March 21, 2005 SDI Concepcion Spatial Data Infrastructures: Institutional and Policy Aspects Werner Kuhn from contributions of Max Craglia and Ian Masser

•

March 21, 2005 SDI Concepcion

Spatial Data Infrastructures: Institutional and Policy Aspects

Werner Kuhn

from contributions of

Max Craglia and Ian Masser

Werner Kuhn SDI Institutions 2

The big picture on SDI’s Overriding objective of SDI:

maximise the use of geographic information assets (mostly national)

This requires some form of coordinated action on the part of government

It must be user driven ‘to support decision making at all scales for multiple purposes’

It involves a wide range of activities including technical and institutional matters and human resource development (capacity building)


Research on institutional context

Diffusion – the SDI phenomenon Typologies Hierarchy Evolution


The SDI phenomenon

Some landmarks• 1987 Chorley report• 1990 FGDC• 1993 EUROGI• 1994 Clinton Executive Order• 1996 GSDI• 1996 11 national SDIs• 2000 55 national SDIs• 2003 120 national SDIs


Geographical spread in 2000

Europe - 13 Americas - 21 Asia and the Pacific - 13 Africa - 6


Typologies National data producer driven

•Without involvement of users•With involvement of users

Non data producer driven•With formal mandates•Without formal mandates


Towards a hierarchy of SDIs

Global and regional SDIs• Global and regional forums for collaboration and the

exchange of ideas and experiences

National SDIs• Strategic initiatives concerned with the management of

national information assets

Local SDIs• Private, municipal, and provincial initiatives concerned with

the operational needs of day to day decision making


SDI Evolution

Shift from product to process model• From data producers to data users• From database creation to data sharing• From centralised to decentralised structures

Shift from formulation to implementation• From coordination to leadership• From single to multi level participation• From existing to new organisational structures


Other strategic questions

How long will it take to create an effective SDI?

How much will it cost and who is going to pay for it?

What is the connection between SDIs and eGovernment?

What cultural barriers must be overcome during SDI implementation?


How long will it take?

A long term rather than a short term task An exercise in capacity building and

organisational cultural change An evolving process: major changes likely

over time Dependent on the national institutional

context


How much will it cost?

Vary considerably from country to country• Relatively self financing in Australia because of close links between mapping and cadastral activities at the state level

• Shared costs model in the Netherlands

Costs of coordination and metadata services relatively small by comparison with core database creation


What is the connection between SDIs and eGovernment?

SDIs an important component of eGovernment

Economic potential of public sector information increasingly recognised

Geographic information policy increasingly part of national and international information policy - eg EU Public Sector Information Directive


What cultural barriers must be overcome?

Data producers• Shift from natural monopolies to competitive markets likely to require regulation

Information users• Data sharing requires organisations operating collectively with others at both the horizontal and vertical levels

•

March 21, 2005 SDI Concepcion

A closer look at Europe: INSPIRE


Content

1999 Green paper on “Public Sector Information: a Key Resource for Europe”

Increased Access identified as crucial GI valuable and large component of PSI Significant response from GI sector: polarised views

between those wishing strong regulation, and those wishing none at all.

Further consultation 2001 Directive 2003


Key Principles

Does not impose terms of access to PSI, which are left to member states

If information is accessible, then it sets out principles to ensure:• Competition• Transparency• Non-discrimination• Fair trading• Facility of re-use


From sectoral to integrated approach• Increased complexity• Policy interaction (including cumulative impacts)• Environmental aspects integrated in sectoral policies, …

Increasing needs for harmonisation and/or co-ordination (data/systems/approaches/… )

• Natural disasters (eg flooding)• Transports • Other trans-boundaries (eg WFD-River Basin Mgt., ),

Increasing attention to EU citizens/individuals• From top down approach to green papers (consensus based)• Increasing transparency• Europe on line, e-Government, PSI, Arhus convention (environment) ….

Significant policy shift in the 90s


• Quality• Certification• Authority• Consistency• Updating• Harmonisation

Cross border• Interoperability

reference systems, semantics, pricing, ...

Increasing demand for better GI


EU-wide data not available for a given administrative level• but data might exist locally

Some policies span geographically across borders• new data collection efforts

E.g new river basin districts

Units of analysis could require new data and methods for its characterization• Eg use of landscape as a geographical entity.

Data requirements


How to address data limitations?

more decentralized approach to data management• leaving the data at the level at which it can be more easily

collected and updated• attempt to integrate more cohesively information flows from local

to global and vice-versa• access to data becomes a pre-requisite

INSPIRE - Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe


INSPIRE

launched in 2001 by DG Environment, Eurostat, JRC

aims at making available relevant, harmonised and quality geographic information for the purpose of formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of Community policy-making

needs common reference data and metadata, architecture and standards, legal aspects and data policy, funding and implementation structures


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)


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)


INSPIRE Timeline

Started in 2001 Position papers in 2002 Extended Impact Assessment (XIA) in 2003 Revision of scope and XIA in 2004 Adoption in 2004 INSPIRE Committee 2006 Entry in force 2008 Metadata and harmonization: 2009-2012


Why an Impact Assessment?

Required for all new major policy initiatives of EU 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

Similarly very few assessments of SDIs, before and after implementation


A process view

In CBA it is easier to estimate costs than benefits that are often intangible and long term

Regard 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

A rigorous process of impact measurement as INSPIRE gets implemented

Focus on incremental impacts of INSPIRE, i.e. what costs and benefits over and above what would otherwise happen anyway


Assumptions (among 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.


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. + local-medium level authorities rather than all the very small ones

Hence measuring impacts over 1700 potential units (1 every 250-300k inhabitants)


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 later

INSPIRE about generic specs because detailed applications fall under other legislation (e.g. WFD)


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


Coordination

Possibly THE most Important aspect of INSPIRE

NSDI in the US done a good job but failed to involve local communities

Big cost factor


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


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


And the benefits??

Always the most difficult to quantify if we can justify the benefits in the

environmental sector, all other sectors will add at no extra cost

Some benefits are reasonably clear, others have greater degree of uncertainty


An example: EIA

Survey of organisations (public and private) undertaking EIA and SEA across Europe

Some 20,000 undertaken every year Average cost is € 75,000 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.


Another example: 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 of greater efficiency from well organised metadata,

harmonised data, and improved data management can add up to 10% of total cost = € 100m per annum

THESE TWO EXAMPLES ALONE WOULD ALREADY PAY FOR INSPIRE.


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.


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.


Revision of scope and costs

Reduced ambition. Focus on common reference data + commonly used thematic data

Annex 1 full harmonization (approx 1/3) Annex 2 only general level harmonization (1/3)


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 Coordinate reference systems Geographical names Geographical grid systems Addresses including postal regions


Level of harmonization of Annex 1


Annex 2


Level of harmonization of Annex 2

Data should be consistent:• Geometrically

Geo-referencing to allow consistent overlay of data• Semantically

Definition of spatial objects


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!


Lessons 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.


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


Research issues

Most countries are implementing at least some component of an SDI

yet there does not seem to be a coordinated and structured effort to measure the benefits of SDI.

Need for detailed case-studies following a longitudinal process, with agreed formats for international comparability


Clusters and regional innovation

A large body of literature on regional economics Many of the essential determinants of the economic

performance of a nation reside at the regional level (Porter 2003)

Institutions play a significant role in promoting innovation in regions

Clusters are main mechanisms for fostering innovation and competitiveness, particularly among SMEs.

Clusters are geographic concentrations of related industries linked by externalities such as pooled labour, and knowledge spillovers


Research Issues 2

Research on clusters focuses on traditional industrial economy. Are clusters relevant to the e-economy?

How do we define the e-economy? What is the nature of the emerging value

chains in the e-economy? What is their geographical footprint? Does clustering occur and does it matter?


Research Issues 3

What are the levers available to (regional) governments to facilitate innovation and competitiveness of their economy in the e-society?

What role for regional SDIs as mechanisms for innovation and growth?


Conclusion

Addressing the issues above requires a multi-national and multi-disciplinary research effort built around common methodologies

need to ground the e-economy and SDI hype in measurable economic and social progress, and develop the evidence necessary to convince politicians, the markets, and society at large of the value of SDIs.

Documents

March 21, 2005 SDI Concepcion Spatial Data Infrastructures: Institutional and Policy Aspects Werner Kuhn from contributions of Max Craglia and Ian Masser