinions in 'Working together towards open data business', 
https://www.databusiness.fi/content/uploads/2017/10/20171106_WorkingTogetherTowards_WEB.pdf. 
136 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

36 

 
 
 
                                                            
high-value key dataset to reach several million of API calls per year, and in some cases several 
billion.  Therefore,  the  price  range  from  2,400  EUR  per  year  for  up  to  7.3  million  API  calls  to 
150,000 EUR per year for up to 1.2 billion API calls seems a good fit to estimate the cost of API 
for key datasets in EU. 

In the G8 Open Data Charter 14 categories of high-value datasets were identified which should 
be  opened  in  high  quality  and  through  API  access.  A  requirement  to  make  these  datasets 
available  through  APIs  would  imply  a  cost  ranging  from  a  minimum  of  30,000  EUR  to  a 
maximum of 2,000,000 EUR per year for each Member State.137  

The costs of delivering data through APIs will decrease considerably in the coming years: as the 
market will adapt to the demand, more and more IT systems and open data platforms will provide 
embedded  API  features  by  default  (it  is  already  common).  Moreover,  the  advance  of  software 
development  will  make  it  easier  and  cheaper  to  implement  an  API  on  top  of  any  data  source. 
Finally, the cost of delivering data through an API is related to the cost of data infrastructures. 
According to the Moore’s Law, those costs will continue to decrease in the next years.   

As  for  charging,  the  principle  of  marginal  costs  for  dissemination  was  established  in 
2013  based  on  the  evidence  presented  at  the  time  (Impact  Assessment).  All  the 
arguments  still  hold,  as  verified  in  practice:  in  France,  abandoning  the  cost-recovery 
model for the data held by the National Geographic Institute (NGI) led to an increase in 
the volume of data downloaded by 20 times and generated around 114 million EUR of 
benefits for the public, against a costs for the NGI of around 6 million EUR138. It is clear 
that the direct and indirect benefits of free-of-charge re-use can be high, for all classes of 
stakeholders. First, a substantial lowering of charges leads to a corresponding important 
increase  in  the  demand  for  data.139  Secondly,  low  or  zero-cost  charges  lead  to  more 
economic activity: evidence correlates cheap data with 15% faster growth.140 And more 
economic  activity  leads  to  more  tax  income.141  It  is  also  clear  that  the  cost-recovery 
model  of  charging  (i.e.  above  marginal  costs)  creates  a  market  barrier142.  Furthermore, 
prices impose unnecessary transaction costs on users.143  

Finally,  free re-use is  also shown to  lead to efficiency gains for the public sector.144 In 
Denmark  30%  of  the  benefits  of  opening  address  data  accrued  to  the  public  sector145, 
while  efficiency  gains  thanks  to  open  geospatial  data  reached  22  million  DK  over  4 

137 This assumes that instead of using open source solutions (e.g. CKAN), MS would opt for 'open data as a 
service'  platforms,  which  include  additional  functionalities,  such  as  data  processing  and  storage,  making 
them more expensive to maintain. Open-source solutions would be less costly. 
138 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
139 See Chapter 2.2.3 on the macroeconomic considerations in favour of a zero-charge policy. 
140 Does Marginal Cost Pricing of Public Sector Information Spur Firms Growth ?, Heli Koski, 2011. 
141 See Impact Assessment 2011 PSI Review.  
142 Trojette, M.A. (2013), ‘Rapport au Premier Ministre. Ouverture des données publiques. Les Exceptions 
au principe de gratuité sont-elles toutes légitimes?’.  
143  Permission  granted:  The  economic  value  of  data  assets  under  alternative  policy  regimes,  A  Lateral 
Economics report for the Open Data Institute, 2016, p.14. 
144  De  Vries,  M.,  Kapff,  L.,  Negreiro  Achiaga,  M.,  Wauters,  P.,  Osimo,  D.,  Foley,  P.,  Szkuta,  K., 
O'Connor, J., and Whitehouse, D. "POPSIS – Pricing of Public Sector Information Study." (2011). 
145  DECA,  2010.  “The  value  of  the  Danish  address  data:  Social  benefits  from  the  2002  agreement  on 
procuring address data etc. free of charge”.  

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
years.146  A  shift  from  a  cost-recovery  to  an  open-access  regime  is  likely  to  more  than 
double the value of the re-use of the data.147  

The  lower  intensity  regulatory  intervention  should  strike  a  good  balance  between  the 
needs of the public sector  on the one hand  and the impact on the data economy on the 
other:  it  would  allow  entities  across  the  EU  to  continue  charging  for  the  re-use  of  PSI 
when  really  essential  (e.g.  where  the  continuation  of  producing  the  dataset  depends  on 
the income generated), while enhancing transparency and legal certainty for the re-users 
(by  bringing  the  current  exceptions  down  to  one  single  rule  and  by  clarifying  which 
bodies  are  allowed  to  apply  charges,  as  is  already  the  case  e.g.  in  France).  This 
incremental change is not expected to create administrative burden or raise costs for the 
vast majority of public sector bodies (as they do not apply charges). This option is at the 
same time preferred by a majority of all respondents to the public online consultation. To 
attenuate  the  negative  effect  of  maintaining  the  exceptions,  a  Delegated  Act  would 
identify a set of high-value datasets for free (or marginal cost) re-use, thus acting as an 
'intermediate'  policy  option,  by  applying  higher  level  requirements  to  a  limited  set  of 
data,  from  a  limited  set  of  public  bodies.  The  baseline  for  the  Delegated  Act  would be 
constituted by the dataset categories listed in the G8 Open Data Charter148. However, the 
final selection would be drawn up by the Commission after consulting the experts and the 
concerned stakeholders, and in line with the findings of a separate Impact Assessment. 

in 

in 

included 

line  with 

the  updated  guidance 

With  regard  to  scientific  information  and  research  data,  the  lower  intensity  option 
would  leave  it  to  the  Member  States  to  define  the  specificities  of  the  Open  Access 
obligations (scope, level  of obligations, embargos, rules on opt-outs  from Open Access 
the 
obligations,  enforcement), 
Recommendation  on  access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific  information149,  and  extend 
hard  law  obligations  only  to  research  data  (and  not  scientific  publications)  and  only  to 
such  research  data  that  have  been  made  publicly  available  as  a  result  of  Open  Access 
funder mandates through existing digital repositories.150 It would be limited to ensuring 
the legal re-usability of such research data within the scientific community and beyond. It 
would limit the capacity of researchers to define restrictive terms of usage. This is in line 
with  current  Open  Access  mandates  that,  however,  are  implemented  at  the  level  of 
individual  grant  agreements  and  are  thus  only  enforceable  between  the  parties  to  the 
agreement. Potential re-users currently have no specific rights to re-use such data. On the 
other  hand,  it  would  leave  flexibility  to  Member  States  and  funding  bodies  in  Member 
States  to  define  the  exact  terms  and  the  enforcement  mechanisms,  leaving  room  for 
heterogeneous  funding  models  of  research  establishments  and  individual  research 

146http://sdfe.dk/media/2917052/20170317-the-impact-of-the-open-geographical-data-management-
summary-version-13-pwc-qrvkvdr.pdf  
147  "Permission  granted:  The  economic  value  of  data  assets  under  alternative  policy  regimes",  A  Lateral 
Economics report for the Open Data Institute, March 2016, p. 22. 
148 Full list of data categories: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-charter/g8-open-
data-charter-and-technical-annex  
149 C(2018) 2375. 
150 According to a landscaping study of research data repositories, 96.6% are operated on a not-for-profit 
basis, cf. Kindling et al., The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015: A re3data Analysis. 

38 

 
                                                            
actions. This would be fully coherent with the updated Recommendation on access to and 
preservation  of  scientific  information151,  forming  a  part  of  the  broader  2018  Data 
Package. It would also ensure that data which is currently accessible  (but in fact rarely 
re-used)  would  not  only  be  subject  to  common  and  harmonised  rules  describing  the 
conditions under which data can be made available (including costs), but also practically 
searchable  and  discoverable,  as  is  the  case  with  other  public  datasets.  Finally,  the low-
intensity solution would avoid any burden on research establishments or even individual 
researchers that otherwise would be confronted with request for access to research data 
that  is  not  (yet)  openly  accessible  through  a  repository.  Such  requests  –  even  if  to  be 
rejected – could constitute an unnecessary administrative burden. 

With regard to data held by public undertakings in the transport and utility sectors, 
the  lower  intensity  option  would  primarily  focus  on  ensuring  a  fair  market  for 
downstream  re-use.  It  is  expected  that  the  economic  impact  of  this  option  would  be 
relatively  limited  from  the  point  of  view  of  data  supply.  It  would  however,  lead  to 
substantially  lower  compliance  costs,  because  public  undertakings  would  be  free  to 
decide if they want to open up their data or not. In this way it would also minimise the 
effect of imbalance (in terms of openness requirements) between the private companies 
and public undertakings in transport and utility domains active in the same markets. This 
solution would also be coherent with the interlinking EU legislation imposing data access 
requirements on the sectoral level, ensuring synergies rather than potentially conflicting 
norms. 

With  regard  to  'data  lock-in'  effect,  the  low  intensity  option  would  further  discourage 
agreements with negative consequences for market access by ensuring transparency and 
scrutiny  of  agreements  both  by  potential  competitors  and  citizens  (allowing  them  to 
challenge  it  under  national  redress  procedures).  It  would  also  maintain  a  fair  level  of 
competition for public datasets, thereby increasing the probability of the most innovative 
re-use with the highest socio-economic benefit. At the same time, the option would not 
deter private entities from seeking to conclude agreements with public sector bodies. It 
would nevertheless increase both parties' awareness as to the potential negative impact on 
the  market  and  encourage  them  to  put  in  place  suitable  safeguards  (e.g.  introducing 
collaboration mechanisms that minimise the risk of deals having a 'data lock-in' effect). 

The figure below from the Impact Assessment study indicates how the different elements 
of this option contribute to its impact compared to the baseline option.  

151 C(2018) 2375. 

39 

 
                                                            
Figure 5 - Impacts of the different elements of the lower intensity regulatory intervention Policy Option on the 
direct economic value of PSI (EU28, 2018-2030)  
Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018 

6.1.3.  Policy Option 2 – Packaged solution: higher intensity regulatory intervention  
Compulsory use of APIs and wide release of dynamic data would enhance the creation 
of  commercial,  value-added  services  based  on  dynamic  data.  Easier  data  access  would 
also improve the provision of public services (by enhancing intra-government data flows, 
as  is  the  case  in  Estonia  and  France).  However,  a  strict  obligation  to  use  APIs  for  all 
public  databases,  applying  to  all  levels  of  government  and  without  regard  to  the  actual 
technical  readiness  of  the  administration  would  place  a  large  financial  burden  on  the 
public  sector.  This  could  be  particularly  problematic  for  smaller  public  sector 
organisations that do not have IT expertise in-house, since they would need to outsource 
the implementation and maintenance of APIs in their systems, generating additional costs 
in the process. 

As for charging, the immediate abolition of the possibility to generate income from data 
assets would have  a  considerable impact on institutions that cover their  operating costs 
via the sale of PSI. Based on the estimated volume of income from PSI re-use generated 
from  providing  commercial  access  to  geospatial  reference  data  for  28  EU  MS  being  in 
the  order  of  120  million  EUR,  and  assuming  that  geospatial  sector  encompasses  the 
largest  single  set  of  public  bodies  that  charge  for  the  data  (next  to  business  registers152 
and meteorological institutes), we could expect the total revenue loss caused by moving 
to  a zero-charge regime to  be in  the order  of approximately 300  million EUR annually 
across the EU.153  

The overall impact across Europe would be mitigated by a) the fact that the PSI re-use 
revenues of public sector bodies are often small when compared to the total budget of the 

152 It should be noted that under The Company Law Directive 2017/1132, the charging regime for business 
registers is specific. The forthcoming Company Law Package will widen the range of data to be provided 
free of charge.  
153  This  order  of  magnitude  is  supported  by  national  estimates,  see:  minutes  of  the  last  PSI  Group, 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/public-sector-information-group-main-page    

40 

 
 
                                                            
public sector body concerned154, b) few public sector bodies in each country (outside the 
cultural  sector)  actually  charge  for  the  re-use  of  data155  and  c)  cheaper  data  leads  to 
higher economic activity and indirectly – higher budget revenues in the long run.156 

Nevertheless, this option presents certain risks.  While the evidence157 demonstrates that 
the benefits of opening up public sector information largely outweigh the costs and the 
foregone  revenues  of  individual  public  sector  bodies,  the  macroeconomic  benefits 
(including  higher  government  revenue)  appear  on  an  aggregate  budgetary  level  and 
therefore only kick in later, requiring transitory financing arrangements, e.g. in order to 
keep the quality of the datasets at a high level.158 Public sector bodies charging above the 
marginal  costs  of  dissemination  are  generally  afraid  that  the  economic  and  societal 
benefits as a whole will not be compensated by the Treasury in their individual budgets. 
Therefore,  overall  the  higher  intensity  regulatory  intervention  as  regards  charging  does 
not strike a good balance between the needs of the public sector on the one hand and the 
impact on the data economy on the other. 

With regard to scientific information, the higher intensity option would, along the lines 
included  in  the  updated  Recommendation  on  access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific 
information159,  harmonise  Open  Access  policies  that  are  currently  defined  either  at 
national level or at the level of individual research funders for the entire EU. This would 
have  positive  effects  within  the  scientific  community  (a  level  playing  field  as  all 
researchers are subject to identical obligations in terms of Open Access to their research 
results,  higher  transparency  of  results  leading  to  less  plagiarism,  more  efficient  peer-
review and reduction of costs for data acquisition).  

The  Impact  Assessment  study  lists  many  of  examples  illustrating  that  Open  Access  to 
research  data  leads  to  faster  discovery  and  increased  innovation.  For  instance,  in  the 
context of the Human Genome Project, open access to genome sequencing data led to a 
whole  range  of  products  and  services  and  ultimately  lowered  the  price  of  DNA 
sequencing from 82 million EUR to 4,074 EUR between 2001 and 2013.160  

While this option would be coherent with the European Commission's current policy on 
Open Science (as reflected in Horizon 2020 rules) and while stakeholders and Member 
States  strongly  support  Open  Access,  the  move  to  hard  law  in  this  area  should  be 
addressed in a gradual manner over a longer span of time. This would allow the research 
community  and  other  research  stakeholders  to  voice  their  opinions  and  to  treat  the 
question in process that includes bottom-up elements as far as possible.  

154 Ibid. 
155 For example, fewer than 10 public sector bodies charge in the UK, and only 3 in France. 
156 http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/Open_Data_Study_Final_Report.pdf, Chapter 2. 
157https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/pricing-public-sector-information-study-popsis-
models-supply-and-charging-public-sector  
158 Marc de Vries, ABOUT GMES AND DATA : GEESE AND GOLDEN EGGS, 2012, p. 35. 
159 C(2018) 2375. 
160E. Hayden, Technology: The $1,000 genome”. Nature 507, 294–295 (20 March 2014). 

41 

 
                                                            
A substantial initial influx of new data held by both public undertakings and private 
operators  from  the  transport  and  utilities  sector  could  also  be  expected.  However, 
obligations to allow re-use (Article 3), coupled with the obligation to apply the principle 
of charging marginal cost for dissemination (Article 6) would bring a noticeable burden 
on entities active in the transport and utility domains. In addition, an obligation to open 
up data could be perceived to have a negative impact on investment in sensors and data 
collection  by  entities  active  in  the  transport  and  utility  domains,  out  of  fear  of 
strengthening  competitors  who  would  not  be  subject  to  such  an  obligation.  This  could 
affect  the  capacities  of  entities in  the  transport and  utility  domains  to  innovate  and  has 
often been brought as an argument against a strong horizontal intervention on EU level in 
this area.161  

Finally,  a  full-fledged  prohibition  of  arrangements  leading  to  'data  lock-in'  would 
discourage  private  companies  from  approaching  public  institutions  in  search  of 
preferential  treatment  in  terms  of  data  access  and  use,  with  a  positive  impact  on 
competition  and  market  access  by  start-ups  and  SMEs.    However,  an  outright  ban  on 
arrangements with a risk of a 'data lock-in' effect might also have a chilling effect on the 
private sector, preventing it from seeking any sort of public-private partnership for fear 
of breaching legislation, with an overall negative impact on data-based innovation. 

6.2. 

Impact on SMEs 

The  positive  effect  of  widely  available,  free  of  charge  public  data  is  first  and  foremost 
important  for  start-ups  and  SMEs.  While  open  government  data  is  also  a  source  of 
innovation for large market players, including the online platforms, it is a key ingredient 
for  many  European  start-ups  and  SMEs.162  One  third  of  the  start-ups  involved  in  the 
ODINE incubator stated that not only their business would be negatively affected but that 
they would simply not exist without public data being open.163 Observations from other 
markets corroborate the importance of open data for SMEs.164 

In many cases SMEs struggle to get hold of the relevant data, because of lack of financial 
resources  and  because  they  do  not  have  the  power  to  negotiate  with  dataholders. 
Empirical findings show that the PSI pricing matters for firms’ growth particularly from 
the perspective of SMEs.165 Also, replacing the current system based on requesting data 
by  proactively  making  data  available  through  APIs  will  benefit  SMEs  most,  since they 
often do not have the capacity to deal with the administrative requirements and licencing 

161 See Annex 2. 
162 Examples of SMEs and start-ups that have successfully launched businesses based on open data can be 
found in the evaluation report and on the European Open Data Portal. 
163 D6.3 Business models, lessons learned and success stories, ODINE, p. 40. 
164  Open  Data 
21st  Century 
http://images.thegovlab.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/OpenData-and-SME-Final-
Aug2015.pdf  
165  See  for  example: « Does  Marginal  Cost  Pricing of Public  Sector Information  Spur  Firms  Growth ? », 
Heli Koski, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, 2011. 

and  Medium  Enterprises, 

for  Small 

resource 

– 

a 

42 

 
                                                            
issues. Moreover, many transport and energy apps are produced by SMEs, who stand to 
gain most from better availability of data in these domains.  

Currently,  SMEs  represent  99.8%  of  companies  active  on  the  European  data-market, 
given  the  relatively  modest  initial  capital  investment  necessary  to  launch  a  data-driven 
business. Therefore it is likely that the estimated job growth (645,000 new jobs by 2027) 
based on public sector information will for the large part come from employment created 
by SMEs. 

6.3. 

Social and environmental impacts 

Open  government  data  brings  about  a  whole  range  of  societal  and  environmental 
benefits166, experienced mainly by the end users, i.e. consumers of products and services 
based on open data. For example, it is estimated that open data has the potential to save 
7,000  lives  yearly  thanks  to  quicker  response  in  case  of  cardiac  arrest  and  1,425  lives 
from traffic losses (i.e. 5.5% of the European road fatalities).167 

Apart  from  having  the  potential  to  considerably  increase  the  efficiency  of  government 
through  better  policy  making168,  open  data  helps  in  reducing  the  distance  between 
government  and  citizens  as  regards  access  to  information169  and  generates  significant 
benefits in the areas of social inclusion and civic participation.170 

6.3.1.  Baseline scenario 
In case of the baseline scenario, societal and environmental benefits will be continue to 
be realised to a certain extent, given the implementation of open data policies on EU and 
national level in the last decade. In fact, many countries – both in Europe and beyond – 
have  introduced  open  data  measures  with  societal  objectives  in  mind  (this  is  especially 
the case in less affluent countries where internet penetration is still low171). 

The  main  drawback  of  this  option  of  'no  policy  change'  is  that  the  already  attained 
societal and environmental impacts would not be amplified by additional sources of data. 
Also,  the  barriers  to  data  market  and  shortcomings  in  terms  of  competition  conditions 
would  limit  the  activity  of  smaller  companies,  which  in  turn  would  also  lead  to  a  sub-
optimal use of the available data to create social benefits presented above. 

6.3.2.  Policy Option 1 - Packaged solution: lower intensity regulatory intervention 

The societal and environmental benefits of this option compared to the baseline option lie 
in the first place in the wider availability of data from the transport and utilities sector, 
notably  energy,  as  well  as  research  results.  A  more  efficient  use  of  available  resources 

166 Granickas, K.(2013), ‘Understanding the Impact of Releasing and re-Using Open Government Data’. 
ePSI Platform Topic Report No. 2013/08, August 2013.  
167 Creating Value through Open Data report, European Data Portal, November 2015. 
168 Including 1,7 billion EUR cost savings for EU28 public administrations. 
169 Creating Value through Open Data report, European Data Portal, November 2015. 
170 Granickas, K.(2013), ‘Understanding the Impact of Releasing and re-Using Open Government Data’. 
ePSI Platform Topic Report No. 2013/08, August 2013. p. 13. 
171 For example: http://dataportal.opendataforafrica.org/  

43 

 
                                                            
(e.g. traffic infrastructure and energy grids) can reduce contamination and facilitate urban 
planning  (e.g.  transport  networks  or  extension  of  heating  systems).  In  terms  of  time 
wasted in traffic jams or  waiting in delayed  public transport, open data could save 629 
million  hours  of  waiting  time,  corresponding  to  some  27.9  billion  EUR  a  year.172  As 
regards environmental gains, an example of the UK Windsor and Maidenhead council is 
striking:  after  having  started  to  publish  real-time  data  on  energy  use,  the  council  has 
consumed  16%  less  gas,  electricity,  oil  and  transport  fuel  in  its  buildings  and  vehicles 
since 2009-2010.173 Further examples are given in Annex 9. 

A  similar  argument  can  be  made  for  the  role  of  research  data,  which  by  improving 
scientific processes also helps fight major societal and environmental challenges of our 
times (e.g. health174 or climate change) and in this way increases the overall well-being 
of society. 

In  addition,  establishing  a  list  of  high-value  datasets  to  be  released  as  open  data  and 
limiting exceptions of charging above marginal costs, will significantly expand the use of 
data  for  environmental  and  societal  purposes.  Some  of  the  datasets  concerned  (in  the 
areas of geographic and meteorological data) are particularly relevant for environmental 
action.  As  more  data  is  actually  re-used,  more  societal  and  environmental  beneficial 
outcomes are provided, reinforcing the current trends.175 

6.3.3.  Policy Option 2 – Packaged solution: higher intensity regulatory intervention 

This option can be characterised by similar benefits to the ones presented in the packaged 
solution  1.  However,  given  the  higher  intensity  of  the  measures  proposed  and  the 
resulting  higher  expected  overall  volume  of  data  affected,  it  can  be  assumed  that  the 
overall social and environmental impact of this option would be higher. 

6.4.  Member States' and stakeholders' views 

As  described  in  Annex  2,  the  consultation  process  sought  to  collect  the  views  of  EU 
Member  States  and  stakeholders  by  means  of  an  online  consultation  and  several 
workshops  and  meetings.  The  analysis  contributed  to  an  ex-post  assessment  of  the 
functioning of the current legal framework, along with the exploration of the need for and 
scope of the review of the PSI Directive on various aspects (dynamic data/APIs, charging 
rules,  research  data,  data  held  by  entities  providing  services  of  general  interest, 
relationship with the Database Directive, national access regimes, and barriers to making 
data available).  

To achieve this, the consultation actions tried to reach out to various stakeholders from 
the  public  and  private  sectors:  PSI  holders  and  users,  commercial  and  non-commercial 

172 Ibid. 
173 Ibid. 
174 It is for example estimated that the time it takes to go from lab to medicine can be cut by 10-15 years 
with Open Notebook Science, Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 
175 https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/11/climate-change-open-data-apps-
government-environment-agency   

44 

 
                                                            
re-users, educational and research establishments, public undertakings from the transport 
and  utility  sector.  Member  States  were  also  consulted  in  dedicated  workshops  and  11 
contributed to the online consultation.  

While several workshops collected to a great extent the feedback of PSI holders, 68% of 
the  contributors  to  the  online  questionnaire  declared  being  primarily  interested  in  re-
using PSI. This allowed for an analysis combining sometimes diverging positions of PSI 
holders  and  re-users.  The  analysis  of  the  combined  results  gives  an  indication  of  the 
support  of  the  different  stakeholder  categories  for  the  lower  or  higher  intensity  of 
regulatory intervention.  

Most of the Member States expressed their views either in the online consultation or in 
meetings.  Very  few countries consider  the proposal should be  more ambitious;  in most 
cases  they  expressed  supportive  or  neutral  positions  on  most  of  the  measures  of  lower 
intensity  of  regulatory  intervention.  This  primarily  includes  those  Member  States  that 
have  already  enacted  relevant  legislation  (e.g.  France),  but  also  those  that  do  not  have 
such  provisions.  For  example,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Czech 
Republic all indicated that they are in favour of extending the scope of the Directive. On 
the  charging  rules,  some  were  quite  supportive  (there  are  Member  States  where 
geospatial information is already available for free), but some others expressed concerns 
in the case all exceptions to charging rules were to be eliminated. The idea to fully apply 
PSI rules to public undertakings in the transport and utility sector also received negative 
reactions. Member States were also worried of the potential costs incurred by adding an 
obligation  for  public  bodies  to  make  all  dynamic  data  available  for  re-use  immediately 
after  collection,  or  to  systematically  use  APIs.  Belgium,  Italy,  Luxembourg  and  Malta 
supported the idea that some essential, high-value datasets should be defined at EU level 
and made freely available.  

PSI  holders,  i.e.  public  sector  bodies,  expressed  their  views  in  the  online  consultation 
and were represented in a bigger proportion in some of the workshops. They are overall 
in favour of a  moderate evolution of the PSI Directive. In the online consultation, they 
were  quite  supportive  (although  less  than  the  rest  of  stakeholders)  of  making  efforts  in 
providing dynamic data in real time, including via APIs. They clearly indicated their lack 
of  support  for  the  idea  of  a  drastic  modification  of  the  charging  rules,  although  some 
public bodies already issue information free of charge (geospatial data). There was strong 
support  of  PSI  holders  for  Open  Access  policies  and  for  the  idea  of  a  harmonised  EU 
policy on access to and re-use of scientific information. Still, a few expressed concerns 
linked  to  the  possible  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  PSI  Directive  to  research  data, 
considered to be unnecessarily intrusive and rigid (no one-size fits all).  

PSI re-users have very much used the public online consultation as a channel to express 
their  views.  The  measures  expected  to  allow  for  better  access  to  and  re-use  of  PSI 
received strong support, e.g. access to dynamic / standardised data as well as to data from 
public undertakings. This means that the limited ambition of the changes proposed may 
be contested.  

45 

 
Stakeholders and especially public undertakings in the transport and utility sector, in 
the  online  public  consultation  and  in  a  dedicated  high-level  roundtable,  indicated  that 
they were in favour of a sectoral approach when it comes to defining the conditions for 
making data available for re-use, rather than a horizontal approach. Public undertakings, 
both in submitted papers and at the roundtable, indicated some concerns to be taken into 
account,  such  as  commercial  sensitivity,  personal  data,  and  critical  infrastructure.  They 
also  raised  issues  related  to  administrative  burden  and  their  competitive  position 
compared to private companies active in the same sector. As opposed to the application 
of the full range of PSI Directive rules to their sector, they are expected to be relatively 
open to the suggested changes as long as the necessary safeguards are put in place. 

Finally,  the  educational  and  research  establishments  were  a  specific  stakeholders 
category targeted by both the online consultation and specific workshops. On the possible 
extension of the scope to publicly funded research data, the vast majority of stakeholders 
were supportive of the proposed obligation to put in place Open Access policies, as this 
is fully in line with the 2012 Recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific 
information  and  existing  policies  at  national  level.  Stakeholders  considered  that  issues 
such as administrative burden, intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, protection of 
commercial  interests,  or  the  question  of  the  sustainability  of  scientific  publishing  as  a 
business  model  should  be  taken  into  account.  Overall,  universities  and  research 
establishments fully support Open Access policies and called for a harmonised policy at 
EU  level  and  possibly  beyond.  During  a  workshop,  representatives  of  universities 
nonetheless called for measures to be proportionate and wondered how the heterogeneity 
of  the  status  of  universities  and  of  licensing  practices  could  be  captured  by  a  hard  law 
instrument.  

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

In  line  with  the  European  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines176  and  its 
toolbox177,  most  importantly  tool  63,  the  Impact  Assessment  study  has  carried  out  a 
Multi-Criteria  Analysis  (MCA)178  in  full  detail  in  order  to  take  full  account  of  the 
complexity of the subject matter and the level of granularity of the analyses carried out. 

The ratings of the potential impacts of the baseline scenario and the Policy Options are 
derived from the analysis detailed in section 7 of the study. According to this analysis, 
PO1  (low  intensity  policy  option)  scores  highest  on  the  criterion  of  'coherence'  and 
'efficiency',  whereas  PO2  (high  intensity  intervention)  scores  highest  on  'effectiveness'. 
Both are then compared to the BS (baseline scenario). 

176 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines.pdf   
177 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox_1.pdf   
178 The results of the multi-criteria analysis are available in the Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 
SMART 2017/0061. 

46 

 
                                                            
After performing an outranking matrix, a permutation matrix was established to allow for 
the selection of a final ranking of all the possible Policy Options towards each other. The 
results of this process can be described as PO1-PO2-BS, which means the following: 

  PO1 is the preferred Policy Option as it provides the most favourable 

combination of coherence, effectiveness, and efficiency; 

 

If PO1 cannot be implemented, PO2 would be the second most favourable. 

  The least favourable option is the baseline scenario. 

The  table  below  gives an  overview  of  how  the  options  compare  in  terms  of  efficiency, 
effectiveness, coherence, legal/political feasibility and proportionality. 

Efficiency 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Lower intensity regulatory 
intervention 

The option presents a favourable ratio 
of costs and benefits. It is expected to 
generate slightly lower direct and 
indirect economic benefits than the 
higher intensity option and lead to a 
more moderate decline in the 
(administrative, technical and 
opportunity) costs associated with the 
opening up of PSI. 

This option is expected to address the 
need to adapt to technological changes 
and ensure growth in PSI-based 
services as well as in cross-border re-
use of data, while addressing the 
emerging threats to fair competition in 
the Single Market. Some regulatory 
change is also necessary to tackle 
persisting market barriers linked to 
charging for PSI re-use and to speed up 
the adoption of state of the art data 
dissemination methods.  

This option has the potential to 
minimise friction with other EU 
policies. The lower intensity regulatory 
intervention largely depends on sectoral 
legislation for the supply of data and 
focuses on enhancing downstream re-
use, which should ensure full legal 
coherence. 

Higher intensity regulatory intervention 

The option also presents a favourable ratio 
of costs and benefits. It is expected to 
generate slightly higher direct and indirect 
economic benefits and lead to a steeper 
decline in the (administrative, technical and 
opportunity) costs associated with the 
opening up of PSI. This is mostly due to 
the stronger alignment with the policy 
objectives, as observed below. Given its 
strict regulatory approach, it is expected 
however to impose the costs in a rather 
abrupt manner, with a negative impact on 
political feasibility. 
This option is also expected to address the 
need to adapt to technological changes and 
ensure growth in PSI-based services as 
well as in cross-border re-use of data, while 
addressing the emerging threats to fair 
competition in the Single Market. Given 
that the higher intensity regulatory 
intervention is based on stricter regulatory 
solutions, it is expected to overtake the 
lower intensity regulatory intervention in 
terms of the extent to which these policy 
goals are met. 

The far-reaching horizontal measure 
proposed in the higher intensity regulatory 
intervention could be difficult to reconcile 
with a number of ongoing sectoral 
initiatives in the area of data access and re-
use, referred to under section 2.2.4.1 
above. 

Legal/political 
feasibility 

This option is both politically and 
legally feasible. The lower intensity 
regulatory intervention presents a clear 
advantage over the higher intensity 
regulatory intervention in what 
concerns the political buy-in from 
major stakeholder groups, especially 

This option is legally feasible, although 
based on the available evidence from the 
stakeholder consultation process, it is less 
feasible politically due to a substantially 
lower level of stakeholder buy-in than in 
the case of the lower intensity regulatory 
option. 

47 

 
 
 
Proportionality 

Lower intensity regulatory 
intervention 

that some of the elements of that policy 
package have been expressly advocated 
by several Member States.179 

This option is designed to minimise 
negative impact of the extension of 
scope, by basing it on the already 
existing utility procurement legislation. 
It presents a balanced yet focused 
policy intervention. By targeting the 
new requirements in areas where 
change is necessary, it reduces 
unnecessary compliance burden in areas 
where change is not essential and 
difficult to enact. In addition, the 
intervention logic tested in the previous 
revision of the Directive (ensuring a 
competitive market for PSI re-use as a 
first step, before the application of an 
obligation to allow re-use) has proved 
to be an efficient strategy, ensuring the 
attainment of objectives for all groups 
of bodies successively brought within 
the scope of the Directive, while 
allowing for an ample adjustment 
period and giving space for non-
legislative instruments to make impact. 

Higher intensity regulatory intervention 

This option is also designed to minimise 
negative impact of the extension of scope, 
by basing it on the already existing utility 
procurement legislation. However, the 
enforcement of the elements included in 
the higher intensity regulatory intervention 
would require substantial adjustment 
efforts by many stakeholders, particularly 
on the part of the bodies newly covered by 
the rules. It would also require significant 
investment by public sector bodies in the 
update of the necessary IT infrastructure 
and have a chilling effect on public-private 
collaboration projects. In addition, Member 
State acceptance of a radical change, 
relatively early after the previous 
regulatory revision, is low. All such risks 
appear in disproportion to the objectives 
sought. 

This analysis translates into the following overview: 

Efficiency 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Legal/political 
feasibility 

Proportionality 

+ 

+ 

Lower intensity 
regulatory 
intervention 
Higher 
intensity 
regulatory 
intervention 
For  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  coherence,  the  scores  are  given  on  the  expected  magnitude  of  impact  as  explained 
above:  ++  being  strongly  positive,  +  positive,  and  –  negative.  For  legal/political  feasibility  and  proportionality,  + 
means that the assessment is positive, and – means that it is negative. 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

- 

8.  PREFERRED OPTION 

Based  on  the  evidence  presented  above,  a  mixed  package  of  lower  intensity  regulatory 
intervention combined with an update of existing soft law is the preferred option. 

It  allows  for  a  targeted  and  proportional  intervention,  amounting  to  an  incremental 
strengthening  of  the  Commission's  open  data  policy.  It  will  lead  to  a  significant 
improvement over the baseline scenario, is broadly acceptable to stakeholders and can be 
realistically enacted within a reasonable timeframe due to lack of notable Member State 
opposition. 

Although  the  benefits  of  the  higher  intensity  regulatory  intervention  scenario  are 
substantial,  that  scenario  is  also  generally  characterised  by  a  lower  feasibility,  higher 

179 A prime example is the list of 'open by default datasets'. 

48 

 
 
 
                                                            
compliance  costs  and  higher  risks  for  legal  and  policy  coherence.  This  has  also  been 
confirmed by the multi-criteria analysis performed for all the options.180 Also, the higher 
intensity  regulatory  intervention  scenario  will  not  be  supported  by  many  stakeholders, 
including Member States. 

This leads to a preferred option that is based on the following elements: 

  Dynamic  data/APIs:  a  ‘soft’  obligation  for  Member  States  to  make  dynamic  data 
available  in  a  timely  manner  and  to  introduce  APIs.  For  a  limited  number  of 
fundamental high-value datasets (to be adopted through a Delegated Act) there will 
be a hard obligation to do so. 

  Charging:  tighten  the  rules  for  Member  States  for  invoking  the  exceptions  to  the 
general  rule  that  public  sector  bodies  cannot  charge  more  than  marginal  costs  for 
dissemination. Create a list of fundamental high-value datasets that should be freely 
available  in  all  Member  States  (same  datasets  as  above,  to  be  adopted  through  a 
Delegated Act). 

  Data in the transport and utilities sector: only public undertakings will be covered, 
not  private  companies.  A  limited  set  of  obligations  will  apply:  public  undertakings 
can  charge  above  marginal  costs  for  dissemination  and  are  under  no  obligation  to 
release the data they do not want to release. 2003 rules of the PSI Directive apply (as 
explained in the table on p. 31). 

  Research data: Member States will be obliged to develop policies for open access to 
research  data  resulting  from  publicly  funded  research,  while  keeping  flexibility  in 
implementation.  An  updated  Recommendation  to  Member  States  on  access  to  and 
preservation  of  scientific  information  would  guide  Member  States  on  the  elements 
ideally contained in an Open Access policy. The PSI Directive would be extended in 
scope, so as to cover research data that have already been made accessible as a result 
of open access mandates, focusing on re-usability aspects. 

  Non-exclusivity: reinforced transparency requirements for public-private agreements 

involving public sector information  

This  will  be  combined  with  an  update  of  the  Recommendation  on  the  access  to  and 
preservation of scientific information181 and a clarification of the interaction between the 
PSI Directive and the Database and INSPIRE Directives. 

8.1.  Estimated impact of the preferred option 

The  Impact  Assessment  study182  indicates  that  while  in  the  baseline  scenario  the  direct 
value of PSI is expected to grow from EUR 52 billion in 2018 to almost EUR 150 billion 
in  2028,  implementing  the  preferred,  politically  feasible  option  will  ensure  that  this 
growth  can  be  30%  higher,  reaching  almost  194  billion  EUR.  It  is  also  expected  that 

180 The results of the multi-criteria analysis are available in the Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 
SMART 2017/0061. 
181 C(2018) 2375. 
182 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

49 

 
                                                            
under the preferred option the number of jobs based on PSI will reach 709,000, i.e. 40% 
above the baseline scenario which foresees 518.000 jobs in that timeframe. Finally, the 
cost of making PSI available for re-use will be reduced to 3 billion EUR if the preferred 
option is chosen, which is 21% lower than the estimated cost under the baseline scenario 
(3.8 billion EUR). 

8.2.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Affected stakeholders 

Enhanced  use  of  APIs  and  proactive  publishing 
of  dynamic  data  online  results  in  a  decrease  of 
administrative  burden  due  to  a  lower  number  of 
re-use  requests  to  process  and  a  lower  risk  of 
complaints (including litigation). 

in 

framework 

Reduced  application  of  charges,  bringing  the 
regulatory 
the 
recommendations included in the 'PSI Guidelines' 
of 2014, since what was considered 'best practice' 
then  would  now  become  binding 
back 
administrative procedure. 

line  with 

and 

regular  monitoring 

Discontinued  reporting  obligation  (due  to  a 
exercise 
detailed 
performed  by  the  European  Data  Portal,  which 
feeds  the  annual  Open  Data  Maturity  report), 
allows 
to  save  human 
resources and time.  

the  Member  States 

and 

legal 

certainty 

Enhanced 
easier 
application/interpretation  of  the  Directive  thanks 
to  clearer  rules  on  charging  for  the  re-use  of 
documents and on the interplay between Database 
and INSPIRE Directives. 

Faster  and  cheaper  development  of  business 
models  by  SMEs  thanks  to  a  higher  supply  of 
high  value  open  data  (through  a  common  list  of 
datasets  and  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the 
Directive)  and  its  easier  integration  into  digital 
services (due to the systematic use of APIs). 

number 

to  a 
Savings  due 
of 
lower 
requests 
(the 
processing  of  which 
costs  min.  375  EUR 
per 
institution  per 
request).183 

cost 

of 
Reduced 
processing 
and 
monitoring payments.  

Reduces  administrative  burden  and 
related costs of public sector bodies on 
local, regional and national level. 

Reduces  administrative  burden  for 
both  public  sector  bodies  and  data 
users,  SMEs.  A  win-win  situation, 
especially  in  cases  where  the  costs 
outweigh  the  income  generated  by 
charging for re-use. 

Estimated 
at  min. 
280,000  EUR  (1400 
man/days).184 

Reduces  administrative  burden  and 
related costs of public sector bodies on 
local, regional and national level. 

Impossible 
to 
quantify  but  could  be 
considerable  in  case 
of legal counsel costs. 

Reduces  administrative  burden  and 
related costs of public sector bodies on 
local, regional and national level. 

to 

factor 
key 
A 
the 
contributing 
increase 
total 
economic  value  of 
PSI beyond the public 
sector.  

of 

Reduces  investment  and  transactional 
costs,  lowers  barriers  to  market  entry 
by SMEs, limits administrative burden 
linked to filing individual requests. 

183 Considering that API use might decrease the need to process the number of requests roughly by a half, 
an  EU-wide  benefit  could  reach  375  EUR  (15h  x  25  EUR)  per  institution  per  request  multiplied  by  the 
number of requests which will no longer be needed. 
184  The  direct  saving  for  28  Member  States  was  estimated  given  that  a)  the  elaboration  of  the  most 
complete report required around 100 man/days, b) the elaboration of a medium quality report would take 
50 man/days and c) the average labour costs per day are 200 EUR (25x8). 

50 

 
                                                            
9.  HOW WILL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

  The European Data Portal185 conducts the annual 'landscaping exercise' that monitors 
performance indicators in each EU Member State. The exercise, which is compiled 
in  an  Open  Data  Maturity  Report,  will  be  continued,  while  the  definition  of  the 
performance indicators will be adjusted so as to be taken into account from the date 
of the adoption of the revised Directive. The European Data Portal will for example 
measure  (both  via  structured  feedback  from  national  authorities  and  by  the 
monitoring of the data flows through the portal) the progress in which research data 
and  data  coming  from  public  undertakings  in  the  transport  and  utility  domains  are 
published via open data portals and other repositories. It will also be able to detect 
the amount of dynamic data being made available and the increased use of APIs.  
  The existing expert groups (PSI Group and the sub-group on portals186; Expert Group 
on  National  Points  of  Reference  on  Scientific  Information)  will  assist  the 
Commission  in  evaluating  the  state  of  transposition  of  the  revised  legislation  and 
communicate the outcome of their own, national assessment and related studies. 
  PSI  Request  repository187,  an  online  EU-wide  register  of  requests  submitted  by  re-
users with the description of the follow-up given by public sector bodies, is currently 
being set up to help the Commission gather evidence on the impact of the upcoming 
measures in terms of easier availability of data without the need to submit individual 
requests, and the ensuing reduction of administrative burden. 

  Evaluation of the implementation of the Directive based on a modified review clause 

(Article 13), possibly six years after the adoption of the amending legislation. 

  Ad  hoc  studies,  as  deemed  appropriate  (e.g.  in  line  with  the  development  of  data 
processing technologies) and targeted surveys (e.g. to  measure the reduction of the 
administrative burden among selected groups of stakeholders).  

Monitoring indicators for specific objectives: 

Specific objectives 
to 
Adaptation 
changes 
the 
in 
management and use 

technological 
field  of  data 

Operational objectives 
Incentivising  public  bodies  to  use 
modern  methods  of  access  and  use 
of dynamic data 

Lowering  the  existing  barriers  to 
accessing  the  PSI  re-use  market 
and  preventing  the  emergence  of 
new ones 

Limiting  the  range  of  situations  in 
which charging for PSI is allowed. 
around 
transparency 
Ensuring 
arrangements  that  can  lead  to  'data 
lock-in' 

Making more data available for re-
use as raw material for innovation 

Higher  supply  of  data  from  the 
utilities 
research 
establishments 

sector 

and 

Proposed monitoring indicators 
Increase  in  key  registries  using 
APIs 
Increase in share of dynamic PSI vs 
total available for re-use  
Reduction  in  the  number  of  public 
sector  bodies 
above 
marginal costs 
Increase in the number of data start-
ups 
Number  of 
unjustified exclusive data use 
Increase  in  the  number  of  datasets 
from  these  two  areas  available  via 
APIs and portals 

complaints 

charging 

about 

185 The portal operates as a digital service infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility. It is funded 
by the European Commission: www.europeandataportal.eu.  
186 The expert group meets twice a year and reports to the Commission on the progress of open data policy 
and legislation. 
187 http://www.psimonitor.eu/index.php/en/   

51 

 
                                                            
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) 

Artificial  Intelligence,  intelligence  displayed  by  machines,  is 
applied  when  a  machine  mimics  cognitive  functions  that  humans 
associate  with  other  human  minds,  such  as  learning  and  problem 
solving. 

Application Programming Interface 
(API) 

A  set  of  technical  protocols  by  means  of  which  one  piece  of 
software asks another programme to perform a service. The service 
could be granting access to data or performing a specified function. 

contracting authority 

cost recovery method  

Database Directive 

Public sector data lock-in 
arrangements 

document 

dynamic data 

European Data Portal (EDP) 

European Open Science Cloud 
(EOSC) 

A State, regional or local authority, a body governed by public law 
or an association formed by one or more such authorities or one or 
more such bodies governed by public law. 

A principle which allows for the recovery of incurred eligible costs, 
such as costs relating to the creation of data or costs relating broadly 
to distribution. 

Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11  March  1996  on  the  legal  protection  of  databases,  which 
harmonises  the  treatment  of  databases  under  copyright  law  and 
introduces  the  sui  generis  right  for  the  creators  of  databases  even 
when they do not qualify for copyright.  

Arrangements  where  public  sector  bodies  grant  access  to  their 
datasets  (usually  free  of  charge)  to  one  or  a  small  number  of 
economic  operators,  for  example 
in-kind 
compensation, leading to a situation in which re-use of such data by 
this  economic  operator  would 
incentive  for 
commercial re-use of the same dataset by other companies. 

in  exchange  for 

take  away 

the 

Any  content  whatever  its  medium  (written  on  paper  or  stored  in 
electronic form or as a sound, visual or audio-visual recording), or 
any part of such content; synonymous with data. 

Data  from  sensors  (e.g.  bus  arrival  times,  meteorological  data), 
whose economic value depends on its real-time availability. 

A  portal  that  harvests  the  metadata  of  Public  Sector  Information 
available  on  public  data  portals  across  European  countries. 
Information  regarding  the  provision  of  data  and  the  benefits  of  re-
using data is also included. 

A  virtual  environment  to  store,  share  and  re-use  research  and 
scientific  data  across  disciplines  and  borders,  which  will  be 
underpinned  by  the  European  Data  Infrastructure,  deploying  the 
high-bandwidth  networks,  large  scale  storage  facilities  and  super-
computer capacity necessary to effectively access and process large 
datasets stored in the cloud. 

FAIR (findable, accessible, 
interoperable and re-usable) 
principles 

Set  of  principles  developed  within 
research 
community  in  order  to  make  research  data  findable,  accessible, 
interoperable and re-usable. 

the  scientific 

G8 Open Data Charter 

A  document  from  2013  listing  5  strategic  principles  that  all  G8 
members committed to act on, which include an expectation that all 

52 

 
 
high-value datasets 

INSPIRE Directive 

Internet of Things (IoT) 

machine-readable format 

marginal cost method 

government  data  will  be  published  openly  by  default,  alongside 
principles to increase the quality, quantity and re-use of the data that 
is released. 

Datasets which are particularly valuable assets for the economy and 
society at large. Access to and the re-use of such datasets can speed 
up the emergence of value-added information products and services, 
and  also  encourage  participatory  democracy.  G8  members  have 
identified  14  high-value  areas  –  from  education  to  transport,  and 
from  health  to  crime  and  justice  –  which  should  help  unlock  the 
economic  potential  of  open  data,  support  innovation  and  provide 
greater accountability. 

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  14  March  2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial 
Information  in  the  European  Community,  which  aims  to  create  a 
European  Union  spatial  data  infrastructure  for  the  purposes  of  EU 
environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an 
impact on the environment. 

A network of physical devices, vehicles, home appliances and other 
items  embedded  with  connectivity  software,  which  enables  these 
objects to connect and exchange data. 

A  file  format  structured  so  that  software  applications  can  easily 
identify,  recognise  and  extract  specific  data,  including  individual 
statements of fact, and their internal structure. 

A principle applying to all charging for public sector data re-use in 
the EU, with some exceptions: public sector bodies may charge no 
more  than  the  marginal  cost  of  reproducing,  providing  and 
disseminating the documents. 

Open Access Infrastructure for 
Research in Europe (OpenAIRE) 

infrastructure  and  supporting  mechanisms  for 

the 
Electronic 
identification,  deposition,  access,  and  monitoring  of  research  data 
(publications and data) funded by H2020. 

Open Access (OA) 

open data 

open format 

public sector body 

Public Sector Information (PSI) 

Online,  free  availability  of  research outputs  without restrictions  on 
use  commonly  imposed  by  publisher  copyright  agreements.  Open 
Access  includes  the  outputs  that  scholars  normally  give  away  for 
free  for  publication;  it  includes  peer-reviewed  journal  articles, 
conference papers and datasets of various kinds. 

Data that is freely available to everyone to access and re-use as they 
wish,  without  restrictions  from  copyright,  patents  or  other 
mechanisms  of  control.  In  the  context of  this  document,  open  data 
refers to public sector information which is openly re-usable. 

A  file  format  that  is  platform-independent  and  made  available  to 
the  public  without  any  restriction  that  impedes  the  re-use  of 
documents. 
A State, regional or local authority, a body governed by public law 
or an association formed by one or several such authorities or one 
or  several  such  bodies  governed  by  public  law.  This  definition  is 
based  on  that  of  a  'contracting  authority'  under  EU  procurement 
legislation (Directive 2014/24/EU, Article 2). 
Information  (i.e.  'documents')  in  many  areas  of  public  sector 
activity, including social, economic, geographical, weather, tourist, 
business,  patent  and  educational  information,  which  the  public 
sector collects or produces. 

53 

 
 
public undertaking 

reasonable return on investment 

re-use 

sui generis database right 

Any  undertaking  over  which  the  contracting  authorities  may 
exercise  directly  or  indirectly  a  dominant  influence  by  virtue  of 
their  ownership  of  it,  their  financial  participation  therein,  or  the 
rules which govern it. 
Amount  understood  as  a  percentage,  in  addition  to  eligible  costs, 
allowing for the recovery of the cost of capital; and the inclusion 
of a real rate of return (profit). 
The  use  by  persons  or  legal  entities  of  documents  held  by  public 
sector  bodies,  for  commercial  or  non-commercial  purposes  other 
than  the  initial  purpose  within  the  public  task  for  which  the 
documents were produced. 
A sui generis database right is a property right, comparable to but 
distinct from copyright, that exists to recognise the investment that 
is made to compile a database, even when this does not involve the 
creative aspect that is reflected by copyright.  

54 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The proposal for an amended Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive188 was prepared 
under  the  lead  of  the  Directorate-General  Communication  Networks,  Content  and 
Technology. In the DECIDE Planning of the European Commission, the review process 
is referred to under item PLAN/2017/1391. The Commission Work Programme for 2018 
includes the review of the PSI Directive among the REFIT initiatives, under the header 
"A Connected Digital Single Market". 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

Work on the preparation of this Directive review started in May 2017. An Inter-Service 
Steering Group assisted DG Communication  Networks,  Content and Technology  in the 
preparation  of  the  back-to-back  exercise  (evaluation  and  Impact  Assessment)  and 
the 
included  Commission  services  of  16  Directorate-Generals, 
Commission's Legal Service and Secretariat General. 

together  with 

The  Steering  Group  met  on  occasions  between  July  2017  and  March  2018.  At  each 
occasion,  the  members  of  the  Steering  Group  were  given  the  opportunity  to  provide 
comments orally or in in writing on the draft versions of the documents presented.  

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB  

The  Impact  Assessment  report  was  reviewed  by  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  on  14 
March 2018. Based on the Board's recommendations189, the Impact Assessment has been 
revised in accordance with the following points: 

RSB Opinion  
(copy of the RSB comments  
from the opinion) 
The report does not adequately reflect 
stakeholder  views.  In  particular,  it 
address 
does 
stakeholder  concerns  about  personal 
data  and  database  protection.  It  gives 
little  indication  about  support  from 
Member States and public bodies.  
The report should  make  better use of its 
extensive  evidence  base.  In  particular,  it 

sufficiently 

not 

How and where comments  
have been addressed 

The  views  of  stakeholders  have  been 
developed  with  increased  granularity,  i.e. 
depicting positions by type of stakeholders 
(e.g.  PSI  holders  or  re-users,  educational 
and 
public 
undertakings  in  the  transport  and  utilities 
sector)  and  relating  them  some  specific 
consultations actions.  
The  views  of  stakeholders  are  reported  in 

establishments, 

research 

188 COM(2018) 234. 
189 SEC(2018) 206. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
report 

should 
in  more  detail  on 
stakeholder  views.  It  should  provide  a 
more  granular  representation  of 
the 
categories  of  stakeholders  at  stake.  It 
should  transparently  report  on  whether 
stakeholders  expressed  views  on  the 
different  parts  of  the  initiative.  The 
report  should  elaborate  on  the  concerns 
of stakeholders and it should explain the 
respective  mitigation  measures  that  the 
initiative intends to propose.  

The report does not sufficiently 
explain how the initiative avoids 
conflicting with the Database Directive 
and the General Data Protection 
Regulation (GDPR).  
The report should clarify the relationship 
and coherence of the PSI with the GDPR 
and the Database Directive. The report 
should elaborate on how the initiative 
addresses challenges of anonymisation 
of data and privacy, protection of 
databases and IPR. It should better 
address stakeholder concerns related to 
the necessary (specific) protection of 
data and databases in sensitive sectors 
such as the health sector, when they are 
open to private operators and service 
providers. The report should clarify the 
risks (of re-identification for example) 
and limits of the PSI. Consequently the 
report should better explain the 
safeguards against those risks. The report 
should elaborate on how the PSI tailors 
measures to tackle sui generis rights of 
national authorities.  
The definition of options is not 
sufficiently specific and their range is 
too narrow to provide a genuine 
choice of alternative solutions.  
The report should avoid including 
unworkable measures in option 2. The 
report should explain in more detail the 
content of the options, including the list 
of high-value data that potentially would 

are 

reinforcing 

the  section  6.4,  in  a  much  more  detailed 
the 
also 
way,  but 
description  of  the  problem  areas  in  the 
section 2 of the IA. 
The  positions  of  Member  States  have  also 
been described in a more detailed way both 
in section 3.2 on subsidiarity and in section 
6.4. 
An  explanation  was  given  regarding  the 
nature  of  the  stakeholders'  view  on  the  re-
use  of  data  in  line  with  personal  data 
protection  requirements,  as  well  as  the 
that 
possible  mitigating  measures 
respect. 
Section 1.2 of the IA has been substantially 
reinforced  in  order  to  provide  a  more 
the 
comprehensive 
complementarity  of  the  PSI  Directive,  the 
GDPR,  the  Database  Directive  and  the 
INSPIRE Directive. A specific  section has 
been  added  to  the  text  explaining  how  the 
challenges 
pseudonymisation, 
anonymisation and data protection are to be 
addressed,  in  particular,  through  targeted 
funding 
addressing  privacy 
enhancing  technologies  both  under  the 
H2020 and CEF programmes. 

overview 

activities 

of 

of 

in 

The  choice  for  the  distinction  between  the 
policy  options  has  been  explained 
in 
chapter  5.2.,  including  the  clarification  of 
the  interplay  between  the  main  legislative 
packaged  solutions  of 
'low' 
intervention intensity and the 'intermediate' 
option consisting of a future Delegated Act 
subject 
Impact 
Assessment. The table on page 31 was also 

to  a  separate 

'high'  and 

future 

56 

 
 
 
 
have to be disseminated free of charge. 
Similarly, the report should explain the 
modalities for tightening the rules for 
invoking exceptions to the marginal cost 
of dissemination approach. The report 
should better clarify what issues will be 
dealt with in delegated acts. It could also 
usefully expand the range of options 
with intermediate solutions (possibly 
combining regulatory with soft-law 
measures) in order to provide the 
decision makers with a wider choice of 
alternatives.  

The  report  should  clarify  the  role  of  the 
initiative  in  the  context  of  the  2018  Data 
Package.  It  should  also  elaborate  on  the 
relationship  of  the  PSI  with  international 
initiatives  such  as  the  G8  Open  Data 
Charter 
recent  OECD 
the 
Recommendations on data openness.  

and 

Based  on  the  accompanying  study,  the 
report  should  present  more  data  on  the 
magnitude  of 
it 
identifies.  It  should  analyse  them  in  the 
context 
single  market 
distortions. It should explain what the main 
drivers that underpin the four issues are.  

four  problems 

potential 

the 

of 

on 

This 

draw 

report 

should 

scenario. 

The 
the 
accompanying  study  to  more  extensively 
describe  the  elements  underpinning  the 
baseline 
includes 
information  on  the  current  and  projected 
costs  of  production,  anonymisation,  and 
dissemination  of  various  PSI  datasets  and 
their  potential  market  value.  The  baseline 
should  project  how  the  current  situation 
will  evolve  in  the  absence  of  further  EU 
action. It should serve as the comparator of 

updated  to  bring  it  in  line  with  the 
descriptions  of  the  two  main  packages  of 
policy options and the inclusion of binding 
and non-binding elements was clarified. 

The reasons behind assessing the impact of 
two  main  policy  packages,  both  including 
the  soft  and  hard  law  measures,  while 
assigning  the  'intermediate'  measure  of 
high  value  datasets  to  a  'lower  intensity' 
option, have also been explained. 

Each  policy  option  is  now  described  with 
reference 
legislative 
changes  resulting  from  it  (see:  table  of 
policy options in chapter 5.2). 

the  concrete 

to 

Two  paragraphs  have  been  added  to  the 
Introduction  of  the  report  clarifying  the 
role  of  the  initiative  in  the  2018  Data 
Package.  Additionally,  Section  1.1  (Policy 
Context)  has  been  reinforced  in  order  to 
give  a  thorough  overview  of  the  relations 
between the PSI Directive and international 
initiatives  like  the  G8  Open  Data  Charter 
and 
relevant  OECD  Council 
the 
Recommendations. 
All the sub-sections in Section 2.2 ( on the 
description of the four problems have been 
reinforced  by  the  respective  analysis  and 
Impact 
in 
arguments  used 
Assessment  Support  Study 
(SMART 
2017/0061)  and  the  Evaluation  Report 
(Annex  5).  The  aspect  related  to  extent  of 
the  problems  over  time  and  in  line  with 
technological  changes  has  also  been 
highlighted. 
Chapter  6.1.1.  has  been  complemented 
with  new,  detailed  information  on  the 
factors  influencing  the  steadily  increasing 
impact  of  open  data  despite  the  lack  of 
additional EU intervention.  

the  PSI 

References  to  more  detailed  descriptions 
included in the Support Study and acting as 
methodological  background,  have  also 
been added.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the options envisaged for this initiative.  
The section on impact needs also to include 
more  information  on  costs  and  benefits.  It 
can  draw  on  the  external  study  for  this.  It 
should indicate the costs that are quantified 
and  those  that  are  not  (administrative  and 
litigation costs). It should be more specific 
on  how  benefits  and  costs  are  distributed 
over 
stakeholder 
categories.  It  should  also  show  that  public 
bodies can cope with additional obligations 
on re-use of data.  

across 

time 

and 

regarding 

information 

the 
Additional 
methodology used by the Support Study to 
measure costs and benefits, as well as their 
distribution  over 
the 
individual  elements  of  the  policy  options, 
has been added to Annex 8 and Annex 5.  

time  and  across 

Section  6.1 
includes  a  more  detailed 
into 
explanation  of 
account  for  the  estimates  of  expected 
impact of the policy options retained. 

the  factors 

taken 

The  Board  takes  note  of  the  quantification 
of the various costs and benefits associated 
to the preferred option of this initiative, as 
assessed  in  the  report  considered  by  the 
Board  and  summarised  in  the  attached 
quantification tables.  

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Evidence-collection process 

A  REFIT  evaluation190  (ex-post  evaluation)  was  performed  in  parallel  with  the  review 
and Impact Assessment. This evidence-collection process has been supported by a study 
(SMART  2017/0061),  combining  an  evaluation  with  an  Impact  Assessment  ("back-to-
back"). Complementary elements will come from the preliminary results of the study on 
PSI  Request  repository  (SMART  2016/0088)  which  provided  a  comparison  of  re-use 
requests and their outcomes across countries. 

At  the  same  time,  a  reporting  exercise  took  place,  as  mandated  by  article  13.2  of  the 
Directive,  aiming  to  collect  feedback  from  Member  States  on  the  availability  of  public 
sector information for re-use, the conditions under which it is made available, and redress 
practices.  This  reporting  exercise  was  complementary  to  the  landscaping  action  led  by 
the  European  Data  Portal  on  the  maturity  of  open  data  across  Europe.  A  series  of 
indicators  cover  the  level  of  development  of  national  policies  promoting  open  data,  an 
assessment  of  the  features  made  available  on  national  data  portals,  as  well  as  the 
expected impact of open data. 

Stakeholders' consultation process 

190 SWD(2018) 145. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In addition to the feedback received on the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA), a public 
online  consultation  was  conducted  from  September  to  December  2017,  aiming  at  both 
evaluating  the  implementation  and  effects  of  the  current  PSI  Directive,  and  at  getting 
feedback  on  possible  impacts  of  the  different  policy  options.  The  Inception  Impact 
Assessment served as a supporting document to this public online consultation.  

In  addition  to  these  online  consultations,  workshops,  some  of  which  organised  in  the 
framework  of  the  aforementioned  "back-to-back"  study,  guaranteed  further  interactions 
with Member States, public bodies and businesses. Annex 2 presents a detailed analysis 
and conclusions from this consultation process.  

59 

 
 
ANNEX 2:   CONSULTATION ON PSI DIRECTIVE REVIEW 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Commission  held a  consultation  on  the review  of  Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-
use  of  public  sector  information  (PSI  Directive)  between  June  2017  and  late 
January 2018. The aim of this consultation was to assess the functioning of the Directive, 
consider  the  scope  of  the  review,  and  reflect  on  policy  options.  At  the  same  time,  it 
explored  the  issue  of  access  to  private  sector  data  which  are  of  public  interest.  The 
consultation  sought  to  involve  PSI  holders  (public  sector  bodies)  and  re-users  (public, 
private, commercial and non-commercial actors). 

The  feedback  received  from  workshops  (mainly  from  PSI  holders)  and  an  online 
questionnaire  (68 %  of  respondents  to  which  were  primarily  interested in  re-using  PSI) 
form the basis for the analysis and conclusions presented here. 

Inception impact assessment 

The  inception  impact  assessment  was  available  for  feedback  on  the  Better  Regulation 
portal  from  18  September  to  16  October  2017.  The  seven  replies  (from  associations, 
public organisations, national statistical offices and private individuals) addressed topics 
including improving the interoperability of data, maintaining current charging rules, and 
maintaining the exception for cultural establishments. On extending the Directive’s scope 
to public utilities undertakings, concerns were raised as to cost and coherence with other 
legislation. 

Online consultation 

The public online consultation (19 September to 16 December 2017) asked for views on 
how the Directive is implemented, (including problems, objectives and possible options 
for the future) and addressed the issue of public access to data of public interest held by 
the private sector. It targeted all interested parties, including governments, public sector 
content-holders  and  users,  commercial  and  non-commercial  re-users,  experts  and 
academics, and the general public. 

The 273 replies, from all Member States, included: 

 

 
 

almost 29 % from public organisations (general and statistical services, research, 
etc.); 
almost 25 % from associations (representing public or private actors); and  
25 % from citizens.  

Of the business respondents, half were very large organisations (5 000+ employees) and 
40 % were SMEs. 

60 

 
 
In addition, 58 position papers and five stand-alone contributions were received, mostly 
on specific issues, e.g. access to scientific information and to private sector data of public 
interest. 

Other consultation actions 

  Workshop on public bodies’ access to commercially held data of public interest 

(26 June 2017); 

  Meeting  of  Member  State 

representatives 

from 

the 

‘PSI  group’  

(15 November 2017); 

  Meeting  of  the  National  Points  of  Reference  on  access  to  and  preservation  of 

scientific information (5 December 2017); 

  Workshop  on  access  to  scientific  information  and  extending  the  scope  of  the 

Directive to research data (14 December 2017); 

  Workshop for PSI holders and re-users (18 January 2018); 
  Public Hearing on the PSI Directive review (19 January 2018); and 
  High-level  roundtable  on  opening  up  transport  and  utilities  sector  data 

(23 January 2018). 

RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS 

Evaluation 

The implementation of the Directive was assessed against the Better Regulation criteria 
(effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, EU added-value and clarity). The online 
consultation was the main opportunity for stakeholders to make detailed statements. 

Effectiveness  

  81 % of respondents to the online consultation felt that more data held by public 

sector bodies had become available for re-use; 

  73 % agreed that PSI was increasingly providing a basis for innovative services 

and products;  

  over half (and most of those who provided additional feedback as free text) felt 

that PSI had become more affordable, including for start-ups and SMEs;  

 

several  stakeholders  felt  that  cross-border  use  of  PSI  was  still  difficult,  as 
practices across Member States vary widely and this creates legal uncertainty;  
  only  38 %  of  respondents  felt  that  exclusive  arrangements  were  used 
exceptionally  and  only  in  the  cases  set  out  in  the  Directive  (while  Member 
States  representatives  generally  report  that  they  are  not  aware  of  exclusive 
arrangements based on PSI); and 

  67 % saw the variety of licensing conditions as still hampering effective re-use.  

61 

 
 
At the 18 January workshop for PSI holders and re-users, there were several calls for EU 
intervention to prevent exclusive agreements. 

Efficiency  

  66 %  of  online  respondents  argued  that  implementation  costs  borne  by  public 

sector bodies are offset by the socio-economic benefits of data re-use;  

  72 %  argued 

that  compliance  requires  public  bodies 

to 

improve  data 

management, leading to cost savings and efficiency gains; but 

  44 % criticised the redress procedures as lengthy, inefficient and costly. 

Relevance 

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that the PSI Directive is still relevant, in particular 
because  it  ensures  PSI  supply  (85%),  fair  market  access  for  re-users  (84%),  the 
transparency  and  accountability  of  public  sector  bodies  (81 %)  and  the  usability 
(e.g. machine readability) of data (77 %).  

Many  said  that  rapid  technological  advances  made  the  Directive  even  more  relevant; 
these affect the possible forms of data re-use and the legislation should take account of 
them. 

Stakeholders and especially Member State representatives were generally very supportive 
of  the  review  process,  based  on  the  observation  that  the  uneven  implementation  across 
Member  States  is  creating  fragmentation  of  the  single  market  or  bottlenecks  to  market 
development. 

Coherence  

  in general, it was felt that the Directive was coherent with other relevant EU legal 

acts; 

 

  the  sui  generis  database  right  was  seen  as  problematic  because  public  bodies 
could use it to restrict the applicability of the PSI access and re-use rules; and 
the  Directive’s  relationship  with  personal  data  protection  legislation  is  clear; 
however, the stakeholders pointed to certain practical isuses.  Ssome public sector 
bodies  have  raised  the  question  of  appropriate  techniques  to  be  used  for 
pseudonymisation or anonymization processes.  

EU added value  

  87 %  of  online  respondents  agreed  that  the  Directive  had  encouraged  national 

authorities to open up more public sector data; 

  almost  63 %  felt  that  it had  facilitated  access to  PSI  from  countries  other  than 

that in which the person concerned lives;  

62 

 
 
  almost 64 % felt that it had helped create an EU-wide market for products and 

services based on PSI; but 

  additional  feedback  shows  that  the  re-use  of  data  across  borders  is  still 
burdensome,  as  national  practices  are  still  very  different  and  sometimes  ‘data 
protectionist’ (e.g. on valuable datasets such as business, address and real estate, 
and planning registers). 

Clarity 

  57 % of online respondents felt that the Directive was easy for public bodies and 

re-users to understand and implement; but 

  63 % felt that some provisions could be made simpler or clearer. 

Review of the Directive 

Practical arrangements for document access and searches 

There was general support for further standardisation of metadata, standardisation of data 
themselves, and greater availability and usability of real-time data. These positions were 
confirmed in the dozen of papers addressing these questions. 

Of  the  194  online  respondents,  46 %  strongly  agreed  and  25 %  agreed  that  metadata 
should  be  made  available  in  a  mandatory  open  standard,  e.g. DCAT-AP.  Respondents 
acknowledged  the  need  for  metadata  documenting  the  content  of  data  so  as  to  ensure 
their  actual  re-usability.  The  standardisation  of  data  themselves  was  seen  as  (highly) 
desirable.  Mandatory  open  standards  were  recommended  as  the  way  to  improve  data 
usability. Some saw funding as a critical issue. 

There  was  an  even  spread  of  opinion  as  regards  the  availability  of  dynamic  data 
(e.g. sensors,  satellite  data).  Examples  (e.g.  Transport  for  London,  Seapilot)  were  cited 
during  the  workshop  on  18  January.  Many  opinions  in  the  online  consultation  and 
position  papers  reported  a  remaining  need  for  (more)  real-time  data,  the  cost  of  such 
availability and a need to prioritise efforts on the basis of real demand.  

It was stressed that data standards should relate to specific domains (transport, geospatial, 
statistical,  etc.).  In  particular  for  dynamic  data,  the  cost  and  technical  complexity  of 
setting and implementing standards raise a need for appropriate supporting measures. 

77 % of respondents confirmed the need to encourage public bodies to provide dynamic 
data in real time and invest in technical solutions (e.g. APIs, Application Programming 
Interfaces)  facilitating  data  usability.  This  high  demand  is  still  only  partially  met.  This 
confirms the stakeholders' opinion also expressed in a public online consultation earlier 
in 2017, where 68% of respondents clearly supported an increased use of APIs. 

63 

 
 
Charging rules 

38 %  of  the  206  online  respondents  expressed  a  slight  preference  for  keeping  the  rules 
that  prevent  public  bodies  from  setting  excessive  or  arbitrary  charges  on  re-use. 
However, 42 % wanted to abolish the exceptions to Article 6(1) (so that the marginal cost 
of dissemination would become the upper limit for charging) or at least clarify (49 %) the 
circumstances in which they can apply. 

PSI  re-users  are  clearly  in  favour  of  abolishing  or  at  least  clarifying  exceptions,  while 
most PSI holders consider that they should not be changed and need no clarification. 

Stakeholders  also  expressed  divergent  views  in  their  additional  feedback.  Some  argued 
that the rules should promote open access by eliminating or at least minimising charges. 
Many others cited challenges that public administrations are facing that justify the rules, 
e.g.: the sustainability of investment in digitalisation (especially if more is to be done on 
standards, interoperability, dynamic data, etc.), and balancing the interests of PSI holders 
and re-users.  

The variety and opacity of national charging practices was raised at the workshop for PSI 
holders and re-users.   

Scientific information and data held by research and educational establishments 

There  was  a  consensus  that  data  from  publicly  funded  scientific  research  should  be  as 
openly accessible and re-usable as possible.  

81 % of the 178 online respondents agreed that a common EU open access policy should 
apply  to  all  research-funding  organisations  and  academic  institutions;  only  6 % 
disagreed.  This  position  was  also  voiced  at  the  public  hearing  and  the  workshop  on 
access to scientific information. 

There  were  similar  views  on  opening  up  the  (currently  exempt)  administrative  data  of 
educational  and  research  establishments,  although  at  the  meeting  of  National  Points  of 
Reference  in  access  to  an  preservation  of  scientific  information,  a  Member  State 
representative  expressed  concerns  in  the  context  of  competition  among  universities  in 
Europe. 

Of 159 online respondents, 90 % supported the principle of opening up scientific results 
(publications  and  research  data)  from  public  funding.  In  the  open  fields  in  the  online 
consultation  and  at  the  workshop  on  access  to  scientific  information,  stakeholders 
stressed  the  similarities  between  such  results  and  government-held  information,  in 
particular as regards data re-use value.  

At the same time,  

64 

 
 
o 

 

o 

some  respondents  pointed  to  issues  for  future  policy-making,  including  the 
financial  sustainability  of  publishers,  the  protection  of  intellectual  property 
rights (IPRs), the protection of personal data and trade secrets;  
structural  solutions  will  be  required  that  do  not  add  unnecessarily  to  the 
administrative burden for researchers; and 
there  are  other 
imperfect 
data-management capabilities, onerous licensing conditions, and problems with 
common (meta)data standards. 

to  be  addressed, 

linked  barrier 

including 

Data held by entities providing services of public interest 

On extending the scope of the Directive to data generated by publicly owned companies 
or  independent  operators  performing  public  tasks,  those  in  favour  outnumbered  those 
against. Only 23 % of the 193 online respondents to the question agreed that such data 
were  currently  available  for  re-use.  In  a  breakdown  by  sector,  the  figure  is  higher  for 
transport (36 %) and considerably lower (14 %) for utilities. 71 % believe that such data 
should be made available for re-use, whether the  data-holder is  public or  private. 81 % 
indicated  that,  if  there  were  such  an  obligation,  the  data  should  be  available  for  all  re-
users  and  for  other  purposes.  However,  the  very  few  responses  coming  from  energy, 
waste and water businesses expressed either doubts or strong opposition.  

While stakeholders in favour emphasised the benefits (e.g. better and cheaper services for 
citizens),  others  based  their  opposition  or  caution  on  factors  such  as  the  commercial 
sensitivity  of  some  data,  the  need  to  ensure  a  level  playing-field  for  public  and  private 
actors, personal data protection considerations and the need to safeguard the security of 
critical infrastructure. In particular stakeholders from the transport sector have expressed 
concerns. They believe that data is crucial for maintaining their competitiveness and as a 
result any requirements to make it more open and re-usable should be carefully balanced, 
as new obligations in this regard may distort competition in the sector. Stakeholders from 
entities active in the transport and utilities sectors have also indicated that imposing data 
sharing  obligations  on  them  may  have  an  impact  on  ensuring  the  security  of  critical 
infrastructure.  Moreover,  some  are  anxious  that  compliance  with  the  new  requirements 
will mean additional administrative burden. As a result any requirements to make it more 
open and re-usable should be carefully balanced. 

At  the  23  January  roundtable,  some  argued  that  the  issue  should  be  addressed  through 
sectoral legislation. 

Relationship with the Database Directive 

A  third  of  the  190  online  replies  reported  instances  of  public  sector  bodies  invoking 
rights  under  the  Database  Directive  to  prevent  the  re-use  of  PSI  from  databases, 

65 

 
 
including  transport  data,  legislation  and  case  law,  company  registers,  and  public 
undertakings’ data in areas such as healthcare, translation memories and cultural heritage.  

In general, the concern was that public bodies circumvent the PSI Directive by invoking 
database rights, even though the data are not subject to public sector or third-party rights. 
The interplay between the two Directives was also raised at the public hearing. 

Of  the  196  online  respondents  to  the  question,  68 %  were  in  favour  of  clarifying  the 
relationship  between  the  Directives,  so  as  to  ensure  that  public  bodies  cannot  invoke 
database  rights  in  order  to  prevent  the  re-use  of  PSI.  Stakeholders  noted  that  this  was 
already  the  case  in  some  national  and  regional  jurisdictions  (France,  Flanders). 
Recommended  approaches  ranged  from  guidelines  and  clearer  formulations  to  making 
the  sui  generis  database  right  inapplicable  to  databases  that  are  maintained  by  public 
bodies  or  with  public  funding.  On  the  other  hand,  17 %  found  the  relationship 
sufficiently clear, thanks inter alia to recitals 22 and 23 of the PSI Directive, which stress 
that  public  bodies  should  exercise  their  IPRs  in  a  way  that  facilitates  re-use.  Public 
transport undertakings and utilities insisted that they needed to keep their database rights 
over publicly funded data, in order to protect their legitimate interests in the competitive 
market. 

National access regimes and barriers to data re-use  

National access regimes do not generally seem to constitute a major obstacle to PSI re-
use,  but  39 %  of  online  respondents  felt  that  the  differences  between  them  hamper  the 
emergence  of  EU-wide  services  and  products  based  on  PSI.  Some  suggested  that  a 
common definition of the types of document that could be exempted (e.g. due to national 
security  restrictions)  would  help  prevent  the  frequent  misuse/abuse  of  exemptions. 
Differences between national access regimes were also raised at the 18 January workshop 
for PSI holders and re-users and at the public hearing. 

28 %  of  online  respondents  agreed that  the link  between access  and  re-use  is  clear  and 
useful, and that it prevents re-use that could harm the interests of the state, individuals or 
third parties. However, 23 % argued that the link is not clear and 18 % said that national 
rules on access (e.g. time limits for obtaining responses, administrative charges, lack of 
appeal options) are stricter than the Directive and hamper re-use. Some felt that certain 
national access regimes lack clarity and transparency. 

As  reasons  for  not  making  data  available,  public  bodies  cited  data  security  rules  and 
obligations (21 %), excessive costs (15 %), and possible misuse (13 %).  

As for data held by operators under a public service  contractual arrangement, the main 
arguments were that the arrangement did not require that they be made available and that 
it would be too costly. 

66 

 
 
In  cases  where  requests  for  data  had  been  granted,  the  obstacles  reported  were  poor 
metadata  (34 %),  a  lack  of  information  on  data  management  (33 %),  and  unclear  or 
inconsistent terms and conditions for re-use (30 %).  

Also a quarter of respondents referred to a lack of machine-to-machine interfaces (APIs), 
and  machine-readable/standardised  licences.  Individual  stakeholders  cited  the  scope  of 
IPRs, the geographical scope of licences and the unavailability of linked open data. 

78  online  respondents  provided  further  input  on  ways  to  ensure  data  protection  in  the 
context of PSIs. Suggested solutions included:  

 

technical  (e.g.  pseudonymisation,  anonymisation,  encryption,  separation  of 
networks); 

 

legal (e.g. consent-oriented solutions or ‘privacy by design’ rules); and  

  other (e.g. training of officials, appointing a person in charge of anonymisation). 

Access by public sector bodies to private sector data of public interest 

Acceptance  of  the  idea  of  allowing  public  administrations  to  access  and  re-use  private 
sector data of public interest has increased since the ‘Building a European data economy’ 
consultation (June 2017). It was supported by 88 % of 205 respondents, across all types 
of contributors. 

Of  the  189  online  respondents,  81 %  felt  that  specific  legal  measures  were  needed. 
Among  them,  EU  legislation  by  sector  was  mainly  supported,  followed  by  general 
principles, and then by adoption of specific rights and guarantees.  

Businesses  tended  to  support  specific  rights  and  guarantees,  while  public  organisations 
favoured EU wide legislation by sectors and general principles. Online, in papers and at 
the public hearing, statistical offices and other public organisations expressed support for 
laying  down  principles  common  to  all  Member  States  and  highlighted  the  need  to 
legislate before wide national disparities appear in the field of statistics.  

Although businesses supported that approach online, in papers and at events such as the 
public  hearing  many  businesses  and  associations  stressed  the  importance  of  voluntary 
measures and contractual freedom to implement them. 

Stakeholders in all categories called for a clearer definition of ‘public interest’ and clarity 
on the objectives and scope of the initiative. This suggests a need for further discussion 
with stakeholders, including public organisations with a view to establishing clear areas 
for action. 

NEXT STEPS 

The consultation results contribute to the evaluation and review of the PSI Directive, as 
part of the data package to be adopted in April 2018. The evidence collected to support 

67 

 
 
the  impact  assessment  was  fed  into  an  analysis  of  organisations’  expected  positions  on 
the  policy  options  (lighter  vs.  heavier  regulation),  according  to  their  role  in  the  PSI 
context  (Member  States,  PSI  holders  and  re-users,  public  transport  and  utilities 
undertakings,  educational  and  research  establishments).  It  was  concluded 
that 
stakeholders are most likely to support lighter regulation.  

68 

 
 
ANNEX 3: VISUALISATION OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY 
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PUBLIC ONLINE CONSULTATION ON 
THE REVIEW OF THE PSI DIRECTIVE 

Figure 6 - Coherence of the PSI Directive 

Figure 7 - Effectiveness of the PSI Directive 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8 - Efficiency of the PSI Directive 

Figure 9 – Relevance of the PSI Directive  

Figure 10 – Potential simplification of the PSI Directive 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11 – Existing barriers to the re-use of data (more than one option could be chosen) 

Figure 12 – Potential changes to the charging rules 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13 – Conditions to be applied for access to data to be authorised 

72 

 
 
 
Figure 14 – Should access to data coming from private sector entities and its use by public authorities for 
reasons of public interest be allowed? 

Figure 15 – What would be the possible motivation or incentives for data sharing of public interest with public 
authorities (more than one option could be chosen) 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

The proposed revision of the PSI Directive will have a range of practical implications for 
different groups of stakeholders. 

Companies in general, and SMEs and start-ups in particular, will gain easier access to a 
wider  pool  of  public  sector  data,  which  would  otherwise  be  difficult  or  impossible  to 
obtain due to a number of obstacles addressed by the proposal. They will benefit from the 
initiative directly by being able to reuse and recombine these different types of data and 
use  it  as  the  basis  for  a  wide  range  of  innovative  services.  Public  data  is  an  asset 
particularly sought after by innovative  SMEs and start-ups due to the relatively modest 
initial  capital  investment  necessary  to  launch  a  data-driven  business.  In  2017,  around 
727,000 companies are estimated to have benefitted from the PSI Directive (an increase 
of 56% since 2010). It is expected that by 2030 this number will increase by around 1.4 
million to reach around 2.2 million.191 

Consumers will benefit indirectly from the initiative, since they will have a wider choice 
of better and cheaper digital products developed on the basis of public sector data. On a 
more  global  level,  they  also  stand  to  gain  from  a  whole  range  of  societal  and 
environmental  benefits  generated  by  products  and  services  based  on  open  data,  for 
example in such areas as public transport, healthcare and energy. Citizens will also  see 
noticeable  improvements  as  regards  access  to  information,  social  inclusion  and  civic 
participation. At present the provisions of the PSI Directive already affect the majority of 
citizens  in  the  EU  in  some  way,  whether  it  is  through  services  available  on  their 
smartphones or through more accurate weather reports they get on the radio or TV. It is 
expected  that  by  2030  the  impact  of  services  based  on  PSI  will  be  so  pervasive  that 
almost all citizens in the EU will be directly and indirectly impacted by the provisions of 
the PSI Directive.192 

Public sector bodies will be affected in two ways. On the one hand, some will be covered 
by new obligations, which will necessitate a certain compliance effort. On the other hand, 
by virtue of also being consumers of public sector data, they will be able to access and 
reuse  the  wider  pool  of  available  data  to  ensure  a  more  cost-effective  public  service 
delivery and better-targeted policy making. It is important to bear in mind, however, that 
as  far as the trade-off between the new obligations  and benefits  is concerned, the large 
majority of public sector bodies will experience only the positive effects of the initiative, 
and no negative impact. Mostly larger public sector data-holders (e.g. mapping agencies, 

191 Impact Assessment support study, Deloitte, 2018, SMART 2017/0061. 
192 Ibid. 

74 

 
 
 
                                                            
meteorological institutes, and large cities) will be affected by the charging provisions, the 
API obligations and the non-exclusivity requirements. 

For public undertakings and research organisations, practical implications of the initiative 
will also be twofold. In certain cases, these bodies will be expected to comply with some 
new requirements, but at the same time they will also benefit from the proposed changes. 

Public undertakings will be able to use more data that will become available, while the 
products  created  on  the  basis  of  their  own  open  data  by  third  parties  will  improve  the 
quality of the services they provide to their customers. As for new obligations, only those 
public  undertakings  will  be  affected  that  are  trading  information  that  is  generated  as  a 
side-product  of  their  main  activity.  They  will  have  to  comply  with  obligations  on 
transparency,  non-exclusivity  and  non-discrimination,  and  will  have  to  respect  the 
maximum charges for the data, based on recovering full costs plus a reasonable return on 
investment.   

Research organisations will generally benefit from the wider reusability of research data, 
which is widely considered to be a positive driver for the development of science. As for 
obligations, the initiative will have some consequences for the operation of open science 
repositories that may have to adapt their licencing conditions and to check whether there 
are  third  party  rights  on  any  of  the  datasets.  The  way  in  which  individual  research 
institutions will be affected will depend on the way in which Member States will shape 
their research data policies.  

2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Impact 
on 
economic value of PSI  

the 

direct 

the  estimated 
Impact  on 
number of persons employed 
in the area of PSI 

Impact  on 
opening up PSI 

the  cost  of 

Direct benefits in 2027/2028 

44 billion EUR  - 30% more than in the baseline 
scenario  (Preferred  option:  194  billion  EUR, 
Baseline: 150 billion EUR) 

191,000 - 40% more than in the baseline scenario 
(Preferred option: 709,000, Baseline: 518,000) 

Cost  1.4  billion  EUR  (33%)  lower  than  in  the 
baseline  scenario  (Preferred  option:  2.7  billion 
EUR, Baseline: 4.1 billion EUR)  

Costs reduction linked to increased 
efficiency  gains  achieved  through 
greater  proactivity  and  higher 
automation of opening up PSI 

Indirect benefits by 2030 

Impact on the total economic 
value of PSI 

214 billion EUR - 32% more than in the baseline 
scenario  (Preferred  option:  871  billion  EUR, 
Baseline: 657 billion EUR) 

The  concept  of  total  economic 
value  of  PSI  includes  both  direct 
and indirect economic value  

Impact  on 
economic value of PSI 

the 

indirect 

170 billion EUR - 33% more than in the baseline 
scenario  (Preferred  option:  678  billion  EUR, 
Baseline: 511 billion EUR) 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off  Recurrent  One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

No costs   No costs  No costs  No costs  Approx. 50,000 

EUR (per 
organisation / 
application)193 

Direct costs 

Indirect costs  No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs  Training costs for 

public sector 
officials: Up to 
300,000 EUR per 
Member State 

Direct costs  No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs 

Indirect costs  No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs 

No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs 

Direct costs 

Indirect costs  No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs 

No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs 

Dynamic 
data/APIs 

Charging 

Data from 
public 
undertakings 
in transport 
and utilities 
sector   

Research 
data 

Direct costs 

Max. 56 million 
EUR (for all EU 
Member States per 
year) for the 14 key 
high-value 
datasets194  

Approx. 150 million 
EUR (for all EU 
Member States per 
year)195 

Approx. 20,000 
EUR per public 
undertaking per 
year196 

Approx. 10,000 
EUR administrative 
and legal cost 
(licencing issues, 
checking third party 
rights etc.) per open 
science repository, 
i.e. 15 million EUR 
for all Member 
States per year 197 

Indirect costs  No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs 

Non-

Direct costs  No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs 

Max 4.5 million 

193 An example cost of implementing an API for a medium sized application. However, this cost would be 
optional, since there would be no hard obligation to use APIs for most datasets. A hard obligation to use 
APIs would only apply to a certain number of high-value datasets. 
194 The maximum cost of making available 14 categories of high-value datasets in all Member States via 
APIs (see p. 28 of the Impact Assessment) 
195  It  is  estimated  that  by  eliminating  some  of  the  exceptions  to  the  marginal  cost  principle  and  making 
some of the high-value datasets free by default, the overall loss of income for public sector bodies will be 
approximately  a  half  of  the  amount  that  would  they  would  lose  if  charging  was  abolished  entirely  (300 
million EUR – see. p. 30 of the Impact Assessment). 
196 This would only apply to those public undertakings that are trading information that is produced as a 
side-product of their main activity. 
197 There are approximately 1,500 open science repositories currently in the EU. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off  Recurrent  One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

exclusivity 

Indirect costs  No costs  No costs  No costs  No costs 

EUR (for all 
Member States per 
year)198  

The figures cited in the table illustrate the costs under the preferred option in relation to 
its specific elements for different types of stakeholders. They are, however, not based on 
the  quantitative  model  developed  as  part  of  the  Support  study  by  Deloitte  but  rather 
exemplify  the  overall  costs  estimated  with  the  model  and  break  them  down  into  more 
specific aspects. 

The overall methodology used by the study to estimate the baseline scenario, as well as 
the impacts of the policy options are provided in Annex 8. 

The  underlying  model  is  based  on  comprehensive  data  from  public  sources  multiplied 
with assumptions based on data from primary and secondary sources in order to provide 
an  obverall  EU28  estimate  (e.g.  the  economic  value).  Based  on  the  Compound  Annual 
Growth Rate of the Eurostat data, as well as a specific S-curve growth model (i.e. either 
linear  growth  or  curve  modelling  depending  on  theory  and  data),  the  data  was  the 
extrapolated until 2030. Specific assumptions have been used to break down the data by 
specific metrics, such as economic value by sector, or government revenue from PSI by 
level of government. 

The  following  graph  depicts  the  individual  contributions  of  the  measures  under  the 
preferred policy option to the overall direct economic value. The direct economic value 
should  be  seen  as  illustrative  representation  of  the  individual  estimates  made  in  the 
support study. The dotted lines represent the individual economic value that each element 
of the Policy Package adds to the baseline scenario to achieve the overall impact. 

198 Based on the assumption that max 20 cases per year per Member State would need to undergo an ex-
ante  check,  which  would  require  40  man-days  split  between  the  public  sector  body  concerned  and  the 
national  competition  authority  (so  max.  160,000  EUR  per  Member  State  per  year).  The  number  of  such 
cases is moreover expected to decline over time, due to the preventive effect that the inclusion of the new 
legislative  provision  will  have  on  the  public  sector  bodies,  as  has  been  the  case  with  the  exclusive 
agreements targeted by article 11 of the Directive. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018 

The shares of contributions of the individual elements can be derived from the following 
table. 

Benefits: 
Share of 
contributions to 
benefits of 
intermediate policy 
option 

Costs: 
Share of 
contributions to 
costs of 
intermediate policy 
option 

Policy Options 

PO1 

PO2 

Charging 

Research 
institutions 

Para-public bodies 

APIs 

Exclusive 
agreements 

Policy Options 

PO1 

Charging 

Research 
institutions 

Para-public bodies 

APIs 

Exclusive 
agreements 

23% 

20% 

29% 

20% 

10% 

23% 

20% 

29% 

20% 

10% 

PO2 

18% 

20% 

36% 

19% 

9% 

18% 

20% 

36% 

19% 

9% 

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018 

It  was  not  part  of  the  model  to  estimate  how  costs  and  revenues  are  distributed among 
actors across  the data value chain. From a qualitative perspective,  in  general, no single 

78 

 
 
 
type of stakeholders, however, is affected by costs or benefits only. Public sector bodies, 
businesses,  researchers,  as  well  as  citizens  all  face  costs  and  benefits  alike  –  either 
monetary or with respect to more qualitative aspects such as transparency, opportunity, 
or  freedom  of  choice.  SMEs  are  of  particular  concern  as  they  tend  to  be  affected 
disproportionately  by  costs.  The  support  study  has  shown  the  types  of  stakeholders 
profiting  strongest  from  PSI  are  public  authorities,  as  well  as  industry  businesses  and 
companies  active  in  trade  and  transport.  At  the  same  time,  however,  these  are  also 
affected strongest by the costs related to PSI.  

As part of the support study, estimates have not been differentiated across administrative, 
technical,  and  opportunity  costs,  as  well  as  redress  and  litigation  costs.  Although  the 
underlying data (gathered from interviews in several Member States, feedback received 
during  the  workshops,  as  well  as  expert  assumptions  based  on  the  available  material), 
provided insights into how costs are structured, the overall data based was not found to 
be  sufficiently  robust  enough  to  provide  detailed  estimates  per  type  of  cost  in  a 
quantitative way.  

79 

 
 
ANNEX 5: EVALUATION REPORT 

(see Staff Working Document SWD(2018) 145) 

80 

 
 
ANNEX 6: THE EVOLUTION OF THE DIRECTIVE ON THE  
RE-USE OF PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION 

1. Key elements of the original PSI Directive 

The 2003 Directive was built around two main pillars: ensuring the cheap availability of 
public  sector  data  to  third  parties  whilst  setting  a  level  playing  field  between  public 
bodies  and  private  competitors  in  the  information  market.    It  also  included  a  set  of 
principles on which the PSI re-use in Europe has since been based: 

  Non-discrimination:  any  conditions  for  the  re-use  of  public  sector  documents 

have to be non-discriminatory for comparable categories of re-use 

  No  cross-subsidies:  when  public 

institutions  commercialise  added-value 
information  products  based  on  their  own  data,  they  have  to  apply  the  same 
conditions and charges to their own re-use as to their private sector competitors. 

  Prohibition of exclusive arrangements: Save for tightly-defined exceptions, re-use 
of public sector documents has to be open to all potential actors in the market. 

  Upper  limit  for  charging:  to  avoid  the  danger  of  public  sector  bodies  abusing 
their monopoly power as the only producer of specific data, all charges for re-use 
of such data should not exceed the costs incurred, whilst allowing the recovery of 
a 'reasonable return on investment'. 

  Transparency:  conditions  and  standard  charges  for  re-use  should  be  pre-
established and published. The re-user should also be informed of any available 
redress procedures. 

2. Key elements introduced by Directive 2013/37/EU   

The revision of the Directive was preceded by a consultation and an impact assessment 
which  indicated  the  persistence  of  obstacles  to  wide  re-use  of  data  and  the  diverging 
practices with regard to the availability of data for re-use, the licensing conditions and the 
charges applied. An update of the legal framework proved therefore necessary. Its main 
elements are the following: 

  A default rule of charging for re-use of documents based on the marginal costs of 
their reproduction and dissemination and subject to limited exceptions only; 

  A  general  rule  that  all  accessible  documents  are  by  default  re-usable  for  any 
purpose,  commercial  or  non-commercial,  unless  protected  by  third-party 
copyright and without prejudice to data protection legislation; 

81 

 
 
  Exclusive arrangements are generally prohibited. Exceptions can be accepted in a 
specific  case  of  digitisation  agreements  but  those  should  be  limited  in  time  and 
safeguard the public domain character of the cultural items. 

  Scope  of  the  Directive  is  widened  so  as  to  cover  content  held  by  museums, 
libraries and archives but is only re-useable if the institutions allow its re-use. 

  Public  sector  bodies  must  be  transparent  about  the  licensing  conditions  and 
charges  they  apply  and  about  the  factors  taken  into  account  when  calculating 
charges. 

82 

 
 
ANNEX 7: OPEN DATA IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT 

Over  the  last  few  decades,  a  range  of  countries  have  put  in  place  their  specific  open 
government data policies all over the world. Some of these national or cross-border open 
data  policies  have  already  borne  their  fruits  in  the  form  of  measurable  socio-economic 
benefits. 

In a global context, nearly eight in 10 citizens (78%) say that open government data can 
help  improve  lives  of  citizens.  The  largest  number  of  people  who  consider  open 
government data to have an important role in improving their lives are from India (93%), 
followed  by  Taiwan  (84%),  Singapore  (83%)  and  Mexico  (80%).  37%  of  respondents 
think that open government data makes governments more transparent. This sentiment is 
particularly strong in Mexico (52%), Taiwan (51%) and Finland (47%).199 

A  2013  study200  made  an  attempt  to  estimate  the  annual  economic  potential  linked  to 
open data and calculated USD 3 trillion globally. The benefits taken into account during 
the calculation included increased efficiency, development of new products and services, 
and  consumer  surplus  (cost  savings,  convenience,  better-quality  products)  as  well.  The 
same  study  estimated  that  the  potential  economic  benefits  could  be  divided  mainly 
between the United States (USD 1.1 trillion), Europe (USD 900 billion) and the rest of 
the world (USD 1.7 trillion). 

G8 Open Data Charter and International Open Data Charter 

In  June  2013,  G8  leaders  signed  an  Open  Data  Charter201  which  set  out  five  strategic 
principles  that  all  G8  members  are  to  act  on.  These  include  an  expectation  that  all 
government data will be published openly by default, alongside principles to increase the 
quality, quantity and re-use of the data that is released. G8 members have also identified 
fourteen  high-value  areas  –  from  education  to  transport,  and  from  health  to  crime  and 
justice – from which they will release data.  

On  the  basis  of  the  G8  Open  Data  Charter,  an  International  Open  Data  Charter202  has 
been developed, with the support of a number of international organizations including the 
World  Bank  Group,  United  Nations,  Organization  of  American  States  (OAS), 
Organization  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD),  Inter-American 
Development Bank (IADB), African Development Bank Group, Economic Commission 
for  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean  (ECLAC/CEPAL).  The  Charter  has  so  far  been 
adopted by 17 national and 35 local or subnational governments across the world. 

199 Open Government Data: Assessing demand around the world - A report from The Economist 
Intelligence Unit, 2017, p. 9 
200 Open Data: Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information, 2013, p. 6 
201 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-charter/g8-open-data-charter-and-technical-
annex 
202 https://opendatacharter.net/  

83 

 
 
                                                            
All  G8  members  have  started  implementing  the  commitment  to  work  towards  the 
progressive publication of datasets in accordance with the principles of “open by default” 
and “quality and quantity”. Other countries have made similar pledges all over the world.  

Such benefits could also be realised at EU level. In its commitments to implement the G8 
Open  Data  Charter203,  the  EU  also  committed  to  the  publication  by  the  EU  Member 
States  of  core  and  high-value  datasets  in  line  with  the  G8  principles.  Creating  a  list  of 
such datasets, which would be open and free by default, has the potential to facilitate the 
emergence of a new range of pan-European data products and services developed on the 
basis of mutually complementary cross-border datasets.  

OECD 

In 2018, the OECD expects to submit for approval a draft Council Recommendation on 
the General Principles  for  Enhanced Access to Data.  In the run-up to the draft Council 
Recommendation,  an  ad-hoc  Joint  Steering  Group  will  deepen  the  understanding  of 
issues  such  as  data  openness,  trade-offs  in  data  utilisation,  policies  to  address  market 
failures  via  enhanced  access  to  data  (e.g.  interoperability,  standards  and  regulations  on 
privacy  and  IP).  This  new  OECD  Recommendation  will  combine,  amongst  others,  the 
OECD  Recommendation  on  Access 
the  OECD  PSI 
Recommendation. 

to  Research  Data  and 

Open Government Partnership (OGP) 

Open  data  is  an  important  component  of  the  Open  Government  Partnership  (OGP) 
initiative204 whose primary goal is to "increase transparency about what governments are 
doing  –  which  promotes  accountability  and  good  governance,  enhances  public  debate, 
helps  to  combat  corruption,  and  supports  the  design  and  delivery  of  better  public 
services".  OGP  membership  increased  from  8  members  in  2011  to  over  70  countries, 
including the majority of EU member states. 

United States of America  

In  the  United  States,  the  Federal  Government  has  been  pioneering  Open  Data  policies 
already  under  the  Clinton  administration  placing  federal  information  in  the  public 
domain. In 2013, President Barack Obama issued a Memorandum on "Open Data Policy 
– Managing Information as an Asset"205 and an executive order206 to all federal ministries 
and agencies to make their information easily and readily available on machine readable 

203 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/eu-implementation-g8-open-data-charter  
204 www.opengovpartnership.org  
205 Memorandum for the Heads of the Executive Departments and Agencies, May 9, 2013: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf  
206 Executive Order – Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information, 
May 9, 2013: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-
machine-readable-new-default-government-  

84 

 
 
                                                            
form. This memorandum has been followed by concrete plans of actions207 and a strong 
political backing by "a data-driven president"208. 

The  Digital  Accountability  and  Transparency  Act  of  2014  (DATA  Act)  advocates  an 
opening  of  some  governmental  data.  It  focuses  on  making  federal  expenditures  more 
easily  accessible  and  transparent  by,  for  example,  establishing  common  standards  for 
financial data. A related policy document209 instructs agencies to manage their data as an 
asset and, wherever possible, release it to the public in an open, discoverable and usable 
way. The US administration has recently started an IT modernisation effort which shifts 
their policy to a service-based model (i.e. rethinking how government delivers services).  

Japan 

In Japan, under the Basic Act on the Advancement of Utilising Public and Private Sector 
Data of December 2016, "The State and local public entities are to implement necessary 
measures  to  enable  citizens  to  easily  use  Public  and  Private  Sector  Data  held  by 
themselves via the Internet or any other advanced information and telecommunications 
network  while  ensuring  that  the  rights  and  interests  of  individuals  and  corporations, 
national security, etc. are not damaged". In some sectors such as electric power and gas, 
certain  measures are taken to allow access to the information  they collect in their legal 
monopoly.  The  Japanese  open  data  portal  publishes  data  sets  considered  of  high  value 
information,  energy  and  government 
transport 
such  as 
accountability and democracy.  

timetables,  education 

Australia 

The  principles  on  open  public  sector  information  form  part  of  a  core  vision  for 
government  information  management  in  Australia.210  These  principles  rest  on  the 
premise  that  public  sector  information  is  a  national  resource  and  a  free  flow  of 
information between government, business and the community can stimulate innovation 
in  the  economy.  The  principles  will  be  applied  with  objectives  of  the  Freedom  of 
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act)211.  

The  Australian  open  data  portal  provides  data  sets  such  as  public  transport  timetables, 
international trade data, company register and government spending (in machine readable 

207 US Open data Action plan 2014-2015 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/us_open_data_action_plan.pdf 
208 The Power of Open data to Solve Old Problems in New Ways, blog post at opening session of the 3rd 
International Open Data Conference 2015: http://opendatacon.org/the-power-of-open-data-to-solve-old-
problems-in-new-ways/ . 
209 https://project-open-data.cio.gov/policy-memo/ 
210 https://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-resources/principles-on-open-public-
sector-information 
211 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02562 

85 

 
 
                                                            
format). It also provides hosting for tabular, spatial and relational data with hosted APIs 
and the option for agencies to link data and services hosted by other government sources.  

The  government  in  Australia  has  committed  to  identifying  National  Interest  Datasets 
(NIDs).  According  to  the  report  "Building  a  reformed  data  system"212,  significant 
improvements  could  come  from  aggregating  data  across  the  States  and  Territories  in 
different domains: health, education, social welfare, child support, aged care, and linking 
them  with  datasets  from  other  fields,  such  as  the  population  census,  taxation, 
employment,  business  ownership,  telecommunications,  private  health  insurance  or 
housing.  In  principle,  all  non-sensitive  datasets  in  fields  where  there  are  growing 
opportunities  and  capability  would  be  opened  up  and  released,  depending  on  resources 
and sectoral demand.  

Canada  

The government of Canada issued the Directive on Open Government in October 2014, 
where it establishes an "open by default" directive for government publications and data. 
In 2016, the Third Biennial Plan to the Open Government Partnership was released with 
commitments on open data, i.e. to enhance access to information, streamline requests for 
personal  information,  expand  and  improve  open  data,  provide  and  preserve  open 
information,  definition  of  an  approach  for  measuring  open  government  performance, 
development  of  open  government  skills  and  enhance  access  to  culture  and  heritage 
collections.  

212 http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/data-access/report  

86 

 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 8: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

1. OVERALL METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 

The study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector 
information  (SMART  2017/0061)  was  carried  out  in  three  Phases  (inception,  data 
collection,  and  analysis).  With  regard  to  the  collection  of  data,  the  following  key 
methodological and analysis tool were implemented:213 

-  Strategic interviews; 
-  Desk research; 
- 
-  Legal data collection; 
-  Workshops  with  public  sector  practitioners  and  academics,  as  well  as  with 

Interviews with stakeholders at the EU and national levels; 

PSI re-users and data economy players; 

-  Online  surveys  with  public  authorities,  incl.  public  cultural  institutions, 

education and research bodies, as well as the re-user community; and 

-  Analysis  of 
Commission. 

the  public  consultation214  carried  out  by 

the  European 

An overview of the all these data collection tools is provided below.   

Tool 

Details 

Strategic 
interviews 

Strategic interviews have been carried out with: 

  European Parliament; 
  DG JUST; 
  DG CNECT; 
  DG GROW; 
  DG COMP; 
  DG SANTE 
  Publication Office; 
  DG ENER; 
  DG MOVE; 
  DG RTD; 
  JRC; 
  EDPS; 
  EuDECo215; 

213 The data collected through the implementation of the above tools will be analysed through the 
application of the following analytical methods and processes: Legal analysis; Triangulation; Analysis of 
costs and benefits; and Multi-Criteria-Analysis. 
214 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-review-directive-re-use-public-sector-
information-psi-directive_en 

87 

 
 
                                                            
Tool 

Details 

  Europeana;  
  Kennisland216; and 
  European University Association. 

Desk 
research 

Desk  research  was  a  continuous  exercise  throughout  the  study  and 
informed  the  drafting  of  e.g.  surveys  and  questionnaires,  as  well  as  the 
draft  reporting  on  findings.  The  desk  research  is  structured  around  the 
indicators that are included in the Analytical Framework.  
For the purpose of the legal analysis of the PSI Directive in the Member 
States, a research questionnaire was used. 

Interviews   The study team completed the interviews with stakeholders at the national 
level. Interviews were conducted with the following types of stakeholders:  
  Ministries  and  public  bodies  in  charge  of  public  sector  data 

regulation and monitoring of implementation; 

  Public bodies falling into the scope of the Directive; 
  Museums, libraries and archives; 
  Public undertakings in the transport and utility domains; 
  Universities and research centers; and 
  Re-users associations. 

Workshops  Representatives of the study team attended the PSI group meeting that was 
held  on  15  November  2017.  The  team  members  provided  a  short 
presentation, took detailed minutes of the discussion, as well as of its key 
results and conclusions. 
The first workshop with research bodies was held on 14 December 2017 
with more than 30 stakeholders from the area of research, publishing, open 
data  advocacy  and  the  private  sector.  As  part  of  two  panel  sessions,  the 
attendees  engaged  in  a  lively,  open  and  fruitful  discussion  about  the 
potential and challenges related to opening up research data. Members of 
the  study  team  contributed  with  short  presentations,  and  provided  the 
Commission with detailed minutes of the discussion, as well as of its key 
results and conclusions. 
A second workshop involving data providers and re-users was held on 18 
January  2018.  The  purpose  of  the workshop  was  to  discuss  the  technical 
and  non-technical  barriers  for  opening  up  and  reusing  the  public  sector 
data and the possible ways to improve the situation. Members of the study 
team moderated the event and took minutes of the discussions.  

Online 
surveys 

The  study  team  prepared  and  disseminated  three  online  surveys.  The 
stakeholders contacted are listed in the First Interim Report of the study. 
Survey on cultural data217 

215 http://data-reuse.eu/  
216 https://www.kl.nl/en/people/paul-keller/  

88 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
Tool 

Public 
consultation 
analysis 

Legal data 
collection 

Details 
This survey was focused on gathering information for the evaluation and 
the  analysis  of  the  effects  of  the  new  provisions  that  were  added  to  the 
Directive in 2013 with respect to data held by museums etc.  
Survey on research data218 
This  survey  investigated  the  effects  and  opportunities  linked  to  the 
opening up of research data in the framework of publicly funded research. 
It targeted universities and research centres.  
Survey for the re-user community219 
This survey focused on the beneficiaries of the PSI Directive and mainly 
concerned: 

  The  provisions  on  charging  (limited  to  marginal  costs)  and  the 

effects of possible modifications to this provision; 

  The possibility of opening up data held by public undertakings in 
the  transport  and  utility  domains  or  produced  in  relation  with 
public contracts; 

  The possibility of opening up research data; 
  The question of APIs and dynamic data. 

Despite significant efforts in dissemination, the response to the survey was 
limited mainly due to the public consultation on the PSI Directive review 
going on in parallel. As a consequence, the survey results could be used as 
indicative evidence and without the possibility to broadly generalise their 
insights.  
A  public  consultation  on  the  review  of  the  Directive  on  the  re-use  of 
Public  Sector  Information  (PSI  Directive)220  was  carried  out  from  19 
September 2017 to mid-December 2017.  
The study team analysed the qualitative answers to the public consultation 
under  the  instructions  from  the  European  Commission  and  provided  a 
preliminary report on this analysis.  
The questions included in the public consultation were taken into account 
when  the  interview  guides  and  online  surveys  were  prepared  in  order  to 
avoid duplication. The results of the public consultation were also used to 
support the analysis all through the deliverables of the study.  
The  legal  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  PSI  Directive  was 
performed in two steps: 1) data collection at national level by a network of 
legal experts and 2) legal analysis by the legal team of time.lex and Spark 
Legal Network.  
Firstly,  data  was  collected  through  desk  research,  by  a  team  of  national 
legal  experts  covering  the  ten  selected  EU  Member  States  (DE,  EE,  EL, 

217 See: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/culturaldataPSI 
218 See: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/ResearchSurvey 
219 See: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/PSIReusersSurvey 
220 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-review-directive-re-use-public-sector-
information-psi-directive_en 

89 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
Tool 

Details 
FR,  IE,  IT,  NL,  PL,  SE,  SI).  This  work  was  executed  on  the  basis  of  a 
detailed  research  protocol,  including  a  research  questionnaire.  The  legal 
experts were asked to complete the research questionnaire collecting data 
on 1) the national transposition strategies, 2) potential legal issues arising 
from the implementation of the latest changes to the PSI Directive and, 3) 
the  interplay  and  overlap  between  the  PSI  Directive  with  other  relevant 
EU legal instruments.  

Having carried out the legal data collection exercise, the national experts 
submitted their reports to the legal  team, which reviewed them to  ensure 
completeness and consistent quality of the national legal reports.   

As  the  national  legal  reports  were  completed  and  quality  checked,  the 
legal  team  fed  the  results  into  a  comparative  document  summarising  the 
key  issues  identified  during  the  legal  data  collection.  This  internal 
document  facilitated  the  comparison  between  the  ten  Member  States  and 
the  identification  of  similarities,  problems,  gaps,  overlaps  and  diverging 
implementations.  Thus,  it  allowed  all  results  to  be  bundled  into  one 
document, and prepared the ground for the first comparisons to be made, 
which in turn fed into the legal analysis. 

After having drafted a preliminary version of the legal analysis, the legal 
team  held  a  two-day  internal  brainstorming  meeting  in  Brussels.  The 
meeting  focused  on  discussing  the  outcomes  of  the  data  collection  at 
national 
identifying  problems/barriers  and  best  practices. 
Subsequently,  and  linking  with  the  abovementioned  issues,  barriers  and 
best  practices,  the  legal  team  assessed  the  potential  policy  options  to  be 
considered from both a legal and practical point of view. The results of the 
meeting were incorporated into the legal analysis.  

level, 

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. THE MODEL USED IN THE STUDY 

The  overall  approach  used  to  develop  the  estimates  provided  in  the  support  study,  e.g. 
concerning  the  economic  value  and  costs  related  to  PSI,  are  is  based  on  the  logic 
visualised in the figure below. 

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018 

As  can  be  seen  above,  comprehensive  data  from  public  sources,  e.g.  the  number  of 
businesses  available  for  multiple  years  via  Eurostat,  was  multiplied  with  assumptions 
based on data from primary and secondary sources, e.g. in relation to the market size of 
PSI in different Member States or third countries in order to estimate the overall (direct 
and indirect) EU28 economic value. Based on the Compound Annual Growth Rate of the 
Eurostat  data,  as  well  as  a  specific  S-curve  growth  model  (i.e.  either  linear  growth  or 
curve  modelling  depending  on  theory  and  data,  see  further  below),  the  data  was  the 
extrapolated until 2030. Finally, specific assumptions have been used to break down the 
data by specific metrics, such as economic value by sector, or government revenue from 
PSI by level of government. 

The growth model has been developed to project the development of the estimates in the 
future, especially the expected growth in the PSI market under different option packages. 

91 

 
 
 
The  growth  model  used  in  this  study  is  based  on  the  S-curve  concept  which  is  widely 
applied in macro-economic modelling. The concept is visualised below. 

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018 

Within this concept, the growth of a certain set of data over time, e.g. the economic value 
of PSI, increases over time up to a point at which the growth rate eventually declines and 
the data only grows marginally (the curve “flattens out”). 

Such a curve can be modelled with a logistic function. The general formula used for the 
logistic function is the following. 

𝑃(𝑡) =  

𝑃0 ∗   𝑒𝑟−𝑡 
1 +   𝑃0(𝑒𝑟−𝑡 − 1)/𝑃𝑀𝐴𝑋

The formula contains the following elements: 

  P represents the data point at a given time t; 
  P0 represents the data point today; 
  PMAX represents the data point that can reasonably be achieved until 2030; and 
  r represents the parameter by means of which the data point is expected to increase 

annually; and 

  e is the mathematical that is the base for the natural logarithm (‘Euler’s number’). 

The curve can be modelled in such a way that it does, however, not necessraily resemble 
the S-curve in a given period of time, e.g. by mathematically stretching its development 

92 

 
 
 
 
over a timeframe that exceeds the scope of this study (i.e. the flat part of the curve will 
not be reached by 2030). 

Towards  the  end  of  its  lifecycle,  each  market,  industry,  product,  or  service  ultimately 
reaches  a  saturation  phase.  This  means  that  marginal  investments  are  becoming 
increasingly  inefficient  (i.e.  every  additional  euro  of  investment  does  not  increase  the 
return  on  investment)  with  increasingly  less  consumers  purchasing  the  respective 
products or services.  

With  specific  regard  to  PSI,  this  means  that  at  some  point  in  the  future  the  economic 
value of PSI is expected to grow at a shrinking margin. Reasons for this can e.g. be that 
the most important data sources have been opened up and provided in a re-usable format. 
Moreover,  in  the  saturation  phase  of  the  market,  most  consumers  are  expected  to  have 
purchased  PSI-based  goods  and  services,  meaning  that  innovation  can  reasonably  be 
expected to become more and more difficult. Thus, consumers may look for products and 
services  based  on  alternative  types  of  data  or  data  sources  outside  the  EU  context. 
Therefore, the growth curve typically “flattens out” in the saturation phase of the market. 

Given  the  complexity  of  and  differences  between  each  type  of  industry  and  business, 
granular information on costs and benefits is usually very scarce. This is a frequent issue 
in  Impact  Assessment  studies  as  a  crucial  constraint  for  the  assessment  of  existing 
problems and the impacts of the Policy Packages. Important constraints were: 

  Only few stakeholders were able to provide the information in relation to the types 

of evidence necessary for the Commission; and 

  The specific timing of this study was a challenge for the collection and analysis of 
(quantitative) evidence, as the 2013 changes to the Directive did not yet have full 
practical impact according to numerous stakeholders. 

Thus, the model is based on a pragmatic, reasonable methodology, as well as proxies and 
the  best  data  available.  Moreover,  expert  assumptions  /  estimates  concerning  the 
expected level of e.g. costs and benefits (based on estimates and the use of ranges) were 
used after a peer-review process the included the Commission. 

Hence,  the  analyses  and  estimates  contained  in  the  study  should  rather  be  seen  as  a 
contribution  to  the  general  debate  around  PSI  than  exact  science.  Thus,  the  estimates 
should be treated with caution. 

The following table provides the key assumptions used in the model. They are based on 
the best data available from the interviews carried out as part of this study, as well as the 
available secondary literature and expert opinions. 

Peer review of the assumptions used 
A  number  of  assumptions  used  for  the  quantitative  model  are  based  on  expert 
judgment.  This  means  that  the  data  used  in  the  underlying  formulas  is  based  on  the 
best  data  available,  challenged  and  refined  (where  necessary)  by  the  experts  of  the 

93 

 
 
consortium for this assignment. 
The assumptions used for the estimate of the impact of the Policy Options were subject 
to  an  internal,  in-depth  peer  review  process.  As  part  of  this  process,  different 
assumptions  were  introduced  in  the  model  to  compare  the  different  outcomes.  The 
result of this sensitivity analysis was that the assumptions provided in the table above 
seem  to  be,  at  this  stage,  the  most  reasonable  and  pragmatic  based  on  the  best  data 
available in relation to this specific subject. 

Area of 
estimates 

Specific assumption / Indicator 

Number of stakeholders affected 

CAGR 

Contracting authorities 

Cultural institutions 

Para-public bodies 

Research institutes 

Economic value 

Direct 
economic value 

2010 

2015 

Share of 
economic value 
per sector 

Agriculture 

Industry 

Construction 

Trades & Transport 

ICT 

Finance and Insurance 

Real estate 

Professional services 

Public administration 

Arts, entertainment, recreation 

CAGR 

PSI 

Ration Direct / 
Indirect Market 
Size 

Lower bound 

Upper bound 

Employment 

Shares of jobs 

Share of Open Data jobs in Knowledge Intensive 
Activities 

Share of PSI-related jobs of all Open Data jobs in 

94 

0.5% 

0.5% 

-1.0% 

0.5% 

32,000,000,000 €  

44,463,765,786 €  

0.5% 

13.3% 

3.6% 

13.2% 

8.9% 

8.1% 

11.9% 

11.0% 

29.2% 

0.5% 

6.8% 

3.5 

3.78 

0.078% 

80% 

 
 
 
 
Area of 
estimates 

Specific assumption / Indicator 

Knowledge Intensive Activities 

Share of PSI jobs in Knowledge Intensive 
Activities 

Cost savings + revenue 

Shares 

Share of spending that could be saved 

Share of additional revenue 

IT equipment, programs and licences, computers 
and servers 

Preparation of project, feasibility study  

IT services, audits and tests, APIs 

Legal services, translations, consulting  

Salaries (experts working on open standards, 
trainers, coordinating portal design, partners´ costs 

Other salary related costs  

Training 

Training material 

Information and promotion 

Total 

Number of registers to which these costs relate 

Life time of hard- and software (i.e. number of 
years over which costs are split) 

Share of EU funding 

Average cost per year per register 

Policy Options 

PO1 

PO2 

Costs 

Data from 
Polish 
stakeholders 

Policy options 

Benefits: 
Share of 
contributions to 
benefits of 
intermediate 
policy option 

Charging 

Research institutions 

Para-public bodies 

APIs 

Costs: 
Share of 
contributions to 
costs of 

Exclusive agreements 

Policy Options 

PO1 

Charging 

Research institutions 

95 

23% 

20% 

29% 

20% 

10% 

23% 

20% 

PO2 

0.062% 

0.022% 

0.010% 

1,173,245 €  

205,000 €  

2,069,048 €  

140,645 €  

2,195,714 €  

52,724 €  

268,095 €  

25,789 €  

150,864 €  

6,281,123 €  

7 

7 

84.67% 

19,651 €  

18% 

20% 

36% 

19% 

9% 

18% 

20% 

 
 
Area of 
estimates 
intermediate 
policy option 

Specific assumption / Indicator 

Para-public bodies 

APIs 

Exclusive agreements 

29% 

20% 

10% 

36% 

19% 

9% 

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018 

96 

 
 
 
ANNEX 9: SUCCESS STORIES ON OPEN DATA 

These  stories  have  been  produced  to  give  an  account  of  how  open  data  is  used  by 
European companies and how they combine open data with other kinds of data to create 
value for the economy and innovative services or products for their clients.  

Companies  are  using  open  data  to  exploit  gaps  across  markets  and  identify  business 
opportunities, create new products and services and develop new business models. Start-
ups  using  open  data  often  combine  business  information  with  the  intention  to  create 
social, economic and environmental impact. 

The success stories on open data shed light over the activities of the two main actors in 
the open data market: data re-users and data holders.  

The data re-users covered in this annex are:  

  Commoprices: A data-based service to buy goods at the best price (France) 
  Cropti: Efficient and environmentally-friendly farming (Spain) 
  Datasparks (Derilinx): Inspiring change through efficient energy consumption 

(Ireland) 

  Go OV:  Democratising public transport services (the Netherlands) 
  Green City Solutions: Making clean urban air profitable (Germany)   
  Viomedo:  Accelerating patients' access to medical innovation (Germany and 

Austria) 

The data holders covered in this annex are:  

  The Estonian Road Administration: a digital service (Estonia)   
  Liander: Powering household energy conservation with open data (the Netherlands)  
  Transport for London: The creation of an open data ecosystem (United Kingdom) 

o  Open data in other transport companies  

COMMOPRICES: A DATA-BASED SERVICE TO BUY GOODS AT THE BEST PRICE 

Business opportunity 
Many  large  companies  and  SMEs  are  unable  to  find  independent,  easy  to  access  and 
affordable  market  data  regarding  price  references  on  commodities  (i.e.  goods  such  as 
metals,  plastics,  cereals,  cocoa,  cheese).  On  top  of  that,  if  a  company  needs  to  follow 
price  references  of  different  commodities,  they  needed  a  number  of  accounts  from 
different market data providers. 

97 

 
 
Goal of the company 
The  goal  is  to  simplify  the  way  professionals  follow  commodities,  building  on  open  data. 
Commoprices  helps  procurement  and  supply  professionals  to  have  reliable,  independent 
and  continuous  information  to  buy  commodities  at  the  best  price,  minimise  risks  and 
make the right decisions. It reduces the risks and exposure to commodity price variations, 
and eventually brings more transparency and less volatility to the market. It offers more 
than 100K price references for commodities in a very wide range of sectors: agriculture, 
metals, plastics, chemicals, energy, etc.  

Open data used 
Open  data  on  commodities  from  the  French  customs  forms  the  backbone  of 
Commoprices.  It was the first source of commodity prices provided to their customers. 
These  data  give  authority,  independence  and  strength  to  Commoprices  business 
intelligence  platform  as  the  data  were  primarily  collected  and  validated  by  public 
institutions.  Commoprices  has  also  integrated  customs  open  data  (exports  and  imports) 
from  other  countries  (e.g.  Germany  or  Brazil)  and  has  created  maps  to  visualise 
geographical price references. 

Other data used  
Commoprices has also integrated other open and non-open datasets such as datasets from 
the  WorldBank,  Eurostat,  FranceAgriMer,  USDA,  Enterprise  Resource  Planning  and 
Business Intelligence firms, media companies  or data providers from regional or global 
markets.  Currently,  the  platform  counts  with  data  from  LME,  NYSE,  Singapore 
Exchange and other market prices and indexes.  

Other data that would improve the business 
Commoprices  admits  their  business  offer  would  significantly  improve  if  a  timely 
availability  of  macro  indicators  on  the  cost  of  energy,  labour  and  transportation  was 
assured. These datasets are held by national and European agencies but are only updated 
every  6  months.  Clients  would  need  a  daily  to  monthly  frequency.  In  addition,  some 
operators (eg FranceAgriMer via RNM services) still charge to get access to recent open 
data  prices.  Commoprices  is  also  interested  in  price  reference  indexes  of  specific 
industries which are only accessed against substantial payments. Examples of these price 
reference indexes are Energy prices (e.g. Powernext221 index).  

Societal impact  

This  start-up,  founded  by  two  young  professionals  and  employing  another  four  people, 
shows a true added value in creating more jobs and opportunities for young people in the 
EU.  Thanks  to  ODINE's  advice  and  monitoring,  this  start-up  has  tripled  their  monthly 
sales and scaled up to other EU markets.  

221 Powernext manages the natural gas activities and renders services to the energy sector and operates the 
National Registry for electricity guarantees of origin in France.  

98 

 
 
                                                            
CROPTI: EFFICIENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY FARMING 

Business opportunity  
With  their  experience  in  farming,  Cropti  founders  were  researching  innovation 
opportunities as they became involved in the entrepreneurial scene. They found out that 
there is a low digitisation level in agriculture, and at the same time the farmers are facing 
with  increasingly  low  margins  and  regulatory  pressure.  Cropti  founders  found  an 
opportunity to ease compliance by bringing all data from the farm to the cloud. 

Goal of the company 
Cropti  provides  software  solutions  for  more  efficient  farm  management.  One  solution 
helps  farmers  manage  their  business  more  efficiently  while  complying  with  EU  food 
safety  regulations  and  industry  quality  standards.  Cropti  provides  farmers  with 
personalised recommendations based on various types of constantly updated data. .  

Crop.live,  another  solution  of  Cropti,  allows  access  to  satellite  imagery  for  small  and 
medium sized farms that can use it to identify plot variability and identify problems as 
quickly  as  possible.  On  top  of  this,  Cropti  is  building  an  irrigation  estimation  tool  that 
relies on satellite imagery to assess crop water demands. 

Open data used 
Cropti  is  a  re-user  of  open  data  gathered  by  the  European  Space  Agency  as  well  as  EU 
legal information relevant for the food sector. Cropti also aggregates weather data from 
different providers and mapping data is core to its technologies.  

Other data used  
Additionally,  Cropti  uses  agronomic  data,  such  as  crops  evolution  and  incidences  and 
soil data, and integrates within its products a comprehensive database on agrochemicals 
that  are  authorised  to  be  used  in  Spain,  including  all  their  characteristics,  such  as 
application and usage dates etc.  

Other data that would improve the business 
Better  availability  of  data  relevant  for  the  mapping  of  plots  would  help  the  business 
greatly for example as bulk download or direct access via APIs as recommended by the 
non-binding Commission Guidelines on datasets, licensing and charging for the re-use of 
documents.  Furthermore,  these  guidelines  recommend  that  datasets  coming  from 
cadastral, topographic and other geospatial data are priorities for release. Cropti believes 
the administrations are holding big amounts of data that are compiled through the CAP 
subsidies  processing  (e.g.  crop  rotations).  If  these  data  were  to  be  opened,  it  could 
provide  a  solid  base  for  the  development  of  AI  tools  that  would  help  greatly  in  fields 
such as pest scouting and prevention, yield estimations, etc.   

99 

 
 
 
Societal impact  
Improving agriculture is one of the most effective ways to benefit the society, as farming 
is  closely  related  to  the  three  greatest  challenges  of  our  time:  environment,  health  and 
inequality. Firstly, technologies such as the ones offered by Cropti help farmers reduce 
their use of resources for the same outcome, bringing a more environmentally sustainable 
food production. Secondly, optimization of farming practices leads to healthier products, 
as  the  use  of  chemicals  in  our  food  can  be  reduced  to  the  minimum.  And  last  but  not 
least,  by  helping  farmers  become  more  profitable,  inequalities  that  often  push  them  to 
more unsustainable practices and keep them in the ‘poverty trap’ can be reduced. 

DATASPARKS: INSPIRING CHANGE THROUGH EFFICIENT ENERGY CONSUMPTION 

Company profile 
DataSparks  is  a  solution  developed  by  Derilinx  as  part  of  a  Small  Business  Innovation 
Research  (SBIR)  Initiative,  supported  by  the  Sustainable  Energy  Authority  of  Ireland 
(SEAI) and Enterprise Ireland. Derilinx is a company that helps public bodies, smart cities 
and NGOs publish and share data, driving decision-making, innovation and transparency. 
Derilinx  has  extensive  experience  in  the  provision  of  fully  hosted  and  managed  data 
solutions,  notably  managing  the  Irish  Government's  National  Open  Data  Platform 
(recently ranked #1 in Europe)222.  

Business opportunity 
There are many examples of stakeholders in the energy chain who are striving towards 
more  efficient  energy  consumption  through  sustainable  energy  planning,  provision  of 
customised  support  and  individual  decision  making.  Homeowners  and  tenants  want  to 
live  in  warm  and  comfortable  homes,  while  keeping  energy  costs  down.  The  Irish 
Government  has  committed  to  achieving  a  20%  reduction  in  energy  demand  across 
Ireland by 2020. Property advertisers and realtors want to  maximise property  sales and 
rentals  by  selling  warm  homes.  Energy  agencies  support  communities  and  local 
authorities  to  collaboratively  reduce  energy  consumption,  but  often  can't  evaluate  the 
effectiveness of their campaigns and measures.  

Goal of the company 
DataSparks  accelerates  effective  decision-making  for  these  stakeholders  by  providing 
access to smart, actionable energy insights. Its Energy Data Hub provides access to key 
property and energy data, ensuring relevant information is easy to find and easy to use. 
Datasparks  WebApp  BER  Hero  helps  users  understand  their  energy  usage,  how  it 
compares  to  their  peers  and  how  their  energy  efficiency  can  be  improved  to  reduce 
energy consumption, enhance home comfort and increase property value. 

222 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/dashboard#2017  

100 

 
 
                                                            
Open data and other kinds of data used 
The development of the DataSparks Energy Data Hub involved direct collaboration with 
data  publishers,  such  as  the  Sustainable  Energy  Agency  of  Ireland,  the  Irish  Green 
Building  Council,  Central  Statistics  Office,  Energy  Agencies,  etc.,  on  the  sustainable 
publication of high-value open data.  

Datasparks  data  is  open  by  default  for  other  re-users,  but  it  can  also  be  restricted  to 
internal data sharing only. The DataSparks Energy Data Hub contains over 150 datasets 
from  24  public  and  private  organisations.  A  number  of  datasets  were  semantically 
enriched,  improving  their  quality  and  interoperability,  including  the  BER  research  data 
set. Some examples of datasets are: carbon emissions, energy production, energy imports 
and  fuel  poverty;  Building  Energy  Ratings,  energy  efficiency,  households  and  heating; 
property  prices,  energy  consumption,  fuel  types  and  fuel  prices;  and  energy  grants  and 
energy credits.  

Societal impact  
DataSparks directly accelerates the transition to a low-carbon energy future by creating 
more  awareness  and  participation  within  users  of  their  services.  It  provides  them  with 
energy insights to make their energy consumption more efficient, and thus, the tools to 
help fighting climate change in their day to day lives.  

GOOV: DEMOCRATISING PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES 

Business opportunity 
Many senior people or people who suffer from disabilities, brain injuries and psychiatric 
disorders,  are  unable  to  travel  independently  in  their  cities.  As  a  result,  they  need  a 
companion or the public services to invest in adapting public transport comprehensively. 
Both options are expensive for the families and for the public sector. At the same time, 
parents of kids with a disability believed that that their children would be able to travel 
by themselves, if they had step-by-step instructions and a helpline in case of emergency.  

Goal of the company 
GoOV is a social enterprise that offers people from 10 to 90 years old the opportunity to 
travel  independently  in  their  city.  GoOV  empowers  users  to  travel  independently  and 
safely within their limits with the help of a mobile device and at a lower social cost than 
current transport solutions. It provides an app that shows the route and gives instructions 
to  go  from  door  to  door,  including  walking  routes  and  waiting  time  at  bus  stops  and 
stations.  GoOV  indicates  at  what  time  the  bus  or  train  will  arrive,  where  and  when  to 
switch  and  at  which  stop  or  station  the  traveller  must  get  off.  Their  unique  selling 
proposition of GoOv is that it sends all the supportive alerts at the right time (e.g. alerts 
such as "push the stop button", "walk to platform 10") to the individual users, based on 
their personal profile (e.g. senior, fast or slow, wheelchair).  

101 

 
 
 
This  app  comes  with  a  help  button  to  call  GoOV  helpline  when  the  traveller  does  not 
know  how  to  continue  or  in  case  of  emergency.  GoOV  also  offers  a  viewing  app  for 
parents and supervisors to follow the journey.  

Open data used 
GoOV uses Google maps, GPS data, Open Trip planner, Open street map and the Dutch 
Open Data Base on public transport with live time and place  data, accessibility data of 
bus stops, train platforms and PT-vehicles and carriages.  

Other data used  
GoOV uses dynamic public transport data, a lot of which is available free of charge in the 
Netherlands, but these data are not fully open and complete yet. GoOV had to make deals 
with  different  entities  and  helped  mitigating  errors  detected  in  its  sources  by  sending 
feedback to their providers. Since it is impossible to get GPS signals underground, as in 
the  metro,  GoOV  is  turning  to  beacon  technology  made  available  by  local  Councils  in 
Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Also, GoOV is investigating how to use crowdsourced data.  

Other data that would improve the business 
GoOV  would  need  more  complete  open  data  on  public  transport,  focusing  on 
accessibility  to  train  carriages  or  station  platforms,  timetables,  stations,  bus  stops, 
vehicles.  It  would  also  need  data  on  routes  to  and  from  bus  stops,  railway  and  metro 
stations and indoor navigation in public buildings such as railway and metro stations. In 
the future, they would like to access the geolocation information which is provided by the 
last  generation  of  connected  public  LED  based  lampposts  which  are  being  deployed  in 
the Netherlands in all streets –and indoors.  

Societal impact  
GoOV responds to the UN-treaty provisions for the rights of people with a disability, by 
improving personal mobility to increase and guarantee autonomy under the three pillars 
of physical, mental and financial accessibility. This app makes public transport accessible 
and adapted to the needs of senior people and people with disabilities. GoOV has found 
out  that  84%  of  the  users  switches  permanently  from  taxi  to  public  transport  thanks  to 
them. Besides, it has saved up to 50% of costs in community taxi transportation. 

GREEN CITY SOLUTIONS: MAKING CLEAN URBAN AIR PROFITABLE 

Business opportunity 
When it comes to improving quality of life, cities face significant challenges. The high 
levels of pollution from traffic and industry, the dense population of inner-city areas have 
an effect on citizens' health and cause problematic climate conditions due to heat islands. 
Cities  are  expected  to  promote  biodiversity  and  green  areas  in  public  spaces.  Yet  they 
often  lack  not  only  the  space  for  this,  but  also  the  funds.  These  conclusions  and 
experiences  triggered  Green  City  Solutions’  search  for  an  ecological  and  economical 
solution  for  such  worldwide  problems.  Green  City  Solutions  (GCS)  learned  about  the 

102 

 
 
remarkable impact specific moos cultures have on local air pollution levels and decide to 
use them as an air purification solution, the City Trees.  

Goal of the company 
Green City Solution's vision is a world in which people can live healthily in cities. Green 
City Solutions aims to create living conditions that allow to permanently have clean and 
cool air to breathe. It achieves that by linking the natural abilities of air purifying mosses 
with cutting-edge Internet of Things technology in a unique way. Green City Solutions 
has created City Trees, a mobile and intelligent biological air filter that can measure air 
pollution  in  a  city.    The  moss  protected  by  plant  coverage  binds  particulate  matter, 
nitrogen oxides and CO2e and produces valuable oxygen. At the same time it cools the 
surrounding  air.  The  measurements  can  help  public  administrations  monitor 
environmental pollution in the cities. These trees can make a measurable and sustainable 
contribution to the development of intelligent and future-proof cities.  

Open data used 
Green City Solutions has developed an open data tool for visualisation of the City Trees' 
effectiveness  and  impact  as  an  air  purification  measure.  GCS  has  used  open  data  from 
official pollution measuring stations in Europe -and Asia- to create a comprehensive map 
of the pollution levels in that specific location and have combined it with the data they 
collect from the tree sensors. The goal is to visualise the invisible air pollution and make 
such visualisation publicly available.  

Other data used  
In  2016,  Green  City  Solutions  has  collaborated  with  Cisco  Systems  in  a  smart  cities 
project, which provided valuable insights on the correlations of traffic and air pollution. 

Other data that would improve the business 
Green  City  Solutions  would  extremely  benefit  from  accessing  live  data  and  historical 
data concerning the precise meteorological values.  Transport data, including traffic and 
other  data  collected  by  road  authorities,  could  improve  the  calculus  of  the  impact  of 
nature-based  solutions.  Finally,  data  concerning  the  health  benefits  of  natural  solutions 
(e.g.  parks  in  the  city)  could  be  beneficial  to  benchmark  the  impact  of  Green  City 
Solutions with traditional ones. These data can be provided by many actors in the health 
or research administrations.  

Societal impact  
Green City Solutions aims to mitigate climate change and fight air pollution in the cities. 
This is one of the challenges that cities in Europe face when aligning with the sustainable 
development goals. With these trees, Green City Solutions creates a smart infrastructure 
for sustainable and liveable cities of tomorrow, that monitors environmental pollution.  

103 

 
 
VIOMEDO: ACCELERATING PATIENTS' ACCESS TO MEDICAL INNOVATION 

Business opportunity 
One of the largest challenges in clinical development is finding the right patients to take 
part in clinical trials. This is why it takes ever more time and money to bring innovative 
therapies  to  market.  Overall,  about  40%  of  trials  fail  to  achieve  minimum  patient 
registration.  Ultimately,  85%  of  all  trials  are  delayed  with  each  day  costing  the 
organisation up to USD 8 million (EUR 7.1 million).  

This  leaves  many  EU  patients  without  early  access  to  clinical  innovations  within  trials 
and  many  doctors  without  early  experience  with  novel  therapies.  Without  innovative 
solutions, this problem will only grow as trial sizes increase and therapies become more 
targeted. 

Goal of the company 
Viomedo  develops  an  online  platform  that  connects  patients  with  medical  research  in 
order  to  help  improve  existing  therapies  and  find  cures.  It  uses  a  unique  distribution 
network,  data  and  technology  to  reach  and  register  new  patients  that  comply  with  the 
requirements  (eligibility  criteria)  of  the  clinical  trials.  Together  with  patients,  patient 
advocacy  groups  and  physicians,  Viomedo  supports  leading  research  institutions,  life 
sciences companies and Clinical Research Organisations with their clinical research. At 
the moment, Viomedo is the leading clinical trial platform with 300 sites in Germany and 
Austria and with over 250.000 patients using the platform in the first half of 2017.  For 
institutions, Viomedo provides services covering over 200 diseases.  

Open data used 
Viomedo  uses  data  related  to  clinical  trials  registries  in  Germany  (factual  data,  non-
personal),  which  are  usually  run  by  public  universities.  These  registries  share  research 
data and the type, date and location of clinical trials. Information is disclosed in an open 
and  free  manner,  enhancing  the  transparency  of  the  universities.  Viomedo  combines 
these data with open geographic data to connect patients with hospitals or organisations 
running clinical trials.   

Other data used  
Viomedo is building its own registry by partnering with pharmaceutical companies and 
doctors carrying out clinical trials. Pharmaceutical companies provide their own data on 
clinical  trials  and  Viomedo  combines  it  with  publicly  available  data.  However,  the 
company sometimes experiences problems with the accuracy and timeliness of the open 
data, which ultimately impacts on the patient.  

Viomedo also integrates personal data where patients opted in. It strictly follows the data 
privacy  legislation  in  place  in  Germany.  However,  GDPR  will  offer  a  window 
opportunity  by  providing  harmonised  legislation  on  data  protection,  making  scaling  up 
easier and cheaper.  

104 

 
 
Other data that would improve the business 
Research data is of high importance to Viomedo. Their future data services seek to access 
data from medical journals and research institutions. The interest lies in information on 
the  kinds  of  clinical  trials  conducted,  with  which  patients  and  at  which  sites.  That 
research  data  from  publicly  funded  research  can  serve  as  a  baseline  as  well  as  provide 
other  relevant  information  for  future  clinical  trials.  An  initiative  such  as  the  Open 
Science Cloud, centralising access to public, publicly-funded and private (on a voluntary 
basis) research data will enhance the usability of the data.  

Clear  policies  on  usage  of  clinical  trials  data  from  institutions  such  as  the  European 
Medicines Agency would help Viomedo providing a cross-border service. Furthermore, 
obligations  on  the  provision  of  machine  readable  formats  and  APIs  would  allow  better 
use of data already available.  

Beyond  health  statistics  at  a  national  level  provided  by  EUROSTAT,  Viomedo  would 
need  such  statistics  at  city  or  regional  level.  This  would  allow  them  to  match  patients 
with disease incidence and provide a better service to those looking for clinical trials.  

Societal impact  
By connecting patients in need with clinical trial opportunities, Viomedo accelerates the 
process  of  developing  new  therapies.  Consequently,  new  cures  can  reach  all  patients 
faster.  

THE ESTONIAN ROAD ADMINISTRATION: A DIGITAL SERVICE 

Profile of the organisation 
The  Estonian  Road  Administration  (ERA)  is  a  government  agency  operating  within  the 
administrative area of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. The ERA 
provides  public  services,  which  allow  road  users  to  use  the  road  network  in  a  safe and 
efficient  manner,  ensuring  its  preservation  and  operation.  At  the  same  time,  the  ERA 
applies  requirements  to  road  users  and  vehicles  to  ensure  a  safe  and  working  traffic 
environment.  With  its  public  transportation  management,  the  ERA  influences  the 
environmentally-conscious and sustainable behaviour of road users. 

The decision to open data 
The ERA is not obliged by law to publish its data as open data, although it has to make 
information  publicly  available.  Nevertheless,  the  decision  to  make  open  data  available 
was  taken  in  view  of  meeting  the  need  of  users  of  public  transportation.  The  ERA 
realised  that  setting  APIs  for  providing  facilitated  access  to  its  dynamic  data  would 
translate  in  new  applications  and  services  that  would  benefit  the  end  user.  Now,  a  big 
number of developers and companies make use of their open data. The only barrier that 
the ERA came across was to adapt the data to GTFS (General Transit Feed Specification) 

105 

 
 
standards.  In  comparison  with  other  project  such  as  the  Public  Transport  Information 
Systems223, their investment in opening the data was not significant.  

ERA's open data  
The  open  data  of  the  public  transport  register  consists  of  data  entered  in  the  national 
public  transport  register  with  other  kinds  of  data  content,  including  descriptions, 
timetables  and  the  locations  of  stops  of  domestic  public  transport  routes.  Examples  of 
open data are: real-time train information, timetables, public transport stops, travel ticket 
prices, travel fare concessions; soon ferries and domestic airlines will also be included. 
This year the ERA plans to make real-time bus information available also as open data, 
which  for  the  moment  is  only  published  under  more  restrictive  conditions.  Some 
information  published  within  the  PTIS  is  the  regular  services  authorisations,  public 
services contracts and service provider cards.  

This  open  data  is  freely  accessible  to  all  interested  parties  and  updated  daily.  When 
reusing the open data in publicly accessible channels (including websites, applications in 
smart devices), the party reusing the data commits to providing references to the original 
source  of  the  data  and  guarantees  that  any  data  used  in  any  publicly  accessible 
applications is no older than 7 days from the moment the data is downloaded. 

Societal and economic benefits 
The social benefits can be tied to a better service to the citizen as well as to an increase of 
the  use  of  public  sector  transportation,  thus  directly  benefitting  quality  of  life  and  the 
environment,  in  helping  fighting  climate  change.  For  citizens,  thanks  to  competition 
between  the  different  information  providers,  citizens  can  make  use  of  competitive  and 
useful services that help to organise their mobility in different transports better.  

The  ERA  seems  to  have  created  a community  of  developers  and  organisations  that  use 
their  open  data.  While  some  of  the  open  data  users  are  big  companies,  there  are  other 
companies and developers who use this data and make competitive apps such as Ridango 
(a  ticketing  solution  provider)  or  App  Moovi  (a  public  transit  guide).  Moreover,  many 
shopping  malls  use  ERA's  open  data  to  display  public  transport  timetables  of  nearby 
stops.  

LIANDER: POWERING HOUSEHOLD ENERGY CONSERVATION WITH OPEN DATA 

Profile of the company  
Liander  is  a  Dutch  company  responsible  for  energy  network  distribution  and 
administration. In the Netherlands the energy production and supply were liberalised to 
allow  for  more  competition  in  1998.  Thus,  this  operator  would  be  excluded  from  the 

223 Public Transport Information System (PTIS)223 groups together information to plan, manage, supervise 
and use public transport services. It was created with the help of the European Economic Area and 
Norwegian Financial Mechanisms. 

106 

 
 
                                                            
scope of application of the current PSI Directive (Art. 2 No. 2), even if it is a publicly 
regulated activity. Liander is the largest Distribution System Operator in the Netherlands. 
It operates in about one third of the country and it provides electricity and natural gas to 
5.2 million households and businesses covering 37% of the Dutch network. 

Barriers to open data 
Liander  believes  in  the  power  of  open  data  for  energy  conservation  and  reduction  of 
carbon emissions. Sharing data is considered as its responsibility to facilitate the energy 
transition.  However, sharing data implies costs. For example, data preparation (content 
and  format)  and  adaptations  to  optimise  open  data  usage  requires  time  and  skills.  The 
latter includes, amongst others, user feedback or help-desk.  

Liander's open data  
Since 2015, Liander224 is sharing data free of charge and accessible to everyone. The data 
can  be  downloaded 
in 
http://www.energieinbeeld.nl/  (web  service)  using  a  public  login  code.  In  order  to  ensure 
the  privacy,  data  at  connection  level  (containing  personal  data)  are  always  anonymised 
by aggregation or otherwise. 

at  www.liander.nl/opendata 

also  presented 

and 

is 

Liander  publishes  openly  the  following  data:  energy  consumption  of  small  connection, 
gas  consumption  up  to  a  capacity  of  40m3/h  and  electricity  up  to  a  capacity  of  3x80 
Ampere, standard annual consumption of gas and electricity for four housing types, daily 
profiles  showing  fluctuation  throughout  the  year  of  electricity  and  gas  consumption, 
interruptions  in  energy  provision  due  to  temporary  faults,  detailed  smart  meter 
consumption of 80 addresses, representing typologies of user profiles  and planning and 
realization of rolling out of smart meter.  

Societal and economic benefits 
Liander realised that after the substantial initial investment (around EUR 200-400K) of 
setting  an  open  data  policy  in  the  company,  further  costs  to  keep  the  dissemination  of 
open  data  operational  became  insignificant.  Both  Liander  and  re-users  gained  in 
efficiency and reduced costs in the long run. Open energy data in combination with other 
data allows for innovation that can revert in better services for their partners during the 
energy  transition.  This  data  use  can  also  provide  Liander  with  feedback  on  the  quality 
e.g. flaws in the data. It also reduces the administrative burden of dealing with requests 
of data, as data is open for all.  

Furthermore,  the  availability  of  data  in  the  energy  sector  enables  greater  energy 
efficiency,  with  positive  impact  on  the  environment,  and  hence  for  the  whole  society. 

224 Its business is influenced by the fact that it has a regulated public task to administer and maintain energy 
networks. It is important to notice that, under the Energy Act 1998, network administrators are obligated to 
share and exchange their own data between network administrators and the transmission systems operators. 
However, there is no legal requirement to disseminate data to the general public. 

107 

 
 
                                                            
Thanks to its open data policy, Liander is now taking part in various Smart City projects 
and its reputation has improved substantially.  

Examples of apps  
Although  they  have  not  built  a  community  in  itself,  Liander  receives  reactions  on  a 
weekly basis on the data that they open. GeoGraphisch is one interesting example of an 
app that provides a "zoom in on energy" service where it shows the energy consumption 
of more than 30K addresses, by combining it with other geographic data. It can show, for 
example, the level of insulation and energy saving of the buildings of some streets or the 
energy consumption rate per municipality.  

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON: THE CREATION OF AN OPEN DATA ECOSYSTEM 

Profile of the company  
Transport for London (TfL) is an integrated transport authority responsible for delivering 
Mayor  of  London's  strategy  and  commitments  on  transport.  TfL  runs  the  day-to-day 
operation of the Capital's public transport network and manage London's main roads.  

Every  day  more  than  31  million  journeys  are  operated  across  the  TfL  network.  The 
Directive on the re-use of the public sector information does not cover operators such as 
TfL as they have an 'industrial or commercial character'. 

Open data at TfL 
TfL considers that as public body funded by fare and tax-payers, transport information is 
rightly  seen  to  be  owned  by  the  public.  Opening  their  transport  data  increases  TfL's 
transparency and reach dramatically and provides enough bases to create niche products, 
sparking innovation and high economic benefits.  

Open data was the most effective way to give app services to their customers taking into 
account their almost  15K visits per month  via mobile  phones.  This is almost  double of 
the  number  of  visits  via  personal  computers.  Thus,  transport  data  is  in  great  demand, 
particularly real-time information such as bus and train status and arrivals/departures.  

Barriers to open data 
TfL  considers  that  barriers  to  opening  up  data  are  essentially  the  fear  of  losing  control 
over  their  data.  This  has  the  risk  of  voluntary  distortion  of  data  and  provision  of 
misleading  information.  TfL  has  not  found  any  real  evidence  that  such  risks  have 
materialised and sees no other barriers to opening up data through an API to a developer 
community. 

Data sets and licences  
The  data  is  shared  via  UK  Open  Government  License  with  minimal  additions.  For 
example, developers need to register with TfL to receive tokens from the API portal to 
access  the  data.   The  data  is  presented  in  three  different  ways:  static  data  files  (rarely 

108 

 
 
changing),  feeds  refreshed  at  regular  intervals  and  via  APIs.  APIs  enable  queries  from 
applications to receive custom-made responses.  

Transport  for  London  releases  over  200  data  sets  which  include  bus  arrivals,  tube 
movements,  departures,  status,  cycle  hire  docking  station  status,  river  boat  status  and 
arrivals, overground, rail and trams arrival and status, journey planner and accessibility. 
However, the community of developers grown through TfL’s open data policy combines 
these  data  with  other  such  as  air  quality,  detail  accident  geo-location  data,  live  road 
disruption and planned works data, etc. 

Societal benefits  
Transport for London has created a community of developers with whom they engage to 
explain their approach and plug gaps in the market. This community enables the optimal 
use of the transport network. Any person needing travel information can get it wherever 
and  whenever  they  wish,  in  any  way  they  wish.  The  community  consists  of  more  than 
14,400 developers registered who made over 600 apps - the vast majority of which use 
the  dynamic  API  -  and  other  products  available  in  the  form  which  best  suit  their 
customers.  This  stimulates  innovation  provision  faster  than  TfL  could  ever  have 
delivered themselves.  

Interestingly,  only  40%  of  the  users  are  Londoners,  meaning  that  these  apps  have 
national and international outreach.  

Technically, feedback on the open data can improve its quality and source systems.  

Economic benefits 
Emerging  research  indicates  that  open  data  provides  return  on  investment  of  up  to  50 
times the sums invested in terms of customer benefit. In this specific case, London has 
gained around £100m direct value by technological investment in London and elsewhere 
off  the  back  of  its  data.  Through  saved  customer  time  saved  by  journey  planning,  and 
more  efficient  utilisation  of  their  resources,  TfL’s  open  data  ecosystem  has  enabled  an 
estimation  of  1000  jobs.  175K  people  are  now  employed  in  the  digital  technology 
industry in London, in 45K companies with a £30bn annual turnover.  

Examples of apps  
TfL partners with a number of apps, who have around 10% of market share of London 
travel apps.   These non-exclusive partnerships help TfL ensure that its customers receive 
more  robust  and  consistent  information  across  a  variety  of  platforms.  For  example, 
combining  existing  data  with  crowd-sourced  information  can  help  TfL  provide  more 
detailed journey planning information to its customers.  

This  also  allows  the  sharing  of  knowledge,  sparks  innovation  and  increases  TfL 
reputation and transparency.  

109 

 
 
OPEN DATA IN OTHER TRANSPORT COMPANIES 

Other  transport  companies  in  the  EU  and  Switzerland  are  also  starting  to  open  up  data 
their data:  

Deutsche  Bahn's  Mindbox,  driver  of  its  digitisation  process,  has  opened  27  datasets 
(mostly static) and 9 APIs for dynamic data. The former German railways is today a group 
of companies providing the physical tracks, the train stations, open access and subsidised 
passenger rail services as well as cargo rail services. They are now experimenting with 
opening up data via CC BY 4.0 and for certain datasets CC0 and see the future value this 
could  have  in  creating  their  own  developers  community  and  better  services  for  their 
customers.  

SNCF (société nationale des chemins de fer français) has opened 208 datasets since it 
started their open data policy in 2014 and receives 20 million requests for real-time data 
through  their  APIs  every  month.  They  share  data  on  infrastructure  description  (static 
data), maintenance and modernisation work on a weekly basis and social, environmental 
and  financial  data.  The  SNCF  platform  shares  data  necessary  to  plan  and  compare 
different  journeys  from  station  to  station,  to  research  upcoming  trains  (theoretical  and 
real-time)  and  to  consult  timetables  in  different  stations.  Zac,  a  virtual  assistant, 
incorporates SNCF real time data for trains via APIs. Thus, Zac can alert users of train 
changes and cancellations in real time.  

Swiss  Railways  considers  that  transport  data  is  also  infrastructure  thus  belongs  to  the 
public  service.  The  legal  uncertainty  regarding  the  status  of  these  data  in  Switzerland 
stifles  innovation.  For  that  reason,  Swiss  railways  has  a  data  platform  which  enables 
access  to  target  timetable,  up-to-date  data,  information  about  stops  and  transport 
companies, rail time forecast for direct journeys via APIs. However, the data in question 
is not entirely open as Swiss railways has established some terms of use and limits and 
costs according to the intensity of the use. 

110