1 / 32

Economic assessment of INSPIRE

FORUM GIT-GIS:. Economic assessment of INSPIRE. Max Craglia. University of Sheffield ICOSS: Informatics Collaboratory for the Social Sciences. Outline. The INSPIRE XIA Revisions to the scope of INSPIRE and the XIA Lessons learned Research needed Conclusions. ICOSS. INSPIRE Timeline.

zander
Download Presentation

Economic assessment of INSPIRE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FORUM GIT-GIS: Economic assessment of INSPIRE Max Craglia University of Sheffield ICOSS: Informatics Collaboratory for the Social Sciences

  2. Outline • The INSPIRE XIA • Revisions to the scope of INSPIRE and the XIA • Lessons learned • Research needed • Conclusions ICOSS

  3. INSPIRE Timeline • Started in 2001 • Position papers in 2002 • Extended Impact Assessment 2003 • Revision of scope and XIA in 2004 • Adoption in July 2004 ? • INSPIRE Committee 2006 • Entry in force 2008 • Metadata and harmonization: 2009-2012 ICOSS

  4. (Original) Key INSPIRE requirements in 2 Slides (1/2) • Data harmonisation: • Require MS to contribute to generic data specifications for adoption by the INSPIRE committee • Once adopted, require MS to use these specs for new data or updates. MS expected to also put in place on top of existing data automatic services transforming existing data according to specifications • Metadata: require MS to produce metadata for all public electronic spatial datasets that fall under INSPIRE (17 themes, 60 data components) • progressive implementation: first discovery metadata then more extended metadata as harmonisation of data proceeds ICOSS

  5. (Original) Key INSPIRE requirements in 2 Slides (2/2) • Data policy framework • require MS to establish sharing framework between public bodies free of barriers at the point of use • free view of data to all • require MS to establish licensing framework for broader use • Implementation • Require MS to develop and implement discover, view, access, trade services to common standards adopted by the INSPIRE committee • Co-ordination and Implementation • Require MS to appoint or establish appropriate coordinating structures ICOSS

  6. Why an Impact Assessment? • Required for all new major policy initiatives by Communication COM 2002/276 • IA is more than just cost benefit analysis (CBA), • In the field of GIS and SDIs, cost benefit analysis is notoriously difficult, and there are very few good examples (see Kok later) as confirmed by reviewing the literature and international experience. • Similarly very few assessments of SDIs, before and after implementation ICOSS

  7. A process view • In CBA it is easier to estimate costs than benefits that are often intangible and long term • What we need is to see Impact Assessment as a process that starts now and is monitored in future • Transparency of method and assumptions is crucial so that they can be revised at a later stage • Put in train a rigorous process of measurement of impacts as INSPIRE gets implemented • Focus on incremental impacts of INSPIRE, i.e. what costs and benefits over and above what would otherwise happen anyway ICOSS

  8. Assumptions (1 of many) • INSPIRE is about public sector data • The private sector will not be negatively affected by INSPIRE technical or policy measures • Therefore, the private sector, research, and citizens will benefit from INSPIRE with no significant additional costs. ICOSS

  9. On local communities • There are 90,000+ local communities and authorities in Europe, most of which are VERY small • Assumed that INSPIRE in the first place will be implemented by cities larger than 100k inh. (450) + local-medium level authorities rather than all the very small ones (as an assumption NUTS3 type = 1200) • Hence we are measuring impacts over 1700 potential units (1 every 250-300k inhabitants) ICOSS

  10. On harmonisation • Evolutionary process over 10 year period in cycles of 18 months each delivering early results • Starting with objects of most frequent use first and refining as we go along • INSPIRE about generic specs because detailed applications fall under other legislation (e.g. WFD) ICOSS

  11. On metadata • At national level most data of relevance held by mapping, cadastral, geology and environmental agencies • Assumed 2-3 people full time for each organization for 1 year to update metadata based on INSPIRE profile= 250-300 people = € 25-30 m • At local level 1700 X 2FTE= 340m + 10% p.a over 10 years because need to build capacity to document resources ICOSS

  12. Coordination • Possibly THE most Important aspect of INSPIRE • NSDI in the US done a good job but failed to involve local communities to start with and now much catching up to do. We must not repeat mistake but learn from them • Hence….. ICOSS

  13. Coordination Costs • Include coordination, portals, and processes • European : 30 people = 3m • National: 2-3 small countries up to 10 big ones = 20m • Local: 0.5-1 FTE X 1700 units= 100-170m ICOSS

  14. Summary costs/investment (€ m. p.a.) ICOSS

  15. And the benefits?? • Always the most difficult to quantify • Worked on principle that if we can justify the benefits in the environmental sector, all other sectors will add at no extra cost • Some benefits we are reasonably sure of , others have greater degree of assumption ICOSS

  16. Just one example • Survey of organisations (public and private) undertaking EIA and SEA across Europe • Some 20,000 undertaken every year • Average cost is € 75,000 and last 6 months • 5% of cost and 8-10% of time is finding the data needed • IF YOU REMOVE THESE COSTS YOU WOULD SAVE OVER € 100-200 m. p.a. ICOSS

  17. Environmental monitoring and assessment • Cost of monitoring the environment in England and Wales is approximately €160m per annum • Most EU countries undertake similar functions although the organisational arrangements are different (centralised federated, decentralised) • The approximate cost across EU(15) is €1bn. • Estimates from of greater efficiency from both well organised metadata, harmonised data, and improved data management can add up to 10% of total cost as an average = € 100m per annum • THESE TWO EXAMPLES ALONE WOULD ALREADY PAY FOR INSPIRE. ICOSS

  18. Natural Hazards in EU $ 80-100 bn over 20 years, 5000 killed, 12m people affected

  19. Costs of Hazards • Floods in 2002 = € 15 bn in Germany, €2bn in Austria, € 2-3 bn in Czech R. and some €35m in Slovakia. • IF GMES and INSPIRE had been in place: • Impact scenarios easier = mitigation measures • Better readiness of civil protection= more efficient response • Reduced cost of reconstruction as precautionary principles can be reduced if scenarios clearer. • IF 5-10% could be saved = €100-300m p.a. ICOSS

  20. Summary benefits (€ m. p.a.) • EIA-SEA = 100-200 • Environmental monitoring and assessment = 100 • More cost-effective Environmental Protection = 300 • More efficient reporting of EU environ. Directives = 300 • EC project saving and coordination = 5-15 • Duplication data collection = 25-250 • Improved delivery risk prevention = 100-300 • Improved delivery health & environment policies = 350 • Conservative overall estimate € 1.2-1.8 bn p.a. ICOSS

  21. Revision of scope and costs • Reduced ambition. Focus on common reference data (Annex 1) + commonly used thematic data (Annex 2). • Annex 1 full harmonization (approx 1/3) • Annex 2 only general level harmonization (1/3) • Annex 3, out for now (1/3) • Revision of labour costs + consideration for activities already in place (SDIs + e-gov) ICOSS

  22. Annex 1 Basic data • Administrative units • Transport networks • Hydrography including water catchments • Elevation (including terrestrial elevation, bathymetry and coastline) • Protected sites • Land cover • Cadastral parcels • Ortho-imagery Referencing and coordinate systems • Coordinate reference systems • Geographical names • Geographical grid systems • Addresses including postal regions ICOSS

  23. Level of harmonization of Annex 1 ICOSS

  24. Annex 2 ICOSS

  25. Level of harmonization of Annex 2 • Data should be consistent: • Geometrically • Geo-referencing to allow consistent overlay of data • Semantically • Definition of spatial objects ICOSS

  26. Revised XIA • Investment costs reduced by 50% to € 100-130 m per year for EU25 (still 80% at local/regional level) • Benefits reduced by some 30% to € 770-1150m p.a. • Still worth doing! ICOSS

  27. What we have learned: limitations • Lack of research and hence evidence of cost-benefits of SDIs with few exceptions, • Limited value provided by the impact matrices, which often did not go beyond the expert’s “mas o menos” • Limited value of case-studies in providing quantitative assessments of costs and benefits • Very lengthy process to turn the broad principles of INSPIRE into measurable activities • Lack of adequate time and resources to put in place a structured process for the identification of costs and benefits once the measurable activities had been agreed upon. ICOSS

  28. Benefits of XIA • Helped clarify what exactly is involved in INSPIRE. From principles to measurable activities • Allowed reasonable estimation of costs • Benefits more difficult but used knowledge of national experts • Appropriate to focus on environmental sector • Survey of EIA and SEA excellent • Transparency of assumptions allows rapid revision ICOSS

  29. Research issues • Most investment costs identified in INSPIRE are necessary at the local/regional level to build capacity, technical and organisational expertise, and generate change in the public administration. • We assume that SDIs and increased access to PSI will lead to economic development, but again no hard evidence to date, particularly at local/regional level. ICOSS

  30. What is needed As many regional and local experiences are starting to emerge in Spain and the rest of Europe we need to study: • what changes in the way of working (costs and benefits), • what are the real costs in time and effort as well as data harmonisation and technology, • what are the real efficiency savings inside and outside public administrations, and • benefits to the regional economies (new companies, more jobs, increased tax revenues, etc. • Benefits to citizens (direct and indirect) ICOSS

  31. Regional economy • How can regional governments facilitate innovation and competitiveness of their economy in the e-society? • What role for regional SDIs as mechanisms for innovation and growth? ICOSS

  32. Conclusion • Addressing the issues above requires a multi-national and multi-disciplinary research effort built around common methodologies • Time to start the discussion if we want to ground the e-economy and SDIs into measurable economic and social progress, and develop the evidence necessary to convince politicians, the markets, and society at large of the value of SDIs. • Further research discussion on these topics at the Vespucci Summer School in GI Science 12-16 July www.vespucci.org ICOSS

More Related