6 craglia

1

Assessing the impact of Public SectorGeographic Information

Max CragliaInstitute for Environment and Sustainability

Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit

2

3

PSI and Geographic Information

PSI: Geographic, Meteorological, Legal andAdministrative

Recent study by MICUS indicates positive effectof PSI Directive for across all three sectors,but particularly for geographic which has beenhelped by the INSPIRE Directive which setsmore stringent rules than the PSI Directive onpolicy, and technical infrastructure.

Still most users complain about licensingconditions and cost of GI (so more work todo!)

4

INSPIRE lays down general rules to establish an infrastructure forspatial information in Europe for the purposes of Communityenvironmental policies and policies or activities which mayhave an impact on the environment.

INSPIRE to be based on the infrastructures for spatial informationestablished and operated by the Member States.

INSPIRE does not require collection of new spatial dataINSPIRE does not affect existing Intellectual Property Rights

INSPIRE Directive General ProvisionsINSPIRE Directive General Provisions

5

INSPIRE ComponentsMetadata

Interoperability of spatial data sets and services

Network services (discovery, view, download, invoke)

Data and Service sharing (policy )Coordination and measures for Monitoring & Reporting

INSPIRE is a Framework DirectiveDetailed technical provisions for the issues above will be laid

down in Implementing Rules (IR)

JRC is responsible for overall technical coordination of INSPIRE

6

INSPIRE Spatial Data ScopeAnnex I

Coordinate reference systemsGeographical grid systemsGeographical namesAdministrative unitsAddressesCadastral parcelsTransport networksHydrographyProtected sites

Annex IIElevationLand coverOrtho-imageryGeology

Harmonised spatial data specifications morestringent for Annex I and II than for Annex III

7

Annex III

Statistical unitsBuildingsSoilLand useHuman health and safetyUtility and governmental servicesEnvironmental monitoring facilitiesProduction and industrial facilitiesAgricultural and aquaculture

facilitiesPopulation distribution –

demography

Area management/restriction/regulation zones & reporting units

Natural risk zonesAtmospheric conditionsMeteorological geographical featuresOceanographic geographical featuresSea regionsBio-geographical regionsHabitats and biotopesSpecies distributionEnergy ResourcesMineral resources

8

Summary costs/investment (rounded figures) (€ m. p.a.)

9

Assumed benefits (after revisions in 2004)

Still benefits assumed to be 6-7 times greater than costsSo what do we know 5 years on ?

10

Catalonia Study: Key findingsCosts: €1.5 million over 4 years (2002-06)• Human resources account for 76% of total cost

during launch period (2002-03) and 91% duringoperational period (2004-05)

• Benefits: assessed for 2006 with a focus on localgovernment level

• Efficiency savings account for 500 hours permonth = € 2.6 m

• Effectiveness savings account for another 480hours per month

• Wider social benefits are not quantifiable butclear narrowing of digital divide between smalllocal authorities and larger ones

⍕ Four years of investment recovered in 6 months

11

Lombardia regional SDI: key findings

COSTS ~ 4 m. € for 2006-2008 (including technology set-up andmaintenance, training)

BENEFITS: focus on external users. Repetition of 2002 Europeansurvey on EIA/SEA. 350 EIAs/SEA per annum in Lombardy

Survey of 60 companies: 27 responded, average size dedicated toEIAs/SEAs = 7.6FTE, average turnover 700k per anum

Average cost: 60-90 k each study (75k for 2002 study)Average time: 3 months (6 months in 2002)Average saving due to SDI: 11% cost, and 17% on time (5% and 10%)Benefits ~3 Mio. €/year savings on EIA/SEA only

12

New JRC Survey of EIA/SEA practitioners

5 10 15 20 25 30

Denmark

France

Germany

Ireland

Netherlands

Slovenia

Latvia

Norway

Other

Poland

Finland

Estonia

Portugal

Belgium

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Spain

United Kingdom

Romania

Italy

Country

No. of respondents

Total respondents: 127 in 2009, covering 21 countries (18 Member States).50 respondents in 2002, covering 9 countries.

13

Size and turnover of the organisations involved

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

<100 000

101 000 to 250 000

251 000 to 500 000

500 000 to 1 million

1 million to 5 million

5 million to 10 million

> 10 million

To

tal

an

nu

al

turn

ov

er

in E

uro

No. of responses

SEA

EIA

14

Number of EIA and SEA studies carried out per year

Number of EIAs per year

46%

21%

17%

7%

4%

1%4%

1-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-500

>500

Number of SEAs per year

68%

15%

8%

5%

1% 3%

1-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-500

15

Projects/plans for which EIA is carried out

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Rubber industry

Textile, leather, wood and paper industries

Other

Food industry

Metal production/processing

Mineral industry

Chemical industry

Extractive industry

Tourism and leisure

Agriculture, silviculture and aquaculture

Disposal of waste

Energy industry

Infrastructure projects

project/plan

No. of responses

16

Projects/plans for which SEA is carried out

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Telecommunications

Other

Fisheries

Forestry

Agriculture

Tourism

Industry

Transport

Waste management

Energy

Water management

Land use

Town & Country planning

Pro

jec

t/p

lan

SE

A

No. of responses

17

Average time & annual turnover

Average time to complete EIA/SEA report is 1-3 months(6 months– 1 year in 2002)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

<2 weeks 2 weeks - 1

month

1 month - 3

months

3 month - 6

months

6 month - 1

year

1 year - 2 year > 2 years

Time

No

. o

f re

sp

on

se

s

EIA

SEA

€ 46,000 EIA

€ 34,000 SEA

18

What Data is Used EIA/SEA: Annex I and II

19

What Data for EIA/SEA: Annex III

20

• In 2002, the most frequent problem was accessing data

• Over half the respondents in 2009 also had access problems;alongside finding and integrating data, and information on itsquality

• For more than half of the respondents this means that, as in 2002,reports take more time and have more costs

Problems with the use of spatial data

21

Estimated increase in cost & time

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% > 30%

Increase

Frequency

Cost

Time

Increase in time of around 16% of the project’s duration and 14% forthe total costs (not including outliers)

22

Summary

- EIA/SEA practitioners still face problems connected withaccessing and using environmental data

- For 2006, COWI estimated the total number of EIA/SEA studies tobe 24,000 x an average cost of € 40,000≈ € 1 billion for the sector

- If the 15% increase in cost (associated with data access/qualityproblems) were tackled, annual savings could be €150-200 million,given increases in demand for SEA, inclusion of more local‘screening’ activities and EU membership.

- Assumptions made during assessment of INSPIRE verified.

23

Thank you for your attention !

[email protected]