economic assessment of inspire
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Economic assessment of INSPIRE
Max Craglia
University of SheffieldICOSS: 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
• 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
Data harmonisation:Require MS to contribute to generic data specifications for adoption
by the INSPIRE committeeOnce 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
(Original) Key INSPIRE requirements in 2 Slides(1/2)
ICOSS
Data policy frameworkrequire MS to establish sharing framework between public
bodies free of barriers at the point of use free view of data to allrequire MS to establish licensing framework for broader use
ImplementationRequire 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
(Original) Key INSPIRE requirements in 2 Slides(2/2)
ICOSS
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Summary costs/investment (€ m. p.a.)
EU National Reg/loc
Harmonisation 2.7 1.8 1
Metadata 0.6 3.5-4 68-70
Policy 0.5
Coordination 3.6 20 100-170
TOTAL 6.9 26-27 170-240
ICOSS
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
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
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
0
4,980
758
0
765
6,000
950
1,687
1,104.670
2,776.640
2,966.577
115
288
4,053
24
7
21
2,284.342
97.600
0.310
120.000
0
1,00
0
2,00
0
3,00
0
4,00
0
5,00
0
6,00
0
7,00
0
8,00
0
9,00
0
10,0
00
Drought
Earthquake
Flood
Slide
Volcano
Wild fire
Wind storm
Killed
Affec(x1000)
Damage(x10M$)
Natural Hazards in EU
$ 80-100 bn over 20 years, 5000 killed, 12m people affected
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
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
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
Annex 1Basic 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
Level of harmonization of Annex 1
ICOSS
Annex 2
ICOSS
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
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
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
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
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
What is neededAs 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
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
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