1. INSPIRE Policy Evaluation Project Hugo.De-Groof@ec.europa.eu European Commission Directorate-General Environment Governance, Information and Reporting Unit EC/EEA INSPIRE Team

2. Roadmap March 2013 – TOR endorsed by INSPIRE Committee August 2013 – Consultation COGI & policy evaluation contacts & INSPIRE NCP on : TOR 1.0 Public consultation questionnaire 1.0 Service contract – independent assessment October 2013 – INSPIRE NCP/EIONET NFP meeting Updated TOR 1.1 Policy evalution project Public consultation questionnaire 1.1 November 2013 – COGI Meeting - Briefing Policy evalution project Public consutation questionnaire 2.0 TOR 2.0

3. Why ? 1.Required by the Commission when a report on implementation of a policy needs to be presented to Council and European Parliament INSPIRE art. 23

4. Why ? (2) 1.Communication COM(2013)685 final from 2 October 2013 (REFIT) 1.sets out the modalities for a comprehensive review of the legislation 2.points out the INSPIRE directive as one of the pieces of legislation for a REFIT check. focus on burdens, inconsistencies, gaps or ineffective measures for businesses, citizens and Member States make the necessary proposals to follow up on the findings of the evaluation

5. Scoping INSPIRE policy evaluation is part of the DG ENV multi-annual evaluation plan for 2013 approved by the DG ENV Director-General needs to follow the Commission evaluation practices

6. Terms of Reference TOR <- SOP purpose and use of the evaluation the activities which require evaluation the scope of the evaluation the documents and data sources used the evaluation questions the methods phases of the evaluation organisation of the evaluation

7. Purpose of the evaluation 'evaluation' to assess how far an action or series of actions has resulted in achieving the desired impact, in relation to the objective(s) actually being pursued, and to the initially expected outcomes. 'policy evaluation' is to judge the results and impacts of legislation/regulation against the desired effect of implementation and covering all types of interventions/actions in a broad sense. ex ante, interim, ex post, ad hoc

8. Purpose of ‘Interim’ policy evaluation actions already underway are still on course to meet their objectives ? actions – objectives – status implementation: the relevance, consistency, economy, efficiency, effectiveness, added value sustainability.

9. Use of the policy evaluation findings -> a set of recommendations evaluation report (EC & stakeholders) Improve implementation of the current activities further programming reflected in the INSPIRE Article 23 report to Council and European Parliament helps formulating the Commission follow-up action plan. Wide dissemination.

10. Actions to evaluate As described in Directive As described in legal acts implementing rules

11. Scope of the evaluation INSPIRE directive - legal, temporal and geographical aspect address other affected activities in this policy area (environment … WFD, MSFD… ) other inventions and developments in the same context (transport, space, agriculture, energy, EU Digital Agenda, … EU 2020 & ‘flagships’)

12. Documents and Data sources must be based on: reliable and verifiable data data must be retrievable and documented Sources ex-ante evaluation & consultation state-of-play studies transposition reports 3 yr Country reports & 1yr Country Monitoring EU Portal INSPIRE ‘events’ / conferences/workshops

13. GMES, now Copernicus, GEO/GEOSS, UN-SDI, World Bank, SEIS, Eye-On-Earth, EMODNET, CISE other related EU policies such as the PSI directive – Digital Agenda etc. (reports, projects, policy docs) Findings reports other environmental legislation Country sources: Information / portals etc. a stakeholder survey/ public consultation a targeted independent assessment of the concrete achievements Documents and Data sources cntd.

14. Evaluation questions - generic relevance ( objectives still pertinent to the needs?), coherence ( not contradicting other initiatives with similar objectives?), economy (are resources available?), effectiveness (extent objectives been achieved?), efficiency (objectives achieved at reasonable costs?), sustainability (will positive actions have a lasting effect?), utility (effects respond to concrete needs?), consistency (are there positive/negative spill-over effects in other environmental, social and economic policy areas?), acceptability (the extent by which stakeholders accept/welcome/approve/disapprove the policy and its different instruments?).

15. Examples Have the initial problems which INSPIRE intents to address evolved and in what way? Are the objectives of INSPIRE still relevant to the problem? Do they need to be reviewed? Are the actions of INSPIRE, still appropriate or do they need to be modified? Are changes (positive and negative) from the initial situation attributable to the implementation of INSPIRE? Are results achieved so far commensurate with the means put forward and in line with the ones expected from the ex-ante evaluation of INSPIRE?

16. Evaluation questions - specific state of conformity with INSPIRE data policy (Art.17), the conformity with the INSPIRE implementing rules the implementation of the 'governance' structures …… long list … see slide on Actions to evaluate ! Geographical scope !

17. Evaluation – specific questions (1) Existence of metadata for spatial data sets and services Conformity of metadata for spatial data sets and services with the implementing rules on metadata Geographical coverage of spatial data sets Conformity of spatial data sets with the data specifications and of their metadata with the implementing rules on metadata Accessibility of metadata for spatial data sets and services through discovery services

18. Evaluation – specific questions (2) Accessibility of spatial data sets through view and download services Use of network services Conformity of network services to the implementing rules on network services Coordination and quality assurance, including information on the Member State contact point and the coordination structure, as well as a description and evaluation of the quality assurance procedure, including measures taken to improve it.

19. Evaluation – specific questions (3) Contribution to the functioning and coordination of the infrastructure, including an overview of the stakeholders and of their roles, the measures taken to facilitate sharing and a description on how they cooperate Use of the infrastructure for spatial information, in general and by public authorities in particular; examples of cross border use and efforts made to improve it

20. Evaluation – specific questions (4) Data sharing arrangements between public authorities of the Member State, between public authorities and Community institutions and bodies as well as barriers to sharing Cost and benefit aspects, an estimate of the costs related to INSPIRE Directive and examples of the observed benefits.

21. REFIT specific questions (1) What kind of administrative burden and costs for public authorities and other public users (enterprises including SMEs, private citizens etc.) have been identified? How can burdens and costs identified to the users best be minimized or eliminated? What would be the estimated value of saved administrative costs for public authorities and other public users?

22. REFIT specific questions (2) Which gaps or inconsistency in the measures and working methods of INSPIRE have been identified? How can the INSPIRE directive and implementing rules be modernized and made less bureaucratic for the users? What could make INSPIRE even more value for money to the users? What is the EU-added value of INSPIRE in comparison to Member States activities?

23. Method proposed desk research a survey organised as a public consultation direct observations (a sample of) of INSPIRE services and data sharing measures/policies already implemented operationally in the Member States

24. Phases Phase I an inventory of reference material assessment of reference material Stakeholder consultation questionnaire Formulation evaluation questions – TOC report Phase II stakeholder consultation Ad hoc survey Phase III Final report structure Drafting and review Publication

25. Organisation (governance) A Steering Group is required (SOP rules!) EC/EEA INSPIRE Team Commission Inter-Service Group COGI INSPIRE NCP (no ‘voting’ right) An Evaluator is required Option: contractor/internal Interim -> internal + external support contract EVALUATOR = EC/EEA INSPIRE TEAM

26. Roadmap March 2013 – TOR endorsed by INSPIRE Committee August 2013 – Consultation COGI & policy evaluation contacts & INSPIRE NCP on : TOR 1.0 Public consultation questionnaire 1.0 Service contract – independent assessment October 2013 – INSPIRE NCP/EIONET NFP meeting Updated TOR 1.1 Policy evalution project Public consultation questionnaire 1.1 November 2013 – COGI Meeting - Briefing Policy evalution project Public consutation questionnaire 2.0 TOR 2.0

27. PlannedActualMilestones 8/4/2013 Consultation of INSPIRE Committee/NCP on TOR proposal 15/5/201322/08/3013Evaluation TOR agreed by Steering Group 16/6/201318/06/2013Kick-off Evaluation Project 17/7/201322/08/2013 Draft Public consultation documents & Questionnaire feedback by Steering Group 15/9/20131/12/2013Launch public consultation (12 weeks) 1/12/2013Independent assessment (contract) 15/11/20131/03/2014End public consultation & assessment 15/01/201415/04/2014 Draft report presented for review/quality control to Steering Group 15/02/201415/05/2014 Final report presented for review/quality control to Steering Group 1/03/201415/06/2014Final reported accepted by Steering group 15/04/201415/09/2014Art.23 INSPIRE Commission Report to Council and Parliament.