Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) : final report.
Date: 2022-03-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, European Economic Area, added value, agricultural region, directive (EU), document retrieval, environmental impact, exchange of information, marine environment, national implementing measure, policymaking, public administration, public consultation, report, space navigation

Support to the evaluation of 
the implementation of the 
Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial 
Information in the 
European Community 
(INSPIRE) 

Final Report 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this 

publication.  Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union, 2022 

© European Union, 2022  

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission Decision 2011/833/
EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 
Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 
International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed 
provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be 
sought directly from the respective rightholders. 

PDF        ISBN 978-92-76-49241-2    

doi:10.2779/08415 

KH-07-22-140-EN-N

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 
In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can ﬁnd the address of 
the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 
On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 
Online 
Information about the European Union in all the oﬃcial languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 
EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies 
of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://
europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 
EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the oﬃcial language versions, 
go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 
Open data from the EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reﬂect the oﬃcial opinion of 
the European Commission. 

LEGAL NOTICE 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the 
official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not  guarantee  the  accuracy  of  the  data  included  in  this 
study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission ’s behalf may be held responsible for the 
use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

© European Union, 2022

Support to the evaluation of 
the implementation of the 
Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial 
Information in the European 
Community (INSPIRE) 

Final Report 

Written by COWI A/S, Milieu, Technopolis Group 
December 2021 

 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community 
(INSPIRE) 

Author: COWI A/S, Milieu, Technopolis Group 

Date: 30 July 2021 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 4

1.

2.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 8

BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE .......................................................................... 9

2.1. Context and purpose of the INSPIRE Directive ................................................. 9

2.2. Objectives of the evaluation and the Intervention Logic.................................... 12

2.3. Baseline ..................................................................................................... 15

3.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS ...................................................................................... 15

4. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 17

4.1.

4.2.

Evaluation tasks and phases ......................................................................... 17

The horizontal tasks of data collection ............................................................ 18

4.3. Data gaps and limitations ............................................................................. 19

5.

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................... 22

5.1. Current status ............................................................................................. 22

5.2.

Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 31

5.3. Relevance .................................................................................................. 69

5.4.

Efficiency ................................................................................................... 80

5.5. Coherence ................................................................................................ 110

5.6.

EU Added Value ........................................................................................ 151

6.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 162

6.1. Conclusions .............................................................................................. 162

6.2. Recommendations ..................................................................................... 172

7.

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 175

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AAQD 

BRG 

CAP 

CKAN 

EAP 

Ambient Air Quality Directive 

Better Regulation guidelines 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network 

Environment Action Programme 

1 

 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

EEA 

EFA 

European Environmental Agency 

Ecological Focus Areas 

EFTA/ EEA 

European Free Trade Association/ European Economic Area 

EIS 

Environmental Information Systems 

EMODnet 

European Marine Observation and Data Network 

E-PRTR

European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 

GDPR 

GML 

GSAA 

General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) 

Geography Markup Language 

GeoSpatial Aid Application 

HELCOM 

Helsinki Commission 

HILUCS 

Land Use Classification System 

HVD 

IACS 

IED 

High Value Datasets 

Integrated administration and control system 

Industrial Emissions Directive 

INSPIRE Directive  Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 

March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the 

ISO 

IR 

ITS 

JRC 

LPIS 

MarSP 

MIG 

MSFD 

MSP 

NCP 

NSDI 

POP 

PSI 

REFIT 

SDI 

European Community (INSPIRE) 

International Organisation for Standardisation 

Implementing Rules 

Intelligent Transport Systems 

Joint Research Centre 

Land Parcel Identification System 

Macaronesian Maritime Spatial Planning 

Maintenance and Implementation Group 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Maritime Spatial Planning 

National Contact Point 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

Persistent Organic Pollutant 

Reuse of Public Sector Information Directive 

Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme 

Spatial Data Infrastructure 

SEANSE 

Strategic Environmental Assessment North Sea Energy 

TEN-T 

UWWT 

Trans-European Transport Network 

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 

2 

 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

WFD 

Water Framework Directive 

3 

 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The INSPIRE Directive was adopted in 2007 to establish the Infrastructure for Spatial 
Information in the  European Union for the purposes of the  EU environmental policies 
and policies and activities that may have an impact on the environment. INSPIRE aims 
to  improve  the  availability,  quality,  organisation,  accessibility  and  sharing  of  spatial 
information amongst various levels of public administration, across different sectors and 
across  borders  to  assist  in  policy-making  with  a  direct  or  indirect  impact  on  the 
environment.  The  INSPIRE  Directive  reacts  to  the  growing  need  for  sharing  and 
exchanging  interoperable  spatial  data  across  Europe  for  policy-making  by  removing 
obstacles to the sharing of spatial data across public authorities.  

The  purpose  of  this  evaluation  is  to  assess  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance, 
coherence and EU added value of the Directive and its implementation in line with the 
Better Regulation Guidelines. The evaluation covers the period between 2014 and 2020. 
Geographically,  it  covers  all  27  EU  Member  States  and  four  EEA/EFTA  countries.1  As
regards  the  thematic  scope,  this  evaluation  study  supports  the  evaluation  of  the 
implementation of the INSPIRE Directive and covers all provisions of the Directive and 
its  Implementing  Rules.  Moreover,  the  study  contributes  to  the  wider  coherence 
assessments  required  for  the  ‘GreenData4All’  initiative  as  part  of  the  European  Data 
Strategy.  

The  evaluation  was  conducted  in  the  period  from  October  2020  to  September  2021. 
Data  was  collected  through  an  extensive  desk  research,  interviews  with  key 
stakeholders, Focus Group interviews with selected Member State authorities, targeted 
surveys with spatial data, environmental, agricultural and marine communities, a public 
consultation and a validation workshop.  

Current status 

The  current  status  analysis  presents  an  overview  of  the  implementation  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive in the Member States and  EEA/EFTA  countries and  the effects that 
this has had on various stakeholders (EQ 1.1). At the beginning of 2021, the INSPIRE 
Directive had been partially implemented across Europe, with several countries lagging 
behind.  While  there  have  been  some  positive  developments  recorded  in  terms  of 
coordination  and  governance  structures,  as  well  as  data  sharing  arrangements  and 
usage, the performance indicators have shown relatively low values. Furthermore, the 
analysis  included  an  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  2016  REFIT 
recommendations  (EQ  1.2).  The  recommendations  for  the  Member  States  have  been 
addressed to a certain extent: whereas the number of environmental priority data sets 
has increased, there have still been limited linkages between the implementation of the 
INSPIRE Directive and other national initiatives related to e-Government and Open Data 
policies.  The  recommendations  addressed  to  the  European  Commission  have  been 
implemented. The European Commission has put forward several initiatives and actions 
summarized in the MIG Work Programme, which have been completed to a large extent 
by the time of this evaluation.  

Effectiveness 

The  assessment  of  effectiveness  focused  on  the  results  achieved  through  the 
Directive  as  compared  to  the  objectives  initially  set  (i.e.  the  setting  up  of  an 
infrastructure for spatial information (Article 1 of the INSPIRE Directive). The analysis 
of the implementation found that there has been a progress towards the objectives set 

1 Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland. 

4 

 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

out in the INSPIRE Directive even though full implementation is not yet achieved (EQ 
2.1  and  EQ  2.2).  However,  the  current  monitoring  system  imperfectly  captures  the 
progresses made. The level of implementation varies across countries, with four groups 
of  countries  displaying  different  levels  of  achievement.  In  terms  of  geographical 
coverage of the INSPIRE Directive (EQ 2.3), the analysis indicates that it is not optimal 
as  there  are  huge  discrepancies  in  the  number  of  available  data  sets  across  Member 
States. This is a bottleneck for achieving the objective of pan-European interoperability.  

Based on the evaluation findings, it cannot be concluded that the implementation of the 
INSPIRE Directive in the Member States effectively builds further on the obligations of 
Directive  2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to  environmental  information  (specifically  the 
provisions under Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC (EQ 2.4), mainly because the 
two  Directives  have  different  scopes  (see  EQ  5.4  on  coherence).  Furthermore,  no 
additional  barriers  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Directive  in  terms  of 
implementation  or  use  emerged  from  the  analysis  (EQ  2.5)  compared  to  the  ones 
identified in preceding evaluations. There are still several difficulties related to technical 
requirements  of  the  Directive  that  impact  implementation  and  use  of  the  INSPIRE 
related data sets. It is still difficult to assess the extent to which INSPIRE is used for 
reporting under the environmental acquis (EQ 2.6). In addition, it is difficult to obtain a 
precise  quantification  the  use,  the  types  of  users,  and  therefore  the  impact  of  the 
Directive on users (EQ 2.7). 

The  information  on  qualitative  and  quantitative  effects  of  INSPIRE  on  users  active  in 
economic sectors influencing environment is too scarce to provide a clear overview of 
the  effects  of  INSPIRE  on  users  in  these  sectors  (EQ  2.8).  Studies  and  stakeholders 
involved  in  the  INSPIRE  implementation  (at  EU  and  Member  State  level)  seem  to  be 
focused on making data available, without i) identifying upstream what are the expected 
effects on users ii) monitoring or following-up how data is used, by whom and for which 
reasons. Finally, there is limited information available about the users  of  spatial data 
from the private sector. Because of the inability to identify all SMEs using spatial data, 
the study attempted to identify specific users of data from the private sector. Apart from 
some examples provided during the interviews, the knowledge of companies that use 
spatial data is very limited (EQ 2.9).  

Relevance  

The  relevance  assessment  ascertained  the  extent  to  which  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
continues  to  respond  to  the  needs  and  problems  that  it  is  intended  to  address,  i.e.: 
i) improve  availability,  quality,  organisation,  accessibility  and  sharing  of  spatial  data; 
and ii) decrease costs for public sector in reusing spatial data. Since the implementation 
of  the  Directive  has  not  been  completed,  needs  have  not  been  comprehensively 
addressed yet. The study demonstrated that the initial needs are still valid, in particular 
in the policymaking context (EQ 3.1). The needs in the private  sector have not been 
clearly defined and assessed (neither at the time the Directive was designed nor later). 

The  barriers  identified  in  the  2004  Impact  Assessment  were  related  to  access  to 
information,  integration  of  information,  status  of  information,  cost,  interoperability 
issues,  harmonisation,  quality  of  data  and  lack  of  long-term  solutions.  Since  the 
implementation of the Directive is not complete, these barriers (at least partially) still 
need to be overcome (EQ 3.2). The technical specifications embedded in the INSPIRE 
framework constitute a barrier to current and future implementation as well as use (EQ 
3.3).  

The scope of Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental 
information is much broader than that of the INSPIRE Directive. Based on the evaluation 
findings, it cannot be explicitly concluded that the INSPIRE Directive effectively supports 

5 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

the  implementation  of  PAEI,  however,  it  can  also  not  be  concluded  that  Directive  is 
irrelevant for the implementation of PAEI (EQ 3.4). 

Efficiency  

The  assessment  of  efficiency  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  focused  on  whether  the 
benefits  of  the  Directive  can  be  justified  by  the  costs  it  generates.  As  such,  for  the 
efficiency  analysis  focused  on  evidence  that  inform  the  assessment  of  the 
effects/benefits of the implementation of INSPIRE Directive, as well as, to the  extent 
possible  the  assessment  of  the  costs  of  the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  In  this 
regard,  attention  was  paid  to  experienced  costs,  impacts  and  benefits  to  different 
stakeholders  (e.g.  national  authorities,  regional/local  authorities,  businesses,  and 
NGOs).  The  evaluation  also  identified  areas/processes  with  scope  for  reducing 
inefficiencies,  such  as  burdensome  regulatory  and  administrative  costs  incurred  by 
stakeholders, or cases where the Directive's provisions could be streamlined.  

The  analysis  finds  that  the  key  benefits  have  been  provision  of  better  overviews, 
discoverability, availability and access to data and that these overall are proportional to 
the  costs  (EQ  4.1,  4.2  and  4.3).  However,  as  costs  and  benefits  are  asymmetrically 
distributed amongst stakeholders, some stakeholders find that the costs are higher than 
their benefits. The assessment of the costs and benefits at the macro level leaves little 
reason  to  doubt  that  the  overall  benefits  outweigh  the  overall  costs  for  INSPIRE  in 
general  and  the  national  SDI  in  specific  (EQ  4.4).  There  is  scope  for  simplifying  the 
implementation  in  support  of  policy  development  (including  reporting)  as  well  as 
developing ways in which to ensure that the cost of harmonization and interoperability 
do  not  become  a  very  large  burden  for  specific  stakeholder  groups.  Reasons  for  the 
increased costs are inter alia that some Member States implement INSPIRE apart from 
the national SDI, and thereby have additional costs in terms of staff, expertise and IT 
systems and maintenance.  

In terms of whether INSPIRE has reduced the environmental reporting burden (EQ 4.7) 
for the Members States, this is too early to judge. INSPIRE has the potential, when fully 
implemented,  to  improve  the  access  to  harmonized  environmental  data  for  reporting 
and thereby reducing the effort and time deployed by the Member States. Also, it is not 
assessed that a further streamlining of the provisions in Articles 7 and 8  of Directive 
2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to  environmental 
information  would  affect  the 
administrative  burden  of  the  Member  States  (EQ  4.8).  INSPIRE  supports  the 
implementation of Directive 2003/4/EC, by improving the capacity of the stakeholders, 
which should have a possible indirect effect on the administrative burden. 

Coherence 

The  coherence  assessment  considered  whether  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  its 
provisions  were  coherent  internally  and  with  other  policies  and  legislation,  as  well  as 
with the EU legal framework on public data sharing (Directive 2003/4 on Public access 
to environmental information and Directive 2019/1024/EU on Open Data).  

The coherence assessment did not find instances of internal incoherence. The INSPIRE 
Directive is however outdated with regards to its references to comitology procedures, 
which are not in line with Articles 290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty (EQ 5.1). 

A review of the relevant EU legislation (environmental and other legislation) did not find 
provisions  that  would  potentially  impede  the  applicability  of  INSPIRE  rules  within  the 
scope of the legislation (EQ 5.2 and 5.3). In fact, many pieces of legislation make direct 
reference to INSPIRE rules and it was found that such references do support compliance 
in practice. In particular regarding environmental legislation, work is ongoing to align 
reporting  obligations  with  INSPIRE  rules.  However,  stakeholders  stressed  that 

6 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

environmental  reporting  obligations  are  not  yet  fully  coherent  with  INSPIRE,  both  in 
terms of data content and models. 

By providing data services (in particular view and download) and metadata accessible 
to  the  public,  the  INSPIRE  Directive  has  the  potential  to  serve  the  objectives  of  the 
Public  Access  to  Environmental  Information  Directive  (Directive  2003/4)  (EQ  5.4). 
However, as it was adopted before INSPIRE, Directive 2003/4 does not refer to INSPIRE 
rules  for  disseminating  geospatial  data  covered  by  Article  7(e).  The  Directive  in  this 
regard  could  benefit  from  stronger  alignment  with  INSPIRE  requirements  and 
terminology. Potential conflicts have been identified between the INSPIRE Directive, the 
Open Data Directive and upcoming High Value Datasets Regulation, as INSPIRE provides 
more extensive possibilities to limit public access to spatial data, and to license and/or 
require  payment  for  spatial  datasets  and  services  (EQ  5.5).  This  might  require  an 
alignment in the future. In addition, it should be ensured that INSPIRE remains in line 
with future developments in open data. 

EU Added value  

The assessment of the EU added value focused on the added value of the INSPIRE 
Directive compared to what could have been achieved at Member State and or regional 
level in the absence of the Directive (EQ 6.1). The EU added value of the Directive is 
partial, due to its incomplete implementation. The main benefits of the EU intervention 
as acknowledged by the existing literature and the consulted stakeholders have so far 
related  mostly  to  the  policy-making  and  implementation  purposes  at  national  and 
European  level,  especially  for  the  environmental  reporting.  At  a  national  level,  the 
Directive has led to EU added value through the establishment of governance structures, 
achieving  interoperability  in  a  broader  scope  (EU-wide),  unlocking  public  data  and 
creating an EU level expertise.  

The added value of this EU-wide Directive is less tangible for common users. Although 
the Directive has led to somewhat improved cross-border collaboration, still a number 
of  challenges  persist  which  hamper  a  more  EU-wide  data  sharing  and  usage.  The 
environmental  and  climate  spatial  data  is  crucial  for  informed  policy-making  and 
implementation and for meeting the objectives of the European Green Deal. In light of 
the recent initiatives such 'GreenData4All' and emerging data legislation, it is crucial to 
ensure  close  coordination  between  the  INSPIRE  community  and  other  relevant 
stakeholders when building up European data governance structures. The assessment 
also  provided  insights  into  the  question  whether  the  issues  addressed  by  INSPIRE 
continue to require action at EU level (EQ 6.2). Most of the stakeholders acknowledge 
that the action is required at EU level and that the rationale behind and the principles 
of the INSPIRE Directive are justified. 

Recommendations 

Based  on  the  evaluation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  the  corresponding  findings 
outlined above, a summary of the recommendations is provided below. A draft of the 
recommendations  was  validated  with  stakeholders  in  a  survey  and  a  workshop.  The 
recommendations have been divided into five key themes:  

I.  Closing  the  implementation  gap:  It  is  suggested  that  the  Member  States  in 
consultation with the European Commission consider improving the implementation of 
the INSPIRE Directive that guarantees a better data availability and better cross border 
usage of data, and to develop ways to link the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive 
with a common demand across administrative levels and use cases. 

It  is  furthermore  recommended  that  the  European  Commission  considers  continuing 
assisting the Member States in their reporting and by developing more comprehensive 

7 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

qualitative  indicators.  It  is  also  recommended  to  expand  the  target  groups  for  the 
implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  (European  institutions,  private  sector  actors 
and citizens) as implementation bearers, to further support capacity building trainings 
and peer-to-peer exchange of good practices, and to promote synergy between INSPIRE 
and the NSDI. In order to achieve full interoperability, it is important to prioritise data 
set  harmonization  based  on  user  needs  assessments,  and  to  establish  an 
implementation  framework  that  is  technology  neutral  (following  well-established,  but 
also emerging technological standards). 

II.  Applying  a  user-driven  approach:  It  is  suggested  that  the  Member  States  in 
consultation  with  the  European  Commission  maintain  a  focus  on  the  environmental 
priority data sets in order to ensure that the data is relevant to the user groups, and 
consider to promote benefits of pan-European data sets and EU data sharing in order to 
unlock more public and private data, solicit more support to the implementation of the 
Directive  and  create  a  broader  understanding  of  the  benefits  stemming  from  the 
INSPIRE  Directive.  Other  suggested  initiatives  include  to  reduce  the  perceived 
complexity  of  data  models  by  offering  simpler  views  of  structures  and  relationships 
between data elements than what is specified in the full data models; to develop case 
studies describing existing use cases of INSPIRE-relevant data at sectoral and national 
level, which would help design appropriate means for making spatial data available and 
usable; and to identify and further develop a community of spatial data users with the 
aim to identify their current and future needs.  

It is furthermore recommended that the European Commission considers how to define 
schemes and mechanisms to incite private sector actors to share their data as well as 
to  promote  possibilities  to  reduce  the  perceived  complexity  of  data  models.  Also,  to 
consider ways to reduce the cost of the implementation, especially the cost incurred as 
a  result  of  potential  additional  efforts  to  maximise  the  use  potential  for  non-expert 
users.  Efforts  could  be  considered  to  support  the  identification  of  best  practices  as 
regards licensing and use of data and develop common guidelines supporting these, and 
for using INSPIRE as a tool to report their national data for the policy purposes at the 
EU level. Lastly there is a need to develop dedicated measures to support the creation 
of initiatives using spatial data for developing products and services, and to improve the 
future  use  of  INSPIRE  by  facilitating  data  quality  improvements  conducted  by 
(approved/authorized) individuals/companies.  

III. Ensuring an alignment with the emerging data legislation: There is limited 
coherence issues between INSPIRE and other existing legislative acts. However, there 
is a need for enhancing synergies between the INSPIRE Directive and Directive 2003/4 
on  Public  Access  to  Environmental  Information  and  it is  therefore  recommended  that 
the European Commission considers how to better align Directive 2003/4 with INSPIRE, 
including by requiring that data referred to in Article 7(e) should be shared in accordance 
with INSPIRE.  

Also, in case coherence issues arise with the Open Data legal framework, following the 
adoption  of  the  High  Value  datasets  Regulation,  it  is  recommended  to  align  the 
provisions of the INSPIRE Directive linked to derogations for public authorities to limit 
public access, license and require payment for data covered by the High Value datasets 
Regulation with the provisions of the Open Data Directive and the High Value datasets 
Regulation. Furthermore, it is recommended to promote synergies between the INSPIRE 
Directive and initiatives stemming from the European Strategy for Data such as the data 
reuse provisions of the Open Data Directive, the related initiative for an Implementing 
Act  on  High  Value  Datasets  and  the  Proposal  for  a  regulation  on  European  data 
governance (Data Governance Act).  

IV. Extending the scope: It is recommended that the Member States in consultation 
with the European Commission considers creating incentives to public administrations 

8 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

at national, regional and local level, private actors, academic institutions and citizens to 
share  data  in  a  transparent  manner  and  develop  a  common  INSPIRE  infrastructure 
focused on a common demand, and to identify data needs in various policy sectors to 
understand better the potential of data coming from various stakeholders.  

It is furthermore recommended that the European Commission considers possibilities to 
include  more  data  beyond  the  spatial  data  scope  in  the  INSPIRE  infrastructure  and 
develop a linked data approach to associate spatial and non-spatial data, and to develop 
more  support  to  Member  States  in  defining  schemes  and  mechanisms  to  incite  the 
private actors to share their data in order to improve data quality. 

V.  Key  instrument  for  the  European  Green  Deal:  The  INSPIRE  Directive  has  the 
potential to play a critical role in the implementation of EU ambitions for the creation of 
wider data spaces, including the Green Deal data space. It is thus  recommended that 
the  Member  States  in  consultation  with  the  European  Commission  improve  the 
implementation  of  Directive  and  aligning  it  better  with  sectoral  legislation  and 
implementation.  There  is  a  need  to  reshape  the  objectives  and  orientation  of  the 
legislation  to  bring  greater  political  legitimacy  to  the  urgency  of  implementation  and 
practical  usage  of  the  INSPIRE  infrastructure  at  Member  State  level,  and  to  facilitate 
data-driven innovation and evidence-based decisions by the citizens, public and private 
sector in support of the transition to a more sustainable society. 

It  is  furthermore  recommended  that  the  European  Commission  considers  supporting 
data-based  solutions  that  support  the  transition  to  a  greener  and  carbon-neutral 
economy and reducing administrative burden,  and  to develop  ways to unlock the full 
potential of the INSPIRE Directive in the context of the European Strategy for data as 
an enabler for the European Green Deal. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

RÉSUMÉ 

La  directive  INSPIRE  a  été  adoptée  en  2007  en  vue  d’établir  une  infrastructure 
d’information  géographique  dans  la  Communauté  européenne  aux  fins  des  politiques 
environnementales de l’Union européenne (UE) et des politiques et activités susceptibles 
d’avoir  une  incidence  sur  l’environnement.  Elle  vise  à  améliorer  la  disponibilité,  la 
qualité, l’organisation, l’accessibilité et le partage d’informations géographiques  entre 
les différents niveaux de l’administration publique, entre les différents secteurs et entre 
différents  États,  afin  de  faciliter  l’élaboration  des  politiques  ayant  un  effet  direct  ou 
indirect  sur  l’environnement.  La  directive  INSPIRE  répond  au  besoin  croissant  de 
partage  et  d’échange  de  données  géographiques  interopérables  à  travers  l’Europe  en 
vue  de  l’élaboration  des  politiques,  en  supprimant  les  obstacles  au  partage 
d’informations géographiques entre les autorités publiques.  

L’objectif  de  cette  évaluation,  qui  couvre  la  période 2014-2020,  est  de  déterminer 
l’efficacité, l’efficience, la pertinence, la cohérence et la valeur ajoutée européenne de 
la  directive  et  de  sa  mise  en  œuvre  conformément  aux  lignes  directrices  pour  une 
meilleure  réglementation.  D’un  point  de  vue  géographique,  elle  couvre  les  27 États 
membres  de  l’UE  et  quatre  pays  de  l’Espace  économique  européen/Association 
européenne  de  libre-échange2.  En  ce  qui  concerne  la  portée  thématique,  cette  étude 
soutient l’évaluation de la mise en œuvre de la directive INSPIRE et couvre toutes les 
dispositions de la directive et de ses règles de mise en œuvre. En outre, l’étude contribue 
aux  évaluations  de  cohérence  plus  larges  requises  pour  l’initiative  « GreenData4All » 
dans le cadre de la stratégie européenne pour les données.  

L’évaluation  a  été  réalisée  au  cours  de  la  période  allant  d’octobre  2020  à  septembre 
2021.  Les  données  ont  été  recueillies  par  le  biais  d’une  recherche  documentaire 
approfondie, d’entretiens avec les principales parties prenantes et avec des groupes de 
discussion avec les autorités de certains États membres, d’enquêtes ciblées auprès des 
communautés  de  données  géographiques,  environnementales,  agricoles  et  marines, 
d’une consultation publique et d’un atelier de validation.  

Situation actuelle 

L’analyse de la situation actuelle présente une vue d’ensemble de la mise en œuvre 
de  la  directive  INSPIRE  dans  les  États  membres  et  les  pays  de  l’Espace  économique 
européen/Association  européenne  de  libre-échange  et  des  effets  qu’elle  a  eus  sur  les 
différentes parties prenantes (QE 1.1). Au début de l’année 2021, alors que la directive 
INSPIRE  avait  été  partiellement  mise  en  œuvre  dans  toute  l’Europe,  plusieurs  pays 
demeuraient à la traîne. Si des évolutions positives ont été enregistrées en matière de 
structures  de  coordination  et  de  gouvernance,  ainsi  que  d’accords  de  partage  et 
d’utilisation  des  données,  les  indicateurs  de  performance  ont  affiché  des  résultats 
relativement faibles. En outre, l’analyse comprenait une évaluation de la mise en œuvre 
des recommandations du programme pour une réglementation affûtée et performante 
de 2016. (QE 1.2). Les recommandations adressées aux États membres ont été traitées 
dans  une  certaine  mesure :  alors  que  le  nombre  d’ensembles  de  données 
environnementales prioritaires a augmenté, les synergies entre la mise en œuvre de la 
directive INSPIRE et d’autres initiatives nationales liées aux politiques d’administration 
en ligne et aux données ouvertes sont encore limitées. Les recommandations adressées 
à  la  Commission  européenne  ont,  quant  à  elles,  été  mises  en  œuvre.  Celle-ci  a  ainsi 
proposé plusieurs initiatives et actions résumées dans le programme de travail du MIG, 
lesquelles étaient pour la plupart terminées au moment de mener cette évaluation. 

2 l'Islande, le Liechtenstein, la Norvège, la Suisse 

10 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Efficacité 

L’évaluation de l’efficacité s’est concentrée sur les résultats obtenus par la directive 
par  rapport  aux  objectifs  initialement  fixés  (c’est-à-dire  la  mise  en  place  d’une 
infrastructure d’information géographique [article 1 de la directive INSPIRE]). L’analyse 
de la mise en œuvre a montré un certain progrès en faveur des objectifs fixés dans la 
directive  INSPIRE,  même  si  une  mise  en  œuvre  complète  n’a  pas  encore  vu  le  jour 
(QE 2.1  et  QE 2.2).  Toutefois,  le  système  de  suivi  actuel  ne  rend  pas  correctement 
compte  des  progrès  accomplis.  En  effet,  le  niveau  de  mise  en  œuvre  varie  selon  les 
pays, quatre groupes de pays affichant des niveaux de réalisation différents. En ce qui 
concerne la couverture géographique de la directive INSPIRE (QE 2.3), l’analyse indique 
qu’elle  n’est  pas  optimale,  car  il  existe  des  différences  significatives  dans  le  nombre 
d’ensembles  de  données  disponibles  entre  les  États  membres.  Il  s’agit  là  d’un  goulot 
d’étranglement pour atteindre l’objectif d’interopérabilité paneuropéenne. 

Sur la base des résultats de l’évaluation, l’on ne peut conclure que la mise en œuvre de 
la directive INSPIRE dans les États membres s’appuie effectivement sur les obligations 
de  la  directive 2003/4/CE  concernant  l’accès  du  public  à  l’information  en  matière 
d’environnement  (en  particulier  les  dispositions  des  articles 7  et  8  (QE 2.4), 
principalement  parce  que  les  deux  directives  ont  des  champs  d’application  différents 
(voir  QE 5.4  sur  la  cohérence).  De  plus,  l’analyse  (QE 2.5)  n’a  fait  apparaître  aucun 
obstacle supplémentaire à la réalisation des objectifs de la directive en matière de mise 
en œuvre ou d’utilisation par rapport à ceux identifiés lors des évaluations précédentes. 
Il existe encore plusieurs difficultés liées aux exigences techniques de la directive qui 
ont une incidence sur la mise en œuvre et l’utilisation des ensembles de données liés à 
la directive INSPIRE. Il est toujours difficile d’évaluer dans quelle mesure ladite directive 
est utilisée pour l’élaboration de rapports dans le cadre de l’acquis communautaire en 
matière d’environnement (QE 2.6). En outre, il est difficile d’obtenir une quantification 
précise de l’utilisation, des types d’utilisateurs, et donc de l’impact de la directive sur 
les utilisateurs (QE 2.7). 

Les informations sur les effets qualitatifs et quantitatifs de la directive INSPIRE sur les 
utilisateurs  actifs  dans  les  secteurs  économiques  influençant  l’environnement  sont 
insuffisantes pour fournir un aperçu clair des effets de ladite directive sur les utilisateurs 
de ces secteurs (QE 2.8). Les études et les parties prenantes impliquées dans la mise 
en  œuvre  de  la  directive  (au  niveau  de  l’UE  et  des  États  membres)  semblent  se 
concentrer sur la mise à disposition des données, sans i) identifier en amont les effets 
attendus  sur  les  utilisateurs ;  et  ii)  contrôler  ou  suivre  comment  les  données  sont 
utilisées,  par  qui  et  pour  quelles  raisons.  Enfin,  les  informations  disponibles  sur  les 
utilisateurs  de  données  géographiques  du  secteur  privé  sont  limitées.  En  raison  de 
l’impossibilité  d’identifier  toutes  les  petites  et  moyennes  entreprises  utilisant  des 
informations géographiques, l’étude a tenté d’identifier des utilisateurs spécifiques de 
données provenant du secteur privé. En dehors des quelques exemples fournis au cours 
des entretiens, la connaissance des entreprises qui utilisent des données géographiques 
est très limitée (QE 2.9). 

Pertinence 

L’évaluation de la pertinence a permis de déterminer dans quelle mesure la directive 
INSPIRE continue de répondre aux besoins et aux problèmes qu’elle vise à résoudre, à 
savoir : i) améliorer la disponibilité, la qualité, l’organisation, l’accessibilité et le partage 
des données géographiques ; et ii) réduire les coûts de réutilisation de ces données pour 
le  secteur  public.  La  mise  en  œuvre  de  la  directive  n’étant  pas  achevée,  les  besoins 
n’ont pas encore été traités de manière exhaustive. L’étude a démontré que les besoins 
initiaux  sont  toujours  valables,  en  particulier  dans  le  contexte  de  l’élaboration  des 
politiques (QE 3.1). Les besoins du secteur privé, quant à eux, n’ont pas été clairement 
définis et évalués (ni au moment de la conception de la directive, ni ultérieurement). 

11 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Les  obstacles  identifiés  dans  l’analyse  de  l’impact  de  2004  étaient  liés  à  l’accès  à 
l’information,  à  l’intégration  de  l’information,  au  statut  de  l’information,  au  coût,  aux 
problèmes d’interopérabilité, à l’harmonisation, à la qualité des données et au manque 
de solutions à long terme. La mise en œuvre de la directive n’étant pas terminée, ces 
obstacles doivent encore être surmontés, du moins en partie (QE 3.2). Les spécifications 
techniques intégrées dans le cadre de la directive INSPIRE constituent un obstacle à la 
mise en œuvre actuelle et future ainsi qu’à l’utilisation (QE 3.3). 

Le champ d’application des articles 7 et 8 de la directive 2003/4/CE concernant l’accès 
du public à l’information en matière d’environnement est beaucoup plus large que celui 
de la directive INSPIRE. Sur la base des résultats de l’évaluation, il est impossible de 
conclure explicitement que la directive INSPIRE soutient efficacement la mise en œuvre 
des plans d’action  en faveur de l’éco-innovation, mais il est également impossible de 
déduire que la directive n’est pas pertinente pour leur mise en œuvre (QE 3.4). 

Efficacité 

L’évaluation de l’efficacité de la directive INSPIRE a porté sur la question de savoir 
si les avantages de la directive peuvent être justifiés par les coûts qu’elle génère. En 
tant que telle, l’analyse de l’efficacité s’est  concentrée sur les données probantes qui 
éclairent  l’évaluation  des  effets  et  avantages  de  la  mise  en  œuvre  de  la  directive 
INSPIRE,  ainsi que, dans la mesure du possible, l’évaluation des  coûts de la mise  en 
œuvre de la directive.  À cet égard, une attention particulière a  été portée aux  coûts, 
effets et avantages expérimentés pour les différentes parties prenantes (par exemple, 
les autorités nationales, régionales ou locales, les entreprises et les organisations non 
gouvernementales).  L’évaluation  a  également  identifié  les  domaines  et  processus 
susceptibles  de  réduire  les  inefficacités,  tels  que  les  coûts  réglementaires  et 
administratifs lourds supportés par les parties prenantes, ou les cas où les dispositions 
de la directive pourraient être rationalisées. 

L’analyse  montre  que  les  principaux  avantages  sont  la  fourniture  de  meilleures  vues 
d’ensemble, la divulgation, la disponibilité et l’accès aux données et que ces avantages 
sont globalement proportionnels aux coûts (QE 4.1, 4.2 et 4.3). Toutefois, les coûts et 
les  avantages  étant  répartis  de  manière  inéquitable  entre  les  parties  prenantes, 
certaines  d’entre  elles  estiment  que  les  coûts  sont  supérieurs  aux  avantages. 
L’évaluation des coûts et des avantages au niveau macro ne laisse guère de raisons de 
douter que les avantages globaux l’emportent sur les coûts pour la directive INSPIRE 
en  général  et  l’infrastructure  de  données  géographiques  nationale  en  particulier 
(QE 4.4). Il est possible de simplifier la mise en œuvre pour soutenir l’élaboration des 
politiques (y compris l’établissement de rapports) et de trouver des moyens de s’assurer 
que le coût de l’harmonisation et de l’interopérabilité ne devienne pas une charge trop 
lourde pour certains groupes de parties prenantes. L’augmentation des coûts s’explique, 
entre  autres,  par  le  fait  que  certains  États  membres  mettent  en  œuvre  la  directive 
INSPIRE en dehors de l’infrastructure de données géographiques nationale, et assument 
donc des coûts supplémentaires en matière de personnel, d’expertise et de systèmes 
informatiques et de maintenance. 

Il  est  trop  tôt  pour  savoir  si  la  directive  INSPIRE  a  réduit  la  charge  des  rapports 
environnementaux (QE 4.7) pour les États membres. Elle a le potentiel, lorsqu’elle sera 
pleinement  mise  en  œuvre,  d’améliorer  l’accès  à  des  données  environnementales 
harmonisées en vue de l’établissement de rapports, réduisant ainsi l’effort et le temps 
déployés  par  les  États  membres.  De  même,  il  n’est  pas  non  plus  certain  qu’une 
rationalisation plus poussée des dispositions des articles 7 et 8 de la directive 2003/4/CE 
concernant  l’accès  du  public  à  l’information  environnementale  affecterait  la  charge 
administrative des États membres (QE 4.8).  La directive  INSPIRE  soutient la mise en 
œuvre de la directive 2003/4/CE en renforçant les capacités des parties prenantes, ce 
qui pourrait avoir un effet indirect sur la charge administrative. 

12 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Cohérence 

L’évaluation de la cohérence a permis de déterminer si la directive INSPIRE et ses 
dispositions étaient cohérentes en interne, mais aussi avec d’autres politiques et textes 
législatifs, ainsi qu’avec le cadre juridique de l’UE sur le partage des données publiques 
(directive 2003/4  sur  l’accès  du  public  aux  informations  environnementales  et 
directive 2019/1024/UE sur les données ouvertes). 

L’évaluation n’a pas détecté d’incohérences internes. La directive INSPIRE est toutefois 
dépassée en ce qui concerne ses références aux procédures de comitologie, qui ne sont 
pas conformes aux articles 290 et 291 du Traité de Lisbonne (QE 5.1). 

Un  examen  de  la  législation  européenne  pertinente  (notamment  en  matière 
d’environnement)  n’a  pas  mis  en  évidence  la  présence  de  dispositions  susceptibles 
d’entraver l’applicabilité des règles INSPIRE dans le cadre de la législation (QE 5.2 et 
5.3).  De  fait,  de  nombreux  textes  législatifs  font  directement  référence  aux  règles 
INSPIRE et il a été constaté que de telles références favorisent la conformité dans la 
pratique. En ce qui concerne les textes législatifs sur l’environnement, des travaux sont 
en cours pour aligner les obligations d’établissement de rapport sur les règles INSPIRE. 
Toutefois,  les  parties  prenantes  ont  souligné  que  ces  obligations  ne  sont  pas  encore 
totalement cohérentes avec la directive, tant en matière de contenu des données que 
de modèles. 

En  fournissant  des  services  de  données  (en  particulier  la  visualisation  et  le 
téléchargement)  et  des  métadonnées  accessibles  au  public,  la  directive  INSPIRE  a  le 
potentiel de contribuer aux objectifs de la directive sur l’accès du public à l’information 
environnementale (directive 2003/4) (QE 5.4). Cependant, comme cette dernière a été 
adoptée avant la directive INSPIRE, elle ne fait pas référence aux règles INSPIRE en ce 
qui concerne la diffusion des données géographiques couvertes par le paragraphe e) de 
l’article 7. À cet égard, la directive 2003/4 pourrait bénéficier d’un meilleur alignement 
sur  les  exigences  et  la  terminologie  de  la  directive  INSPIRE.  De  plus,  des  conflits 
potentiels  ont  été  identifiés  entre  la  directive  INSPIRE,  la  directive  sur  les  données 
ouvertes et le futur règlement sur les ensembles de données de forte valeur. En effet, 
la directive INSPIRE offre de plus grandes possibilités de limiter l’accès du public aux 
données  géographiques  et  d’octroyer  des  licences  ou  d’exiger  un  paiement  pour  les 
ensembles et services de données géographiques (QE 5.5), ce qui pourrait nécessiter 
un  alignement  à  l’avenir.  En  outre,  il  convient  de  s’assurer  que  la  directive  INSPIRE 
reste en phase avec les innovations futures en matière de données ouvertes. 

Valeur ajoutée de l’UE 

L’évaluation de la valeur ajoutée de l’UE s’est concentrée sur la valeur ajoutée de 
la  directive  INSPIRE  par  rapport  à  ce  qui  aurait  pu  être  réalisé  au  niveau  des  États 
membres ou des régions si aucune directive n’avait été mise en place (QE 6.1). La valeur 
ajoutée  européenne  de  la  directive  est  partielle,  car  la  mise  en  œuvre  de  celle-ci  est 
incomplète. Les principaux avantages de l’intervention de l’UE, tels qu’ils sont reconnus 
dans la littérature existante et par les parties prenantes consultées, sont jusqu’à présent 
principalement liés à l’élaboration et à la mise en œuvre de politiques au niveau national 
l’établissement  de  rapports 
et  européen,  notamment  en  ce  qui  concerne 
environnementaux. Au niveau national, la directive a apporté une valeur ajoutée à l’UE 
par  l’établissement  de  structures  de  gouvernance,  la  réalisation  de  l’interopérabilité 
dans un champ plus large (à l’échelle de l’UE), le déblocage des données publiques et 
la création d’une expertise au niveau de l’UE. 

La valeur ajoutée de cette directive européenne est moins tangible pour les utilisateurs 
communs.  Bien  que  la  directive  ait  permis  d’améliorer  quelque  peu  la  collaboration 
transfrontalière,  il  subsiste  un  certain  nombre  de  défis  qui  entravent  le  partage  et 

13 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

l’utilisation  des  données  à  l’échelle  de  l’UE.  Les  données  géographiques  sur 
l’environnement et le climat sont cruciales pour l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre d’une 
politique éclairée et pour atteindre les objectifs du pacte vert pour l’Europe. À la lumière 
des récentes initiatives telles que « GreenData4All » et de la législation émergente en 
matière  de  données,  il  est  essentiel  d’assurer  une  coordination  étroite  entre  la 
communauté INSPIRE et les autres parties prenantes concernées par la mise en place 
de  structures  européennes  de  gouvernance  des  données.  L’évaluation  a  également 
permis de déterminer si les questions abordées par la directive INSPIRE continuent de 
nécessiter une action au niveau de l’UE (QE 6.2). Ainsi, la plupart des parties prenantes 
reconnaissent qu’une action est nécessaire au niveau européen et que la raison d’être 
et les principes de la directive INSPIRE sont justifiés. 

Recommandations 

Sur  la  base  de  l’évaluation  de  la  directive  INSPIRE  et  des  conclusions  y  découlant 
exposées ci-dessus, un résumé des recommandations est fourni ci-dessous. Un projet 
de recommandations a été validé avec les parties prenantes lors d’une enquête et d’un 
atelier. Les recommandations ont été divisées en cinq thèmes clés : 

I. Combler les lacunes en matière de mise en œuvre : il est suggéré que les États 
membres, en consultation avec la  Commission européenne,  envisagent d’améliorer la 
mise  en  œuvre  de  la  directive  INSPIRE  afin  de  garantir  une  meilleure  disponibilité  et 
utilisation transfrontalière des données et de développer des moyens de lier la mise en 
œuvre  de  la  directive  INSPIRE  à  une  demande  commune  à  travers  les  niveaux 
administratifs et les cas d’utilisation. 

Il  est  en  outre  recommandé  à  la  Commission  européenne  d’envisager  de  continuer  à 
aider  les  États  membres  à  établir  leurs  rapports  et  à  développer  des  indicateurs 
qualitatifs plus complets. Elle est également encouragée à élargir les groupes cibles pour 
la mise en œuvre de la directive INSPIRE (institutions européennes, acteurs du secteur 
privé et citoyens) en tant que responsables de la mise en œuvre, à soutenir davantage 
les formations au renforcement des capacités  et l’échange de bonnes pratiques entre 
pairs,  et  à  promouvoir  la  synergie  entre  la  directive  INSPIRE  et  l’infrastructure  de 
données géographiques nationale. Afin de parvenir à une interopérabilité totale, il est 
important de donner la priorité à l’harmonisation des ensembles de données sur la base 
d’évaluations des besoins des utilisateurs, et d’établir un cadre de mise en œuvre qui 
soit  neutre  sur  le  plan  technologique  (en  suivant  des  normes  technologiques  bien 
établies, mais aussi émergentes). 

II.  Appliquer  une  approche  axée  sur  l’utilisateur :  il  est  suggéré  que  les  États 
membres, en consultation avec la Commission européenne, continuent de se concentrer 
sur  les  ensembles  de  données  environnementales  prioritaires  afin  de  garantir  la 
pertinence des données pour les groupes d’utilisateurs, et envisagent de promouvoir les 
avantages des ensembles de données paneuropéens et du partage des données de l’UE 
afin de débloquer davantage de données publiques et privées, de solliciter un soutien 
plus important pour la mise en œuvre de la directive et d’améliorer la compréhension 
des  avantages  découlant  de  la  directive  INSPIRE.  D’autres  initiatives  suggérées 
consistent  à  réduire  la  complexité  perçue  des  modèles  de  données  en  offrant  des 
explications  plus  simples  sur  les  structures  et  les  relations  entre  les  éléments  de 
données que ce qui est spécifié dans les modèles de données complets ; à développer 
des études de cas décrivant les cas d’utilisation existants des données pertinentes pour 
la directive INSPIRE aux niveaux sectoriel et national, ce qui aiderait à concevoir des 
moyens appropriés pour rendre les données géographiques disponibles et utilisables ; 
et  à  identifier  et  développer  davantage  une  communauté  d’utilisateurs  de  données 
géographiques dans le but d’identifier leurs besoins actuels et futurs. 

14 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Il est en outre recommandé à la Commission européenne de réfléchir à la manière de 
définir  des  schémas  et  des  mécanismes  pour  inciter  les  acteurs  du  secteur  privé  à 
partager leurs données, ainsi que de promouvoir les possibilités de réduire la complexité 
perçue  des  modèles  de  données.  Il  convient  également  d’examiner  les  moyens  de 
réduire  le  coût  de  la  mise  en  œuvre,  en  particulier  le  coût  induit  par  les  efforts 
supplémentaires éventuels pour maximiser le potentiel d’utilisation pour les utilisateurs 
non  spécialisés.  Des  efforts  pourraient  également  être  envisagés  pour  soutenir 
l’identification des bonnes pratiques en ce qui concerne l’octroi de licences et l’utilisation 
des données et développer des lignes directrices communes pour les soutenir, et pour 
utiliser  la  directive  INSPIRE  comme  un  outil  destiné  à  établir  des  rapports  sur  les 
données nationales à des fins politiques au niveau de l’UE. Enfin, il est nécessaire de 
développer des mesures spécifiques pour soutenir la création d’initiatives faisant appel 
à  des  données  géographiques  afin  de  développer  des  produits  et  des  services,  et 
d’améliorer l’utilisation future de la directive INSPIRE en encourageant les améliorations 
de  la  qualité  des  données  apportées  par  des  individus  ou  des  entreprises 
(approuvés/autorisés). 

III.  Assurer  un  alignement  sur  la  législation  émergente  en  matière  de 
données : les problèmes de cohérence entre la directive INSPIRE et les autres textes 
législatifs existants sont limités. Cependant, il est nécessaire de renforcer les synergies 
entre  la  directive  INSPIRE  et  la  directive 2003/4  sur  l’accès  du  public  à  l’information 
environnementale.  Il  est  donc  recommandé  à  la  Commission  européenne  d’étudier 
comment  mieux  aligner  la  directive 2003/4  sur  la  directive  INSPIRE,  notamment  en 
exigeant  que  les  données  visées  au  paragraphe e)  de  l’article 7  soient  partagées 
conformément à la directive INSPIRE. 

En  outre,  dans  le  cas  où  le  cadre  juridique  sur  les  données  ouvertes  poserait  des 
problèmes  de  cohérence  à  la  suite  de  l’adoption  du  règlement  sur  les  ensembles  de 
données  de  forte  valeur,  il  est  recommandé  d’aligner  les  dispositions  de  la  directive 
INSPIRE  liées  aux  dérogations  accordées  aux  autorités  publiques  pour  limiter  l’accès 
public, accorder des licences et exiger un paiement pour les données couvertes par le 
règlement  sur  les  ensembles  de  données  de  forte  valeur,  sur  les  dispositions  de  la 
directive sur les données ouvertes et dudit règlement. En outre, il est recommandé de 
promouvoir  les  synergies  entre  la  directive  INSPIRE  et  les  initiatives  découlant  de  la 
stratégie  européenne  pour  les  données,  telles  que  les  dispositions  relatives  à  la 
réutilisation des données de la directive sur les données ouvertes, l’initiative connexe 
pour un acte d’exécution sur les ensembles de données de forte valeur et la proposition 
de règlement sur la gouvernance européenne des données (acte sur la gouvernance des 
données). 

IV.  Élargir  le  champ  d’application :il  est  recommandé  que  les  États  membres,  en 
consultation avec la Commission européenne, envisagent de créer des incitations pour 
les administrations publiques aux niveaux national, régional et local, les acteurs privés, 
les institutions universitaires et les citoyens, afin de partager les données de manière 
transparente  et  de  développer  une  infrastructure  INSPIRE  commune  axée  sur  une 
demande  commune,  et  d’identifier  les  besoins  en  données  dans  divers  secteurs 
politiques  afin  de  mieux  comprendre  le  potentiel  des  données  provenant  de  diverses 
parties prenantes. 

Il  est  en  outre  recommandé  à  la  Commission  européenne  d’étudier  les  possibilités 
d’inclure  davantage  de  données  au-delà  du  champ  d’application  des  données 
géographiques dans l’infrastructure INSPIRE et de développer une approche commune 
en matière de données pour associer les données géographiques et non géographiques, 
et de soutenir davantage les États membres dans la mise en place de schémas et de 
mécanismes pour inciter les acteurs privés à partager leurs données afin d’améliorer la 
qualité des données. 

15 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

V.  Instrument  clé  pour  le  pacte  vert  pour  l’Europe :  la  directive  INSPIRE  a  le 
potentiel de jouer un rôle prépondérant dans la mise en œuvre des ambitions de l’UE 
en vue de la création d’espaces de données plus larges, y compris l’espace de données 
du  pacte  vert  pour  l’Europe.  Il  est  donc  recommandé  aux  États  membres,  en 
consultation  avec  la  Commission  européenne,  d’améliorer  la  mise  en  œuvre  de  la 
directive et de mieux l’aligner sur la législation et la mise en œuvre au niveau du secteur. 
Il est également nécessaire de redéfinir les objectifs et l’orientation de la législation afin 
d’apporter une plus grande légitimité politique à l’urgence de la mise en œuvre et de 
l’utilisation  pratique  de  l’infrastructure  INSPIRE  au  niveau  des  États  membres,  et 
d’encourager l’innovation basée sur les données et les décisions fondées sur éléments 
de preuve apportée par les citoyens et les secteurs public et privé en vue de soutenir la 
transition vers une société plus durable. 

Il est  en outre  recommandé à la Commission européenne d’envisager de soutenir les 
solutions fondées sur les données qui favorisent la transition vers une  économie plus 
écologique  et  neutre  en  carbone  et  la  réduction  de  la  charge  administrative,  et  de 
développer  des  moyens  de  libérer  tout  le  potentiel  de  la  directive  INSPIRE  dans  le 
contexte de la stratégie européenne pour les données en tant que catalyseur du pacte 
vert pour l’Europe. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 

im 

Jahr 

2007 

verabschiedet, 

INSPIRE-Richtlinie  wurde 

Die 
eine 
Geodateninfrastruktur in der Europäischen Union für die Zwecke der gemeinschaftlichen 
Umweltpolitik  sowie  anderer  politischer  Maßnahmen  oder  sonstiger  Tätigkeiten,  die 
Auswirkungen  auf  die  Umwelt  haben  können,  zu  schaffen.  INSPIRE  soll  die 
Verfügbarkeit,  Qualität,  Organisation,  Zugänglichkeit  und  gemeinsame  Nutzung  von 
Geodaten  über  Verwaltungsebenen,  Sektoren  und  Ländergrenzen  hinweg  verbessern 
und dadurch die Entscheidungsfindung mit direkten oder indirekten Auswirkungen auf 
die Umwelt unterstützen. Die INSPIRE-Richtlinie ist eine Reaktion auf die zunehmende 
Notwendigkeit, 
politische 
Geodaten 
Entscheidungsprozesse  zu  nutzen  und  auszutauschen  und  Hindernisse  für  die 
gemeinsame Nutzung von Geodaten durch verschiedene Behörden abzubauen. 

interoperable 

europaweit 

um 

für 

Im Rahmen dieser Evaluierung sollen Wirksamkeit, Effizienz, Relevanz, Kohärenz und 
europäischer  Mehrwert  der  Richtlinie  sowie  ihre  Umsetzung  gemäß  den  Leitlinien  für 
bessere Rechtssetzung bewertet werden. Die Evaluierung bezieht sich auf den Zeitraum 
2014 bis 2020. Geografisch deckt sie alle 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten und vier EWR-/EFTA-
Länder ab.3 Inhaltlich bewertet die Evaluierung die Umsetzung der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie 
ihrer 
und  berücksichtigt  dabei  sämtliche  Bestimmungen  der  Richtlinie  und 
Durchführungsvorschriften.  Des  Weiteren  trägt  die  Studie  dazu  bei,  die  Kohärenz  der 
Richtlinie mit der Initiative „GreenData4All“ als Teil der europäischen Datenstrategie zu 
prüfen. 

Die  Evaluierung  dauerte  von  Oktober  2020  bis  September  2021.  Zur  Erhebung  der 
notwendigen  Daten  wurden  eine  detaillierte  Literaturrecherche,  Interviews  mit 
wichtigen Interessenträgern, Fokusgruppen-Interviews mit ausgewählten Behörden der 
Mitgliedstaaten,  gezielte  Befragungen  von  Expertinnen  und  Experten  für  Geodaten, 
Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Meeresumwelt, ein öffentliches Konsultationsverfahren und 
ein Workshop zur Überprüfung der Studienergebnisse durchgeführt. 

Der aktuelle Stand 

Die  Analyse  des  aktuellen  Stands  bietet  einen  Überblick  über  die  Umsetzung  der 
INSPIRE-Richtlinie in den Mitgliedstaaten und EWR-/EFTA-Ländern und die bisherigen 
Auswirkungen  auf  unterschiedliche  Interessenträger  (EQ  1.1).  Anfang  2021  war  die 
Umsetzung der INSPIRE-Richtlinie europaweit teilweise abgeschlossen, wobei mehrere 
Länder im Rückstand sind. Obwohl bei den Koordinations- und Verwaltungsstrukturen 
und  bei  den  Verfahren  zum  Austausch  und  zur  gemeinsamen  Nutzung  von  Daten 
positive  Entwicklungen  zu  verzeichnen  sind,  zeigen  die  Leistungsindikatoren  relativ 
niedrige  Werte.  Bei  der  Analyse  wurde  auch  die  Umsetzung  der  REFIT-Empfehlungen 
aus dem Jahr 2016 berücksichtigt (EQ 1.2). Die Empfehlungen an die Mitgliedstaaten 
wurden nur bedingt umgesetzt: zwar gibt es inzwischen mehr prioritäre Datensätze mit 
Bezug zur Umweltberichterstattung, die Umsetzung der INSPIRE-Richtlinie wird jedoch 
noch immer zu wenig mit anderen nationalen Initiativen in den Bereichen E-Government 
und  Politik  der  offenen  Daten  verknüpft.  Die  Europäische  Kommission  hat  die  an  sie 
gerichteten  Empfehlungen  umgesetzt.  Sie  hat  Initiativen  und  Maßnahmen,  die  im 
Arbeitsprogramm der MIG zusammengefasst wurden, zum Zeitpunkt dieser Evaluierung 
zum größten Teil abgeschlossen. 

3 Island, Liechtenstein, Norwegen, Schweiz. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Wirksamkeit 

Die  Bewertung  der  Wirksamkeit  konzentriert  sich  auf  die  durch  die  Richtlinie 
erzielten  Ergebnisse  und  vergleicht  sie  mit  den  ursprünglichen  Zielen  (d. h.  die 
Schaffung einer Infrastruktur für Geodaten (Artikel 1 der INSPIRE-Richtlinie)). Wie die 
Analyse  der  Umsetzung  zeigt,  wurden  bei  den  in  der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie  genannten 
Zielvorgaben  zwar  gewisse  Fortschritte  erzielt, die  Richtlinie  wurde  jedoch  noch  nicht 
vollständig  umgesetzt  (EQ  2.1  und  EQ  2.2).  Das  bestehende  Überwachungssystem 
erfasst  die  erzielten  Fortschritte  jedoch  nur  unvollständig.  Bei  der  Umsetzung  gibt  es 
zwischen  den  einzelnen  Ländern  große  Unterschiede,  wobei  sich  die  Länder  in  vier 
Leistungsgruppen  unterteilen  lassen.  Die  geografische  Abdeckung  der  INSPIRE-
Richtlinie  (EQ  2.3)  ist  laut  Analyse  nicht  optimal  und  bei  der  Anzahl  der  verfügbaren 
Datensätzen gibt es zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten gewaltige Unterschiede. Dies ist ein 
Engpass auf dem Weg zur gesamteuropäischen Interoperabilität. 

Laut  den  für  die  Evaluierung  erhobenen  Daten  trägt  die  Umsetzung  der  INSPIRE-
Richtlinie in den Mitgliedstaaten nicht wirksam dazu bei, den Verpflichtungen gemäß der 
Richtlinie 2003/4/EG über den Zugang der Öffentlichkeit zu Umweltinformationen (und 
insbesondere  den  Bestimmungen  nach  Artikel 7  und  8  der  Richtlinie  2003/4/EG  (EQ 
2.4))  nachzukommen,  im  Wesentlichen,  weil  sich  die  Geltungsbereiche  der  beiden 
Richtlinien  unterscheiden  (siehe  EQ  5.4  zur  Kohärenz).  Allerdings  deutet  die  Analyse 
nicht darauf hin, dass neben den in früheren Evaluierungen identifizierten Hindernissen 
weitere  Hindernisse  bei  der  Umsetzung  oder  Nutzung  hinzugekommen  sind,  die  den 
Zielen  der  Richtlinie  entgegenstehen.  Es  gibt  immer  noch  Probleme  in  Bezug  auf  die 
technischen Anforderungen der Richtlinie, die Umsetzung und Nutzung der für INSPIRE 
entwickelten Datensätze erschweren. Es lässt sich immer noch schwer einschätzen, in 
welchem Umfang INSPIRE für die Berichterstattung im Rahmen des umweltrechtlichen 
Besitzstandes  genutzt  wird  (EQ  2.6).  Außerdem  ist  es  schwierig,  präzise  quantitative 
Daten  über  die  Nutzung,  die  Merkmale  der  Nutzer  und  damit  die  Auswirkungen  der 
Richtlinie auf die Nutzer zu finden (EQ 2.7). 

Es  liegen  zu  wenige  Daten  zu  den  qualitativen  und  quantitativen  Auswirkungen  von 
INSPIRE auf die Interessenträger in den Wirtschaftssektoren vor, die sich auf die Umwelt 
auswirken,  um  ein  klares  Bild  der  Auswirkungen  von  INSPIRE  auf  Nutzer  in  diesen 
Sektor  zu  gewinnen  (EQ  2.8).  Studien  und  die  an  der  Umsetzung  von  INSPIRE 
beteiligten Interessenträger (auf Ebene der EU und der Mitgliedstaaten) scheinen sich 
darauf  zu  konzentrieren,  Daten  zur  Verfügung  zu  stellen,  ohne  i) vorab  die  zu 
erwartenden Auswirkungen auf die Nutzer zu identifizieren oder ii) zu überwachen oder 
nachzufassen,  wie  und  zu  welchen  Zwecken  die  Daten  von  wem  genutzt  werden. 
Schließlich liegen auch nur begrenzt Daten darüber vor, welche Nutzer aus dem privaten 
Sektor  Geodaten  nutzen.  Weil  es  nicht  möglich  war,  alle  KMU  zu  identifizieren,  die 
Geodaten nutzen, wurden für die Studie einzelne Datennutzer aus dem privaten Sektor 
identifiziert.  Von  den  in  den  Interviews  genannten  Beispielen  abgesehen,  ist  der 
Kenntnisstand  über  die  Unternehmen,  die  Geodaten  verwenden,  äußerst  gering  (EQ 
2.9). 

Relevanz  

Um die Relevanz zu beurteilen, wurde untersucht, ob die INSPIRE-Richtlinie weiterhin 
dem Bedarf entspricht bzw. zur Lösung der Probleme beiträgt, für die sie gedacht war, 
d. h.:  i)  die  Verfügbarkeit,  Qualität,  Organisation,  Zugänglichkeit  und  gemeinsame 
Nutzung von Geodaten zu verbessern und ii) die Kosten des öffentlichen Sektors für die 
Weiterverwendung von Informationen zu senken. Da die Richtlinie noch nicht vollständig 
umgesetzt wurde, wurde der Bedarf noch nicht umfassend berücksichtigt. Wie die Studie 
gezeigt hat, besteht der anfänglich festgestellte Bedarf weiterhin, insbesondere bei der 
politische  Entscheidungsfindung  (EQ  3.1).  Der  Bedarf  im  privaten  Sektor  wurde  noch 

18 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

nicht  klar  definiert  und  bewertet  (weder  während  der  Gestaltung  der  Richtlinie  noch 
später). 

Die  Hindernisse,  die  2004  im  Rahmen  der  Folgenabschätzung  identifiziert  wurden, 
bezogen  sich  auf  den  Zugang  zu  Daten,  die  Integration  von  Daten,  den  Status  der 
Daten, Kosten, Probleme bei der Interoperabilität, Harmonisierung, Datenqualität und 
einen  Mangel  an  langfristigen  Lösungen.  Da  die  Richtlinie  noch  nicht  vollständig 
umgesetzt  wurde,  bestehen  diese  Hindernisse  (zumindest  teilweise)  weiter  (EQ  3.2). 
Die  in  den  Rahmen  von  INSPIRE  integrierten  technischen  Spezifikationen  bilden  ein 
Hindernis für die aktuelle und künftige Umsetzung und die Nutzung (EQ 3.3). 

Artikel 7  und  8  der  Richtlinie 2003/4/EG  über  den  Zugang  der  Öffentlichkeit  zu 
Umweltinformationen  haben  einen  viel  größeren  Geltungsbereich  als  die  INSPIRE-
Richtlinie.  Aus  den  Ergebnissen  der  Evaluierung  lässt  sich  weder  ableiten,  dass  die 
INSPIRE-Richtlinie die Umsetzung von PAEI wirksam unterstützt, noch dass sie für die 
Umsetzung von PAEI irrelevant wäre (EQ 3.4). 

Effizienz  

Zur Bewertung der Effizienz der INSPIRE-Richtlinie wurde vor allem untersucht, ob 
der Nutzen der Richtlinie die damit verbundenen Kosten rechtfertigt. Dementsprechend 
konzentriert  sich  die  Analyse  auf  die  Daten,  mit  denen  die  Auswirkungen  bzw.  der 
Nutzen der Umsetzung der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie gemessen werden  können, und, soweit 
dies möglich ist, die Abschätzung der Kosten durch die Umsetzung der Richtlinie. Dabei 
wurden die tatsächlichen Kosten, die Auswirkungen und der Nutzen für unterschiedliche 
Interessenträger  (z. B.  nationale  Behörden,  regionale  bzw. 
lokale  Behörden, 
Unternehmen und NROs) berücksichtigt. Im Rahmen der Evaluierung wurden außerdem 
Bereiche bzw. Prozesse identifiziert, die noch effizienter gestaltet werden können, zum 
Beispiel  übermäßige  Regulierungs-  und  Verwaltungskosten  der  Interessenträger  oder 
Bereiche, in denen die Bestimmungen der Richtlinie vereinheitlicht werden könnten. 

Wie die Analyse zeigt, gehören zu den wichtigsten Nutzen ein besserer Überblick über 
die  Daten,  eine  bessere  Findbarkeit  und  Verfügbarkeit  und  ein  leichterer  Zugang  zu 
Daten.  Das  Kosten-Nutzen-Verhältnis  ist  grundsätzlich  angemessen  (EQ  4.1,  4.2  und 
4.3). Da Kosten und Nutzen jedoch asymmetrisch auf die Interessenträger verteilt sind, 
sind einige Interessenträger der Meinung, dass die Kosten den Nutzen überwiegen. Eine 
Abschätzung  der  Kosten  und  Nutzen  auf  der  Makroebene  gibt  keinen  Anlass  zu 
bezweifeln, dass der Gesamtnutzen die Gesamtkosten von INSPIRE im Allgemeinen, und 
der nationalen Geodateninfrastruktur im Besonderen, übersteigt (EQ 4.4). Der Teil der 
Umsetzung, mit der die politische Entscheidungsfindung unterstützt wird (einschließlich 
der Berichterstattung), könnte noch vereinfacht werden. Außerdem könnten Verfahren 
entwickelt  werden,  die  gewährleisten,  dass  die  Kosten  für  Harmonisierung  und 
Interoperabilität  einzelne  Interessengruppen  nicht  übermäßig  belasten.  Ein  Grund  für 
die  hohen  Kosten  ist  unter  anderem,  dass  manche  Mitgliedstaaten  INSPIRE  getrennt 
von ihrer nationalen Geodateninfrastruktur umsetzen, was zu zusätzlichen Kosten für 
Personal, Kompetenzentwicklung, IT-Systeme und Instandhaltung führt. 

den 

INSPIRE 

Verwaltungsaufwand 

der  Mitgliedstaaten 

Ob 
die 
Umweltberichterstattung reduziert (EQ 4.7), lässt sich noch nicht beurteilen. INSPIRE 
hat  das  Potenzial,  nachdem  es  vollständig  umgesetzt  wurde,  den  Zugang  zu 
harmonisierten Umweltdaten zu verbessern und dadurch den personellen und zeitlichen 
Aufwand  zu  senken,  der  den  Mitgliedstaaten  durch  die  Berichterstattung  entsteht. 
Außerdem  wurde  nicht  festgestellt,  dass  eine  weitere  Vereinheitlichung  mit  den 
Bestimmungen  in  Artikel 7  und  8  der  Richtlinie 2003/4/EG  über  den  Zugang  der 
Öffentlichkeit  zu  Umweltinformationen  den  Verwaltungsaufwand  der  Mitgliedstaaten 
beeinflussen  würde  (EQ  4.8).  INSPIRE  unterstützt  die  Umsetzung  der  Richtlinie 

für 

19 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

2003/4/EG,  indem  es  die  Kapazität  der  beteiligten  Akteure  verbessert,  was  sich 
möglicherweise mittelbar auf den Verwaltungsaufwand auswirkt. 

Kohärenz 

Zur Bewertung der Kohärenz wurde untersucht, ob die INSPIRE-Richtlinie und ihre 
Bestimmung  intern  widerspruchsfrei  sind  und  anderen  politischen  Initiativen  und 
Rechtsvorschriften  sowie  dem  Rechtsrahmen  der  EU  in  Bezug  auf  die  Weitergabe 
öffentlicher  Daten  (Richtlinie 2003/4/EG  über  den  Zugang  der  Öffentlichkeit  zu 
Umweltinformationen und Richtlinie 2019/1024/EU über offene Daten) entsprechen.  

Bei der Untersuchung wurden keine internen Widersprüche gefunden. Allerdings ist die 
INSPIRE-Richtlinie hinsichtlich der Verweise auf Ausschussverfahren veraltet, die nicht 
mit den Artikeln 290 und 291 des Vertrags von Lissabon übereinstimmen (EQ 5.1). 

Bei  der  Überprüfung  einschlägiger  EU-Rechtsvorschriften  (Umwelt-  und  sonstige 
Rechtsvorschriften) wurden keine Bestimmungen gefunden, die der Anwendbarkeit der 
INSPIRE-Vorschriften  innerhalb  ihres  Geltungsbereichs  im  Wege  stehen  könnten  (EQ 
5.2  and  5.3).  Tatsächlich  verweisen  viele  Rechtsvorschriften  direkt  auf  die  INSPIRE-
Vorschriften  und  es  wurde  festgestellt,  dass  diese  Verweise  die  praktische  Befolgung 
unterstützen. 
Insbesondere  beim  Umweltrecht  wird  daran  gearbeitet,  die 
Berichterstattungspflichten  an  die  INSPIRE-Vorschriften  anzugleichen.  Allerdings 
betonten die Interessenträger, dass die Berichterstattungspflichten im Umweltbereich, 
sowohl  was  die  Dateninhalte  als  auch  die  Modelle  betrifft,  noch  nicht  vollständig  mit 
INSPIRE kohärent sind. 

Durch die Bereitstellung von Datendiensten (insbesondere Darstellung und Download) 
und  für  die  Öffentlichkeit  zugänglichen  Metadaten  hat  die  INSPIRE-Richtlinie  das 
Potenzial,  den  Zielen  der  Richtlinie  über  den  Zugang  der  Öffentlichkeit  zu 
Umweltinformationen 
(EQ  5.4).  Da  die 
(Richtlinie  2003/4/EG)  zu  dienen 
Richtlinie 2003/4/EG  vor  der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie  verabschiedet  wurde,  verweist  sie 
jedoch  nicht  auf  die  INSPIRE-Vorschriften  zur  Verbreitung  von  Geodaten,  die  unter 
Artikel 7(e)  fallen.  In  dieser  Beziehung  könnte  die  Richtlinie  von  einer  stärkeren 
Ausrichtung  an  den  Anforderungen  und  der  Terminologie  der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie 
profitieren. Potenzielle Konflikte wurden zwischen der INSPIRE-Richtlinie, der Richtlinie 
über  offene  Date  und  der  kommenden  Verordnung  über  hochwertige  Datensätze 
identifiziert,  da  die  INSPIRE-Richtlinie  mehr  Möglichkeiten  vorsieht,  den  öffentlichen 
Zugang zu Geodaten zu begrenzen und Geodatensätze und -dienste zu lizenzieren oder 
nur  gegen  Bezahlung  bereitzustellen  (EQ  5.5).  Dies  erfordert  möglicherweise  eine 
Angleichung in  der  Zukunft.  Außerdem  sollte  gewährleistet  werden,  dass  INSPIRE  an 
künftige Entwicklungen im Bereich offener Daten angepasst wird. 

Europäischer Mehrwert  

Zur  Bewertung  des  europäischen  Mehrwerts  wurde  vor  allem  untersucht,  ob  die 
INSPIRE-Richtlinie im Vergleich zu dem, was auf nationaler oder regionaler Ebene ohne 
die Richtlinie hätte erreicht werden können, einen Mehrwert erzielt hat. Da die Richtlinie 
noch nicht vollständig umgesetzt wurde, bietet sie auch nur zum Teil einen europäischen 
Mehrwert.  Wie  eine  Auswertung  älterer  Studien  und  die  Befragung  von 
Interessenträgern zeigen, betreffen die Vorteile der EU-Maßnahme bisher vor allem die 
politische  Entscheidungsfindung  und  die  Umsetzung  anderer  Rechtsvorschriften  auf 
nationaler 
die 
Umweltberichterstattung. Auf nationaler Ebene hat die Richtlinie durch die Einrichtung 
von  Lenkungsstrukturen,  eine  breitere  Interoperabilität  (europaweit),  die  Freigabe 
öffentlicher Daten und die Schaffung einer europäischen Wissensbasis einen Mehrwert 
geschaffen. 

insbesondere 

europäischer 

in  Bezug 

Ebene, 

und 

auf 

20 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Für allgemeine Nutzer ist der Mehrwert dieser europäischen Richtlinie weniger greifbar. 
Obwohl die Richtlinie die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit leicht verbessert hat, 
bestehen weiterhin einige Probleme, die eine europaweite Weitergabe und Nutzung von 
Daten  verhindern.  Geodaten  zu  Umwelt  und  Klima  sind  unverzichtbar,  um 
faktengestützte Politik entwickeln und umsetzen und die Ziele des europäischen grünen 
Deals erreichen zu können. Angesichts aktueller Initiativen wie „GreenData4All“ und der 
neuen Datengesetzgebung sollte beim Aufbau von europäischen Strukturen der Data-
Governance eine enge Koordination zwischen den an INSPIRE beteiligten Akteuren und 
anderen relevanten  Interessenträgern gewährleistet werden. Die Untersuchung bietet 
auch Ergebnisse zu der Frage, ob die Probleme, die durch INSPIRE gelöst werden sollen, 
immer noch Maßnahmen auf EU-Ebene erfordern (EQ 6.2). Die meisten Interessenträger 
bestätigen,  dass  europäische  Maßnahmen  weiterhin  notwendig  und  die  Gründe  und 
Grundsätze der INSPIRE-Richtlinie gerechtfertigt sind. 

Empfehlungen 

Auf  der  Grundlage  der  Evaluierung  der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie  und  der  oben  skizzierten 
Ergebnisse,  wurden  die  folgenden  Empfehlungen  zusammengefasst.  Eine  erste 
Fassung  der  Empfehlungen  wurde  in  einer  Befragung  und  einem  Workshop  mit  den 
Interessenträgern  diskutiert.  Die  Empfehlungen  wurden  in  fünf  Themenbereiche 
gegliedert:  

I. Die Umsetzungslücke schließen:  Es wird empfohlen, dass die Mitgliedstaaten in 
Absprache  mit  der  Europäischen  Kommission  die  Umsetzung  der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie 
verbessern, eine bessere Verfügbarkeit und grenzüberschreitende Nutzung von Daten 
gewährleisten  und  Verfahren  entwickeln,  mit  denen  die  Umsetzung  der  INSPIRE-
Richtlinie  mit  dem  Bedarf  möglichst  vieler  Verwaltungsebenen  und  Anwendungsfälle 
verknüpft werden kann. 

Des  Weiteren  wird  empfohlen,  dass  die  Europäische  Kommission  die  Mitgliedstaaten 
auch weiterhin bei der Berichterstattung und der Entwicklung umfassender qualitativer 
Indikatoren unterstützt. Auch wird empfohlen, die Zielgruppen für die Umsetzung der 
INSPIRE-Richtlinie  zu  erweitern  (europäische  Einrichtungen,  Akteure  des  privaten 
Sektors  und  Bürger),  weiterhin  Schulungen  und  Peer-Learning-Möglichkeiten  für  den 
Kapazitätsaufbau  und  den  Austausch  bewährter  Verfahren  zu  unterstützen  und 
Synergien zwischen INSPIRE und der nationalen Geodateninfrastruktur zu fördern. Um 
eine  vollständige  Interoperabilität  zu  erreichen,  sollte  besonderer  Wert  darauf  gelegt 
werden, den Bedarf der Nutzer zu untersuchen und die Datensätze auf dieser Grundlage 
zu vereinheitlichen sowie einen technikneutralen Umsetzungsrahmen zu schaffen (der 
etablierten, aber auch neuen technologischen Standards entspricht). 

II.  Einen  nutzerzentrierten  Ansatz  verfolgen:  Es  wird  empfohlen,  dass  die 
Mitgliedstaaten  in  Absprache  mit  der  Europäischen  Kommission  weiterhin  vor  allem 
prioritäre  Datensätze  mit  Bezug  zur  Umweltberichterstattung  entwickeln  und  dabei 
gewährleisten, dass die Daten für die Benutzergruppen relevant sind. Außerdem sollten 
sie für die Vorteile gesamteuropäischer Datensätze und der gemeinsamen Nutzung von 
Daten innerhalb der EU werben und so dazu beitragen, dass mehr öffentliche und private 
Daten freigegeben werden, dass die Umsetzung der Richtlinie stärker unterstützt wird, 
und dass die Vorteile der INSPIRE-Richtlinie allgemein anerkannt werden. Des Weiteren 
wird unter anderem empfohlen, Darstellung der Strukturen und Beziehungen zwischen 
den  Datenelementen  anzubieten,  die  einfacher  sind  als  die  Spezifikationen  für  die 
vollständigen Datenmodelle, und dadurch die subjektive Komplexität der Datenmodelle 
zu  reduzieren,  Fallstudien  zu  entwickeln,  die  bestehende  Anwendungsfälle  für 
einschlägige Daten in einzelnen Branchen oder Mitgliedstaaten beschreiben und so die 
Entwicklung angemessener Verfahren unterstützen, mit denen Geodaten zur Verfügung 
gestellt und nutzbar gemacht werden können, und bestehende und potenzielle künftige 

21 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Nutzer  von  Geodaten  zu  identifizieren,  um  ihre  aktuellen  und  künftigen  Bedürfnisse 
analysieren zu können. 

Weiterhin  wird  empfohlen,  dass  die  Europäische  Kommission  abwägt,  mit  welchen 
Initiativen  und  Mechanismen  sie  Akteuren  des  privaten  Sektors  Anreize  dafür  bieten 
kann,  ihre  Daten  zur  gemeinsamen  Nutzung  freizugeben,  und  wie  sie  Möglichkeiten 
eröffnen  kann,  die  wahrgenommene  Komplexität  der  Datenmodelle  zu  reduzieren. 
Außerdem  sollte  sie  abwägen,  wie  die  Umsetzungskosten  gesenkt  werden  können, 
insbesondere die Kosten durch potenzielle Zusatzmaßnahmen, um die Nutzbarkeit der 
Daten für Laien zu maximieren. Auch sollte die Identifizierung der besten Praktiken für 
die Lizenzierung und Nutzung von Daten in Erwägung gezogen und einheitliche Leitlinien 
entwickelt  werden,  die  diese  Praktiken  unterstützen  und  zeigen,  wie  INSPIRE  als 
Instrument  zur  Meldung  nationaler  Daten  für  die  umweltpolitischen  Zwecke  der  EU 
eingesetzt werden kann. Schließlich müssen spezifische Maßnahmen entwickelt werden, 
um  die  Schaffung  von  Initiativen  zu  unterstützen,  die  Geodaten  zur  Entwicklung  von 
Produkten und Dienstleistungen nutzen und um die künftige Nutzung von INSPIRE zu 
verbessern, durch  Ermöglichung von Verbesserungen der  Datenqualität, durchgeführt 
von (zugelassenen bzw. autorisierten) Einzelpersonen oder Unternehmen. 

III. Die Übereinstimmung mit neuer Datengesetzgebung gewährleisten: Es gibt 
keine  wesentlichen  Widersprüche  zwischen  der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie  und  anderen 
Rechtsvorschriften. Allerdings sollten die Synergien zwischen der INSPIRE-Richtlinie und 
der  Richtlinie 2003/4/EG  über  den  Zugang  der  Öffentlichkeit  zu  Umweltinformationen 
verbessert  werden.  Deshalb  wird  empfohlen,  dass  die  Europäische  Kommission  prüft, 
wie die beiden Richtlinien besser aufeinander abgestimmt werden können, z. B. durch 
die Einführung einer Pflicht, die in Artikel 7(e) genannten Daten gemäß der INSPIRE-
Richtlinie zugänglich zu machen. 

INSPIRE-Richtlinie,  die  es  Behörden 

Sofern  durch  die  Annahme  der  Verordnung  über  hochwertige  Datensätze 
Unstimmigkeiten  zum  Rechtsrahmen  in  Bezug  auf  offene  Daten  entstehen,  wird 
empfohlen,  die  Bestimmungen  der 
in 
Ausnahmefällen erlaubt, den öffentlichen Zugang zu Daten, die unter die Verordnung 
über  hochwertige  Datensätze  fallen,  einzuschränken  und  diese  nur  mit  Lizenzen  oder 
gegen  Bezahlung  freizugeben,  an  die  Bestimmungen  der  Richtlinie  über  offene  Daten 
und  der  Verordnung  über  hochwertige  Datensätze  anzupassen.  Des  Weiteren  wird 
empfohlen,  Synergien  zwischen  der  INSPIRE-Richtlinie  und  anderen  Initiativen  zu 
schaffen,  die  sich  aus  der  europäischen  Datenstrategie  ergeben,  zum  Beispiel  den 
Richtlinienbestimmungen  über  offene  Daten  zur  Weiterverwendung  von  Daten,  der 
zugehörigen Initiative für ein Umsetzungsgesetz über hochwertige Datensätze und den 
Vorschlag  einer  Verordnung  über  europäische  Data-Governance  (Data-Governance-
Gesetz). 

regionaler  und 

IV. Den Geltungsbereich erweitern: Es wird empfohlen, dass die Mitgliedstaaten in 
Absprache  mit  der  Europäischen  Kommission  abwägen,  wie  sie  für  Behörden  auf 
lokaler  Ebene,  Akteure  des  privaten  Sektors, 
nationaler, 
wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen und Bürger Anreize dafür schaffen können, Daten auf 
transparente  Art  zur  Verfügung  zu  stellen,  eine  einheitliche  INSPIRE-Infrastruktur  zu 
schaffen, die sich auf den gemeinsamen Bedarf konzentriert, und den Datenbedarf in 
verschiedenen  Politikbereichen  zu  identifizieren,  um  das  Potenzial  der  Daten,  die  von 
verschiedenen Interessenträgern bereitgestellt werden, besser zu verstehen. 

Ferner  wird  empfohlen,  dass  die  Europäische  Kommission  Möglichkeiten  abwägt,  um 
zusätzlich zu Geodaten weitere Daten in die INSPIRE-Infrastruktur zu integrieren und 
einen Ansatz für die Verknüpfung von Daten zu entwickeln, der Geodaten und andere 
Daten miteinander in Beziehung setzt. Außerdem sollte sie die Mitgliedstaaten stärker 
bei der Definition von Systemen und Mechanismen unterstützen, die privaten Akteuren 
Anreize bieten, ihre Daten zur Verfügung zu stellen und die Datenqualität zu verbessern. 

22 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

V.  Wichtiges  Instrument  für  den  europäischen  Grünen  Deal:  Die  INSPIRE-
Richtlinie  kann  entscheidend  dazu  beitragen,  die  Ziele  der  EU  bei  der  Schaffung 
großflächiger  Datenräume  und  insbesondere  eines  Datenraums  für  den  Grünen  Deal 
umzusetzen.  Daher  wird  empfohlen,  dass  die  Mitgliedstaaten  in  Absprache  mit  der 
Europäischen Kommission die Umsetzung der Richtlinie verbessern und  sie stärker an 
die Rechtsvorschriften in den einzelnen Sektoren und deren Umsetzung anpassen. Die 
Gesetzgebung  braucht  neue  Ziele  und  eine  neue  Ausrichtung,  die  eine  schnelle 
Umsetzung  und  praktische  Nutzung  der  INSPIRE-Infrastruktur  in  den  Mitgliedstaaten 
politisch  stärker  legitimieren  und  es  den  Bürgern  und  dem  öffentlichen  und  privaten 
Sektor  erleichtern,  datengestützte 
Innovationen  und  auf  Fakten  basierende 
Entscheidungen  zu  treffen,  die  den  Wandel  hin  zu  einer  nachhaltigeren  Gesellschaft 
voranbringen. 

Des  Weiteren  wird  empfohlen,  dass  die  Europäische  Kommission  abwägt,  wie  sie 
datengestützte  Lösungen  unterstützen  kann,  die  den  Übergang  zu  einer  grünen  und 
klimaneutralen  Wirtschaft  fördern  und  den  Verwaltungsaufwand  senken.  Außerdem 
sollte sie abwägen, wie sie das volle Potenzial der INSPIRE-Richtlinie im Zusammenhang 
mit der europäischen Datenstrategie als Motor für den europäischen Grünen Deal voll 
ausschöpfen kann. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The INSPIRE Directive was adopted in 2007 to establish the Infrastructure for Spatial 
Information in the European Union for the purposes of EU environmental policies and 
other policies and activities which may have an impact on the environment.4 INSPIRE 
aims to improve the availability, quality, organisation, accessibility and sharing of spatial 
information among various levels of the public administration, across different sectors 
and across borders - to the benefit of policy-making with a direct or indirect impact on 
the environment. The INSPIRE Directive responded to the growing need for sharing and 
exchanging interoperable spatial data across Europe for policy-making and does so by 
removing obstacles to the sharing of spatial data across public authorities. Additionally, 
the  access  to  the  INSPIRE  spatial  data  should  be  ensured  for  all  other  stakeholders, 
including private sector, NGOs, academia and citizens.  

Within this overall context, the European Commission set out to conduct an evaluation 
of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on Infrastructure for Spatial 
Information  in  the  European  Community  (INSPIRE).  The  legal  obligation  to 
evaluate the INSPIRE Directive stems from Regulation 2019/1010 on the alignment of 
reporting obligations in the field of legislation related to the environment. It entered into 
force in June 2019 and it stipulates in Article 23 that by 2022 and at least every five 
years thereafter, the European Commission will carry out an evaluation of this Directive, 
and  of  its  implementation.  The  purpose  of  such  an  evaluation  is  to  assess  the 
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of the Directive and 
its implementation in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines.5 

The study (henceforth referred to as 'the evaluation') is a support study to inform the 
European Commission's evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive. The evaluation covers the 
period between 2014 and 2020. Geographically, it covers all 27 EU Member States and 
four EEA/EFTA countries.6 As regards the thematic scope, it covers all provisions of the 
Directive  and  its  Implementing  Rules.  Moreover,  the  study  contributes  to  the  wider 
coherence  assessments  required  for  the  ‘GreenData4All’  initiative  as  part  of  the 
European  Data  Strategy.  Beyond  the  coherence  between  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and 
Public  Access  to  Environmental  Information  Directive,  the  study  provides  answers  to 
key evaluation questions on the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of the provisions 
in  Article  7  (Dissemination  of  environmental  information)  and  Article  8  (Quality  of 
environmental information) of the Public access to environmental information Directive.    

This report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation 
of the INSPIRE Directive. The report is structured as follows:  

  Chapter  1:  Introduction  –  introducing  the  context  and  the  structure  of  the 

evaluation  

  Chapter 2: Background  – presenting the legislative context, the  objectives of 
the evaluation, the Intervention logic and the baseline for the INSPIRE Directive 

  Chapter 3: Evaluation questions – presenting an overview of evaluation criteria 

and evaluation questions 

  Chapter 4: Methodology – presenting the evaluation tasks, the horizontal tasks 

of data collection and limitations gaps 

4 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 (INSPIRE). 

5 Better Regulation Guidelines Toolbox Tool #47: Evaluation Criteria and questions. 
6 Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

  Chapter 5: Answers to the evaluation questions – presenting the findings of the 
evaluation concerning the current status analysis, as well as the effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence and the EU added value of the INSPIRE Directive 

  Chapter  6:  Conclusions  and  recommendations  -  presenting  the  key  emerging 

conclusions and possible recommendations 

The report also includes several Appendices: 

  Appendix 1: List of evidence sources 

  Appendix 2: Current status analysis 

  Appendix 3: Current status country forms 

  Appendix 4: Synopsis report 

  Appendix 5: Report on the public consultation 

  Appendix 6: Report on the stakeholder validation workshop 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

2.1.  Context and purpose of the INSPIRE Directive  

While the concept of spatial data may seem difficult to understand to a layman due to 
its complex technical nature, the importance of a functioning spatial data infrastructure 
(SDI)  in  Europe  should  not  be  underestimated.  As  highlighted  in  several  policy 
documents  over  the  years  (e.g.  the  Environment  Action  Programmes  -  EAPs),  the 
development  of  EU  environment  policy  and  its  implementation  relies  on  a  solid 
knowledge  including  data  related  to  the  state  of  the  environment  (water,  air, 
biodiversity, etc.). The same applies to policies that have an impact on the environment 
(transport, energy, agriculture, regional development, etc.). Much environmental data 
can be classified as spatial data as it relates to specific locations. Spatial data, known 
also  as  geospatial  data,  contains  information  about  a  specific  location  on  the  Earth’s 
surface.  Besides  the  definition  of  the  location  in  geometry  terms  (e.g.  polygon,  line, 
point), the location includes several attributes that describes the environmental specifics 
that are necessary to understand what is happening and in which location.7  

A  more  efficient  management,  analysis  and  usage  of  spatially  referenced  geographic 
data and related information can be beneficial for a broad spectrum of problem-solving 
domains in the public sector, e.g. good governance, promoting economic growth, and 
sustainable resource management.8  For example, in the case of floods, landslides or 
erosion, it is crucial to have a quick access to all the necessary information. This allows 
for consequent and appropriate quick action on the ground. For example, it is important 
not only to know the size of the area but also what information (attributes) of that area 
is  available:  soil  quality,  share  of  forest/  land/  urban  area,  population  density,  the 
presence and location of houses, schools, emergency services, etc. 

7 EEA (2014), EEA Newsletter, Issue 2014/3. 
8 Williamson, I. P., A. Rajabifard, and M. E. F. Feeney. 2003. Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: 

From Concept to Reality. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The INSPIRE Directive was a response to the growing need for sharing and exchanging 
interoperable spatial data across Europe and to the fact that the spatial data situation 
in Europe was then considered “one of fragmentation, gaps in availability, duplication 
of  information  collection  and  problems  of  identifying,  accessing  or  using  data  that  is 
available”. This quotation is from the impact assessment for INSPIRE published in 2004.9 
Following the impact assessment, the INSPIRE Directive was adopted in 2007 laying out 
the requirements for sharing and exchanging spatial data. It is based on the existing 
SDIs established individually by Member States and it covers 34 themes of spatial data 
relevant  for  environmental  applications.10  By  building  on  the  national  spatial  data 
infrastructures (NSDI), it aims to establish a high-quality and interoperable spatial data 
base,  readily  available  across  Europe  for  the  purposes  of  environmental  policies  and 
other relevant policies which may have an impact on the environment.   

One of the main expected benefits of the EU SDI is that it improve the functioning of 
the  public  administration  at  all  levels  by  facilitating  the  administrative  access  to 
geospatial information.11 One important aspect in this regard  relate to the associated 
capacity building which is facilitated by the European Commission and its services (i.e. 
JRC,  EEA,  ESTAT).  Equally  important  for  raising  the  digital  competences  and  digital 
maturity  are  the  EU  initiatives  such  as  e-Government  strategy  and  the  EU 
interoperability framework in general. The INSPIRE implementation must be considered 
in close connection with these initiatives and the competences and maturity that they 
bring.  

As stipulated in its Article 1, the general objective of the INSPIRE Directive is to establish 
the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Union for the purposes of the 
EU environmental policies and policies and activities which may have an impact on the 
environment.  INSPIRE  thus  aims  to  improve  the  availability,  quality,  organisation, 
accessibility  and  sharing  of  spatial  information  among  various  levels  of  public 
administration, across different sectors and across borders to assist policy-making with 
a direct or indirect impact on the environment. It is structured as a Framework Directive 
around five main actions: 

  metadata, 
  network services, 
 
  data and service sharing, 
  monitoring and reporting. 

interoperability of spatial data sets and services, 

The Directive is pursuing the above general objective through these actions that aim to 
remove obstacles to the sharing of spatial data across public authorities. Additionally, 
the access to the spatial data made available through INSPIRE should be ensured for all 
other stakeholders, including private sector, NGOs, academia and citizens according to 
the Re-use of Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive (Directive 2003/98/EC). 

The Directive lays down general obligations and rights which are then further specified 
by Implementing Rules (IR) for each of these five actions. All IR have been adopted as 
Commission  Decisions  or  Regulations  and  are  binding  in  their  entirety.  The 
implementation  schedules  for  providing  metadata,  establishing  network  services  and 

9 European Commission (2004), Commission Staff Working Document: Proposal for a Directive of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an  infrastructure  for  spatial  information  in  the 
Community (INSPIRE): Extended Impact Assessment. 

10 

EEA 

(2016), 

INSPIRE.  Available 

at: 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/seis-

initiatives/inspire-directive. 

11  Pashova,  L.  and  T.  Bandrova  (2017),  A  brief  overview  of  current  status  of  European  spatial  data 
infrastructures − relevant developments and perspectives for Bulgaria, Geo-spatial Information Science, 
20:2, 97-108. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

ensuring interoperability are different for the different spatial data themes referred to 
in  each  of  the  three  Annexes  to  the  Directive  outlining  34  spatial  data  themes.  The 
Directive came into force on 15 May 2007 and is implemented in various stages, with 
full  implementation  required  by  10  December  2021.  The  implementation  roadmap  is 
shown  in  Figure  2-1  below.  The  Roadmap  must  be  considered  when  assessing  initial 
outputs and effects of INSPIRE.  

Figure 2-1 Step-wise implementation of the INSPIRE Directive 

Source: European Commission (n.d.), Road Map Graphic.  

2.2.  Objectives of the evaluation and the Intervention Logic 

Based on Article 23 of the Directive, the general objective of this study is to support the 
evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  The  following  specific 
objectives underpins this: 

1.  Carry out the stakeholder consultation to gather views by relevant stakeholders 
to  inform  the  evaluation  of  the  five  evaluation  criteria,  as  well  as  to  pursue 
verification and acceptance of the evaluation findings that will feed into the status 
of implementation and the lessons learnt/ recommendations; 

27 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

2.  Document the status of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive at the EU and 
country  level in  order  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  implementation  progress, 
identify  any  shortcomings  and  the  reasons  behind  (providing  background  for 
answering the evaluation questions regarding the effectiveness of the Directive) 
as well as to provide recommendations for further actions; 

3.  Assess the effectiveness,  efficiency, coherence,  relevance  and  EU added-value 
of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  by  answering  the  evaluation  questions.  Within 
effectiveness and EU added value there is a specific focus on assessing use-cases 
such as sharing of geospatial data between public authorities and public access 
to  geospatial  environmental  information  for  future  orientations.  Also,  the 
evaluation  includes  an  identification  of  lessons  learned  and  challenges  with 
regard to the coherence of INSPIRE with other instruments.   

4.  Focus on cost savings,  social (e.g. health), and environmental benefits.  These 
achievements  have  good  economic  impacts  (not  only  from  the  cost-savings), 
however, while focusing on high quality evidence, the challenge is to attribute 
such impacts and describe them in a quantitative way. Hence the assessment is 
necessarily expanded in a more qualitative manner where quantification is not 
possible; 

5.  Identify and elaborate on the external factors that are relevant for the expected 
results  and  impact  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive,  in  terms  of  data  sharing, 
accessibility, interoperability, etc. 

6.  Provide  lessons  learned  and/or  recommendations  on  how  to  address  the 
identified  shortcomings  and  present  them  in  a  form  of  most  optimal  policy 
options, facilitating effectiveness and efficiency of INSPIRE. 

The REFIT evaluation12 included an Intervention Logic. This intervention logic has been 
thoroughly scrutinized building on a thorough understanding of the implementation and 
context of INSPIRE. The resulting revised Intervention Logic serves to provide a solid 
foundation for the theory-based evaluation through clearly illustrating the causal chains 
and the underlying assumptions that guide the evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive and 
its implementation, The intervention logic is relevant at two levels: (a) to establish an 
intervention  ('helicopter  view'  of  the 
overview  understanding  of  the  whole 
implementation of the INSPIRE Directive) and the interlinkages between the different 
provisions,  (b)  to  establish  an  in-depth  understanding  of  the  causal  pathways  and 
assumptions  for  each  type  of  activity  (granular  information  on  the  mechanisms  and 
causal effects of specific types of activities).  

Therefore, a key element in the revision of the intervention logic has been to establish 
a precise mapping of the cause-effect relationship of INSPIRE Directive. This allows for 
setting out in operational terms how the Directive was expected to deliver its outputs, 
results  and  impacts  and  it  supports  the  identification  of  intended  and  unintended 
impacts. For each objective, the intervention logic links the inputs, outputs, results and 
impacts  thus  illustrating  the  intended  cause-effect  relations.  Literature  and  expert 
knowledge  informed  the  further  mapping  of  results  and  impacts  of  the  resulting 
intervention  logic.  To  the  extent  possible,  the  Intervention  Logic  also  captures  key 
indirect  or  unintended  results  and  impacts  deriving  from  the  implementation  of  the 
directive. The applied and revised intervention logic is shown in the figure below.

12  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2).  

28 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European 
Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 2-2 Intervention Logic 

29 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

2.3.  Baseline 

The  baseline  of  this  evaluation  is  the  year  2014.  This  year  marks  an  interim 
implementation  milestone.  The  cut-off  date  set  for  this  evaluation  is  January  2021 
except  for  specific  parts  in  the  current  status  analysis  due  to  specific  circumstances 
outside  the  control  of  this  evaluation.  By  the  beginning  of  the  year  2021,  most  of 
INSPIRE requirements should have been implemented (see the INSPIRE implementation 
roadmap in Figure 2-1). However, the full implementation is required only by the end 
of 2021, therefore, it must be considered that this evaluation does not yet allow for a 
full  assessment  of  impacts  and  benefits  of  the  Directive.  Rather,  with  the  defined 
baseline, this evaluation assesses the implementation progress between 2014 and 2021 
and provides an understanding how the situation during this period has changed, also 
compared to the situation prevalent at the time of the adoption of the Directive in 2007. 
Such consideration helps to understand a rationale for the adoption in the Directive in 
the  first  place  (2007)  and  to  conclude  whether  and  to  what  extent  it  has  still  been 
relevant over the last seven years (2014-2021).  

Based on the conclusions of the REFIT evaluation in 2016, it seems that many of the 
barriers  identified  in  2003  Impact  Assessment13  were  still  relevant  at  the  time  of  the 
preparation of that evaluation. Despite the progress in the recent years, political, legal, 
organizational,  and  cultural  differences  constitute  barriers  in  the  process  of 
harmonization  of  spatial  information  across  Europe.  The  REFIT  evaluation  identified 
some  specific  obstacles  such  as  underdeveloped  legal  frameworks  in  national  data 
policies, complex and heterogeneous data policies across Europe, various cost recovery 
models  and  lack  of  enforcement.  Besides,  a  lack  of  digital  competences  and  digital 
maturity is a pressing issue that must be addressed as well. Building a pan-European 
SDI is a complex undertaking employing concepts and technologies that are not fully 
mastered  by  the  contributors  to  data  infrastructure  and  that  are  continuously 
undergoing substantial development and maturing. 

3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The  support  study  to  the  evaluation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  addresses  the  current 
status analysis and five evaluation criteria: relevance (i.e. whether the objectives of 
the Directive are still in line with the current needs and problems), effectiveness (i.e. 
whether the actual changes the Directive has generated, and the results are in line with 
the  original  objectives),  efficiency  (i.e.  whether  the  costs  resulting  from  the 
implementation of the Directive's provisions are in line with actual benefits), coherence 
(i.e. whether the Directive is internally coherent in terms of its provisions, as well as 
externally  coherent  with  other  policies  and  legislation)  and  EU  added  value  (i.e. 
whether  the  Directive  has  delivered  added  value,  beyond  what  could  have  been 
expected from national and regional policies). For this study, the evaluation criteria have 
been operationalised in 30 evaluation questions. The overview of questions is presented 
below. 

Table 3-1 

Overview of evaluation criteria and evaluation questions 

CURRENT STATUS 

13 INSPIRE (2003), Report on the feedback of the Internet consultation on a forthcoming EU initiative 
establishing a framework for the creation of an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe. Available 
at: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/reports/analysis_consultation_01092003.pdf 

30 

 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

 

 

EQ 1.1: How has the implementation and application of INSPIRE evolved from 2014 to 2020 and how 
it has affected different stakeholders? 

EQ 1.2: To what extent has the recommendations from the 2016 INSPIRE REFIT been implemented? 

EFFECTIVENESS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EQ 2.1: What progress has been made over time towards achieving the objectives and targets set out 
in INSPIRE in various Member States? 

EQ  2.2:  Is  the  progress  made  in  line  with  the  initial  expectations  and  the  INSPIRE  implementation 
roadmap? 

EQ 2.3: Is the geographical coverage of implementation consistent with the Directive's objectives? 

EQ 2.4: To what extent does the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in the Member States build 
further  on  the  obligations  of  Directive  2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to  environmental  information 
(specifically the provisions under Articles 7 and 8 of the Directive 2003/4/EC)? 

EQ  2.5:  Which  main  factors  have  contributed  to  –  respectively  stood  in  the  way  of  achieving  these 
objectives? 

EQ 2.6: To what extent is INSPIRE used for reporting under the environmental acquis? 

EQ 2.7: What are the qualitative and quantitative effects of INSPIRE on the policymaking users in the 
field of environment in Member States? 

EQ 2.8: What are the qualitative and quantitative effects of INSPIRE on users active in economic sectors 
influencing environment? 

EQ 2.9: What are the effects of INSPIRE on small businesses using spatial data? 

RELEVANCE 

 

 

 

 

EQ 3.1: To what extent does INSPIRE still match current needs and do they continue to require action 
at EU level? 

EQ 3.2: Is INSPIRE still relevant to the issues (obstacles) it addresses? 

EQ 3.3: To what extent is INSPIRE future-proof? 

EQ 3.4: Are the Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information 
still relevant in view of the current state of the INSPIRE infrastructures? 

EFFICIENCY 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EQ 4.1: To what extent, and how has the intervention lead to improvements in the quality or efficiency 
of work of concerned stakeholders? 

EQ 4.2: Can any specific provisions in INSPIRE be identified that make cost-efficient implementation 
more difficult? 

EQ 4.3: Can the INSPIRE Directive and implementing rules be made more cost-efficient? What is the 
simplification potential? 

EQ 4.4: Are results achieved so far commensurate with the resources put forward and in line with the 
ones expected from the ex-ante evaluation of INSPIRE? 

EQ  4.5:  How  proportionate  were  the  costs  of  the  intervention  for  different  stakeholder  groups 
(enterprises including SMEs, private citizens …)? 

EQ 4.6: Have the resources needed to implement INSPIRE been available? 

EQ 4.7: How has the use of INSPIRE for environmental reporting affected the reporting burden? 

EQ 4.8: How would further streamlining of the provisions in Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC on 
public  access  to  environmental  information  with  the  active  dissemination  provisions  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive impact the administrative burden on the Member States. 

COHERENCE 

 

 

 

EQ 5.1: To what extent is INSPIRE coherent internally? 

EQ 5.2: To what extent is INSPIRE coherent with environmental legislation with geospatial reporting 
obligations? 

EQ  5.3:  To  what  extent  is  INSPIRE  coherent  with  other  relevant  areas  of  EU  policy  with  geospatial 
reporting obligations (transport, agriculture, maritime, space, health, disaster management, research)? 

31 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

 

 

EQ 5.4: To what extent is INSPIRE coherent with Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental 
information and the objectives of the Common European Green Deal data space? 

EQ 5.5: To what extent is INSPIRE coherent with Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector 
information and what are the implications of Directive 2019/1024/EU? 

EU ADDED VALUE 

 

 

EQ 6.1: What is the EU-added value of INSPIRE in comparison to what could be achieved at Member 
States national and/or regional level activities? 

EQ 6.2: To what extent do the issues addressed by INSPIRE continue to require action at EU level? 

4.  METHODOLOGY 

4.1.  Evaluation tasks and phases 

The  study  timeline  is  split  into  five  evaluation  tasks  that  span  over  four  evaluation 
phases: inception, current status, analysis and final report phase. A brief overview of 
phases and key outputs is provided in the following paragraphs: 

In the inception phase, the evaluation methodology (Task 1) was developed and the 
intervention logic from the REFIT evaluation was revised (Task 2). The corresponding 
outputs were presented in the  Inception Report, which was approved  in March 2021. 
The work performed as part of the inception phase included the completion of the list of 
evaluation  questions  and  the  approach  to  answering  them  (by  defining  judgement 
criteria, indicators, triangulation approach), assessment of the stakeholders' feedback 
to  the  Evaluation  Roadmap,  development  of  the  public  consultation  questionnaire, 
preparation  of  the  current  status  form  template,14  identification  and  mapping  of 
stakeholders, collection of data sources and mapping of main data gaps and limitations. 

In the current status phase, the first drafts of the 31 country forms were prepared. 
This was based on a desk review of the country fiches as well as other relevant materials. 
The  resulting  draft  country  forms,  developed  for  the  27  Member  States  and  four 
EEA/EFTA countries, were shared with the respective National Contact Points (NCPs) on 
25 March 2021 for their validation. The NCPs were given a timeframe for the review and 
by mid-May feedback from all countries had been received, based on which the country 
forms were updated and revised (see Appendix 3).  

The current status phase was closely intertwined with the analysis phase, during which 
a  review  and  analysis  of  available  information  and  evidence  (Task  3)  was  further 
performed and completed. In this task, quantitative and qualitative data from reports, 
scientific  articles,  evaluations  and  other  data  sources  on  the  implementation  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive was collected and reviewed. Furthermore, as part of the stakeholder 
consultations  (Task  4),  several  data  collection  activities  were  conducted,  including 
scoping interviews and Focus Group interviews with selected Member State authorities 
and stakeholders. In mid-April, the public consultation (duration of 12 weeks) and four 
targeted surveys were launched at the end of April. 

In the final report phase, the analysis of results from all stakeholder consultations, 
including from the public consultation and the targeted surveys was finalised. Findings 

14 A more detailed explanation about the current status analysis and the preparation of country forms 

is provided in EQ 1.1. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

from these consultation activities fed into the drafting of this report (Task 5) presenting 
also the draft final conclusions of the evaluation. 

The  final  report  went  through  a  validation  process,  which  included  a  review  by  DG 
Environment and the Inter-service Group composed of relevant Commission services, 
and  a  validation  workshop,  which  aimed  to  have  stakeholders  validate  the  findings, 
conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the  final  report.  To  ensure  that  a  variety  of 
perspectives was expressed, the workshop was open to a  wide range of stakeholders 
(including  Commission  services,  national  authorities,  EU  umbrella  organisations, 
companies, academics/research organisations). The conclusions and recommendations 
of the study were also discussed in breakout sessions and plenary during the workshop.  
Participants had the opportunity to express their opinions on some of the conclusions 
and  recommendations  of  the  report  in  a  validation  survey,  conducted  prior  to  the 
workshop. 

4.2.  The horizontal tasks of data collection 

The key horizontal data collection tasks included desk review, development of country 
forms  and  stakeholder  consultations.  The  findings  from  these  activities  are  provided 
under  each  evaluation  question  in  Chapter  5  of  this  report.  A  brief  overview  of  the 
horizontal tasks of data collection are presented below.  

Desk review: The desk review consisted of two parts: data identification and collection 
phase and a review phase. Throughout the study, relevant data sources were identified 
and compiled in an internal data repository (Excel). An overview of identified information 
sources is provided in Appendix 1. The repository contains a list of sources that were 
identified  via  various  channels,  including  desk  research  and  meetings  with  DG 
Environment and the Steering Group members. Further to the data sources indicated in 
the  list,  relevant  databases,  country  fiches  and  summary  reports,  indicator  data  and 
dashboards were identified. These were used to extract relevant information to conduct 
a current status analysis: INSPIRE Geoportal, country reports provided on the 'INSPIRE 
in your country' website, INSPIRE Dashboard (for reference year 2018).  

Development  of  the  country  forms:  The  country  forms  include  an  analysis  of  the 
status of the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in the Member States and EEA/ 
EFTA  countries.  The  assessment  was  conducted  per  country  describing  the  status  of 
implementation  by  means  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  indicators  since  2014.  The 
quantitative analysis is based primarily on the INSPIRE indicator results from December 
2020  and  the  qualitative  analysis  includes  Member  States'  updates  in  their  country 
fiches submitted in March 2021. On 25 March 2021, country forms for the 27 Member 
States and four EEA/ EFTA countries were shared for review. Based on the comments 
received  the  country  forms  were  completed.  Due  to  specific  circumstances,  the 
European  Commission  agreed  to  use  indicator  results  later  than  December  2020  for 
Malta, Poland, France, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. 

Field  research  and consultation  activities:  Consultation activities served the dual 
objective of collecting the evidence necessary to answer the evaluation questions and 
providing  sufficient  opportunities  to  all  interested  parties  and  the  general  public  to 
provide input. It aimed to complement the information gathered through documentary 
review,  in  particular  by  providing  data  that  could  not  be  gathered  through  literature 
(e.g., data on costs and benefits, examples of uses of INSPIRE, implementation issues). 
The  stakeholder  consultation  activities  consisted  of  different  consultation  methods 
including  interviews,  targeted  surveys,  open  public  consultation,  and  a  stakeholder 
workshop. A detailed description of each consultation activity is included in the synopsis 
report, provided in Appendix 4 to this report. A short overview is provided below.  

Table 4-1 Overview of consultation activities  

33 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Consultation 
activity 

Scoping 
interviews  

Number  Description 

10 + 2 
written 
inputs 

Objectives: understand the key issues at stake for the evaluation; 
support the preparation of consultation tools; gather information 
on roles of different DGs in INSPIRE, use of INSPIRE in different 
policy area and ongoing / upcoming Commission initiatives 

Participants: Commission services and EU level stakeholders 

Timing: end of March / early May 2021 

Focus group 
interviews 

7 (56 
participan
ts) 

Objectives: understand the different ways INSPIRE is being 
implemented in the Member States; gather information on 
implementation status, drivers and barriers, costs and benefits, 
and uses of INSPIRE by authorities and other users.  

Targeted 
surveys 

4 (144 
responses
) 

Participants: National focal points and representatives from 
relevant national organisations involved in the implementation of 
INSPIRE.   

Timing: Mid-April – early May 2021 

Objectives: gather perspectives from a broader range of 
stakeholders (incl. sectoral data providers, data users) from all 
Member States, gather information from authorities responsible for 
environmental reporting, and from specific communities (marine 
and agriculture).  

Participants: Relevant authorities, agencies, and organisations in 
the fields of environment, geographic information, marine 
environment, and agriculture. 

Timing: 29 April to 4 June 2021 (online)  

Public 
consultation  

1 (93 
responses
) 

Objectives: Provide all interested individuals and organisations to 
provide input to the evaluation 

Participants: All interested parties and the general public.  

Validation 
workshop 
(including 
the 
validation 
survey) 

Timing: 19 April to 12 July 2021 (online) 

1 

Objectives: validate the preliminary findings and conclusions of 
the evaluation with stakeholders; support the formulation of the 
conclusions and recommendations.  

Participants: representatives from Member State, representatives 
from Commission services and agencies, EU level organisations, 
representatives of private sector and academia.  

Timing: 7 September 2021 (10-12 am)  

Feedback to the evaluation roadmap was also taken into account in the evaluation and 
is briefly summarised in the synopsis report on all consultation activities. 

4.3.  Data gaps and limitations  

The  approach  to  document  the  data  gaps  and  limitations  as  well  as  the  mitigation 
measures  has  been  a  rigorous  process  of  mapping  of  data  and  data  gaps  as  well  as 
mitigation,  e.g.  through  the  identification  of  alternative  data.  An  overview  of  key 
categories  of  evidence  to  be  used  for  the  analysis  of  different  evaluation  criteria, 
including current status, was prepared for the inception phase. For each criterion it was 
assessed  what  the  key  data  limitations  are  and  what  a  proposed  mitigation  measure 
could be, e.g. using alternative sources or types of data. The main data limitations and 
gaps identified during this evaluation are described in the following. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Comparison  of  implementation  results  across  the  reporting  years:  there  is  a 
significant  shift  in  the  trend  observed,  between  the  year  2018  and  2019,  due  to  the 
change of the INSPIRE monitoring and reporting process. Since 2019, the process has 
been managed by the JRC and is fully automated using the INSPIRE Geoportal and the 
INSPIRE Reference Validator software tools to process the metadata harvested from the 
Member  States'  discovery  services.  The  new  automated  approach  based  on  the 
processing  of  all  metadata  harvested  from  countries'  discovery  services,  entails  a 
stricter and more  reliable validation method than  the preceding self-declared country 
assessments. As a result of this change in data, the implementation results cannot be 
directly compared across the  reporting years.  In order to  mitigate this  limitation, the 
Member States and the four EFTA/EEA countries were given the opportunity to provide 
additional explanations in the country forms regarding the challenges and background 
for the development in their performance over the years. These explanations were be 
taken into consideration in the assessment of the implementation progress. 

Measuring impacts of the INSPIRE Directive: It is difficult to measure the impacts, 
as users of spatial information data in different applications based on INSPIRE are not 
always aware where the data comes from. Users often do not know whether data they 
use/would like to use result from the implementation of INSPIRE or from something else 
(e.g. national strategies). One such example is the application presenting real time air 
quality data. Because of this challenge, it is sometimes difficult to trace a real driver for 
many important initiatives such e-Government and national open data strategies. For 
this reason, this evaluation aims to provide a transparent overview of where data comes 
from  and  how  it  is  interpreted  by  different  stakeholders.  In  addition,  the  evaluation 
conclusions  are  carefully  drawn,  acknowledging  the  limitations  of  results  of  different 
collection tools. 

Quantification of costs and benefits: In the efficiency analysis, the main data gaps 
relate to assessment of costs and benefits in quantitative terms. Due to the limited data 
in this  regard  (from  the  country  fiches),  there  are  challenges  related  to  the  cost  and 
benefit assessment as well as with the comparability of data across the Member States. 
In  addition,  national  data  providers  often  do  not  have  a  separate  budget  line  for  the 
implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. Further, available assessments of costs and 
costs  estimates  provided  by  stakeholders  are  not  comparable,  e.g.  they  may  include 
different  cost  items,  they  may  not  be  based  on  the  same  methodologies  and  often, 
INSPIRE implementation costs have not been clearly separated from other SDI costs. 
For example, costs of developing national SDIs are often included in the estimates. In 
order  to  mitigate  this,  publicised  national  studies  on  cost  and  benefits  as  well  as 
dedicated  cost-benefit  analysis  have  been  used  in  the  analysis.  In  addition,  we  have 
collected  qualitative  data  through  the  interviews,  targeted  surveys  and  public 
consultation.  

Representativeness of consultation results: Reaching a representative number of 
respondents in each targeted survey and each stakeholder group and a balance between 
Member States proved difficult. In particular, the targeted surveys of the marine and 
agriculture communities experienced low response rates, and results from the targeted 
survey of the environmental community did not provide a very comprehensive picture 
across  the  EU  of  how  INSPIRE  is  used  for  environmental  reporting.  For  further  detail 
please  consult  the  report  on  the  consultation  activities  in  Appendix  4.  To  collect  the 
opinions  of  a  larger  group  of  stakeholders,  the  deadlines  for  replying  to  the  targeted 
surveys  were  extended  by  two  weeks  and  several  reminders  were  sent.  The  first 
reminder had a significant impact on the response rate, and additional responses were 
received during the extension, showing that those measures had at least some impact 
on the response rate. 

In relation to the Focus Group interviews, they generally provided a satisfying range of 
stakeholders involved in the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive at national level. 

35 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The selected Member States were free to identify the relevant Focus Group participants, 
most active in the implementation of the Directive. However, in several Focus Groups, 
environmental stakeholders (institutions responsible for sectoral environmental policies 
and therefore sectoral environmental datasets) were not represented. Often due to the 
fact  that  these  organisations  play  a  limited  role  in  the  governance  structure  in  some 
Member States. As a result, some of these interviews did not provide much information 
on the relations between INSPIRE and environmental reporting, on the use of INSPIRE 
for environmental policy making and the coherence of INSPIRE with the implementation 
of the Public Access to Environmental Information Directive. Also, several stakeholders 
participating in the Focus Groups had limited knowledge of the use of INSPIRE data and 
the user groups. In order to mitigate these challenges, the Focus Groups were given the 
opportunity  to  provide  written  answers  from  all  relevant  stakeholders  in  the  national 
administration and list potential examples of use after the interviews.  

Difficulty  in  distinguishing  INSPIRE  from  other  spatial  data:  during  the  Focus 
Group  interviews,  it  became  apparent  that  some  stakeholders  make  the  distinction 
between INSPIRE datasets and the data included in the overall national SDI (containing 
data  not  covered  by  the  INSPIRE  themes  and/or  data  in  other  than  INSPIRE  data 
models), whereas others treat these two domains completely separately. Although the 
initial idea behind INSPIRE was to build on the national SDI, some Member States have 
developed two different spatial data infrastructures: one for  national use and  one  for 
the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  As  a  result,  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the 
effects  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive,  especially  when  it  comes  to  costs  and  benefits. 
Therefore, this evaluation is attentive to possible different interpretations of interview 
questions by different stakeholders. The statements provided during the  Focus Group 
are  summarized in a transparent and objective manner allowing for clear conclusions 
whether they concern INSPIRE datasets only or a wider set of national spatial data. This 
is also the case for the reports and studies included in the analysis and where possible, 
this has been taken into consideration in the analysis.   

36 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  support  study  to  the  evaluation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  addresses  the  current 
status  analysis  and  five  evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness,  relevance,  efficiency, 
coherence and EU added value. Each evaluation criterion, including the current status 
analysis, has been translated into 30 evaluation questions (see Table 3-1) which are 
answered in the following sub-chapters. The analysis of the evaluation questions builds 
on  the  desk  review  and  on  the  results  from  the  stakeholder  consultations  (i.e.  Focus 
Group interviews, scoping interviews, targeted surveys and public consultation). 

5.1.  Current status 

The current status assessment provides an analysis of the status, at the beginning of 
2021, of the implementation of the  INSPIRE Directive in the Member  States and  EEA 
countries  and  the  effects  that  this  has  had  on  various  stakeholders  (EQ  1.1).  The 
analysis  also  includes  an  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  2016  REFIT 
recommendations (EQ 1.2). This analysis constitutes the first part of the evaluation and 
provides  input  to  the  evaluation  criteria,  especially,  but  not  only,  relevance, 
effectiveness, and efficiency.  

5.1.1.  EQ  1.1  How  has  the  implementation  and  application  of  INSPIRE 
evolved  from  2014  to  2020  and  how  it  has  affected  different 
stakeholders? 

The purpose of the current status analysis is to establish an implementation status of 
the  INSPIRE  Directive  in  each  of  the  27  Member  States  and  the  four  EEA/EFTA 
countries15. This analysis is based on the reported information. Additionally, the analysis 
aims to provide an understanding on how various stakeholders are affected in terms of 
governance  structures,  data  sharing  and  usage.  The  current  status  assessments  are 
based on a desk review of monitoring data and country fiches. The analysis has been 
conducted per country. For each country a form was completed by the evaluation team. 
The  country  forms  describe  the  status  of  implementation  and  identify  important 
developments in the implementation since 2014. All country forms have been validated 
by the respective National Contact Points.  

The key findings are described below. The detailed current status analysis, together with 
the  methodological  underpinnings,  is  provided  in  Appendix  2.  The  final  versions  of 
country forms are included in Appendix 3. 

15 Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Switzerland. 

37 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-1  Key/summary findings EQ 1.1: Current status analysis 

The desk review of monitoring data and country fiches over the evaluation period shows that 

overall, there has been a partial implementation of the INSPIRE Directive across Europe. Fewer 

data sets were available in 2020 than in the previous years. In some cases this is a result of 

the  data  cleaning  processes  at  national  level,  aggregating  local  and  regional  datasets  and 

deleting for users irrelevant data sets and/or duplicates of data sets. However, a reason for 

removing data sets may also be that Member States consider the data cleaning process as an 

opportunity to improve their overall performance indicators. 

According to the qualitative analysis, the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive results 

in different coordination and governance structures, depending on the governance culture and 

constitutional  organisation  in  the  individual  Member  State.    The  JRC  assessed  the  Member 

States'  coordination  and  governance  structures  in  2016.  In  a  few  cases,  the  governance 

structure  has  not  changed  since  then.  When  it  comes  to  data  sharing  arrangements,  the 

analysis  shows  due  to  the  INSPIRE  Directive  public  authorities  are  more  aware  of  data 

availability and benefits of harmonized spatial data. Although open data strategies and other 

national  initiatives  are  separate  from  the  INSPIRE  processes,  they  do  not  conflict  with  the 

principles  and  ambition  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  More  details  on  different  impacts  on 

stakeholders are provided in the effectiveness and efficiency analysis (see Table 3-1). 

The quantitative analysis based on the INSPIRE performance indicators show that the status 

of  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE  is  heterogeneous  across  countries,  with  a  number  of 

countries lagging behind. It is important to consider that the new reporting and monitoring 

method introduced by Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1372 caused considerable shifts in the 

trend, lowering the values of INSPIRE indicators in the reference years 2019 and 2020. The 

new automated approach based on the processing of all metadata harvested from countries' 

discovery services entails a stricter and more reliable validation method than  the preceding 

self-declared country assessments. Measured against the INSPIRE roadmap, the monitoring 
results in 2020 for the 27 EU Member States and 4 EFTA/ EEA countries are relatively poor. 

Summary of the current status of implementation analysis 

A  snapshot  of  the  current  implementation  status  for  27  Member  States  and  the  four 
EFTA/EEA  countries  is  provided  in  the  table  below.  The  overview  is  based  on  the 
qualitative  indicators  and  the  INSPIRE  performance  indicators  introduced  by  the 
Commission  Decision  in  201916.  A  detailed  overview  of  the  implementation  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive from 2014 to 2020 is described in Appendix 2. 

Table 5-1 
(reference year 2020) 

Summary of the current status of the INSPIRE Directive implementation 

Qualitative analysis 

Effective coordination 

Data sharing arrangements and usage of the infrastructure 

Average 
performance 
 
 

16  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2019/1372  of  19  August  2019  implementing  Directive 
2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards monitoring and reporting (notified 
under document C(2019) 6026) 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Availability of spatial data sets and services 

DSi1.1: The number of spatial data sets for which metadata exist 

DSi1.2: The number of spatial data services for which metadata exist 

DSi1.3: The number of spatial data sets for which the metadata contains one or 
more keywords from a register provided by the Commission indicating that the 
spatial data set is used for reporting under the environmental legislation 

Total 
amount 
83,805 

95,381 

2,068 

DSi1.4: The number of spatial data sets for which the metadata contains a keyword 
from a register provided by the Commission indicating that the spatial data set 
covers regional territory 

DSi1.5: The number of spatial data sets for which the metadata contains a keyword 
from a register provided by the Commission indicating that the spatial data set 
covers the national territory 

12,917 

4,456 

Quantitative analysis 

MDi1.1: Percentage of metadata for spatial data sets conformant with Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 as regards metadata 
MDi1.2: Percentage of metadata for spatial data services conformant with 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 as regards metadata 
DSi2: Percentage of spatial data sets that are in conformity with Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 as regards interoperability of spatial data sets 
DSi2.1: Percentage of spatial data sets, corresponding to the themes listed in Annex 
I, that are in conformity with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 as regards 
interoperability of spatial data sets 

DSi2.2: Percentage of spatial data sets, corresponding to the themes listed in Annex 
II, that are in conformity with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 as regards 
interoperability of spatial data sets 

DSi2.3: Percentage of spatial data sets, corresponding to the themes listed in Annex 
III, that are in conformity with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 as 
regards interoperability of spatial data sets 

NSi2: The percentage of spatial data sets that are accessible through view and 
download services 
NSi2.1: The percentage of spatial data sets that are accessible through view 
services 
NSi2.2: The percentage of spatial data sets that are accessible through download 
services 
NSi4: The percentage of the network services that are in conformity with 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards the network services 
NSi4.1: The percentage of the discovery services that are in conformity with 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards the network services 
NSi4.2: The percentage of the view services that are in conformity with Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards the network services 
NSi4.3: The percentage of the download services that are in conformity with 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards the network services 
NSi4.4: The percentage of the transformation services that are in conformity with 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards the network services 

Source: Country forms 2021. 

Average 
performance 
59% 

55% 

50% 

65% 

52% 

50% 

42% 

50% 

50% 

63% 

65% 

65% 

62% 

25% 

5.1.2.  EQ  1.2  To  what  extent  has  the  recommendations  from  the  2016 

INSPIRE REFIT been implemented? 

This  assessment  considers  the  extent  to  which  the  recommendations  from  the  REFIT 
evaluation  have  been  implemented  by  the  Member  States  and  the  European 
Commission. The assessment is primarily based on the desk review; however, the Focus 
Group interviews, scoping interviews and targeted surveys also served as an important 
tool for verification of the information stemming from the desk research.   

39 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-2  Key/summary  findings  EQ  1.2:  Implementation  of  recommendations  from  the 
2016 REFIT of INSPIRE Directive 

The  findings  from  the  desk  review  and  the  Focus  Group  interviews  reveal  that  the 

recommendations put forward in the REFIT evaluation (2017) for the Member States, have to 

some  extent  been  implemented.  The  Member  States  increased  the  overall  availability  of 

environmental  priority  data  sets  in  accordance  with  the  recommendations.  In  terms  of 

coordination between the national INSPIRE implementation and eGovernment, open data and 

other relevant processes at national level, there are limited linkages in terms logistical work 

and  cooperation.  Nevertheless,  it  is  mostly  considered  that  these  initiatives  are  not 

contradicting the main principles of the INSPIRE Directive, and that in some cases, the national 

data policies benefit from INSPIRE by facilitating an environment of free and open data. 

The desk review and scoping interviews show that the recommendations addressed to the 

European Commission have to a large extent been implemented. The European Commission 

has  put  forward  several  initiatives  and  actions  included  in  the  MIG  Work  Programme.  In 

particular,  these  initiatives  include  the  evaluation  study  on  data  sharing  between  public 

authorities  and  public  access  and  use  provisions;  a  proposal  for  a  regulation  streamlining 

reporting  obligations  in  the  field  of  environmental  policy;  new  monitoring  and  reporting 

decision;  a  list  of  common  data  sets  related  to  environmental  reporting  obligations;  and 

technical cooperation and coordination. 

The results from the targeted surveys confirm that the environmental data sets were given 

priority. However, they also showed mixed results. While 36% of respondents indicated that 

the environmental spatial data have been given priority by Member States 'to a large extent' 
since 2016, almost 40% considered that this was the case 'to a small extent' only. 

Desk review 

The  2016  REFIT  evaluation  concluded  that  greater  effort  at  all  levels  by  all  actors  is 
needed.17 The overall recommendation included in the REFIT was that Member States 
needed to step up their efforts in implementing the INSPIRE Directive and to critically 
review  the  effectiveness  of  their  data  policies.  This  was  in  particular  the  case  for  a 
number of Member States that were lacking behind in terms of implementation.  

The  REFIT  recommendations  were  directed  to  both  the  Member  States  and  to  the 
European  Commission.  The  European  Commission  proposed  several  actions  for  the 
Member  States  and  at  EU  level.  These  actions  were  translated  into  a  multi-annual 
Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme (MIWP) for 2016-2020.18 The table 
below  outlines  the  recommendations  provided  in  the  REFIT  and  includes  a  short 
description of corresponding actions and initiatives that were designed to implement the 
recommendations. 

17  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2). 

18 Maintenance  and  Implementation  Work  Programme  for  the  INSPIRE  Directive  for  the  period  from 
2017-2020  (MIWP  2017),  endorsed  at  the  5th  MIG  meeting  on  30/11-1/12/2016.  Available  at: 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/InspireMIG/MIWP+2016-
2020?preview=/272860396/300878064/miwp-2017-3.0.pdf#MIWP2016-2020-MIWP2014-2016  

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European 
Community (INSPIRE) 

Table 5-2  REFIT recommendations, corresponding actions and their implementation 

REFIT recommendation 

Action 

Status of the recommendation implementation19 

Member States, in consultation with the European Commission, are recommended to: 

1)  give  priority  to  environmental  spatial  datasets,  in 
particular  those  linked  to  monitoring  and  reporting, 
and those identified in relevant global processes 

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

•  Increased number of spatial datasets for eReporting: 

•  The number of environmental priority datasets in the INSPIRE 

the priority datasets 

catalogue made accessible by Member States is gradually 
increasing. 

•  Facilitating the Open Data initiative (and other 

•  Member States implementing the INSPIRE Directive in some 

relevant processes at national level) on the political 
agenda 

cases benefit from the implementation by facilitating an 
environment of free and open data, however, often these 
national initiatives are separate from the INSPIRE Directive 
implementation. 

To complement national efforts, the European Commission will: 

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

•  The Commission launched a study for the 'Evaluation 
and assessment of INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC data 
sharing between public authorities and public access 
and use provisions'. 

•  An evaluation study on data sharing between public authorities 

and public access and use provisions was published, which 
showed that additional efforts are needed to further harmonise 
data policies and licenses for data reuse across Europe.20 

•  Monitoring and reporting has been aligned and 

streamlined by simplifying the legal provisions and 
amending the related Implementing Decision to make 
it more meaningful and effective. 

•  Fitness Check evaluation on reporting and monitoring of EU 
environment policy concluded that there is an alignment 
potential on some cross-cutting matters and for certain 
legislation pieces. As a follow up to these evaluation findings, 
the European Commission put forward in May 2018 a proposal 
for a regulation streamlining reporting obligations in the field of 
environmental policy.21 

19 Based on the current status analysis and the following report: DG Environment, Infrastructure for Spatial Information (INSPIRE), REFIT recommendations follow up - Overall 

State of Play. 

20 COWI, Epsilon, Alterra - Wageningen UR (2018), Evaluation and assessment of INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC data sharing between public authorities and public access and 

use provisions – Final Task 1 Report. 

21 The European Parliament adopted the text in plenary in March 2019, and the Council did so in May. The final act entered into force in June 2019: Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 

on the alignment of reporting obligations in the field of legislation related to the environment. 

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European 
Community (INSPIRE) 

REFIT recommendation 

Action 

Status of the recommendation implementation19 

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

D.  work  closely  with  Member  States  to  explore 
opportunities arising from the use of existing EU-level 
funding  programmes  to  help  capacity  building  and 
close the INSPIRE implementation gaps (e.g. through 
the Interoperability Solutions Administrations). 

•  The Commission has selected monitoring and 

reporting under the environmental acquis as a 
priority use case for the development of a first set of 
pan-European information products. Based on the 
evaluation of reporting obligations under the 
environmental legislation, a preliminary list of 
common datasets that the Member States are obliged 
to report under the EU environment acquis was 
prepared by the Commission in collaboration with the 
Member States. 

•  The Commission is facilitating the exchange of best 
practices and support the INSPIRE Conferences. 

•  The Commission is seeking links with the ISA action: 

European Location Interoperability Solutions for 
eGovernment (ELISE). 

•  Other actions in the context of the Digital Single 
Market will also contribute to implementing the 
INSPIRE Directive (e.g. the eGovernment Action Plan 
and the European Interoperability Framework). 

•  Monitoring and reporting under the environmental acquis has 
been selected as a priority use case for the development of a 
first set of pan-European information products. A preliminary 
list of common datasets related to environmental reporting 
obligations was prepared by the European Commission in 
collaboration with the Member States. The number of priority 
data sets has been slowly, but gradually increasing. 

•  The European Commission has been assisting the Member 

States through capacity building and (technical) cooperation 
and coordination (MIG, the Interoperability Solutions 
Administrations, etc.). In addition, initiatives in the context of 
the Digital Single Market and other actions are also expected to 
contribute to the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. 

42 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The actions put forward in the Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme for 
2017-2020 have been continuously monitored and several actions have been completed 
over the period. Some of the actions require continuous work and have been transferred 
into the new Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme (WP) for 2021-2024.22 
This programme was endorsed in November 2020 and has three main area of work: 1) 
digital  ecosystem  for  the  environment  and  sustainability,  2)  Towards  a  common 
implementation landing zone, 3) GreenData4All. 

The table below describes the transfer  of actions included in the MIWP 2016-2020 to 
the WP 2020-2024. Actions from the MIWP 2016-2020 that will be further pursued will 
be  included  in  Area  of  Work  2,  either  under  action  2.2:  Roadmap  for  priority-driven 
implementation or action 2.4: Central INSPIRE infrastructure opponents. 

Table 5-3 

Transition of actions from the MIWP 2016-2020 to the WP 2020-2024 

ID and title of an action 

Status in the MIWP 
2016-2020 

Status in the WP 
2020-2024 

2016.1 INSPIRE fitness for purpose – 
Analysis 

•  Completed in June 2020 

2016.2 Streamlining the monitoring 
and reporting for 2019 

2016.3 Validation and conformity 
testing 

2016.4 Theme specific issues of data 
specifications & exchange of 
implementation experiences in 
thematic domains 
2016.5 Priority list of data sets for 
eReporting 

•  Completed in 2017 (phase 
1); follow-up carried out 
under a new action 2018.1 

•  Completed in 2017; 

follow-up to be carried out 
under action 2017.4 

•  Ongoing 

•  Ongoing 

2017.1 Drafting of "Master Guidelines" 
for the INSPIRE Directive 

•  On hold 

2017.2 Alternative encodings for 
INSPIRE data 

2017.3 Improved client support for 
INSPIRE data 

2017.4 Validation and conformity 
testing 
2018.1 Streamlining the monitoring 
and reporting for 2019 (phase 2) 

•  Completed in March 2020 

•  Completed in March 2020 

•  Completed in March 2020 

•  Ongoing. Proposal to 
close. (Completed in 
March 2020) 

2019.2 Improving accessibility of data 
sets through network services 

•  Ongoing 

2020.1 OAPIF – OGC API Features 
encoding good practice 

•  Ongoing 

•  included in Annex 1 

under Area of Work 2 
as part of action 2.4 

•  included in Annex 1 

under Area of Work 2 
as part of action 2.4 

•  Removed from WP. 

•  A new action for the 
further maintenance  
and development of 
the system to be 
introduced. 

•  Included in Annex 1 

under Area of Work 2 
as part of action 2.2 

•  Included in Annex 1 

under Area of Work 2 
as part of action 2.2 

22  Maintenance  and  Implementation  Work  Programme  for  the  INSPIRE  Directive  for  the  period  from 
2021-2024: "Towards a Common European Green Deal data space for environment and sustainability", 
endorsed 
at: 
on 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/InspireMIG/INSPIRE+work+programme+2021-24  

12th  MIG  meeting 

26-27  November 

2020.  Available 

the 

at 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Source: Based on the Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme for the INSPIRE Directive for the 
period  from  2021-2024:  "Towards  a  Common  European  Green  Deal  data  space  for  environment  and 
sustainability", endorsed at the 12th MIG meeting on 26-27 November 2020. 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

DG  ENV  and  the  EEA  confirmed  that  considerable  efforts  were  made  to  address  the 
REFIT  recommendations.  In  a  scoping  interview,  the  EEA  provided  a  detailed 
assessment of the technical aspects related to the monitoring and reporting and to the 
progress related to Action 2016.5 'Priority list of data sets for eReporting'. 

In  relation  to  recommendation  A  concerning  Article  17,  the  EEA  suggested  that  it  is 
important  to  continue  to  make  certain  requirements  easier  and  less  technical.  The 
Member States are considered as less proactive because they do not always appreciate 
the  direct  benefits  of  a  number  of  INSPIRE  steps.  As  further  elaborated  in  the 
effectiveness analysis, the Member States cannot always use the INSPIRE infrastructure 
at a national level because it is difficult to navigate through relatively complex INSPIRE 
data models and utilise the INSPIRE formats. 

In terms of the REFIT recommendation B regarding the need to simplify and streamline 
monitoring and reporting, the EEA explained that the European Commission has tried to 
improve  the  inclusion  of  the  INSPIRE  reference  into  the  environmental legislation.  In 
some  cases,  an  alignment  of  data  models  of  reporting  data  sets  with  INSPIRE  data 
models was achieved, e.g. when it comes to protected sites, national designated areas, 
EU registry of industrial facilities, and water legislation. However, as further elaborated 
in  the  EQ  2.6,  INSPIRE  is  not  always  best  suited  for  reporting  requirements  under 
thematic  legislation.  These  are  specifically  defined  and  are  subject  to  continuous 
modifications.  

When  it  comes  to  the  REFIT  recommendation  C  to  assist  Member  States  by  priority 
setting, the scoping interview with EEA also confirmed that there has been a substantial 
increase  of  environmental  data  sets  being  available  and  discoverable  (mostly  part  of 
Annex III of the Directive). The Member States have mostly focused on topographical 
data. However, it is an uneven progress, and several countries are still lagging behind.  

Focus Group interviews 

In  terms  of  coordination  structures  and  synergies  between  INSPIRE  and  open  data 
policies, the situation differs between Member States. Several Focus Group participants 
revealed  that  there  is  no  direct  formal  coordination  between  the  implementation  of 
INSPIRE  Directive  and  national  eGovernment/  Open  Data  policies.  However,  some 
participants pointed to good informal relations. One Focus Group participant suggested 
that in their country, there has been no synergy with INSPIRE or any other initiatives. 
In the participant's view, INSPIRE might even be perceived as a risk to their national 
success on open data in terms of the ease by which one can create open data, a much 
higher consumption rate of open data compared to the INSPIRE data, and the general 
engagement of data providers working with the open data. 

Other Focus Groups provided different examples of a beneficial cooperation between the 
two  areas,  including  e.g.  the  establishment  of  a  national  agency  responsible  for  the 
national  catalogue  of  geospatial  data  and  the  national  catalogue  for  open  data;  the 
usage  of  the  same  infrastructure  for  open  data  initiatives  and  the  INSPIRE 
implementation;  a  creation  of  an  e-Government  agency,  which  is  responsible  for  the 
implementation of the Directive. One Focus Group participant suggested that it is still 
too early to discuss the synergies, because the implementation of other initiatives and 
directives  is  still  ongoing.  However,  in  that  respondent's  view,  the  implementation  of 

44 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

INSPIRE  is  in  all  cases  beneficial  because  it  makes  data  and  metadata  available  and 
accessible.  

Targeted surveys 

The results from the targeted surveys showed that the environmental spatial data sets 
have  been  given  priority  by  Member  States  since  2016,  as  recommended  by  the 
European Commission. However, the results were mixed in terms of the magnitude of 
this development. Around one third of respondents (47 respondents out of 129, 36%) 
stated that environmental spatial data have been given priority  'to a large  extent' by 
Member States since 2016, while a bigger majority (51 respondents out of 129, 40%) 
considered this to be the case 'to a small extent'. Only one respondent had the opinion 
that priority had not been given at all to this type of data sets. 

Figure 5-1 
Member States since 2016 (N=129) 

Extent  to  which  environmental  spatial  data  has  been  given  priority  by 

47

51

1

30

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a large extent

To a small extent

Not at all

Do not know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 7: In your opinion, to what 
extent have environmental spatial data been given priority by Member States since 2016, as recommended 
by the Commission? 

Public consultation 

This question was not addressed in the Public consultation questions and no comments 
were made by respondents on this issue. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.2.  Effectiveness 

The effectiveness assessment includes an analysis of how the results achieved so far 
through  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive,  correspond  to  the  objectives 
initially set. The INSPIRE Directive's objectives primarily relate to the setting up of an 
infrastructure  for  spatial  information  (Article  1)  based  on  the  following  specific 
objectives, as presented in the updated Directive intervention logic23 (see section 2.2):  

  Building upon infrastructures for spatial information established and operated by 

the Member States following common implementing rules; 

  Spatial  datasets  are  stored,  made  available  and  maintained  at  the  most 

appropriate level; 

 

 

 

It is easy to discover spatial data to evaluate their suitability for the purpose and 
to know the condition applicable to their use;  

It  is  possible  to  combine  spatial  data  from  different  sources  across  the 
Community  in  a  consistent  way  and  share  them  between  several  users  and 
applications 

It is possible for spatial data collected at one level of public authority to be shared 
between other public authorities; 

  Spatial  data  are  made  available  under  conditions  which  do  not  unduly  restrict 

their extensive use.  

The following evaluation questions seek to verify the extent to which these objectives 
have been met. The evaluation questions can be divided into two groups.  

The first group of questions, EQ 2.1 to EQ 2.4, systematically address implementation 
progress of implementation of the Directive. The four evaluation questions consider the 
progress  achieved;  whether  progress  is  in  line  with  the  INSPIRE  implementation 
roadmap (see Figure 2-1); and whether the geographical coverage of implementation is 
in line with the INSPIRE Directive's requirements. A subsequent evaluation question, EQ 
2.5,  is  concerned  with  the  understanding  of  barriers  and  facilitators  of  the  Directive 
implementation. 

The  second set  of questions relates to the  effects  of the  Directive implementation on 
the users of the infrastructure, data sets and related services. EQ 2.6 explicitly seeks to 
measure whether and how INSPIRE has been used in the mandatory reporting on the 
environmental  acquis.    EQ  2.7  considers  the  effects  on  policy  makers  in  the  field  of 
environment in the Member States. EQ 2.8 further expands the scope of investigation 
about the effects of the INSPIRE Directive by means of considering its contributions in 
economic sectors influencing the environment such as the maritime domain, agriculture, 
transport and mobility. EQ 2.9 assesses the effects of the Directive on small businesses 
active in the economic sector and using spatial data.  

23 The updated intervention logic was prepared as part of this evaluation. 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.2.1.  EQ 2.1 What progress has been made over time towards achieving the 

objectives and targets set out in INSPIRE in various Member States? 

The effectiveness assessment includes an analysis of how the results achieved so far 
through  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive,  correspond  to  the  objectives 
initially set. The INSPIRE Directive's objectives primarily relate to the setting up of an 
infrastructure  for  spatial  information  (Article  1)  based  on  the  following  specific 
objectives, and presented in the updated Directive intervention logic24 (see section 2.2):  

  Building upon infrastructures for spatial information established and operated by 

the Member States following common implementing rules; 

  Spatial  data  sets  are  stored,  made  available  and  maintained  at  the  most 

appropriate level; 

 

 

 

It is easy to discover spatial data to evaluate their suitability for the purpose and 
to know the condition applicable to their use;  

It  is  possible  to  combine  spatial  data  from  different  sources  across  the 
Community  in  a  consistent  way  and  share  them  between  several  users  and 
applications 

It is possible for spatial data collected at one level of public authority to be shared 
between other public authorities; 

  Spatial  data  are  made  available  under  conditions  which  do  not  unduly  restrict 

their extensive use.  

The following evaluation questions seek to verify the extent to which these objectives 
have been met. The evaluation questions can be divided into two groups.  

The  first  group  of  questions,  EQ  2.1  to  EQ  2.4,  systematically  addresses  the 
implementation  progress  of  the  Directive.  The  four  evaluation  questions  consider; 
whether progress is in line with the INSPIRE implementation roadmap (see Figure 2-1); 
and whether the geographical coverage of implementation is in line with the INSPIRE 
Directive's requirements. A subsequent evaluation question, EQ 2.5, is concerned with 
the understanding of barriers and facilitators of the Directive implementation. 

The  second set  of questions relates to the  effects  of the  Directive implementation on 
the users of the infrastructure, data sets and related services. EQ 2.6 seeks to measure 
whether  and  how  INSPIRE  has  been  used  in  the  mandatory  reporting  on  the 
environmental  acquis.    EQ  2.7  considers  the  effects  on  policy  makers  in  the  field  of 
environment  in  the  Member  States.  EQ  2.8  considers  its  contributions  in  economic 
sectors influencing the environment such as the maritime domain, agriculture, transport 
and mobility. EQ 2.9 assesses the effects of the Directive on small businesses in selected 
economic sectors and potentially using spatial data.  

5.2.2.  EQ 2.1 What progress has been made over time towards achieving the 

objectives and targets set out in INSPIRE in various Member States? 

EQ 2.1 assesses the progress and the state of play, as of 2020, of the achievement on 
the  INSPIRE  Directive  objectives  in  different  Member  States.  The  analysis  aims  to 

24 The updated intervention logic was prepared as part of this evaluation. 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

provide  evidence  on  the  extent  to  which  infrastructures  for  spatial  information  have 
been  set  up  and  whether  spatial  data  is  made  available  according  to  the  Directive's 
requirements and its implementation plan.  

The following text is mainly based on the desk review of the monitoring data, performed 
in the current status analysis (see EQ 1.1, Appendix 2). As noted in the current status 
analysis, the calculation of the monitoring indicators changed in 2019 with the adoption 
of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1372. As a result, a strict comparison between the 
period  pre-  and  post-2019  cannot  be  made.  Therefore,  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the 
progress made over time based on the monitoring indicators. However, the analysis is 
further supported by the evidence collected during the scoping interviews.  

Text box 5-3    Key/summary findings EQ 2.1: INSPIRE implementation progresses in Member 

States 

The main finding is the progress made towards achieving the objectives set out in the INSPIRE 

Directive, even though a full implementation has not been yet achieved. When interpreting the 

results,  it  is  important  to  consider  that  the  monitoring  system  based  on  the  INSPIRE 

performance indicators does not fully account for the progress made for two reasons, namely 

the  limited  scope  of  the  indicators  and  the  significant  changes  in  the  calculation  method 

introduced in 2019.  

Based on the desk review, there is evidence of progress in the implementation since 2016, 

both  in  terms  of  governance  aspects  of  the  INSPIRE  framework  and  of  data  sharing.  The 

scoping interviews pointed to that the monitoring data currently available could not give a 

complete  overview  of  the  implementation  progress.  In  particular,  improvements  in  the 

functioning of governance systems and coordination structures had not fully been reflected in 

the INSPIRE implementation reporting and monitoring system.    

Desk review 

In 2017, the JRC report on the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive indicated that 
‘the  state  of  implementation  still  shows  different  levels  of  maturity  across  Member 
States’.25 The current status analysis based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis 
shows a similar picture (see EQ 1.1. and Appendix 2). 

The  quantitative  analysis  for  the  present  evaluation is  based  on  the  2020  monitoring 
data.  Although  the  change  in  the  monitoring  system  introduced  in  2019  renders  it 
impossible to fully compare the progress at Member State level over the years, the main 
following  findings  can  be  drawn  from  the  latest  monitoring  data  for  the  EU  Member 
States and EFTA/EEA countries:  

  None  of  the  countries  has  yet  achieved  full  implementation  according  to  the 

implementation roadmap. 

  On average, in 2020, 42% of the data sets were available through both view and 
download  services  (NSi2),  50%  were  viewable  (NSi2.1)  and  50%  were 
downloadable (NSi2.2). This means that around half of available data sets were 
not yet accessible across the EU Member States and EEA/EFTA countries. 

25 Cetl V., V. Nunes de Lima, R. Tomas, M. Lutz, J. D'Eugenio, A. Nagy, J. Robbrecht (2017), Summary 

Report on Status of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in EU. 

48 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

  The  analysis  also  shows  low  conformity  of  metadata.  Although  the  values  of 
indicators  MDi1.1  and  MDi1.2  are  very  different  across  countries,  the  average 
values of 59% and 55% of conformant metadata for spatial data sets and spatial 
data services, respectively, are very low. This suggests that data providers have 
not yet extensively used the INSPIRE Reference Validator for the monitoring and 
reporting process.  

  Conformity of spatial data sets is also very heterogeneous and low on average, 
with some countries providing very few interoperable data sets. Overall, 50% of 
all  listed  data  sets  are  in  conformity  with  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1089/2010  as  regards  interoperability  of  spatial  data  sets  (DSi2).  The 
interpretation of these  results must, however,  take into consideration that the 
indicators  will  in  many  cases  never  reach  100%,  since  majority  of  countries 
provide  their  national  data  sets  (as-is  data)  in  addition  to  the  INSPIRE 
harmonised data sets.  

  The conformity of network services has improved since 2019, and at least in half 
of  the  countries  it  is  relatively  high.26  The  overall  average  percentage  of 
conformant  network  services  (NSi4)  amounted  to  63%.  On  the  other  hand, 
several countries still offer only a few interoperable network services and most 
of the countries do not offer transformation services.  

The analysis also shows that the Member States implement the Directive with different 
speeds and levels of engagement. The heterogeneity of the implementation progress is 
reflected in the four implementation groups of countries (Member States and EFTA/EEA 
countries) that were identified based on the current status analysis (see Appendix 2). 

Table 5-4 summarises the number of countries fin the different implementation groups, 
in  2016  and  2020,  for  each  implementation  category:  conformity  of  metadata, 
conformity  of  spatial  data  sets,  accessibility  of  spatial  data  sets  through  view  and 
download  services,  conformity  of  network  services.  Depending  on  the  performance 
results, the countries have been divided into four implementation groups, from Group I 
(top implementation) to Group IV (lowest level of implementation).  

The findings of this analysis should be interpreted with cautiously, as the data cannot 
be  directly  compared  across  the  years  due  to  the  changes  in  the  reporting  and 
monitoring system introduced in 2019. Furthermore, this analysis is limited to the official 
performance  indicators  and  does  not  reflect  other  relevant  qualitative  indicators. 
Therefore, the results of the analysis can only be used to show a rough indication of the 
implementation  progress.  In  all  categories,  except  the  conformity  of  metadata,  the 
number  of  countries  in  the  highest  performance  implementation  group  (i.e.  Group  I) 
increased in 2020 compared to the 2016 data, suggesting a positive progress towards 
achieving the objectives of the INSPIRE Directive.  

Table 5-4 
on their INSPIRE performance indicators' results in four implementation categories 

Number of countries falling under the four implementation groups based 

Conformity of 
metadata 

Conformity of 
spatial data 
sets 

Accessibility 
of spatial data 
sets through 
view and 
download 
services 

Conformity of 
network 
services 

2016  2020  2016  2020  2016  2020  2016  2020 

26 The performance results are higher because the conformity of transformation services is excluded 
from  the  analysis  due  to  the  fact  that  Member  States  have  so  far  offered  a  limited  amount  of 
transformation services. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Group I: 80-100% 

20 

11 

Group II: 55-79% 

Group III: 30-54% 

Group IV: 0-29% 

5 

1 

1 

5 

6 

5 

Total number of Member States 

27 

27 

Source: Country forms. 

0 

2 

7 

18 

27 

6 

11 

4 

6 

4 

7 

8 

8 

6 

8 

6 

7 

8 

4 

6 

9 

15 

3 

3 

6 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

When considering the results based on qualitative indicators measuring the progress in 
terms  of  coordination  structures,  data  sharing  arrangements  and  usage  of  the 
infrastructure, progress is noticeable for some Member States (see Table 5-5 below). 
For more countries an improvement in terms of data sharing arrangements and usage 
of the infrastructure than effective coordination structures was recorded. No concrete 
progress in establishing effective governance structures, data sharing arrangements and 
usage of the infrastructure was recorded in a handful of Member States.  

The analysis indicates an overall positive trend; however, several Member States still 
need  to  step  up  their  implementation  efforts.  It  is  important  to  consider  that  this 
qualitative  analysis  is  partly  based  on  Member  State's  self-assessments  and  is  not 
supported by strict criteria or validation methods.  

Table 5-5 
Synthesis of the implementation status in 2020 across the Member States 
regarding  coordination  structures,  data  sharing  arrangements  and  usage  of  the 
infrastructure compared to the reference year 2016 

Number of Member States  

Effective 
coordination 

Data sharing 
arrangements and 
usage of the 
infrastructure 

Improvement of the implementation status 

No improvement of the implementation status 

Status quo: Implementation of this provision is well 
advanced or (nearly) completed. Outstanding issues 
are minor and can be addressed easily. 

Total27  

Source: Country forms. 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

3 

6 

18 

27 

8 

5 

14 

27 

In the scoping interview, the JRC explained that even if none of the Member States has 
fully achieved conformity requirements, there have been some positive developments 
when it comes to governance structures (see EQ 2.2). For example, one specific Member 
State  that  did  not  perform  well  in  the  monitoring  indicators  perform  well  in  the 
implementation due to a well-developed organisational set-up. The JRC confirmed that 
the  monitoring  data  does  not  provide  a  complete  picture  of  the  achievements  on  the 
objectives of the Directive.    

27 As the coordination structures and data sharing arrangements were not assessed for the EEA/ EFTA 
countries in 2016, the progress assessment for the relevant countries (NO, LI, CH, IS) is not possible and 
is excluded in this analysis.  

50 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.2.3.  EQ  2.2  Is  the  progress  made  in  line  with  the  initial  expectations  and 

the INSPIRE implementation roadmap? 

EQ 2.2 assesses the extent to which the current achievements of the Member States in 
implementing  the  Directive  matches  the  initial  expectations  set  out  in  the  INSPIRE 
implementation  roadmap  (see  Figure  2-1).  The  analysis  aims  to  identify  the 
implementation gaps needed to be filled. The difficulties in the analysis relate to that 
the level of implementation varies a lot from Member State to Member State.  

The  following  assessment  is  mainly  based  on  the  current  status  analysis  and  the 
INSPIRE performance indicators allowing for an overall estimate of the state of play of 
the  implementation.  The  Focus  Group  interviews  complemented  the  analysis  by 
addressing  the  specific  topics  related  to  governance  structures  and  coordination  of 
implementation.  These  interviews,  however,  did  not  provide  strong  evidence  for  this 
evaluation question. 

Text box 5-4    Key/summary findings EQ 2.2: Implementation gaps 

There are still gaps in the implementation of the Directive as none of the Member States have 

fully achieved it. As of 2021, most of the implementation deadlines according to the INSPIRE 

implementation roadmap are  in the past.  The level  of  implementation is uneven across the 

countries, with many Member States lagging behind.  

The  results  from  the  desk  review  revealed  the  implementation  gaps  and  a  significant 

heterogeneity in terms of implementation across the Member States.   

The  Focus  Groups  interviews  addressed  the  challenges  related  to  governance  structures 

and coordination of implementation. The situation varies from one Member State to another 

because institutional and political set-ups are different (federal vs. centralised State, larger vs. 

smaller Member States, etc.). There is no pattern emerging from the analysis to which would 

be the most suitable type of governance set-up to achieve full implementation of the Directive. 

The respondents to the targeted surveys mostly responded that the progress made so far 

as  regards  the  provision  of  INSPIRE-compliant  data  services  is  not  in  line  with  the  initial 

expectations and the INSPIRE implementation roadmap.  

Desk review 

It has proven difficult to find unambiguous answers to the implementation gaps overall 
due to the fact that the implementation is heterogeneous  across Member States. The 
assessment of the implementation progress is based on the current status analysis (see 
Appendix 2). 

51 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

A  detailed  overview  of  the  INSPIRE  implementation  milestones  is  provided  in  the 
INSPIRE roadmap (see Figure 2-1). The major implementations steps of the INSPIRE 
Directive implementation are the following:28  

(1) set up coordination structures and adopt and implement legal measures to 
remove procedural obstacles to the sharing of spatial data; 

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

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

(4) implement interoperable online services allowing the discovery, visualisation 
and download of spatial data; 

(5) gradually organise  and publish the spatial data according to common data 
models for greater interoperability and improved productivity. 

The results of the current status analysis ar less suitable to assess the progresses made 
in terms of governance and coordination (Step 1). This is mainly due to the fact that 
the  information  given  concerning  governance  has  not  been  updated  by  all  Member 
States  and  EFTA/EEA  countries  since  the  last  reporting.  Therefore,  the  Focus  Group 
interviews were used to fill these gaps.  

The assessment of the implementation progress as regards the steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 is 
covered  in  the  analysis  of  the  current  status  (See  Appendix  2).  The  current  status 
analysis  identifies  four  implementation  groups  of  countries  based  on  the  INSPIRE 
indicator results in 2020, from the least to the best performing. 

  When it comes to the availability of spatial data sets and services, the progress 
cannot be measured as no quantitative objectives are set for this indicator. The 
results  of  the  desk  review  showed  that  Member  States  do  not  have  the  same 
number  of  data  sets  and  services  at  national  or  regional  level  (see  EQ  2.3). 
Furthermore, several Member States reduced the number of spatial data sets in 
the recent years, for example, by combining several local and regional data sets 
into  national  ones.  Thus,  the  total  number  of  data  sets  and  services  available 
cannot be considered as an evidence on implementation maturity. 

  The  implementation  progress  can  be  more  effectively  measured  using  other 
INSPIRE  indicators  (see  Appendix  2).  The  main  finding  when  comparing  the 
current  state  of  play  and  the  initial  implementation  roadmap  is  that 
implementation  for  all  Member  States  is  still  lagging  behind  the  initial 
implementation schedule (see the Table 5-6). The table shows that most of the 
actions in the plan should have been achieved by the end of 2020, however, the 
monitoring data shows that this has not been the case in the Member States (see 
EQ 2.1). EQ 2.5 explores the barriers to the full implementation. 

28  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2). 

52 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Table 5-6 

INSPIRE Directive articles and milestones for implementation  

ARTICLE  

Milestone 
Date  

DESCRIPTION  

21§1 21§2  

15/05/2010 

Implementation of provisions for Monitoring and Reporting 

6(a)  

03/12/2010  Metadata available for spatial data sets and services corresponding to Annex 

I and II 

15  

30/06/2011  The EC establishes and runs a geo-portal at Community level 

17(8)  

19/10/2011 

Implementation of Regulation as regards the access to spatial data sets and 
services of the Member States by Community institutions and bodies under 
harmonised conditions for new arrangements 

16  

09/11/2011  Discovery and view services operational 

7§3, 9(a)  

23/11/2012 

Implementation  of Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1089/2010  of  23 
November  2010 implementing  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets 
and services for Newly collected and extensively restructured Annex Ispatial 
data sets 

16  

16  

28/12/2012  Download services operational 

28/12/2012  Spatial  data  sets  shall  be  available  for  download  and  transformation 
(whenever applicable) from the INSPIE Geo-portal ( data does not yet need 
to be conformant with the COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1089/2010 
of  23  November  2010  implementing  Directive  2007/2/EC of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets 
and services) 

7§3, 9(a)  

04/02/2013 

Implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 102/2011 of 4 February 
2011 amending Regulation  (EU)  No  1089/2010  implementing  Directive 
2007/2/EC of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards 
interoperability  of  spatial  data  sets  and  services  for  newly  collected  and 
extensively restructured Annex I spatial data sets 

17(8)  

19/10/2013 

Implementation of Regulation as regards the access to spatial data sets and 
services of the Member States by Community institutions and bodies under 
harmonised conditions for existing arrangements 

6(b)  

03/12/2013  Metadata available for spatial data sets and services corresponding to Annex 

III 

7§3, 9(b)  

21/10/2015  Newly  collected  and  extensively  restructured Annex  II  and  III spatial  data 

sets available 

-  

-  

10/12/2015  All  invocable  spatial  data  services  shall  be  conformant  to  Annex  V 
of Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1089/2010  as  amended  by  Regulation 
(EU) No 1312/2014 of 10 December 2014 (...) as regards interoperability of 
spatial data services 

10/12/2016 

Invocable  spatial  data  services  related  to  newly  collected  and  extensively 
restructured spatial data sets shall be conformant with Annex VI and, where 
practicable,  Annex  VII  of Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1089/2010as 
amended  by Regulation  (EU)  No  1312/2014 of  10  December  2014   as 
regards interoperability of spatial data services 

7§3, 9(a)  

23/11/2017 

7§3, 9(a)  

04/02/2018 

Implementation  of Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1089/2010  of  23 
November  2010 implementing  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets 
and  services  for  other Annex  I spatial  data  sets  still  in  use  at  the  date  of 
adoption 

Implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 102/2011 of 4 February 
2011  amending Regulation  (EU)  No  1089/2010 implementing  Directive 
2007/2/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards 
interoperability  of  spatial  data  sets  and  services  for  other Annex  I spatial 
data sets still in use at the date of adoption 

53 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

7§3, 9(b)  

21/10/2020  Other Annex II and III spatial data sets available in accordance with IRs for 

Annex II and III 

-  

10 
/12/2021 

All invocable spatial data services shall be conformant with Annexes VI and 
(where  practicable)  VII  of Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1089/2010 as 
amended  by Regulation  (EU)  No 1312/2014  of 10  December 2014 (...)  as 
regards interoperability of spatial data services 

Source: European Commission (n.d.), INSPIRE roadmap.  

Consultation activities 

Focus Groups interviews  

The Focus Group interviews provided information on the first step of the implementation 
roadmap  (governance  and  coordination  structures).  Examples  were  given  of  the 
heterogeneity in the type of governance and coordination structures established at the 
national level. The institutional set up for the implementation of INSPIRE varies in terms 
of sectors involved (environment, landplaning, agriculture, data etc.) as well as level of 
public  authorities  involved  (national,  federal,  regional  etc.).  Each  Member  State  has 
tried  to  fulfil the  INSPIRE  Directive  requirements  based  on  the  national  context.  It  is 
thus difficult to assess the extent to which progress was made in terms of governance 
and coordination compared to the initial expectations. It is also impossible to judge the 
level of effectiveness of one governance structure compared to another.  

It  shall  be  noted  that  participants  in  two  Focus  Groups  reported  that  INSPIRE  was  a 
driver for more effective governance structures and coordination between regional and 
federal authorities. One participant reported that in their country ‘there are five different 
models of cadastre. The implementation of the INSPIRE Directive enables them to be 
coordinated  and  to  offer  the  same  products  and  services  even  if  they  use  a  different 
implementation of cadastre across the territories. This is very beneficial for users and 
citizens who do not have a global vision of the cadastre (in the country)’. 

Targeted surveys  

In the targeted surveys, respondents were asked to indicate whether they considered 
that the progress made so far in the provision of INSPIRE compliant data services is in 
line  with  the  initial  expectations  and  the  INSPIRE  implementation  roadmap.  48%  of 
respondents (53 out of 110 respondents) considered that the progress made so far is 
not in line with the initial expectations and the INSPIRE implementation roadmap. 33% 
believed the opposite. The rest (21%) of the respondents could not provide an answer. 

Figure 5-2 
expectations and INSPIRE implementation roadmap (N=110)  

Provision of INSPIRE compliant data services in comparison with initial 

36

53

21

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 6: Do you consider that the 
progress made so far in the provision of INSPIRE compliant data services is in line with the initial expectations 
and the INSPIRE implementation roadmap? 

Yes

No

Do not know

54 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.2.4.  EQ 2.3 Is the geographical coverage of implementation consistent with 

the Directive's objectives? 

EQ 2.3 assesses the extent to which the geographical coverage of the implementation 
of the INSPIRE Directive is consistent with the Directive’s objectives which set out that:  

  Article 4 paragraph 1 ‘/…/ Directive shall cover spatial data sets which /…/ relate 
to an area where a Member State has and/or exercises jurisdictional rights’.  

  Article 4 paragraph 4 ‘/…/ this Directive shall cover spatial data sets held by or 
on behalf of a public authority operating at the lowest level of government within 
a Member State only if the Member State has laws or regulations requiring their 
collection or dissemination’.  

National as well as regional/ local spatial data sets are thus all required to be covered 
by the Directive. This investigation did not include the assessment of requirements for 
local/ regional spatial data sets (article 4 paragraph 4) because this information is not 
available  on  the  INSPIRE  geoportal.  A  separate  analysis  would  be  required  for  this 
purpose, reviewing the requirements for data sets individually.  

The analysis conducted with regard to the Directive's geographical coverage therefore 
focused  on  the  geographical  coverage  intended  to  achieve  the  objective  of 
interoperability. Interoperability of national SDIs becomes effective when users can find 
similar harmonised and ‘made interoperable’ spatial data sets across different Member 
States. The level of geographical coverage is used as a proxy for assessing the level of 
harmonisation and homogeneity of the data sets. The assumption is, confirmed by the 
investigation,  that  data  sets  within  the  INSPIRE  framework  are  heterogeneous,  in 
particular regional data sets. As the Directive does not require a collection of new data, 
it  is  assumed  that  regional  (and  national)  data  have  been  created  to  meet  specific 
regional authorities' needs. If the number of data sets is significantly different from one 
country or one region to another, it can be assumed that it is less likely that a large part 
of the data contained in the INSPIRE geoportal is interoperable.  

Therefore, the investigation focused on i) assessing the overall level of the geographical 
coverage in terms of the number of  data sets  available on the  INSPIRE geoportal for 
countries and regions ii) collecting views on the geographical coverage of the INSPIRE 
framework in the light of harmonisation and interoperability of spatial data sets through 
the scoping interviews and the Focus Groups interviews.  

55 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-5    Key/summary findings EQ 2.1: geographical implementation 

When considering the interoperability requirements stemming from the INSPIRE Directive, the 

current geographical coverage is not deemed optimal as there are huge discrepancies in the 

number  of  data  sets  across  Member  States,  used  as  a  proxy  to  assess  the  level  of 

harmonisation and homogeneity of data sets required for interoperability.  However, as data 

sets  could  not  be  verified  individually  in  this  evaluation,  the  findings  should  be  carefully 

assessed. 

The results from the desk review showed that the geographical coverage is uneven across 

the Member States. The number and geographical scope of data sets are different from one 

Member State to the other.  

In addition to the heterogeneity in terms of numbers, the scoping interview confirmed that 

there is an overall issue with the heterogeneity of INSPIRE data sets among the countries in 

terms of content but also technical standards. 

The results from the Focus Group interviews also confirmed that the geographical coverage 

of the INSPIRE Directive was a challenge for the Member States since the data at national and 

regional  level  were  heterogeneous  and  needed  to  be  harmonised  as  part  of  the  INSPIRE 

Directive implementation. 

Desk review 

The desk review analysed the number of metadata records, downloadable data sets and 
viewable  data  sets  available  on  the  INSPIRE  Geoportal  at  national  level  and  regional 
level, and their geographical distribution.  

The first finding, as illustrated in  Table 5-7, is that the Member States  offer varying 
amounts of INSPIRE-relevant data sets. For instance, while Germany or Italy included 
several thousands of data sets, some Member States have only made less than 100 data 
sets  available.  France  reduced  considerably  the  number  of  data  sets  available  in  the 
recent  years.  In  2016,  France  offered  29,700  spatial  data  sets  for  which  metadata 
existed and has in 2020, reduced the number to 214 data sets.  

Table 5-7 

INSPIRE geoportal data set statistics: number of data sets available 

Number of Member 
States 

Meta data records 

Downloadable data 
Sets 

Viewable Data 
Sets 

Number of data sets 
available 

below 100 

between 100 and 299 

between 300 and 699 

above 10,000 

TOTAL 

5 

14 

6 

2 

27 

15 

7 

4 

1 

27 

17 

5 

4 

1 

27 

Source: Based on the data from INSPIRE geoportal, July 2020 

The second finding point to that there are more than twice as many regional metadata 
records available on the INSPIRE geoportal than national metadata records (see Table 
5-8 below). The assumption is that regional data are more heterogeneous than national 

56 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

data, it is thus unlikely that the current geographical coverage allows for pan-European 
interoperability as there is too much heterogeneity in the number of spatial data sets.  

Table 5-8 

INSPIRE geoportal data set statistics: regional and national coverage 

Data sets 

National spatial scope 
coverage 

Regional spatial scope 
coverage 

Total number of metadata records 

Downloadable data sets 

Viewable data sets 

5,459 

2,131 

2,308 

Source: Based on the data from INSPIRE geoportal, July 2020 

13,747 

1,948 

2,828 

In conclusion, the Directive does not set the requirement to collect new data. This means 
that  the  INSPIRE  framework  operates  with  a  legacy  of  data  sets  that  have  been 
produced for the purpose of different national and regional contexts. The heterogeneity 
in  the  number  and  geographical  scope  of  data  sets  available  also  points  to  a 
heterogeneity  in  the  content  and  technical  standards  that  renders  interoperability 
difficult .      

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

The scoping interview with EEA confirmed that there is a high level of heterogeneity in 
terms of the data available in the Member States, which makes the pan-European added 
value limited (as discussed in the section on EU added value).29 The heterogeneity is 
thus a barrier to interoperability.  

Focus Group interviews  

None  of  the  Member  States  interviewed  in  the  Focus  Groups  interviews  assessed  the 
geographical coverage of INSPIRE per se. Five Focus Group interviews mentioned the 
complexity and efforts in harmonising and articulating the regional data sets but also 
the benefits of doing so (see EQ 4.1 on efficiency). Harmonisation is a challenge and is 
costly as highlighted in EQ 4.2 on efficiency, in particular in Member States where there 
is  a  large  number  of  regional  data  sets  available.  As  clarified  by  one  of  the  Member 
States, the coordination efforts required to aggregate harmonised data from the regional 
to  the  national  level  is  an  obstacle  to  optimal  geographical  coverage:  ‘everyone 
publishes  their  data  on  their  own,  and  we  have  no  seamless  harmonised  data  at  the 
national level yet’. The harmonisation process triggered by INSPIRE is also seen as a 
driver for improving intra-national geographical coverage as a Member State explained: 
‘INSPIRE is an opportunity for […] administrations to share data both with Europe and 
also  internally.  The  country  can  use  the  INSPIRE  specifications  and  requirements  to 
harmonise data at national level’. 

5.2.5.  EQ  2.4  To  what  extent  does  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive  in  the  Member  States  build  further  on  the  obligations  of 
Directive  2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to  environmental  information 

29  Scoping  interview  with  EEA:  "There  is  a  huge  heterogeneity  of  data  sets  and  services  that  the 
countries provide. They can all fulfil the INSPIRE requirements, but it is the question whether the this 
huge  heterogeneity  does  not bring  obstacles  for  users.  It  can  take  a  lot  of  effort  and  time  to  find  the 
suitable data sets".  

57 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

(specifically  the  provisions  under  Articles  7  and  8  of  the  Directive 
2003/4/EC)? 

EQ 2.4 assesses the extent to which the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in the 
Member States builds further on the obligations of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access 
to environmental information (specifically the provisions under Articles 7 and 8 of the 
Directive 2003/4/EC)30. It investigates the extent to which INSPIRE has supported the 
Member  States  to  carry  out  their  obligations  in  dissemination  of  environmental 
information  but  also  in the  quality  of  information.  Article  7  of  the  Directive  on  public 
access to environmental information (PAEI Directive)31 focuses on the dissemination of 
environmental  information  while  Article  8  relates  to  the  quality  of  environmental 
information.  The  links  between  the  PAEI  Directive  and  the  INSPIRE  Directive  are 
addressed  in  several  other  evaluation  questions  (see  EQ  3.4  for  the  relevance 
assessment,  EQ  4.8  for  the  efficiency  assessment  and  EQ  5.4  for  the  coherence 
assessment) that complement this evaluation question.  

The following analysis is based on the desk review, scoping interviews and Focus Group 
interviews and the Public consultation.  

Text box 5-6    Key/summary findings EQ 2.4: INSPIRE Directive building on PAEI Directive 

The  evaluation  did  not  provide  explicit  conclusions  that  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE 

Directive in the Member  States is effectively  building  further on the obligations of Directive 

2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to  environmental  information  (specifically  the  provisions  under 

Articles 7 and 8 of the Directive 2003/4/EC) mainly because the two Directives have different 

scopes (see EQ 5.4 on coherence). 

The results from the desk review did not provide additional evidence regarding the coherence 

between the INSPIRE Directive and the PAEI Directive. The  scoping interviews pointed to 

the  fact  that  the  two  Directives  have  different  scope  rendering  it  difficult  to  judge  on  the 

effectiveness.  The  Focus  Group  interviews  confirmed  that  here  is  no  real  interaction 

between  the  two  Directives.  The  results  from  the  public  consultation  revealed  that 

respondents mostly do not know to which extent the INSPIRE Directive has supported an active 

dissemination of environmental data and information to the public in a series of policy areas. 

Desk review 

Articles  7  and  8  of  the  PAEI  Directive  focus  on  the  dissemination  of  environmental 
information (Article 7) and the quality of environmental information (Article 8). The desk 
research did not provide additional evidence on whether the INSPIRE Directive has been 
effectively building on the PAEI Directive. Most of the analysis is related to the coherence 
between the two Directives (see EQ 5.4).  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews  

30 Directive 2003/4/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 28 January 2003 on public 

access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC 

31 Directive 2003/4/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 28 January 2003 on public 

access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC 

58 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The  scoping  interview  with  DG  Environment  highlighted  the  difficulty  assessing  the 
compliance of INSPIRE with the PAEI obligations. The reason is that the concepts used 
in  the  PAEI  Directive  are  broader  than  those  in  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  Furthermore, 
Article  7  of  the  Directive  indicates  that  information  would  be  ‘progressively’  made 
available without a very strict obligation/requirement. It was also mentioned that there 
is a large discrepancy between sectors where some are advanced in the implementation 
(e.g., air quality) while other sectors lag behind. One major problem identified was the 
capacity of Member States to provide access to environmental information in ‘a user-
friendly  way’.  Focus  interviews  with  Member  States  highlighted  the  complexity  of 
navigating in the INSPIRE geoportal.  

Focus Group interviews  

Very  few  comments  were  made  in  relation  to  Directive  2003/4/EC  during  the  Focus 
Group interviews. One comment made in a Focus Group interview indicated that there 
are  relatively  little  interactions  between  the  two  Directives  as  Directive  2003/4/EC  is 
mainly about providing aggregated information, as well as analyses and conclusions on 
the state of the environment in a given area. INSPIRE on the other hand (and the Open 
Data Directive) requires publishing the raw data, on which this analysis is based. The 
absence  of  comments  from  most  authorities  on  the  interactions  between  the  two 
Directives during the Focus Group interviews might indicate that most authorities do not 
see much interactions between them.  

Public consultation 

Question 19 of the public consultation asked respondents to assess to what extent the 
INSPIRE  Directive  supports  the  active  dissemination  of  environmental  data  and 
information  to  the  public  in  a  series  of  policy  areas  (water,  waste  management,  air, 
industrial  emissions,  transport,  chemicals,  health, 
nature,  marine  protection, 
agriculture,  and  maritime  spatial  planning).  Answers  were  limited  as  for  most  policy 
areas, between 40% and 60% of respondents chose the answer ‘Don’t know’. Regarding 
policy  areas  covered  by  Directive  2003/4,  respondents  tended  to  respond  positively 
(strongly or slightly supports) more often than for non-environmental policy areas, in 
particular  for  nature,  water,  and  air  policies.  Results  are  less  positive  for  waste 
management,  industrial  emissions,  marine  protection  and  chemicals.  A  detailed 
overview of this question is presented in the public consultation report, figure 40.32 

5.2.6.  EQ 2.5 Which main factors have contributed to – respectively stood in 

the way of achieving these objectives? 

EQ 2.5 aims to identify the various  factors that hindered the full implementation and 
use of the INSPIRE framework. Especially this evaluation question checks whether the 
barriers identified in preceding evaluations remain or have been removed, and whether 
new barriers have arisen.  

The  analysis  takes  its  point  of  departure  in  the  barriers  to  implementation  and  use 
identified  in  the  Member  States  in  the  2014  evaluation.  We  checked,  through  desk 
research  and  interviews,  whether  Member  States  still  identify  these  barriers.  The 
barriers  identified  by  Member  States  include  1) technical  barriers,  2)  licencing  and 
sharing barriers, 3) knowledge barriers, 4) legal barriers, 5) financial and organisational 

32  Report  on  the  public  consultation,  section  4.3,  figure  40,  corresponding  to  Question  19  ‘To  what 
extent does the INSPIRE Directive support the active dissemination of environmental data and information 
to the public in the following policy areas?’ 

59 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

barriers. In addition, we asked users in the targeted surveys and the public consultation, 
to identify barriers to use of data.  

The following text is based on desk review, scoping interviews, Focus Groups interviews 
and the targeted surveys.  

Text box 5-7    Key/summary findings EQ 2.5: barriers to objectives’ achievement  

The main finding is that  no new barriers to  the  implementation and  use  emerged from  the 

investigation,  compared  to  the  ones  identified  in  preceding  evaluations.  Furthermore,  the 

existing barriers are to a large extent technical.  

The desk review showed that licensing and sharing as well as coordination, were important 

barriers to implementation and use and remain a matter of concern, compared to the list of 

barriers identified in the 2014 INSPIRE evaluation.  

The  Focus  Groups  interviews  highlighted  that  the  issue  of  technical  barriers  to 

implementation and use ranked first in the 2014 evaluation. The technical barriers  result in 

resources issues (that are addressed in the efficiency section of the present evaluation) but 

also issues in terms of the use of the data made available through the INSPIRE framework. 

The results of the targeted surveys showed that the main barriers to the use of spatial data 

from the point of view of the users, are firstly the access to data, then the level of data, the 

format  and  the  quality  of  data  available.  Cost  of  access,  technical  access  to  metadata  and 

quality of metadata are barriers less often chosen by respondents.  

The  public  consultations  showed  that  accessing  data,  assessing  the  relevance  of  data 

available  compared  to  needs,  accessing  data,  combining  data,  re-publishing  data,  re-using 

data  and  using  data  from  a  technical  point  of  view  is  not  a  major  issue  (for  people  with  a 

minimum of knowledge of what INSPIRE is and what geospatial data made available thanks to 

INSPIRE relate to).  

Desk review 

The  first  finding  of  the  desk  review  is  that  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE 
infrastructure  and  its  use,  experiences  several  barriers  as  already  listed  in  the  2014 
midterm  evaluation.33  The  2014  mid-term  evaluation  of  Directive  indicated  that 
‘Cultural, institutional, financial and legal barriers prevent or delay the sharing and reuse 
of existing spatial data.34 

The table below lists the common types of obstacles identified by Member States in the 
2014  evaluation.35  The  barriers  rank  from  the  most  identified  barriers  to  the  least 
identified barriers: 1) technical barriers, 2) licencing and sharing barriers, 3) knowledge 
barriers, 4) legal barriers, 5) financial and organisational barriers to the same extent. 

33 EEA & JRC (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, EEA Technical report No 

17/2014, ISSN 1725-2237. 

34 Ibid. 
35 EEA & JRC (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, EEA Technical report No 

17/2014, ISSN 1725-2237., P.7. 

60 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Table 5-9 
from the 2014 INSPIRE evaluation 

Common types of obstacles to data sharing identified by Member States 

Category  

Type of barriers  

Number 
issues  

of 

%  

Legal  

Legal barriers, lack of strategic policies, low usability and 
added value (for specific users or cases)  

Technical 
(29.6 %)  

Diversity  of  existing  information  systems,  duplication  of 
data resources, difficult change to new technology  

Additional (specific) technical and infrastructure resources 
are required, lack of appropriate tools  

Quality of data, metadata and services  

of 

standardisation, 

technical 
Level 
documentation is still low, high complexity of services and 
data specifications  

clarity 

of 

Knowledge  

Lack of human resources, capacity and knowledge  

Financial  

Additional  financial  resources  are  required/high  financial 
demands, difficult financial planning  

Cooperation 
and 
organisation  

Low  cooperation  between  institutions  and  organisations, 
administrative  and  organisational  barriers, 
lengthy 
procedures, bureaucracy  

18  

10  

18  

7  

8  

19  

16  

16  

12.4 %  

6.9 %  

12.4 %  

4.8 %  

5.5 %  

13.1 %  

11.0 %  

11.0 %  

Licencing  and 
sharing  (22.7 
%)  

Heterogeneous 
arrangements (or lack of those); modernisation  

licensing  models 

and 

sharing 

6  

4.1 %  

Restrictions are applied: charges and conditions for access 
and use (different user types, different conditions, etc.)  

20  

Specific issues: resistance to open data, responsibility for 
use, protection of personal information  

7  

13.8 %  

4.8 %  

Source: EEA & JRC (2014). Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, EEA Technical report No 
17/2014, ISSN 1725-2237. 

Building  on  these  initial  findings,  the  desk  review  focused  on  the  two  barriers  to 
implementation and use that were identified in the 2014 Mid-term evaluation.36 Those 
barriers have been the subject of specific analysis, illustrating the extent of their impact:  

  Licencing and sharing: A 2018 study37 emphasised a technical problem 

related to access and licensing: ‘Today unfortunately, it is not a 
straightforward task to figure out if an INSPIRE resource is open and ready 
for reuse. More than 800 different terms of use were identified in our 
sample, where most were in the form of multilingual, unstructured texts’38. 
According to the study, efforts are being made by the JRC to study and 
harmonise licensing conditions. 

  Cooperation  and  organisation:  The  coordination  of  implementation  of 
INSPIRE is generally identified as crucial to the development and use of the 
SDI. A study by the JRC39 highlighted that because SDIs are internet-based, 
it is difficult to identify communities of users and specific related needs. An 
SDI  governance  must  therefore  be  sufficiently  coordinated,  inclusive  and 

36 Ibid. 
37 Hernández Quirós, L. Nunes de Lima, V. Smith, R.S. (2018) Study of the terms of use applied in the 

INSPIRE resources and their usability barriers, JRC Technical report. 

38 Ibid. 
39 Craglia M, Annoni A. (2007), INSPIRE: An Innovative Approach to the Development of Spatial Data 
Infrastructures in Europe Concepts. In: Onsrud H, editor. Research and Theory in Advancing Spatial Data 
Infrastructure  Concepts.  Redlands  (United  States  of  America):  ESRI  Press.  JRC37929.  Available  at: 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC37929. 

61 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

form  a  cohesive  whole  to  be  able  to  identify  and  address  different 
communities of user’s needs.40 

While the knowledge and financial barriers remain after the 2014 (further analysed in 
the efficiency section), the legal and technical barriers do not appear in the desk review. 
However,  these  barriers  are  highlighted  in  the  scoping  interviews  and  Focus  Groups 
interviews (see below). Overall, the desk analysis did not identify new barriers.  

Consultation activities  

Scoping interviews 

In terms of obstacles to the use of data made available through INSPIRE and taking the 
2014 evaluation list of barriers as a reference, the scoping interviews highlighted three 
issues  with  regard  to  the  technical  barriers  in  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive and the licensing issue.   

The technical requirements of INSPIRE result in different levels of complexity. Interviews 
with EEA41 and Eurogeographics42 pointed to the issue of the format of the data which 
is difficult to process or at least requires substantial processing before use. If the data 
requires processing before use, this will have an impact on the user groups as identified 
during scoping interviews. Today, the Directive includes technical specifications that do 
no longer correspond to the current technical standards.43 Interviewees overall agreed 
that the Directive is technologically over-specified. 

A second issue relates to the pan-European nature of INSPIRE. Today, there is a high 
level of heterogeneity in the data available in the Member States, which makes the pan-
European added value limited (see EQ 2.3). In addition, many users needing data for 
regional  or  national  purposes  will  not  use  INSPIRE  data:  ‘INSPIRE  is  sometimes  too 
complex. INSPIRE is designed for pan-European data exchange, and as users work at 
the national level, they usually prefer national  data sets, in formats that they already 
know and can easily integrate it in their existing system’44. 

A third issue relates to  the licensing terminology throughout the Member States.  The 
INSPIRE Directive leaves it up to the Member States to decide on the licensing conditions 
for  data  access.  ‘It  is  a  barrier  if  data  is  available  and  accessible,  but  not  usable’45. 
‘Licensing needs to be harmonised to be able to use a product, to make it usable for 

40 "This dynamic nature of SDIs poses a number of challenges for their development and maintenance 
as there is a constant need for interpreting and responding to political and technological changes and new 
user  needs,  which  may  have  been  unforeseen  at  the  initial  stage  of  the  SDI.  Whilst  there  are  well-
documented challenges in the design, implementation and maintenance of information systems that are 
confined within the bounds of an organization and respond to clearly-defined applications and user groups 
(…), additional challenges exist in the context of SDIs because their Internet-based nature makes it more 
difficult to identify user communities and hence respond to their needs. This is also why the coordination 
aspects of an SDI are so critical. Without effective coordination, it is possible to have different components 
in place: reference data, metadata, clearinghouses, but no cohesive whole" (Craglia M. and A. Annoni 
2007). 

41  Scoping  interview  with  EEA:  "The  uptake  of  INSPIRE  is  hindered  by  the  fact  that  there  is  a  lot  of 
processing  required  before  using  the  data.  The data  models  are very  complicated  to  read.  The format 
that allows the INSPIRE data models to be implemented are GML. This format is not practical for users 
and is posing obstacle to its wider update". 

42  Scoping  interview  with  Eurogeographics:  "The  preparation  of  INSPIRE  compliant  data  sets  is  very 

complicated and their updating will be even more difficult". 

43 Scoping interview with JRC: "Directive conceptualised in a completely different technological context 

and lot of technological aspects are very rigid in the legislation". 

44 Scoping interview with ESTAT. 
45 Scoping interview with JRC. 

62 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

other users across services. Not only licenses are different but the terminology across 
licenses is different’46. 

The other barriers (Legal, technical, knowledge, financial, cooperation and organisation, 
Licencing and sharing) were not highlighted during the scoping interviews. 

Focus Groups interviews  

The  Focus  Group  interviews  allowed  for  the  discussion  of  barriers  to  implementation 
identified  in  the  2014  evaluation,  but  also  barriers  to  the  use  of  the  INSPIRE 
infrastructure. The barriers identified are interlinked.  

The  main  barrier  identified  is  the  technical  requirements  of  INSPIRE.  Focus  Groups 
reported on the competition between INSPIRE data and any other open data sets which 
are available in a variety of formats (OGC REST / ESRI REST) that users want to use. 
Most Focus Groups mentioned the standards (e.g., GML, WFS) required in the INSPIRE 
Directive and provided the following statements: 1) ‘are not easy to use and not efficient 
(…) a key problem is that the technological requirements are included in the Directive 
and are now outdated’, 2) ‘I can think of no cases where someone would use GML’, 3) 
‘The XML format is not user-friendly. Almost nobody asks us for this format’ 

As  a  consequence  of  these  technical  barrier,  Focus  Groups  mentioned  that  there  are 
resource issues within some Member States that can have an impact on implementing 
and using the infrastructure. The complexity makes it time consuming to comply with 
the  technical  requirements,  for  which  there  of  is  a  lack  of  relevant  and  available 
competences.  On  the  same  line  with  the  resources  needed  to  implement  the 
infrastructure, the issue with coordination also hampers the deployment of INSPIRE ‘one 
obstacle for the provision of public sector data is the  multitude of responsible parties 
and stakeholders to be involved in each domain. Participation process takes a lot of time 
and  efforts  and  therefore  slowed  or  still  slows  down  implementation  or  adjustments, 
especially  in  terms  of  harmonised  and  seamless  national  data  sets  for  environmental 
reporting’. The resources/financial issues is  further addressed in efficiency question EQ 
4.2. 

As  a  consequence,  the  technical  issues,  and  the  limited  resources  of  users  seem  to 
impact the perceived usefulness of INSPIRE. Focus groups mentioned that more effort 
in increasing the compliance with INSPIRE was made in the Member States, rather than 
working  on  solutions  for  targeted  users.  One  Member  State  mentioned  that  ‘The 
INSPIRE monitoring has an indicator to assess how many data sets are provided in the 
INSPIRE format. Since stakeholders think we must reach 100%, they do not provide the 
data  sets  in  original  format  in  the  infrastructure.  This  is  contradicting  the  purpose  of 
INSPIRE which is to provide as much data as possible, including in original format as 
they  correspond  to  use  cases’.  Another  Member  State  found  that  ‘Sometimes 
organisations  see  INSPIRE  as  an  obligation  rather  than  an  opportunity  –  they  don’t 
always see it as something that will help them fulfil certain of their tasks’. This results 
in  the  lack  of  motivation  from  Member  States  in  relation  to  INSPIRE,  in  its  current 
technical format, and is also a barrier to its full deployment.  

The Focus Groups did not specifically mention other barriers.  

Targeted survey  

In the targeted surveys, respondents were asked to select up to three main barriers to 
the  use  of  spatial  data  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  users.  63%  identified  technical 

46 Scoping interview with Eurogeographics. 

63 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

access  to  data  as  the  most  important  barrier.  The  second  barrier  is  the  level  of  data 
available (47%). Format and quality of data are respectively third and fourth barrier, 
for 43% and 38% of respondents. Cost of access and technical access to metadata are 
considered as barrier by one fifth of respondents (respectively 19% and 18%). Quality 
of metadata is the least important barrier (9%). 

Figure 5-4 
(N=131) 

Barriers  to  the  use  of  spatial  data  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  users 

Technical access to data

Level of data available

Format of data

Quality of data

Cost of access

Technical access to metadata

19% (25)

18% (24)

Other

11% (15)

Quality of metadata

9% (12)

63% (83)

47% (61)

43% (56)

38% (50)

Source:  All  respondents,  Targeted  surveys  (combined)  April-May  2021,  Question  15:  What  are  the  main 
barriers to the use of spatial data from the point of view of the users? Please tick three choices maximum. 

Public consultation 

In  the  public  consultation,  respondents  were  asked  to  rate  the  ease  of  finding  data, 
assess relevance, access data, combine data, re-use or republish data, reuse services 
or use data from a technical point of view.  

The respondents considered that in the context of the INSPIRE Directive, it is moderately 
easy  i)  to  find  relevant  geospatial  data  for  43%  of  them;  ii)  to  assess  if  relevant 
geospatial  data  meet  his/her  needs  (for  31%);  iii)  to  get  access  to  the  content  of 
geospatial data (for 34%); iv) to combine geospatial data (for 25%); v) to reuse or re-
publish geospatial data (for 22%); vi) to reuse geospatial services for 26%); and vii) to 
use the geospatial data published from a technical accessibility point of view (for 27%). 

64 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-5 
republish data, reuse services or use data from a technical point of view (N=76-77) 

Ease to find data, assess relevance, access data, combine data, re-use or 

Ease of finding data

6

33

16

13

3

5

Ease of assessing if data meet your needs

 Ease of accessing the content data

Ease of combining data

Ease of reusing/re-publishing data

Ease of reusing INSPIRE geospatial services

Ease of using data from a technical accessibility…

3

4

4

4

3

2

24

26

19

17

20

21

21

21

24

18

16

18

14

17

20

15

7

6

6

4

4

5

3

13

15

14

21

17

8

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Very easy

Moderately easy

Neither easy nor difficult

Moderately difficult

Very difficult

Don’t know / no opinion

Source:  All  respondents,  public  consultation  May-July  2021,  Questions  11-17:  How  easy  is  it  to 
find/assess/access/combine/reuse  or  republish  relevant  geospatial  data  published  under  the  INSPIRE 
Directive? How is easy is it to reuse geospatial services published under the INSPIRE Directive i.e. are the 
data access and use conditions clear)? How easy is it to use the geospatial data published under the INSPIRE 
Directive  from  a  technical  accessibility  point  of  view?  (e.g.,  standardised  and/or  well-documented  data 
formats, tools for data retrieval / download etc.) 

5.2.7.  EQ  2.6  To  what  extent  is  INSPIRE  used  for  reporting  under  the 

environmental acquis? 

EQ 2.6 aims at providing evidence on the level of use of INSPIRE data and infrastructure 
for reporting under the environmental acquis. 

Desk research was carried out to identify examples of reporting under the environmental 
acquis  in  Member  States  and  to  find  evidence  in  relation  to  the  effectiveness.  The 
scoping interviews assisted in obtaining more details about why and how INSPIRE was, 
or was not, used for reporting. The results link to EQ 4.7 on the reporting burden  as 
result of the reporting under the environmental acquis and EQ 5.2 on the coherence of 
INSPIRE with the geospatial reporting obligation under environmental legislation. 

The  following  analysis  is  based  on  desk  review,  scoping  interviews,  Focus  Groups 
interviews and targeted surveys.  

65 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-8    Key/summary findings EQ 2.6: use for reporting under the environmental acquis 

The main finding is that it is still difficult to assess the extent to which INSPIRE is used for 

reporting under the environmental acquis. However, results show that there has been progress 

and  that  even  though  challenges  remain  for  Member  States,  in  particular  considering  the 

harmonisation  process.  The  INSPIRE  Directive  does  not  add  administrative  burden  in  the 

process as analysed in EQ 4.7.  

The  desk  review  showed  that  the  use  of  INSPIRE  for  reporting  under  the  environmental 

acquis has been fostered through several JRC initiatives. Despite a number of technical issues, 

the use of INSPIRE was judged to offer promising results when the framework would be fully 

implemented, which was not the case at the time of the experimentation. 

The  scoping  interviews  highlighted  the  different  limitations  when  using  INSPIRE  for 

reporting under the environmental acquis, one main concern being related to harmonisation. 

The  Focus  Groups  reported  both  on  challenges  and  successes  of  reporting  under  the 

environmental  acquis.  Overall,  Member  States  indicated  their  satisfaction  with  the 

improvement of the practical alignment between INSPIRE and reporting requirements in EU 

environmental  legislation.  They  were  positive  about  the  use  of  INSPIRE  when  fully 

implemented. 

The targeted survey of the environment sector show that national authorities and national 

environmental authorities to some extent find that spatial data made available by INSPIRE is 

used in the reporting under  the  environmental acquis. However, respondents  also highlight 

that the purpose of data collection in environmental monitoring and reporting differs from the 
purpose of INSPIRE, hence the data cannot be always fully used.  

Desk review 

The question regarding the use of INSPIRE to report on the environmental acquis, as a 
legal  requirement,  as  opposed  to  monitoring  (non  EU-binding),  was  addressed  in 
preceding  evaluations  e.g.  in  the  2014  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  INSPIRE 
implementation.47 The INSPIRE Directive was indeed designed in order to optimise data 
transfer and processing through the harmonisation requirements, as Member States rely 
on many different networks of thematic and regional data providers for environmental 
reporting.  The  2014  evaluation  highlighted  the  MDI-DE  (Marine  Dateninfrastruktur 
Deutschland) project as an example of infrastructure dedicated to that purpose48. 

Several pilot initiatives by the JRC and Member States have been undertaken to foster 
the streamlining of the reporting requirement and INSPIRE provisions e.g. Air Quality 
e-Reporting.49 The different initiative seem to have experienced difficulties of technical 

47 EEA & JRC (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, EEA Technical report No 

17/2014, ISSN 1725-2237., P.7. 

48  ‘The  distributed  service‑oriented  architecture  and  implementation  of  INSPIRE  services  and  data 
models  allows  serving  information  on several  environmental  policies  (such  as  Directive 2008/56/EC of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 17  June 2008  establishing  a framework for community 
action in the field of marine environmental policy’, EEA & JRC (2014). 

49 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air 

quality and cleaner air for Europe. 

66 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

nature. The communities responsible for reporting the environmental acquis (or other 
thematic expertise) do not have the technical data expertise required to understand and 
implement INSPIRE provisions. In many or most cases, the INSPIRE expert teams were 
not  part  of  the  authorities  in  charge  of  reporting  the  environmental  acquis.  The  key 
factors identified in the successful initiative were a ‘balanced set of experts with good 
domain knowledge and where either the complexity of the topic was feasible to address 
or where the data work had a long tradition’.50 

The 2017 report ‘Support to the Fitness Check of monitoring and reporting obligations 
arising  from  EU  environmental  legislation’  pointed  to  another  type  of  non-alignment 
between  INSPIRE  and  the  reporting  activity.51  Given  the  resource  constraints 
experienced by most Member States in the reporting processes, the changing reporting 
needs could bring ‘risks inherent in converting too much data to INSPIRE compliance as 
technical specifications and formats quickly become outdated, resulting in cumbersome 
systems  whose  value  erode  overtime  without  continued  maintenance.52  The  report 
mentioned  that  new  methods,  such  as  systematic  data  harvesting  thanks  to  the 
development of open data policies in all Member States, should be considered. INSPIRE 
is  regarded  as  an  opportunity  with  regard  to  this  issue,  when  fully  implemented, 
although not operational at the time (2016). 

In more operational terms, the 2019 report on environmental information systems (EIS) 
indicated that in the question ‘Is there a link between the EIS and the national INSPIRE 
portal, is the monitoring data found via the EIS and provided through INSPIRE?’.53 Only 
in 15% of the evaluated Member States and regions declared that the link between the 
EIS and INSPIRE was properly provided. In 38% of the cases, reference to INSPIRE was 
made within the EIS, but no links were found, in 47% of the evaluated Member States 
and regions there is no reference and no link between the EIS and INSPIRE were found. 
This  suggests  a  lack  of  connection  between  the  environmental  information  platforms 
and INSPIRE. 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

The  scoping  interviews  pointed  to  the  limitations  of  the  use  of  INSPIRE  for  reporting 
under  the  environmental  acquis.  The  major  problem  identified  is  the  discrepancy 
between the dynamics of the evolving environmental legislation the necessity to adapt 
to present and future needs, and the INSPIRE implementation. The timeframe for the 
reporting is also an issue as some policies may require annual data and other policies 
have  other  timeframes    (biannual  etc.).  INSPIRE  implementation  and  environmental 
reporting were referred to as ‘two processes taking place in parallel’.54 

As of 2021, a new platform for monitoring is being developed: Reportnet 3.0, operated 
by EEA. One of the functions will allow for uptake of the INSPIRE data sets.  However, 
there is no automatic uptake of INSPIRE services by the Eionet Portal Reportnet. Indeed, 

50  EEA  &  JRC  (2014),  Mid-term  evaluation  report  on  INSPIRE  implementation,  EEA  Technical  report  No 

17/2014, ISSN 1725-2237., P.7 

51  European  Commission  (2017),  Support  to  the  Fitness  Check  of  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations 
arising from EU environmental legislation. Final Report, drafted by Rayment, M., Rupert H., M. Nesbit, A. 
Illes and Y. Verstraeten. 

52 From the Public consultation.  
53  European  Commission  (2019),  Promotion  of  good  practices  for  national  environmental  information 
systems  and  tools for  data  harvesting  at  EU  level.  Final Report,  drafted  by  Wageningen  University  and 
Research  (The  Netherlands),  Umweltbundesamt  GmbH  (UBA)  (Austria),  Epsilon  (Greece),  COWI 
(Belgium). 
54 Scoping interview with EEA 

67 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

reporting is one use-case, and for certain legislative provisions, reporting happens only 
every six years. It is not always meaningful to develop services for that purposes. All in 
all, in most of the cases, data from the INSPIRE services cannot be just  ‘grabbed’, as 
the data models are not aligned with the requirements of thematic legislations, which 
are very strictly defined.55 

Focus Group interviews  

The Focus Groups interviews did not permit for a full assessment of the extent INSPIRE 
was used for reporting on the environmental acquis. Indeed, in all seven Focus Group 
interviews the challenges of  reporting under the  environmental acquis were primarily 
stressed.  The  Focus  Groups  also  indicated  that  it  here  that  INSPIRE  will  be  the  most 
useful when the Directive is fully implemented. 

The  specific  challenge  identified  using  INSPIRE  for  reporting  on  the  environmental 
acquis, relates to the harmonisation of data. One Focus Group pointed to the example 
of the Water Framework Directive reporting relating to man-made objects (Annex I on 
Hydrography)  for  which  all  Member  States  have  data  under  different  semantics.  The 
harmonisation  process  is  ongoing  for  more  than  seven  years  according  to  one  Focus 
Group. ‘It is a lot of work to bring INSPIRE and reporting obligations together, especially 
as  there’s  no  real  added  value  at  national  level  –  expect  if  it  were  to  be  done  for  all 
topics’. 

The  Focus  Group  interviews  were  overall  positive  about  the  alignment  process  of 
INSPIRE with EU reporting requirements, as saw this as a possibility which would ease 
the reporting. One Focus Group indicated that: ‘The alignment of INSPIRE and all of the 
different  thematic  Directives  that  is  currently  ongoing  in  the  Commission  is  a  very 
positive thing. It will not be easy as it requires a lot of agents and people from different 
fields, to analyse and agree how the directives will be aligned. But this would be a very 
good use of INSPIRE’, but also mentioned that there was still ‘room for improvement’. 
It  was  added  that  directives  such  as  the  Air  Quality  Directive,  Water  Framework 
Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive and Bathing Water Directive are examples 
where the alignment process has been achieved.  

One Focus Group expressed that the use of INSPIRE for environmental reporting seemed 
to be progressing, each user adopting some elements of INSPIRE without reaching full 
compliance:  ‘we  are  also  starting  to  use  INSPIRE  scheme  to  harmonise  data  for 
EMODnet. There are some infrastructures on which INSPIRE has a small influence for 
data harmonisation. It is not driven by compliance; it is more to have a framework that 
can be used by everyone’. The same Focus Group added that the Directive has had an 
influence on many platforms. However, the platforms would not become fully compliant 
and only adopt elements of INSPIRE. 

Targeted surveys  

The  targeted  survey  for  the  environment  sector  shows  that  national  authorities  and 
national environmental authorities to some extent find that spatial data made available 
by  INSPIRE  is  used  in  the  reporting  under  the  environmental  acquis.  All  other 
stakeholder groups do not find that this is the case. This is likely to reflect that they are 
less involved in the reporting process. 

55 Scoping interview with EEA. 

68 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-6 

Use of INSPIRE spatial data for environmental reporting (N=35) 

Academic/research institution

Regional or local authority

1

2

Regional or local Environmental Protection
Agency

1

Meteorological institute

National Environmental Protection Agency

National authority

1

1

2

1

4

8

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To a large extent
To a very small extent

To some extent
Not at all

To a small extent
Do not know

Source: All respondents, Targeted survey to the environmental community April-May 2021, Question 13: To 
what extent are the environmental spatial data made available thanks to INSPIRE used by authorities/agencies 
in their reporting to the EU institutions under the environmental acquis? 

EQ 20 provided the possibility of giving additional comments to the use of INSPIRE for 
environmental reporting. Two respondents mentioned that the purpose of data collection 
in  environmental  monitoring  and  reporting  differs  from  the  purpose  of  INSPIRE.  Two 
other  respondents  underlined  that  environmental  reporting  is  often  done  over  long 
timeframes (every five or six years) and that historical data is of great importance. This 
it  is  not  the  case  for  INSPIRE,  which  requires  more  frequent  updates  and  does  not 
require the provision of historical data. On the contrary, meteorological data is updated 
on  an  hourly  or  sub-hourly  basis,  and,  as  a  result,  a  large  amount  of  meteorological 
data  and  forecasts  are  produced  each  day  by  meteorological institutes.  One  of  these 
institutes commented that, because of the amount and frequency of updates, it is very 
difficult to make this data compliant with INSPIRE.56 

5.2.8.  EQ 2.7 What are the qualitative and quantitative effects of INSPIRE on 
the policymaking users in the field of environment in Member States? 

EQ 2.7 aimed at assessing the level of use of INSPIRE metadata, spatial data sets, view 
and download services and network services by a range of stakeholders involved in the 
environment policy cycle (local regional, national, EU). The analysis provides evidence 
of 'if and how' these different policy actors use INSPIRE (and not only policy makers).  

The approach taken to answer the question was first to check 'if and how' the INSPIRE 
framework has been made available to policy makers and policy users (being agencies, 
the general public, etc.). The existence of geoportal at national and subnational level 
making  use  of  the  INSPIRE  infrastructure  by  analysing  the  current  status  forms  was 
checked.  The  extent  to  which  INSPIRE  was  used  at  the  EU  policy  making  level  was 
addressed in the scoping interviews and how INSPIRE was used at Member State level 
through the Focus Group interviews.   

The  analysis  faced  two  main  challenges:  i)  ‘policymaking  users’  of  INSPIRE  are  not 
defined per se and go beyond policy makers; ii) Member States do not track who are 
the users of specific INSPIRE data sets even though they may, in some countries, collect 
information on the number of users for geospatial data in general. Overall, most Member 

56 Survey of the environmental community, Q15 and 20 (as quoted in footnote 124). 

69 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

States do not have monitoring systems that support the precise identification of INSPIRE 
framework users.  

Text box 5-9  Key/summary findings EQ 2.7: qualitative and quantitative effects of INSPIRE 

on the policymaking users in the field of environment 

The main finding with regard to the use and effect of INSPIRE on policymaking users in the 

field  of  environment  is  that  beside  some  examples  of  policymakers,  which  are  also  data 

providers, it was difficult to quantify the use and therefore effect on policymaking.  

The desk review did not provide a very precise picture of the use and effects of INSPIRE on 

policymaking users as the information contained in the current status forms is not specific and 

mostly descriptive (examples and numbers of geoportals in use in the Member States). It is 

difficult to assess the content of national geoportals and what type of information they provide 

(100% INSPIRE compliant data sets or any other types of geospatial data as countries provide 

with multiple examples of portals). 

The Scoping interviews with different European Commission services revealed that INSPIRE 

was not fully aligned with sectoral needs (transport, energy, marine, etc.) and therefore with 

users at the EU level and European Commission level.  

The  Focus  Groups  highlighted  the  difficulty  for  Member  States  to  identify  the  nature  of 

INSPIRE  users  if  they  are  not  the  data  providers.  The  fact  that  the  implementation  of  the 

Directive was not completed was also seen as a reason not to be able to identify users.  

The Targeted surveys showed that INSPIRE Directive contributed to access, exchange and 

reuse of geospatial data across public sector organisations. 

The  Public  consultation  testified  that  national  authorities  do  not  necessarily  have  a  well-

defined view of what INSPIRE / INSPIRE geospatial data are. Half of the national authorities 

indicated that they do not know whether or not INSPIRE can support the process of planning 

policy objectives and assessing impacts. 

Desk review 

The analysis of the current status forms provides a mixed picture with regard to the use 
of INSPIRE for policy users.  

Table 5-10 shows the existence of infrastructures for sharing spatial information. Of the 
27 forms, six Member States reported one example of a web portal, 14 Member States 
reported  examples  of  between  two  and  six  web  portals,  and  seven  Member  States 
reported examples of between seven and ten web portals. Many of the links referred to 
portals, which are in national languages, making it difficult to assess the relevance of 
the example provided. The number of geoportals does not indicate 1) whether these are 
making  use  of  INPIRE  conformant  data  sets,  or  2)  if  the  examples  provided  were 
exhaustive. Thus, the country forms provide only partial information on the access to 
INSPIRE geospatial information.  

70 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Table 5-10 

Examples of spatial data portals provided by Member States  

 Member State 

Latvia 
Sweden 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Finland 
Belgium 
Greece 
Austria 
Bulgaria 
Denmark 
Czechia 
Germany 
Romania 

Number of 
examples of 
geoportals 
10 
9 
8 
8 
7 
7 
7 
6 
6 
6 
5 
5 
5 

 Member State 

Slovakia 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Slovenia 
Spain 
France 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Portugal 
Estonia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 

Number of 
examples of 
geoportals 
5 
4 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

Source: Current status country forms for 27 Member States. 

When assessing the information in the country forms, it is difficult to discern between 
references  by  Member  States  to  INSPIRE  compliant  metadata,  data  sets,  network 
services, etc., on the one hand and discussion on the use of other spatial data available 
on the other hand. Descriptions provided in the current status forms show the existence 
of SDIs or other geospatial data platforms and the levels of openness to different users, 
rather than providing examples of actual use of data (either number and type of users 
and frequency of use or use-case).  

  For  instance,  for  Greece,  there  is  no  measurement  of  the  use  of  the  INSPIRE 

infrastructure.  

  For Austria, the use is partly monitored, but it is not monitored separately from 

the use of geospatial applications.  

  For  Luxembourg,  it  is  explicitly  mentioned  that  ‘independently  of  the  special 
geoportal dedicated to INSPIRE, the national geoportal of Luxembourg has been 
a great success and is widely used by the general public. It counts more than 
50,000  visitors  per  day,  through  its  different  viewers,  webservices  and  APIs’. 
Indeed, the INSPIRE portal is an independent subsection of the Luxembourgish 
SDI. 

In the current status forms, there are examples of Member States where the national 
INSPIRE geoportal has been instrumental in developing access and use of the spatial 
data. For example, one Member State mentioned that: ‘The main source of spatial data 
sets and  services is the National INSPIRE geoportal, where all the  relevant resources 
are harvested, in some cases stored in the databases of the geoportal’. Another Member 
State  reported  that  ‘Public  authorities  are  using  the  infrastructure  for  different  tasks, 
e.g.  town  planning,  environmental  studies,  statistical  analysis,  network  development 
(water,  sewerage,  telecom,  electricity  etc),  census,  web  applications  (e.g.  on-line 
applications for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, cadastral applications, cartographic 
applications etc), and academic research’. Other Member States provide similar use of 
the INSPIRE infrastructure (e.g. Latvia). 

There are some examples of Member States indicating that policy makers would prefer 
to  use  other  infrastructures  than  INSPIRE  to  access  the  data  they  need:  ‘Both  public 
administrations  and  the  private  sector  are  still  not  widely  using  the  INSPIRE 
infrastructure to access and use spatial data, mainly because their public tasks are at 

71 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

the local or regional level’.57 This is also the case in another Member State, for instance 
where  ‘local  public  sector  preferred  to  use  other  possibilities  than  INSPIRE  to  collect 
data’.  

Scoping interviews 

The  scoping  interviews  conducted  with  different  European  Commission  services 
highlighted  the  efforts  made  to  optimise  the  alignment  between  INSPIRE  data 
development and use in different thematic domains (transport, energy, marine etc.), in 
particular through pilot projects (during the last 5 years).58 Interviewees reported that 
alignment is a long process. They explained that technical difficulties arise in relation to 
data  quality  (for  instance,  frequency  of  data  collection:  annual  data  versus  real-time 
data for traffic information or spatial accuracy). This alignment is still a work-in-progress 
by  the  JRC  and  DG  MOVE.  Furthermore,    it  has  proven  difficult/impossible  to  collect 
information on the level of use of transport data.  

Other examples,  with regard to the alignment between the integrated administration 
and control system (IACS) and INSPIRE were provided by DG AGRI. ‘One of the issues 
is  that  we  are  still  in  the  process  of  convincing  Member  States  to  feed  INSPIRE  with 
IACS data. This is a long process, and we are not very advanced. So today, we cannot 
measure much usage of IACS data’.59 Also, INSPIRE has not been designed for this kind 
of use: ‘we can measure what is inputted into INSPIRE but not what is used. Although 
we would be really interested in having information about the use of our data’.60  

Focus Group interviews  

The Focus Group interviews revealed a mixed picture when it comes to measuring the 
effect of the Directive on policy making in the field of environment. One of the limitations 
is  that  the  participants  in  the  Focus  Groups  were  not  always  able  to  provide  specific 
information  with  regard  to  the  use  or  users  of  data  because:  i)  it  is  not  specifically 
monitored, ii) policy data users are numerous and come from different authorities (at 
local, regional or national level), iii) users are also the data providers for their own needs 
(mainly at local, regional, national level) and do not need to use the data sets in INSPIRE 
formats. 

Furthermore, most Focus Groups considered that INSPIRE is not yet fully implemented 
and as such, the effects cannot be observed yet: ‘It is maybe too early to assess this, 
we are still struggling to provide data according to INSPIRE, we need more time to see 
the results. For soil, we need to harmonise data with our neighbouring states, but we 
are still in the process of providing our own data, so this will be only a second step’. 

The  use  of  INSPIRE  seems  limited  by  the  final  usage  as  reported  by  a  Focus  Group: 
‘Open  data  is  easier  to  provide  than  INSPIRE  data.  Even  though  these  are  not 
harmonised,  they  are  easier  to  use  and  process  than  INSPIRE  data.  But  very  often, 
harmonisation is not necessary for the use cases. Most use cases come from inside the 
regions, especially regarding biodiversity’. 

In terms of the use, there is an increase in the demand and use of geospatial data in 
general, but there does not seem to be a specific increase in the usage of the INSPIRE 
data as reported by traffic numbers. ‘There is generally a low usage level of INSPIRE 
data, from what we see in the traffic numbers’. ‘We have had no request for INSPIRE 

57 Current status report Germany. 
58 See: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/inspire-pilots/59289  
59 Scoping interview with DG AGRI. 
60 Scoping interview with DG AGRI. 

72 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

compliant data at the EPA, we are only asked for open data. The use of open data is 
growing, in 2018, we had 18,000 views, now it has gone up to 56,000 views’.     

The INSPIRE Directive was reported to have a positive effect on the policy makers in 
two Focus Groups. The Directive was a driver for a better organisation of the governance 
in  particular  between  regional  and  national  levels.  INSPIRE  has  also  driven  the 
development  of  portals  and  centralised  access  to  the  data  sets.  In  one  of  the  Focus 
Groups it was mentioned that it is complex to gather different parts of the administration 
working  together  in  a  single  institutional  set-up.  In  another  Focus  Groups,  it  was 
mentioned that INSPIRE was used as catalyst for coordination within different ministries 
or  regions  and,  eventually,  to  align  different  models  of  cadastre  to  offer  the  same 
products and services. 

Targeted survey  

In  the  targeted  surveys,  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  to  what  extent  the 
implementation of the INSPIRE Directive has contributed to access, exchange and reuse 
of geospatial data across public sector organisations. 

35% of respondents considered that the INSPIRE Directive contributed to a large extent 
to this. Another third (32%) considered that it contributed to some extent only. 

Figure 5-7 
across public sector organisations (N=139) 

Contribution of INSPIRE to access, exchange and reuse of geospatial data 

11

48

44

12

11 1 12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a very large extent

To a large extent

To some extent

To a small extent

To a very small extent

Not at all

Do not know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 5: To what extent has the 
INSPIRE  Directive  contributed  to  access,  exchange  and  reuse  of  geospatial  data  across  public  sector 
organisations? 

Public consultation 

In  the  Public  consultation,  respondents  were  asked  to  assess  the  extent  to  which 
INSPIRE supports the process of planning and assessing impacts, and support processes 
of active dissemination of environmental data and information to the public in different 
policy areas.  

More  than  50%  of  respondents  that  are  public  authorities,  indicate  that  they  do  not 
know (57% on average for the 18 topics). The same level (53%) applies to all types of 
respondents. Similarly, the same percentage of respondents indicated that they do not 
know,  is  observed  regarding  the  extent  to  which  the  INSPIRE  Directive  supports  the 
active dissemination of environmental data and information to the public (53%). 

73 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure  5-8:  Support  of  INSPIRE  to  the  process  of  planning  and  assessing  impacts  in 
different policy areas – responses from the public authorities (N=65-67) 

Agriculture – CAP and rural development

Air - Ambient Air Quality Directive

Chemicals – Mercury regulation

Heath

3

2

1

1

4

4

7

9

5

4

6

6

Industry – Industrial Emissions Directive and …

3

5

6

1

Marine protection – MSFD

Maritime spatial planning

5

4

7

8

Nature – Birds and Habitats Directives

Transport – Intelligent Transport Systems …

Waste management - Extractive industries

Waste management - Landfill of waste

Waste management - Sewage sludge

Water - Water Framework Directive

Water - Nitrates

Water – Bathing water

Water – Drinking water

Water – Floods management

9

8

7

6

8

2

1

2

1

5

5

4

5

5

Other

3

1

25

27

20

21

21

21

20

3

3

3

3

4

27

15

22

22

21

22

20

15

17

17

16

4

4

10

4

1

5

7

3

1

8

3

14

12

12

13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Strongly supports

Slightly supports

Neither hinders nor supports

Slightly hinders

Don’t know

Source: Public authority respondents, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 18: To what extent does 
the INSPIRE Directive support the process of planning and assessing impacts in the following policy areas? 

74 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-9 
Support  of  INSPIRE  to  the  process  of  active  dissemination  of 
environmental data and information to the public in different policy areas - responses 
from the public authorities (N=62-65) 

5

3

6

4

3

13

3

7

7

7

11

Agriculture – CAP and rural development

Air - Ambient Air Quality Directive

Chemicals – Mercury regulation

Health

Industry – Industrial Emissions Directive and …

Marine protection – MSFD

1

2

1

1

2

2

8

10

5

4

4

6

Maritime spatial planning

3

Nature – Birds and Habitats Directives

6

Transport – Intelligent Transport Systems …

Waste management - Extractive industries

Waste management - Landfill of waste

Waste management - Sewage sludge

Water - Water Framework Directive

Water – Bathing water

Water – Drinking water

Water – Floods management

1

1

1

1

3

3

2

3

7

8

6

1

4

4

5

14

13

13

11

Water – Nitrates

1

10

5

Other

2

21

22

24

24

21

22

22

4

13

21

23

22

21

15

17

18

15

19

4

3

4

5

27

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Strongly supports

Slightly supports

Neither hinders nor supports

Slightly hinders

Don’t know

Source: Public authority respondents, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 19: To what extent does 
the INSPIRE Directive support the active dissemination of environmental data and information to the public 
in the following policy areas? 

5.2.9.  EQ 2.8 What are the qualitative and quantitative effects of INSPIRE on 

users active in economic sectors influencing environment? 

This  question  investigates  the  effects  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  in  sectors  other  than 
environment such as maritime, agriculture, transport, mobility  that have an influence 
on the environment. It is aimed at assessing the extent to which improved availability 
and access of spatial data and services generates benefits in other areas. The question 
is twofold: 1) what are the expected effects and impacts? 2) how to measure them?  

The  aim  is  to  assess  the  effects,  quantitative  and  qualitative,  for  the  users  of  the 
INSPIRE data in the different sectors mentioned above.  

  With regarding effects, the analysis of efficiency in section 5.4 shows that overall, 
58%  of  Member  States  indicated  in  their  country  forms  that  Better  overview, 
discoverability,  availability,  accessibility  of  data  as  a  main  benefit  of  INSPIRE 
(see  EQ  4.1).  During  the  Focus  Group  interviews,  harmonisation  and 
interoperability  were  mentioned  as  the  main  direct  benefits  while  increased 
openness  to  share  data  by  data  providers  and  national  infrastructure  and 
development of national geoportals were considered the main indirect benefit. 

  The  intervention  logic  produced  for  this  evaluation  (see  section  2.2)  identified 
the following expected impact: ‘Improved availability and access of spatial data 
and services generates benefits in other areas e.g. research and innovation, e-
Government, e-Commerce, e-Health’. The reasoning was that if spatial data was 
available, different types of actors would use it to monitor national or regional 

75 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

policies, to make recommendations on these policies, to produce policy notes or 
to  create  new  products  or  services.  These  activities  in  turn,  would  generate 
positive effects for both the actors and the society/economy as a whole. 

The second question relates to the measuring of expected effects of the use of data. On 
this point, available data on the users and uses of the INSPIRE framework mostly come 
from  the  targeted  surveys  conducted  for  this  study.  However,  provided  the  limited 
number of respondents, it is not possible to analyse the use by type of actors at sector 
level (e.g. marine, agriculture, etc.). 

Text box 5-10   Key/summary findings EQ 2.8 Qualitative and quantitative effects of INSPIRE on 

users active in economic sectors influencing environment 

The main finding regarding qualitative and quantitative effects of INSPIRE on users active in 

economic sectors influencing environment is that information on use and users is too scarce 

to provide a clear view of the effects of INSPIRE. Analysed studies and stakeholders involved 

in  the  INSPIRE  implementation  (at  European  Union  and  Member  States  levels)  seem  to  be 

focused  on  making  data  available,  without  i) identifying  upstream  what  are  the  expected 

effects on each type of users ii) monitoring or following-up how data are used, by whom and 

what for.  

The desk review showed that the availability of data and the way data are or could be used 

have often been assessed. However, there is no comprehensive information on effects of the 

availability of data on the users in different sectors. Even studies carried out at sector level 

did not directly assess the effects of use of data on the types of users in economic sectors.   

The Focus Groups showed that Member States do not systematically have information on the 

nature of users of data. Most often, they do not monitor who uses the data and for what. As a 

matter of fact, they do not have precise information on the actual use of data and even less 

on what effects are associated with the use of data.  

The targeted survey showed that stakeholders find that spatial data are used first by national 

governments / ministries followed by regional and local authorities and national and regional 

agencies.  

The public consultation indicated that the purposes of using data are (logically) dependent 

on the type of users. The most important purposes are related to reporting and planning and 

to a lesser extent to research. Reporting and planning purposes are more cited for the Water 

Framework Directive and the Nature – Birds and Habitats Directives compared to Transport / 

the Intelligent Transport Systems Directive or Marine protection / Marine Strategy Framework 

Directive. 

Desk review 

The actual level of use of data and the effect of the use of data has not been analysed 
to  any  extent.  Furthermore,  this  information  is  not  systematically  monitored  in  the 
Member States. Several reports assessed the availability of data and how they were, or 
how they could be used to deliver positive effects. For instance, regarding the availability 
of  data,  indicators  are  published  once  a  year  for  each  country  and  available  on  the 
European  Commission’s  INSPIRE  webpages.  The  country  fiches  and  current  status 
country forms also showed indicators on available data. There are regular assessments 

76 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

of data and metadata available, e.g. Vandenbroucke / KU Leuven (2014)61; Cetl V., V. 
Nunes  de  Lima,  R.  Tomas,  M.  Lutz,  J.  D'Eugenio,  A.  Nagy,  J.  Robbrecht  (2017)62; 
Minghini M., A. Kotsev, M. Lutz (2019)63. 

However, these reports do not include much information about the effects of availability 
of the data on the users in different sectors. From that perspective, reports most often 
investigate the potential effects from the use of spatial data but did not directly measure 
the actual effects of the use of spatial data. It can also be argued that since INSPIRE is 
not been fully implemented, the effects originally identified, are still to come. 

The  JRC  carried  out  two  projects  over  the  past  years  to  assess  how  geospatial  data 
made available by the Member States, as a result of INSPIRE, can be used to addressed 
energy efficiency issues or mobility issues:  

  The  more  recent  project,  completed  in  2019,  aimed  at  analysing  gaps  and 
overlaps  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  the  Multimodal  Travel  Information 
Services  Directive  as  regards  the  relevant  standards  to  be  used  for  the 
sharing and reuse of data.64 The study initiated five use-cases that addressed 
both data providers and data consumers. The use-cases started from a very 
specific need (called ‘goal’) from a final user, such as to “provide the relevant 
location data to the end-user, by combining information from different data 
sets in an unambiguous way.”  

  A similar study was conducted for the energy efficiency topic in 2015.65 Five 
use-cases were carried out. Again, the starting point was to address a specific 
need of policymakers, namely the fact ‘the different energy efficiency policies 
involve  a  diverse  range  of  data  requirements  to  assemble  the  necessary 
monitoring against targets at the different administrative levels’. The project 
assessed how INSPIRE provides solution to respond to these needs. However, 
these is no mentioning regarding the effects of the use of INSPIRE data on 
the  environment.  INSPIRE  data  is  seen  as  a  means  to  achieve  high-level 
objectives  but  it  is  not  indicated  whether  this  is  achieved  or  not  and  what 
effects can be identified. 

The  assessment  of  the  effects  is  therefore  challenging.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not 
possible  to  establish  a  direct  link  between  the  availability  of  data  as  a  result  of  the 
implementation of INSPIRE and positive effects on users in economic sectors. 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

61 Vandenbroucke / KU Leuven (2014), INSPIRE Evaluation: Summary of findings for EU Member States 

– Assessing data and services metadata resources through direct observations. 

62 Cetl V., V. Nunes de Lima, R. Tomas, M. Lutz, J. D'Eugenio, A. Nagy, J. Robbrecht (2017), Summary 
Report  on  Status  of  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  in  EU.  EUR  28930  EN.  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

63 Minghini M., A. Kotsev, M. Lutz (2019), Comparing INSPIRE and OpenStreetMap data: how to make 
the most out of the two worlds. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and 
Spatial Information Sciences 2019: XLII-4/W14. 

64 Bourée, K., De Vries, B., Duquesne, C., Dodson, C., Jugelt, S., Martirano, G., Minghini, M., Pignatelli, 
F. (2019), INSPIRE-MMTIS: overlap in standards related to the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1926, 
EUR 29975 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  

65  Hans  Bloem,  Ray  Boguslawski,  Maria  Teresa  Borzacchiello,  Piergiorgio  Cipriano,  Albana  Kona, 
Giacomo  Martirano,  Isabella  Maschio,  Francesco  Pignatelli  (2015),  Location  data  for  buildings  related 
energy  efficiency  policies,  European  Union  Location  Framework  (EULF)  Project  Feasibility  Study,  JRC 
Technical report. 

77 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The scoping interview with the EEA indicated that INSPIRE provides more raw data than 
other sources of data relevant for GIS experts, but this date is far less useful for general 
end-users. This could explain the limited use of data by other user group. 

Focus Group interviews 

The Focus Group interviews revealed that the assessment of the actual use of data by 
external users is not systematically made by the Member States. Member States do not 
monitor  or  follow-up  the  use  of  the  data  made  available  through  INSPIRE 
implementation. For example, one Focus Group indicated that it is difficult to evaluate 
the use of INSPIRE data, since data is accessible without login and that no feedback on 
the services is requested from users. Further, another Focus Group mentioned that the 
public  authorities  do  not  have  much  information  on  whether  there  are  use-cases  on 
INSPIRE data.  

Two  Focus  Groups  mentioned,  however,  that  some  national  administrations  do  have 
precise  information  on  the  users  and  know  which  data  sets  have  been  requested  by 
whom. Nevertheless, when information is available on the use of data, it seems that the 
use remains limited.  

Targeted survey  

In the targeted surveys, respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the spatial 
data is made available thanks to INSPIRE used by different stakeholder groups in their 
Member State.  

According to respondents, the spatial data made available thanks to INSPIRE is used to 
a very large extent or a large extent by national governments / ministries for  36% of 
them, by regional and local authorities for 29%, by national and regional agencies for 
36%. Few respondents (9%) have the opinion that NGOs use the data to a very large 
extent or a large extent.  

Figure 5-10  Use  of  data  by  the  different  stakeholder  groups  in  the  Member  States 
(N=134-136) 

National government (Ministries)

14

35

32

16

Regional and local authorities

10

30

29

25

13

16

26

24

National and regional agencies

12

NGOs

3

10

37

35

40

14

12

20

16

18

53

Companies selling data products or services

5

20

26

21

19

Citizens

3

14

19

15

45

44

38

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To a very large extent
To a small extent

To a large extent
To a very small extent

To some extent
Do not Know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 12: In your opinion, to what 
extent  is  the  spatial  data  made  available  thanks  to  INSPIRE  used  by  different  stakeholder  groups  in  your 
Member State? 

Respondents were then asked to assess the use of spatial data at sector level. Spatial 
data made available thanks to INSPIRE is used to a very large extent or a large extent 
by  the  marine/maritime  sector  for  11%  of  respondents,  the  transport/mobility  sector 
for  14%  of  respondents,  the  agricultural  sector  for  14%  of  respondents  and  other 
sectors / users for 15% of respondents. 

78 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-11  Use of data at sector level (N=88-102) 

Marine/maritime sector

1

10

15

3

13

60

Transport/mobility sector

Agricultural sector

3

3

11

11

25

23

6

9

16

14

42

43

Other sectors / users

5

8

8

4

6

57

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To a very large extent
To a small extent

To a large extent
To a very small extent

To some extent
Do not Know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 13: In your opinion, to what 
extent are the spatial data made available thanks to INSPIRE used by: marine, transport,  agriculture, and 
other sectors? 

Public consultation 

In the public consultation (Figure 5-12), respondents were asked to indicate in what 
ways they use geospatial data. Data is used for different purposes by the different types 
of users: all academic/research institutions use data for research purposes and for 60% 
of  respondents  for  reporting  purposes  too.  NGOs  all  indicated  that  they  use  data  for 
planning purposes while 80% also use data for research purposes and three out of five 
for reporting purposes. All in all, reporting purposes and planning purposes are the two 
first  usages  of  data  (59%  and  58%  of  respondents  respectively).  Research  purposes 
was chosen by almost 50% of respondents.  

Figure 5-12  Ways  in  which  respondents  use  geospatial  data,  breakdown  by  type  of 
stakeholder (N=91) 

5

3

2

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

8

7

5

5

4

4

1
1

9

8

5

4

3

2
3

8
2

5
2

8
1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

5

4

Advocacy purposes

Commercial purposes

Planning purposes

Reporting purposes

Research purposes

Other

Source:  EU/EEA  respondents,  public  consultation  May-July  2021,  Question  3:  In  what  ways  do  you  use 
geospatial data? – please check all that apply. 

At  sector  level,  Figure  5-13,  shows  how  INSPIRE  can  support  processes  of  planning 
and assessing impacts (either slightly or strongly). The higher scores relate to the Water 
Framework  Directive  (55%  of  respondents)  and  the  Nature  –  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives (51). One respondent out of four (26%) indicated that INSPIRE supports the 
process of planning and assessing impacts as far as Transport / the Intelligent Transport 

79 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Systems Directive are concerned. There were slightly more respondent who considered 
that INSPIRE does provide support for Marine protection / Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive (28%). 

Figure 5-13  Support of INSPIRE to the process of planning and assessing impacts in 
different  policy  areas  –  responses  from  the  public  authorities  -  responses  from  all 
respondents (N=49-67) 

Agriculture – CAP and rural development

Air - Ambient Air Quality Directive

Chemicals – Mercury regulation

Heath

Industry – Industrial Emissions Directive and …

Marine protection – MSFD

Maritime spatial planning

Nature – Birds and Habitats Directives

Transport – Intelligent Transport Systems …

Waste management - Extractive industries

Waste management - Landfill of waste

Waste management - Sewage sludge

Water - Water Framework Directive

Water - Nitrates

Water – Bathing water

Water – Drinking water

7

5

3

3

6

6

7

7

6

12

12

11

8

12

12

17

14

12

15

15

3

3

3

3

15

9

7

9

16

18

15

13

10

2

1

13

1
1

2

10

2

1

1

1

13

14

16

11

12

1

2

1

12

1

8

2

1

7

33

36

41

43

36

34

33

7

1

24

35

36

34

35

33

21

7

23

9

12

9

44

30

30

26

Water – Floods management

11

20

Other

1

3

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Strongly supports

Slightly supports

Neither hinders nor supports

Slightly hinders

Strongly hinders

Don’t know

Source: All respondents, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 18: To what extent does the INSPIRE 
Directive support the process of planning and assessing impacts in the following policy areas? 

5.2.10. 

EQ 2.9 What are the effects of INSPIRE on small businesses using 

spatial data? 

This question concerns the benefits for businesses using spatial data, e.g. for SMEs and 
IT  service  and  technology  providers.  One  aspect  is  related  to  the  business  models  of 
those companies. The assumption is that the more spatial data is available, the more 
products and services are developed and sold by businesses using these data, the higher 
the level of employment of these companies and the higher the total turnover of these 
companies. 

This  study  has  attempted  to  collect  information  on  companies  identified  as  users  of 
INSPIRE data and to analyse the  information from the targeted  surveys  on the users 
and their use of data. The assessment is that there is no information available to test 
an increase in the number of companies selling products and services based on spatial 
data, the total turnover of these companies and the level of employment. It is thus not 
possible to assess the use of spatial data by small businesses and to evaluate the effects 
of INSPIRE on these actors, but one can assume that such effects are limited and not 
at all at the level that was  planned when the Directive was drafted. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-11   Key/summary findings EQ 2.9: effects on small businesses 

The main findings are related to the lack of information regarding users of spatial data in the 

private  sector.  Because  of  this  lack  of  data  to  assess  the  use  of  spatial  data by  SMEs,  this 

evaluation attempted to identify the main users of data from the private sector. Apart from 

few  interviewees,  the  knowledge  by  INSPIRE  implementers  (Member  States)  of  companies 

that  use  spatial  data  is  very  limited.  The  conclusion  is  that  the  use  of  INSPIRE  data  for 

commercial  purposes  or  by  the  private  sector  more  generally  is  rather  limited.  Further, 

companies using the data are not necessarily small businesses. 

The  desk  review  did  not  allow  to  measure  the  effects  of  the  use  of  spatial  data  on  small 

businesses. No data or analysis is available on the actual use of data by companies. 

The Focus Group interviews showed a lack of information on the use of data by companies 

in general and by SMEs in particular. Member States do not monitor such users but indicated 

that the number of SMEs using spatial data is most likely limited anyway. 

The  targeted  survey  showed  that  respondents  believe  that  spatial  data  made  available 

thanks to INSPIRE are barely used by companies selling data products or services. Besides, 

the  knowledge  of  companies  using  the  data  is  rather  limited  since  only  nine  respondents 

provided names of companies using environmental spatial data in their products or services. 

The public consultation revealed the limited use of data for commercial purposes and more 

generally by companies themselves.   

Desk review 

No recent information is available on the use of data by small businesses using spatial 
data. A 7th FP project (SMESPIRE) was supported with the aim to encourage and enable 
the  participation  of  SMEs  in  the  mechanisms  of  harmonising  and  making  large  scale 
environmental  content  available.  The  final  report  (2013)  underlined  that  ‘the 
involvement of private sector companies in national INSPIRE/SDI policies is rather low.66 
In  most  Member  States,  little  effort  is  made  to  involve  the  Geo-ICT  sector  in  the 
INSPIRE/SDI policy process. In some Member States, participation of companies in this 
process happens in a rather informal and unstructured manner’. The report highlighted 
that  expectations  towards  INSPIRE  were  high  as  regards  economic  impacts  due  to  a 
high level of new products or services put on the market.  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interview 

During  the  scoping  interviews  with  the  different  European  Commission  services, 
interviewees provided types or even (few) names of actors that use spatial data for their 
business or business development. In the transport sector, actors involved in navigation 
for vehicles or in traffic engineering are such users. The former use data for the devices 

66  Piergiorgio  Cipriano,  Cameron  Easton,  Elena  Roglia,  Glenn  Vancauwenberghe  (2013),  A  European 

Community of SMEs built on Environmental Digital Content and Languages, Final report. 

81 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

they sell on the market while the latter are the final users of the data. However, use of 
spatial data does not necessarily mean use of data from the INSPIRE framework in the 
sense  that  the  data  they  need  or  use  do  not  necessarily  come  from  an  INSPIRE 
geoportal. The data they need/use might not be INSPIRE compliant and therefore not 
available  on  an  INSPIRE  geoportal.  Or  the  available  data  sets  are  not  timely  and 
therefore  of  no  interest  for  the  service  providers.  It  was  mentioned  that  for  instance 
that  INSPIRE  data  updated  once  a  year  are  useless  for  monitoring  real-time  traffic 
(interview with DG MOVE). 

Focus Group interviews 

During one Focus Group with a Member State (assessed among the most-advanced as 
regards the implementation of INSPIRE), it was said that “data sets and services  are 
not used so much in the private sector”. During another Focus Group interview, it was 
said  that  'INSPIRE  services  are  not  easy  to  use,  in  particular  for  SMEs.  SMEs  ask  for 
data, but they use INSPIRE data rarely'. 

No Member State provided evidence either on the effects of INSPIRE on small businesses 
using spatial data. 

Targeted survey  

In  the  targeted  surveys  (Figure  5-14),  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  to  what 
extent the spatial data made available thanks to INSPIRE is used by companies selling 
data  products  or  services.  For  19%  of  respondents,  the  spatial  data  made  available 
thanks to INSPIRE is used to a very large extent or a large extent by companies selling 
data products or services. 30% of respondents have the opinion that they use spatial 
data to a very small extent or small extent. 

Nine respondents provided names of companies that use environmental spatial data in 
their  products  or  services  sold  on  the  market67.  25  companies  are  mentioned,  some 
providing GPS applications or mobility information more generally. 

Figure 5-14  Use of data by companies selling data products or services in the Member 
States (N=135) 

5

20

26

21

19

44

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a very large extent
To a small extent

To a large extent
To a very small extent

To some extent
Do not Know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 12: In your opinion, to what 
extent  is  the  spatial  data  made  available  thanks  to  INSPIRE  used  by  different  stakeholder  groups  in  your 
Member State? 

Public consultation 

In the public consultation, respondents were asked to indicate in what ways they use 
geospatial  data.  Data  are  rarely  used  for  commercial  purposes:  13%  of  respondents 
indicated that they use data for such purposes. 20% of NGOs, 13% of EU citizens and 
8% of public authorities stated to use data for commercial purposes Notably, only 36% 

67 Question 14 : If you are aware of any outstanding examples of companies using environmental spatial 

data in their products or services sold on the market, please describe them below. 

82 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

of  company/business  organisation/association  stated  a  use  of  data  for  commercial 
purposes.  Most  likely,  the  use  does  not  follow  the  same  purposes  for  companies  or 
business organisations on the one hand and for associations on the other hand. But still, 
the level is low.  

Figure 5-12  Ways  in  which  respondents  use  geospatial  data,  breakdown  by  type  of 
stakeholder (N=91) 

5

3

2

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

8

7

5

5

4

4

1
1

9

8

5

4

3

2
3

8
2

5
2

8
1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

5

4

Advocacy purposes

Commercial purposes

Planning purposes

Reporting purposes

Research purposes

Other

Source:  EU/EEA  respondents,  public  consultation  May-July  2021,  Question  3:  In  what  ways  do  you  use 
geospatial data? – please check all that apply. 

At sector level (Figure 5-13), as regards how INSPIRE can support process of planning 
and assessing impacts (either slightly or strongly), the better results are related to the 
Water Framework Directive (55% of respondents) and the Nature – Birds and Habitats 
Directives  (51).  One  respondent  out  of  four  (26%)  indicated  that  INSPIRE  supports 
process of planning and assessing impacts as far as Transport / the Intelligent Transport 
Systems  Directive  are  concerned.  They  were  slightly  more  to  consider  that  INSPIRE 
does  provide  support  for  Marine  protection  /  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 
(28%). 

83 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-13  Support of INSPIRE to the process of planning and assessing impacts in 
different  policy  areas  –  responses  from  the  public  authorities  -  responses  from  all 
respondents (N=49-67) 

Agriculture – CAP and rural development

Air - Ambient Air Quality Directive

Chemicals – Mercury regulation

Heath

Industry – Industrial Emissions Directive and …

Marine protection – MSFD

Maritime spatial planning

Nature – Birds and Habitats Directives

Transport – Intelligent Transport Systems …

Waste management - Extractive industries

Waste management - Landfill of waste

Waste management - Sewage sludge

Water - Water Framework Directive

Water - Nitrates

Water – Bathing water

Water – Drinking water

7

5

3

3

6

6

7

7

6

12

12

11

8

12

12

17

14

12

15

15

3

3

3

3

15

9

7

9

16

18

15

13

10

2

1

13

1
1

2

10

2

1

1

1

13

14

16

11

12

1

2

1

12

1

8

2

1

7

33

36

41

43

36

34

33

7

1

24

35

36

34

35

33

21

7

23

9

12

9

44

30

30

26

Water – Floods management

11

20

Other

1

3

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Strongly supports

Slightly supports

Neither hinders nor supports

Slightly hinders

Strongly hinders

Don’t know

Source: All respondents, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 18: To what extent does the INSPIRE 
Directive support the process of planning and assessing impacts in the following policy areas? 

5.2.11. 

EQ 2.9 What are the effects of INSPIRE on small businesses using 

spatial data? 

This question is about the benefits for businesses using spatial data, e.g. for SMEs and 
IT  service  and  technology  providers.  One  aspect  is  related  to  the  business  models  of 
those companies. The assumption is that the more spatial data is available, the more 
products and services are sold by businesses using these data, the higher the level of 
employment of these companies should be and the higher the total turnover of these 
companies should be as well. 

A preliminary assessment is that there is no information available to test an increase in 
the number of companies selling products and services based on spatial data, the total 
turnover of these companies and the level of employment. It is not possible to assess 
the use of spatial data by small businesses and to evaluate the effects of INSPIRE on 
these actors, but one can reasonably argue that such effects are limited and not at all 
at the level that was thought (or hoped) years ago when the Directive was drafted. 

This evaluation study thus tries to collect information on companies identified as users 
of INSPIRE data and to analyse the information from the targeted surveys on the users 
and their use of data. 

84 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-11   Key/summary findings EQ 2.9: effects on small businesses 

The main findings illustrate that there is a lack of information on the users of spatial data in 

the private sector. Because of this lack of data to assess the use of spatial data by SMEs, this 

evaluation attempted to identify the main users of data from the private sector.  Apart from 

few  interviewees,  the  knowledge  by  INSPIRE  implementers  (Member  States)  of  companies 

that  use  spatial  data  is  very  limited.  The  conclusion  is  that  the  use  of  INSPIRE  data  for 

commercial  purposes  or  by  the  private  sector  more  generally  is  rather  limited.  Further, 

companies using the data are not necessarily small businesses. 

The  desk  review  did  not  allow  to  measure  the  effects  of  the  use  of  spatial  data  on  small 

businesses. No data or analysis is available on the actual use of data by companies. 

The Focus Group interviews showed a lack of information on the use of data by companies 

in general and by SMEs in particular. Member States do not monitor such users but indicated 

that the number of SMEs using spatial data is most likely limited anyway. 

The  targeted  survey  showed  that  respondents  believe  that  spatial  data  made  available 

thanks to INSPIRE are barely used by companies selling data products or services. Besides, 

the  knowledge  of  companies  using  the  data  is  rather  limited  since  only  nine  respondents 

provided names of companies using environmental spatial data in their products or services 

sold on the market. 

The public consultation revealed the limited use of data for commercial purposes and more 

generally by companies themselves.   

Desk review 

No recent information is available on the use of data by small businesses using spatial 
data. A 7th FP project (SMESPIRE) aimed at encouraging and enabling the participation 
of  SMEs  in  the  mechanisms  of  harmonising  and  making  large  scale  environmental 
content  available.  The  final  report  (2013)  underlined  that  ‘the  involvement  of  private 
sector  companies  in  national  INSPIRE/SDI  policies  is  rather  low.68  In  most  Member 
States,  little  effort  is  made  to  involve  the  Geo-ICT  sector  in  the  INSPIRE/SDI  policy 
process. In some Member States, participation of companies in this process happens in 
a rather informal and unstructured manner’.  The report highlighted  that expectations 
towards  INSPIRE  were  high  as  regards  economic  impacts  due  to  a  high  level  of  new 
products or services put on the market.  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interview 

During  the  scoping  interviews  with  the  different  European  Commission  services, 
interviewees provided types or names of actors that use spatial data for their business 
or  business  development.  In  the  transport  sector,  actors  involved  in  navigation  for 
vehicles or in traffic engineering are such users. The former use data for the devices 
they sell on the market while the later are the final users of the data. However, use of 

68  Piergiorgio  Cipriano,  Cameron  Easton,  Elena  Roglia,  Glenn  Vancauwenberghe  (2013),  A  European 

Community of SMEs built on Environmental Digital Content and Languages, Final report. 

85 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

spatial data does not necessarily mean use of data from the INSPIRE framework in the 
sense that the data they need or use, do not necessarily come from INSPIRE geoportal. 
The data they need/use might not be INSPIRE compliant and therefore not available on 
the  INSPIRE  geoportal.  Or  the  available  datasets  are  not  timely  and  therefore  of  no 
interest for the service providers. It was mentioned that for instance that INSPIRE data 
updated  once  a  year  are  useless  for  monitoring  real-time  traffic  (interview  with  DG 
MOVE). 

Focus Group interviews 

During one Focus Group with a Member State that is categorized as among the most-
advanced  as  regards  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE,  it  was  said  that  “datasets  and 
services are not used so much in the private sector”. During the Focus Group with Italy, 
it was said that 'INSPIRE services are not easy to use, in particular for SMEs. SMEs ask 
for data, but they use INSPIRE data rarely'. 

No Member State provided evidence either on the effects of INSPIRE on small businesses 
using spatial data. 

Targeted survey  

In  the  targeted  surveys  (Figure  5-14,  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  to  what 
extent is the spatial data made available thanks to INSPIRE used by companies selling 
data  products  or  services.  For  19%  of  respondents,  the  spatial  data  made  available 
thanks to INSPIRE are used to a very large extent or a large extent by companies selling 
data products or services. 30% of respondents have the opinion that they use spatial 
data to a very small extent or small extent. 

Nine respondents provided names of companies that use environmental spatial data in 
their  products  or  services  sold  on  the  market69.  25  companies  are  mentioned,  some 
providing GPS applications or mobility information more generally. 

Figure 5-14  Use of data by companies selling data products or services in the Member 
States (N=135) 

5

20

26

21

19

44

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a very large extent
To a small extent

To a large extent
To a very small extent

To some extent
Do not Know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 12: In your opinion, to what 
extent  is  the  spatial  data  made  available  thanks  to  INSPIRE  used  by  different  stakeholder  groups  in  your 
Member State? 

Public consultation 

In the public consultation, respondents were asked to indicate in what ways they you 
use geospatial data. Data are barely used for commercial purposes: 13% of respondents 
indicated that they use data for such purposes. 20% of NGOs, 13% of EU citizen and 
8% of public authorities stated to use data for commercial purposes  Notably, 36% of 
company/business  organisation/association  stated  a  use  of  data  for  commercial 

69 Question 14 : If you are aware of any outstanding examples of companies using environmental spatial 

data in their products or services sold on the market, please describe them below. 

86 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

purposes.  Most  likely,  the  use  does  not  follow  the  same  purposes  for  companies  or 
business organisations on the one hand and for associations on the other hand. But still, 
the level is very low. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.3.  Relevance 

The  relevance  assessment  considered  the  extent  to  which  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
continues  to  respond  to  the  needs  and  problems  that  it  is  intended  to  address,  i.e. 
supporting  knowledge-based  policy  needs  for  spatial  data.  It  therefore  looked  at  the 
rationale  for  establishing  the  Directive  and  whether  that  rationale  is  still  valid.  It 
revisited the concerns and problems identified at the time of establishing the Directive 
and determined key developments since then and assessed whether the initial concerns 
and problems remained valid. Key developments during the evaluation period relate to 
the  rapid  evolution  of  digital  technologies,  the  EU  digital  market  policy,  the  recent 
European  Green  Deal,  and  greater  expectations  from  citizens  about  environmental 
information. 

5.3.1.  EQ 3.1 To what extent does INSPIRE still match current needs and do 

they continue to require action at EU level? 

The question is aimed at assessing the extent to which the objectives of the INSPIRE 
Directive match the needs of European Commission, of Member State authorities and of 
the general public, and whether there is evidence for a continued need for EU action. 

The Intervention Logic identified the following two needs: 

 

 

to improve the availability, quality, organisation, accessibility and sharing of 
spatial information that are common to many policy and information themes 
and are experienced across the various levels of public authority and across 
different sectors; and 

to decrease the costs to public sector in searching for data that already exist 
and in duplicating efforts at different levels of administration. 

In this study, we assessed how the different stakeholders consider the needs for spatial 
data  and  how  they  assess  the  capacity  of  INSPIRE  to  match  them.  As  far  as  public 
authorities  are  concerned,  evidence  was  collected  during  the  scoping  interviews  and 
Focus Group interviews. 

Dedicated efforts were made to assess the needs of  the private sector as well as the 
extent to which INSPIRE match those needs. During scoping interviews and Focus Group 
interviews, interviewees were asked to indicate whether they had lists of, or knowledge 
of companies that use INSPIRE / spatial data. Very few names were mentioned. Further, 
the Targeted Surveys were also used to collect names of companies which would have 
been contacted in a second step to question their needs and the extent to which INSPIRE 
match them.70 25 names were collected in total which was assessed to be too low for a 
dedicated  targeted  survey  (number  of  respondents  would  have  been  too  low  and 
responses barely exploitable). 

70 Question 14 of the public consultation: If you are aware of any outstanding examples of companies 
using environmental spatial data in their products or services sold on the market, please describe them 
below 

88 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-12   Key/summary findings EQ 3.1: current needs 

The main findings related to the match between INSPIRE and the current needs are manyfold. 

First, as mentioned several times already (see questions related to current status (EQ 1.1 and 

1.2) or effectiveness (EQ 2.1 and EQ2.2)), the implementation of INSPIRE did not fully deliver 

what was expected in 2007. This suggests that the initial needs have not been fully addressed 

yet. In the Intervention logic produced for this study (see section 2.2), needs were identified 

as follows: i) improving availability, quality, organisation, accessibility and sharing of spatial 

data; and ii) decreasing costs for public sector in searching for data.  

Secondly, the evaluation demonstrated that the national and public authorities have a need 

for spatial data for the different phases of policymaking (design of policy, monitoring of policy 

and assessment of results and effects). INSPIRE addresses these needs and justifies an action 

at EU level. 

Thirdly, for other actors (companies, NGOs, researchers, citizens), there is limited information 

on their actual needs. Our attempt to make a list of SMEs that use INSPIRE spatial data did 

not  prove  effective  because  the  information  on  SMEs  that  use  INSPIRE  spatial  data  is  very 

fragmented and very partial.  

The  desk  review  showed  that  the  need  for  data  from  the  public  sector  is  confirmed,  and 

further, that INSPIRE is relevant to address this need. The 2016 REFIT evaluation reaffirmed 

the relevance of INSPIRE to address the current needs. Regarding the needs of other actors 

and especially those of the private sector, they have barely been assessed. 

The Focus Group interviews showed that the lack of availability of spatial data remains the 

main challenge and justifies the need for an action at the EU level because public authorities 

need  spatial  data  for  their  policymaking  (design  of  actions,  identification  of  objectives, 

monitoring of outcomes and results, assessment of impacts).  

The  targeted  surveys  showed  that  the  INSPIRE  Directive  addresses  the  most  significant 

future needs in terms of availability of spatial data for reporting to the European commission 

and for planning, and to a lesser extent the need for availability of spatial data for policymaking 

and for policy monitoring. 

The  public  consultations  showed  that  making  geospatial  data  available  to  citizens  and 

organisations is considered as very important by respondents. However, companies/business 

organisations/associations are less inclined than the whole population of respondents to make 

this statement. 

Desk review 

The 2004 Impact Assessment of the Directive71 concluded that INSPIRE would provide 
‘access  to  and  delivery  of  spatial  data,  meeting  the  needs  of  users  ranging  from 
members  of  the  public  and  academics  to  policy-makers  and  commercial  users.’  In 

71 European Commission (2004), Commission Staff Working Document: Proposal for a Directive of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an  infrastructure  for  spatial  information  in  the 
Community (INSPIRE): Extended Impact Assessment 

89 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

particular, the needs of regional and local authorities were considered as addressed by 
the Directive. 

A  rough  assessment  of  the  needs  of  the  private  sector  was  carried  out  in  the  2004 
Impact  Assessment.  The  report  states  that  ‘(…)  the  benefits  for  these  organisations 
[citizens,  private  sector  data  users,  research  institutes]  arise  from  having  (potential) 
access to existing data’. The only benefit that was put forward is the reduction in the 
cost of searching for and collecting data. As regards an increase in the search, collection, 
and reuse of data resulting from the sharing of data thanks to INSPIRE, the report stated 
that  ‘private  added  value  resellers  will  find  it  easier  to  develop  new  services,  to  the 
benefit of the society as a whole’. However, the demonstration that there are such actors 
keen  on  developing  these  services  is  not  made.  In  conclusion,  needs  of  the  private 
actors were not assessed. 

Overall,  the  needs  of  the  different  users  were  not  precisely  defined  in  the  Directive. 
More generally, users are barely taken into perspective. Users are mentioned only few 
times in the Directive and first appear in Article 7 (on interoperability) and then in Article 
18 (on governance).  

The  2014  Mid-term  evaluation  report  on  INSPIRE  implementation  indicated  that  the 
initial problem of the availability of spatial data in the context of INSPIRE was that data 
was not visible or accessible to users.72 According to the report, as a result of INSPIRE, 
documentation has improved on existing data as well as on who is responsible and how 
to access it. From that perspective, the needs were addressed by INSPIRE. The question 
at stake is therefore whether INSPIRE is still relevant to meet current needs.  

The 2016 REFIT evaluation report indicated that ‘from a policy perspective, the INSPIRE 
Directive remains or is even increasingly relevant. This is most clearly shown through 
the  Commission  priorities  relating  to  the  2015  EU  Digital  Single  Market  strategy.  It 
identified the need to increase cross-sector interoperability in the public sector (with the 
revision  of  the  European  Interoperability  Framework)  where  INSPIRE  is  of  major 
relevance.’73  The  report  strongly  focused  on  the  public  actors  and  did  not  provide 
evidence regarding the needs to be addressed by INSPIRE from the perspective of the 
private sector. 

The use-cases in the JRC studies (on mobility74 in 2019 and on energy75 in 2015) put 
the  needs  for  data  as  the  starting  point  of  the  analysis.  The  first  issues  that  were 
addressed  were:  why  users  need  data  (the  overarching  objective)  and  for  what  (the 
primary  goal).  Once  these  needs  were  clearly  defined,  the  second  question  to  be 
answered  was  how  available  data  help  users  in  reaching  their  goal.  As  far  as  the 
maritime sector is concerned, the 2017 study  76 only the public users were taken into 
consideration. 

72 EEA Technical report (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, Joint EEA-JRC 

report. 

73  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2). 

74 Bourée, K., De Vries, B., Duquesne, C., Dodson, C., Jugelt, S., Martirano, G., Minghini, M., Pignatelli, 
F. (2019), INSPIRE-MMTIS: overlap in standards related to the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1926, 
EUR 29975 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

75  Hans  Bloem,  Ray  Boguslawski,  Maria  Teresa  Borzacchiello,  Piergiorgio  Cipriano,  Albana  Kona, 
Giacomo  Martirano,  Isabella  Maschio,  Francesco  Pignatelli  (2015),  Location  data  for  buildings  related 
energy  efficiency  policies,  European  Union  Location  Framework  (EULF)  Project  Feasibility  Study,  JRC 
Technical report. 

76 European Commission (2017), MSP data study: Evaluation of data and knowledge gaps to implement 

MSP. Written by Assistance Mechanism for the Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning. 

90 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The JRC studies mentioned above defined the need for spatial data. The lesson learnt is 
that when the need is precisely defined, it is possible to define the necessary data sets 
to meet those needs. The ideal starting point is thus to define the needs for setting-up 
a data model fitted to respond to the identified needs. In contrast, the starting point of 
the  INSPIRE  Directive  was  the  question  of  availability  of  data  and  is  mostly  oriented 
towards sharing of data, and making data available.  

Consultation activities 

Focus Group interviews  

In the Focus Group interviews and the scoping interviews, it was mentioned that there 
is a need for spatial data for policymaking, monitoring and reporting. It was indicated 
that INSPIRE is needed to address that need, in spite of costs incurred by the Member 
States to provide the data sets and of the insufficient level of data sets available (see 
EQ 4.5 related to efficiency). Two Focus Groups, however, underlined the necessity of 
the European Commission to demonstrate the relevance of INSPIRE: how data can be 
used to address needs of the different actors. 

During  the  Focus  Groups,  interviewees  were  asked  how  the  needs  of  other  actors 
(researchers,  NGOs,  private  companies,  and  citizens)  are  identified  and  addressed. 
While Member States know what the needs of the public authorities are regarding spatial 
data for policymaking, they do not work closely with other actors to identify their needs 
and the solutions to address those needs. Instead, Member States considered that the 
supply of spatial data is the key for an effective use of such data and, implicitly, assumed 
that this supply will eventually match the demand for spatial data. The assumption made 
by Focus Group interviewees is that private users will generate added-value, turn-over, 
and jobs if data are made available.  

Targeted survey 

In the targeted surveys (Figure 5-15), respondents were asked to what extent they 
consider that the INSPIRE Directive addresses the future most significant needs in terms 
of  availability  of  spatial  data  for  policy  making,  planning,  monitoring  of  policies  by 
government, and reporting to the Commission. 

Half  of  the  respondents  (49%  and  53%  respectively)  considered  that  the  INSPIRE 
Directive addresses to a very large extent or to a large extent the future most significant 
needs in terms of availability of spatial data for reporting to the European Commission 
and  in  terms  of  planning.  They  are  fewer  respondents  that  consider  that  INSPIRE 
addresses to a very large extent or to a large extent the future most significant needs 
in  terms  of  availability  of  spatial  data  for  policymaking  (41%)  and  for  monitoring  of 
policies (39%). 

91 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-15  Capacity  of  INSPIRE  to  address  future  most  significant  needs  (N=106-
108) 

Policymaking

12

32

31

7

3

21

Planning

10

42

24

6

4

20

Monitoring of policies by government, NGOs &
citizens

9

33

31

10

4

19

Reporting to the European commission

26

31

28

0
3

20

To a very large extent
To a small extent

To a large extent
To a very small extent

To some extent
Do not Know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 16: To what extent does the 
INSPIRE Directive address the future most significant needs in terms of availability of spatial data for: policy 
making, planning, Monitoring of policies by government, reporting to the European Commission? 

In Figure 5-16, it is seen that 13% of respondents indicated that the INSPIRE Directive 
addresses to a very large extent the current and future most significant needs in terms 
of  availability  of  data  for  the  marine/agriculture  sector.  30%  think  that  INSPIRE 
addresses  these  needs  to  some  extent.  37%  of  respondents  indicated  that  INSPIRE 
addresses these needs to a small extent. 

Figure 5-16  Capacity of INSPIRE to address future most significant needs in terms of 
availability of data for the marine/agriculture sector (N=30) 

4

9

11

2

1

3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a large extent

To some extent

To a very small extent

Not at all

To a small extent

Do not know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 17: To what extent does the 
INSPIRE Directive address the current and future most significant needs in terms of availability of data for the 
marine/agriculture sector? 

As regards the correspondence between the needs of the sectors and INSPIRE ( Figure 
5-17), according to respondents, the Directive is most suited for the agricultural policy 
compared to transport/mobility policy or the marine / maritime policy. The future most 
significant needs in terms of availability of data for the agricultural policy are addressed 
to a very large extent or to a large extent by INSPIRE in the view of 35% of respondents. 
By  comparison,  28%  of  respondents  consider  this  to  be  the  case  for  the 
transport/mobility policy and 22% of respondents for the marine / maritime policy. 

92 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-17  Capacity of INSPIRE to address future most significant needs for specific 
sectors (N=84-100) 

Marine / maritime policy

4

18

23

5

2

48

Transport/mobility policy

5

23

26

9

3

34

Agricultural policy

7

28

24

8

5

28

Other policy areas

3

14

14

3

4

46

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To a very large extent

To a large extent

To a small extent

To a very small extent

To some extent

Do not Know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 18: To what extent does the 
INSPIRE Directive address the future most significant needs in terms of availability of data in the following 
areas: marine, transport, agriculture, and other sectors? 

Public consultation 

In the public consultation (Figure 5-18), respondents were asked how important they 
consider it is to make geospatial data (such as on protected sites, land use, transport 
networks,  infrastructure/facility  locations,  or  environmental  resources)  available  to 
citizens and organisations. This is very important to 85% of respondents and moderately 
important to 12% of the respondents.  

The  number  of  companies/business  organisations/associations  indicating  a  moderate 
importance  (50%)  is  higher  than  the  share  among  those  stating  a  big  importance 
(36%).    

Figure 5-18 
organisations (N=91) 

Importance  to  make  geospatial  data  available  to  citizens  and 

77

11

2 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Do not know

Source: EU/EEA respondents, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 8: In your view, how important is 
it  to  make  geospatial  data  (such  as  protected  sites,  land  use,  transport  networks,  infrastructure/facility 
locations, or environmental resources) available to citizens and organisations? 

5.3.2.  EQ 3.2 Is INSPIRE still relevant to the issues (obstacles) it addresses? 

The question aims to assess the need for action to overcome the obstacles for sharing 
spatial data. It also relates to the relevance of the specific objectives of the Directive 
and of the related actions for making spatial data and services more easily accessible. 
A related issue has to do with the persistence of the obstacles originally identified. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The 2004 Impact Assessment identified several obstacles that justified an EU action: 

  Difficulties of access to information (insufficient metadata at all levels); 

  Different  projections  and  scales,  making  existing  information  difficult  to 

integrate; 

  Unclear status of the information as to its currency; 

  Prohibitive cost of geographical data; 

  Lack of interoperability between data sets, and among web-enabled services; 

  Lack of harmonisation in the codes used to represent the objects described; 

  Varying data quality from one country to another within the same layer  of 

geographical information; 

  Lack  of  long-term  solutions  (instead:  supply  of  snapshots,  absence  of 
information  on  changes),  resulting  in  information  that  becomes  quickly 
outdated and hence the need for duplication of data collection efforts. 

As demonstrated already (see EQ 1.1, EQ 1.2, EQ 2.1 and EQ 2.2), the Directive has 
not permitted to fully overcome all of these obstacles which therefore remain (at least 
partially)  valid.  It  therefore  remains  valid  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  INSPIRE  is 
relevant to address them. 

Text box 5-13   Key/summary findings EQ 3.2: relevance of INSPIRE to still address the issues 

(obstacles) 

The main findings are that obstacles considered when the Directive was drafted continue to 

remain valid and that INSPIRE is still a valid response to address them. 

The desk review showed that obstacles for making data available, organised, accessible and 

shared were originally addressed by the Directive. The 2016 REFIT evaluation reiterated the 

relevance of the Directive to address the obstacles that were still persistent. 

The Focus Group interviews showed that the obstacles (mentioned above) are still valid and 

that INSPIRE is still considered as a good means to address them. 

The  public  consultation  showed  that  stakeholders  overall  considered  that  an  action  is 

required at the EU level to address obstacles and needs related to sharing and disseminating 

spatial data. 77% of respondents indicated that an action is required at the EU level to address 

to  a  large  extent  or  to  a  moderate  extent  obstacles  and  needs  related  to  sharing  and 

disseminating spatial data as addressed by the INSPIRE Directive. 

Desk review 

The Directive indicates in its preamble that there were problems regarding the 
availability, quality, organisation, accessibility and sharing of spatial information in 
many policy and information themes. These problems, experienced across the various 
levels of public authority, needed to be solved and justified the Directive. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The 2016 REFIT evaluation concluded that the general and specific objectives of the 
Directive remained relevant. It indicated that the obstacles originally identified still 
persisted and that the actions identified under INSPIRE also remained valid (even if 
they fell short on effectiveness and efficiency). 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

There is a consensus among the European Commission services that the objectives of 
INSPIRE are still relevant to the issues that were initially addressed by it. The scoping 
interview  with  DG  AGRI  highlighted  the  importance  of  data  for  policymaking.  It  was 
suggested to have the data made available on IACS in an Annex to the Directive. During 
the scoping interview with DG MARE, it was said that, in spite of a need for a revision 
of the technological aspect of the Directive (see EQ 3.3), the overall relevance of the 
Directive is strong. 

Focus Group interviews  

From  the  point  of  view  of  Member  States,  INSPIRE  objectives  are  still  relevant  to 
overcome the obstacles. None of the Member States pleaded for another solution than 
INSPIRE. Clearly, Member States considered that the implementation of the Directive is 
complicated,  takes  time,  and  has  a  high  cost  (and  higher  most  likely  to  what  was 
foreseen  at  the  beginning).  They  also  acknowledged  the  low  level  of  data  that  is 
available and the gap with the initial or even updated (and downgraded) objectives. But 
still, Member States considered that the Directive can provide solutions to the obstacles. 

Public consultation 

In  the  public  consultation,  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  to  what  extent  the 
obstacles and needs related to sharing and disseminating spatial data as addressed by 
the INSPIRE Directive require an action at EU level. 

For 49% of respondents Figure 5-19), action is required at the EU level to address, to 
a large extent, the obstacles and needs. They are 28% that consider that such an action 
is required to a moderate extent. Since 61% of respondents are public authorities, the 
average  mean  of  all  respondents  is  strongly  influenced  by  replies  public  authorities. 
However,  this  said,  public  authorities  are  more  inclined  to  consider  that,  to  a  large 
extent, an action is required at EU level than other types of respondents are. 

Figure 5-19  Assessment  of  action  required  at  EU  level,  breakdown  by  type  of 
stakeholder (N=75) 

Academic/research institution

Company/business organisation/association

1

2

3

3

2

1

1

EU citizen

5

4

1

2

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

4

Public authority

25

11

5

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To a large extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Don’t know / no opinion

Source:  All  respondents,  public  consultation  May-July  2021,  Question 28:  To  what  extent  do  the  obstacles 

95 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

and needs related to sharing and disseminating spatial data as addressed by the INSPIRE Directive require 
action at EU level? 

However, a look (Figure 5-20) at the distribution of respondents into the main sectors 
shows  that  the  geospatial  industry  is  the  sector  for  which  the  highest  number  of 
responses were collected, and for which the response “to a large extent” is noticeably 
low (41%) and the response “to a moderate extent” is among the highest ones (45%). 

Figure 5-20  Assessment  of  action  required  at  EU  level,  breakdown  by  sector  of 
activity of respondents (N=75) 

Construction, urban planning & development

1

Administration

Education and research

Energy (electricity, gas and water)

1

Environment & nature protection

Geospatial industry

9

IT/digital

Maritime sector

Transport/mobility

Urban/landscape planning

5

3

1

1

1

9

1

1

1

3

Other

3

2

1

1

2

2

2

3

1

1

4

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

To a large extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Don’t know / no opinion

Source:  All  respondents,  public  consultation  May-July  2021,  Question 28:  To  what  extent  do  the  obstacles 
and needs related to sharing and disseminating spatial data as addressed by the INSPIRE Directive require 
action at EU level? 

5.3.3.  EQ 3.3 To what extent is INSPIRE future-proof? 

After assessing whether the INSPIRE Directive was relevant in 2021 (see previous EQ 
2.1 and 2.2), EQ 3.3 seeks to assess the extent to which the INSPIRE Directive will still 
be relevant in the future.  

This  question  mainly  reflects  the  views  of  various  stakeholders  about  INSPIRE 
technological  practicalities  i)  in  the  implementation  but  also  ii)  in  the  use  of  spatial 
information.  The  implementing  rules  and  associated  technical  guidelines  specify 
common  data  models,  code  lists,  map  layers  and  additional  metadata  on  the 
interoperability  to  be  used  when  exchanging  spatial  data  sets77.  These  Implementing 
rules  and  technical  guidelines  were  developed  to  support  the  development  of 
interoperable data sets in the scope of the INSPIRE framework. The evaluation collected 
information  on  their  impact  on  the  future  deployment  and  use  of  the  INSPIRE 
framework. 

The  following  results  are  based  on  the  combination  of  scoping  interviews  and  Focus 
Group interviews. The targeted survey and public consultation did not provide evidence 

77 INSPIRE geoportal 

96 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

on the topic. The answer to this question is also based on the results for EQ 2.5 dealing 
with technological barriers in the implementation and use of INSPIRE.  

Text box 5-14   Key/summary findings EQ 2.1: future proof 

The main finding is that the technical specifications for the INSPIRE framework is a barrier to 

current and future implementation as well as use.  

The  Focus  Groups  and  scoping  interviews  point  at  some  technical  rigidities  in  the 

implementation and use of INSPIRE mainly brought by the ambition of interoperability.  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interview  

As described in EQ 2.5, the scoping interviews with JRC pointed to it that the Directive 
was  technologically  over-specified  and  that  the  implementing  rules  were  rigid.  One 
solution  put  forward  was  to  work  on  communities  of  best  practices  instead  of  over-
specifying the implementing rules. 

Focus Group interviews 

One of the main barriers to implementation identified by Member States (see previous 
EQ  2.5)  relates  to  the  complexity  of  implementing  INSPIRE  in  the  light  of  various 
technical  issues.  The  technical  over-specification  of  the  Directive  was  identified  as  a 
burden for its full implementation as i) it impacts on the resource and competence needs 
for implementation in Member States, ii) it questions the relevance of the Directive for 
potential  users  (outside  of  EU  authorities  and  data  providers)  that  would  need  more 
flexibility in the use (see EQ 2.5), and i especially in the standards and formats. 

In  that  sense,  even  though  the  ambition  of  accessibility  and  interoperability  of 
environmental data remains and continues to be relevant for the Member States, the 
technical provisions and practicalities of the Directive do not seem to be future-proof. 

5.3.4.  EQ 3.4 Are the Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access 
to environmental information still relevant in view of the current state 
of the INSPIRE infrastructures? 

As analysed in EQ 5.4 on the coherence of the INSPIRE Directive compared to Articles 
7 and 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, there are 
no inconsistencies between the two Directives.  

The scope of Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental 
information  is  much  broader  than  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  The  INSPIRE  Directive  has 
been  designed  to  be  consistent  with  the  EU  legal  framework  on  data  sharing  and 
dissemination – Public Access to Environmental Information Directive and the Open Data 
Directive (see EQ 5.4). While not effectively assessed in this evaluation, INSPIRE could 
support  the  implementation  of  PAEI.  As  a  consequence,  it  should  not  be  judged  as 
irrelevant. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.4.  Efficiency 

The efficiency analysis focuses on whether the costs of the Directive can be justified 
by the benefits it generates. As such, for the efficiency analysis the effects/benefits of 
the implementation of INSPIRE Directive, as well as on the costs of the implementation 
of  the  Directive  are  investigated.  Attention  is  paid  to  experienced  costs,  impacts  and 
benefits  to  different  types  of  stakeholders  (e.g.  national  authorities,  regional/local 
authorities,  businesses,  and  NGOs).  The  evaluation  also  identifies  areas/processes 
where  there  is  scope  for  reducing  inefficiencies,  such  as  burdensome  regulatory  and 
administrative costs incurred by stakeholders, or cases where the Directive's provisions 
could be streamlined.  

The  assessment  of  efficiency  is  based  on  desk  research  of  studies  and  on  the  past 
evaluations (REFIT and the midterm evaluation)78 as well as on the analysis of the 31 
country  forms,  the  scoping  interviews  and  the  Focus  Group  interviews,  the  targeted 
surveys and the Public consultations. For the purpose of the analysis, we have developed 
costs  and  benefits  categories.  These  are  used  throughout  the  efficiency  analysis  and 
have been used to identify costs types for the analysis of the country forms, the focus 
group interviews as well as the targeted surveys. The benefit and cost categories are 
presented in tables 5-11 and 5-12.  

Specific data considerations are included under the individual evaluation questions. 

5.4.1.  EQ  4.1  To  what  extent,  and  how  has  the  intervention  lead  to 
improvements  in  the  quality  or  efficiency  of  work  of  concerned 
stakeholders? 

The direct benefits (or  effects)  of  INSPIRE identified under  effectiveness  criterion are 
those  related  to  improved  data  accessibility,  availability,  quality,  data  sharing,  and 
interoperability. As assessed under effectiveness (EQ 2.6-2.9), the effects and impacts 
of  INSPIRE  arise  when  data  is  being  shared  between  Member  State  authorities  and 
access is being provided to the public to spatial (environmental) information. This also 
includes benefits for the private sector as new products and solutions can be developed 
based  on  INSPIRE  data  sets.  INSPIRE  is  intended  to  support  an  improved  geospatial 
the 
data 
production/processing  of  geospatial  data  thereby  generating  cost  savings  (economic 
impact). A number of indirect benefits are also analysed. Some of these indirect benefits 
relate to improvements in the quality and efficiency of stakeholders when conducting 
their work. Another benefit is that INSPIRE might have been inspirational and beneficial 
to  other  policy  areas  beyond  the  SDI  and  the  environment  as  assessed  under 
effectiveness EQ 2.7-2.9.  

cost-effectiveness 

infrastructure 

improved 

leading 

thus 

to 

in 

78  

99 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-15   Key/summary findings EQ 4.1: improvements in the quality or efficiency of work 

With regard to the improvements of the quality and/or efficiency of the of the work of involved 

stakeholders,  the  main  direct  benefits  of  the  Directive  have  been:  Better  overview, 

discoverability,  availability,  and  accessibility  of  data.  The  main  benefits  are  followed  by 

Harmonisation  and  interoperability,  and  Innovation,  technologies,  and  technical  knowledge. 

These benefits were identified in the analysis of the country forms. The Focus Group interviews 

confirmed that especially harmonisation and interoperability is a key benefit. In Member States 

where data is stored in many different formats and where some formats are not readable using 

the most common GIS systems, creating services and formats that can be used by all users is 

one  of  the  most  important  benefits.  In  the  targeted  surveys  the  Better  overview, 

discoverability, availability, accessibility of data was the only types of benefit identified by 30% 

of  the  respondents  as  very  significant.  Also,  the  public  consultations  confirm  that  Better 

comparability and interoperability are the main benefits. 67% of the respondents marked this 

option. 

In terms of indirect benefits Increased openness to share data by data providers and national 

infrastructure and development of national geoportals are mentioned by the Focus Groups as 

the most significant indirect benefit. These two benefits also receive the highest score in the 

targeted and public consultations. Actually, this points to that INSPIRE has been instrumental 

in  furthering  the  development  of  the  national  geoportals  as  well  as  in  promoting  increased 

sharing of data.   

Desk review 

In the REFIT evaluation,79 Member States reported benefits mostly in qualitative terms. 
At that time of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive (2016), benefits were yet to be 
fully realised. However, the REFIT report found that benefits were beginning to emerge 
in terms of improved data access, better cooperation across the public sector, skills and 
capacity  building,  less  duplication  of  work,  improved  information  for  supporting 
environmental policy, and better e-government services to citizens and business. 

EQ 2.7-2.9 analyse the effects of INSPIRE on the access to data for different user groups 
in  particular  in  relation  to  access  to  environmental  data.  A  number  of  use-cases  are 
analysed  in  EQ  2.8  to  assess  the  effect  on  small  businesses  using  spatial  data.  The 
findings of this analysis point to that data has been made available but that it is difficult 
to assess the effects on the users in the analysed economic sectors such as transport 
(see  section  5.2.8).  The  analysis  of  the  effect  on  small  businesses  using  spatial  data 
(See  section  5.2.9)  shows  a  similar  finding,  namely  that  although  the  spatial  data  is 
available, the research conducted on SME involvement does not point to that SMEs are 
benefitting to a large extent.     

We have established an overview of the benefits types identified by the Member States 
in the 31 country forms. The results presented in Table 5-11, shows that 18 Member 
States (58%) identify Better overview, discoverability, availability, accessibility of data 
as a main benefit of INSPIRE. This is followed by Harmonisation and interoperability and 

79  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2).  

100 

 
 
  
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Innovation, technologies, and technical knowledge, which are identified by 11 Members 
States as benefits of  INSPIRE. The  remaining benefit categories are identified by 3-9 
Member  States  of  the  INSPIRE  implementation.  For  the  indirect  benefits,  the  main 
benefit identified in the country forms by Member states was the National infrastructure 
and  data  strategy  development  (19%).  EU  wide  collaboration  was  identified  by  16% 
whereas Increased openness to share data by data providers was only identified by 13% 
of the Member States.  

Table 5-11 

Benefits deriving from INSPIRE listed by Member States in the country forms  

Direct benefits  

Type of benefit 

Benefit identified by stakeholders: 

Benefits from the 
production/processing 
geospatial data 

Improved quality and reliability of data 

Harmonisation and interoperability 

Improved cooperation among stakeholders 

Benefits from products 
(public/private) based 
on geospatial data 

Reduction of time/ costs (efficiency) 

Share and reuse of data 

Economic profit and new business opportunities 

Innovation, technologies, and technical knowledge 

Better overview, discoverability, availability, 
accessibility of data 

Improved quality and reliability of data 

Indirect benefits  

Type of benefit 

Benefit identified by stakeholders:  

Transparency and 
improved policy making 

Benefits at national and 
EU level 

Contribution to policy making in various areas 

Increased openness to share data by data providers 

Socio-economic benefits 

National infrastructure and data strategy development 

Source:  Current status country forms (N=31). 

EU-wide collaboration 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

Number of MS in 
the country forms 

4 (13%) 

11 (35%) 

7 (23%) 

10 (32%) 

9 (29%) 

4 (13%) 

11 (35%) 

18 (58%)  

7 (23%) 

Number  of  MS  in 
the country forms 

4 (13%) 

3 (10%) 

5 (16%) 

6 (19%) 

4 (13%) 

As mentioned in the effectiveness analysis, in interviews with the JRC it was underlined 
that INSPIRE remains largely provider-driven and thus the main effects will accrue to 
this stakeholder group. These data providers (government institutions and ministries) 
are  however  also  users.  There  is  little  knowledge  of  the  type  of  data  needed  (by  the 
users)  and  whether  the  data  provided  (format  and  granularity)  is  used  (there  is  no 
evidence).  The  existing  evidence  comes  from  specific  projects  focusing  on  INSPIRE. 
Nevertheless, the interviewee assessed that INSPIRE create societal value albeit mainly 
at Government level.  

Focus Group interviews  

The following main direct and indirect benefits were discussed and identified in the Focus 
Group  interviews.  It  should  be  noted  that  some  Focus  Groups  underlined  that  all  the 
benefits listed in Table 5-11 are important.  

101 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Direct benefits  

Three  Focus  Groups  pointed  to  that  the  main  benefits  are  about  harmonisation  and 
interoperability. The INSPIRE data catalogue serves as an example on how to harmonise 
and increase interoperability of data. This is in particular important in Member States 
where  data  is  stored  in  many  different  formats  and  some  of  these  formats  are  not 
readable using the most common GIS systems. It was added that creating services and 
formats  that  can  be  used  by  all  users  is  one  of  the  most  important  benefits.  The 
availability and interoperability/ harmonisation of data already feeds into platforms like 
SeaDataNet and EMODnet.  

A key benefit for one Focus Group is the standardization of data provisions for reporting. 
It is important to promote the use of INSPIRE standards for new and existing Directives 
in order to ensure that there are no parallel ways of reporting data under the various 
EU legal frameworks. With the future e-reporting, INSPIRE data services should be at 
the  centre  of  the  process  and  it  will  more  cost-efficient  setting-up  the  INSPIRE 
infrastructure.  

The  sharing/reuse  of  data  is  identified  by  two  Focus  Groups  as  a  key  benefit  as  this 
leads  to  a  reduction  of  costs  and  time  spent  on  a  number  of  activities.  The  tools 
developed in the context of  INSPIRE  can  in principle also (see analysis in EQ  2.8) be 
reused  in  other  contexts.  One  Focus  Group  pointed  to  that  it  takes  time  to  make 
everything conformant, so that the benefits are only achieved with a time lag. 

Better  overview,  discoverability,  availability,  accessibility  of  data  is  in  particular 
regarded as a benefit for business and the private sector that can use these to develop 
new business opportunities through innovative products. Two Focus Groups mentioned 
that  initially  some  of  their  institutional  stakeholders  did  not  fully  understand  the 
potential  of  INSPIRE  and  this  led  to  a  reluctance  to  share  (for  free)  spatial  data. 
Improvements of overview, discoverability, availability and accessibility of data through 
portals,  has  been  accelerated  through  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE.  There  are, 
however, still discussions in two Member States on what and how much data is to be 
made available for free.  

One Focus Group mentioned that INSPIRE had led to more  efficiency and better data 
quality.  

Indirect benefits 

Increased  openness  to  share  data  by  data  providers  was  mentioned  by  two  Member 
States as an indirect benefit. As mention above, several Member States underlined the 
importance of open spatial data for innovation and economic development.   

Two Focus Groups mentioned that INSPIRE has supported the developed of a national 
infrastructure and national geoportals which was much needed. INSPIRE has highlighted 
the  requirement  for  updating  of  data  to  be  made  available  through  the  national 
geoportals.  

Only  one  Focus  Group  mentioned  the  EU  wide  cooperation  as  a  key  to  establishing 
contact with other Member States and the exchange of experience and approaches as 
an interesting benefit. 

Targeted surveys  

In the targeted survey respondents were asked to rank different benefit types in terms 
of significance. For the direct benefits most of the benefit types were judged by 25-40% 
of the respondent as 'significant', but only Better overview, discoverability, availability, 

102 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

accessibility of data, Harmonisation and Interoperability and Share and Reuse of Data 
score 'very significant' from more than 25% of the respondents.   

Figure 5-21  Direct benefits of INSPIRE (N=113-128) 

m
o
r
f

s
t
i
f
e
n
e
B

g
n
i
s
s
e
c
o
r
p
/
g
n
i
c
u
d
o
r
p

a
t
a
d

l

a
i
t
a
p
s
o
e
g

f
o

s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

a
t
a
d

l

a
i
t
a
p
s
o
e
g
m
o
r
f

s
t
i
f
e
n
e
B

Improved quality and reliability of data

16

43

34

24

10

Harmonisation and interoperability

32

42

29

21

4

Improved cooperation among stakeholders

24

51

27

23

3

Share and reuse of data

29

43

24

18

5

Reduction of time/ costs (efficiency)

16

28

34

17

22

Innovation, technologies, and technical knowledge

17

43

29

22

6

Improved quality and reliability of data

17

35

33

25

10

Harmonisation and interoperability

22

42

34

16

4

Economic profit and new business opportunities

12

21

35

26

19

Better overview, discoverability, availability,
accessibility of data

36

47

21

12

2

Very significant benefits
Slightly significant benefits

Significant benefits
No benefits

0%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Moderately significant benefits

Source: All respondents,  Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 23.A: How significant are 
the direct benefits stemming from the INSPIRE implementation? 

With regard to indirect benefits, especially EU wide collaboration is rated as having very 
significant  benefits  by  more  than  20%  of  the  respondents.  In  the  case  of  Increased 
openness  and  the  development  of  national  infrastructure  more  than  30%  of  the 
respondent rating this a significant benefit.  

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-22 

Indirect benefits of INSPIRE (N=110-117) 

&
y
c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

i

g
n
k
a
m

l

e
v
e

l

U
E

y
c
i
l

o
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

&

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

t
a

s
t
i
f
e
n
e
B

Contribution to policy making in various areas

13

33

42

24

10

Increased openness to share data by data
providers

24

57

25

15

6

Socio-economic benefits

11

25

38

23

13

National infrastructure and data strategy
development

23

45

29

15

5

EU-wide collaboration

26

43

27

16

5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

Very significant benefits

Significant benefits

Moderately significant benefits

Slightly significant benefits

No benefits

Source: All respondents,  Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question  23.B: How significant are 
the indirect benefits stemming from the INSPIRE implementation? 

Public consultation 

The  responses  to  the  public  consultation  show  that  Better  comparability  and 
interoperability are the main benefits. 45 respondents (64%) marked this as a benefit. 
Use  of  data  across  the  EU  and  better  availability  of  spatial  data  were  selected  by  40 
respondents respectively (57%).  

Figure 5-23  Benefits of spatial data sharing as facilitated by INSPIRE (N=70) 

Better comparability & interoperability between
spatial data sources

Possibility to use INSPIRE data across the EU

Better understanding of the spatial data available

Use of spatial data for specific use cases
contributing to improved environmental protection,
where it was not possible/practical to do so earlier

Less expensive use of spatial data in my use cases

64% (45)

57% (40)

57% (40)

51% (36)

49% (34)

Higher quality data

34% (24)

Other

11% (8)

Source:  All  respondents,  public  consultation  May-July  2021,  Question  23:  What  are  the  benefits  of  spatial 
data sharing as facilitated by the rules laid down in the INSPIRE Directive? 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.4.2.  EQ 4.2 Can any specific provisions in INSPIRE be identified that make 

cost-efficient implementation more difficult?  

The  REFIT  evaluation  (2016)  pointed  to  five  main  factors  which  have  influenced  the 
cost-effective  implementation  of  INSPIRE:80  1)  data  policy  of  sharing  issues,  2)  skills 
gap for dealing technical complexity, 3) capacity building resources, 4) coordination and 
communication mechanism, and 5) flexible spatial data harmonisation provision (these 
are described in more detail in Section 2.1.2). In this evaluation, we investigate whether 
these are still factors that influence implementation or whether, in the latter phase of 
implementation  other  factors  play  a  role.  We  do  so  by  identifying  the  costs  and  the 
significance of these costs as assessed by Member States. 

However,  and  as  experienced  also  in  the  REFIT  exercise81,  it  is  difficult  to  assess  in 
quantitative terms what the costs of INSPIRE are. INSPIRE implementation costs are in 
many Member States (but not all) considered and treated as an integral part of national 
SDI operations. In these cases, implementing INSPIRE is not considered as a separate 
process  to  the  general  process  of  establishing  an  SDI.  Nevertheless,  some  Member 
States could identify categories or types of costs that they assess the implementation 
of INSPIRE has resulted in.  

Text box 5-16   Key/summary findings EQ 4.2: provision that make implementation difficult 

It is difficult to point to specific provisions, which would make INSPIRE implementation more 

cost-efficient as this often depends on the organisation in the Member States at the different 

administrative  levels.  Nevertheless,  a  key  issue  of  concern  relates  to  the  provisions  on 

harmonisation  and  interoperability  of  spatial  data  and  the  costs  (resources)  related  hereto. 

Also,  the  approach  taken  by  Member  States  to  implement  INSPIRE  differs:  i.e.  is  INSPIRE 

implemented as an integral part of the national SDI or as a separate system with disjoined 

data  foundation  and/or  separate  IT-infrastructure.  These  factors  influence  the  cost  (and 

perceived value) of INSPIRE.   

The desk review found that 29% of Member States reported that the main costs relate to 

Data  harmonisation,  IT  Infrastructure,  geodata  services  and  interoperability  and  staff 

resources. Some Member States provide estimates of actual costs either as totals or as yearly 

costs. 

There focus group interviews showed different assessments within the Member States as to 

the  main  cost-drivers.  They  also  showed  that  different  assessments  can  be  found  among 

stakeholders  at  the  same  administrative  level  but  from  different  institutions  (i.e. 

organisations/institutions  at  national  level).  Large  providers  of  data  such  as  cadastre  or 

mapping  agencies  do  not  have  infrastructure  costs.  Such  institutions  experience  costs  in 

relation to processing and harmonising of data instead. 

The  targeted  survey  and  the  public  consultations  showed  that  key  costs  are  related  to 

harmonisation and interoperability. Almost 50% of the respondents in the target survey point 

to  that  these  activities  carry  significant  costs.  Also  in  the  public  consultation  especially 

harmonisation is identified as a key cost driver for the implementers. Notably the users do not 

80  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2).  

81  

105 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

perceive that there are additional costs, and if any, these would relate to the purchasing of 

additional or new software to access/use spatial data.   

Desk review 

As observed in various studies and earlier evaluations, data on costs of implementation 
of  INSPIRE  are  difficult  to  obtain.  A  key  reason is  that  INSPIRE  often  is  one  element 
among others in setting up the national SDI infrastructure. The costs of INSPIRE are in 
many Member States included in the overall costs of the SDI and are thus difficult to 
extract/separate. A discussion of the costs of implementing of INSPIRE is included under 
EQ 4.3. as part of the assessment of the costs and benefits of INSPIRE.   

Table 5-12 shows the identification of costs provided by Member States in the country 
forms  (note  that  not  all  Member  States  indicated  cost  categories  or  provided  cost 
estimates). The costs have been sorted according to the categories developed by the 
evaluation  team.  29%  of  Member  States  indicate  that  the  main  costs  are:  a)  Data 
harmonisation, b) IT Infrastructure, c) geodata services and d) interoperability and e) 
staff resources. Some Member States include actual costs either as totals or as yearly 
costs. These estimates are however difficult to compare as the calculations use different 
methods and periods (some examples are included under EQ 4.4).  

Table 5-12 

Costs of implementing INSPIRE listed in the country forms  

Type of cost 

Cost types identified by stakeholders  

Number of Member 
States  in country 
forms 

Costs related to acquiring 
and processing of geospatial 
data 

Data production and maintenance 

5 (16%) 

Data harmonization and interoperability 

9 (29%) 

Costs related to storing and 
distributing geospatial data 

Provision of metadata 

IT infrastructure 

Centralized systems and data centres 

System maintenance 

Network security 

Geodata services and interoperability 

Staff resources 

Consultancy/INSPIRE expertise   

Costs related to improving 
use of geospatial data 

Development of other related systems and 
projects 

Training of stakeholders/users 

Staff resources 

Consultancy/INSPIRE expertise   

INSPIRE reporting 

Staff resources   

Meetings/coordination  

INSPIRE indicators   

Consultation activities 

7 (23%) 

9 (29%) 

2 (6%) 

5 (16) 

1 (3%) 

9 (29%) 

9 (29%) 

3 (10%) 

2 (6%) 

- 

- 

1 (3%) 

- 

2 (6%) 

1 (3%) 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Focus Group interviews  

There are different assessments within the Focus Groups as to the main cost-drivers. It 
is  thus  difficult  to  point  to  specific  provisions  that  cause  inefficiencies  in  the  INSPIRE 
implementation  as  this  assessment  often  depends  on  the  institution  and/or 
administrative  level  in  question.  The  interviews  also  show  that  different  assessments 
can be found even from stakeholders at the same administrative level but from different 
institutions  (i.e.  organisations/institutions  at  national  level).  Large  providers  of  data 
such  as  cadastre  or  mapping  agencies,  do  not  have  infrastructure  costs.  Such 
institutions experience costs in relation to processing and harmonising of data instead. 
In two Focus Groups, institutions interviewed have assessed the costs of specific parts 
of the process i.e. the part that they are responsible for or even at the level of a specific 
procedure.    

Two Focus Groups identify the Costs related to acquiring and processing of geospatial 
data as the more significant costs. Several Focus Groups mention that the production 
and  maintenance  of  data  (Ensuring  datasets  are  complete  and  accurate)  require 
considerable  staff  time:  Either  from  existing  staff  or  from  experts  hired  in  (expert 
consultants). Three Focus Groups found that the main costs related to INSPIRE are data 
conversion and harmonisation costs. These Focus Groups also mentioned that allocating 
resources towards data harmonisation was an issue, especially as considerable human 
resources were required. Many of the institutions responsible for harmonisation do not 
have  experience  and  expertise  related  to  data  harmonisation.  The  type  of  expertise 
required  was  relatively  broad:  preparing  data,  metadata  checks,  and  transformation 
services. Therefore, a larger training effort has been needed and delivered by external 
provides. Hiring external training capacity for internal staff to upscale the expertise in 
this area as well as the use of external staff to do part of the actual work has been a 
substantial part of the costs of the INSPIRE implementation.  

In terms of Costs related to storing and distributing geospatial data, two Member States 
mentioned  that  they  had  considerable  costs  related  to  the  development  and 
maintenance of the IT infrastructure, data centres, and network security. However, this 
assessment differed between the Focus Groups, and two Focus Groups underlined that 
they had already established the infrastructure independently of INSPIRE, so this was 
not  a  key  cost-driver  to  them.  Again,  the  assessment  also  differs  between  type 
institutions  (at  national  level)  depending  on  their  role.  Organisations  responsible  for 
providing  environmental  data  find  that  there  were  quite  some  investments  in 
infrastructure  (licenses  in  particular  for  the  software  through  which  the  data  are 
transferred  into  INSPIRE  format).  One  Focus  Group  mentioned  the  setting  up  of  a 
centralized  system  as  the  most  significant  cost  item  in  terms  of  infrastructure. 
Maintenance costs were not regarded as that significant, but a recurring cost linked to 
procurement of consultancy/expertise needed for system upgrades was. Staff cost and 
external  consultancy  costs  were  for  some  Focus  Groups  a  particular  cost-driver, 
especially  cost  linked  to  staff  training  specifically  for  implementing  the  INSPIRE 
infrastructure, data centres, and network security. 

Costs related to improving use of geospatial data were not identified by any of the Focus 
Groups as a particular cost-driver.  

According to one Focus Group interview, the annual INSPIRE reporting is an effort that 
'costs' a lot of ‘mental’ effort. The monitoring and other tools that the Commission has 
developed  to  implement  INSPIRE  play  an  important  role  in  the  reporting.  However, 
several Member States underlined that it is important to minimise the costs related to 
the reference validator. The reference validator used of for the INSPIRE infrastructure 
is  not  optimal,  and  one  Focus  Group  mentioned  that  when  the  reporting  deadline 
approaches the INSPIRE website is down, because too many users are trying to access 
it at the same time. Some Focus Groups found that there are considerable costs linked 

107 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

to  internal  INSPIRE  coordination  and  working  groups.  This,  one  the  other  hand,  may 
have  a  positive  effect  as  well  (for  the  e.g.  federally  structured  Member  States),  as 
INSPIRE supports the internal coordination (and harmonisation) between many agencies 
at different administrative levels.  

Targeted surveys  

The results of the targeted surveys on marine, spatial data, agriculture and environment 
show benefits occurring at different stakeholder levels and that data harmonization and 
interoperability are regarded as the more costly parts of the implementation of INSPIRE. 
Almost 50% of the respondents point to that these activities carry significant costs. 

Figure 5-24  Cost of INSPIRE (N=117-118) 

Data harmonization and interoperability

19

51

33

13

1

Data production and maintenance

23

32

30

24

9

Provision of metadata

4

27

45

37

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very significant costs
Slightly significant costs

Significant costs
No costs

Moderately significant costs

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 19.A: If your organisation is 
responsible for the creation and maintenance of INSPIRE datasets: how significant are the costs stemming 
from the INSPIRE implementation? A. Costs related to acquiring and processing of geospatial data 

Figure 5-25  Stakeholders that bear the cost of INSPIRE (N=113-115) 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

8
0
1

4
0
1

5
5

2
4

4
1

4
3

6

7
1

5
2

6

5
0
1

5
4

Data harmonization and
interoperability

Data production and
maintenance

Provision of metadata

Business sector

Municipal/local authorities

National ministries/agencies

Regional authorities

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 21.A: Please indicate at what 
level INSPIRE related costs occur and which stakeholders bear the costs. Please tick all that apply. A. Costs 
related to acquiring and processing of geospatial data 

Public consultation 

The question of costs was also part of the public consultation although in less detail than 
in the targeted survey (see Figure 5-26). The results of the Public consultation show 
that  data  harmonisation  is  perceived  as  a  key  cost  driver  in  relation  to  the 

108 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

implementation of INSPIRE, 53 respondents (78%) identified data harmonisation as an 
area where additional costs had been found.  

Figure 5-26  Cost of implementing INSPIRE (N=68) 

Data harmonisation

Documenting (metadata)

View services

Download services

Publishing

Other

10% (7)

Not relevant for me/my organisation

7% (5)

Do not know

6% (4)

78% (53)

71% (48)

66% (45)

65% (44)

56% (38)

Source: Spatial data providers, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 21: Have the rules for sharing 
spatial data covered by the INSPIRE Directive resulted in additional costs? If so, please check all cost types 
that apply. 

41 respondents (55%)  to the public consultation did not identify any  additional costs 
resulting from INSPIRE in terms of use. 27% of the respondents stated that they had 
experienced some additional costs in relation to procuring new software in order to use 
data made available through INSPIRE.  

Figure 5-27  Costs related to use (N=74) 

Not relevant for me/my organisation

55% (41)

Change in tools used to doing business (e.g.
software programs)

27% (20)

Change in workflows related to doing business

22% (16)

Change in ways of doing business

14% (10)

Do not know

11% (8)

Other

5% (4)

Source: Spatial data providers, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 22: Has the use of spatial data 
covered by the INSPIRE Directive resulted in additional costs? If so, please check all that apply. 

5.4.3.  EQ  4.3  Can  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  implementing  rules  be  made 

more cost-efficient? What is the simplification potential? 

This evaluation question investigates the scope for improved efficiency and simplification 
and  the  possibility  for  reducing  the  implementation  burden  (including  administrative 
burdens).  

The question concerning the implementing rules, cost-efficiency and simplification is a 
complex question encompassing: 

109 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

  making geospatial data available,  
  utilizing the geospatial data made available, and 
  monitoring the progress of the implementation. 

In  a  multi-functional  data  infrastructure  such  as  INSPIRE,  many  different  needs  are 
addressed to create an environment that satisfy a large amount of very different types 
of  use.  This  will  have  an  effect  on  setting  up implementing  rules  that  make  the  data 
infrastructure both usable and efficient for all users and for all uses: i.e. acquisition and 
processing  of  data  must  be  manageable,  and  utilization  must  cover  the  entire  range 
from  simple  viewing  to  complex  analysis.  Implementing  rules  will  thus  always  be  a 
compromise between different user requirements in an ever-evolving field of utilization.  

The question concerning simplification is crucial when it comes to cost effectiveness. If 
the  data  available  is  complex  and  hard  to  use  for  mainstream  users,  it  will  be 
underutilized; if data available is overly simple, it might not be fit for purpose for the 
expert user.  And if the mandated data structure is overly complex, it will be very costly 
to  maintain  data.  The  challenge  in  relation  to  implementing  rules  is  to  find  the 
appropriate  level  where  data  is  useful  to  both  mainstream  users  and  to  expert  users 
and at the same time is maintainable. The data models, the data views offered to the 
users and the conditions for use of data are the most important factors in this regard. 
Further, for follow-up purposes, the monitoring of the progress of implementation must 
be targeted and highly automated. 

Text box 5-17   Key/summary findings EQ 4.2: improve cost efficiency and simplification 

The  overall  finding  with  regard  to  making  implementation  more  costs-efficient  and/or 

simplifying implementations is that simplification may be relevant at two levels; 1) simplifying 

the implementation and thereby reducing costs and 2) making use easier (simplifying) which 

may not necessarily reduce cost but result in an increase in use.  

Both the desk review and the Focus Group interviews pointed to that some Member States 

find that the reporting on INSPIRE is time intensive and not always straight forward (technically 

difficult).  Although  there  has  already  been  a  streamlining  of  the  monitoring  and  reporting 

(introduced in 2019) there may be an additional need to reduce the reporting burden for MS;  

The  second  aspect  of  simplification  addressed  both  in  desk  review  and  the  focus  group 

interviews  is  the  perception  by  users  that  the  data  models  and  the  way  data  is  presented 

(view) is too complicated to a number of users. Different types of users might have different 

needs regarding data models: advanced users might need quite complex structures to do their 

job  -  using  data  models  with  this  complexity  will  be  a  burden  for  other  users  with  simpler 

needs. INSPIRE specifies one data model per data theme covered by INSPIRE: the data model 

covering the combined needs from the most advanced users. The need for simple models and 

standard software is also reflected in the targeted surveys. Here explicit suggestions focus on 

simpler data models for increased use. Notably, the analysis of the public consultation found 

that respondents were more concerned with harmonisation and interoperability than with use 

(downloading and viewing spatial data).  

Desk review 

The literature reviewed points to several simplification activities relevant for the INSPIRE 
Directive.  

110 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Regarding  the  monitoring  of  the  progress  of  implementation,  the  REFIT  evaluation 
indicated  the  need  to  simplify  and  streamline  monitoring  and  reporting  in  order  to 
support better the comparison of the implementation progress across countries. A more 
streamlined  reporting  will  allow  for  national  and  EU-wide  overviews  while  reducing 
administrative monitoring and reporting burden. In the EQ 1.2 (see section 5.1.2), the 
analysis shows that the first recommendation regarding the simplification was addressed 
by Regulation (EU) 2019/1010. This regulation aligned and streamlined monitoring and 
reporting  processes,  improved  the  alignment  of  legal  provisions  and  amended  the 
related Implementing Decision. Since December 2019, Member States report according 
to the new regime with a reduced and simplified set of INSPIRE indicators. A reporting 
tool developed by JRC supports a more automated and efficient reporting.  

The mid-term evaluation of the INSPIRE implementation in 2014 identified that technical 
complexity was the number one  barrier for the  INSPIRE implementation according to 
the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation.82 Furthermore,  the  respondents  listed  the 
simplification  of  the  technical  specifications  as  the  second  most  important  proposed 
change to achieve the INSPIRE objectives.83 A similar conclusion was the result of the 
group discussions as part of the What if…? sessions at the 2017 INSPIRE conference, 
where it was perceived that in general, simple APIs by providing user-friendly access to 
datasets for common ICT professionals, would likely have the higher impact on creating 
value-added services on top of INSPIRE data and services.84 In 2018, The JRC began 
defining  alternative  encodings  to  simplify  the  complex  data  models  related  to  the 
INSPIRE Directive. Relaxation of some semantic requirements would help improve the 
usability of the INSPIRE framework.85 When considering changes to the current INSPIRE 
infrastructure, it is important not only to consider the data but also to consider relevant 
technological developments and the role of new actors, including the private sector and 
citizen science initiatives.86  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

During the scoping interview with  JRC, it was mentioned that many technical aspects 
are regulated in the INSPIRE Directive and its Implementing Rules. As the technology 
develops  very  fast,  the  technical  requirements  quickly  become  outdated.  There  is 
therefore a need to simplify the legal framework (making it less technical). One example 
is the Implementing Rules related to network services, whose requirements are closely 
modelled on OGC web service standards from the early 2000’s, but also added INSPIRE-
specific  requirements  beyond  the  standards.  Furthermore,  the  aim  of  the  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Implementing  Rules  on  interoperability  of  spatial  data  sets  and 
services  was  to  address  the  simplification  needs  specified  in  the  REFIT  evaluation. 
However,  the  amendment  process  has  been  slow  due  to  legal  barriers  and  other 
procedural developments (e.g. entry of a new Commission). In the respondent's view, 
this strict level of technical specification is not necessary in the legislation.  

82 EEA & JRC (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, EEA Technical report No 

17/2014, ISSN 1725-2237. 

83 Ibid. 
84 Lutz, M., Bernard, L., Portele, C., Hansen, T., Tiainen, E. & Lucchi, R., INSPIRE – What if...? Summary 
report from the What if…? sessions at the 2017 INSPIRE Conference, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg. 

85 Minghini, M, V. Cetl, A. Kotsev, R. Tomas, and M. Lutz (n.d.), INSPIRE: The Entry Point to Europe’s 
Big  Geospatial  Data  Infrastructure.  Draft  chapter  24  to  be  pulished  in  in  Springer  Handbook  of  Big 
Geospatial Data in March 2021. 

86 Kotsev, A., Minghini, M., Tomas, R., Cetl, V., Lutz, M. (2020), From Spatial Data Infrastructures to 
Data Spaces—A Technological Perspective on the Evolution of European SDIs. ISPRS International Journal 
of Geo-Information: 9(3), 176. 

111 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

In the scoping interview with Eurogeographics, the existing initiatives by the European 
Commission related to simplification of the INSPIRE framework were appreciated. The 
mapping agencies consider data sets and services meeting the INSPIRE requirements, 
but  not  used  in  other  contexts,  as  a  burden  from  a  technical  and  organisational 
perspective.  Furthermore,  INSPIRE  should  form  the  basis  for  geospatial  High  Value 
Datasets and hence be re-used in many sectors, not only in the environmental domain. 
Simplifying  the  implementation  procedures  and  providing  software  support  to 
implementers was recommended during the scoping interview with Eurogeosurveys.  

Focus Group interviews  

The Focus Group interviews show that simplification is discussed both at the level of the 
data models used for data provision and at the level of the data services offered for data 
use. However, not all Focus Groups specifically addressed these issues in the interviews. 
In terms of data provision most of the Focus Groups (four) who provided an assessment 
in  the  interview,  reflected  that  there  is  a  need  to  simplify  the  implementation  at  the 
technical level. Due to the complexity of the data models the use of software is limited 
(not all software can be used). One participant mentioned that INSPIRE has to evolve 
with the new developments and to be quicker at adopting new technologies in order to 
keep  up  with  the  new  types  of  services  that  (private  and  public)  users  are  going  to 
request.  Additionally,  technical  specifications  are  not  easy  to  understand.  New 
legislation should be simpler and easier to implement for public authorities and the focus 
should be on an easy access to data for mainstream users and for the general public. 

Text box 5-18 INSPIRE Data models 

Logical  data  models  (as  in  the  INSPIRE  specifications)  help  to  define  the  detailed  structure  of  the  data 
elements in a system and the relationships between data elements. Logical data models (in the following 
just 'data models') can be seen as views into an underlying data repository. INSPIRE data models define 
one view per data-theme into the NSDI data repositories for the data-themes covered by INSPIRE. 

In  one  Focus  Group,  the  discussion  called  for  more  focus  on  ease  of  data  use  rather 
than simplification of data models. In the view of one respondent, data models should 
not be simpler per se, but there should be more emphasis on the client-support. When 
data is easier to use (view), there will be less need for simplification of data models. A 
participant  in  another  Focus  Group  indicated  that  costs  might  become  excessive  if 
simplifications  are  taken  too  far.  Significant  efforts  have  been  made  to  establish  the 
INSPIRE  infrastructure,  and  these  efforts  might  be  rendered  obsolete  in  case  of 
significant changes with the aim of simplification. Gradually, the results become visible, 
and the European Commission start to use the INSPIRE data. If the data is not used, 
then all the efforts made so far would bring little value. 

Targeted surveys  

The  targeted  surveys  stakeholders  from  marine,  spatial  data,  agriculture  and 
environment  sectors  were  asked  to  assess  the  potential  for  improving  cost  efficiency 
and/or introducing simplifications87. A number of answers (63) were provided of which 
we have listed examples of the main types of answers. Most of these answers point to 
a  need  or  potential  for  simplifying  the  INSPIRE  data  models  and  increased  use  of 
international standards.  

87  Question  26:  Is  there  any  potential  for  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  implementing  rules  be  made  more 

costefficient and/or simplified? If yes, please specify. (N=63) 

112 

 
 
 
                                                 
  
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

  Minimum requirements that would not harm the “fit for purpose” interoperability 

and the use of metadata, services and datasets should be defined. 

  Harmonisation of data sets is actually a 'very' good idea. The focus should be on 
interoperability.  But  the  technical  guidelines  should  be  modernized  and 
simplified, there is a huge potential if this is done in a clever way. 

  Provision of 'as is data' is in itself a high benefit with appropriate costs. 

  Simpler technical specification and implementation rules - aligned with standard 

open APIs  

  Do not deviate from international standards (OGC, ISO, W3C …) 

  Simplify and align the approaches for the technological evolution of INSPIRE (e.g. 
new  OGC  standards)  but  also  to  integrate  the  infrastructure  in  the  European 
Green  Deal  data  space.  (i.e.  good  practices,  common  tools  &  reference 
validators).  

Public consultation 

The public consultations illustrated that respondents in particular found that there was 
a  need  to  simplify  how  data  is  harmonised  and  made  interoperable.  50  respondents 
(78%)  found  that  there  is  a  need  for  making  it  easier  to  harmonise  data  and  36 
respondents (36%) that simplifying interoperability is needed. A considerable number 
of respondents (55%) also found that documenting and publishing must be made more 
straight-forward.  Respectively  33  and  29  respondents  found  that  it  was  important  to 
simplify spatial data download end view provisions. 

Figure 5-28  Need for simplifying implementation (N=64) 

Ease of harmonising spatial data

78% (50)

Ease of transforming spatial data with a view to
achieving interoperability

Ease of documenting spatial data

Ease of publishing spatial data

Ease of making spatial data downloadable

Ease of making spatial data viewable

56% (36)

55% (35)

55% (35)

52% (33)

45% (29)

Other

13% (8)

Source: Spatial data providers, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 25: Is there scope for simplifying 
processes related to sharing of spatial data? Please check all that apply. 

When  looking  at  the  answers  of  different  kind  of  stakeholders  (see  Figure  5-29)  in 
terms  of  simplification  or  ease,  most  of  the  groups  identify  harmonisation  and 
interoperability as key concerns. However, especially for business and citizens the issue 
of downloading and viewing spatial data are relatively more important, most probably 
reflecting  the  less  sophisticated  user  point  view.  It  is  notable  that  also  among  public 
authorities the issue of downloadable data is prominent. 

113 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-29  The  view  on  simplification  from  different  stakeholder  groups 
(N=64) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2

2

3

3

5

5

2

2

4

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9
3

7
2

8
2

7
2

5
2

9
1

4

Ease of harmonising spatial data

Ease of transforming spatial data with a view to achieving interoperability

Ease of documenting spatial data

Ease of publishing spatial data

Ease of making spatial data downloadable

Ease of making spatial data viewable

Other

Source: Spatial data providers, public consultation May-July 2021, Question 25: Is there scope for 
simplifying processes related to sharing of spatial data? Please check all that apply. 

5.4.4.  EQ  4.4  Are  results  achieved  so  far  commensurate  with  the  resources 
put  forward  and  in  line  with  the  ones  expected  from  the  ex-ante 
evaluation of INSPIRE? 

As already noted in the REFIT evaluation of 2016,88 the costs and benefits to Member 
States  from  INSPIRE  are  difficult  to  assess  as  these  have  not  been  collected  and 
calculated in a uniform manner, if at all. The impact assessment/ex ante evaluation of 
2007/200489  sets  out  a  methodology  for  Member  States  to  record  and  calculate  the 
costs  and  benefits.  As  far  as  known  (REFIT  2016),  only  a  few  Member  States  have 
complied with the request to apply the methodology.  

For this analysis, a review into recent studies on the cost-benefit and the effectiveness 
of INSPIRE is provided. Also, the assessments by Focus Groups are included: the latter 
primarily include a qualitative assessment of cost vs. benefits. 

88  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2). 

89 European Commission (2004), Commission Staff Working Document, Proposal for a Directive of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an  infrastructure  for  spatial  information  in  the 
Community (INSPIRE).  Extended Impact Assessment, SEC(2004) 980. 

114 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

It  is  recalled  that  the  impact  assessment  of  2004  estimated  that  the  benefits  of 
implementing INSPIRE would be manyfold compared to the investment needed.90 The 
benefits were estimated in the range of MEUR 680-1660 against costs of MEUR 77-161. 

Text box 5-19   Key/summary findings EQ 4.4: results vs. resources 

The key findings for this evaluation question are that relatively few assessments of costs and 

benefits  have  been  made  of  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE.  And  even  in  the  cases  where 

these  have  been  conducted,  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  possible  to  separate  the  cost  of 

implementing INSPIRE from the costs of the national SDI.  

All  cost-benefit  assessments  focus  mainly  on  the  benefits  of  implementing  SDI  in  general. 

Overall, all the reviewed Cost Benefit Analyses find that when SDI is implemented this has a 

large  positive  impact/benefit  for  both  the  public  (cost  savings)  and  private  sector  (costs 

savings and business opportunities). Nevertheless, a number of Focus Groups found that it is 

too early to really assess the Cost Benefits ratio of INSPIRE. INSPIRE is not fully implemented 

and the results are thus not there yet, and therefore it is not possible to do a full assess at 

this moment.  

It  is  notable  that  the  responses  of  the  public  consultation  showed  that  37%  of  the 

respondents overall found that there were some benefits of INSPIRE, but that the costs prevail 

in terms of sharing and using spatial data. Only 25% of the respondents found that benefits 

outweigh the costs. 

Desk review 

Cost Benefit Analyses (CBA) have not systematically been conducted by Member States 
on the implementation of INSPIRE. Those Member States that have conducted a CBA, 
have  generally  done  this  for  the  (national)  SDI  system  as  such  and  not  for  INSPIRE 
alone. There are very few CBAs on the implementation INSPIRE.  

In  Table  5-13  we  present  three  more  recent  cost-benefits  analysis  conducted  by 
Member  States.  CBA  studies  for  NL,  DK,  UK  were  included  in  the  REFIT.  The  three 
studies (ES, SE and  LT) show that different approaches have been taken to measure 
the costs and benefits. In the case of Spain, the value of the web services and data are 
estimated. In the case of Lithuania, the costs of saved working hours resulting from the 
sharing of data are assessed.  In the last study on Sweden, the benefits and  costs of 
physical planning of digitalisation and geodata has been analysed. The three studies all 
find that the benefits outweigh the costs.  

A study conducted in Finland in 201791 (and used as basis for the cost-benefit analysis 
(utility analysis) conducted by Sweden) shows that harmonised digital physical planning 
can save up 60% of the time used for inquiries and investigations. The Swedish study92 
estimates cost savings for the municipalities at MEUR 17, for regional authorities it is 
MEUR 3,5, for the court system the saving amounts to MEUR 0.8 and for the Swedish 
Transport Administration to MEUR 3.5. The estimated total savings are thus MEUR 25. 
The  same  study  estimates  that  the  total  savings  regarding  labour  costs  for  house 

90 Ibid. 
91 Ministry of Environment Finland, 2017 
92 Ekonomisk nytta av ett samlat nationellt tillgängliggörande av geodata i samhällsbyggnadsprocessen. 

2019. Lantmäteriet 

115 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

construction in Sweden can be estimated at EUR 1.8–3.7 billion and corresponding cost 
savings for infrastructure construction at between MEUR 39 and MEUR 88 MEUR when 
using geodata, BIM models and a common picture and information. The total savings 
are thus estimated to be between EUR 1.8 billion and EUR 3.8 billion per year.  

The  example from Lithuania93 included in  Table 5-13 shows the benefits and costs  of 
INSPIRE implementation (it is noted that this is an assessment as it is difficult to extract 
the INSPIRE data from the SDI). The costs of INSPIRE is estimated to amount to MEUR 
3 whereas the benefits are estimated to MEUR 6-7.  

In the report that assesses the costs and benefit for Spain, although concluding that the 
benefits outweigh the costs, the main purpose is to set up a methodology to estimate 
the economic benefits generated by the central SDI-node.  

Table 5-13 

Examples of cost-benefits analysis conducted in Member States  

MS   Description of study 

Description of key findings  

ES 

SE 

LT 

The study developed and tested a methodology to 
estimate the economic benefits generated by the central 
SDI-node of Spain. Benefits estimation is understood as 
an approximate calculation - as accurate as possible - in 
monetary terms of the value of the web services and 
data in the central SDI-node based on a set of objective 
considerations and criteria. The central SDI node 
comprises all the SDI resources published on the web 
by the same organization, IGN-ES, as coordinator of the 
Spanish SDI94. 

The authors note that this is a model based on 
estimates and not hard mathematics – but this provides 
a possibility for an estimate and a comparison between 
Member States.  

In 2019, in a report to the Swedish government  
Lantmäteriet estimated the potential benefits (utility) 
from national governed access to geodata to be in-
between 22.3 and 42.4 billion Swedish kronor in the 
area of societal development only. 
https://www.lantmateriet.se/contentassets/50c7b8feec4
744e5a0fa2ffaf0ea07ec/519-2018_2889-bilaga-2-
ekonomisk-nytta-rattelse-190514.pdf    

For the structural fund applications, the Lithuanian 
authorities did a comprehensive study based on 
assumptions, experiences and statistics. They calculated 
the working hours that were saved because of the 
sharing of data. For example, time was saved for users, 
who no longer need to drive across Lithuania to obtain 
some paper documents or data storage. The benefits 
are expressed in saved working hours rather than in 
monetary terms. Estimates can be then calculated 
based on the average wage of the employees whose 
working hours were reduced.  Most of the benefits are 
linked to saving time or buying new software.  

The factor that has the biggest impact on 
the benefits or value is the number of 
service requests. When these numbers 
are rising, then the benefits are rising as 
well.  

The richer the central-node is, i.e. the 
more WMTS and WMS there are, the more 
requests this will generate, and thus also 
more value. However, it should be noted 
that this depends on whether the services 
are ‘used’, this means are embedded in 
(new) applications. 

Benefits:  
- At local government level Euro 25 

million 

- At central government level Euro 53 

million 

Private public construction companies 
Euro 2,1 million 

Benefits:  

- For INSPIRE Annex 3 – estimated ca 
20,000 working days annually / ca 
MEUR 1,2 (for 2020)  

- For INSPIRE Annex 1 and 2 estimated 

MEUR 4  

- Plus ca. MEUR 1 indirect benefits 

(better informed decisions, 
transparency…)  

- Total annual MEUR 6-7 

Costs:  

- Three EU-funded SDI development 
projects: MEUR 8,9 (full SDI + 
administrative services) 

- INSPIRE part, explicit: about MEUR 2,5   

93 Data provided by Lithuania as part of the Focus Group interview.   
94 Vandenbroucke, D. and G. Vancauwenberghe (2021), The benefits and value of the Central SDI-node 

of Spain, Final Report. 

116 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

- Annual budget 2011–2020 (full SDI); 

MEUR 4 
INSPIRE part, explicit: ca MEUR 0,5 

Consultation activities 

Focus Group interviews 

Two Focus Group interviews with selected Member States found that it is too early to 
assess the cost and benefits because the benefits are only now beginning to emerge. In 
one Focus Group interview, a participant stated that due to the fact that the benefits 
have  not  been  fully  achieved  yet,  the  costs  and  benefits  are  today  balancing/neutral 
(50/50). In another Focus Group interview it was mentioned that the costs and burdens 
at  all  levels  of  government  have  been  significant.  And  that  these  costs  may  not  be 
balanced  with  benefits  if  the  potential  results  (of  the  INSPIRE  infrastructure)  are  not 
used. The cost-benefits are perceived differently depending on the stakeholder group 
(provider  or  user)  and  some  interviewed  representatives  found  that  the  benefits  are 
more on the user side (public and private). The data providers have to pay to distribute 
the data and thus bear most of the costs. 

A  key  issue  mentioned  in  the  Focus  Group  interviews  were  the  costs  of  data 
harmonisation.  There  were,  however,  different  views  with  regard  to  the  cost  and/or 
benefits of this particular aspect for the implementation. Four Focus Groups found that 
there are considerable  costs in relation to data harmonisation. Applying the technical 
guidance  requires  a  lot  of  efforts,  and  this  represents  substantial  costs  for 
administrations. Member States that work with different formats such as ISO standards 
must convert the data into INSPIRE format. This conversion requires special technical 
expertise and time. The technical complexity and the time it takes to fully implement 
the requirement constitute the main cost  elements in the implementation of INSPIRE 
standards. Some of these costs were due to a lack of experience and that, at the time 
it was difficult to get the required support from the European Commission. There are, 
however, benefits in terms of availability and interoperability / harmonisation of data 
that are feeding into platforms like SeaDataNet and EMODnet.  

One Focus Group mentioned that the high value datasets coming from PSI means that 
the  link  and  coherence  between  open  data  implementation  and  INSPIRE  is  very 
important. It is paramount that the results are reused and not rebuilt.  Another Focus 
Group pointed to that although there is no real reduction of time/cost (yet) the benefits 
are substantial. They had experienced some excessive costs linked to reporting. But the 
situation  has  improved  due  to  the  new  guidance  on  reporting  and  the  automated 
procedure of collecting indicators.   

Targeted surveys  

The  targeted  surveys  on  marine,  spatial  data,  agriculture  and  environment  did  not 
address this question.  

Public consultation 

117 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Results of the public consultations shows that 26 respondents overall (37%) found that 
there were some benefits of INSPIRE, but that the costs prevail in terms of sharing and 
using spatial data. 18 respondents (25%) found that benefits outweigh the costs.  

Figure 5-30  Proportionality of costs and benefits (N=69) 

6

18

13

26

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mainly benefits with little or no costs internally

Benefits outweigh costs

Costs proportional with the benefits

Some benefits, but costs prevail

Mainly costs with little or no benefits internally

Source:  All  respondents,  public  consultation  May-July  2021,  Question  24:  Have  the  costs  of  sharing/using 
spatial data been proportional to the current and expected future benefits in your organisation? 

5.4.5.  EQ  4.5  How  proportionate  were  the  costs  of  the  intervention  for 
different  stakeholder  groups  (enterprises  including  SMEs,  private 
citizens …)? 

This  assessment  focuses  on  identifying  the  proportionality  of  the  costs  for  different 
stakeholders.  As  mentioned  above  under  EQ  4.4,  the  costs  and  benefits  are  not 
symmetrical in-so-far as the stakeholders who bear the costs are not necessarily those 
that  have  the  benefits  (directly).  The  analysis  looks  into  where  (at  what 
stakeholders/government  level)  the  perceived  costs  occur,  and  whether  those  are 
experienced by stakeholders as proportional in relation to the benefits.  

Text box 5-20   Key/summary findings EQ 4.2: Cost proportionality for different stakeholders 

Overall, the analysis shows that national authorities and agencies are the stakeholders were 

most of the cost occur and where less of the (direct) benefits appear. The desk review is not 

very  conclusive  on  this  point  as  it  probably  depends  on  specific  cases,  and  analysis  of 

government agencies and administrative structure of the Member States.   

The  focus  group  interviews  with  Member  States  show  that  most  Focus  Groups  assessed 

that it is at the national level that the highest cost occur. The main costs relate to acquiring 

and  processing  of  geospatial  data  i.e.  the  production  of  data.  Also  costs  relating  to 

harmonisation  of  data  were  identified  as  a  cost  category  for  both  national  and  local  level 

institutions.  

Also, the targeted surveys show that the main costs are perceived at national level and that 

organisations at this level may not perceive all the benefits. The stakeholder group including 

geological survey, mapping and cadastre and national authorities are those that perceive that 

cost  outweigh  benefits.  It  is  notable  that  in  the  Public  consultations  in  addition  to  the 

national level also businesses (12) find that perceived costs are larger than benefits. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Desk review 

Generally, there are no fixed or standard methods or principles for recording the costs 
of  implementing  INSPIRE.  Most  studies  and  analyses  are  thus  based  on  assessed  or 
perceived  costs.  Relatively  few  Members  States  record  the  costs  of  implementing 
INSPIRE  and,  as  mentioned  earlier,  it  is  often  not  possible  to  extract  the  costs  of 
INSPIRE from overall SDI costs. In the country forms there is little recording of whether 
the costs and benefits occur at different levels.  

The review of the cost-benefits analysis presented under EQ 4.4 included a presentation 
of  studies  of  Sweden  and  Lithuania  that  assessed  the  cost-benefit  at  different 
government levels and to the private sector (in the case of Sweden only). In the Swedish 
study, the assessment of the benefits (cost savings) for the municipal level is the highest 
among stakeholder levels and groups included (in the example of physical planning). In 
another example in Sweden concerning the administration of the construction law the 
municipal level is estimated to have a cost saving of MEUR 20 per year. These examples 
do not provide information on the costs for the municipal levels as such, but only serve 
to reflect that the benefits for the municipal level can be significant when implementing 
an SDI system.  

The  literature  review  shows  that  in  some  studies,  costs  are  reported  as  significant in 
areas  of  acquiring  spatial  data.  In  the  JRC  Study95  on  access  to  spatial  data  for 
environmental purposes the study finds that the costs related to acquiring (accessing) 
spatial data in some Member States are significant. The JRC study includes results from 
a  survey  of  different  stakeholder  group  including  the  question  of  costs  in  relation  to 
acquiring spatial data.  

Consultation activities 

Focus Group interviews 

The  Focus  Group  interviews  also  show  that  the  cost  structure  depends  on  the 
organisations  of  SDI  in  the  country  and  possible  also  the  size  and  structure  of  the 
country. Federally organised counties will tend to involve more institutional stakeholders 
and levels of government in SDI implementation, and this require harmonisation and 
coordination at additional levels.  

The Focus Group interviews with selected Member States show the different approaches 
and perception as to where (to stakeholders) the costs occur, and also the different cost 
types and administrative levels. Most Focus Groups assessed that it is at the national 
level that the highest costs occur. The main costs relate to acquiring and processing of 
geospatial data i.e. the production of data. Also cost relating to harmonisation of data 
was  identified  as  a  cost  category  for  both  national  and  local  level  institutions.  Some 
Focus Groups found that the cost where un-proportional at certain administrative levels 
i.e. for local authorities as these do not see the benefits. However, this is not a generally 
shared view. One Focus Group found that they did have some excessive costs linked to 
INSPIRE reporting. But the situation has improved due to the new guidance on reporting 
and the automated procedure of collecting indicators.  

The  knowledge  of  the  user  level  among  the  interviewed  Focus  Groups  varied 
considerably. Some of the Focus Groups assessed that the administrations are aware of 

95  JRC  (not  yet  published),  Evolution  of  the  access  to  spatial  data  for  environmental  purposes.  JRC 

Technical Report.  

119 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

the use in private sector and the needs of these users. Others have little or no knowledge 
about the use of the INSPIRE data beyond the official use of the data for reporting.  

Targeted surveys  

The  results  of  the  targeted  surveys  illustrated  that  the  main  costs  are  perceived  at 
national level and that these organisations may not see all the benefits. The stakeholder 
group including geological survey, mapping and  cadastre  and national  authorities are 
those  that  perceive  that  cost  outweigh  benefits.  Generally,  relatively  few  of  the 
respondent groups found that the benefits are higher than the costs.  

Figure 5-31  Stakeholder perception of costs and benefits (N=124) 

Academic/research institution

2

EU/international organisation or institution

EU level farmers' association

Geological survey

1

1

2

Individual (Mapping, Cadastre & Land Registry…

Individual (Paying agency)

Mapping, Cadastre & Land Registry…

Meteorological institute

Ministry of Agriculture

3

1

5

1

National authority

2

8

8

National Environmental Protection Agency

1

2

National farmers' association

National paying agency

1

National Statistics Office

2

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Regional or local authority

3

Regional or local Environmental Protection Agency

2

1

8

1

5

1

1

1

1

8

4

3

2

13

5

6

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

2

Mainly benefits with little or no costs internally
Costs proportional with the benefits
Mainly costs with little or no benefits internally

Benefits outweigh costs
Some benefits, but costs prevail
Do not know

Source:  All  respondents,  Targeted  surveys  (combined)  April-May  2021,  Question  25:  Have  the  costs  of 
sharing/using spatial data been proportional to the current and expected future benefits in your organisation? 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

Public consultation 

Results of the public consultations (Figure 5-32) also show that especially public 
authorities find that the cost outweigh the benefits. Also, businesses (10) find that 
perceived costs are larger than benefits.   

120 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-32  Proportionality of costs as perceive per stakeholder group (N=69) 

Academic/research institution

Company/business organisation/association

1

1

2

1

EU citizen

2

3

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

1

Public authority

2

12

1

5

2

2

9

1

2

1

4

14

3

Mainly benefits with little or no costs internally
Costs proportional with the benefits
Mainly costs with little or no benefits internally

Benefits outweigh costs
Some benefits, but costs prevail

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source:  All  respondents,  public  consultation  May-July  2021,  Question  24:  Have  the  costs  of  sharing/using 
spatial data been proportional to the current and expected future benefits in your organisation? 

5.4.6.  EQ  4.6  Have  the  resources  needed  to  implement  INSPIRE  been 

available? 

In the analyses of evaluation questions 4.2-4.5 above, an assessment was made of the 
costs of implementing INSPIRE and SDI in general; this analysis illustrated that one of 
the barriers to the implementation of INSPIRE in the past, relate to costs i.e. a lack of 
financial and technical resources. This observation relates to the question on whether 
the resource both in terms  of financing, as well as in terms of staff (expert technical 
staff) have been available for the implementation of INSPIRE. The evaluation question 
also investigates how Member States have funded the implementation of INSPIRE. This 
analysis  is  based  on  monitoring  data,  desk  review  of  literature  and  the  stakeholder 
consultations.  

According to the INSPIRE directive, “INSPIRE should be based on the infrastructures for 
spatial information that are created by the Member States and that are made compatible 
with common implementing rules and are supplemented with measures at Community 
level.  These  measures  should  ensure  that  the  infrastructures  for  spatial  information 
created  by  the  Member  States  are  compatible  and  usable  in  a  Community  and 
transboundary  context.”  This  suggests  that  synergy  can,  and  should  be  achieved 
between  the  NSDIs  and  INSPIRE,  minimizing  the  need  for  additional  financial  and 
technical  resources  for  the  INSPIRE  implementation.  The  analysis  looks  into  if  such 
synergy has occurred and affected the resources needed to implement INSPIRE.  

121 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-21   Key/summary findings EQ 4.6: Available resources for implementation  

Member  States  have  identified  different  ways  of  funding  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE.  

Mostly, INSPIRE implementation has been funded as part of the general SDI budget allocation 

(with some difference in terms of which costs are carried at different government levels. Mostly 

the funding is provided by the national level government (state budget)). Some Member States 

have also used funding from European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF). 

Furthermore, a number of Focus Groups found that the key problem was not the available 

resources, but that the required expertise was not present (which may in turn be a resource 

issue). It was mentioned that experience and expertise for INSPIRE data harmonisation was 

missing. In some Focus Groups, it was relayed that many different institutions are involved in 

the implementation of INSPIRE. Administrations often have to outsource the development of 

INSPIRE  software  and  harmonisation,  and  the  main  costs  related  to  procuring  software 

companies  to  develop  the  SDI.  The  available  budget  therefore  has  to  be  spread  across  a 

number of institutions (and over  a number of years) and is thus often not sufficient.  Some 

Focus Groups mentioned that ESI funding has been used for the implementation.  

Desk review 

The  REFIT  evaluation  (2016)  pointed  to  five  main  factors  which  have  influenced  the 
cost-effective implementation of INSPIRE:96 policy of data sharing, skills gap for dealing 
with technical complexity, capacity building resources, coordination and communication 
mechanism, and flexible spatial data harmonisation provision.  

One of the REFIT recommendations (see EQ 1.2) relate to the opportunities arising from 
the use of existing EU-level funding programmes to help capacity building and close the 
INSPIRE  implementation  gaps.  Technical  cooperation  and  coordination  (MIG,  the 
Interoperability Solutions for Public Administrations, etc.) is supported on a continuous 
basis by the European Commission. In addition, initiatives in the context of the Digital 
Single Market and other actions are also expected to contribute to the implementation 
of the INSPIRE Directive (e.g. the European Interoperability Framework, European Data 
Strategy,  revised  Open Data and PSI Directive introducing the concept of  High Value 
Data Sets). 

Member States have identified different ways of funding the implementation of INSPIRE.  
Mostly,  INSPIRE  implementation  has  been  funded  as  part  of  the  budget  (with  some 
difference in terms of which costs are carried by the different government levels, mostly 
the funding is provided by the national level government (state budget)). Some Member 
States have also used funding from European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF). In 
the example of Poland, INSPIRE was thus implemented using the Regional Development 
Fund (under the objective competitiveness). Also, in the case of Lithuania ESI Funding 
has been used for implementation of INSPIRE97.  

96  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2). 

97 Country form for Lithuania.  

122 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Consultation activities 

Focus Group interviews 

With  regard  to  assessing  the  financial  and  human/technical  resources  and  costs,  the 
Focus Group interviews as well as individual participants presented different views.  

Four Focus Groups did not regard the funding issue as a real problem and two of those 
specifically  mentioned  that  sufficient  resources  had  been  allocated.  Within  this  group 
there  were  participants  who  mentioned  that  there  had  been  issues  with  regard  to 
prioritising the resources between the different tasks of INSPIRE. Also, within this group 
there was a difference in opinion between representatives at national/central level and 
regional/local level. In general, representatives at national level found that there had 
been  sufficient  resources  allocated  for  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE,  whereas 
regional/local levels found that they had not always had the required time (resources) 
for  the  implementation.  One  participant  mentioned  that  there  are  regional  difference 
and that some regions allocate the budget to implement INSPIRE, whereas others do 
not have the resources to implement INSPIRE and thus lag behind.   

Furthermore, a number of participants in three Focus Groups found that the key problem 
was not the available resources, but that the required expertise was not present (which 
may  in  turn  be  a  resource  issue).  Several  countries  mentioned  that  they  had 
experienced a lack of human resources for INSPIRE data harmonisation. There are more 
resources for open data in public administrations (which only require data sharing and 
not the harmonisation of data in common format); it is more difficult to mobilise human 
resources  and  expertise  for  the  harmonisation  of  data  according  to  INSPIRE.  Some 
Focus Groups mentioned the lack of interest in (or recognition of the necessity) INSPIRE 
resulted  in  that  the  implementation  initially  was  not  prioritized  and  the  tasks  of 
harmonising and developing metadata was underestimated. According to a participant, 
many  stakeholders  did  not  see  the  direct  benefit  of  implementing  INSPIRE.  The 
development of the metadata and the  changes to the technical documentation led to 
reworking of the same metadata many times. There were certainly costs for the portal 
itself and the help required to created it (external consultancies). Staff retention is an 
issue in the public administration of several member states and the fact that it takes a 
long time to train people. 

Another  Focus  Groups  found  that  there  had  not  been  allocated  sufficient  resources 
initially but that eventually resources had been provided to the implementation (after 
infringement proceedings). In some Focus Groups it was mentioned that many different 
institutions  are  involved  in  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE.  The  available  budget 
therefore has to be spread across a several institutions (and over a number of years) 
and  is  thus  often  not  sufficient.  One  Focus  Group  mentioned  that  they  had  used  ESI 
funding  for  the  implementation.  Administrations  often  have  to  outsource  the 
development  of  INSPIRE  software  and  harmonisation,  and  the  main  costs  related  to 
procuring  software  companies  to  develop  the  SDI.  As  the  expertise  is  not  developed 
internally, a dependency is created on external consultants which will require additional 
budget on a continuous basis: ‘We are now linked to external companies to implement 
the directive, as we did not build internal competences’. 

Targeted surveys  

This evaluation question was not directly covered in the targeted surveys as this mainly 
is an issue for national/regional governments. 

Public consultation 

123 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Not  directly  covered  in  the  Public  consultations  as  this  mainly  is  an  issue  for 
national/regional governments.  

5.4.7.  EQ  4.7  How  has  the  use  of  INSPIRE  for  environmental  reporting 

affected the reporting burden? 

As a response to the REFIT recommendations (see EQ 1.2) the European Commission 
has selected monitoring and reporting under the environmental acquis as a priority use-
case for the development of a first set of pan-European information products. Based on 
the  evaluation  of  reporting  obligations  under  the  environmental  legislation,  a 
preliminary list of common data sets that the Member States are obliged to report under 
the EU environment acquis was prepared by the Commission in collaboration with  the 
Member States. This evaluation question looks into whether using INSPIRE has reduced 
the burden of environmental reporting for the Member States. Aspects of this evaluation 
question  are  also  analysed  under  EQ  1.2,  2.6  and  5.2.  Especially  the  Action  Plan  to 
Streamline Environmental Reporting98 analysed under EQ 5.2 is relevant in relation to 
the reporting burden.  

Text box 5-22   Key/summary findings EQ 4.7: INSPIRE effects on the environmental reporting 

burden  

The main findings on the use of spatial data made available through INSPIRE for reporting and 

whether  this  has  reduced  the  administrative  burden  of  reporting,  is  that  environmental 

authorities find that they to some extend use the spatial data made available through INSPIRE. 

It is noted that this does not necessarily reflect on the reporting burden, and no Focus Group 

interview confirmed that the burden had been reduced. However, the targeted surveys show 

that 50% of regional and national environmental agencies find that they to a large extent use 

INSPIRE for reporting.  

Findings under effectiveness (EQ 2.6) and under coherence (EQ 5.2) point to that  although 

there is an increase in the alignment of the use of INSPIRE for reporting, an increased effort 

in terms of making it technically more efficient will be needed before INSPIRE fully supports 

the reduction of the administrative burden.  

Desk review 

As analysed under EQ 1.2 on REFIT recommendation C on assisting the Member States 
in  applying  and  implementing  the  INSPIRE  Directive,  the  European  Commission 
identified  monitoring  and  reporting  under  the  environmental  acquis  as  a  priority  use 
case for the development of a first set of pan-European information products. Based on 
the  evaluation  of  reporting  obligations  under  the  environmental  legislation,  a 
preliminary list of common datasets related to environmental reporting obligations was 
prepared  by  the  European  Commission  in  collaboration  with  the  Member  States.  The 
number of priority data sets has been slowly but gradually increasing.  

98  European  Commission  (2017)  Report from  the  European Commission  to  the  European Parliament, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Actions to 
Streamline Environmental Reporting, COM(2017) 312 final.  

124 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

With  reference  to  EQ  2.6  and  the  desk  review  conducted  here,  the  evolution  of  the 
access to spatial data for environmental reporting and using spatial data has somewhat 
improved since the study was conducted the first time in 2009 (JRC study99). However, 
the main improvement is in the quality of spatial data, whereas the accessibility (finding, 
accessing  and  using)  has  not  improved  and  the  problems  are,  to  some  extent,  more 
widespread than in 2009. But, importantly, it is underlined that this does, according to 
stakeholders  surveyed  in  the  study,  not  lead  to  higher  costs  of  accessing  and  using 
spatial  data  as  such.  The  study  differentiates  between  the  community  involved  in 
environmental  assessment  and  environment  practitioners  outside  the  EIA/SEA 
community and identified difference in how these two groups perceive the access and 
quality of spatial data. It is thus difficult to derive a clear finding in this regard.    

Consultation activities  

Focus group interview 

As  already  mentioned  under  EQ  2.6,  Focus  Groups  stated  that  although  there  are 
challenges  in  reporting  under  the  environmental  acquis,  this  is  one  the  main  added 
values of INSPIRE. Focus Groups were overall positive about the alignment process of 
INSPIRE with EU reporting requirements in  the air quality directive, water framework 
directive, the industrial emissions directive and the bathing water directive. These are 
examples where alignment has been achieved and the reporting works now. One Focus 
Group expressed that the use of INSPIRE for environmental reporting is progressing and 
that the Directive has had an influence on many platforms. However, no Focus Group 
explicitly mentioned that INSPIRE till now has reduced the reporting burden as such.  

Target surveys  

The issues relating to use of INSPIRE for environmental reporting is addressed under 
EQ 2.6. 

Public consultation 

The findings of public consultations on environmental reporting  are further addressed 
under EQ 5.2.  

5.4.8.  EQ 4.8 How would further streamlining of the provisions in Articles 7 
and  8  of  Directive  2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to  environmental 
information  with  the  active  dissemination  provisions  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive impact the administrative burden on the Member States. 

This evaluation question is closely linked to, and to a large extent analysed under, EQ 
2.4  on  effectiveness  (which  investigates  the  extent  to  which  INSPIRE  has  supported 
Member  States  to  carry  out  their  obligations  in  dissemination  of  environmental 
information) and relevance (which will consider the current state of technology) EQ 3.4, 
and 5.4 on relevance and coherence.  

Further, EQ 5.4 reviews the interactions between the INSPIRE Directive with Directive 
2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information and larger initiatives around 
the Common European Green Deal data space. In effectiveness EQ 3.4, the effects are 
analysed.  In  this  criterion,  we  only  look  at  whether  a  possible  streamlining  of  the 

99 JRC Report. Evolution of the access to spatial data for environmental purposes 

125 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Directive  would  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for  Member  States  in  terms  of 
disseminating environmental information to the public.  

Text box 5-23   Key/summary findings EQ 4.8.: Key/summary findings regarding administrative 

burden in relation to dissemination environmental information 

According  to  the  findings  under  effectiveness  EQ  2.4  and  5.4,  there  are  no  inconsistencies 

between  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  Directive  2003/4  on  Public  Access  to  Environmental 

Information. The two Directives serve different purposes (transparency vs interoperability and 

data accessibility through view and download services) and have somewhat different scopes 

(despite some overlap).  INSPIRE can however support the implementation of Directive 2003/4 

as it provides a technical framework for electronic data sharing.  

In terms of the administrative burden, the targeted surveys show that stakeholders perceive 

that INSPIRE supports the implementation of Directive 2003/4/EC, at least to some extent, by 

improving the capacity. An improvement in the capacity of public authorities to disseminate 

environmental information to the public in an easily accessible electronic format should have 

an effect on the administrative burden. However, this was not directly confirmed in any of the 

Focus Group interviews with Member States. 

Desk review 

The main desk analysis in relation to streamlining of the provisions in Articles 7 and 8 
of Directive 2003/4/EC  on public access to  environmental information with the active 
dissemination  provisions  of  the  INSPIRE  is  conducted  under  the  criteria  effectiveness 
and coherence (see sections 5.2.4 and 5.5.2)  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interview  

The main analysis of the scoping interviews in relation to streamlining of the provisions 
on public access to environmental information with the active dissemination provisions 
of the INSPIRE is included under the criteria effectiveness and coherence (see sections 
5.2.4 and 5.5.2). 

Focus group interview  

The  main  analysis  of  the  Focus  Group  interviews  in  relation  to  streamlining  of  the 
provisions on public access to environmental information with the active dissemination 
provisions of the INSPIRE is included under the criteria effectiveness and coherence (see 
sections 5.2.4 and 5.5.2). 

Targeted surveys 

The majority of respondents to the four targeted surveys considered that INSPIRE has 
contributed  to  the  capacity  of  public  authorities  for  disseminating  environmental 
information  to  the  public  in  an  easily  accessible  electronic  format  in  compliance  with 
Directive 2003/4/EC, to a large or very large extent (34%) or at least to some extent 
(33%).  This  proportion  is  slightly  less  significant  in  the  targeted  survey  of  the 
environmental community (where 24% responded ‘to a large extent’ or ‘to very large 
extent’ and 44% ‘to some extent’). The finding from the surveys that INSPIRE supports 
the implementation of Directive 2003/4/EC at least to some extent, partially contrasts 

126 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

with the findings from the literature that authorities are implementing both Directives 
in silos.  

Figure 5-33  Extent to which INSPIRE contributes to the capacity of public authorities 
to  disseminate  environmental  information  to  the  public  in  compliance  with  Directive 
2003/4/EC 

Targeted surveys (combined) (N=135)

7

39

45

14

7

4

19

Environmental community survey (N=34)

1

7

15

3

2

1

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To a very large extent

To a large extent

To some extent

To a small extent

To a very small extent

Not at all

Do not know

Source: All respondents, First row: Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question: To what extent 
does INSPIRE contribute to the capacity of public authorities to disseminate environmental information to the 
public in an easily accessible electronic format (in compliance with Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to 
environmental information)?; Second row: Targeted survey of the environmental community only April-May 
2021, Question 41.  

Public consultation 

The main analysis of the public consultations in relation to streamlining of the provisions 
on public access to environmental information with the active dissemination provisions 
of the INSPIRE is included under the criteria effectiveness (see section 5.2.4). 

127 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.5.  Coherence 

The coherence assessment considers whether the INSPIRE Directive and its provisions 
are logical and consistent: Internally and visa-vis other relevant legislation, policies and 
strategies.  This  includes  determining  whether  there  are  significant  contradictions  or 
conflicts that stand in the way of their effective implementation or which prevent the 
achievement of their objectives. It also looks for interactions, gaps and synergies that 
facilitate or impede the Directive’s objectives in implementation practice.  

Five evaluation questions have been formulated to assess the coherence of the INSPIRE 
directive:  internally  and  with  other  environmental  legislation;  with  other  policies  and 
legislation  outside  the  environmental  acquis  with  a  spatial  dimension;  as  well  as  EU 
Directives  on  public  data  sharing.  EQ  5.1  looks  at  internal  coherence  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive. EQ 5.2 and 5.3 look at the external coherence of the INSPIRE Directive with 
EU  legislation  with  a  spatial  dimension,  including  environmental  legislation  and 
legislation outside the environmental acquis. The last two questions look at the relations 
between the INSPIRE Directive and relevant EU initiatives aimed at ensuring that data 
and digital technologies are available to all and can empower European society towards 
better  decision-making  in  all  sectors  of  activity.  These  initiatives  include  Directive 
2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, the Common European Green 
Deal  data  space  (EQ  5.4)  and  Directive  2003/98/EC  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector 
information (EQ 5.5).  

5.5.1.  EQ 5.1 To what extent is INSPIRE coherent internally? 

According to the Better Regulation Toolbox, assessing internal coherence means ‘looking 
at how the various components of the same EU intervention operate together to achieve 
its objectives e.g., the different articles of a piece of legislation, different actions under 
an action plan’ (Better Regulation Toolbox, Tool 47). The analysis in this question thus 
aims  to  provide  evidence  of  the  consistencies  or  inconsistencies  of  INSPIREs  general 
objective and between the general objective and the specific and operational objectives 
of the Directive and the measures derived from them. 

Text box 5-24   Key/summary findings EQ 5.1: internal coherence  

The  desk review has shown that there are no major inconsistencies between  the INSPIRE 

Directive  itself  and  the  Implementing  Rules  and  Technical  Guidance.  Having  to  go  through 

comitology  procedure  to  amend  technical  elements  contained  in  Implementing  Rules  might 

however be considered burdensome.  

The Directive refers to outdated comitology procedures and, if revised, should be aligned with 

Article 290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty. Aligning the comitology procedures referred to in the 

INSPIRE Directive to the Lisbon treaty might lead to more flexible revision procedures. 

Focus Group interviews and targeted surveys have indicated that there are some overlaps 

between  data  themes,  leading  to  the  possibility  to  report  the  same  data  under  different 

themes. Stakeholders called for clarifications to resolve those overlaps.  

Desk review 

The requirements of the INSPIRE Directive are contained in several layers of regulations 
and guidance, which have different statuses. The general requirements are contained in 
the INSPIRE Directive itself, together with the list of spatial data themes that are listed 

128 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

in the Annexes to the Directive. These are complemented by a series of Implementing 
Rules  for  metadata,  network  services,  and  interoperability  of  spatial  data  sets  and 
services,  which  are  binding  in  their  entirety,  and  by  non-binding  Technical  Guidance, 
which  specifies  data  models  and  implementation  requirements  for  each  spatial  data 
theme.  No  evidence  was  found  in  the  literature  review  that  having  several  layers  of 
regulations and guidance creates any inconsistencies per se. However, a number of the 
technical  elements  included  in  the  Implementing  Rules  may  require  modification  to 
account for technological developments, such as certain code lists and their values, or 
coordinate  reference  systems.  Such  modifications  can  currently  only  be  made  by 
amending  the  Implementing  Rules.  Because  the  INSPIRE  Directive  still  refers  to 
repealed  Decision  1999/468100  and  still  makes  use  of  the  regulatory  procedure  with 
scrutiny,  the  revision  of  such  technical  elements  may  be  more  cumbersome  than 
necessary.  

As  previously  mentioned,  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  outdated  with  regards  to  its 
references to comitology procedures. According to Article 4(7) of the INSPIRE Directive, 
‘the description of the existing data themes referred to in Annexes I, II and III may be 
adapted  in  accordance  with  the  regulatory  procedure  with  scrutiny’;  Article  7(1)  also 
provides  that  ‘Implementing  Rules  […]  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the 
regulatory  procedure  with  scrutiny’.  Rules  on  metadata  (Article  5(4))  and  monitoring 
(Article 21(4)), which refer to the regulatory procedure (Article 5 of Decision 1999/468) 
have, on the other hand, been automatically shifted to the examination procedure laid 
down  in  Regulation  (EU)  182/2011.101  If  the  INSPIRE  Directive  were  to  be  revised 
through legislative procedure, it would have to be aligned with the provisions of Article 
290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty regarding Delegated and Implementing Acts, and with 
the comitology procedures laid down in Regulation (EU) 182/2011.  

Regarding  its  implementation,  the  INSPIRE  Directive  takes  a  stepwise  approach 
according  to  the  2010-2020  Implementation  Roadmap.  The  2016  evaluation  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive concluded that the INSPIRE was internally coherent as Member States 
largely follow the implementation steps as defined in the Roadmap.102 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews  

Internal coherence was not discussed in scoping interviews.  

Focus Group interviews  

Only a few comments were made in the seven Focus Group Interviews regarding the 
internal coherence of the INSPIRE Directive. Although several comments were made on 
the complexity of the data specifications, only one Focus Group participant commented 
on  the  relationship  between  the  Directive,  the  Implementing  Rules  and  the  Technical 
Guidelines. The participant indicated that having several levels of regulations, some of 
which are legally binding while others are recommendations, creates confusion among 

100  Council  Decision  1999/468/EC  of  28  June  1999  laying  down  the  procedures  for  the  exercise  of 

implementing powers conferred on the Commission (no longer in force).  

101 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the 
Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13–18.  

102 European Commission (2016) Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation, accompanying the 
document  ‘Report  from  the  European  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the 
implementation  of  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  March  2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial 
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23. SWD(2016) 273 final.  

129 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

data providers. This is particularly problematic for those authorities and organisations 
that are less heavily involved in the implementation of INSPIRE.  

Participants from another Focus Group Interview commented on the overlaps between 
INSPIRE  data  themes.  They  especially  mentioned  overlaps  between  the  themes 
‘Environmental monitoring Facilities’ and ‘Soil’, because ‘soil monitoring plots’ could fall 
under both themes. This can lead to confusion within authorities regarding where this 
data should be reported. Participants to this Focus Group Interview indicated that such 
overlaps  might  come  from  the  fact  that  data  specifications  of  the  different  INSPIRE 
themes have been developed in silos at the beginning, with each thematic working group 
developing the specifications focusing on its own data theme. They concluded that where 
overlaps between themes occur, there should be more guidance as to where the data 
should be reported. 

Targeted surveys  

Respondents  to  the  four  targeted  surveys  were  asked  to  identify  overlaps, 
inconsistencies  or  gaps  between  existing  INSPIRE  themes.103  Roughly  the  same 
proportion of  respondents did or did not find such overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies 
between themes.104 As in the Focus Group interviews, eight respondents to the targeted 
surveys indicated that some data could fall under various data themes, which may lead 
to differences between Member States in implementation – i.e. Member States choosing 
to  report  the  same  information  under  different  themes.  Examples  of  such  overlaps 
identified  by  respondents  include  for  instance  between  Oceanographic  Geographical 
Features and Sea Regions; Hydrography and Sea Regions; Land use and Land cover; 
and  Energy  resources  and  hydrography  (regarding  hydropower).  Another  comment 
made by four respondents was that links between interrelated themes are sometimes 
missing. Two respondents indicated that the fact that  each model is  made in its own 
style creates difficulties for data providers especially when two models are interrelated, 
such as Administrative Units and Statistical Units. One respondent suggested the use of 
more extensive models, allowing the reuse of layers between themes. Two respondents 
also  mentioned  dependencies  between  different  themes  that  are  not  adequately 
addressed, such as the link between addresses and parcels or addresses and buildings. 

Public consultation  

The  public  consultation  did  not  address  the  internal  coherence  of  INSPIRE  and  no 
comments were made by respondents on this issue. 

5.5.2.  EQ  5.2  To  what  extent  is  INSPIRE  coherent  with  environmental 

legislation with geospatial reporting obligations? 

Building on the findings from  Effectiveness  – EQ 2.6 and Efficiency  –  EQ 4.8,  EQ 5.2 
assesses the interaction between the  INSPIRE  Directive and several key pieces  of  EU 
environmental legislation which, due to their  spatial dimension, both  a) depend upon 
effective  infrastructure  for  spatial  data  for  carrying  out  required  monitoring  and 
reporting activities and b) contribute to the development of such datasets through these 
activities. Streamlined spatial data might also contribute to the effective implementation 
of  environmental  legislation  as  well  as  to  enabling  effective  planning  and  design  of 

103 Survey of spatial data community, Question 16, survey of the environmental community Question 
19, survey of marine community, Question 14, survey of agricultural community, Question 12: ‘Are you 
aware  of  overlaps,  inconsistencies  or  gaps  between  existing  INSPIRE  themes?  If  yes,  please  describe 
them below.’ 

104 The questions received 57 comments in total, including 19 responses reporting overlaps, gaps and 
inconsistencies,  21  indicating  that  no  such  overlaps,  gaps  and  inconsistencies  exist,  and  17  providing 
information and opinions not directly answering the question.  

130 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

activities and dissemination to the public. Judgement criteria for this evaluation question 
consider  potential  synergies  between  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  environmental 
reporting, including the extent to which environmental legislation refers to INSPIRE or 
whether  relevant  guidance  exist  supporting  the  use  of  INSPIRE  for  environmental 
reporting. They also reflect on the extent to which mechanisms in place to collect and 
report data under relevant pieces of environmental legislation are consistent with the 
framework created under INSPIRE, and the extent to which problems identified in other 
criteria might stem from problems linked to the coherence of the legislation.  

Text box 5-25   Key/summary findings EQ 5.2: Environmental reporting  

The desk review showed that there are no impediments to the application of INSPIRE within 

relevant  environmental  or  other  EU  legislation;  in  fact,  many  pieces  of  legislation  do  make 

reference  to  INSPIRE  rules.  Focus  Group  interviews  and  targeted  surveys  showed  that 

having a reference to INSPIRE in the various pieces of environmental legislation recalling the 

obligation to share data according to INSPIRE rules supports compliance with INSPIRE, even 

though this is not necessary for the INSPIRE rules to apply.  

The  desk  review  and  scoping  interviews  have  shown  that,  since  the  Monitoring  and 

Reporting  Fitness  Check  and  the  related  Action  Plan,  efforts  have  been  made  and  are  still 

ongoing  to  add  references  to  INSPIRE  in  environmental  legislation  and  to  increase  the 

alignment  of  data  specifications  between  environmental  reporting  obligations  and  INSPIRE. 

This will be a long and  complex  process that  might not be fully achievable given the broad 

scope  of  reporting  obligations  and  their  unique  aspects.  In  the  targeted  surveys,  some 

stakeholders called for more communication and/or guidance on the progress of initiatives to 

align reporting obligations with INSPIRE. 

Desk review 

The 2016 REFIT evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive concluded that, despite efforts to 
increase the coherence between INSPIRE and EU environmental legislation requiring the 
reporting  of  spatial  data,  both  in  terms  of  legal  coherence  and  guidance,  ‘reporting 
systems  only  partially  made  use  of  the  INSPIRE  rules  and  specifications’,105  and  that 
more work was needed to improve coherence of INSPIRE with environmental reporting 
requirements. This led to the recommendation that Member States should give priority 
to environmental spatial datasets, especially those linked to monitoring and reporting, 
when implementing the INSPIRE Directive. A Fitness Check of monitoring and reporting 
obligations  arising  from  EU  environmental  legislation  was  carried  out  as  part  of  the 
REFIT programme in 2016-2017. It pointed out the lack of coherent legal obligations in 
the field of environmental reporting, the fragmented governance and decision-making 
mechanisms,  and  the  ‘insufficient  coordination  and  collaboration  between  different 
actors, such as between experts on environment reporting and geospatial data linked 
to  the  INSPIRE  Directive’.  It  therefore  recommended  improving  the  coherence  of 

105 European Commission (2016) Commission Staff Working Document, Evaluation, accompanying the 
document  ‘Report  from  the  European  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the 
implementation  of  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  March  2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial 
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23. SWD(2016) 273 final.  

131 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

reporting obligations and streamlining reporting obligations, including by better using 
the tools and specifications set out by the INSPIRE Directive.106 

Following  the  Reporting  Fitness  Check,  the  European  Commission  adopted  an  Action 
Plan  to  Streamline  Environmental  Reporting,107  which  included  several  actions  to 
address the findings of the 2016 evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive and those of the 
Reporting Fitness Check that are relevant to INSPIRE: 

  Action  1  proposed  to  adopt  ‘Legislative  amendments  to  reporting  obligations 
defined  in  selected  pieces  of  legislation’  to  increase  coherence  and  streamline 
reporting obligations. A number of those amendments addressed the alignment 
of environmental reporting obligations with INSPIRE.  

  Action  2  ‘Assess  and  change  reporting  obligations  in  more  detail  as  part  of  a 
rolling programme’, included a review of environmental reporting obligations to 
make sure that they are in line with INSPIRE data specifications.  

  Action  3  aimed  to  ‘Modernise  eReporting  including  through  a  more  advanced 
Reportnet and by making best use of the existing infrastructure’; in this context, 
the  European  Commission  would  promote  the  application  of  INSPIRE  rules  to 
environmental  reporting  obligations  and  ensure  that  environmental  spatial 
datasets are given priority in the implementation of the Directive.  

  Action 5 ‘Develop guidance and promote best practices for European and national 
environmental information systems including better access to data in easy-to-
understand ways’ also refers to INSPIRE as a key legislation to improve seamless 
access to data in a cross-border context.  

  Action 6 aimed to ‘Promote full implementation of the INSPIRE Directive, giving 
priority  to  datasets  most  relevant  for  the  implementation  and  reporting  of  EU 
environmental  legislation’  by  identifying  spatial  datasets,  falling  under  the 
INSPIRE Directive, linked to environmental reporting obligations and monitoring 
their implementation. 

According  to  the  Staff  Working  Document  of  the  2016  evaluation  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive,  a  number  EU  environmental  legislative  acts  and  implementation  guidelines 
already made references to the INSPIRE Directive in relation to spatial data reporting 
requirements. The Staff Working Document indicated that such references in legal acts 
or  guidance  make  the  legal  obligation  to  use  INSPIRE  ‘more  visible’  and  encourage 
coordination  between  organisations  responsible  for  environmental  reporting  and  for 
INSPIRE  at  national  level,  even  if  they  are  not  strictly  necessary  and  the  INSPIRE 
requirements apply regardless. The legislation shown in the table below were already 
providing  an  explicit  reference  to  the  use  of  INSPIRE  specifications  for  reporting 
environmental spatial data at the time of the previous REFIT evaluation.108 

Table 5-14 : Legislation already aligned with INSPIRE at the time of the 2016 evaluation 

Legislation 

Relevant provisions  

106 European Commission (2017) Commission Staff Working Document, Fitness Check of Reporting and 
Monitoring of EU Environment Policy? accompanying the document ‘Report from the Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions. Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting’, SWD(2017) 230 final.  

107 European Commission (2017) Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Actions to 
Streamline Environmental Reporting, COM(2017) 312 final.  

108 Based on the list in SWD(2016) 273 final, p. 59.  

132 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Nature legislation  
  Directive 

92/43/EEC 

(Habitats Directive) 

  Directive 

2009/147/EC 

(Birds Directive) 

  Commission  Implementing 

Decision 2011/484/EU 

Water and marine legislation  
Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) 
Directive 
(Floods) 
Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD) 

2007/60/EC 

  Directive 
(Ambient 
Directive) 

2008/50/EC 
Quality 

Air 

  Decision 

2011/850/EU 
(reciprocal 
of 
exchange 
information and reporting on 
ambient air - IPR) 

According  to  Commission  Implementing  Decision  2011/484/EU,  for 
each  Natura  2000  site,  the  NATURA  2000  Standard  Data  Form  must 
provide among other information a map of the site. ‘The GIS data must 
include metadata according to the INSPIRE Metadata Regulation in its 
latest approved version’. Each site must be attributed an INSPIRE ID.  

Reporting Guidance for the WFD109 and the Floods Directive110 provide 
instructions to report according to INSPIRE standards.  

‘In accordance with Directive 2007/2/EC, Member States shall provide 
the Commission […] with access and use rights in respect of data and 
information  resulting  from  the  initial  assessments  made  pursuant  to 
Article 8 and from the monitoring programmes established pursuant to 
Article 11’ (Article 19(3)) 
  Public information to be made available as per Article 26 of the AAQD 
(ambient  concentrations  of  pollutants,  actual  or  predicted 
exceedances  of  alert  thresholds,  exemptions,  and  air  quality plans) 
‘shall  be  made  available  free  of  charge  by  means  of  any  easily 
accessible  media  including  the  Internet  or  any  other  appropriate 
means  of  telecommunication,  and  shall  take  into  account  the 
provisions laid down in Directive 2007/2/EC.’ (Article 26(1)).  

  Reporting obligations are further specified in the IPR decision, which 
refers  to  definitions  contained  in  the  INSPIRE  Directive:  ‘For  the 
purposes of this Decision, and in addition to the definitions laid down 
in  Article  2  of  Directive  2004/107/EC,  Article  3  of  Directive 
2007/2/EC, and Article 2 of and Annex VII to Directive 2008/50/EC, 
the following definitions shall apply’ (Article 2).  

  Technical  Guidelines  from  the  JRC111  supports  INSPIRE  compliant 

transmission of air quality plans.  

Industrial emissions and accidents legislation  
  Directive 

2010/75/EU 
emissions 

The IED reporting decision requires that the location and addresses of 
IED installations are provided ‘in accordance with Directive 2007/2/EC’.  

(industrial 
Directive)  

  IED 

reporting 

decision 
(2012/795/EU)  –  no  longer 
in force  

Directive 2012/18/EU (Seveso 
III Directive)  

‘The  way  information  is  managed  should  be  in  line  with  the  Shared 
Environmental Information System (SEIS) initiative […]. It should also 
be  in  line  with  Directive  2007/2/EC  […]  and  its  implementing  rules’ 
(Recital 20) 

With  the  ongoing  implementation  of  Action  1  and  Action  2  of  the  Action  Plan,  some 
additional pieces of environmental legislation now contain a reference to using INSPIRE 
standards for spatial data reporting,112 compared to the situation at the time of the 2016 
evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive: 

Table 5-15 : Legislation aligned with INSPIRE since the 2016 evaluation 

Legislation 
Nature legislation  
  Regulation  (EU)  1143/2014 

(Invasive Alien Species) 

Relevant provisions  

‘Directive 2007/2/EC  requires  that  public  authorities  in  the  Member 
States  make  spatial  data  sets  available  in  conformity  with  the 

109  European  Commission  (2016)  WFD  Reporting  Guidance  2016.  Annex  5.  Final  –  Version  6.0.6: 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm  

110  European  Commission  (2013)  Guidance  for  Reporting  under  the  Floods  Directive  (2007/60/EC). 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-

Technical 
framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm (Last accessed on 19.05.21).  

Report 

2013 

071: 

– 

- 

111 Kotsev A, Smits P, Cyra L, Epure A, Francioli D, Belis C. (2014) Reporting of Air Quality Plans and 
Programs  in  Europe.  Guidelines  for  INSPIRE  compliant  data  transmission.  EUR  26862.  Luxembourg: 
Publications 
JRC92045: 
the 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC92045 (Last accessed on 19.05.21).  

European 

Union; 

Office 

of 

112 European Commission (2019) Progress on Actions to  Streamline Environmental Reporting. Report 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/pdf/ENV%20reporting%20-

by 
%20progress%20report%20-%20June%202019.pdf (Last accessed on 26.05.2021).  

actions: 

133 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

  Commission 

Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/1454 
specifying 
technical 
the 
formats  for  reporting  under 
the IAS Regulation 

implementing 
services  and 
rules  on  metadata,  network 
interoperability of spatial data sets and services set out in Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 (7), including the provisions in Section 
18 of Annex IV (‘Species Distribution’) of that Regulation.’ (Recital 3 
of Regulation (EU) 2017/1454) 

Water legislation  
Directive 
(EU) 
(Drinking Water) 

2020/2184 

Soil legislation  
Directive 
86/278/EEC 
(Protection of soil when sewage 
sludge is used in agriculture) 

Noise legislation  
Directive 
2002/49/EC 
(Environmental Noise Directive) 

  The  recast  Drinking  Water  Directive  introduced  references  to 
INSPIRE in Article 17 on Information to the public: Member States 
must provide information on the quality, price and consumption of 
drinking  water  ‘without  prejudice  to  Directives  2003/4/EC  and 
2007/2/EC.’ (Article 17(3)).  

  The recast Directive sets new reporting requirements in Article 18: 
Member  States,  assisted  by  the  EEA,  must  set  up  datasets 
containing information on access to drinking water, information on 
catchment  areas  for  abstraction  points,  monitoring  results, 
information  on  incidents,  and  information  on  all  derogations 
granted. ‘Where possible, spatial data services as defined in point 
(4) of Article 3 of Directive 2007/2/EC shall be used to present the 
data sets’ (Article 18(1)).  

  Article  1  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1010  on  the  alignment  of 
reporting  obligations  in  the  field  of  legislation  related  to  the 
environment, amended Article 2 to refer to INSPIRE definitions of 
spatial data sets and spatial data services.  

  Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 also amended Article 10 of the Directive 
on the requirement to keep up-to-date records of the quantities and 
composition of sludge produced and the quantities supplied for use 
in agriculture, the type of treatment, and the contact details of the 
recipients to include ‘Spatial data services shall be used to present 
the spatial data sets included in the information registered in those 
records.’  

Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 on the alignment of reporting 
obligations  in  the  field  of  legislation  related  to  the  environment, 
amended  Article  9(1)  of  the  Noise  Directive  on  Information  to  the 
public  to  add  a  reference  to  INSPIRE:  ‘Member  States  shall  ensure 
that the strategic noise maps they have made, and where appropriate 
adopted, and the action plans they have drawn up are made available 
and  disseminated  to  the  public  in  accordance  with  relevant  Union 
legislative acts, in particular Directives 2003/4/EC and 2007/2/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council, and in conformity with 
Annexes IV and V to this Directive, including by means of available 
information technologies.’ 

Industrial emissions legislation  
2010/75/EU 
  Directive 
emissions 

(industrial 
Directive)  

  Decision 

(EU)  2018/1135 

  Reporting obligations under IED and E-PRTR Regulation are aligned 
by Decision (EU) 2018/1135 and integrated into the EU Registry on 
Industrial Sites, which collects identification and administrative data 
for: 

(IED reporting Decision) 

  European 

Pollutant 

Release 

and 

Transfer  Register 

  Regulation  (EC) No  166/2006 
(European  Pollutant  Release 
and  Transfer  Register  -  E-
PRTR) 

Regulation(EC) No 166/2006 -(E-PRTR) facilities,  

  Installations  under  the  scope  of  the  Industrial  Emissions 

Directive (IED),  

  Large combustion plants (Chapter III of the IED), 
  Waste incineration and co-incineration plants (Chapter IV of the 

IED). 

  The  Registry  EU  will  contain  all  relevant  permit  and  geospatial 
information, without duplication between the two regulations. The 
Registry is managed by the EEA. 113  

  The data model used for the Registry is an extension of the INSPIRE 
Production Facilities  data model. It will  allow  ‘Member  States  and 
the Commission to link ‘installations’, large combustion plants and 
waste  incineration  plants  with  ‘facilities’  within  the  meaning  of 
Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 (Recital 9 of Decision 
(EU) 2018/1135).  

113 European Environment Agency (2018) EU Registry on Industrial Sites. Data model documentation. 
4.1–13/11/2018 : 

Version 
https://www.thru.de/fileadmin/SITE_MASTER/content/Dokumente/Downloads/IED-Linkliste_aus_EU-
Registry_2018/EU_Registry_Manual_Datamodel_CID_Nov2018_Final.pdf (Last accessed on 10.05.21).  

134 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Chemicals legislation  
Regulation 
(POPs Regulation)  

(EU)  2019/1021 

  Regulation  (EU)  2017/852 

(Mercury) 
  Commission 

Implementing 

Decision (EU) 2019/1752 

  According to the new IED Reporting Decision, installations and large 
combustion plants covered by IED and facilities under the E-PRTR 
Regulation  should  receive  a  unique  identifier  following  the 
requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC (Annex I).  

The  recast  POPs  Regulation  introduced  Article  17  on  Formats  and 
software  for  publication  or  notification  of  information,  referring  to 
INSPIRE: ‘The Agency shall, in cooperation with the Member States, 
specify formats and software for the publication or notification of data 
by Member States pursuant to this Regulation and shall make them 
available free of charge on its website. In relation to spatial data sets 
and spatial data services, Member States and the Agency shall design 
the  formats  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  Directive 
2007/2/EC.  Member  States  and  other  parties  subject  to  this 
Regulation  shall  use  those  formats  and  software  in  their  data 
management or data exchange with the Agency.’  
  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2019/1752  establishing 
questionnaires,  as  well  as  the  format  and frequency of reports  to 
be prepared by the Member States in accordance with the Mercury 
Regulation  introduced  that  ‘Where  information  to  be  reported  is 
related  to  geographically  located  entities,  such  as  industrial 
installations  and  sites,  the  information  should  be  reported  in 
accordance with Directive 2007/2/EC’ (Recital 5).  

  Each  installation  must  receive  a  unique  identifier  that  follows  the 

requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC.  

There  are  pieces  of  legislation  that  require  the  reporting  of  priority  environmental 
datasets and which do not contain any specific reference to the INSPIRE Directive. These 
include among others the legal acts below.  

Table 5-16 : Legislation not referencing the INSPIRE Directive  

Legislation 
Bathing 
(Directive 2006/7/EC) 

Water 

Directive 

Nitrates  Directive 
91/676/EEC) 

(Directive 

Urban  waste  water  treatment 
Directive (91/271/EEC)  
Landfill  Directive 
1999/31/EC) 

(Directive 

Directive  on  Management  of 
waste from extractive industries 
(Directive 2006/21/EC 
Shale  gas  Recommendation 
(Recommendation 
2014/70/EU) 

Spatial data covered  
  Member  States  are  required  to  draft  bathing  water  profiles, 
including  maps  showing  physical,  geographical  and  hydrological 
characteristics as well as potential sources of pollution (Annex III) 
  Member states need to submit a map to the European Commission 
showing the locationof  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones and relevant water 
bodies (Art. 10) 

  Data on UWWT appear within the ‘Utility and governmental services’ 

theme in the Annex III of the INSPIRE Directive 

  Data  on  waste  installations  appear  within  the  ‘Utility  and 
governmental  services’  theme  in  the  Annex  III  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive 

  Data  on  waste  installations  appear  within  the  ‘Utility  and 
governmental  services’  theme  in  the  Annex  III  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive 

  Reporting  the  number  of  wells  completed  and  planned  projects 

involving high-volume hydraulic fracturing.  

  Informing the public about any incidents and accidents 

References  to  INSPIRE  in  the  legal  acts  are  not  sufficient  to  ensure  that  in  practice 
environmental  reporting  and  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  become  consistent 
processes.  The  alignment  of  data  models  of  the  different  pieces  of  legislation  that 
contain  reporting  obligations  with  INSPIRE  is  also  necessary.  The  extent  of  the 
necessary alignment might vary across environmental legislation and be easier for some 
legislation than others. For example, Abramic et al (2018) compared MSFD spatial data 
requirements with INSPIRE data models to identify whether they fulfil MSFD spatial data 
requirements or whether they need  extension. The article concluded that most MSFD 
spatial  data  requirements  are  covered  by  INSPIRE  data  models  and  that  only  some 

135 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

details included in MSFD spatial data requirements (e.g. species mortality, age…) would 
require minor extension of INSPIRE data models. 114  

Good  collaboration  between  competent  authorities  responsible  for  environmental 
reporting and authorities building and maintaining the national SDI is also necessary to 
ensure consistency between environmental reporting and INSPIRE data sharing, which 
is not always the case in practice . Abramic et al (2018) mentioned for instance that in 
the  case  of  MSFD,  metadata  created  by  authorities  responsible  for  implementing  the 
MSFD in Member States were not always included in national metadata catalogues (but 
only in Reportnet) thus limiting the benefits in terms of data discoverability. 115  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

The alignment between environmental reporting obligations and INSPIRE datasets was 
in particular discussed in a scoping interview with the EEA. Based on the conclusions of 
the 2016 REFIT  evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive, the European Commission put a 
strong focus on identifying and harmonising a priority list of datasets  for e-Reporting 
with  INSPIRE.  According  to  the  EEA,  this  has  indeed  contributed  to  the  alignment  of 
data  models.  Such  achievements  are  observed  for  instance  for  protected  sites  and 
nationally designated protected areas (CDDA), the EU registry of industrial facilities, and 
the  water  legislation.116  However,  developing  harmonised  data  specifications  fulfilling 
both reporting obligations and INSPIRE requirement (which might involve incorporating 
specific  thematic  requirements  into  INSPIRE  data  models)  is  a  long  process,  which 
requires cooperation between the European Commission, the EEA and Member States. 
It is also a complex process as INSPIRE might not always be perfectly suited for catering 
for  the  requirements  of  thematic  pieces  of  legislation.  The  harmonisation  of 
environmental  reporting  obligations  and  INSPIRE  data  models  is  still  an  ongoing 
process. 117 

To  facilitate  the  alignment  of  reporting  obligations  and  INSPIRE,  a  new  reporting 
platform has been established by the EEA under Action 3 of the Action Plan ‘Modernise 
eReporting  including  through  a  more  advanced  Reportnet  and  by  making  best  use  of 
the  existing  infrastructure’.  The  platform  is  a  new  version  of  Reportnet,  namely 
Reportnet 3.0118. Reportnet is Eionet’s infrastructure used for environmental reporting, 
which  has  been  operational  since  2002.  119  A  first  version  of  Reportnet  3.0  has  been 
launched. However, the transition of reporting obligations from Reportnet 2 to Reportnet 
3  will  take  several  years.  120  One  of  the  functions  of  Reportnet  3.0  will  allow  for  the 
intake of INSPIRE datasets. According to the EEA, this process might however not be 
automatic (i.e. Reportnet harvesting INSPIRE datasets available on national SDIs), as 
there  is  significant  heterogeneity  across  the  INSPIRE  datasets  and  services  made 
available  by  Member  States.  The  completion  of  this  process  would  require  complete 
harmonisation of the data models as well as harmonisation of the INSPIRE data services 
provided  by  Member  States  in  their  respective  national  SDIs.  Member  States  will 

114  Abramic,  A.,  Gonzalez  Fernandez,  D.,  Bigagli,  E.,  Che-Bohnenstengel,  A.  and  Smits,  P.  (2018) 
INSPIRE: support for and requirement of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Marine Policy, 92, p. 
86-100.  

115 Ibid.  
116 Scoping Interview with EEA.  
117 Scoping Interview with EEA. 
118 Reportnet: https://reportnet.europa.eu/ (Last accessed on 19.05.21).  
119 About Reportnet : https://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet (Last accessed on 19.05.21). 
120 Reportnet 3.0: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet/reportnet-3.0 (Last accessed on 19.05.21). 

136 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

however  progressively  have  the  possibility  to  connect  their  reporting  processes  to 
INSPIRE services through Reportnet 3.0. 121 

Focus Group interviews  

Three Focus Group interviews (out of the seven carried out) confirmed that references 
to  INSPIRE  in  the  text  of  environmental  legislation  are  helpful  as  they  provide  more 
clarity  on  it  that  INSPIRE  standards  should  be  used  for  reporting.  Without  such 
references,  one  participant  to  one  Focus  Group  Interview  mentioned  that  INSPIRE 
compliance  could  be  considered  as  voluntary.  It  was  however  mentioned  by  another 
participant to the same Focus Group Interview that the link should be made explicit in 
the legislation, and that it was not sufficient to simply add - as it was done for the Birds 
and Habitats Directive - a new attribute ‘INSPIRE ID’ in the Standard Data Form. The 
same  participant  mentioned  the  Alien  Species  Regulation  as  a  good  example  of 
integration between an environmental piece of legislation and INSPIRE. 

In  six  Focus  Group  Interviews,  participants  commented  about  the  differences  in  data 
models used for  reporting under environmental legislation and  INSPIRE data models, 
which  might  lead  to  duplication  in  reporting  processes.  This  risk  occurs  because 
authorities responsible for environmental reporting must report data twice with different 
models – the thematic reporting data model and the INSPIRE data model. Four Focus 
Group Interviews acknowledged that there have been improvements in harmonisation 
of  data  models  and  two  commented  that  the  ongoing  initiative  coming  from  the 
Reporting Fitness Check is positive and will lead to better harmonisation. The Ambient 
Air Quality Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive 
and  the  Bathing  Water  Directives  were  quoted  as  examples  of  legislation  for  which 
harmonisation  of  data  models  has  been  achieved.  One  participant  however  reported 
compatibility issues in regards to the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Floods Directive 
and  the  MSFD.  The  two  Focus  Group  Interviews,  welcoming  the  ongoing  alignment 
initiative,  however  both  recognised  that  harmonising  data  models  is  a  lengthy  and 
complex  process,  especially  due  to  the  coordination  and  approval  processes  that  are 
needed between a broad range of institutions at EU and national level. One Focus Group 
Interview considered that these efforts will be beneficial in the long term in terms of a 
reduction  of  the  burden  linked  to  reporting,  while  another  would  see  such  benefits  if 
automated data harvesting can be achieved. 

Targeted surveys  

Several  respondents  to  the  survey  amongst  the  environmental  community  confirmed 
that  a  link  to  INSPIRE  in  the  environmental  legislation  is  useful  to  increase 
environmental authorities’ awareness of their obligation to use INSPIRE. 122 One national 
authority  mentioned  that  in  their  Member  State,  many  reporting  authorities  do  not 
consider the use of INSPIRE standards as mandatory, and do not consider the reporting 
of  spatial  data  to  INSPIRE  as  part  of  their  mandate.  Specifying  the  obligation  in  the 
relevant EU legislation might support an improved compliance in that respect. However, 
three respondents indicated that this would need to be complemented by guidance to 
environmental authorities on specific reporting rules and data models.  

121 Scoping Interview with EEA. 
122  Question  16:  ‘Have  you  encountered  cases  where  fulfilling  reporting  obligations  under  EU 
environmental legislation requiring the reporting of spatial data (at least partially) covered by INSPIRE 
was made difficult because of the absence of a clear link in the legal text (or alternatively the absence of 
EU guidance) clarifying that INSPIRE standard should be used? Please tick all that apply’. Question 16b: 
If you have ticked any of the above listed legislation, or if you have ticked ‘other’ please explain what are 
the issues.’ 

137 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Respondents  to  the  survey  amongst  the  environmental  community  commented  that 
environmental reporting through Reportnet, following reporting guidelines of the various 
environmental  Directives,  and  the  provision  of  INSPIRE  datasets  are  still  often  two 
distinct processes that result in two different datasets being produced. This is because 
of differences in data specifications and standards. Examples of such differences in data 
specifications  were  provided  in  relation  to  the  Nature  Directives  (e.g.  differences  in 
species codes), E-PRTR, marine or soil data. Differences in standards (often pre-existing 
before INSPIRE) and software used to process data were also mentioned by a number 
of stakeholders (e.g. for marine data, ODV format is used for Chemical Oceanography, 
and  netCDF  Climate  and  Forecast  (CF)  metadata  standards  are  used 
for 
physical/chemical oceanography). 123 Some respondents acknowledged recent progress 
made  for  certain  pieces  of  legislation,  with  new  data  specifications  being  based  on 
INSPIRE  requirements  (IED,  Environmental  Noise  Directive)  and  indicated  that 
alignment  efforts  are  being  made  or  will  be  made  soon  for  other  environmental 
Directives (e.g. Floods, Nitrates, Drinking water, or Seveso Directives). One respondent 
however indicated that keeping track of changing guidelines and progressive alignment 
with  INSPIRE  is  not  easy  and  would  benefit  from  the  creation  of  a  general  overview 
(European Commission webpage) for e-reporting priority datasets. 124  

Public consultation 

None  of  the  questions  in  the  public  consultation  directly  addressed  the  coherence 
between INSPIRE and environmental reporting obligations. However, five respondents 
addressed this issue in the last question of the public consultation.125 Those respondents 
(public  authorities  and  representatives  of  utilities  service  providers)  argued  that 
reporting under environmental Directives and reporting under INSPIRE should become 
more coherent processes in practice, both in terms of data content and data models. 
One  respondent  mentioned  especially  inconsistencies  between  INSPIRE  and  Natura 
2000 reporting obligations, both in data content and models. Increased coherence would 
avoid duplication of reporting processes that lead to additional burden for authorities. 
One  of  these  respondents  mentioned  data  scrapping  as  a  possibility  to  ensure  that 
authorities report only once. 

5.5.3.  EQ 5.3 To what extent is INSPIRE coherent with other relevant areas 
of  EU  policy  with  geospatial  reporting  obligations  (transport, 
agriculture, maritime, space, health, disaster management, research)? 

EQ 5.3 assesses the interaction between the INSPIRE Directive and several key pieces 
of legislation that fall outside of the environmental acquis, but which result in policies 
or activities which may have an impact on the environment, and the implementation of 
which can be supported by the availability of consistent and interoperable spatial data 

123 Survey of the marine community, Question 13: ‘Are there cases where the description of INSPIRE 
datasets could benefit from modifications/extensions to better align with data to be reported under the 
MSFD? If yes, please refer to the specific INSPIRE dataset(s) and explain why.’ 

124  Survey of  the environmental  community,  Question  15:  ‘Have you  identified  any overlaps or  gaps 
existing  among  the  relevant  standards  to  be  used  for  the  sharing  of  data  under  the  following 
environmental legislation requiring the reporting of geospatial data and INSPIRE (e.g. things that would 
require reporting the same data in different formats and models for different purposes)? Please tick all 
that apply’. Question 15b: ‘If you have ticked any of the above legislation, or if you have ticked ‘other’ 
please explain the gaps and overlaps you are referring to.’ Question 19: 19. ‘Are you aware of overlaps, 
inconsistencies or gaps between existing INSPIRE themes? If yes, please describe them below.’ Question 
20:  ‘Have  you  encountered  cases  where  the  description  of  INSPIRE  datasets  could  benefit  from 
modifications/extensions  to  better  align  with  data  to  be  reported  under  other  pieces  of  legislation?’ 
Question 20b: ‘If you ticked any of the datasets above, please explain what changes are needed.’ 

125  Public  consultation,  Question  29:  ‘If  you  wish  to  add  further  comments,  within  the  scope  of  this 

questionnaire, please feel free to do so here.’ 

138 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

across the EU. Judgement criteria for this question consider potential synergies between 
the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  sectoral  legislation  outside  the  environmental  acquis, 
including the extent to which sectoral legislation refers to INSPIRE or whether relevant 
guidance exist that support interactions with INSPIRE, the extent to which mechanisms 
in place to collect and report data under relevant pieces of legislation are consistent with 
the framework created under INSPIRE, and the extent to which problems identified in 
other criteria might stem from problems linked to the coherence of the legislation.  

Text box 5-26   Key/summary findings EQ 5.3:Coherence with sectoral legislation other than 

environment  

Scoping  interviews  have  revealed  synergies  between  INSPIRE  and  sectoral  objectives. 

INSPIRE is considered as an opportunity in several sectors to have a centralised entry point to 

access  and  share  data,  and  to  avoid  duplication  of  data  collection  and  reporting  processes 

(IACS, Copernicus in situ component, climate adaptation data, TEN-T).  

The desk review and scoping interviews also indicated that links with INSPIRE are being 

developed  (legal  references,  technical  guidance)  and  alignment  of  various  data  sharing 

instruments is ongoing (IACS, EMODnet, Copernicus). The pace of implementation (or varying 

degrees of implementation) of INSPIRE across the Member States is however slowing down 

the process and, in some cases, impedes successful interactions (e.g., the Copernicus in situ 

component).  

In some sectors, scoping interviews have shown that relations with INSPIRE and how INSPIRE 

might support those policy areas is still largely to be defined (MSP, TEN-T, climate adaptation). 

Collaboration  with  sectoral  DGs  at  EU  level  and  through  committees  could  be  further 

developed,  where  relevant  (e.g.,  representation  of  INSPIRE  groups  in  sectoral  committees, 

formalising cooperation). 

Based on evidence from scoping interviews, and limited inputs from Focus Group Interviews 

and targeted surveys, the creation of a single data platform for all sorts of spatial data might 

however be an unachievable perspective due to varying data requirements of different sectors 

(e.g., the need for historical data vs most recent and accurate data only, frequency of updates, 

quality and level of accuracy of data). 

Agriculture  

Desk review 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013  on  the  financing,  management  and  monitoring  of  the 
common  agricultural  policy  established  the  Integrated  Administration  and  Control 
Systems  (IACS).  This  is  the  main  instrument  for  the  management  of  the  Common 
Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  payments  system.  IACS  allows  for  the  control  of  direct 
payments  to  farmers  as  well  as  other  payments  such  as  payments  for  agricultural 
practices beneficial for the climate and the environment and it ensures the traceability 

139 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

of  payments.  The  IACS  system  requires  the  establishment  of  several  databases 
including: 126 

  An identification system for agricultural parcels – the land parcel identification 

system (LPIS)  

  A system enabling farmers to graphically indicate the agricultural areas for 

which they apply for aid (geospatial aid application - GSAA) 

  A computerised database for animals in EU countries where animal-based aid 

schemes apply 

  An integrated control system, for systematic checks of aid applications based 

on computerised cross checks and physical on-farm controls. 

The LPIS and the GSAA are the main spatial information elements contained in IACS. 
Member States are responsible for designing and operating their own IACS system at 
national  level  through  their  accredited  paying  agencies.  There  is  a  total  of  40  IACS 
systems in Europe. 

The need  for  spatial data sharing for the implementation of the CAP was stressed by 
Member  States  in  the  Declaration  of  cooperation  on  ‘A  smart  and  sustainable  digital 
future  for  European  agriculture  and  rural  areas’127  signed  in  April  2019  by  almost  all 
Member  States.  One  of  the  proposed  measures  was  to  ‘increase  CAP  administration 
efficiency, notably in sharing geospatial information among public administrations’. The 
new  CAP,  which  will  apply  from  2023,  will  provide  a  more  significant  focus  on  data 
sharing, especially with regards to the ambition to assess its environmental and climate 
performance, and the general objective of promoting digitalisation of agriculture. 128  

Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 does not make any reference to the INSPIRE Directive. 
However,  a  specific  provision  in  the  next  CAP  legislation  -  Art.  65  of  the  Horizontal 
Regulation  (European  Commission  proposal  not  yet  adopted)  –  will  provide  for  the 
obligation to share geospatial information included in the IACS of the Member States in 
the  context  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  To  support  national  Paying  Agencies  in  this 
process, Technical Guidelines on IACS spatial data sharing129 through INSPIRE, focusing 
on data discovery, have been prepared by the JRC in 2020. As reflected in the Technical 
Guidelines,  the  sharing  of  IACS  data  through  INSPIRE  will  be  done  in  two  steps  – 
discovery  services  will  be  implemented  first;  view  and  download  services  and  data 
harmonisation will be dealt with in a second stage.130 

According to EU institutions and national authorities, the main barriers are: That LPIS 
is not a specific INSPIRE theme but that LPIS data may fit in a range of INSPIRE themes 
(Cadastral parcels, Land Use, Land Cover, Area management zones and reporting units, 
Agricultural facilities); that IACS contains sensitive or personal data, which, however, is 

126 

European  Commission, 

Integrated  Administration 

and  Control  System 

(IACS): 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/financing-
cap/financial-assurance/managing-payments_en (Last accessed on 14 May 2021) 

127 Declaration - A smart and sustainable digital future for European agriculture and rural areas, April 

2019: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/items/648242 (Last accessed on 14 May 2021) 

128 Mohamed El Aydam, European Commission – DG AGRI D3, Integrated Administration Control System 
2020: 

:  which 
https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inspire2020_greendataspace_iacs_land_use_data.pdf 
(Last accessed on 14 May 2021)  

INSPIRE  Conference, 

Presentation 

sharing? 

June 

data 

for 

at 

3 

129 Ibid.  
130 Ibid.  

140 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

generally not spatial data (farmers’ registers, entitlements, payments, applications for 
certain payment schemes). 131 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews  

During the Scoping interview, DG AGRI explained that in the context of the New CAP, 
the INSPIRE infrastructure has been considered as an opportunity to have one single 
entry point for accessing IACS data, which is scattered across 40 national and regional 
systems. Using INSPIRE will facilitate the implementation of the new CAP provisions, as 
well  as  data  sharing  across  administrations  and  to  private  data  users  (farmers, 
companies providing services to farmers etc.). In addition, some of the IACS datasets 
have also been identified as High Value Datasets. In this perspective, IACS data sharing 
through INSPIRE is regarded as valuable. 132 

According to DG AGRI, the second part of the Technical Guidelines will be published in 
2021133.  At  present,  nine  Member  States  have  implemented  the  first  part  of  the 
Technical  Guidelines  (Belgium,  Croatia,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Germany,  Latvia, 
Luxembourg, Slovakia  and Slovenia). DG AGRI is anticipating that all Member States 
will have done so by the end of 2021. 134 

As the Technical Guidelines are being implemented, it is too early to draw conclusions 
on the integration between national IACS systems and national INSPIRE SDIs. However, 
DG AGRI confirmed that the main obstacles to IACS data sharing through INSPIRE are 
the  inclusion  of  sensitive  or  personal  data  in  IACS  data  and  the  resources  needed  to 
carry  out the alignment of the  IACS system with INSPIRE135.Regarding personal data 
included in IACS data DG AGRI highlighted that it is currently not addressed in INSPIRE 
at all. Clarifying how to proceed with personal data in INSPIRE and bringing the Directive 
more in line with EU personal data protection law could improve the integration of IACS 
data into INSPIRE. 136 

Focus Group interviews  

Three Focus Group Interviews out of seven mentioned the use of INSPIRE for LPIS data. 
None of them specifically mentioned problems with sharing IACS data through INSPIRE 
or  specifically  mentioned  the  implementation  of  the  Technical  Guidelines.  Two  Focus 
Group  Interviews  however  mentioned  the  coexistence  of  several  standards.  For 
example, one participant to a Focus  Group  Interview mentioned that INSPIRE  GML is 
the standard format for the cadastre to exchange information with the land register with 
a view to coordinate the identification of the different land parcels, especially for CAP 
management,  while  the  Cadastre  shares  its  data  with  national  authorities  in  another 
format than GML. 

Targeted surveys  

The  targeted  survey  amongst  the  agricultural  community  gathered  only  very  few 
responses,137 which are not sufficient to provide  an accurate picture  of  national IACS 

131  Tóth,  K.  (Joint  Research  Centre),  CAP  and  INSPIRE:  history,  perspectives  and  challenges. 

Presentation at Eurogeographics INSPIRE extension workshop, Marne la Vallée, 20-21 June, 2017.  

132 Scoping interview with DG AGRI.  
133 Ibid.  
134 Ibid.  
135 Ibid.  
136 Ibid.  
137  Nine  in  total,  including  five paying  agencies  (three  national  and  two regional,  four responding as 

organisation, one as an individual), and one ministry of agriculture.  

141 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

systems. Results from the survey however showed various levels of implementation of 
the  Technical  Guidance,  as  shown  below,  reflecting  that  the  process  of  sharing  IACS 
data through INSPIRE is ongoing.  

Figure 5-34  Status of the implementation of the Technical Guidance on IACS spatial 
data sharing (N=6) 

Discovery service of the Paying Agency is
registered at the national SDI or metadata are
transmitted to the national SDI

LPIS/GSAA metadata are compliant with
INSPIRE metadata guidelines

LPIS/GSAA metadata are updated as required

3

3

3

1

1

1

2

2

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Yes, fully

Yes, partially

No

Source:  Responses  from  paying  agencies  and  ministries  of  agriculture,  Targeted  survey  of  the  agriculture 
community April-May 2021, Question 8: What is the status of the implementation of the Technical Guidance 
on IACS spatial data sharing in your country? 

When asked about the main difficulties in sharing IACS spatial data through INSPIRE, 
national paying agencies / ministries of agriculture, most commonly, referred to the fact 
that IACS spatial data does not always fit well with INSPIRE data themes as well as to 
issues linked to the sensitivity of information and personal data protection and then to 
technical  /  compatibility  issues.  Three  paying  agencies  commented  that  increased 
alignment  between  IACS  and  INSPIRE  data  themes  (primarily  ‘Land  use’  and  ‘Land 
cover’) would be useful and provided the following examples:  

  One  agency  suggested  that  the  breakdown  of  crop  types  in  IACS  should  be 

integrated to INSPIRE data themes for GSAA.  

  Another one mentioned that for a good inclusion of Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) 
in INSPIRE, code lists could be created for EFA elements in order to use either 
the INSPIRE dataset ‘Land cover’ or ‘Land use’.  

One Ministry of agriculture commented that there are also some doubts with regards to 
which data themes should be used, as LPIS data could either be included in ‘Land cover’ 
or  in  ‘Agricultural  and  aquaculture  facilities’.  Regarding  personal  data  protection,  two 
paying agencies mentioned that this is preventing the agency from sharing all IACS data 
through INSPIRE. An additional obstacle mentioned by one paying agency is the current 
lack of a thorough understanding of INSPIRE and of the technical guidance in the paying 
agencies (e.g. how to transform IACS data into INSPIRE data models). 

Public consultation 

Coherence  with  IACS  reporting  was  not  addressed  in  the  Public  consultation  and  no 
comments were made by respondents on this issue. 

Maritime Spatial Planning  

Desk review 

142 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Directive  2014/89/EU  establishing  a  framework  for  maritime  spatial  planning  (MSP 
Directive) introduced the concept of maritime spatial planning into EU legislation, with 
the  aim  to  coordinate  the  different  activities  and  uses  of  the  sea  (energy,  transport, 
fisheries,  aquaculture)  while  ensuring  the  protection  of  the  environment,  including 
resilience to climate change impacts. The MSP Directive requires all Member States to 
establish  a  maritime  spatial  plan.  It  leaves  a  large  margin  to  national  authorities  to 
design it according to national governance structure, with the requirement to coordinate 
with other Member States bordering their marine waters to ensure that maritime spatial 
plans are coherent and coordinated in a shared basin (Article 11 of the MSP Directive). 
As the maritime spatial plans address industrial and commercial uses of the sea, which 
are  activities  impacting  the  marine  environment,  and  their  coexistence  with  the 
protection  of  marine  ecosystems,  the  MSP  Directive  is  relevant  in  the  context  of 
INSPIRE. 

The MSP Directive requirements on data use and sharing explicitly refer to INSPIRE as 
a source of data for the establishment of maritime spatial plans and as a possible data 
sharing tool. Article 10 of the MSP Directive states that Member States should ‘organise 
the use of the best available data, and decide how to organise the sharing of information, 
necessary  for  maritime  spatial  plans’,  including  environmental,  social  and  economic 
data,  collected  as  per  other  EU  legislation,  and  marine  physical  data  about  marine 
waters. For this purpose, Member States should make use of relevant instruments and 
tools already available under the Integrated Maritime Policy (e.g. EMODnet) and other 
relevant EU policies, ‘such as those mentioned in Directive 2007/2/EC’. Data gathering 
is an important part of the establishment of the maritime spatial plans. Given the nature 
of the plans, they require the gathering of a wide range of diverse data – environmental 
data, data related to different sectors – and, in many cases, this data should be gathered 
in the cross-border context.138 According to Abramic et all (2018), maritime uses and 
activities  that  must  be  considered  in  the  MSP  process139  are  largely  covered  by  the 
INSPIRE 34 data themes and, as a result, a lot of the data needed for the MSP could 
potentially be available through INSPIRE, in particular in themes ‘Land use’, ‘Transport 
networks’, ‘Protected sites’, ‘Agricultural and Aquaculture Facilities’, ‘Energy resources’ 
or  ‘Utilities’.  140  The  requirement  to  fulfil  some  MSFD  reporting  requirements  in 
accordance  with  INSPIRE  should  also  ensure  that  environmental  data  needed  for  the 
MSP  process  is  available  in  INSPIRE  compliant  format.  In  addition,  interoperability 
across sectoral datasets could be beneficial for the establishment of the maritime spatial 
plan. 141 

Data  sharing  obligations  under  the  MSP  Directive  are  linked  to  public  participation 
requirements (Article 9) and monitoring and reporting requirements (Article 14). Public 
participation  requirements  include  ‘informing  all  interested  parties  and  consulting 
relevant  stakeholders  and  authorities,  and  the  public  concerned,  at  an  early  stage  in 
development of the plan’, and ensuring that ‘the relevant stakeholders and authorities, 
and the public concerned, have access to the plans once they are finalised’. Article 14 
requires  Member  States  to  ‘send  copies  of  the  maritime  spatial  plans’,  and  ‘all 

138 Abramic, A., Bigagli, E., Barale, V., Assouline, M., Lorenzo Alonso, A. and Norton, C. (2018) Maritime 
Spatial  Planning  supported  by  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  Europe  (INSPIRE),  Ocean  and 
Coastal Management, 152, p. 23-36.  

139  Activities  listed  in  Article  8  of  the  MSP  Directive:  aquaculture  and  fishing  areas,  installations  and 
infrastructures for the exploration, exploitation and extraction of oil, of gas and other energy resources, 
of minerals and aggregates, and for the production of energy from renewable sources, maritime transport 
routes and traffic flows, military training areas, nature and species conservation sites and protected areas, 
raw  material  extraction  areas,  scientific  research,  submarine  cable  and  pipeline  routes,  tourism, 
underwater cultural heritage.  

140 Abramic, et al. (2018) Maritime Spatial Planning supported by Infrastructure for Spatial Information 

in Europe (INSPIRE), Ocean and Coastal Management, 152, p. 23-36. 

141 Ibid. 

143 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

subsequent updates’, to the European Commission and other Member States concerned. 
According to Abramic et al (2018), national SDIs should be used for sharing the maritime 
spatial  plans  with  stakeholders,  the  European  Commission  and  other  Member  States 
and therefore fulfil the requirements from Article 9 and 14. The article concluded in this 
respect  that  the  Planned  Land  Use  data  model  in  INSPIRE  is  appropriate  for  sharing 
maritime  spatial  plans.  This  is  however  not  explicitly  required  by  the  MSP  Directive, 
which  also  does  not  require  that  maritime  spatial  plans  are  developed  in  digital 
formats,142 but leaves Member States the choice of the format in which the plan should 
be established and published. 

As mentioned above, cooperation between Member States sharing sea basins is required 
for consistency of planning (Article 11), and cooperation with third countries should be 
sought to the extent possible using existing international forums or regional institutional 
cooperation (Article 12). According to Abramic et al (2018), INSPIRE could also support 
cooperation  across  Member  States  and  third  countries  through  the  sharing  of 
interoperable  data  by  allowing  the  combination  of  datasets  from  various  national 
sources,  and through the possibility to integrate national plans into a spatial plan for 
the entire marine region or sub-region.143 According to Abramic et all (2018), the use 
of  INSPIRE  standards  could  resolve  the  current  difficulties  in  harmonising  maritime 
spatial plans across countries coming from the use of different data models and standard 
rules  for  layers  and  styles.  144  As  mentioned  above,  this  is  however  not  part  of  the 
requirements of the MSP Directive. Article 10 does not contain requirements regarding 
the  form  in  which  the  plans  should  be  submitted.  The  absence  of  such  requirements 
might reduce the possibility for harmonisation between plans within a marine region. 
This  might  also  be  limited  by  the  fact  that,  although  some  third  countries  (EFTA 
members and some accession countries) participate to the implementation of INSPIRE, 
they do not have the same obligations as EU Member States in terms of compliance and 
some neighbouring countries do not participate in INSPIRE at all. 

Although  there  is  potential  for  INSPIRE  to  support  the  establishment  and  update  of 
maritime spatial plans, Abramic et  all (2018) noted that there are  still many barriers 
and that the INSPIRE infrastructure could not fully support the MSP process. Abramic et 
all (2018) mentioned in particular that the number of marine-related metadata records 
available  in  the  geoportal  was  low,  and  that  record  distribution  varied  greatly  across 
Member  States  and  marine  regions,  with  some  coastal  Member  States  not  sharing 
marine-related data through INSPIRE. 145 The authors made this analysis in 2017 and 
noted  that  implementation  is  ongoing  and  that  more  datasets  are  expected  to  be 
available in the future. Similar conclusions have been drawn in the context of regional 
MSP  cooperation  projects.  The  SEANSE  project’s  Analysis  of  data  needs  and  existing 
gaps,  published  in  2018,  noted  that  important  datasets  for  maritime  spatial  planning 
were not available in an INSPIRE compliant format (including the metadata), but that 
the situation was progressively evolving towards more datasets being published. 146 

The  possibility  to  share  maritime  spatial  plans  through  INSPIRE  has  been  studied  in 
several EU or regional projects. A pilot case has been carried out in 2019, through the 
Macaronesian Maritime Spatial Planning (MarSP) project, in which an MSP INSPIRE data 

142 Ibid.  
143 Ibid. 
144 Ibid.  
145 Ibid.  
146 Strategic Environmental Assessment North Sea Energy(SEANSE) (2018) Analysis of Data Needs and 

Existing Gaps: https://northseaportal.eu/downloads/ (Last accessed on 14 May 2021).  

144 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

model  was  developed  based  on  the  Planned  Land  Use  data  model.  147  HELCOM  has 
developed, as part of the project  Pan  Baltic Scope  ‘Guidelines on transboundary MSP 
output data structure in the Baltic Sea’, 148 data specifications for MSP output data (i.e. 
national MSP plans and planned sea uses), as well as a portal to access Baltic Sea MSP 
relevant data, including both input data (i.e. thematic data relevant for MSP purposes) 
and  output  data  (i.e.  national  MSP  plans  and  planned  sea  uses).  The  INSPIRE  Data 
Specification on Land Use has been taken as guidance when designing the data model 
for  output data. 149 These  initiatives could be a basis for the further harmonisation of 
input and output MSP data with INSPIRE data models. 

Another possibility to share maritime spatial plans may be through the European Marine 
Observation and Data Network (EMODnet), the marine data portal initiated by DG MARE. 
150  Work  has  been  done  since  2018  to  align  the  EMODnet  Human  Activities’  portal 151 
data  models  to  INSPIRE’s  Data  Specifications.  A  first  study  published  in  February 
2018152 compared the EMODnet Human Activities’ datasets to the INSPIRE application 
schemas to identify actions that needed to be taken for further harmonisation. The study 
concluded  that  the  harmonisation  of  EMODnet  Human  Activities’  datasets  to  INSPIRE 
application  schemas  could  be  difficult  (as  17  INSPIRE  application  schemas  could  be 
applicable  to  66  EMODnet  Human  Activities’  datasets,  with  -  more  or  less  -  direct 
alignment  depending  on  the  themes).  Following  this  report,  the  approach  taken  has 
been  to  harmonise  EMODnet  Human  Activities  datasets  using  the  INSPIRE  Land  Use 
data  model,  following  the  approach  taken  in  the  MarSP  project  mentioned  above.  153 
Results from this harmonisation exercise with the INSPIRE Land Use data model have 
been  presented  online in  a  dedicated  map  viewer.  154  The  final  report  from  the  study 
concluded that harmonising the EMODnet human activities datasets to the INSPIRE Land 
Use data model is feasible although some information from EMODnet's datasets are lost 
when applying the INSPIRE Land Use model, as there is no direct alignment between 
the two. The study came to a similar conclusion as the MarSP project mentioned above, 
that the HILUCS Land Use codelist, used in the INSPIRE Land Use model is too broad to 
characterise many maritime uses, which results in several different datasets using the 
same  HILUCS  codes  and  therefore  not  being  properly  identified.  To  ensure  better 
coherence  between  INSPIRE  and  EMODnet  human  activities  data,  the  study 

147 Abramic A, Garcia A, Tello Antón O, Agudo LM, Bruque Carmona G, Zanella A, Norton C, Haroun R. 
(2019)  Data  specification  for  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  INSPIRE  data  model,  Macaronesian  Maritime 
Spatial Planning (MarSP) C-3PO - D.5.1, Version 1.0:  

http://www.marsp.eu/media/files/61/marspwp5d51mspinspiredatamodel.pdf  (Last  accessed  on  14 

May 2021).  

148 HELCOM (VASAB CSPD/BSR) (2019) Guidelines on transboundary MSP output data structure in the 
Baltic  Sea:  https://vasab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Guidelines-on-transboundary-MSP-output-
data-structure-ADOPTEDbyVASAB__HELCOM.pdf (Last accessed on 14 May 2021). 

149 

Andžej 

Sea: 
https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/8_andzej_m._basemaps.pdf  (Last  accessed  on  14  May 
2021). 

Transboundary 

output 

Miloš, 

Baltic 

data 

MSP 

the 

in 

150 EMODnet Central Portal: https://emodnet.eu/en (Last accessed on 17 May 2021) 
151  EMODnet  Human  Activities:  https://www.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/  (Last  accessed  on  17  May 

2021) 

152 Sagarminaga, Y., Solaun, O. (2018) EMODNET human activities data models: towards compliance 
with INSPIRE DATA Specifications. EMODnet Phase III, Task Report, "Analyze compliance with INSPIRE”: 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/system/files/EMODNET_INSPIRE_data_models_compa
rison.pdf (Last accessed on 17 May 2021). 

153 Sagarminaga, Y., EMODNET-Human activities : steps forward for INSPIRE compliance. Presentation 
at the Virtual Workshop “Exploring and applying INSPIRE principles within Maritime Spatial Planning”, at 
the 
2020: 
https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2_yolanda_s._azti_emodnet.pdf  (Last  accessed  on  17 
May 2021). 

Conference 

INSPIRE 

2020, 

June 

12 

154 

INSPIRE 

Locations 
http://oceandata.azti.es/thredds/fileServer/EMODNET_HA/EMODNET_INSPIRE_webgis.html 
accessed on 05 July 2021). 

EMODnet's 

Activities 

Human 

Land 

Use 

- 

Dataset: 
(Last 

145 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

recommended to provide more flexibility to extend the HILUCS Land Use codelist and 
to extend data models with new attributes. 155  

Consultation activities  

Scoping interviews  

During  the  scoping  interview,  DG  MARE  indicated  that  The  EMODnet  portal  follows 
INSPIRE  standards  for  oceanography  parameters.  The  use  of  INSPIRE  standards  for 
data sharing is guaranteed through contractual requirements with organisation involved 
in EMODnet. The technical coordinators of the EMODnet portal collaborate with the team 
responsible for the INSPIRE infrastructure, and according to DG MARE, the cooperation 
works well and ensures that there are no inconsistencies with INSPIRE. However, DG 
MARE  indicated  that  INSPIRE  has  been  primarily  conceived  for  land  data,  which 
sometimes creates complexities with regard to the integration of oceanographic data.  
156  

Focus Group interview  

Two Focus Group Interviews out of seven mentioned the link between INSPIRE and MSP. 
One  Focus  Group  Interview  mentioned  that  there  is  strong  interest  in  the  maritime 
community  in  INSPIRE,  especially  with  regards  to  Maritime  Spatial  Planning,  and 
authorities cooperate to create common infrastructure and services, taking INSPIRE into 
consideration.  In another Focus Group  Interview,  INSPIRE is however  not driving the 
data reporting or data gathering exercises for the national MSP, partly because this is 
not a requirement. 

Efforts to harmonise data across data platforms and the role of INSPIRE in this process 
have  also  been  mentioned  in  one  of  the  Focus  Group  interviews.  It  was  mentioned 
especially that INSPIRE schemas were used to harmonise data in EMODnet, and that 
some parts of INSPIRE standards are used in SeaDataNet.  157 This is a pan-European 
infrastructure  for  marine  data  sharing  –  INSPIRE  metadata  standards  are  used  in 
SeaDataNet  metadata.  Opinions  were  shared  that  the  objective  is  not  to  achieve  full 
compliance  with  INSPIRE  but  to  adopt  some  of  the  standards  where  convenient  to 
strengthen links between different data infrastructures. Another Focus Group Interview 
also  shared  an  example  of  bilateral  use  of  INSPIRE  standards  with  the  national 
Geological survey, which might be pursued in the future.  

Targeted surveys  

Questions related to MSP in the targeted survey amongst the marine community mainly 
concerned the use of INSPIRE data for the preparation of national maritime spatial plans. 
Results  from  the  survey  (which  gathered  37  responses)  indicated  that  INSPIRE  data 
only supported the preparation of maritime spatial plans to a limited extent (see figure 
below).  

155 Sagarminaga, Y., Solaun, O, Menchaca, I., Franco, J. (2020) Implementation of the INSPIRE Land 
Use  Theme  (LU)  for  EMODnet  Human  activities  datasets.  EMODnet  Phase  III,  Task  Report: 
http://oceandata.azti.es/thredds/fileServer/EMODNET_HA/INSPIRE_LAND_USE_4_EMODNET_2020.pdf 
(Last accessed on 05 July 2021). 

156 Scoping Interview with DG MARE.  
157 SeaDataNet : https://www.seadatanet.org/ (Last accessed on 17 May).  

146 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-35  Extent to which INSPIRE data has been used in the development of MSPs 
(N=23) 

2

8

1

1

4

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a large extent
To a very small extent

To some extent
Not at all

To a small extent
Do not know

Source: All respondents, Targeted survey of the marine community April-May 2021, Question 26: To what 
extent has the marine spatial data made available thanks to INSPIRE been used in the development of the 
national maritime spatial plans?  

Similarly, to Focus Group interviews above, the small number of responses to the survey 
do  not  allow  confident  conclusions  for  all  EU  Member  States.  However,  some  of  the 
reasons  provided  by  stakeholders  for  the  limited  contribution  of  INSPIRE  to  the 
preparation  of  MSPs  so  far  confirm  findings  from  the  desk  research:  the  low  level  of 
implementation  of  INSPIRE  might  prevent  the  use  of  INSPIRE  for  policy  making. 
Complementing this, one stakeholder indicated that the publication of INSPIRE datasets 
was made too late to contribute to the MPS; another noted that the transformation of 
marine data sets according to INSPIRE standards is less advanced than for terrestrial 
data. Two other stakeholders mentioned differences between INSPIRE datasets and the 
data needed for MSP (e.g., level of detail, scale, terminology, attributes), which limits 
the usability of INSPIRE datasets for MSP preparation. The complexity of using INSPIRE 
data models was also mentioned. 

Public consultation 

Coherence  with  the  MSP  Directive  was  not  addressed  in  the  public  consultation.  One 
respondent commented in the last question of the consultation158 that data specifications 
on Area Management / Restriction / Regulation Zones and Reporting Units only refer to 
‘Management  of  Coastal  Zones’  and  do  not  cover  the  maritime  space,  and  that  to 
increase  consistency  between  INSPIRE  and  MSP  obligations,  data  related  to  the 
maritime space should be updated in INSPIRE. 

Transport  

TEN-T Guidelines  

The TEN-T policy supports the development of a Europe-wide transport networks for all 
modes,  including  railway  lines,  roads,  inland  waterways,  maritime  shipping  routes, 
ports,  airports,  and  railroad  terminals.  The  TEN-T  has  a  dual  layer  structure:  the 
comprehensive network, which aims to ensure connectivity of all regions of the EU, and 
the core network, which consists of the elements of the network which are of the highest 
strategic importance for the EU, because they link the most important nodes and cover 
main cross-border connections. Regulation n°1315/2013 of 11 December 2013 on Union 
guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-European  transport  network  (the  TEN-T 
Regulation) defines binding targets for implementation, as the core network needs to 
be  implemented  by  2030  and  the  comprehensive  network  by  2050.  The  TEN-T 

158  Public  consultation,  Question  29 :  ‘If  you  wish  to  add  further  comments,  within  the  scope of  this 

questionnaire, please feel free to do so here.’ 

147 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Regulation also establishes core network corridors which are operational tools for the 
implementation of the core network. 

The TEN-T Regulation requires Member States to report annually on the progress made 
in implementing transport projects and the investments made for that purpose (Article 
49  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation).  Member  States  should  report  through  the  technical 
information  system  for  the  trans-European  transport  network  (TENtec).159  Similar 
information should also be provided by Member States through their national SDI as the 
TEN-T  network  is  part  of  the  INSPIRE  ‘Transport  networks’  data  theme.  160  There  is 
consequently some overlap between the TEN-T reporting and the creation of transport 
INSPIRE data sets, although the reporting under TEN-T also requires non-spatial data 
not covered by INSPIRE (such as financial data on transport projects). 

The TEN-T Regulation currently does not refer to INSPIRE. The Regulation is however 
under  revision  and  the  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  states  that  the  TEN-T 
Regulation should ‘consistently build on EU data sharing policies, such as the Open Data 
Directive and the Inspire Directive’. 161  

Consultation activities  

Scoping interviews  

According to DG MOVE, the information to be reported through TENtec as per the TEN-
T  Regulation  and  the  information  to  be  provided  through  INSPIRE  are  currently  not 
entirely  harmonised.  Further  improvements  of  TENtec  are  planned,  especially  the 
implementation of a linear referenced network followed by an automated data exchange 
solution together with Member States, which will follow INSPIRE rules and standards as 
much as possible. The aim is to ensure that Member States only have to provide the 
information once. According to DG MOVE, synergies between TENtec and INSPIRE could 
be further developed and collaboration between the European Commission services on 
this  could  be  formalised.  The  current  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  which  should 
result in the adoption of a new Regulation in 2021, addresses issues linked to monitoring 
and reporting and could provide a basis to discuss whether and how links to INSPIRE 
could be created.162 

Focus Group interviews  

No  comments  were  made  during  the  seven  Focus  Group  Interviews  on  the  relations 
between INSPIRE and TEN-T.  

Targeted surveys  

There were no targeted surveys focusing on the transport sector. Questions related to 
transport focused on the use of INSPIRE data for transport and mobility rather than on 
coherence issues between INSPIRE and the transport legal and policy framework.  

Public consultation  

159 TENtec: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/site/index_en.htm  
160 D2.8.I.7Data Specification on Transport Networks–Technical Guidelines, 2014:  
https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/document/tg/tn  
161  European  Commission  (2021)  Commission  Staff  Working Document.  Evaluation  of  the Regulation 
(EU)  N°  1315/2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  a  trans-European  transport  network. 
SWD(2021) 117 final.  

162 Based on information provided in writing by DG MOVE, TENtec Team.  

148 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Coherence between TENtec reporting and INSPIRE reporting were not addressed in the 
public consultation and no comments were made on this issue. 

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) Directive  

Desk review 

Directive  2010/40/EU  on  the  framework  for  the  deployment  of  Intelligent  Transport 
Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport 
(ITS Directive) establishes general conditions to support the coordinated and coherent 
deployment and use of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) across the EU in the field of 
road  transport  and  its  interfaces  with  other  modes  of  transport.  ITS  are  ‘systems  in 
which  information  and  communication  technologies  are  applied  in  the  field  of  road 
transport, including infrastructure, vehicles and users, and in traffic management and 
mobility management, as well as for interfaces with other modes of transport’ (Article 4 
of the ITS Directive). Specifications addressing the compatibility, interoperability, and 
continuity of ITS have  been developed through five Delegated Regulations on safety-
related  traffic  information;  an  EU  eCall  service;  safe  parking  places  for  trucks  and 
commercial  vehicles;  real-time  traffic  information  services;  and  multimodal  travel 
information  services.  The  ITS  Directive  and  its  Delegated  Regulations  cover  activities 
which may have an impact on the environment and control the access to spatial data 
that may be of interest for environmental policies. They are in this respect relevant in 
the context of INSPIRE. 

Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2015/962  on  the  provision  of  EU-wide  real-time  traffic 
information services aims to ensure the accessibility, exchange, re-use and update of 
road  and  traffic  data  by  road  authorities,  road  operators  and  information  service 
providers.  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1926  on  the  provision  of  EU-wide 
multimodal  travel  information  services  controls  the  provision  of  accurate  wide 
multimodal travel information services and their availability across borders to ITS users. 
Both Regulations require the establishment of National Access Points, which are single 
points of access for users to transport related data supplied by authorities, operators, 
infrastructure managers or service providers. Both Regulations cover both static data 
(related to the transport network, its physical attributes and data related to traffic signs, 
speed limits, facilities) and dynamic data (real time traffic information). Static data could 
potentially be shared through INSPIRE. 

Both Regulations make reference to the INSPIRE Directive as a tool to share data related 
to  the  transport  network.  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1926  on  the  provision  of  EU-wide 
multimodal  travel  information  services  contains  a  requirement  that  transport 
authorities, operators, infrastructure managers or service providers provide static travel 
and traffic data and historic traffic data using ‘for the spatial network the requirements 
defined  in  Article  7  of  Directive  2007/2/EC’  (Article  4(1)(c)).  A  similar  requirement 
currently does not exist in Regulation (EU) 2015/962 on the provision of EU-wide real-
time traffic information services. However, Recital 6 of this Regulation states that ‘the 
specifications  set  out  in  this  Regulation  should  be  compatible  with  the  specifications 
established by Directive 2007/2/EC’.  

The  gaps,  overlaps  and  alignment  potential  between  standards  used  in  the  transport 
area  has  been  investigated  in  two  JRC  studies  –  a  study  related  to  the  EULF 
transportation  pilot  in  2016,  163  which  investigated  the  possibility  of  road  safety  data 

163 Pignatelli, F ; Boguslawski, R ; Borzacchiello, M. T (2016) Improving accuracy in road safety data 
exchange for navigation systems. European Union Location Framework Transportation Pilot, Publications 
Office 
JRC104569: 
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/european-union-location-framework-eulf/document/report-

Luxembourg, 

European 

Union, 

the 

of 

149 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

sharing  drawing  on  INSPIRE  specifications,  and  more  recently,  the  INSPIRE-MMTIS 
study, carried out in 2019 on overlaps in standards related to the Delegated Regulation 
(EU)  2017/1926.  164  The  2019  study  examined  how  INSPIRE  related  with  other 
standards  used  in  the  transport  domain  (Transmodel,  NeTEX,  DATEX,  IATA,  TAP-TSI 
and  INSPIRE)  and  provided  recommendations  to  Member  States  on  the  usage  of  the 
various standards for the different data categories covered by the delegated regulation. 
165  

Consultation activities  

Scoping interviews  

The ITS unit of DG MOVE indicated during an interview that Regulation (EU) 2015/962 
is currently under revision. Article 4 of the Regulation is planned to be revised to make 
it explicit that INSPIRE may be used to provide data, along with other data standards 
used for traffic information exchange (such as Datex II).166 As a result, Regulation (EU) 
2015/962  will  be  aligned  with  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1926  and  the  coherence  with 
INSPIRE regarding static data will be ensured, at least legally.167 

According to DG MOVE, the link between the ITS Regulations and INSPIRE was explicitly 
made in the legislation to avoid creating overlapping datasets, and to make sure that 
Member  States  could  use  INSPIRE  data,  where  considered  relevant  by  national 
authorities, to fulfil the data requirements of ITS Regulations. As a result, if a national 
authority considers that the data already made available through INSPIRE is of sufficient 
quality to fulfil some of the requirements under the ITS Regulations, they can consider 
themselves compliant by making a link to the INSPIRE via the National Access Point. 168 

Although using INSPIRE data to fulfil the data requirements of the ITS Regulations is in 
theory possible, the experience from DG MOVE has shown that, in practice, it might not 
often be the  case that INSPIRE is sufficiently accurate.  Quality requirements  for data 
needed for real-time travel and traffic information services are high – for instance such 
data must be frequently updated to provide real time accurate information. The data 
available in INSPIRE, updated annually, might not be sufficiently recent for the types of 
services developed under ITS. Another example relates to spatial accuracy – the spatial 
accuracy  in  INSPIRE  might  not  be  sufficient  for  navigation  services  and  automated 
driving.  In  some  cases,  INSPIRE  data  does  not  match  ITS  requirements  –  regarding 
cycling infrastructure, not all types of cycling lanes (on road and in separated lanes) are 
represented in INSPIRE, which is leading Member States to develop separate datasets 
on cycling infrastructure. 169 

Focus Group interviews  

Only a few comments were made in relation to transport during the seven Focus Group 
Interviews. One Focus Group Interview confirmed that there is an agreement under the 

improving-accuracy-road-safety-data-exchange-navigation-systems-european-union-location 
accessed on 26.05.21). 

(Last 

164  Bourée,  K.,  De  Vries,  B.,  Duquesne,  C.,  Dodson,  C.,  Jugelt,  S.,  Martirano,  G.,  Minghini,  M.  and 
Pignatelli,  F.  (2019)  INSPIRE-MMTIS:  overlap  in  standards  related  to  the  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2017/1926, 
JRC118744: 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC118744 (Last accessed on 26.05.21).  

Publications  Office 

Luxembourg, 

European 

Union, 

the 

of 

165 

INSPIRE 

support 

to 

Multi-Modal 

Travel 

Information 

Services: 

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/elise-european-location-interoperability-solutions-e-
government/inspire-support-multi-modal-travel-information-services (Last accessed on 26.05.21).  

166 Datex II: https://www.datex2.eu/  
167 Scoping interview with DG MOVE. 
168 Scoping interview with DG MOVE. 
169 Scoping interview with DG MOVE. 

150 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

ITS Directive that INSPIRE compliant datasets that are already available can be used 
under  ITS.  Two  Focus  Group  Interviews  also  mentioned  that  INSPIRE  datasets  might 
not be the most accurate to comply with the ITS Directive and Implementing Regulations 
and that datasets provided under other standards might be richer and more in line with 
ITS data requirements.  

Targeted surveys  

There were no targeted surveys focusing on the transport sector. Questions related to 
transport focused on the use of INSPIRE data for transport and mobility rather than on 
coherence issues between INSPIRE and the transport legal and policy framework.  

Public consultation 

Coherence  between  data  sharing  under  the  ITS  Directive  and  INSPIRE  were  not 
addressed in the public consultation and no comments were made on this issue. 

Climate adaptation (including disaster management)  

Desk review 

The  new  Strategy  on  adaptation  to  climate  change,  170  adopted  in  February  2021, 
includes as one of its four main objectives to make adaptation ‘smarter’, by improving 
knowledge on climate impacts and adaptation solutions, improving data availability to 
inform policy decisions, and developing Climate-ADAPT  as the authoritative European 
platform  for  adaptation  knowledge.  The  Strategy  in  particular  highlights  the  need  to 
gather more and better scientific data on climate-related risks and losses to improve 
climate risk assessment and decision-making. In this regard, the Strategy mentions that 
the review of the INSPIRE Directive offers an opportunity to extend the scope of INSPIRE 
to cover environmental and climate-related disaster loss data, with a view to facilitate 
access to climate-related risk and losses data for stakeholders.  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interview  

The rationale behind the inclusion in the Strategy on adaptation to climate change of an 
objective to collect ‘More and better climate-related risk and losses data’ (section 2.1.2. 
of the Strategy) came from the observation that access to climate-related risk and loss 
data171  in  Europe  was  poor.  Based  on  this  observation,  an  interservice  group  was 
created, including one working group on data, which was tasked to do an inventory of 
the  data  needs  and  propose  ways  to  improve  the  collection  and  sharing  of  climate-
related disaster loss data and its quality. The inclusion of climate-related disaster loss 
into the scope of the INSPIRE Directive was a recommendation from this working group. 
172  For  the  time  being,  the  focus  of  the  work  has  been  mainly  on  data collection  and 
recording, not yet on data sharing. To go further, discussions will be initiated with other 

170 European Commission (2021) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  Forging  a 
climate-resilient Europe - the new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. COM(2021) 82 final.  

171  This  data  comprise direct  economic  losses from physical climate  change  impacts,  including public 
and private (citizens and businesses) losses from buildings, infrastructure, agriculture and commercial 
forestry operations and from the private and public cost of emergency response and recovery. 
172 Scoping interview with DG CLIMA, Unit A.3 – Adaptation, and the EEA, 16 April 2021.  

151 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

European Commission services on how climate-related risk and loss data can be included 
in INSPIRE. 173 

According to DG CLIMA, although the Strategy focuses on climate related issues, there 
is an understanding across the European Commission that the scope of climate-related 
risk  and  loss  data  could,  when  included  in  INSPIRE,  cover  more  than  climate  issues, 
such as natural disasters (e.g. volcano eruptions). 174 

As  climate-related  risk  and  loss  data  covers  several  types  of  climate  change  impacts 
(droughts,  floods,  wildfires,  storms,  etc.),  and  sectors  (such  as  agriculture,  forestry, 
transport, buildings and infrastructure, and human health), many INSPIRE data themes 
might  be  relevant  and  might  already  contain  part  of  the  data  needed.  However, 
according to DG CLIMA and the EEA, a full screening and comparison of INSPIRE data 
sets and the required climate-related risk and loss data has not yet been carried out. 
This would be necessary to identify possible amendments to INSPIRE data specifications 
and where new datasets are needed. Based on an indicative screening, it is likely that 
some  socioeconomic  data  indicating  the  geographic  distribution  of  assets  will  require 
the creation of new datasets. 175 

A potential barrier for the inclusion of climate-related risk and loss data into INSPIRE 
might be the need to collect data from both public and private data providers. Insurance 
and reinsurance companies are relevant private data providers in this area – currently 
the  EEA  indicator  on  losses  from  weather  and  climate-related  is  based  on  data  from 
MunichRe.  The  INSPIRE  Directive  however  only  covers  spatial  data  held  by  public 
authorities and there are not yet any obligations for private companies to share data. 
Another  issue  that  was  mentioned  during  the  scoping  interview  was  that  climate 
adaptation data does not only include historical data, but also model-based data used 
to  build  scenarios,  which  might  be  difficult  to  include  in  the  annexes  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive  as  INSPIRE  data  is  mainly  based  on  Member  States  reporting  obligations, 
which usually do not relate to model-based data.176 

Climate ADAPT  

Climate-ADAPT177  is  the  information  platform  on  climate  adaptation,  created  as  a 
partnership between the European Commission and the EEA. Climate-ADAPT currently 
contains two different spatial data features:  

  An Urban Adaptation Map Viewer178 which might be further developed/extended 
in the future. Data used in the map viewer are collated by the EEA from various 
sources.  

  A version of this map viewer specifically for health and climate-related topics in 

the new European Climate and Health Observatory179. 

173 Scoping interview with DG CLIMA, Unit A.3 – Adaptation, and the EEA, 16 April 2021. 
174 Scoping interview with DG CLIMA, Unit A.3 – Adaptation, and the EEA, 16 April 2021. 
175 Scoping interview with DG CLIMA, Unit A.3 – Adaptation, and the EEA, 16 April 2021. 
176 Scoping interview with DG CLIMA, Unit A.3 – Adaptation, and the EEA, 16 April 2021. 
177 Climate-ADAPT: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/  
178  Urban  Adaptation  Map  Viewer :  https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/urban-

adaptation  

179 

European 

Climate 

and 

Health 

Observatory : 

https://climate-

adapt.eea.europa.eu/observatory/evidence/projections-and-tools/urban-adaptation-mapviewer-health-
focus/  

152 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The  EEA  indicated  that  the  map  services  provided  on  Climate-ADAPT  are  compatible 
with  the  INSPIRE  directive.  The  metadata  are  already  fully  INSPIRE  compliant,  and 
although the services may still need some fine tuning, they do follow the INSPIRE main 
standards.  The  map  services  could  be  integrated  into  the  EU/national  SDI  as  the 
metadata (including the links to services) is provided via INSPIRE compliant discovery 
services.180 

From June 2021, the EEA is providing access to climate related indicators provided by 
the  Copernicus  Climate  Change  Service.  The  Copernicus  Climate  Change  Service 
provides  data  and  products  that  are  described  using  the  ISO19115  metadata  record 
standard  and  are  made  available  through  the  OAI-PMH  and  OGC-CSW  protocols  for 
interoperability with the World Meteorological Organization Information System and the 
EU’s INSPIRE initiative, respectively.181 

Focus Group interviews  

Climate and disaster management were not mentioned in the Focus Group Interviews.  

Targeted surveys  

Climate  and  disaster  management  were  not  addressed  in  the  targeted  surveys  as 
climate adaptation data is currently not fully covered by INSPIRE data themes.  

Public consultation 

Coherence between climate and disaster management data sharing and INSPIRE was 
not addressed in the public consultation and no comments were made on this issue. 

Space Policy / Copernicus  

Desk review 

The EU space policy aims to harness the potential of space technology, data and services 
to  provide  services  (navigation  systems,  satellite  TV,  meteorology,  transport  safety 
etc.),  and  support  policy  development.  The  Space  Strategy  for  Europe,182  adopted  in 
2016, highlights that ‘data and services derived from space systems, including satellite 
images,  geo-positioning  information  and  satellite  communications’  can  strongly 
contribute  to  various  public  policies,  including  environmental  protection,  climate, 
disaster  management,  transport,  agriculture  or  fisheries.  The  EU  space  policy  is 
implemented through three flagship space programmes: Copernicus which is the EU’s 
Earth observation programme, and which is the most relevant of the three programmes 
in relation to INSPIRE, Galileo, Europe's global satellite navigation system, and EGNOS, 
the  European  Geostationary  Navigation  Overlay  Service,  which  provides  navigation 
services to aviation, maritime and land-based users in Europe.183 

Copernicus is managed by the European Commission, together with partners including 
the Member States, the European Space Agency, and the European Organisation for the 
Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites. The programme provides data, information and 

180 Scoping interview with DG CLIMA, Unit A.3 – Adaptation, and the EEA, 16 April 2021.  
181 Scoping interview with DG CLIMA, Unit A.3 – Adaptation, and the EEA, 16 April 2021.  
182 European Commission (2016) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  Space  Strategy  for 
Europe. COM(2016) 705 final.  

183 European Commission, Space : https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/space_en  

153 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

services  based  on  satellite  Earth  Observation  data  and  in  situ  (non-space)  data.184 
Copernicus  offers  six  thematic  services:185  1)  the  Copernicus  Atmosphere  Monitoring 
Service, 2) the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service, 3) the Copernicus 
Land Monitoring Service, 4) the Copernicus Climate Change Service, 5) the Copernicus 
service for Security applications (border surveillance, maritime surveillance, support to 
EU External Action, 6) Copernicus Emergency Management Service. with the exception 
of the service for Security applications, restricted to Member States’ authorities, all other 
Copernicus services are freely and openly accessible. The Copernicus services relies on 
data coming from a set of dedicated satellites (the Sentinels) and contributing missions 
(existing commercial and public satellites)186, as well as on in situ monitoring networks 
(e.g. ground based weather stations, ocean buoys and air quality monitoring networks) 
managed  by  the  Member  States.  The  EEA  is  coordinating  the  in-situ  component  of 
Copernicus at EU level.187 

Copernicus  is  closely  related  to  INSPIRE  as  Copernicus  Services  require  access  to 
harmonised geospatial information at EU level to produce and validate a number of their 
products. In situ data required by the Copernicus Services and the INSPIRE data themes 
also  clearly  overlap,188  as  they  include  geospatial  reference  data  (e.g.  transport 
networks,  administrative  boundaries,  elevation  models).  As  a  result,  INSPIRE  can 
support the objectives of Copernicus as it ensures that more datasets will gradually be 
discoverable  and  accessible  by  the  Copernicus  Service.  In  turn,  this  might  create 
demand for INSPIRE data.189 On the other hand, the fact that many geospatial datasets 
and services produced by Copernicus follow INSPIRE guidelines190 should increase their 
interoperability and support the objectives of INSPIRE. 

The alignment between INSPIRE and Copernicus services is required in the legislation. 
The former Copernicus Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 377/2014191), no longer in force, 
provided  that  ‘Copernicus  data  should  be  compliant  with  Member  States'  spatial 
reference  data  as  well  as  with  implementing  rules  and  technical  guidelines  of  the 
infrastructure for spatial information in the Union established by Directive 2007/2/EC’ 
(Recital  9).  This  obligation  is  also  present  in  Article  5.2  of  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1159/2013,192  which  requires  that  ‘dedicated  data  and  Global 
Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  service  information  –  including 
Copernicus – shall comply with the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC to the extent 
that the data and information fall within the scope of those provisions.’ Discovery, view 

184 Copernicus in detail : https://www.copernicus.eu/en/about-copernicus/copernicus-detail  
185 Copernicus services: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/copernicus-services  
186 Copernicus in detail : https://www.copernicus.eu/en/about-copernicus/copernicus-detail  
187 In situ component: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/about-copernicus/infrastructure/situ-component  
188  Henrik  Steen  Andersen  (2017)  Report  from  workshop:  Has  the  Copernicus  services’  access  to 
geospatial data been improved through the implementation of INSPIRE? at the INSPIRE Conference 2017, 
4-5 September 2017: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/conference2017/workshops#c_32_235  

189  Henrik  Steen  Andersen  (2017)  Report  from  workshop:  Has  the  Copernicus  services’  access  to 
geospatial data been improved through the implementation of INSPIRE? at the INSPIRE Conference 2017, 
4-5 September 2017: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/conference2017/workshops#c_32_235  

190 Minghini, M., Cetl, V., Kotsev, A., Tomas, R., Lutz, M. (2021) INSPIRE: The Entry Point to Europe’s 
Big  Geospatial  Data  Infrastructure,  Chapter  24  in  M.  Werner,  Y.-Y.  Chiang  (eds.),  Handbook  of  Big 
Geospatial Data. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021.  

191  Regulation  (EU)  No  377/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014 
establishing  the  Copernicus  Programme  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No  911/2010.  OJ  L  122, 
24.4.2014, p. 44–66. This Regulation was repealed by Regulation (EU) 2021/696. See footnote 194.  

192  Commission Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 1159/2013 of 12  July  2013  supplementing Regulation 
(EU)  No  911/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  European  Earth  monitoring 
programme  (GMES)  by  establishing  registration  and  licensing  conditions  for  GMES  users  and  defining 
criteria  for  restricting  access  to  GMES  dedicated  data  and  GMES  service  information.  OJ  L  309, 
19.11.2013, p. 1–6. 

154 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

and  download  services  of  the  various  Copernicus  services  available  follow  INSPIRE 
standards.193 

Regarding  the  contribution  of  INSPIRE  to  Copernicus  in  situ  data,  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/696194 establishing the Union Space Programme states that ‘Where feasible and 
appropriate, Copernicus should also make use of the available in-situ and ancillary data 
provided  mainly  by  the  Member  States  in  accordance  with  Directive  2007/2/EC’  and 
recommends that ‘the Commission should work together with the Member States and 
the European Environment Agency to ensure an efficient access and use of the in-situ 
data  sets  for  Copernicus’  (Recital  72).  The  EEA  launched  a  study  in  2017  to  assess 
whether Copernicus services benefit from the implementation of INSPIRE, and if known 
gaps in in-situ data can be closed with the continued implementation of INSPIRE.195 The 
main  conclusions  of  the  study  were  that  INSPIRE  and  Copernicus  share  key 
requirements, as they both aim to use spatial data harmonised across borders, and that 
INSPIRE  is  a  good  source  of  data  to  add  to  the  Copernicus  in-situ  component  and 
support  the  services,  but  that  the  current  status  of  implementation  of  INSPIRE  still 
prevents  the  full  contribution  of  INSPIRE  to  Copernicus.  As  not  all  data  is  fully 
harmonised  yet,  usable  data  for  Copernicus  services  is  only  progressively  made 
available.196 

Consultation activities 

Focus Group interviews  

Space policy and Copernicus were not discussed in the Focus Group Interviews.  

Targeted surveys  

Coherence  between  INSPIRE  and  Copernicus  was  addressed  in  two  surveys 
(environmental  and  marine  community)  but  gathered  limited  feedback  from  a  small 
number  of  respondents,  indicating  that  Copernicus  was  partially  in  line  with  INSPIRE 
standards.  

Public consultation 

Coherence  between  space  policy  and  INSPIRE  was  not  addressed  in  the  public 
consultation and no comments were made on this issue. 

5.5.4.  EQ 5.4 To what extent is INSPIRE coherent with Directive 2003/4/EC 
on public access to environmental information and the objectives of the 
Common European Green Deal data space? 

EQ  5.4  aims  to  review  the  interactions  between  the  INSPIRE  Directive  with  Directive 
2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information and larger initiatives around 
the  Common  European  Green  Deal  data  space.  Building  on  the  findings  of  the 
assessment of effectiveness EQ 2.4 (which investigates the extent to which INSPIRE has 
supported  Member  States  to  carry  out  their  obligations  in  dissemination  of 
environmental  information),  relevance  EQ  3.4  (which  considers  the  current  state  of 

193  Facchini,  M.  (DG  GROW,  Copernicus  Unit).  Copernicus.  Synergies  between  the  EU  Copernicus 

programme and INSPIRE. Presentation at the INSPIRE Conference 2016, 28/09/2016.  

194 Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing 
the Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and repealing 
Regulations (EU) No 912/2010, (EU) No 1285/2013 and (EU) No 377/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EU. 
OJ L 170, 12.5.2021, p. 69–148.  

195  Reitz,  T.,  Roller  J.,  Rip  F.,  Bulens,  J.  (2018)  INSPIRE  Servicing  Copernicus  (INSCope).  European 

Environmental Agency, EEA/ IDM/R0/16/010 - Annex 5.  

196 Ibid.  

155 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

technology), and efficiency EQ 4.8, this evaluation question 5.4 analyses the extent to 
which the legislative obligations in the two Directives are complementary, whether there 
are any inconsistencies, overlaps and gaps, and contribute to conclusions on whether 
the legislative framework remains fit within the context of current wider EU goals. 

Text box 5-27   Key/summary findings EQ 5.4: Coherence with Directive 2003/4 on Public 

Access to Environmental Information  

The  desk  review  did  not  reveal  any  inconsistencies  between  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and 

Directive  2003/4  on  Public  Access  to  Environmental  Information.  The  two  Directives  serves 

different purposes (transparency vs interoperability and data accessibility through view and 

download services) and have different scopes (despite some overlap).  

INSPIRE  can  support  the  implementation  of  Directive  2003/4  as  it  provides  a  technical 

framework for electronic data sharing. However, the desk review and limited input from Focus 

Group  interviews  showed  that,  so  far,  Member  States  often  tend  to  implement  national 

environmental information systems and INSPIRE separately.  

Directive 2003/4 does not mention the INSPIRE Directive as it was adopted before INSPIRE 

and  has  not  been  revised.  Based  on  inputs  from  scoping  interviews,  it  appears  that  the 

language  of  Directive  2003/4  with  regards  to  data  sharing  is  also  quite  outdated  and  the 

obligation to share information through ‘electronic means’ is not further specified with regards 

to environmental data. To ensure stronger coherence between the two instruments and ensure 

that INSPIRE supports better the implementation of Directive 2003/4, a reference to INSPIRE, 

indicating that data referred to in Article 7(e) should be shared in accordance with INSPIRE, 

could be added in Article 7 of Directive 2003/4. 

Desk review 

Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information and INSPIRE were 
adopted for different purposes. Directive 2003/4/EC has the objective of ensuring the 
right of access to environmental information held by public authorities to end users and 
more generally to promote the progressive dissemination of environmental information 
to the public, for transparency purposes, and for enabling public scrutiny and access to 
justice,  as  provided  by  the  Aarhus  Convention.  One  of  the  objectives  of  Directive 
2003/4/EC  was  indeed  also  to  bring  EU  law  in  line  with  the  provisions  of  the  Aarhus 
Convention on access to information. To this end, directive 2003/4/EC has adopted a 
dual approach by providing for access to environmental information on request under 
Article  3  while  also  requiring  Member  States  to  take  a  proactive  approach  to  the 
dissemination  of  environmental  information  under  Article  7.  Although  INSPIRE  also 
requires  the  sharing  of  spatial  data  related  to  environmental  policies  and  policies 
affecting the environment, its objectives are less about transparency and more about 
ensuring access and interoperability.  

Both  directives  have  different,  yet  partially  overlapping,  scopes.  Directive  2003/4/EC 
defines  ‘environmental  information’  as  ‘any  information  in  written,  visual,  aural, 
electronic or any other material form on a) the state of the elements of the environment, 
such as air, water, soil, etc. and the interaction among these elements; b) factors, such 
as  substances,  energy,  noise,  radiation  or  waste,  and  other  releases  into  the 
environment,  which  are  likely  to  affect  it;  c)  measures,  such  as  policies,  legislation, 
plans,  programmes,  environmental  agreements,  affecting  or  designed  to  protect  the 
environment; d)  reports on the implementation of  environmental legislation; e) cost-

156 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

benefit and other economic analyses  and assumptions used in adopting measures; f) 
the  state  of  human  health  and  safety,  including  the  contamination  of  the  food  chain, 
conditions  of  human  life,  cultural  sites  if  they  may  be  affected  by  the  state  of  the 
environment  (Article2(1)  of  Directive  2003/4/EC)’.  This  definition  is  the  same  as  the 
definition in the Aarhus Convention. 

Although there is an overlap between the scope of Directive 2003/4/EC and the INSPIRE 
Directive  –  as  spatial  data  is  critical  to  provide  information  on  the  state  of  the 
environment  –  the  scope  of  ‘environmental  information’  addressed  by  Directive 
2003/4/EC is significantly broader than the scope of INSPIRE. This is also supported by 
the  fact  that  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  interprets  the  definition  of 
'environmental information' quite broadly. In its judgment of 16 December 2010 in Case 
C-266/09,  Stichting  Natuur  en  Milieu  and  Others  v  College  voor  de  toelating  van 
gewasbeschermingsmiddelen  en  biociden,  the  Court  considered  that  a  procedure  for 
authorisation  of  a  plant  protection  product  fell  within  the  meaning  of  ‘environmental 
information’.197 Environmental information, in the meaning of Directive 2003/4/EC does 
concern  a  wide  range  of  items,  listed  in  Article  7  of  the  Directive,  including 
environmental  assessment,  policy  and  planning  documents,  environmental  permits, 
implementation  reports,  enforcement  measures  etc.,  which  should  be  made  publicly 
accessible.  Although  some  of  these  documents  might  be  relevant  for  some  spatial 
datasets (e.g. list of permitted installations, facilities or transport networks), the aim of 
Directive 2003/4/EC is also that those documents are made available to the public in 
their entirety for transparency purposes. Among the seven types of documents, one is 
purely environmental data – ‘data or summaries of data derived from the monitoring of 
activities affecting, or likely to affect, the environment’ (Article 7(2)(e)). As the Directive 
was  adopted  in  2003,  this  paragraph  does  obviously  not  specifically  mention  that 
INSPIRE  specifications  should  be  used  to  make  monitoring  data  available.  Directive 
2003/4 also does not require the creation of metadata, which are an essential element 
to ensure that the information made available is of sufficient quality in accordance with 
Article 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC.  

On the other hand, the scope of INSPIRE is also somewhat broader than the scope of 
Directive  2003/4/EC  as  it  covers  ‘spatial  data’  defined  as  ‘any  data  with  a  direct  or 
indirect reference to a specific location or geographical area’ (Article 3(2) of the INSPIRE 
Directive), in relation to ‘environmental policies and policies or activities which may have 
an  impact  on  the  environment’  (Article  1(1)  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive).  Some  of  the 
INSPIRE  data  themes  thus  go  beyond  ‘environmental  information’  in  the  meaning  of 
Directive 2003/4.  

In terms of scope, Directive 2003/4/EC and the INSPIRE Directive address information 
or data held by public authorities. Both directives are fully aligned in the way they define 
‘public authority’ as:  

a)  Any government or other public administration, including public advisory 

bodies, at national, regional or local level, or  

b)  Any natural or legal person performing public administrative functions under 
national law, including specific duties, activities, or services in relation to the 
environment, or 

c)  Any  natural  or  legal  person  having  public  responsibilities  or  functions,  or 
providing public services relating to the environment under the control of a body 

197  European  Commission  (2012)  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  on  the  experience  gained  in  the  application  of  Directive  2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to 
environmental information, COM(2012) 774 final.  

157 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

or person falling within (a) or (b). (Article 3(9) of the INSPIRE Directive / Article 
2(2) of Directive 2003/4).  

Among the reasons for adopting Directive 2003/4/EC (in replacement of the previous 
Directive  90/313/EC)  was  the  need  to  incorporate  provisions  that  would  include  the 
possibility to use electronic means as the format for making environmental information 
public.198  However,  Article  1  of  Directive  2003/4/EC  does  not  define  what  active 
dissemination entails and Article 7 does not prescribe which types of electronic means 
should  be  used,  allowing  Member  States  to  decide  the  best  means  for  that  purpose 
(which  may  be  different  depending  on  the  type  of  environmental  information  to  be 
published) and to adapt to developments in technology. The adoption of the INSPIRE 
Directive  introduced  an  important  new  mechanism  for  sharing  environmental 
information that has a spatial dimension through electronic means (view and download 
services). The fact that Directive 2003/4/EC is not prescriptive in relation to data sharing 
specifications does not prevent any Member State to use INSPIRE specifications to fulfil 
its obligations to  share  environmental information under  Directive 2003/4/EC.  In this 
perspective, Directive 2003/4/EC and INSPIRE are largely complementary as INSPIRE 
has the potential to support the implementation of Directive 2003/4/EC. 

Recent  studies  have  shown  however  that  both  Directives  were  often  implemented 
through separate systems that are not necessarily connected. A recent study on national 
environmental information systems (EIS) found that, in many Member States, there are 
no links between the EIS and the INSPIRE SDI. Only in 15% of the evaluated Member 
States and regions a link between the EIS and INSPIRE was properly provided. In 38% 
of the cases, a reference to INSPIRE was made within the EIS, but no links were found, 
and in 47% of the evaluated Member States and regions there was no reference and no 
links between the EIS and INSPIRE199. The study also found that the monitoring data 
provided  in  the  EIS  did  not  have  metadata  in  line  with  INSPIRE.200  This  lack  of 
coordination between the EIS and the INSPIRE SDI might also impact the quality and 
reliability of the data made available under Directive 2003/4/EC.  

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews  

In  the  Scoping  interview,  DG  Environment  confirmed  that  there  is  a  partial  overlap 
between Directive 2003/4 and INSPIRE as regards spatial information, noting however 
that Directive 2003/4 is less prescriptive in its obligations. Article 7 of Directive 2003/4 
states that information should be progressively made available but does not provide for 
a very strict obligation to do so, leading to difficulties in enforcing the article. Directive 
2003/4 also does not specifically define what are ‘electronic means’ for dissemination. 
According  to  DG  Environment,  Directive  2003/4  could  benefit  from  an  update  in  its 
terminology, and in that perspective, aligning some  of this terminology with INSPIRE 
could be useful, as INSPIRE provides a technical framework for electronic data sharing. 
When ‘electronic means’ are mentioned in Directive 2003/4, it could be made explicit 
that this is referring to the INSPIRE Directive specifications.201 

Focus Group interviews  

198  European  Commission  (2012)  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  on  the  experience  gained  in  the  application  of  Directive  2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to 
environmental information, COM(2012) 774 final. 

199’European  Commission  (2019)  Promotion of  good  practices  for  national  environmental  information 

systems and tools for data harvesting at EU level. Final report, p.31.  

200 Ibid, p.35.  
201 Scoping interview with DG Environment.  

158 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Very  few  comments  were  made  in  relation  to  Directive  2003/4/EC  during  the  Focus 
Group  Interviews.  As  mentioned  in  EQ  2.4,  participants  to  Focus  Group  Interviews 
generally saw minimal interactions between the two Directives, and therefore did not 
point to coherence issues between the two Directives. 

Targeted surveys  

The results from targeted surveys related to Directive 2003/4 are presented in EQ 4.8.  

Public consultation 

Results  from  the  public  consultation  linked  to  active  dissemination  of  environmental 
information are presented in EQ 2.4. 

5.5.5.  EQ 5.5 To what extent is INSPIRE coherent with Directive 2003/98/EC 
on the re-use of public sector information and what are the implications 
of Directive 2019/1024/EU? 

EQ  5.5  assesses  the  interaction  between  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  Directive 
2003/98/EC  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information  (PSI  Directive)  along  with 
potential  implications  brought  about  by  the  2019  recast  of  the  PSI  Directive  –  i.e., 
Directive 2019/1024/EU (Open Data Directive). As geospatial data is a valuable type of 
public  sector  information,  it is  covered  under  the  scope  of  both  the  PSI  and  INSPIRE 
directives,  which  both  aim  to  facilitate  access  to  public  sector  information.  It  is  thus 
important  to  examine  the  synergies  and  potential  inconsistencies  between  these 
directives. Judgement criteria for this question consider the  extent to  which the legal 
provisions  in  the  directives  complement  each  other  and  support  the  sharing  and 
accessibility  of  data,  including  potential  inconsistencies  in  terms  of  the  charging 
mechanisms provided in both directives. The question then considers the extent to which 
the  new  Open  Data  Directive  is  likely  to  resolve  existing  coherence  issues  and/or 
whether  new  inconsistencies  may  arise  in  the  future  following  its  transposition  and 
implementation in the Member States. 

159 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-28   Key/summary findings EQ 5.5: Coherence with PSI / Open Data Directive  

Although they do overlap in scope, the desk review and consultation activities (focus group 

interviews and targeted surveys) showed that technical requirements on data sharing currently 

laid down in both Directives do not contradict each other. The inconsistencies between INSPIRE 

and the PSI Directive that were exposed by the study to support the review of the PSI Directive, 

have been largely resolved by the Open Data Directive.  

The INSPIRE Directive and the Open Data Directive serve different purposes (openness and 

reusability vs interoperability and data accessibility through view and download services). They 

are however complementary and the INSPIRE Directive can support the objectives of the Open 

Data Directive. Consultation activities however showed slightly different results. Focus Group 

interviews  suggested  that,  in  practice,  many  Member  States  seem  to  implement  both 

Directives in parallel, with limited interactions. Results from the targeted surveys and public 

consultation  however  showed  that  stakeholders  believed  that  INSPIRE  supports  the 

implementation of the Open Data Directive.  

The desk review revealed that inconsistencies between the INSPIRE Directive and the Open 

Data  Directive  could  arise  with  the  adoption  of  the  forthcoming  High  Value  Datasets 

Regulation, which will specify the data to be shared as open data and is expected to include 

many of the geospatial datasets covered by INSPIRE. As derogations are likely to be limited in 

the Regulation, this might conflict with provisions in Articles 13, 14 and 17 of the  INSPIRE 

Directive, which provide ample possibilities to limit public access to spatial data, and to license 

and/or require payment for spatial datasets and services. Depending on the evolution of the 

legal  framework  on  open  data,  there  might  be  a  need  to  consider  aligning  the  INSPIRE 

Directive with the open data legal framework in the future. 

Results  from  the  Focus  Group  interviews,  and  targeted  surveys  also  emphasised  the 

importance of ensuring that the High Value Datasets Regulation is largely aligned with INSPIRE 

and  does  not  introduce  new  and  potentially  inconsistent  legal  obligations  in  terms  of  data 

formats and standards for geospatial data. Similarly, practical inconsistencies could arise with 

future developments of the Open Data Directive, if the INSPIRE and open data communities 

do not sufficiently coordinate with each other going forward (both communities currently use 

non-interoperable  metadata  standards  –  INSPIRE  vs.  CKAN  standards).  This  calls  for  close 

cooperation in future developments. 

Desk review 

Directive 2003/98/EC, amended by Directive 2013/37/EU (PSI Directive) 

According  to  the  2016  REFIT  evaluation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive,  geospatial  data 
account for an estimated 80% of public sector information.202 The data covered under 
the  scope  of  INSPIRE  is  therefore  also  covered  under  the  scope  of  the  PSI  Directive, 

202  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2)., p.62 

160 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

which could lead to potential inconsistencies. Overall, however, the INSPIRE mid-term 
evaluation,203 the 2016 REFIT evaluation204 and the evaluation of the PSI Directive,205 
find no significant inconsistency between the two directives in terms of their respective 
objectives and legal obligations which considered complementary. This was confirmed 
during a scoping interview with DG CONNECT. Both directives also refer to each other 
in  their  respective  recitals.  Recital  8  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  states  that  INSPIRE  is 
without prejudice to the PSI Directive, as both have complementary objectives,206 while 
recital 20 of the 2013 PSI Directive refers to the INSPIRE Directive as an example of 
how  public  sector  information  can  be  made  available  through  open  and  machine-
readable formats together with metadata.207 

In terms of objectives, both the INSPIRE and PSI Directives aim to facilitate access to 
public  sector  information,  with  the  PSI  Directive  covering  all  types  of  public  sector 
information (irrespective of medium or format) and the INSPIRE Directive covering only 
a sub-section of public sector information (namely, geo-spatial data covered under the 
34  INSPIRE  themes).  However,  both  directives  introduce  very  different  types  of 
obligations for Member States. While the PSI Directive sets the basic conditions for reuse 
of  public  sector  information,  it  does  not  prescribe  which  information  should  be  made 
available, when, and how, as it is without prejudice to the existing access regimes in 
the Member States.208 Overall, the PSI Directive  introduces an obligation for Member 
States to ensure that the public sector information that can be reused at national level 
is  made  available  on  a  non-discriminatory  basis,  and  as  far  as  possible,  in  open  and 
machine-readable format, accompanied by metadata, which complies with formal open 
standards.209 Member States are free to choose which data is made available along with 
the technical standards and formats. On the other hand, the INSPIRE Directive is much 
more prescriptive, as it defines the specific information that must be made available, its 
format, metadata standards, and the means of sharing such information, all within set 
deadlines.210  In  this  sense,  the  directives  can  be  seen  as  complementary,  with  the 
INSPIRE  Directive  addressing  the  technical  standards  for  the  accessibility  and 
discoverability of (geo-spatial) data, which is left open in the PSI Directive. In addition, 
while  the  PSI  Directive  focuses  on  the  reuse  of  public  sector  information  for  both 
commercial and non-commercial purposes, INSPIRE focuses on sharing data between 
public  sector  bodies.  Previous  studies  have  found  that  the  INSPIRE  Directive  has 
contributed to increasing the availability of geo-spatial data, while the PSI Directive has 
contributed to lowering the charges for accessing such data.211 In addition, as mentioned 
above,  the  INSPIRE  formats  and  metadata  standards  are  cited  as  best  practice  for 
opening public sector information within the recital of the PSI Directive.  

203 EEA & JRC (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, EEA Technical report No 

17/2014, ISSN 1725-2237. 

204  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2).  

205 European Commission (2018), Study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use 

of public sector information, Final Report. 

206 INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC, Recital 8.  
207 PSI Directive 2013/37/EU, Recital 20.  
208 PSI Directive 2013/37/EU and Scoping interview with DG CONNECT - G1 Data Policy and Innovation, 

6 April 2021.  

209 PSI Directive 2013/37/EU, Articles 5 and 10 
210 EEA & JRC (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, EEA Technical report No 
17/2014, ISSN 1725-2237 and Scoping interview with DG CONNECT - G1 Data Policy and Innovation, 6 
April 2021.  

211 European Commission (2018), Study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use 
of public sector information, Final Report; and Scoping interview with DG CONNECT - G1 Data Policy and 
Innovation, 6 April 2021.  

161 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

A  few  inconsistencies  between  the  two  Directives  have  nonetheless  been  highlighted 
within  past  evaluations.  The  2018  evaluation  of  the  PSI  Directive  concluded  that  the 
‘question of coherence  between the INSPIRE Directive  and the  charging provisions of 
the PSI Directive could benefit from some clarification or formal alignment’,212 as some 
stakeholders called for more guidance on what charges and licenses are permitted for 
accessing  spatial  data  and  services.213  Similarly,  the  2016  REFIT  evaluation  of  the 
INSPIRE  Directive  found  some  inconsistencies  regarding  the  data  sharing  provisions 
under INSPIRE (Article 17) and the PSI Directive regarding licensing and charging for 
the data.214 Although both Directives allow for some type of charging mechanism for the 
provision of data, including the notion of recovering a reasonable return on investment, 
the  PSI  Directive  is  more  prescriptive  than  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  It  provides  that 
charges must be limited to the marginal costs incurred for the reproduction, provision 
and  dissemination  of  the  data,  and  in  the  case  of  public  bodies  that  are  required  to 
generate  revenue  to  cover  the  costs  of  their  activities,  also  a  reasonable  return  on 
investment.215 On the other hand, the INSPIRE Directive uses a broader terminology, 
providing that charges applied for sharing data between public bodies should be kept to 
the minimum required to ensure the necessary quality and supply of spatial data sets 
and services, together with a reasonable return on investment.216  

In  addition,  the  evaluation  of  the  PSI  Directive  found  that  metadata  interoperability 
issues could arise, in practice, if the PSI and INSPIRE communities do not sufficiently 
coordinate  with  each  other,  as  both  communities  use  their  own  metadata  standards 
(INSPIRE vs. CKAN standards), which are not interoperable.217 This issue may increase 
in  the  future  with  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Open  Data  Directive  and  the 
further developments to the EU Open Data portal, created to facilitate the discovery of 
the data made available by the PSI Directive. Although the PSI Directive does not set 
obligations in terms of standards or format it will nonetheless be crucial to ensure that 
supporting  guidance  and  recommendations  for  both  directives  are  compatible  in 
practice.  

Directive 2019/1024/EU (Open Data Directive):  

In 2019, the PSI Directive was recast as Directive 2019/1024/EU on open data and the 
re-use of public sector information (Open Data Directive). The transposition period for 
this  Directive  is  still  ongoing,  as  Member  States  have  until  July  2021  to  bring  the 
Directive  into  force  and  comply  with its  obligations.  Overall,  the  Open  Data  Directive 
introduces  the  following  key  changes  that  are  likely  to  be  relevant  for  the 
implementation of INSPIRE: 

  The  scope  of  the  Directive  has  been  extended  and  now  covers  public 

undertakings and research data resulting from public funding (Article 1). 

  The Directive introduces the principle of ‘open by design and by default’ for all 
public  sector  information  falling  under  the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  requires 

212 European Commission (2018), Evaluation accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European 

Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information (SWD/2018/145 final), p.40 

213 European Commission (2018), Evaluation accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information  (SWD/2018/145  final);and 
Scoping interview with DG CONNECT - G1 Data Policy and Innovation, 6 April 2021.  

214  European  Commission  (2016),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 
final/2) 

215 PSI Directive 2013/37/EU, Article 6 
216 INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC, Article 17 
217 European Commission (2018), Study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use 

of public sector information, Final Report. 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

public bodies to make dynamic data and high value datasets available via APIs 
and bulk download (Article 5). 

  The  Directive  introduces  the  concept  of  ‘high-value  datasets’  (Chapter  V), 
meaning datasets which are associated with important benefits for society, the 
environment and the economy, in particular because of their potential to create 
value-added services and applications.218 Annex I of the Open Data Directive sets 
out a list of thematic categories of high-value datasets, which includes geospatial 
data.  The  European  Commission  has  been  empowered  to  adopt  implementing 
acts  which  lay  down  the  list  of  specific  high-value  datasets  belonging  to  the 
categories  in  Annex  I.  Public  sector  bodies  will  be  required  to  make  the  high-
value datasets specified within the implementing acts available free of charge via 
APIs, in machine readable format and where relevant as bulk download.219 The 
obligation to provide such datasets free of charge has limited exceptions – only 
in cases where it would lead to a distortion of competition for public undertakings. 
In cases when providing data free of charge would have a significant impact on 
the budget of the public bodies concerned, these bodies may still require charges 
only within a limit of two years following the adoption of an implementing act. 

In terms of the interplay with the INSPIRE Directive, the new Open Data Directive makes 
several references to INSPIRE to clarify the interactions between the Directives based 
on  the  findings  of  the  2018  PSI  Directive  evaluation.220  Recital  4  states  that  the 
provisions  of  the  Open  Data  Directive  should  focus  on  the  relationship  with  other  EU 
legal  instruments,  including  INSPIRE.  Recital  34  states  that,  where  possible  and 
appropriate, public sector information should be ‘made available through an open and 
machine-readable format and together with their metadata at the best level of precision 
and  granularity,  in  a  format  that  ensures  interoperability,  for  example  by  processing 
them in a way consistent with the principles governing the compatibility and usability 
requirements  for  spatial  information  under  Directive  2007/2/EC’.  Finally,  Article  1(7) 
specifically  clarifies  that  the  Open  Data  Directive  ‘governs  the  re-use  of  existing 
documents held by public sector bodies and public undertakings of the Member States, 
including documents to which Directive 2007/2/EC applies.’ 

The main changes in the Open Data Directive that might create future conflicts with the 
INSPIRE Directive relate to the provisions on high-value datasets, more specifically the 
future  implementing  act  currently  being  developed  by  the  European  Commission  and 
the requirement to provide such datasets free of charge.  

Article 14 of the Open Data Directive states that the Commission implementing act ‘may 
specify the arrangements for the publication and re-use of high-value datasets’ and that 
‘the  arrangements  may  include  terms  applicable  to  re-use,  formats  of  data  and 
metadata and technical arrangements for dissemination’. In theory, this provision could 
result in more technical and potentially inconsistent legal obligations in terms of data 
formats and standards. However, Recital 68 of the Open Data Directive states that the 
Commission implementing acts related to high-value datasets should take into account 
the INSPIRE Directive to ‘ensure that datasets are made available under corresponding 
standards and sets of metadata’.  

Furthermore,  the  requirement  for  public  bodies  to  make  the  high-value  datasets 
available  free  of  charge  under  the  new  Open  Data  Directive  might  conflict  with  the 
exceptions  to  limit  access  to  datasets  and  services  provided  under  Article  13  of  the 
INSPIRE  Directive,  the  derogations  for  charging  access  to  data  in  Article  14  and  the 
possibility to license and require payment of spatial datasets under certain conditions 

218 Open Data Directive 2019/1024/EU, Article 2 (10) 
219 Open Data Directive 2019/1024/EU, Article 14 
220  European Commission (2018), Evaluation accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European 

Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information (SWD/2018/145 final). 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

set  out  in  Article  17  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  Based  on  Article  14  of  the  Open  Data 
Directive,  the  High  Value  Datasets  Regulation  should  provide  some  possibilities  for 
derogations, but more limited than what is currently provided in the INSPIRE Directive. 
For  instance,  the  possibility  to  exempt  from  the  requirement  of  providing  high  value 
datasets free of charge, public bodies that cover a substantial part of their budget by 
generating revenues from their data, would only be allowed to do so for a period of two 
years (Article 14(5)). The entry into force of the new Open Data Directive and the High 
Value Datasets Regulation may lead to confusion for stakeholders who will be faced with 
conflicting provisions.  

The purpose of the INSPIRE Directive was not initially to guarantee openness of data. 
Given  the  evolution  of  the  legal  framework  on  open  data,  there  might  be  a  need  to 
consider the alignment of the INSPIRE Directive with the open data legal framework in 
the future, following the adoption of the High Value datasets Regulation.  

The  analysis  should  however  be  read  with  some  caution,  as  the  coherence  of  the 
INSPIRE and Open Data Directive cannot be fully assessed at this stage. The national 
transposition  and  implementation  of  the  latter  is  still  ongoing  and  the  high-value 
datasets implementing act is currently being developed. 

Consultation activities 

Scoping interviews 

No  significant  coherence  issues  emerged  from  the  scoping  interviews  regarding  the 
interactions between INSPIRE and the PSI Directive, although one stakeholder argued 
that the terminology used in the different directives (e.g., ‘data sharing’ vs. ‘re-use of 
data’)  should  be  made  more  consistent,  as  it  creates  confusion  for  stakeholders  who 
often have different understandings of the terms.221 

DG CONNECT commented that the inconsistencies and call for clarifications highlighted 
in the evaluation of the PSI Directive have been largely resolved in the 2019 recast of 
the PSI Directive (2019/1024/EU), which states that the data accessible under INSPIRE 
should be made available under the PSI conditions if the data provider fulfils the criteria 
of public sector body under the PSI Directive.222 In addition, DG CONNECT also stated 
that  they  are  currently  working  with  the  Member  States  on  the  interoperability  of 
INSPIRE and Open Data metadata through recommendations on metadata standards.223 

Regarding high-value datasets, both DG CONNECT and the EEA mentioned that they are 
currently working to ensure maximum alignment between  INSPIRE requirements and 
those of the future implementing act both in terms of the technical obligations and in 
terms  of  the  geospatial  datasets  covered  –  notably  in  terms  of  alignment  with  the 
INSPIRE priority datasets to ensure synergies with the data already available within the 
INSPIRE infrastructure.224 

Focus Group interviews  

Several of the seven Focus Group Interviews mentioned difficulties in creating synergies 
in the practical implementation of both directives. Focus Group interviews highlighted 
that out of the seven Member States consulted, four implement the INSPIRE and PSI 
Directives  in  silos,  using  two  separate  data  sharing  systems  with  limited  cooperation 
between the responsible bodies. For example, participants to one Focus Group Interview 

221 Scoping interview with Eurogeographics. 
222 Scoping interview with DG CONNECT, 6 April 2021; and Open Data Directive 2019/1024/EU, Article 1(7). 
223 Scoping interview with DG CONNECT. 
224 Scoping interview with DG CONNECT. 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

explained  that  they  transform  the  geospatial  data  into  INSPIRE  standards  for  the 
INSPIRE geoportal and  use different, more user-friendly standards,  for open data.  In 
this context, participants to three Focus Group Interviews called for more guidance and 
a  better  overview  of  how  the  two  Directives  can  work  together  in  practice  and  with 
broader  EU  open  data  initiatives.  Participants  to  one  Focus  Group  Interview  also 
commented that the multiple overlapping EU legislation in this field creates confusion 
and  is  a  barrier  for  clear  implementation  and  argued  that  the  different  pieces  of 
legislation should be adopted as a package. On the other hand, however, three Focus 
Group Interviews use the same infrastructure for the INSPIRE and open data catalogues, 
with one having a National Data Strategy that applies the INSPIRE technical rules for 
interoperability and the PSI rules on licensing and charges for access. 

Furthermore, two Focus Group Interviews were concerned that the Open Data Directive, 
and in particular the provision on high-value datasets and future implementing act, will 
in practice lead to a parallel infrastructure, which may lead to a duplication of efforts 
and a need to transform existing INSPIRE data into open data standards.225 In one of 
these Focus Group Interviews, participants argued that it is not enough to reference the 
INSPIRE Directive in the  Open Data Directive  and that it should be legally binding to 
follow  INSPIRE  technical  standards  to  provide  open  data.  These  two  Focus  Group 
Interviews indicated that INSPIRE framework should be used to provide access to high-
value  (geospatial)  datasets  in  the  future  Commission  implementing  act.  According  to 
participants  to  these  two  Focus  Group  Interviews,  the  high-value  datasets  should  be 
used as an opportunity to develop synergies between INSPIRE and open data. 

Regarding the obligation to provide high-value datasets free of charge introduced in the 
Open  Data  Directive,  mixed  positions  were  expressed.  Three  Focus  Group  Interviews 
did not foresee any difficulties, as geospatial data is already accessible free of charge at 
national level. Another three Focus Group Interviews however anticipated difficulties in 
providing certain types of data  (e.g. cadastral parcels) free of charge, due to current 
national legislation requiring payment for such data. In addition, participants to these 
three Focus Group Interviews anticipate that this obligation will be met with resistance 
from the public bodies concerned, as they incur significant expenses for providing the 
data and could suffer financial losses if it were provided for free.226 

Furthermore, participants to three Focus Group Interviews also mentioned uncertainties 
in  relation  to  the  GDPR  and  personal  data.  They  expressed  concerns  over  how  to 
anonymise specific types of geospatial data and called for guidelines to be developed. 
One participant to one Focus Group Interview also mentioned the risk of having a double 
request  coming  from  the  European  Commission  –  i.e.,  on  the  one  hand  having  the 
obligation  to  share  full  datasets  (including  personal  identifiers)  with  the  European 
Commission  and  on  the  other  hand  having  to  share  redacted  versions  of  the  same 
datasets  with  the  general  public  to  be  GDPR  compliant  –  thus  leading  to  excessive 
burden. 

Targeted surveys 

225 It should be noted, however, that the Open Data Directive does not set out technical obligations in 

terms of standards.  

226 It should be noted that Article 14 of the Open Data Directive states that high-value datasets must 
be made available free of charge, expect those datasets held by public undertakings, in cases where it 
would lead to a distortion of competition in the relevant markets. For public sector bodies that are required 
to generate revenue to cover a substantial part of their costs relating to the performance of their public 
tasks, Member States can exempt these bodies from providing the datasets free of charge for a period of 
no longer than two years after the implementing act as been adopted, in cases where substantial losses 
would be incurred.   

165 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

All  four  targeted  surveys  (spatial  data,  environmental,  marine  and  agriculture 
community) included a question on coherence between INSPIRE and the new Open Data 
Directive, which gathered a total of 136 responses. 

Overall, the results of the targeted surveys confirm the findings of the desk research 
and  Focus  Groups  interviews,  as  no  significant  issues  of  coherence  between  INSPIRE 
and the PSI/Open Data Directives were highlighted by respondents. In addition, when 
asked  to  what  extent  INSPIRE  is  likely  to  support  authorities  in  complying  with  their 
obligations  under  the  new  Open  Data  Directive,  most  stakeholders  (46%)  responded 
that INSPIRE would support compliance to a very large or large extent  (see Figure 5-
6). Only 8% of stakeholders believe that INSPIRE will not support authorities at all or 
only to a very limited extent in their obligations under the new Open Data Directive. 

Figure 5-36  Extent to which INSPIRE is likely to support authorities in complying with 
their obligations under the new Open Data Directive (N=136) 

19

43

35

12

6

5

16

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a very large extent

To a large extent

To some extent

To a small extent

To a very small extent

Not at all

Do not know

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question: To what extent is INSPIRE 
likely to support authorities in complying with their obligations under Directive (EU) 2019/1024 on open data 
and  the  re-use of public  sector  information  (replacing  Directive 2003/98/EC  on  the  re-use  of public  sector 
information)? 

Three  stakeholders  commented  that  INSPIRE  should  prove  useful  for  complying  with 
the new Open Data Directive, as thanks to INSPIRE there is already a large amount of 
data  collected  and  shared  in  a  standardised  way.  One  Mapping,  Cadastre  and  Land 
Registry Authority argued that it is the Open Data Directive that will support INSPIRE 
rather  than  the  other  way  around,  as  the  Open  Data  Directive  will  remove  different 
licencing and pricing policies in Europe.  

Similar to the Focus Group interviews, however, four stakeholders emphasised that it is 
important for the implementing rules of the Open Data Directive on high-value datasets 
to  make  reference  to  the  INSPIRE  Directive  for  all  aspects  related  to  availability, 
harmonisation, standardisation and metadata in relation to geospatial data and for the 
open  access  to  geospatial  data  to  be  built  on  the  INSPIRE  infrastructure.  These 
stakeholders expressed concerns about having to provide data in a new and different 
format than INSPIRE due to the new Open Data Directive, thus leading to a duplication 
of efforts.  

Three  Mapping,  Cadastre  and  Land  Registry  authorities  and  one  geological  survey 
respondent mentioned inconsistencies between the two Directives. Two of the Mapping, 
Cadastre and Land Registry authorities commented in relation to metadata. One argued 
that there are contradictory requirements between the metadata provisions in INSPIRE 
and  the  rules  in  the  PSI/Open  Data  Directive  –  without  however  providing  further 
explanations.  The  other  commented  that  the  metadata  in  the  Open  Data  Directive 
follows a too loose structure and that in practice the method of accessing resources may 
not follow a Service-oriented architecture (SOA) approach. The third Mapping, Cadastre 
and Land Registry authority stated that there are inconsistencies over what constitutes 
high-value datasets in INSPIRE and the Open Data Directive and that the mismatch of 
concepts  and  definitions  will  create  confusion  for  authorities.  Finally,  the  geological 

166 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

survey  respondent  argued  that  there  is  still  insufficient  alignment  between  INSPIRE 
vocabularies and better-developed ISO and national/industry standards. 

Public consultation 

Question 20 of the public consultation asked respondents to what extent the INSPIRE 
Directive supports authorities in complying with their obligations under the new Open 
Data  Directive.  Overall,  the  76  respondents  to  this  question  tended  to  respond 
positively, as more than half (39) indicated that INSPIRE is supportive to a large (19 
respondents)  or  moderate  (20  respondents)  extent.  15  respondents  (20%)  indicated 
that  INSPIRE  is  supportive  only  to  a  limited  extent  and  only  3  respondents  (4%) 
indicated that INSPIRE is not at all supportive (19 respondents had no opinion). Looking 
specifically at responses received from public authorities, the vast majority (63%, 29 
respondents) indicated that INSPIRE helps them comply with their obligations under the 
Open Data Directive to a large (33%) or moderate (30%) extent. A detailed overview 
of this question is presented in the public consultation report, figures 41 and 42.  

Furthermore, in the last question of the public consultation227, two public authorities 
(Danish and German) echoed findings from the Focus Group interviews and targeted 
surveys. The responses emphasised the importance of ensuring that the implementing 
rules on high-value datasets are aligned with INSPIRE rules, to avoid creating parallel 
systems. Similarly, a Portuguese public research institution echoed concerns 
expressed by several participants of the Focus Group interviews: They commented 
that the requirement in the Open Data Directive to provide high-value geospatial 
datasets free of charge will prove challenging, as the institution depends on the 
revenues linked to the sale of geospatial products to maintain their costly data 
infrastructure (both in terms of IT and human resources). Finally, three 
companies/business organisations that provide gas and water utilities commented that 
any revision of the INSPIRE Directive should maintain the possibility for data providers 
to limit public access to data that contains information on critical infrastructures 
(irrespective of ownership) on the grounds of public security (Article 13(1)). This 
concern, however, may prove inconsistent with the provisions on high-value datasets 
of the new Open Data Directive and the forthcoming implementing act, which provide 
very few exceptions for limiting public access to data. It should be noted, however, 
that Article 1 (e) of the Open Data Directive specifically excludes documents which 
contain sensitive information on critical infrastructure from the scope of the Directive. 

227  Public  consultation,  Question  29:  ‘If  you  wish  to  add  further  comments,  within  the  scope  of  this 

questionnaire, please feel free to do so here.’ 

167 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.6.  EU Added Value 

The  EU  added  value  assessment  considers  the  added  value  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
compared to what could be achieved at Member State and/or regional level (EQ 6.1) as 
well as the extent to which the issues addressed by INSPIRE continue to require action 
at  EU  level  (EQ  6.2).  Both  evaluation  questions  are  motivated  in  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union). Under 
the principle of subsidiarity, the EU should act only when the objectives can be better 
achieved by Union action rather than action by the Member States or at regional or local 
level. As such, the EU added value of the INSPIRE Directive needs to be operationalised 
and  measured.  In  this  sense,  the  proportionality  principle  is  considered  as  well,  by 
identifying the content and the aspects of the Directive that are necessary to meet its 
objectives and the objectives of the EU Treaties.  

The essence of the EU added value analysis is structured around the main expected and 
identified  benefits  stemming  from  the  EU  intervention  in  the  area  of  spatial  data 
infrastructure:  EU  added  value  for  policy  makers  versus  other,  less  common 
stakeholders;  EU  added  value  in  relation  to  cross-domain  and  cross-border 
collaboration; and EU added value in terms of  broader  EU data policy  initiatives.  The 
latter  concerns  future-oriented  aspects  related  to  emerging  EU  data  legislation  and 
Green  Deal  data  space.  The  assessment  of  the  EU  added  value  concerning  these 
different perspectives is based on an assumption that similar achievements could not 
have been produced in the absence of the Directive. The analysis relies on the findings 
in the existing literature and results from stakeholder consultations.  

5.6.1.  EQ 6.1 What is the EU-added value of INSPIRE in comparison to what 
could  be  achieved  at  Member  States  national  and/or  regional  level 
activities? 

This question provides an assessment of the EU added value of the INSPIRE Directive 
compared to what could be achieved at Member State and or regional level. The analysis 
considers the main added value resulting from the EU intervention in terms of evaluation 
findings related to other criteria, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence. 
Based  on  the  literature  review  and  results  from  the  consultation  activities,  it  aims  to 
compare  results  and  impacts  of  an  EU  intervention  to  those  that  could  have  been 
produced solely at national and/or regional level.  

168 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Text box 5-29 Key/summary findings EQ 6.1: EU-added value of INSPIRE in comparison 
to what could be achieved at Member States national and/or regional level activities 

The desk review and the analysis drawn from the other evaluation criteria showed that due 

to the incomplete implementation of the INSPIRE Directive the full potential of the EU added 

value has not materialized yet. The findings from the literature review implicitly indicate that 

there is an EU added value potential that would likely not have been possible in the absence 

of the Directive. For example, there has been an EU added value relevant for policy makers in 

terms of environmental reporting, optimization of national data management and data policies, 

the gains from the improved interoperability with others and the creation of EU level expertise. 

There  has  been  a  limited  EU  added  value  in  relation  to  cross-border  and  cross-sector  data 

sharing and collaboration.  

An  EU  added  value  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  were  acknowledged  also  in  the  Focus  Group 

interviews  and  the  targeted  surveys.  The  participants  in  the  Focus  Group  interviews 

mentioned benefits of the EU intervention in terms of greater harmonisation at national and 

EU  level. A few  examples of cross-border collaborations were mentioned. Three quarters of 

the  respondents  agreed  that  the  standardization  bring  additional  benefits  to  at  least  some 

extent and a majority  of  respondents indicated  that the Directive  has  led to  more effective 

cross-border collaboration and data sharing at EU level. 

Desk review 

The  REFIT  evaluation  found  that  the  EU-added  value  was  limited,  since  the 
implementation process was only partially completed at the time of the preparation of 
the report and several Member States were lagging behind the interim implementation 
milestones.228 For instance, the reporting under the environmental acquis had not yet 
significantly benefited from the INSPIRE Directive, with a partial exception of air quality. 
The current evaluation on the other hand would have more possibilities to assess the 
EU added value, as the INSPIRE implementation deadlines are now mostly in the past. 
Nevertheless,  the  current  status  analysis  (see  EQ  1.1  and  EQ  1.2)  show  that 
implementation is still only partial and very heterogenous across Europe, with several 
countries  lagging  behind.  Therefore,  the  EU  added  value  of  the  INSPIRE  cannot  yet 
reach its full potential and is limited in scope and magnitude. 

Within this context, this EU added value analysis is based on the existing evidence in 
the literature and the overall evaluation findings under several other evaluation criteria. 
The analysis is structured along the following main issues related to the added value of 
the EU intervention: 

  EU added value for different users  

  EU added value in terms of cross-domain and cross-border collaboration 

  EU added value when it comes to a broader legislative context in the field of data 

governance and Digital Single Market 

228  European  Commission  (2016),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Evaluation  on  the 
implementation  of  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  March  2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial 
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23. 

169 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Overall, when considering these different perspectives of EU added value, there is no 
explicit evidence provided in the literature that the same  results could not have been 
achieved in the absence of the Directive. However, as INSPIRE is considered to be one 
of the most complex and extensive SDI initiatives globally and has been acknowledged 
for its important contributions at the UN level and the level of Global Earth Observation 
System of Systems (GEOSS),229 it is unlikely that the same extent of added value would 
have been achieved without the INSPIRE Directive. 

EU added value for different users 

As provided in the relevance analysis (see EQ 3.1), the user needs are changing over 
time  and  the  user  landscape  is  broadening.  The  Directive  itself  has  not  put  much 
emphasis  on  users  and  their  needs,  therefore  this  dimension is lacking  in  the  overall 
implementation. This can be observed in the existing literature, which looks at benefits 
and added value  of the  INSPIRE Directive merely through the  eyes  of policy makers. 
The effectiveness analysis (see EQ 2.6) confirmed that the most prominent use case of 
INSPIRE is reporting under the environmental acquis. 

In this context and based on the findings from the literature review, the EU added value 
stemming from the  INSPIRE  Directive is mostly linked to the  optimization of national 
data management and data policies, the gains from the improved interoperability with 
others (e.g. cross-border and cross-sector data sharing) and the creation of the EU level 
expertise. 

The REFIT evaluation lists the progress in terms of more effective sharing of information 
of  spatial data  between  public  authorities  and across  borders  due  to  the  reduction  of 
internal  obstacles,  following  the  simplification  and  harmonisation  of  data  policies, 
licences  and  establishment  of  technical  infrastructure.230  Thus,  the  discovery,  access 
and use of data had become easier and several countries reported efficiency gains in 
the  REFIT  evaluation.231  The  optimization  of  internal  data  management  in  public 
administration is considered as an important benefit, as it has led to:232 

  operating of resources through metadata,  
  a lesser duplication of data between organisations,  
 
  establishing of identification patterns based on Uniform Resource Identifier 

the use of services for internal purposes,  

(IRU),   
reinforcing the e-Government initiatives and making data available for private 
actors and citizens, 
supporting open data developments. 

 

 

When considering the national level, a clear benefit is the establishment of an efficient 
governance  structure,  bringing  together  various  stakeholders  and  giving  them  clear 
roles  based  on  their  existing  data  responsibilities.  A  better  collaboration  has  been 

229  Cetl  V.,  Tomas  R.,  Kotsev  A.,  de  Lima  V.N.,  Smith  R.S.,  Jobst  M.  (2019),  Establishing  Common 
Ground Through INSPIRE: The Legally-Driven European Spatial Data Infrastructure. In: Döllner J., Jobst 
M.,  Schmitz  P.  (eds)  Service-Oriented  Mapping.  Lecture  Notes  in  Geoinformation  and  Cartography. 
Springer, Cham. 

230  European  Commission  (2016),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Evaluation  on  the 
implementation  of  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  March  2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial 
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23. 

231 Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom. 
232  Cetl  V.,  Tomas  R.,  Kotsev  A.,  de  Lima  V.N.,  Smith  R.S.,  Jobst  M.  (2019),  Establishing  Common 
Ground Through INSPIRE: The Legally-Driven European Spatial Data Infrastructure. In: Döllner J., Jobst 
M.,  Schmitz  P.  (eds)  Service-Oriented  Mapping.  Lecture  Notes  in  Geoinformation  and  Cartography. 
Springer, Cham. 

170 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

achieved between public authorities, including between different levels of government 
(e.g. sub-national).233 The literature does not conclude whether the same results could 
have  been  achieved  at  national  and/or  regional  level  in  the  absence  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive, however, it is possible to interpret them as specific effects that would be more 
difficult to achieve without the Directive, particularly in some Member States. 

Furthermore,  additional  EU  added  value  as  acknowledged  by  the  REFIT  evaluation 
relates to the EU level expertise and knowledge pool generated, by bringing together 
experts  from  the  Member  States  through  the  coordinated  development  of  the 
implementing  provisions  and  the  Maintenance  and  Implementation  support  work 
programme.234 This and numerous other platforms of collaboration have led to a number 
of solutions and a development of reusable tools, sharing of good practices, an improved 
common understanding and the possibility to learn from each other, achievements that 
would likely not have been made in the absence of EU level actions. 

When  considering  other  types  of  users  across  different  sectors  that  may  reap  the 
benefits of the INSPIRE Directive (e.g. companies, small businesses, citizens), the EU 
added value is difficult to determine. The effectiveness analysis (see EQ 2.7, EQ 2.8, EQ 
2.9) has revealed that there is no systematic monitoring of users and it is difficult to 
assess the effects the Directive has on various users. Due to the lack of evidence and 
overview  of  user  needs  and  actual  use  cases  at  national  and  European  level,  the  EU 
added  value  remains  limited  for  various  users  outside  the  domain  of  policy  making. 
However, several positive examples of benefits found in this evaluation should not be 
ignored  (see  the  efficiency  evaluation).  Furthermore,  the  use  of  the  INSPIRE-related 
data sets by a wider community of common users is hampered due to the lack of user-
friendly information products affecting the availability of end-user applications (see EQ 
4.3). 

EU added value in terms of cross-domain and cross-border collaboration 

Interoperability is one of the biggest achievements of INSPIRE and is important because 
it  allows  cross-domain  and  cross-border  usage  of  geospatial  data  in  Europe.235  The 
efficiency analysis (see EQ 4.1) confirmed that harmonisation and interoperability is one 
of  the  main  benefits.  Examples  of  combining  data  from  multiple  domains  include 
environmental  impact  assessments236,  natural  hazards  and  disaster  reduction.237  For 
example,  as  concluded  in  one  of  the  JRC  technical  reports,  the  implementation  of 
INSPIRE is crucial for environmental applications such as EIAs and SEAs.238 According 
to the results of the 2009 survey presented in the  report (ibid.), between 11 and 20 
different INSPIRE spatial data themes were used by a large proportion of respondents 
(30%) to produce EIA or SEA reports. The respondents to the survey were organisations 
involved  in  EIA/SEA  reports  across  Europe,  coming  from  21  different  European 

233 Ibid. 
234  European  Commission  (2016),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Evaluation  on  the 
implementation  of  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  March  2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial 
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23. 

235 Ibid. 
236  Vanderhaegen  M,  Muro  E.  (2005),  Contribution  of  a  European  spatial  infrastructure  to  the 
effectiveness  of  EIA  and  SEA  studies.  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Review  25(2):  123-142. 
Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925504000782 

237 Tomas, R., Harrison M., Barredo J. I. et al. (2015), Towards a cross-domain interoperable framework 
for  natural  hazards  and  disaster  risk  reduction  information.  Natural  Hazards  78  (2015):  1545-1563. 
Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-015-1786-7 

238  Craglia,  M.,  L.  Pavanello  and  R.S.  Smith  (2010),  The  Use  of  Spatial  Data  for  the  Preparation  of 

Environmental Reports in Europe. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. 

171 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

countries. The analysis concluded that the majority of organisations involved in these 
activities were medium-sized companies (ibid.).  

When it comes to cross-border collaboration outside the environment policy domains, 
the  existing  literature  provides  limited  evidence  on  the  EU  added  value.  Due  to  the 
incomplete implementation of the INSPIRE Directive up to date, the EU added value in 
terms of cross-border collaboration is also limited. More evidence on this issue has been 
collected through stakeholder consultations, which are described further below. Some 
examples of cross-border collaborations are presented in Text box 5-30. 

EU added value stemming from a broader legislative context in the field of data 
governance and Digital Single Market 

Another important EU-added value stemming from the INSPIRE Directive relates to the 
effective  contribution  to  the  creation  of  the  Digital  Single  Market  by  unlocking  public 
data.239 Besides the INSPIRE Directive, there are other initiatives in the context of the 
Digital Single Market, forming the European data governance landscape, which are also 
expected  to  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  (e.g.  the 
European Interoperability Framework, European Data Strategy, revised Open Data and 
PSI  Directive  introducing  the  concept  of  High  Value  Data  Sets,  upcoming  Data 
Governance  Act).  As  shown  in  the  coherence  analysis  (see  EQ  5.5),  some  of  these 
initiatives  such  as  Open  Data  Directive  serve  different  purpose  than  the  INSPIRE 
Directive.  Nevertheless,  they  are  complementary  and  reinforcing  each  other.  The 
coherence  analysis  also  concluded  that  a  close  coordination  is  required  to  ensure 
coherent future developments, by further aligning the INSPIRE directive with the open 
data legal framework. 

The  upcoming  Data  Governance  Act240  will  aim  to  facilitate  data  sharing,  strengthen 
mechanisms  to  increase  data  availability  and  data  reuse,  as  well  as  support  the 
development  of  common  European  data  spaces  in  strategic  domains  (i.e.  health, 
environment,  energy,  agriculture,  mobility, 
finance,  manufacturing,  public 
administration  and  skills).  According  to  OECD  data  from  2019,  data  sharing  can 
“generate social and economic benefits worth between 0.1% and 1.5% of GDP in the 
case of public-sector data, and between 1% and 2.5% of GDP (in a few studies up to 
4% of GDP) when also including private-sector”.241 In order to unlock these potentials, 
the Impact Assessment on enhancing the use of data in Europe among others includes 
looks  into  options  to  establish  a  European  structure  for  governance  aspects  of  data 
sharing  by  meeting  the  necessary  conditions  in  relation  to  the  agreement  and 
implementation  of  data  standards,  metadata  standards,  data  schemes  and 
interoperability principles.242 Although spatial data is only a small part of all data, it is 
crucial  to  keep  the  INSPIRE  Directive  aligned  with  the  broader  data  governance 
framework in order to reach the maximum EU added value.  

239  Cetl  V.,  Tomas  R.,  Kotsev  A.,  de  Lima  V.N.,  Smith  R.S.,  Jobst  M.  (2019),  Establishing  Common 
Ground Through INSPIRE: The Legally-Driven European Spatial Data Infrastructure. In: Döllner J., Jobst 
M.,  Schmitz  P.  (eds)  Service-Oriented  Mapping.  Lecture  Notes  in  Geoinformation  and  Cartography. 
Springer, Cham. 

240  European  Commission  (2020),  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 

Council on European data governance (Data Governance Act), COM/2020/767 final. 

241 OECD (2019), Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data: Reconciling Risks and Benefits for Data Re-

use across Societies.  

242 European Commission (2020), Impact Assessment on enhancing the use of data in Europe. Report 

on Task 1 – Data governance, written by Deloitte, The Lisbon Council, JIIP, GOVLAB, TIMELEX. 

172 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

For example, spatial data is becoming an important tool for delivering on the objectives 
of the European Green Deal243. Through the use of environmental and climate-related 
spatial  data  one  can  better  assess  and  understand  the  state  of  the  environment  and 
how  it  affects  society  and  the  economy.  An  effective  data  governance  is  required  to 
strengthen the evidence-based policymaking and implementation. According to the MIG 
work  Programme244,  the  conclusions  of  this  evaluation  will  feed  the  ‘Greendata4all’ 
initiative announced in the European strategy for data.245 The coherence analysis (see 
EQ 5.4) indicated that the recent alignment initiatives aiming at harmonization of the 
reporting  obligations  under  the  environmental  acquis  with  the  INSPIRE  Directive  are 
considered to be an important step forward in the context of the ambition to develop 
common  European  data  spaces,  in  particular  the  Green  Deal  data  space.  Such 
developments provide additional added value at the EU level and in the light of the fast 
legislative changes in the field of data and sectoral policies, it is important to ensure the 
continuous relevance of the Directive in a broader data governance landscape. 

Consultation activities 

Focus Group interviews 

In one of the Focus Group interviews, several achievements stemming from the INSPIRE 
Directive that bring an EU added value were mentioned by the participants, including 
common standards for data exchange and conditions of use, usage of data by different 
stakeholders  (not  only  at  national  level),  greater  reach  and  dissemination,  stronger 
commitment  across  borders,  better  justification  of  the  use  of  resources  for  the 
implementation and a rationale for other necessary investment in the national SDI. In 
other  Focus  Group  interviews,  additional  achievements  were  listed.  One  respondent 
suggested that common rules and an interoperable framework bring an added value by 
achieving  harmonized  data  at  national  level,  whereas  two  respondents  in  another 
interview indicated that an EU added value lies in creation of the INSPIRE community, 
or even some sort of an ecosystem. However, it is difficult to assess the added value 
before the system is fully implemented. For example, one respondent clarified that due 
to the low implementation maturity in their country, the EU added value of INSPIRE is 
not visible. 

As  mentioned  in  one  of  the  Focus  Group  interviews,  the  added  value  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive  is  that  it  is  Europe-wide,  and  it  covers  a  wide  range  of  themes.  The  broad 
scope  of  INSPIRE  has  been  helpful  compared  to  prior  international  initiatives,  which 
were  usually  sectoral  or  much  more  limited  in  scope.  One  Focus  Group  interview 
respondent also indicated that in the past, there was a long bureaucratic procedure to 
obtain  data  from  other  countries,  which  was  sometimes  not  free  of  charge,  and  one 
needed to get approvals from different authorities. According to the participant, there 
has been an improvement in the sense of accessibility, but also in terms of quality of 
data. 

The  INSPIRE  Directive  has  been  an  incentive  for  the  mapping  agencies  to  cooperate 
with  the  neighbourhood  countries,  even  if  no  effective  guidelines  for  cross-border 
aspects have been developed. A Focus Group participant mentioned that in their country 
they receive data requests from various authorities, institutions, companies and citizens 

243 European Commission (2019), The European Green Deal. Communication from the Commission to 
the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Council,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2019) 640 final. 

244 European Commission (2020), Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme for the INSPIRE 
Directive  for  the  period  from  2021-2024:  "Towards  a  Common  European  Green  Deal  data  space  for 
environment and sustainability", endorsed at the 12th MIG meeting on 26-27 November 2020. 

245 European Commission (2020), European strategy for data. Communication from the Commission to 
the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Council,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM/2020/66 final. 

173 

 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

from  other  Member  States  or  from  the  EU  level  and  as  said in  another  Focus  Group, 
citizens  can  due  to  INSPIRE  easily  obtain  access  to  data  from  others.  The  INSPIRE 
system helps to compare countries for reporting purposes – it makes it easy to compare 
countries data and progress in certain areas. However, according to one Focus Group 
participant,  a  cross-border  collaboration  is  still  hindered  due  to  the  lack  of 
harmonization.  As  indicated  by  participants in a  Focus  Group  from  a  federal  country, 
INSPIRE led to a much closer  collaboration across regional levels, and there was less 
focus on the collaboration with stakeholders from other Member States. A few examples 
of  cross-border  collaborations  as  provided  by  two  other  Focus  Group  participants  are 
provided below. 

Text box 5-30  

Examples of cross border collaboration 

A few concrete examples of cross-border collaboration were mentioned during the interviews, 
which were mostly pilot cases: an Interreg project connecting the French region Vale d’Aosta 
and  the  Italian  region  Piemonte  as  regards  the  harmonisation  related  to  natural  risks 
(hyperlink); a project funded by DG CNNECT involving stakeholders from Slovenia and Italy 
to create common structure related to landslide and floods risks; an Interreg project (Harmo-
Data) involving Slovenia and two Italian regions (Veneto region, Friuli-Venezia Giulia region) 
to establish a common approach to some aspects of mobility and transport(hyperlink). One 
participant mentioned an international project carried under the umbrella of Eurogeographics 
related  to  topographic  data.  The  project  members  encountered  many  technical  problems 
related to access to the services, cross border consistency, missing edge matching, different 
granularity  of  the  data,  different  density  of  objects  within  datasets,  missing  attributive 
information, etc. However, despite these challenges, the organisations started collaborating, 
which would probably not have happened without INSPIRE. The benefit of such collaboration 
is also the possibility to identify technical problems.  

Targeted surveys 

Two  targeted  surveys,  for  environmental  and  spatial  data  communities  respectively, 
included a question on the extent to which the EU-wide standardization of data policies, 
licences  and  technical  infrastructure  brought  additional  benefits  as  a  result  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive, in comparison to what could have been achieved at national, regional 
and/or  local  level.  75%  of  respondents  (80  out  of  106)  responded  that  the 
standardization  brought  additional  benefits  to  at  least  some  extent:  13  respondents 
(12%)  answered  that  it  was  to  a  very  large  extent,  39  (37%)  that  it  was  to  a  large 
extent and 28 (26%) replied 'to some extent'. Only 16% (17 out of 106) of respondents 
assessed that it brought additional values to small or very small extent. On the other 
hand, only 1 respondent indicated that the standardization did not bring additional value 
and 8 respondents did not know/ could not assess. 

174 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 5-37  Extent to which the EU-wide standardization of data policies, licences and 
technical infrastructure brought additional benefits as a result of the INSPIRE Directive 
(N=106) 

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 29: To what extent has the 
EU-wide standardization of data policies, licences and technical infrastructure brought additional benefits as 
a result of the INSPIRE Directive, in comparison to what could have been achieved at national, regional and/or 
local level? 

In addition, the respondents in all four targeted surveys addressed to environmental, 
spatial  data,  agriculture  and  marine  community  were  asked  whether  the  INSPIRE 
Directive contributed to effective cross-border collaboration and data-sharing in the EU. 
The majority of respondents indicated that the Directive was effective in this regard to 
some extent (67 out of 139, 48%), 13% (18 out of 139) of survey participants agreed 
that it was  effective to  a large extent and 22% (30  out of 139) assessed that it was 
effective  to  a  small  or  very  small  extent.  Only  two  respondents  believed  that  the 
Directive has not contributed to effective cross-border collaboration and data-sharing in 
the EU, and 15% of respondents could not assess the matter. 

Figure 5-38  Contribution of the Directive to effective cross-border collaboration and 
data-sharing in the EU (N=139) 

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 9: Has the INSPIRE Directive 
contributed to effective cross-border collaboration and data-sharing in the EU? 

Public consultation 

This question was not addressed in the Public consultation and no comments were made 
by respondents on this issue. 

175 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

5.6.2.  EQ 6.2 To what extent do the issues addressed by INSPIRE continue to 

require action at EU level? 

Based on the principle of subsidiarity, the EU should act only when the objectives can 
be better achieved at the EU level rather than at national, regional or local level. This 
question  aims  to  establish  whether  the  EU  intervention  is  required  and  justified,  for 
example by identifying benefits that could have not been achieved in the absence of the 
Directive. 

Text box 5-31 Key/summary findings EQ 6.2: The extent to which INSPIRE continues to 
require action at EU level 

The desk review and the targeted consultation activities confirmed that the demand for 

harmonised data has been growing,  e.g. for  ensuring  an effective response  to cross-border 

challenges such as climate change and natural disasters. A vast majority of respondents (106 

out of 139, 79%) indicated that action is required at EU level to least some extent or even to 

a large or very large extent. Only a fraction of survey participants believed that EU action is 

required only to a small or very small extent or not at all. 

Desk review 

When considering the situation before the Directive, the accessibility of data was limited. 
In the 1990s, data was poorly documented, missing or kept in incompatible formats.246 
Data was needed for formulation, assessment and monitoring of EU policies, however it 
was  challenging  to  use  data,  because  it  was  time-consuming  to  combine  different 
datasets  (from  different  sources)  and  data  sharing  was  limited  due  to  cultural  and 
institutional  barriers.247  In  order  to  provide  solutions,  a  strong  coordination  across 
stakeholders  at  all  levels  (local,  regional,  national  and  European)  was  needed.  Even 
today,  as  climate  change  and  natural  disasters  are  extending  across  borders,  the 
mitigation  of  such  impacts  and  support  to  sustainable  development  should  be 
accompanied  by  sharing  of  information  and  spatial  data  across  organisations  and 
borders.248 The demand for more and better-quality data has been growing in Member 
States and the European Commission. Data are needed for informed policy support in 
different sectors, and not only for environment policy. The aim of INSPIRE is to produce 
harmonized national datasets which can be used at cross-border and transnational levels 
thus facilitating the development of pan-European datasets,249 and thereby providing a 
response to a need for relevant data to support effective policy making.   

Consultation activities 

Focus Group interviews 

246  Cetl  V.,  Tomas  R.,  Kotsev  A.,  de  Lima  V.N.,  Smith  R.S.,  Jobst  M.  (2019),  Establishing  Common 
Ground Through INSPIRE: The Legally-Driven European Spatial Data Infrastructure. In: Döllner J., Jobst 
M.,  Schmitz  P.  (eds)  Service-Oriented  Mapping.  Lecture  Notes  in  Geoinformation  and  Cartography. 
Springer, Cham. 

247 Ibid. 
248  Rajabifard  A.,  Feeney  MEF,  Williamspon  IP  (2002),  Future  directions  for  SDI  development. 

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4(1): 11-22. 

249 Minghini, M, V. Cetl, A. Kotsev, R. Tomas, and M. Lutz (2021), INSPIRE: The Entry Point to Europe’s 
Big Geospatial Data Infrastructure. In: Werner M., Chiang YY. (eds.) Handbook of Big Geospatial Data. 
Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55462-0_24 

176 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The participants in the Focus Group interviews mostly agreed that an action at EU level 
is required to achieve interoperable data in Europe. In the view of one participant, there 
is no doubt that INSPIRE has responded to a need that could be addressed only at EU 
level. Otherwise, there would most likely have been many different systems at different 
levels of maturity. It is unlikely that Member States would have harmonized their data 
without the INSPIRE Directive, as it is already difficult.  

One  participant  clarified  that  it  is  important  to  achieve  harmonized  datasets  across 
Europe which can be easily reused and combined across Member States and at the EU 
level. Another participant in the same interview suggested however, that harmonization 
is not sufficient and that besides the format, the content should be also harmonized. By 
example, many citizens have real estate in another EU Member State and are interested 
in information related to e.g. buildings and parcels, and therefore the information should 
circulate freely across borders.  

The  Focus  Group  participants  from  a  country,  where  according  to  the  participant  the 
national open data play a much bigger role than INSPIRE data, agreed that a common 
scheme across Europe is required and that the ambition and the reasoning behind the 
INSPIRE Directive is justified. In their view, the problem lies in its poor implementation 
and the fact that the INSPIRE Directive has not considered operational realities enough, 
together with it that the framework to actively support the implementation has not been 
put  in  place.  In  another  Focus  Group,  the  participants  suggested  that  for  further 
development of data specification, an exchange of technical and professional knowledge 
at  European  level  is  required.  Additionally,  standardization  of  general  technical 
specifications  simplifies  interdisciplinary  collaboration,  which  is  becoming  increasingly 
important for solving global problems.  

Targeted surveys 

All  four  targeted  surveys  addressed  to  environmental,  spatial  data,  agriculture  and 
marine community included a question on the extent to which the obstacles and needs 
related to sharing and disseminating spatial data as addressed by the INSPIRE Directive 
continue to require action at EU level. A significant majority of respondents (106 out of 
139, 79%) indicated that the action is required at EU level to least some extent: 16% 
respondents indicated a very large extent, 39% of survey participants answered large 
extent and 24% of respondents replied some extent. 8% of respondents suggested that 
the EU action is required to a small or very small extent and 3 respondents (2%) were 
convinced that it is not required at all. 

Figure 5-39  Extent  to  which  the  obstacles  and  needs  related  to  sharing  and 
disseminating spatial data as addressed by the INSPIRE Directive continue to require 
action at EU level (N=139) 

Source: All respondents, Targeted surveys (combined) April-May 2021, Question 30: To what extent do the 

177 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

obstacles and needs related to sharing and disseminating spatial data as addressed by the INSPIRE Directive 
continue to require action at EU level? 

Public consultation 

This question was not addressed in the Public consultation and no comments were made 
by respondents on this issue. 

178 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

6.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

6.1.  Conclusions  

The  key  conclusions  from  the  current  evaluation  of  the  INSPIRE  are  presented  as 
follows. 

6.1.1.  Current status  

The  current  status  analysis  provided  an  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive in the Member States and EEA countries and the effects that this has 
had  on  various  stakeholders.  The  analysis  also  includes  an  assessment  of  the 
implementation of the 2016 REFIT recommendations. This analysis constitutes the first 
part of the evaluation and provides input to the evaluation criteria, especially, but not 
only, relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency.  

The  INSPIRE  Directive  has  been  partially  and  heterogeneously  implemented 
across the European Union until the reference year 2020 (EQ 1.1). 

There has been a partial and heterogeneous implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. 
No single country has yet achieved full implementation in alignment with the roadmap 
and  several  countries  lag  behind.  There  were  fewer  data  sets  available  in  2020  than 
reported in previous years. In some cases, this is a result of data cleaning processes at 
national level, but another reason for removing data sets is also that the Member States 
and the EEA/EFTA countries might see this process as an opportunity to improve their 
overall implementation performance.  

Considering the INSPIRE performance indicators the values are generally low (based on 
the harvesting results from December 2020)250. Around half of available data sets are 
not yet accessible across the  EU Member States and EEA/EFTA countries.  In general, 
there is a low conformity of metadata for spatial data sets and spatial data services (less 
than  60%).  Half  of  all  listed  data  sets  are  in  conformity  with  relevant  legislation  as 
regards the interoperability of spatial data sets. The conformity of network services has 
improved since 2019, but several countries still offer only a few interoperable network 
services and most countries do not offer transformation services.  

The low average values of the INSPIRE indicators in reference years 2019 and 2020 are 
not surprising though. Significant changes to their calculation were introduced in 2019 
by Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1372. The new automated approach is based on the 
processing  of  all  metadata  harvested  from  member  countries  discovery  services  and 
entails  a  stricter  and  more  reliable  validation method  than  the  previous  self-declared 
assessments. Low results could be because countries often lack expertise and technical 
capacity  to  implement  the  requirements.  Technical  requirements  are  considered 
complex and difficult to operate.  

The  recommendations  put  forward  by  the  REFIT  evaluation  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive  were  partially  implemented  by  Member  States  and  continue  to  be 
relevant. The recommendations addressed to the European Commission have 
to a large extent been implemented (EQ 1.2). 

250 For several countries, the indicator values from a later harvest than December 2020 were taken into 
account  with  the  agreement  of  the  European  Commission:  Malta,  Poland,  France,  Liechtenstein  and 
Switzerland. 

179 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Member  States  increased  the  overall  availability  of  environmental  priority  data  sets. 
However,  there  are  still  limited  linkages  between  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive and other national initiatives related to e-Government and Open Data policies. 
The  recommendations  addressed  to  the  European  Commission  have  largely  been 
implemented. The European Commission has put forward several initiatives and actions 
summarized  in  the  MIG  Work  Programme.  Among  the  initiatives  are:  The  evaluation 
study on data sharing between public authorities and public access and use provisions; 
the  proposal  for  a  regulation  streamlining  reporting  obligations  in  the  field  of 
environmental  policy;  the  new  monitoring  and  reporting  decision;  a  list  of  common 
datasets  related  to  environmental  reporting  obligations;  and  initiatives  towards 
technical cooperation and coordination. 

6.1.2.  Effectiveness  

The effectiveness analysis has assessed the results and effects of the implementation 
of the INSPIRE Directive in the light of the objectives. Data was collected to identify the 
level of implementation of the Directive in the different Member States and EFTA/EEA 
countries as well as barriers to implementation. Use cases have been assessed to check 
the extent to which the INSPIRE infrastructure was used by different end-users (policy 
makers  and  other  stakeholders).  The  following  key  conclusions  are  the  results  of  the 
analysis of effectiveness251.  

Even though the monitoring system does not allow to fully capture the state of 
implementation,  Member  States  have  nonetheless  progressed 
in  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive.  Still,  no  country  has  achieved  full 
implementation  yet.  Implementation  gaps  still  need  to  be  closed  to  fully 
capture effects and impacts (EQ 2.1 & 2.2). 

As  of  June  2021,  and  close  to  the  last  deadline  set  for  implementing  the  INSPIRE 
Directive (December 2021), full implementation is not yet achieved. The analysis of the 
monitoring  data  and  current  status  forms  (see  previous  conclusions  EQ  1.1  et  1.2) 
highlights several gaps in the implementation. Overall progress at Member States level 
is  however  observed.  Some  progress  is  observed  regarding  governance  and 
organizational issues. Evidence suggests that, in at least three countries, the INSPIRE 
Directive has been instrumental in driving an improvement in the organizational aspects 
of spatial data sharing.  

The current geographical coverage of implementation does not allow to meet 
the INSPIRE Directive objective in terms of interoperability (EQ 2.3).  

The  geographical  coverage  of  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  uneven 
across  Member  States,  and  at  national  and  regional  level.  The  heterogeneity  of  data 
sets  that  are  made  available  by  Member  States  affect  the  capacity  to  use  data  from 
different  regions  and  different  Member  States.  The  combination  of  the  uneven 
geographical coverage of implementation and the heterogeneity of data sets renders it 
difficult to achieve the INSPIRE Directive's ambition of interoperability.  

The implementation of the INSPIRE Directive as well as the sharing and reuse 
of  existing  spatial  data  still  face  barriers  already  identified  in  the  preceding 
evaluation – these barriers are primarily of a technical nature (EQ 2.5).  

251 Note that there is no specific conclusion on EQ 2.4 because the main challenge lies in the coherence 

of the INSPIRE Directive with the PAEI directive. 

180 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The implementation of the Directive as well as the sharing and reuse of existing spatial 
information has progressed since the last evaluation (2017). Barriers observed at that 
time  still  remain  valid.  The  greatest  challenge  lies  in  the  technical  complexity  of  the 
framework included in the INSPIRE Directive. This issue of technical complexity applies 
to implementation as well as to the use outside data producers (see EQ 2.6 and 2.7). 
Another remaining barrier is the heterogeneous licensing conditions, which impacts the 
sharing  and  use  of  data  sets.  Other  barriers,  previously  identified,  such  as  legal, 
knowledge,  financial,  cooperation  and  organization,  were  no  longer  unanimously 
regarded as obstacle for the implementation of the INSPIRE framework. 

The  use  of  data  sets  and  services  through  the  INSPIRE  framework  is 
developing. However, an effort remains at the Member State level to increase 
the  use  of  the  INSPIRE  framework  –  be  it  for  EU  level  purposes,  national  or 
regional purposes. (EQ 2.6 & 2.7). 

The  analysis  does  not  lead  to  clear  conclusions  regarding  the  use  of  the  INSPIRE 
framework for reporting under the environmental acquis and for policy making in the 
field of environment in general. On the one hand, there has been progress in use, and 
efforts have been made to align INSPIRE to EU reporting requirements. The results of 
these  efforts  are  welcomed  by  Member  States,  as  the  main  effect  of  INSPIRE  at  EU 
policy level. A clear conclusion on the use of INSPIRE for other policies is not possible, 
because the INSPIRE framework is less known and thus considered less useful for local 
or regional policy needs.  

There is no evidence at this point in time that INSPIRE has any qualitative and 
quantitative  effects  on  users  active 
influencing 
environmental policy. This also applies for small businesses using spatial data. 
INSPIRE  data  is  only  to  a  limited  extent  used  by  users  other  than  national 
public authorities and agencies. (EQ 2.8 & 2.9). 

in  economic  sectors 

Most Member States do not monitor the use of data provided through INSPIRE. They 
therefore have limited knowledge about who the users of the spatial data in different 
economic sectors are, and how they use the data and, in the case of the private 
sector, what commercial applications they might eventually develop. At sector level, 
several studies have been conducted to assess the available data and how this could 
be used for specific purposes. However, the effects of the data on users have not been 
analysed. Focus Group interviewees indicated that the effects are very limited at best 
on users outside of the public domain. 

6.1.3.  Relevance  

The  relevance  analysis  assesses  the  needs  of  the  different  stakeholders  (public 
authorities,  private  actors,  NGOs,  researchers,  and  the  general  public),  in  terms  of 
improving  availability,  quality,  organisation,  accessibility  and  sharing  of  spatial 
information and decreasing the data acquisition costs for the public sector. Information 
was  collected  on  the  needs  of  the  different  stakeholders  as  well  as  on  the  current 
barriers. The impacts of current and future technological developments on INSPIRE and 
on the way to address harmonisation and interoperability were assessed. The following 
key conclusions are the results of the analysis of the relevance252.  

252 Note that there is no specific conclusion on EQ 3.4 because the main challenge lie in the coherence 

of the INSPIRE Directive with the PAEI directive. 

181 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

INSPIRE  aims  to  address  two  needs:  i)  improving  availability,  quality, 
organisation, accessibility and sharing of spatial information and ii) decreasing 
the costs of public sector in searching for data. These needs are still valid and 
INSPIRE  reflets  the  needs  and  thus  remains  relevant  for  addressing  the 
barriers (EQ 3.1 & 3.2). 

Public authorities have a need for spatial data and the INSPIRE framework is a relevant 
response to this need. As regards stakeholders outside of the public domain - although 
their needs have not been precisely assessed  and identified - the  reasoning is that if 
spatial data are made available and accessible, these stakeholders would use the data 
and that dedicated services would be developed be on this basis. However, at this stage, 
the evidence to support this causality is limited. 

With  regard  to  barriers,  the  INSPIRE  framework  is  considered  as  a  relevant  tool  to 
overcome these and hereby making data available, accessible, and reusable. 

The objective of harmonisation and interoperability in the INSPIRE framework 
entails technical specifications and standards that are considered as too rigid 
to be fit-for-the-future in the context of evolving standards and technologies 
(EQ 3.3).  

The  INSPIRE  framework  is  envisaged  to  be  based  on  the  national  spatial  data 
infrastructures (NSDI) of Member States. It establishes a framework for the sharing of 
relevant  spatial  data  within  the  European  Union  for  users  and  applications  in  the 
environmental  domain.  To  ensure  the  effective  sharing  as  well  as  interoperability, 
common standards must be used. INSPIRE mostly relies on the standards from the Open 
Geospatial  Consortium  (OGC).  However,  the  technical  requirements  may  constitute  a 
barrier to the implementation and to the use. The technical specifications are complex 
and not necessarily in line with recent developments which may limit use for a number 
of non-technical users (outside data providers). The level of ambition for the standards 
currently required within INSPIRE may thus constitute a barrier to its full materialisation 
and use. 

6.1.4.  Efficiency  

The efficiency analysis collected evidence on the effects/benefits of the implementation 
of INSPIRE Directive, as well as, to the extent possible the assessment of the costs of 
the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  Data  was  collected  on  the  experienced  costs 
impacts and benefits to different stakeholders (e.g. national authorities, regional/local 
authorities,  businesses,  and  NGOs).  Areas/processes  with  scope  for  reducing 
inefficiencies were identified.  

INSPIRE  has  improved  the  work  of  some  stakeholders  in  the  area  of  spatial 
data  provision.  A  key  benefit  has  been  the  provision  of  better  overviews, 
discoverability, availability and access to data (EQ 4.1).  

The  implementation  of  INSPIRE  is  not  complete.  Still,  the  benefits  are  beginning  to 
emerge  and  have  contributed  to  improving  the  operational  efficiency  of  some 
stakeholders.  The  key  direct  benefits  are  experienced  by  stakeholders  are:  Better 
overview, discoverability, availability, accessibility of data and especially harmonisation 
and  interoperability.  In  Member  States  where  data  were  previously  stored  in  many 
different formats and some of these formats were not readable using the most common 
GIS systems, creating services and formats that can be used by all users is one of the 
most important benefits.  

182 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

In terms of indirect benefits, two factors were pointed to most significantly by Member 
States:  openness  to  share  data  by  data  providers  and  national  infrastructures  and 
development  of  national  geoportals.  Overall,  this  suggests  that  INSPIRE  has  been 
instrumental  in  furthering  the  development  of  the  national  geoportals  as  well  as  in 
promoting an increased sharing of data.    

Harmonization  of  data  and  interoperability  are  the  two  most  important  cost 
factors in the INSPIRE implementation. The approach to  the  implementation 
of INSPIRE influences the costs (EQ 4.2).  

Harmonization  and  interoperability  of  spatial  data  are  some  of  the  key  benefits  of 
INSPIRE.  Mirroring  this  however,  these  are  also  the  more  costly  elements  of 
implementation. This relates to financial costs and human resource/expertise needs and 
is a particularly relevant for national governments. The activities that are necessary to 
achieve  coherent,  consistent  and  harmonised  data  sets  that  adhere  to  shared  data 
models on a national level and at a pan-European level are perceived as costs intensive. 
The interviews, the surveys and the public consultation all confirm that harmonization 
and interoperability are the main cost drivers. For users (who are not also producers), 
the majority perceives that there are no additional costs, and if there are, these relate 
to purchasing additional or new software to access/use the spatial data. 

It  is  difficult  to  point  to  specific  provisions  which  would  make  the  INSPIRE 
implementation  more  cost-efficient.  This  largely  depends  on  the  institution  and/or 
administrative level in question. The costs of implementation are also influenced by the 
approach taken by the individual Member States to INSPIRE implementation. INSPIRE 
might  be  implemented  as  an  integral  part  of  the  national  SDI  or  implemented  as  a 
separate system. The latter can lead to disjoined data foundation and/or separate IT-
infrastructure  which  again  influences  the  cost  (and  the  perceived  value)  of  INSPIRE. 
Further,  Member  States  that implement  INSPIRE  as  a  separate  system,  in  parallel  to 
the national SDI, may tend to perceive the harmonization linked to INSPIRE as more 
costly and/or invoking additional costs. Member States that implement INSPIRE as part 
of the national SDI system cannot in general identify the costs. This suggest that the 
activities are integrated in these situations. 

Different  stakeholders  in  Member  States  also  have  varying  perceptions  depending  on 
whether  they  are  providers  or  users,  their  administrative  level  or  specific  type  of 
stakeholder.  Even  stakeholders  at  the  same  administrative  level,  but  from  different 
institutions  (i.e.  organizations/institutions  at  national  level)  may  assess  cost  levels 
differently. Large providers of data such as cadastres or mapping agencies do not have 
infrastructure  costs.  Such  institutions  experience  costs  in  relation  to  processing  and 
harmonizing data instead.  

There is a simplification potential of the implementation in terms of addressing 
the  requirement  for  interoperability  and  reporting  on  the  implementation. 
There is also simplification potential in terms of better adjusted data-models – 
targeting different user groups (EQ 4.3).  

Simplification may happen at two levels; A) reducing the complexity of harmonisation 
and interoperability and thereby reducing costs B) align with other digital processes and 
making use and data reuse easier. The latter may not necessarily lead to reduced cost 
but to an increased use. Further, increasing the correspondence between national SDI 
and INSPIRE will not only reduce cost but also increase the value of national SDI data 
that is more targeted for specific use cases. 

Some Member States find that the reporting on INSPIRE is time intensive and not always 
straightforward (technically difficult). The already introduced simplification may not be 
enough  to  reduce  the  burden  (costs)  for  the  Member  States.  However,  public 

183 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

feedback  suggests 

consultation 
that  respondents  are  more  concerned  with 
harmonisation and interoperability than with basic functionality regarding downloading 
and viewing of spatial data. 

Users  perceive  that  data  models  and  the  way  data  is  available  is  too  complicated. 
Different types  of users have different needs regarding data models:  Advanced users 
might need quite complex data structures for the data to match their needs - but using 
data models with this complexity will be a burden  to  other users with simpler needs. 
INSPIRE specifies one data model per data theme covered by INSPIRE: the data model 
covering the combined needs from the most advanced users. 

The results achieved so far are commensurate with the resources put forward 
and are in line with the ones expected from the ex-ante evaluation of INSPIRE 
in  observed  cases.  However,  implementation  is  not  yet  complete  and  hence 
results cannot be fully assessed yet (EQ 4.4).  

A  limited  number  of  cost-benefit  assessments  of  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE  are 
available supplementing those that were included in the recent evaluation. Most of those 
focus on the benefits of an SDI in general (and not on INSPIRE). Overall, they conclude 
that the benefits of a national SDI by far outweigh the costs. The reviewed Cost Benefit 
Analysis find that when the SDI is implemented this has a large positive impact/benefit 
for  both  the  public  (cost  savings)  and  private  sector  (costs  savings  and  business 
opportunities). However, a number of Member States found that it is too early to really 
assess the costs and benefit of INSPIRE, especially as INSPIRE is not fully implemented 
yet.  

The  costs  are  perceived  are  'asymmetrical'  according  to  stakeholders.  Most 
costs  relate  to  setting  up  the  system  and  are  thus  borne  by  national 
governments. Users do not perceive extraordinary costs, but this may be due 
to limited use to date (EQ 4.5). 

Overall, national authorities and agencies are the stakeholders where most of the cost 
occur  and  where  less  of  the  (direct)  benefits  are  expected  to  fall.  Depending  on  the 
administrate  structure  of  the  Member  State  and  of  the  responsibilities  allocated,  the 
allocation  of  cost  can  vary  considerably  between  Member  States.  In  countries  with  a 
federal structure, some implementation responsibilities may lie at subnational level.  The 
main  costs  identified  by  national  and  local  level  institutions  relate  to  acquiring  and 
processing  of  geospatial  data,  i.e.  the  production  and  harmonization  of  data  and 
Businesses, in addition to the national and regional level, find that perceived costs are 
larger than benefits. 

The resources for implementation have in most cases been made available, but 
some Member States have perceived it as a challenge to secure the resources. 
In these Member States, costs are perceived as higher, possibly due to treating 
INSPIRE and the national SDI as two different systems (EQ 4.6).   

Member States have applied different ways of funding the implementation of INSPIRE.  
In most cases, INSPIRE implementation has been funded as part of the budget allocation 
for the institution in question (with some difference in terms of which costs are carried 
by the different government levels, mostly the funding is provided by the national level 
government (state budget)). Some Member States have also used funding via European 
Structural Investment Funds (ESIF). 

For  some  Member  States  the  funding  of  INSPIRE  implementation  has  been  an  issue. 
Many different institutions are involved in the implementation of INSPIRE and budget 
allocations therefore have to be spread across institutions, often considered insufficient. 
For  other  Member  States  the  problem  has  rather  been  the  availability  the  required 

184 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

expertise. Thus, some Member State administrations have outsourced the development 
of INSPIRE software and harmonisation at increased costs. 

The effect on environmental reporting is limited and it is too early to conclude 
on  a  possible  reduction  in  the  administrative  burden  –  this  is  due  to  the 
incomplete implementation (EQ 4.7). 

Environmental authorities to some extent make use of the spatial data that are made 
available  through  INSPIRE.  It  is  noted  that  this  does  not  necessarily  reflect  on  the 
reporting burden. The administrative burden of environmental reporting has not been 
confirmed to have been reduced through use of data made available through INSPIRE. 
Findings  under  effectiveness  (EQ  2.6)  and  under  coherence  (EQ  5.2)  point  to  that 
although the alignment has increased, the use of data from INSPIRE is still limited. More 
work in terms of making it technically more efficient will be needed before INSPIRE can 
really support the reduction of the administrative burden. 

A  further  streamlining  of  the  provisions  in  Articles  7  and  8  of  Directive 
2003/4/EC  on  public  access  to  environmental  information  would  not 
necessarily affect the administrative burden of the Member States (EQ 4.8) 

There  are  no  inconsistencies  between  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  Directive  2003/4  on 
Public Access to Environmental Information. The two Directives have different scopes 
(despite  some  overlap),  but  have  a  very  important  common  element,  namely  active 
dissemination  of  information  to  the  public.  INSPIRE  being  the  more  advanced  of  the 
two, it can also support the implementation of Directive 2003/4 providing a technical 
framework for electronic data sharing. Stakeholders perceive that INSPIRE supports the 
implementation  of  Directive  2003/4/EC  by  improving  the  capacity  of  stakeholder  to 
provide spatial data, which should have an effect on the administrative burden also by 
potentially avoiding duplication of efforts in implementation. 

6.1.5.  Coherence  

The coherence assessment considered whether the INSPIRE Directive and its provisions 
were  coherent  internally  and  with  other  environmental legislation,  with  other  policies 
and  legislation  with  a  spatial  dimension  outside  the  environmental  acquis,  as  well  as 
with the EU legal framework on public data sharing (Directive 2003/4 on Public access 
to environmental information, and Directive 2019/1024/EU on Open Data).  

No issues of internal coherence have been found. INSPIRE is however outdated 
with regards to its references to comitology procedures, which are not in line 
with Articles 290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty. (EQ5.1)  

Although  INSPIRE  consists  of  several  layers  of  rules  and  technical  guidance,  with 
different  statuses  and  revision  procedures,  no  instances  of  incoherence  have  been 
found.  However,  overlaps  between  data  themes  identified  by  stakeholders  should  be 
resolved  in  the  relevant  technical  committees.  Revision  procedures  applied  to 
Implementing  Rules  may  also  appear  cumbersome  for  the  revision  of  technical 
elements.  Aligning  the  comitology  procedures  referred  to  in  the  INSPIRE  Directive  to 
the Lisbon treaty might lead to more flexible revision procedures. 

INSPIRE  is  legally  coherent  with  environmental  legislation  with  geospatial 
reporting obligations (EQ5.2) and with other relevant areas of EU policy with 
geospatial  reporting  obligations  (EQ5.3).  In  practice  however,  data 
specifications are  not yet fully  aligned,  leading to instances of  duplication of 
reporting processes.  

185 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

INSPIRE applies to all environmental policies and other policies or activities which may 
have an impact on the environment. A review of the relevant EU legislation did not find 
provisions  that  would  potentially  impede  the  applicability  of  INSPIRE  rules  within  the 
scope  of  the  legislation.  In  fact,  many  pieces  of  legislation  make  direct  reference  to 
INSPIRE rules and it was found that such references do support compliance in practice.  

The  coherence  assessment  also  identified  many  ongoing  initiatives,  both  from  the 
Commission services/agencies and stakeholders, to develop synergies between INSPIRE 
and  data  collection  and  sharing  processes  and  instruments  under  other  pieces  of 
legislation. In particular in the environmental field, of particular relevance is the ongoing 
work to align reporting obligations in EU environmental legislation with INSPIRE rules. 
Such initiatives are supported by reporting guidance and increased cooperation between 
sectoral  authorities  and  authorities  responsible  for  INSPIRE  both  at  EU  and  national 
level. However, stakeholders stressed that environmental reporting obligations are not 
yet  fully  coherent  with  INSPIRE,  both  in  terms  of  data  content  and  models.  Similar 
comments  were  made  in  relation  to  non-environmental  policy  areas.  Such  situations 
currently lead to duplication of reporting processes. 

Alignment  initiatives  are  especially  relevant  in  the  context  of  the  recently  announced 
ambition to develop common European data spaces, in particular the Green Deal data 
space,  as  INSPIRE  could  become  an  important  instrument  for  building  these  data 
spaces. Some of these initiatives (for instance in the transport sector) also show that 
INSPIRE services, as they are, cannot satisfy all data needs in all sectors. Some current 
developments,  such  as  the  new  Climate  Adaptation  Strategy,  question  a  possible 
expansion of the scope of INSPIRE to be more in line with sectoral data needs.  

The  INSPIRE  Directive  has  been  designed  to  be  consistent  with  the  EU  legal 
framework  on  data  sharing  and  dissemination  –  Public  Access  to 
Environmental  Information  Directive  and  the  Open  Data  Directive.  Synergies 
between the three Directives could however be better exploited (EQ5.4 and EQ 
5.5)  

By  providing  data  services  accessible  to  the  public,  and  by  defining  the  technical 
standards, the INSPIRE Directive has the potential to serve objectives of transparency 
and  openness  of  the  Public  Access  to  Environmental  Information  Directive  (Directive 
2003/4) and the Open Data Directive. This potential is not fully realised yet due to the 
varying  levels  of  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  across  Member  States  and 
the tendency in some Member States to implement the three Directives separately.  

In  the  case  of  the  Public  Access  to  Environmental  Information  Directive,  the  limited 
synergies with INSPIRE can also be explained by the fact that no link is made between 
the two Directives in the legislation. As it was adopted earlier, Directive 2003/4, which 
requires  the  dissemination  of  environmental  information  held  by  public  authorities, 
including through electronic means, does not refer to INSPIRE rules for disseminating 
geospatial data covered by Article 7(e), or to the open data framework (formerly PSI 
Directive, now Open Data Directive). The Directive is in this regard outdated and could 
benefit from stronger alignment with INSPIRE.  

Coherence issues between the INSPIRE Directive and the Open Data Directive 
might however arise in the future and could require aligning INSPIRE with the 
open data legal framework. (EQ 5.5) 

Potential conflicts have been identified in the relation to the Open Data Directive and 
the upcoming High Value Datasets Regulation. Provisions of Article 14 of the Open Data 
Directive  might  conflict  with  provisions  in  Articles  13,  14  and  17  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive, which provide ample possibilities to limit public access to spatial data, and to 

186 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

license and/or require payment for spatial datasets and services. Given the evolution of 
the legal framework on open data, there might be a need to consider the alignment of 
the INSPIRE Directive with the open data legal framework in the future.  

Although the  Open Data Directive does not set legal obligations in terms of technical 
standards or data format and makes several references to INSPIRE, it will nonetheless 
be  crucial 
future  developments,  supporting  guidance,  and 
recommendations for both directives remain compatible in the future. 

to  ensure 

that 

6.1.6.  EU Added value  

The  EU  added  value  assessment  identified  the  added  value  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
compared to what could be achieved at Member State and/or regional level as well as 
the extent to which the issues addressed by INSPIRE continue to require action at EU 
level.  

The  added  value  at  the  EU  level  has  been  less  than  expected  due  to  the 
incomplete implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. The most significant EU 
added value has been related to the reporting under the environmental acquis 
and for other policymaking and implementation purposes (EQ 6.1). 

Due to the incomplete implementation of the INSPIRE Directive, the EU added value has 
been limited. The EU added value of the Directive as acknowledged by the majority of 
stakeholders, so far relates mostly to the policymaking and implementation purposes at 
national  and  European  level.  One  of  the  key  benefits  concerns  the  environmental 
reporting by the Member States. At a national level, the Directive has led to EU added 
value through the establishment of governance structures, achieving interoperability in 
a broader scope (EU-wide), unlocking public data, improving transparency and creating 
a pool of EU level expertise. The EU added value of the Directive in terms of data sharing 
is limited when it comes to benefits for users outside the policy-making field and could 
be  further  exploited,  e.g.  by  providing  more  user-friendly  applications.  Cross-border 
collaboration  is  not  always  smooth  due  to  technical  challenges.  Nevertheless,  the 
stakeholders in the targeted survey agree that EU-wide data sharing and cross-border 
collaboration has improved due to the INSPIRE Directive. 

Important EU added value of the Directive can be achieved through its effective 
positioning  in  the  emerging  European  data  governance  landscape  and  to 
become one of the key drivers of the upcoming Green Deal data space (EQ 6.1). 

Environmental  and  climate-related  spatial  data  is  becoming  an  important  tool  for 
delivering on the objectives of the European Green Deal, which is also acknowledged in 
the  European  Data  Strategy  by  putting  forward  the  GreenData4all  initiative. 
Interoperable  data  of  high  quality  is  crucial  to  ensure  informed  and  evidence-based 
policy making and implementation. INSPIRE-relevant data must be aligned with other 
data policy initiatives in order to achieve its full potential at the European level. A close 
collaboration  between  policy  makers  and  other  relevant  stakeholders  is  crucial  in 
shaping future developments. Coherence between various initiatives and instruments is 
required  for  developing  the  Green  Deal  data  space,  as  mandated  by  the  MIG  Work 
Programme.  

The  intervention  at  the  EU  level  is  required  when  it  comes  to  sharing  and 
disseminating spatial data (EQ 6.2). 

The demand for harmonised data has been growing in Europe, especially for ensuring 
an  effective  response  to  cross-border  challenges  such  as  climate  change  and  natural 

187 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

disasters. Most of the stakeholders acknowledge that the action is required at EU level 
and that the rationale behind and the principles of the INSPIRE Directive are justified. 

188 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

6.2.  Recommendations 

The above conclusions of the evaluation of the INSPIRE  Directive leads us to forward 
the following recommendations to the European Commission and the Member States.  

I. Closing the implementation gap  

The implementation of INSPIRE according to  the INSPIRE roadmap supposed to have 
been  completed  in  2021.  This  evaluation  shows  that  there  is  still  some  way  to  go  to 
reach the initial expectations. The  following recommendations are targeted at closing 
the implementation gap.  

It is suggested that the Member States in consultation with the European Commission 
consider the following: 

 

 

to improve the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive that guarantees a better 
data availability and better cross border usage of data. 
to  develop  ways  to  link  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  with  a 
common demand across administrative levels and use cases. 

It is furthermore recommended that the European Commission considers: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to continue assisting the Member States in their reporting processes by ensuring 
the technical functioning of the INSPIRE Geoportal. 
to  develop  more  comprehensive  qualitative 
indicators  to  monitor  the 
coordination, governance structure and data sharing arrangements set-up by the 
Member States as part of the implementation of the Directive. 
to assess possibilities to expand the target groups for the implementation of the 
INSPIRE  Directive,  by  providing  more  opportunity  to  involve  the  European 
institutions, private sector actors and citizens as implementation bearers. 
to  further  support  the  Member  States  in  the  implementation  through  capacity 
building trainings and peer-to-peer exchange of good practices. 
to promote synergy between INSPIRE and the NSDIs by developing best practice 
recommendations  and/or  changes  to  the  INSPIRE  implementing  rules  and 
guidelines that encourage Member States to develop coordinated frameworks for 
INSPIRE and the NSDI. 
to prioritize achieving full interoperability of those data sets that are selected on 
the basis of user needs' assessments. 
to further develop the framework in order to ensure that it is technology neutral, 
while at same time following well-established, but also emerging technological 
standards that can be deployed by implementers in a more flexible manner. 

II. Applying a user-driven approach  

The evaluation has identified that there is limited knowledge of the needs of the different 
users  and  the  constraint  that  they  experience,  it  is  therefore  suggested  that  the 
Member States in consultation with the European Commission consider: 

 

 

to maintain a focus on the environmental priority data sets, in order to ensure 
that the data is relevant to the user groups. 
to promote benefits of pan-European data sets and EU data sharing in order to 
unlock more public and private data, solicit more support to the implementation 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

 

of  the  Directive  and  create  a  broader  understanding  of  the  benefits  stemming 
from the INSPIRE Directive.  
to reduce the perceived complexity of data models by offering simpler views of 
structures and relationships between data elements than what is specified in the 
full data models. Such simplified views could be offered via complementary data 
models that are easier to handle for non-expert users.  

  where possible, to develop case studies describing existing use cases of INSPIRE-
relevant data at sectoral and national level which would help design appropriate 
means for making spatial data available and usable. 
to identify and further develop a community of spatial data users with the aim 
to identify their current and future needs, e.g. in terms of content of data and 
its  utilisation  purpose,  tools  they  use  and  products  and  services  they  develop 
based on the spatial data. 

 

It is furthermore recommended that the European Commission considers: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to develop more support to Member States in defining schemes and mechanisms 
to incite the private actors to share their data in order to improve data quality. 
to  promote  possibilities  to  reduce  the  perceived  complexity  of  data  models  by 
specifying complementary, simpler views of structures and relationships between 
data elements than what is specified in the full data models. 
consider possible ways to reduce the cost of implementation, especially the cost 
incurred  as  a  result  of  additional  efforts  to  maximize  the  use  for  non-expert 
users. 
to support the identification of best practices among Member States as regards 
licensing and use of data and develop common guidelines supporting these. 
to support the Member States by identifying best practices for using INSPIRE as 
a tool to report their national data for the policy purposes at the EU level. 
to develop dedicated measures to support the creation of projects using spatial 
data for developing products and services at Member State level. 
to improve the future use of INSPIRE by facilitating data quality improvements 
conducted by (approved/authorized) individuals/companies.  

III. Ensuring an alignment with the emerging data legislation  

Although  the  evaluation  overall  finds  that  there  are  very  limited  coherence  issues 
between the INSPIRE Directive and other existing legislative acts, there is a need for 
alignment  with  emerging  data  legislation.  It  is  therefore  recommended  that  the 
European Commission considers: 

 

 

 

to align the INSPIRE Directive with comitology procedures laid down in Article 
290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty and in Regulation (EU) 182/2011. 
to  update  and  amend  Directive  2003/4  with  the  requirements  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive, relevant to active dissemination, data sharing and transparency (e.g. 
to  add  in  Article  7  a  reference  to  INSPIRE,  indicating  that  data  referred  to  in 
Article  7(e)  should  be  shared  in  accordance  with  INSPIRE;  to  define  what 
electronic dissemination means; references to metadata, etc.). 
If  coherence  issues  arise  following  the  adoption  of  the  High  Value  datasets 
Regulation,  

o 

o 

to align the provisions of the INSPIRE Directive linked to derogations for 
public authorities to limit public access, license and require payment for 
data covered by the High Value datasets Regulation with the provisions 
of the Open Data Directive and the High Value datasets Regulation. 
to  ensure  an  effective  positioning  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  in  the 
emerging  European  data  governance  landscape  by  achieving  synergies 

190 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

with other initiatives stemming from the European Strategy for Data such 
as  the  data  reuse  provisions  of  the  Open  Data  Directive,  the  related 
initiative  for  an  Implementing  Act  on  High  Value  Datasets  and  the 
Proposal for a regulation on European data governance (Data Governance 
Act).  

IV. Extending the scope 

Taking  into  consideration  that  the  implementation  of  INSPIRE  is  behind  schedule,  an 
expansion of the scope should be well considered and prioritized, keeping in mind also 
the objective to promote full implementation and to align with other data governance 
developments.  It  is  recommended  that  the  Member  States  in  consultation  with  the 
European Commission consider: 

 

 

to create incentives to Member State public administrations at national, regional 
and local level, private actors, academic institutions and citizens to share data in 
a transparent manner and develop a common INSPIRE infrastructure focused on 
a common demand. 
to identify data needs in various policy sectors to understand better the potential 
of data coming from various stakeholders.  

It is furthermore recommended that the European Commission considers: 

  possibilities to include more data beyond the spatial data scope in the INSPIRE 
infrastructure and develop a linked data approach to associate spatial and non-
spatial data. 

V. Key instrument for the European Green Deal  

With its deliberate emphasis on interoperability, the INSPIRE Directive has the potential 
to play a critical role in the implementation of  EU ambitions for the creation of wider 
data  spaces,  including  the  Green  Deal  data  space.  It  is  thus  recommended  for  the 
Member States in consultation with the European Commission consider: 

 

 

 

to improve the implementation of Directive and aligning it better with sectoral 
legislation (or aligning the sectoral legislation with INSPIRE requirements)  and 
implementation  in  practice  should  be  done  urgently,  as  these  steps  will 
contribute to wider European Green Deal objectives. 
to  reshaping  the  objectives  and  orientation  of  the  legislation  to  bring  greater 
political legitimacy to the urgency of implementation and practical usage of the 
INSPIRE infrastructure at Member State level, and wider awareness of it amongst 
key stakeholders. 
to facilitate data-driven innovation and evidence-based decisions by the citizens, 
public  and  private  sector  in  support  of  the  transition  to  a  more  sustainable 
society. 

It is furthermore recommended that the European Commission considers: 

 

 

to  support  data-based  solutions  that  support  the  transition  to  a  greener  and 
carbon-neutral economy and reducing administrative burden. 
to  develop  ways  to  unlock  the  full  potential  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  in  the 
context of the European Strategy for data as an enabler for the European Green 
Deal. 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

7.  APPENDICES 

Appendix 
Appendix 1 
Appendix 2 
Appendix 3 (separate document) 
Appendix 4 (separate document) 
Appendix 5 (separate document) 
Appendix 6 (separate document) 

Title 
List of evidence sources 
Current status 
Country forms 
Synopsis report 
Report on the public consultations  
Report on the validation workshop 

192 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Appendix 1 

List of evidence sources 

The  current  appendix  presents  an  overview  of  the  identified  data  sources,  that  are 
compiled  in  the  project  data  inventory.  The  first  table  (Table  7-1)  presents  relevant 
evaluations  and  other  relevant  studies  and  reports,  including  academic  papers.  The 
second table (Table 7-2) provides an overview of identified legislation relevant for the 
evaluation study. In both tables, the sources are shown in an alphabetical order. 

Table 7-1 

Evidence sources (reports, studies, academic papers, etc.) 

Identified evaluations, other relevant studies/ reports and academic papers 

Abramic A, Garcia A, Tello Antón O, Agudo LM, Bruque Carmona G, Zanella A, Norton C, Haroun R. (2019) 
Data specification for Maritime Spatial Planning INSPIRE data model, Macaronesian Maritime Spatial Planning 
(MarSP) C-3PO - D.5.1, Version 1.0 

Abramic,  A.,  E.  Bigagli,  V.  Barale,  M.  Assouline,  A.  Lorenzo-Alonso,  C.  Norton,  (2018),  Maritime  spatial 
planning  supported  by  infrastructure  for  spatial  information  in  Europe  (INSPIRE).  Ocean  &  Coastal 
Management  152: 23-36. 

Abramic,  A.,  Kotsev, A.,  Cetl,  V.,  Kephalopoulos,  S.,  Paviotti,  M.,  (2017), A Spatial Data Infrastructure for 
Environmental Noise Data in Europe. International Journal of Environmental Ressearch and Public Health 14 
(7): 726. 

Andrej A., D., E. Bigagli, A. Che-Bohnenstengel, P. Smits, (2018), INSPIRE: Support for and requirement of 
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Marine Policy 92: 86-100. 

Balawejder,  M.,  T.  Adamczyk  and  M.  Cygan  (2016),  The  problem  of  adjusting  Polish  spatial  information 
resources to the standards of the inspire, Geographic Information Systems Conference and Exhibition “GIS 
ODYSSEY 2016”, 5th to 9th of September 2016, Perugia, Italy. 

Barbero, M., Lopez Potes M., Vancauwenberghe G., Vandenbroucke D., Nunes de Lima V. (Ed.) (2019), The 
role  of  Spatial  Data  Infrastructures  in  the  Digital  Government  Transformation  of  Public  Administrations, 
Publications  Office  of 
ISBN  978-92-76-09679-5, 
doi:10.2760/324167, JRC117724. 

the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  2019, 

Boguslawski,  R.,    C.  Valayer,  K.  van  Gansen,  D.  Keogh,  F.  Pignatelli  (2020),  European  Union  Location 
Framework Blueprint. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Borzacchiello, M.T., Boguslawski, R., Pignatelli, F. (2016), Improving accuracy in road safety data exchange 
for navigation systems – EULF Transportation Pilot, EUR 28301 EN, doi:10.2791/227108. 

Bourée,  K.,  De  Vries,  B.,  Duquesne,  C.,  Dodson,  C.,  Jugelt,  S.,  Martirano,  G.,  Minghini,  M.,  Pignatelli,  F. 
(2019),  INSPIRE-MMTIS:  overlap  in  standards  related  to  the  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1926,  EUR 
29975 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Cetl V., M. Roić, S. Mastelić Ivić (2008), Cost-benefit analysis of the improvement of spatial data infrastructure 
- Case study Croatia. Geodetski Vestnik. 

Cetl V., Tomas R., Kotsev A., de Lima V.N., Smith R.S., Jobst M. (2019), Establishing Common Ground Through 
INSPIRE: The Legally-Driven European Spatial Data Infrastructure. In: Döllner J., Jobst M., Schmitz P. (eds) 
Service-Oriented Mapping. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Cham. 

Cetl V., V. Nunes de Lima, R. Tomas, M. Lutz, J. D'Eugenio, A. Nagy, J. Robbrecht (2017), Summary Report 
on Status of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in EU. EUR 28930 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the European Union. 

Cho,  G.  &  J.  Crompvoets  (2018):  The  INSPIRE  directive:  some  observations  on  the  legal  framework  and 
implementation, Survey Review. 

Climate-ADAPT. Available at: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/ 

Consultation on the Implementation of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community 
- INSPIRE Directive (2007/2/EC). 

193 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Copernicus. Available at: https://www.copernicus.eu/en 

COWI, Epsilon, Alterra - Wageningen UR (2018), Evaluation and assessment of INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC 
data sharing between public authorities and public access and use provisions – Final Task 1 Report. 

Craglia  M,  Annoni  A.  (2007),  INSPIRE:  An  Innovative  Approach  to  the  Development  of  Spatial  Data 
Infrastructures  in  Europe  Concepts.  In:  Onsrud  H,  editor.  Research  and  Theory  in  Advancing  Spatial  Data 
Infrastructure Concepts. Redlands (United States of America): ESRI Press. JRC37929. 

Craglia, M., L. Pavanello and R.S. Smith (2010), The Use of Spatial Data for the Preparation of Environmental 
Reports in Europe. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. 

DG Environment (2016), Proposed action for MIWP 2016-2020: List of priority data sets. 

DG Environment, Infrastructure for Spatial Information (INSPIRE), REFIT recommendations follow up - Overall 
State of Play. 

Dusart J., Kotsev A., Smith R., Cetl V., Tapsall B., Divjak D., (2016), Data Infrastructures in Support of Macro-
Regional  Development.  Experiences  and  Lessons  Learned  from  the  Danube  Region,  JRC  Science  for  policy 
report. 

ECORYS Nederland BV & Grontmij Nederland BV (2009), Costs-benefits analysis. 

EEA & JRC (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE implementation, EEA Technical report No 17/2014, 
ISSN 1725-2237. 

EIONET (n.d.), About Reportnet. 

Elliott  P.,  Wartenberg  D.  (2004),  Spatial  epidemiology:  current  approaches  and  future  challenges. 
Environmental Health Perspectives 112 (9): 998-1006. 

EMODnet Central Portal. Available at: https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en 

EMODnet Human Activities. Available at: https://www.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/ 

European Commission (n.d.), About ELISE - European Location Interoperability Solutions for e-Government. 

European Commission (2004), Commission Staff Working Document, Proposal for a Directive of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an  infrastructure  for  spatial  information  in  the  Community 
(INSPIRE).  Extended Impact Assessment, SEC(2004) 980. 

European Commission (2012), Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
the experience gained in the application of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, 
COM(2012)/0774 final 

European  Commission  (2016),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Evaluation  on  the  implementation  of 
Directive  2007/2/EC  of  March  2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European 
Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23. 

European Commission (2016), Executive Summary on the evaluation of Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). 

European Commission (2016), Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme for the INSPIRE Directive 
for the period from 2017-2020 (MIWP 2017). Working title: Taking the implementation into the home stretch. 

European Commission (2016), Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial 
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23 (COM/2016/0478 final/2). 

European Commission (2017), Commission Staff Working Document: Fitness Check of Reporting and 
Monitoring of EU Environment Policy, accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions: Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting, SWD(2017) 230 final. 

194 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

European Commission (2017), MSP data study: Evaluation of data and knowledge gaps to implement MSP. 
Written by Assistance Mechanism for the Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning. 

European  Commission  (2017),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Actions  to  Streamline 
Environmental Reporting, (COM(2017) 312 final). 

European Commission (2017), Support to the Fitness Check of monitoring and reporting obligations arising 
from EU environmental legislation. Final Report, drafted by Rayment, M., Rupert H., M. Nesbit, A. Illes and Y. 
Verstraeten.  

European  Commission  (2018),  Evaluation  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information (SWD/2018/145 final) 

European Commission (2018), Study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public 
sector information. 

European Commission (2019) Progress on Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting. Report by actions. 

European  Commission  (2019),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Ex  post  evaluation  of  the  Intelligent 
Transport Systems Directive 2010/40/EU. 

European  Commission  (2019),  Evaluation  and  assessment  of  INSPIRE  directive  2007/2/EC  data  sharing 
between public authorities and public access and use provisions. Sharing between public authorities and public 
assessment and use assessment, Final Report.  

European Commission (2019), Promotion of good practices for national environmental information systems 
and tools for data harvesting at EU level. Final Report, drafted by Wageningen University and Research (The 
Netherlands), Umweltbundesamt GmbH (UBA) (Austria), Epsilon (Greece), COWI (Belgium). 

European  Commission  (2019),  Study:  The  costs  of  not  implementing  EU  environmental  law.  Final  Report, 
written by COWI A/S & Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd. 

European Commission (2020), Building the Green Data Space, INSPIRE Online Conference 2020, 3 June. 

European Commission (2020), Impact Assessment on enhancing the use of data in Europe. Report on Task 1 
– Data governance, written by Deloitte, The Lisbon Council, JIIP, GOVLAB, TIMELEX. 

European Commission (2020), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  Report  on  the  safety  and  liability  implications  of  Artificial 
Intelligence, the Internet of Things and robotics, COM(2020) 64 final. 

European  Commission  (2021)  Commission  Staff  Working  Document.  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  N° 
1315/2013 on Union Guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network. SWD(2021) 117 
final 

European Commission (n.d.), INSPIRE support to Multi-Modal Travel Information Services.  

European  Commission  and  EEA  INSPIRE  Team  (2018),  Proposed  action  for  MIWP  2016-2020:  Improving 
accessibility of data sets through network services.  

European Commission website, Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS). 

European Environment Agency (2018) EU Registry on Industrial Sites. Data model documentation. Version 
4.1–13/11/2018 

European Parliamentary Research Service (2014), Single Market in Transport and Tourism. Cost of Non-Europe 
Report, written by Monika Nogaj. 

Facchini, M. (DG GROW, Copernicus Unit). Copernicus. Synergies between the EU Copernicus programme and 
INSPIRE. Presentation at the INSPIRE Conference 2016, 28/09/2016 

Geonovum (2016), Actualisatie KBA INSPIRE. 

195 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

HELCOM  (VASAB  CSPD/BSR)  (2019),  Guidelines  on  transboundary  MSP  output  data  structure  in  the  Baltic 
Sea. 

Hernández Quirós, L., Nunes de Lima, V., Smith, R.S. (2018), Study of the terms of use applied in the INSPIRE 
resources and their usability barriers, JRC Technical report. 

JRC  (2020),  Establishing  a  new  baseline  for  monitoring  the  status  of  EU  Spatial  Data  Infrastructure. 
Experiences and conclusions from INSPIRE 2019 monitoring and reporting, JRC technical report. 

JRC  (not yet published),  Evolution  of  the  access  to  spatial  data  for  environmental  purposes.  JRC  Technical 
Report. 

JRC  INSPIRE  Team  (2021),  INSPIRE  Monitoring  and  Reporting  2020:  Process,  results  and  ways  forward, 
Presentation at the 64th MIG-T meeting 21-22 January 2021. 

Kilibarda,  M.,  Kotsev,  A.,  and  Cetl,  V.,  (2020),  Digitally-enabled  Development  for  a  Sustainable  Future  in 
Eastern Europe. Luxembourg:  Publications Office of the European Union. 

Kotsev A., Schleidt K., Liang S., Van der Schaaf H., Khalafbeigi T., Grellet S., Lutz M., Jirka S., Beaufils M. 
(2018), Extending INSPIRE to the Internet of Things through SensorThings API. Geosciences 8(6): 221.  

Kotsev,  A.,  Minghini,  M.,  Tomas,  R.,  Cetl,  V.,  Lutz,  M.  (2020),  From  Spatial  Data  Infrastructures  to  Data 
Spaces—A Technological Perspective on the Evolution of European SDIs. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-
Information: 9(3), 176. 

Longhorn, R (n.d.), INSPIRE vs. PSI re-use Directives comparison. Powerpoint presentation. 

Lutz, M., Bernard, L., Portele, C., Hansen, T., Tiainen, E. & Lucchi, R., INSPIRE – What if...? Summary report 
from  the  What  if…?  sessions  at  the  2017  INSPIRE  Conference,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg. 

Miloš, A. (n.d.), Transboundary MSP output data in the Baltic Sea. 

Minghini M., A. Kotsev, M. Lutz (2019), Comparing INSPIRE and OpenStreetMap data: how to make the most 
out  of  the  two  worlds.  The  International  Archives  of  the  Photogrammetry,  Remote  Sensing  and  Spatial 
Information Sciences 2019: XLII-4/W14. 

Minghini,  M,  V.  Cetl,  A.  Kotsev,  R.  Tomas,  and  M.  Lutz  (2021),  INSPIRE:  The  Entry  Point  to  Europe’s  Big 
Geospatial Data Infrastructure. In: Werner M., Chiang YY. (eds.) Handbook of Big Geospatial Data. Springer, 
Cham.  

Mohamed El Aydam, European Commission – DG AGRI D3, Integrated Administration Control System : which 
data for sharing? Presentation at INSPIRE Conference, 3 June 2020. 

OECD (2019), Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data: Reconciling Risks and Benefits for Data Re-use across 
Societies.  

Rajabifard  A.,  Feeney  MEF,  Williamspon  IP  (2002),  Future  directions  for  SDI  development.  International 
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4(1): 11-22. 

Reitz, T., Roller J., Rip F., Bulens, J. (2018) INSPIRE Servicing Copernicus (INSCope). European Environmental 
Agency, EEA/ IDM/R0/16/010 - Annex 5 

Report from  workshop:  Has  the  Copernicus  services’  access  to geospatial  data  been  improved  through  the 
implementation of INSPIRE? at the INSPIRE Conference 2017, 4-5 September 2017. 

Reportnet. Available at: https://reportnet.europa.eu/ 

Sagarminaga,  Y.,  EMODNET-Human  activities  :  steps  forward  for  INSPIRE  compliance.  Presentation  at  the 
Virtual Workshop “Exploring and applying INSPIRE principles within Maritime Spatial Planning”, at the INSPIRE 
Conference 2020, 12 June 2020 

Sagarminaga,  Y.,  Solaun,  O.  (2018)  EMODNET  human  activities  data  models:  towards  compliance  with 
INSPIRE DATA Specifications. EMODnet Phase III, Task Report, "Analyze compliance with INSPIRE” 

196 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

SeaDataNet. Available at: https://www.seadatanet.org/ 

Strategic Environmental Assessment North Sea Energy(SEANSE) (2018) Analysis of Data Needs and Existing 
Gaps 

TENtec. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/site/index_en.htm 

Tomas,  R.,  Harrison  M.,  Barredo  J.  I.  et  al.  (2015),  Towards  a  cross-domain  interoperable  framework  for 
natural hazards and disaster risk reduction information. Natural Hazards 78 (2015): 1545-1563. 

Tóth, K. (J2017), CAP and INSPIRE: history, perspectives and  challenges. Presentation at Eurogeographics 
INSPIRE extension workshop, Marne la Vallée, 20-21 June, 2017. 

UK Cabinet Office (2018), An Initial Analysis of the Potential Geospatial Economic Opportunity. 

UN-GGIM.  Country  Reports  to  the  United  Nations  Committee  of  Experts  on  Global  Geospatial  Information 
Management (UN-GGIM) 

Vancauwenbergh, Glenn (2020), The role of Spatial Data Infrastructures in the Digital Transformation of Public 
Administration. Online INSPIRE Conference 2020 - session "Building the European Green Dataspace“, 3 June 
2020. 

Vancauwenbergh, Glenn (2021), Evolution of the access to spatial data for environmental purposes. ELISE 
Webinar, 4 February 2021.   

Vandenbroucke, D. (2014), INSPIRE Evaluation: Summary of findings for EU Member States – Assessing data 
and services metadata resources through direct observations. KU Leuven. 

Vandenbroucke, D. and G. Vancauwenberghe (2021), The benefits and value of the Central SDI-node of Spain, 
Final Report. 

Vanderhaegen M, Muro E. (2005), Contribution of a European spatial infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA 
and SEA studies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(2): 123-142. 

Table 7-2 

Legislation and policy documents 

Identified legislation and policy documents 

Commission Decision of 16 April 2009 amending Decision 2007/589/EC as regards the inclusion of monitoring 
and reporting 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1159/2013  of  12  July  2013  supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
911/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  European  Earth  monitoring  programme 
(GMES) by establishing registration and licensing conditions for GMES users and defining criteria for restricting 
access to GMES dedicated data and GMES service information 

Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2018/1135  of  10  August  2018  establishing  the  type,  format  and 
frequency of  information  to  be  made  available  by  the  Member  States  for  the  purposes  of  reporting on  the 
implementation of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions 

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1752 of 25 February 2019 establishing questionnaires, as well 
as the format and frequency of reports to be prepared by the Member States in accordance with Regulation 
(EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council  

Commission Implementing Decision of 11 July 2011 concerning a site information format for Natura 2000 sites 
(notified under document C(2011) 4892) 

Commission Implementing Decision of 12 December 2011 laying down rules for Directives 2004/107/EC and 
2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the reciprocal exchange of information 
and reporting on ambient air quality 

197 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  12  December  2012  establishing  the  type,  format  and  frequency  of 
information to be made available by the Member States for the purposes of reporting on the implementation 
of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions - no longer in 
force 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1454 of 10 August 2017 specifying the technical formats for 
reporting by the Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council 

Convention  on  access  to  information,  public  participation  in  decision-making  and  access  to  justice  in 
environmental matters, done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998. 

Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing 
powers conferred on the Commission  

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste 

Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the 
soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture 

Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 
flora 

Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment 

Data and Service Sharing (Commission Regulation (EC) No 268/2010) 

Declaration - A smart and sustainable digital future for European agriculture and rural areas, April 2019. 

Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and 
the re-use of public sector information 

Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality 
of water intended for human consumption (recast) 

Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2000  establishing  a 
framework for Community action in the field of water policy 

Directive  2002/49/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  June  2002  relating  to  the 
assessment and management of environmental noise 

Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to 
environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC 

Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of 
public sector information 

Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management 
of  waste  from  extractive  industries  and  amending  Directive  2004/35/EC  -  Statement  by  the  European 
Parliament, the Council and the Commission 

Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2006  concerning  the 
management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC 

Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment 
and management of flood risks 

Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality 
and cleaner air for Europe 

198 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework 
for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)  

Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 
conservation of wild birds 

Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the 
deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes 
of transport 

Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial 
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)  

Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-
accident  hazards  involving  dangerous  substances,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directive 
96/82/EC 

Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework 
for maritime spatial planning 

European Commission (2016) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Space Strategy for Europe. COM(2016) 
705 final 

European  Commission  (2019).  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
European  Council,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions. The European Green Deal, COM (2019) 640 final. 

European Commission (2020), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A European strategy for 
data, COM(2020) 66 final 

European  Commission  (2020),  Open  data  –  availability  of  public  datasets,  Roadmap:  Inception  Impact 
Assessments. 

European Commission  (2020),  Proposal for  a Regulation of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the Council on 
European data governance (Data Governance Act), COM/2020/767 final. 

European Commission (2020), Shaping Europe’s digital future 

European Commission (2020), White paper on Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and 
trust, COM(2020) 65 final. 

European Commission (2021) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Forging a climate-resilient 
Europe - the new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. COM(2021) 82 final.  

INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC 

Interoperability of Spatial Data and Spatial Data Service (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010) 

Metadata (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008) 

Monitoring and Reporting (Commission Decision 2019/1372) 

Network Services (Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009) 

Proposal  for  a  DIRECTIVE  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  establishing  an 
infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE), COM(2004) 516 final.  

Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector 
information (recast) 

199 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the 
financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations 
(EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 
485/2008 

Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning 
the  establishment  of  a  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  and  amending  Council  Directives 
91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC 

Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on  mercury, and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 

Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the alignment 
of reporting obligations in the field of legislation related to the environment, and amending Regulations (EC) 
No 166/2006 and (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 2002/49/EC, 
2004/35/EC,  2007/2/EC,  2009/147/EC  and  2010/63/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council, 
Council Regulations (EC) No 338/97 and (EC) No 2173/2005, and Council Directive 86/278/EEC 

Regulation  (EU)  2019/1021  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  persistent 
organic pollutants (recast)  

Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council  of 28 April 2021 establishing the 
Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and repealing Regulations 
(EU) No 912/2010, (EU) No 1285/2013 and (EU) No 377/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EU 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1143/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2014  on  the 
prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species 

Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union 
guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-European  transport  network  and  repealing  Decision  No 
661/2010/EU  

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down 
the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s 
exercise of implementing powers 

Regulation (EU) No 377/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 establishing the 
Copernicus Programme  

200 

 
 
 
[
C
a
t
a
o
g
u
e

l

n
u
m
b
e
r
]

Appendix 2 

Current status analysis 

Methodology 

The current status analysis  provides an assessment of the implementation status of the 
INSPIRE Directive in the 27 Member States and 4 EEA/EFTA countries and its impact of on 
various stakeholders in terms of governance structures, data sharing and usage, cost and 
benefits.  The  analysis  was  conducted  per  country  and  for  each  country  a  form  was 
developed by the evaluation team. The country forms include a qualitative assessment of 
governance,  coordination,  usage  of  data,  data  sharing  arrangements  and  costs/benefits 
and an assessment of the implementation progress based on the INSPIRE indicators. All 
country forms were submitted for validation to the respective NCPs. 

The current status form includes in the first part a qualitative assessment of governance, 
coordination, usage of data and costs/benefits. The aim is to assess, based on monitoring 
data and other written sources, what the effects on stakeholders have been to date. The 
latest information included in the country forms is based on reporting as provided in the 
country summary reports 2021.253 The summary reports were published on the 'INSPIRE 
in your country' website in March 2021.254 

The  second  part  of  the  country  forms  provides  an  assessment  of  the  implementation 
progress based on the INSPIRE indicators. Until 2018, INSPIRE monitoring and reporting 
was based on 48 indicators, calculated based on the information that the countries provided 
to the European Environment Agency (EEA). With the new Implementing Decision in 2019, 
a new set of only 19 performance indicators was established and the process is since then 
is fully automated by using the INSPIRE Geoportal and the INSPIRE Reference Validator 
software  tools  to  process  the  metadata  harvested  from  the  Member  States'  discovery 
services.  Since  the  reporting  and  monitoring  framework  changed,  a  shift  in  trend  is 
observed  for  most  of  the  assessed  countries,  leading  to  generally  lower  values  of  the 
indicators in 2019. Several countries also identified other  reasons for  the shift in trends 
and low compliance levels, including 1) the limited use of the Validator in preparation of 
the  monitoring  and  reporting  process;  2)  the  presence  of  various  technical  issues  with 
metadata harvesting; 3) the complexity of the approach used by the INSPIRE Geoportal to 
establish  linkages  between  spatial  data  sets  and  services;  and  4)  the  general  lack  of 
resources  and  technical  expertise,  especially  from  data  providers,  to  improve  the 
monitoring and reporting process.255 This was to a great extent confirmed in the feedback 
to the country forms, provided by the National Contact Points.  

The third part of the country forms presents the scoring of results, illustrated through three 
grades based on defined thresholds. The development of the country forms is not part of 
a regulatory reporting or compliance exercise and therefore it has been adapted in several 
ways to support an objective evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive in collaboration with the 
EU  Member  States  and  EEA/EFTA  countries.  The  scoring  methodology  for  performance 
indicators  is  mimicking  the  JRC  Summary  Report  on  Status  of  implementation  of  the 
INSPIRE Directive in EU (the 2016 country fiches),256 which also provided the baseline for 
the  qualitative  indicators  (i.e.  effective  coordination,  data  sharing).  As  regards  the 
quantitative  indicators  (i.e.  INSPIRE  performance  indicators),  the  indicator  results  from 

253  Due  to  errors  in  the  system/  processes,  later  harvesting  results  than  December  2020  were  taken  into 

account for Malta, Poland, France, Liechtenstein, Switzerland upon request of the respective NCPs. 

254 See: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/INSPIRE-in-your-Country  
255  JRC  (2020),  Establishing  a  new  baseline  for  monitoring  the  status  of  EU  Spatial  Data  Infrastructure. 

Experiences and conclusions from INSPIRE 2019 monitoring and reporting, JRC technical report. 
256  Cetl  V.,  V.  Nunes  de  Lima,  R.  Tomas,  M.  Lutz,  J.  D'Eugenio,  A.  Nagy,  J.  Robbrecht  (2017),  Summary 
Report on Status of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in EU. EUR 28930 EN. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

earlier years (prior to the adoption of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1372) 
were adapted to follow the new indicator framework for the purpose of this country form.  

The  scoring  thresholds  established  in  the  country  forms  for  the  three  levels  of 
implementation are the following: 

  Top performance: >89% 
  Middle performance: 31-89% 
  Low performance: <31% 

A  direct  comparison  across  different  years  is  not  possible  due  to  the  legislative  and 
technical  changes  in  2019.  It  is  important  to  notice  that  the  scoring  must  be  therefore 
interpreted in the way that progress trends cannot be established based solely on these 
summarized  results  and  without  detailed  understanding  of  the  national  contexts.  The 
scoring was also further adapted by excluding the performance as regards the conformity 
of transformation services in the assessment of conformity of network services due to the 
fact that very few transformation services have been documented and made available by 
the countries so far. Additionally, when it comes to the indicators related to the conformity 
of spatial data sets, the interpretation of the results must take into consideration that this 
indicator  will  in  many  cases  never  reach  100%  conformity,  since  majority  of  countries 
provide their national data sets in addition to the INSPIRE harmonised data sets. 

The country forms include monitoring data reported/ harvested annually acquired through: 

  Country summary reports (country fiches 2019, 2020, 2021) 
  Country fiches (2016)  
  Monitoring data (INSPIRE Monitoring 2019, INSPIRE Monitoring 2020, INSPIRE 

official monitoring dashboards (reference years 2010 - 2018), INSPIRE Geoportal) 

Coordination,  governance  structure,  data  sharing  arrangements  and  usage  of  the 
infrastructure 

When assessing the impact of the Directive on various stakeholders, the evaluation team 
relied  on  qualitative  indicators.  These  include  self-declared  information  on  coordination, 
governance structure, data sharing and usage, as well as cost and benefits, as provided in 
the  INSPIRE  country  fiches  by  the  Member  States  and  EFTA/EEA  countries.  In  order  to 
avoid duplication of information, the assessment of costs and benefits is described under 
the efficiency evaluation (see EQ 4.1 and EQ 4.2). 

To  ensure  a  relevant  governance  structure,  each  Member  State  and  EEA/EFTA  country 
designated a National Contact Point (NCP), usually a public authority, to be responsible for 
contacts with the European Commission in relation to the INSPIRE Directive. The NCPs are 
responsible  for  collecting  the  information  about  the  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive and report on behalf of their country to the European Commission. 

The  Member  States  and  EEA/  EFTA  countries  have  set  up  different  coordination  and 
governance  structures  for  their  implementation  of  the  Directive,  depending  on  their 
governance culture and constitutional organisation. As reported in the by JRC in 2017, in 
some  cases,  the  INSPIRE  implementation  was  entrusted  to  mapping  and  cadastral 
agencies, which could result in lack of coordination with the environment authorities and a 
lesser focus in terms of availability of Annex III data sets (compared to Annex I and Annex 
II data sets). In most Member States the current governance structure addressed the need 
for  coordination  across  different  types  of  authorities.  Currently,  around  two  thirds  of 
countries show a positive development ensuring an effective coordination. Based on the 
assessments in the country forms, the coordination structure has in a few cases not been 

202 

 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

further  improved  or  changed  since  2016,  when  JRC  assessed  the  Member  States' 
coordination and governance structures.  

As  regards  the  data  sharing  and  usage  of  the  infrastructure  among  stakeholders,  the 
documentation  of  spatial  data  sets  and  services  through  metadata  helped  improve  the 
situation  by  making  the  public  authorities  aware  of  their  availability.  It  is  important  to 
ensure  availability  of  view  and  download  services  which  can  be  reused  by  targeted 
applications.257 The analysis has shown that in several countries, open data strategies and 
other national initiatives are separate from the INSPIRE related processes, however, they 
do not conflict with the principles and ambition of the INSPIRE Directive. In some other 
countries, use cases are being developed and the INSPIRE infrastructure can be used for 
other data work streams, which brings a desired complementarity and an increased added 
value of the INSPIRE Directive. 

The table below (Table 7-1) shows the overall implementation status regarding coordination 
as well as data sharing arrangements and usage of the infrastructure in 2016 and in 2020. 
The  scoring  thresholds  are  as  follows:  green  smiley  (top  performance),  yellow  smiley 
(middle performance) and red smiley (low performance). The assessment of the qualitative 
indicators in 2016 is based on the Summary Report  on Status of implementation of the 
INSPIRE Directive in EU, published by JRC in 2017.258 In case of positive developments, 
the scoring has been corrected for the year 2020.  

Table  7-3 Implementation status across  EU Member States regarding coordination, data 
sharing arrangements and usage of the infrastructure259 

Effective coordination 

Data sharing arrangements and 
usage of the infrastructure 

2016 

2020 

2016 

2020 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 













































257 Cetl V., V. Nunes de Lima, R. Tomas, M. Lutz, J. D'Eugenio, A. Nagy, J. Robbrecht (2017), Summary 
Report on Status of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in EU. EUR 28930 EN. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

258 Cetl V., V. Nunes de Lima, R. Tomas, M. Lutz, J. D'Eugenio, A. Nagy, J. Robbrecht (2017), Summary 
Report on Status of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in EU. EUR 28930 EN. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

259 The table does not include a scoring for the EFTA/EEA countries Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and 

Iceland.  

203 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 









































































Performance monitoring based on the INSPIRE indicators 

To ensure better comparison pre- and post-2019, the country forms include the results for 
the entire period from 2014 to 2020, adapted to the new indicator framework established 
in  the  most  recent  Implementing  Decision.  All 19  indicators  measure  implementation  of 
the INSPIRE Directive and are grouped into 5 categories as shown in the table below. 

Table 7-4 Implementation categories and corresponding indicators 

Implementation category 

Codes of performance indicators 

Availability of spatial data and services260  

DSi1.1, DSi1.2, DSi1.3, DSi1.4, DSi1.5 

Conformity of metadata 

MDi.1.1, MDi1.2 

Conformity of spatial data sets 

DSi2, DSi2.1, DSi2.2, DSi2.3 

Accessibility of spatial data sets through view 
and download services 

NSi.2, NSi2.1, NSi2.2  

260 The indicators for availability of spatial data and services operate with absolute numbers and therefore 

cannot present any trends.  

204 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Conformity of network services 

NSi.4, NSI.4.1, NSi.4.2, NSi.4.3, NSi.4.4 

All  indicators  except  those  related  to  the  availability  of  spatial  data  and  services  are 
presented in a percentage, thus providing a direct measure of performance.261 In graphical 
presentations of chronological results, a shift in trend between 2018 and 2019 is clearly 
outlined,  showing  a  change  in  monitoring  and  reporting  process  that  was  driven  by  the 
new  Implementing  Decision.  Furthermore,  a  transition  from  the  Metadata  Technical 
Guidance v. 1.3 to Technical Guidance v. 2.0 also played a role in determining a shifting 
trend (also between 2019 and 2020) as at the end of the transition period in December 
2019, only 3% of the total number of metadata from all countries were encoded according 
to Technical Guidance v. 2.0. 

Based  on  the  performance  indicators  established  according  to  the  monitoring  data 
harvested  in  2020  for  27  Member  States  and  four  EEA/  EFTA  countries,  an  aggregated 
overview  of  implementation  performance  was  established  as  shown  in  the  graph 
presentations  in  the  subsequent  sub-sections.  In  addition,  taking  into  consideration  the 
results  (in  percentage)  from  the  four  implementation  steps  (conformity  of  metadata, 
conformity of spatial data sets, accessibility of spatial data sets through view and download 
services  and  conformity  of  network  services),  four  distinct  implementation  groups  of 
countries can be identified: 

  Group I: 80-100% 
  Group II: 55-79% 
  Group III: 30-54% 
  Group IV: 0-29% 

The preparation of the country forms and the related validation process have demonstrated 
that this ranking, which is based solely on these summarized results does not present a 
complete picture of the implementation and can be difficult to interpret without any detailed 
understanding of the national contexts. The Member States often face technical problems 
related  to  the  monitoring  and  reporting  and  thus  the  compliance  risks  being 
underestimated  or  even  overestimated.  In  several  cases,  the  results  have  been  skewed 
due  to  various  factors,  including  the  changes  in  the  monitoring  and  reporting  method, 
changes  in  technical  guidance,  national  political  processes,  and  data  policies.  Thus,  the 
scoring  and  rankings in  this  analysis  provide  a  general  indication  of  the  implementation 
process in different countries in Europe.  

The  map  below  (see  Figure  7-1)  shows  the  countries  represented  in  each  of  the  four 
implementation  groups  when  considering  the  overall  set  of  performance  indicators  and 
according to the percentage threshold defined above. The countries are quite evenly spread 
across  the  four  groups,  which  shows  considerable  differences  between  the  countries 
regardless of the geographic location. 

261 For the indicators, where the entry provided was #N/A, the value in the calculation was considered as 
an empty cell, which does not have an effect on the average performance results. In general, the entry #N/A 
means  "not  reported",  which  was  mostly  the  case  when  it  comes  to  the  indicator  NSi4.4  (conformity  of 
transformation  services).  In  2020,  this  indicator  was  reported  only  by  one  country.  For  majority  of  the 
countries,  it  was  reported  either  as  #N/A,  or  0%.  It  must  be  highlighted  that  the  analysis  related  to  the 
indicator  NSi4.4  is  not  relevant  due  to  such  extremely  low  availability  of  transformation  services  across 
countries and was excluded from the scoring. 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 7-1 INSPIRE implementation, based on the INSPIRE performance indicators, 2020 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

The map below (Figure 7-2) shows the Member States and EEA/ EFTA countries according 
to the four implementation groups, the ranking of which is established based on the overall 
assessment  of  INSPIRE  performance  indicators  and  availability  of  environmental  spatial 
data  sets  across  the  countries,  i.e.  priority  data  sets.  When  also  considering  the 
performance in terms of availability of priority data sets, the groupings remain largely the 
same as on the previous map (Figure 7-1) that presents solely the INSPIRE performance 
indicators.  

Figure  7-2  INSPIRE  implementation,  based  on  the  INSPIRE  performance  indicators  and 
availability of priority data sets, 2020 

Availability of spatial data sets and services 

As  shown  in  the  figure  below,  the  total  number  of  spatial  data  sets  and  services  with 
metadata offered across Europe in December 2020 equalled 179,186 records, comprising 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

of 83,805 data sets and 95,381 spatial data services. 2,068 spatial data sets were used 
for  reporting under the environmental legislation, i.e. priority data sets. Overall, 12,917 
were regional data sets and 4,456 data sets were tagged as national.  

In terms of availability of data sets, there were now fewer available than in 2016. The JRC 
report showed that by mid-2016, Member States had identified more than 90,000 spatial 
data sets with relation to the themes listed in the INSPIRE annexes.262 These records did 
not  even  include  the  data  sets  reported  by  the  EFTA/  EEA  countries.  Although  in  some 
cases this is a result of data cleaning processes at national level, aiming at aggregating 
local and regional datasets and deleting for users irrelevant data sets and/or duplicates of 
data  sets, 
one  of the 
reasons 
for 
removing 
data  sets 
also 
is 
the 
that 
Member 
States see 
this  as  an 

opportunity to improve their overall performance. 

The number of data sets and services varies across countries and regions. In the recent 
years,  several  countries  reduced  the  number  of  spatial  data  sets,  for  example,  by 
combining several local and regional data sets into national ones. Thus, the number of data 
sets and services does not show any findings in terms of implementation maturity; it only 
presents the overall picture together with other indicators. 

Figure 7-3 Availability of spatial data sets and services263 

262 Cetl V., V. Nunes de Lima, R. Tomas, M. Lutz, J. D'Eugenio, A. Nagy, J. Robbrecht (2017), Summary 
Report on Status of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive in EU. EUR 28930 EN. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

263  DSi1.1:  number  of  spatial  data  sets  for  which  metadata  exist;  DSi1.2:  The  number  of  spatial  data 
services for which metadata exist; DSi1.3: The number of spatial data sets for which the metadata contains 
one or more keywords from a register provided by the Commission indicating that the spatial data set is used 
for  reporting  under  the  environmental  legislation;  DSi1.4:  The  number  of  spatial  data  sets  for  which  the 
metadata contains a keyword from a register provided by the Commission indicating that the spatial data set 
covers regional territory; DSi1.5: The number of spatial data sets for which the metadata contains a keyword 
from a register provided by the Commission indicating that the spatial data set covers the national territory. 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Conformity of metadata 

As regards the indicators related to the conformity of metadata for spatial data sets and 
spatial data services, the values are heterogenous across countries, spanning from 0% to 
100%. One third of all the listed countries are placed in the best implementation group, 
Group I. The number of countries is slightly higher in the first two implementation groups 
(Group I and Group II) compared to the number of countries  in the last two groups (Figure 
7-4).  

Figure 7-4 
related to the conformity of metadata (MDi.1.1, MDi1.2), 2020 

INSPIRE  implementation  based  on  the  INSPIRE  performance  indicators 

As can be seen in the  graph presenting the implementation status from 2014 and 2020 
(see Figure 7-5), the average values for both indicators were rather low in 2020, i.e. 59% 
for MDi1.1 and 55% for MDi1.2.   

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

There is a significant shift in the trend between 2018 and 2019 because the values related 
to these two indicators were until 2018 reported based on the old indicator scheme. From 
2019  onwards,  the  indicators  are  calculated  using  the  INSPIRE  Reference  Validator. 
Transition to the new version of the Technical Guidance (TG v. 2.0) importantly contributed 
to  the  shift  in  trends.  As  described  in  the  country  forms,  countries  reported  additional 
issues that contributed to the drop in performance from above 90% in 2018 to around 50% 
in 2019, including structural problems, and software configuration accessibility restrictions. 
Some of the problems were resolved in the in the reference year 2020, which is also visible 
in the column presenting the performance results in 2020. 

7-5 
Figure 
Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008264   

Conformity 

of 

metadata 

with  

Conformity of spatial data sets 

When it comes to the spatial data sets, which are conformant with Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 1089/2010 as regards interoperability of spatial data sets, four indicators are being 
used to assess the performance: DSi2 (overall percentage of conformant spatial data sets) 
and  three  indicators  reflecting  the  conformity  of  spatial  data  sets  corresponding  to  the 
themes listed in Annex I (DSi2.1), Annex II (DSi2.2) and Annex III (DSi2.3). The values 
of  these  indicators  are  calculated  using  the  INSPIRE  Geoportal.  The  information  about 
conformity  is  included  in  the  metadata  of  spatial  data  sets  and  is  self-declared  by  the 
Member  States.  As  outlined  in  the  map  below,  the  performance  of  countries  is  very 
heterogenous. The values spanned from 3% to 100% in the reference year 2020. One third 
of all the listed countries were located in the second-best implementation group, Group II. 

264  The  indicator  MDi1.1  denotes  the  percentage  of  metadata  for  spatial  data  sets  conformant  with 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 as regards metadata, while the indicator MDi1.2 presents the 
percentage of metadata for spatial data services conformant with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 
as regards metadata. 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 7-6 INSPIRE implementation based on the INSPIRE performance indicators related 
to the conformity of spatial data sets (DSi2, DSi2.1, DSi2.2, DSi2.3), 2020 

The graph below (Figure 7-7) demonstrates a significant shift in trend between 2018 and 
2019  that  resulting  an  increase  in  compliance,  despite  the  change  in  monitoring  and 
reporting process. The aggregated value for DSi2 increased from 20% in 2018 to 47% in 
2019. The reason behind is that the deadlines for implementation of the spatial data set 
interoperability were in 2018 and 2019 still in the future: 23 November 2017 for Annex I 
data and 21 October 2020 for Annex II and III data. In 2020, the situation further improved 
and the average value of indicator DSi2 reached 50%. An interpretation of these results 
must take into consideration that these indicators will in many cases never reach 100%, 
since majority of countries provide their national data sets ('as-is' data) in addition to the 
INSPIRE harmonised data sets. 

211 

 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 7-7 Conformity of spatial data sets265 

Accessibility of spatial data sets through view and download services 

Three indicators measure the actual accessibility of INSPIRE spatial data sets from a user 
perspective: NSi2 corresponds to the percentage  of spatial data sets  accessible through 
both  view  and  download  services;  NSi2.1  corresponds  to  the  percentage  of  spatial  data 
sets which are accessible through view services and NSi2.2 measures the accessibility of 
data sets through download services. The values of these indicators are calculated using 
the  INSPIRE  Geoportal,  which,  based  on  the  metadata  records  harvested  from  national 
catalogues, aim to establish linkages between metadata of spatial data sets and those of 
spatial data services (in particular view and download services). When linkages are found, 
the data set is classified as viewable and/or downloadable.266 

As  illustrated  in  the  map  below  (see  Figure  7-8),  the  performance  of  countries  is  quite 
heterogenous,  with  majority  of  countries  (17  out  of  31)  located  in  the  lowest  two 
implementation groups. In 2020, 42% of datasets were available through both view and 
download  services  (NSi2),  50%  were  viewable  (NSi2.1)  and  50%  were  downloadable 
(NSi2.2). This means that around half of available data sets were not yet accessible across 
the EU Member States and EEA/ EFTA countries.  

265  DSi2:  Percentage  of  spatial  data  sets  that  are  in  conformity  with  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1089/2010  as  regards  interoperability  of  spatial  data  sets;  DSi2.1:  Percentage  of  spatial  data  sets, 
corresponding  to  the  themes  listed  in  Annex  I,  that  are  in  conformity  with  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1089/2010  as  regards  interoperability  of  spatial  data  sets;  DSi2.2:  Percentage  of  spatial  data  sets, 
corresponding to the themes listed in Annex II, that are in conformity with Commission Regulation (EU) No 
1089/2010  as  regards  interoperability  of  spatial  data  sets;  DSi2.3:  Percentage  of  spatial  data  sets, 
corresponding to the themes listed in Annex III, that are in conformity with Commission Regulation (EU) No 
1089/2010 as regards interoperability of spatial data sets. 

266  JRC  (2020),  Establishing  a  new  baseline  for  monitoring  the  status  of  EU  Spatial  Data  Infrastructure. 

Experiences and conclusions from INSPIRE 2019 monitoring and reporting, JRC technical report. 

212 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 7-8 
INSPIRE  implementation  based  on  the  INSPIRE  performance  indicators 
related to the accessibility of spatial data sets through view and download services (NSi.2, 
NSi2.1, NSi2.2), 2020 

The graph below (see Figure 7-9) shows a stable trend between 2014 and 2018, followed 
by a relatively significant drop in performance in 2019 due to the change in monitoring and 
reporting  process.  The  situation  has  considerably  improved  in  the  next  reporting  round 
(reference year 2020). 

213 

 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 7-9 

Accessibility of spatial data sets through view and download services267 

Conformity of network services 

The  last  five  indicators  measure  the  conformity  of  spatial  network  services.  While  the 
indicator NSi4 measures the overall percentage of conformant network services, indicators 
NSi4.1, NSi4.2, NSi4.3 and NSi4.4 correspond to the conformant portions of each type of 
network  services,  i.e.  discovery  services,  view  services,  download  services  and 
transformation  services,  respectively.  The  calculation  of  performance  is  based  on  self-
declaration  of  conformity  included  in  the  network  service  metadata  harvested  from  the 
INSPIRE  Geoportal.268  With  the  exception  of  NSi4.4  (related  to  the  conformity  of 
transformation services), the values of all performance indicators reached similar values 
in  2020.  The  average  share  of  conformant  discovery,  view  and  download  services  was 
65%, 65% and 62%, respectively. The overall average percentage of conformant network 
services amounted to 63%.  

The statistical analysis related to the conformity of transformation services (NSi4.4) is not 
considered  in  this  current  status  analysis  due  to  the  extremely  low  availability  of 
transformation services across countries. Thus, the scoring in the country forms is further 
adapted  by  excluding  the  indicator  NSi4.4  in  the  assessment  of  conformity  of  network 
services.  When  omitting  this  indicator,  more  than  a  half  of  countries  (16  out  of  31)  is 
positioned in the group of 'group I' implementers (see Figure 7-10), with overall average 
values of four indicators spanning from 80% to 100%.  

267 NSi2: The percentage of spatial data sets that are accessible through view and download services; NSi2.1: 
The percentage of spatial data sets that are accessible through view services; NSi2.2: The percentage of spatial 
data sets that are accessible through download services. 

268  JRC  (2020),  Establishing  a  new  baseline  for  monitoring  the  status  of  EU  Spatial  Data  Infrastructure. 

Experiences and conclusions from INSPIRE 2019 monitoring and reporting, JRC technical report. 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Figure 7-10 
related to the conformity of network services (NSi.4, NSI.4.1, NSi.4.2, NSi.4.3), 2020 

INSPIRE  implementation  based  on  the  INSPIRE  performance  indicators 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

As presented in the graph below (see  Figure 7-11), the performance  over the reporting 
years has remained fairly stable. The average value of indicator NSi.4 has been reported 
to reach between 43% to 63% between 2014 and 2020. The overview of annual results is 
marked with a slight shift in the trend in 2018 and 2019, when the average values slightly 
decreased, mostly due to the introduction of the new monitoring and reporting process in 
2019. 

Figure 7-11  Conformity of the network services269 

269 NSi4: The percentage of the network services that are in conformity with Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 976/2009 as regards the network services; NSi4.1: The percentage of the discovery services that are in 
conformity  with  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  976/2009  as  regards  the  network  services;  NSi4.2:  The 
percentage  of  the view  services  that  are  in  conformity  with  Commission Regulation  (EC)  No 976/2009  as 
regards the network services; NSi4.3: The percentage of the download services that are in conformity with 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards the network services; NSi4.4: The percentage of the 
transformation services that are in conformity with Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards the 
network services. 

216 

 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

Appendix 3 Current status country forms 

This appendix is provided in a separate document. Individual country forms are available on 
the COWI SharePoint (hyperlink). 

Appendix 4 Synopsis Report 

This appendix is provided in a separate document. 

Appendix 5 Report on the public consultation 

This appendix is provided in a separate document. 

Appendix 6 Report on the stakeholder validation workshop 

This appendix is provided in a separate document. 

217 

 Support to the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC on 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You 
can contact this service: 
- by Freephone: 00 8 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
- b  email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may 
be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en ). 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

218