PSI Pricing Study Presentation M. de Vres LAPSI meeting – Muenster 27 January 2011

1. PSI Pricing Study Presentation M. de Vres LAPSI meeting – Muenster 27 January 2011

2. Assigned by the European Commission DG INFSO Consortium of Deloitte & Touche Belgium, Tech4i2, Marc 6 months (January – June 2011) Aims: what are the effects of different pricing models for PSI Snapshot of the Apps market, based on PSI What is the impact of portal initiatives like data.gov 19 case studies, 10 good guys (group A = marginal or for free, 9 bad guys (group B = cost price or cost price+) Deliverable: report Larger context: is article 6 PSI Directive to be amended? Study in a nuthshell

3. The big picture: which PSB charging model for PSI works best? PSB Re-user End-user Pricing (A+B+C) Availability (E) • Up stream impact  PSB data • availability of PSI • quality of PSI • # ftes employed • # new products, like Apps (D) • Costs and returns •  PSB impact assessment • Down stream impact  market data • # re-users • # ftes employed • # new products, like Apps (D) • # sales (money and quantity) •  market impact assessment + welfare effects

4. Who is the boss? – what are the drivers in sectoral value chains What is the market structure? Are there entry barriers? Buying power re-users Is it a need to have or nice to have product? What is the spending power of the (re-) users? What is the buying frequency What are the consumer roles (who pays, who uses, who influences?) availability of substitutes presence of competitors PSI characteristics PSB characteristics Impact assess-ment Production PSI in the core of the public task or more in the outskirt?  Are there substitutes for the PSI? Are there private sector bodies producing the same raw data? Are the data volatile? Is the quality key? Does it concern high risk data? Is there a final consumption date? Proportion and importance of PSI in re-users products policy making discretion or simply execution spending or earning department financial freedom in the lime light or in the dark, public scrutiny autonomous or dependent on other PSBs legal basis: statutory basis? Contractual basis? Influence other organisations, including users Market characteristics

5. Every case selected needs to be spot on Cross border sectoral comparison is key Rubbish in is rubbish out: availability of data is key (group B) The call: French organisations three sectors: meteorological, geographic information and business information 3 countries (for the 9 case studies under objective B) Selecting the right case studies – points for consideration • Support by European Commission: • Letter of recommendation • Any contacts? See a list of potential case studies in the next section

6. Objective B Objective A • FR: Météo France • DE: DeutscherWetterdienst (DWD) • UK: Met Office • PL: Polish meteorological service • SE: Swedish meteorological service • FR: Institutgéographique national (IGN) & French cadastre • DE: BundesamtfürKartographie und Geodäsie & local agencies • UK: HM Land Registry • UK: NLPG - IDeA – Address data • ES: IGN-CENIG • NL: Dutch cadastre • IT: Italiancadastre (Agenzia del Territorio) • FR: SIRENE business register provided by INSEE • DE: Handelsregister and Unternehmensregister by Federal and State Ministries of Justice • UK: Companies House • NL: Dutch Chamber of Commerce • AT: Austrian business registers • IT: Italian business registers (Infocamere) • PL: Polish business registers • DE: Juris GmbH – Legal • IT: Ministry of Justice – Case law • ES: AEMET • NL: Dutch Meteorological Service • NO: Norwegian Meteorological Service • UK: Ordnance Survey • ES: Spanish cadastre • AT: BundesamtfürEich- und Vermessungswesen (BEV) • DK: Danish cadastre • DK: Erhvervs- ogByggestyrelsen (EBST) – Address data • FR: Légifrance – Legal • DE: StatistischesBundesamt – Statistics • ES: Centre of Juridical documentation (CENDOJ) – Legal • NL: RDW – Car registry Possible case studies: C urrent long list – INPUT? Meteoro-logical PSI Geo-graphical PSI Business register PSI Other PSI sectors