INSPIRE vs. PSI re-use Directives comparison

1. INSPIRE vs. PSI re-use Directives comparison Roger Longhorn Director, Info-Dynamics Research Associates Ltd ral@i-dra.org / ral@alum.mit.edu

2. Why compare INSPIRE and PSI re-use? • The Directives are both alike – yet dissimilar - at the same time (PSI vs. PS-GI). • INSPIRE (2007) drew from experience in setting out the PSI re-use Directive (2003). • INSPIRE is quite prescriptive – PSI re-use is much more loosely worded, with very little said about practical implementation. • If PSI re-use needs modification, what can it now learn from the INSPIRE approach? • Will it make sense for any modification to PSI re-use Directive to try to use the highly prescriptive INSPIRE approach – or even be possible, at this late stage?

3. Main differences between the two Directives - #1 • PSI re-use applies to a wide range of vastly different types of data/information – the actual types of data are not well defined (‘PSI’) – and coverage includes broad classes of exemptions. • INSPIRE also applies to a wide range of data themes, but mainly to the geospatial (location) attribute for those data types – and the data themes (= 34) are defined in the Directive itself – fewer general exemptions apply.

4. Main differences between the two Directives - #2 • PSI re-use has no prescriptive implementationrules (Article 9 – “do something”) – based on general principles – and some of these have exceptions (too many?) Article 9 - Practical arrangements “Member States shall ensure that practical arrangements are in place that facilitate the search for documents available for reuse, such as assets lists, accessible preferably online, of main documents, and portal sites that are linked to decentralised assets lists.” So, as an implementing government agency for PSI re-use – what am I actually supposed to DO?

5. Main differences between the two Directives - #2 • INSPIRE has highly prescriptive, legally enforceable Implementing Rules (IRs), with an associated Regulatory process - the INSPIRE Regulatory Committee, comprised of officially appointed M.S. representatives. • Specific allowance is made for implementing the IRs via technical and/or policy guidance documents that are not themselves legal instruments, and thus can be changed more easily in the future to meet changing requirements.

6. Main differences between the two Directives - #2 INSPIRE Directive: • Article 4 (+ 3 Annexes) set out the data and service themes to be covered + 1 major derogation and allowance for evolution; • Articles 5 & 6 address metadata (for discovery), including dates by which metadata must be created for all themes – an EC Regulation now exists enforcing metadata creation; • Articles 7, 8, 9 and 10 set out the rules for harmonising data and creating interoperable services, laying the legal basis for the IRs that will implement these principles – and dates by when this must be completed;

7. Main differences between the two Directives - #2 • Articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 set out the principles, goals and lay the legal basis for the IRs that will implement the services needed to discover, access and use geospatial data, including downloading and invoking e-commerce services, plus derogations – but milestones are left up to the Commission and IRC – an EC Regulation for discovery and viewing is now adopted; • Article 17 covers all aspects of data sharing in 8 detailed paragraphs, including goals, and establishes the legal basis for the data and service sharing IRs – final implementation dates are left to the Commission and IRC; • Articles 18, 19 and 20 comprehensively cover M.S. coordination activities and arrangements – and responsibilities, including officially designated contact points in the M.S. and requirement to use ‘international standards’ where they exist, throughout implementation of the Directive;

8. Main differences between the two Directives - #2 INSPIRE Directive: • Article 21 sets out detailed monitoring and reporting requirements, with reporting timetable and lays the legal basis for IRs governing this activity (Council Decision now adopted); • Articles 22, 23 and 24 cover the regulatory process (IRC), dates for reporting to Council and Parliament and date by which national legislation must be in place for INSPIRE – 15 May 2009.

9. Main differences between the two Directives - #3 • PSI re-use implementation timetable is uncertain (from the Directive itself) – due to absence of detailed implementation provisions?– only date mentioned is that of adopting the Directive and first report on effectiveness – but in the absence of IRs, what is to follow – and by when? • INSPIRE contains specific dates by which many important milestones must be met – legally enforceable – plus other dates are in a detailed adoption and implementation “Roadmap”.

10. Main differences between the two Directives - #4 • PSI re-use : due to lack of specific, detailed implementation provisions (IRs, dates, etc.), users are less able to judge the value of the Directive, impact, success, performance, etc . – and cost of implementation. • INSPIRE has specific and detailed IRs relating to implementation & performance monitoring and reporting (Draft EC Decision for M&R agreed by IRC on 19 Dec 2008).

11. The ‘upside’ for INSPIRE! • INSPIRE implementation issues (good & bad) and success (or not!) are very transparent. • Users of government level geospatial data (local, regional, national) know what to expect, in reasonable detail – and by when (for own budgeting purposes). • The Roadmap is fairly realistic – stretching out to 2019 already – and may be extended to 2020+ for some data types and services, as more experience is gained. • The Implementing Rules approach gives the EC implementation team scope to adapt to ICT evolution and innovation – without resorting to modifications to the existing Directive.

12. The ‘downside’ for INSPIRE! • INSPIRE official Roadmapdoes change occasionally – except for dates specified in the Directive – has impacts on user implementation plans (and budgets) and requires strong(er) communication. • INSPIRE is very labour intensive, requiring hundreds of experts (mostly volunteers) to define the technical aspects of the IRs, over considerable time periods (years, not months). • Numerous legal instruments must be prepared and accepted, i.e. the IRs as Regulations or Decisions. • INSPIRE still has too many derogations from what must comply in the opinion of many people. • Additional implementationguidance documents are required in most cases – these are not enforceable.

13. Future issues affecting both Directives • Once we begin developing data harmonisation and service interoperability specifications for thematic data – e.g. health, etc. – and not just ‘core’ geographic information themes, then real multi-disciplinary and cross-programme or cross-Directive issues may (will?) appear. • Tens of millions of euro have already been spent on implementing INSPIRE service pilots, precursors and in looking at other aspects the Implementing Rules – could this also be done in the more general ‘PSI’ data sphere?