PSI Re-use Business

Over the past decade a number of economic studies related to public sector information have been undertaken. Some studies have adopted a top down approach, others a bottom up approach and yet others a thematic approach. A number of the studies have also included comparisons with Countries outside of Europe. The European Union (EU) by its nature embraces 27 Member States and such comparisons are inherent when assessing the economic activity at the pan European level from the re-use of public sector information.

The information published by Eurostat demonstrates that the economies of the Member States within the Union vary. Other variations exist across Member States such as for example:

• The structure of the public sector;
• The public task of public sector information holders;
• Whether the information is held centrally by one public sector body or is held across a range of public sector bodies;
• The degree to which the public sector information is held electronically.

The question then arises as to whether these variations have an impact on the value added chain related to the re-use of public sector information? If the answer to this question is YES then is there a need to take this into consideration when establishing economic measurement indicators?

An interesting example of comparing value chains has been published in the International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructure Research under the heading Value of Geographic Information in November 2009. Assessing Geographic Information Enhancement, by Bastiaan van Loenen and Jaap Zevenbergen of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. The paper develops a methodology for considering value adding within a value chain. The objective is to improve the understanding of the conclusions reached from economic studies undertaken on the re-use of public sector information especially when the studies have made comparisons across different jurisdictions. The methodology developed is then applied through a number of case studies that compare the value chain in three EU Member States with that in the USA.

One of the cases studies considered in the paper was that of the value chain related to Cadastral parcels the results of which are shown diagrammatically in Figures 7, 8 and 9 in the paper. The case studies show the difference between European Member States value chains with those of the value chains in the USA. In Europe the public sector Cadastral Institutes have undertaken many of the value added processes before the data becomes available for re-use where as in the USA these value added processes are provided by the private sector. In other words the data becomes available for re-use far earlier than it does in Europe. As a result one would then expect to see higher value adding processors in the value chain in Europe as the lower value adding processes have been undertaken by the public sector itself. The paper also refers to European Union activities such as the European Union Land Information Service (EULIS), which potentially enables a value chain comparison to be made between the Federal level of the USA with the European Union level.

The results of the Delft University research paper would indicate that there is a difference in the public task of each of the public sector bodies included in the case study. As a consequence this has an impact on the analysis of the results of economic measurements especially when making comparisons across different jurisdictions. The study would suggest that there maybe a need when determining the economic measurement indicators to take such variations into account. The variations may have different impacts for each thematic category of public sector information.

Views on the above and other questions and concerns related to measurement of PSI re-use economic activity would be very welcome.

If you would like to participate in round table public discussions on the PSI re-use value chains at the public meeting that will be held on the 8^th June 2010 in Madrid then please contact the meeting co-ordinators (Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, Spain (MITC) or ePSIplatform).

The PIRA report published almost ten years ago (October 2000) explained a number of the issues faced when undertaking the economic study that involved measuring the economic activity from the re-use of public sector information. The report then went onto explain that in the absence of hard financial information economic studies fall back to estimation techniques and that this was not unusual and cited the national statistical agencies as an example.

One of the measures that the PIRA report used was that of the transaction cost related to obtaining the public sector information. The elements of the transaction cost may include amongst others:

• The time spent finding the information;
• The time spent on the Internet;
• The time spent determining whether the information met the re-users needs;
• If the information was that sought then the time establishing the conditions under which the information maybe re-used; and
• If the information was not free of financial charge then what was the price of the information?

The European Directive that came into effect in all Member States of the Union on the 1^st July 2005 was structured to address many of these issues such that the time would be minimised. The MEPSIR economic study tested in part the compliance with the PSI re-use framework using a similar sample of public sector bodies in each Member State at the time the Directive came into force in Member States back in 2005.

If the PSI re-use framework has been implemented as intended and this is coupled with the increasing amount of public sector information held electronically together with the advances made in technology and its deployment then one would expect to observe an increase in economic activity three years later! Regrettably the MICUS economic study undertaken in 2008 did not show that there had been as yet any significant change.

An interesting example of measuring the transaction costs in 2009 has been published in the International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructure Research under the heading Value of Geographic Information in December 2009. Reference research paper titled: Methodology for Measuring the Demand Geoinformation transaction Costs: based on experiment in Berlin, Vienna and Zurich by Alenka Krek of the University of Hamburg. The paper details how the transaction cost is measured and undertakes three similar transactions in Berlin, Vienna and Zurich. The paper has published the three transaction costs together with a breakdown of the components of the cost. The total transactions costs have been reported as:

• Berlin costs €1,195.52
• Vienna costs €657.97
• Zurich costs €29,831.31

Although the research paper makes no reference to the EU PSI re-use framework as set down by Directive 2003/98/EC one would have expected that compliance with the Directive would have in part reduced these costs, which remain high.

Perhaps the reason why the studies undertaken to date have not shown any material change is in part due to the transaction costs as cited above. As a result only large companies maybe have the financial strength to re-use large amounts of public sector information.

From the studies undertaken to date and the research paper it is apparent that measuring the transaction cost is time consuming and as such may not be suitable when undertaking regular measurements of economic activity arising from the re-use of public sector information as now envisaged by the European Commission.

The 1^st July 2010 will be the 5^th anniversary of the implementation of the European Union Directive 2003/98/EC in Member States. (The Directive of the 17^th November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (PSI)) The recitals in the Directive state that the objective is to stimulate economic activity within the Union and that this is likely to be further stimulated by technological developments over time. (Reference: recitals 3 and 5). The recitals mention growth in jobs (people employed) in the digital content sector and a growth of Small and Medium sized enterprises - two potential economic indicators!

The European Union Committee of the Regions during the February 2010 Plenary Session adopted a global response (The Opinion) to the European Commission’s Communication published in May 2009 that reviewed the implementation of the Directive. The Opinion confirms the objective of the Directive and points out that it is essential to determine a way of measuring the economic value of the information in an objective manner. (Reference: Clause 14) The Opinion has in effect backed the Commission's action plan announced in the May 2009 Communication to undertake further economic studies and regular measurements of economic activity over the period up to the 1^st July 2012.

However the Opinion also pointed out that in order to develop the market in PSI re-use it was important to implement policies that apply licensing and charging models to facilitate and maximise the re-use of PSI (notably through the application of marginal costs) (Reference: Clause 12). The Opinion at the same time welcomes the Directive's objective to minimise the administrative overhead placed on public bodies by the availability of the information. The Opinion thus hints at the way that the PSI re-use framework should be implemented such that these two requirements can both be met. Translating this into practice requires Member State PSI policies and public sector bodies to adopt:

• Non transactional licences recognised globally; (the use of Creative Commons type licensing so no burden in generating, describing and entering into licences with other parties)
• No financial charges (so no burden of collection of the financial charges);
• The information to be available online and electronic; (no prior communication with the public sector body so no burden – a move towards data.gov type services)

The above-mentioned implementation methods at the same time remove the economic indicators that have been used traditionally in economic studies and measurements. There is little point in implementing the minimised overhead framework only to then start to implement economic activity meters to support economic measurement. As a result the determination of the economic activity has become a challenge in itself!

Over the past five years a number of Member States have made good progress towards implementing the minimum overhead framework and this is likely to accelerate over the period running up to the 1^st July 2012.

The Opinion also stresses regarding the principle of a competitive PSI market that it is essential to ensure that private service providers face the same conditions as public institutions, to enable access to public data by private users. (Reference: Clause 13). To comply with this requirement means that Member States must adopt PSI policies that do not permit their public sector information holders to act commercially or if they do that they ensure that the public bodies that do act commercially are physically separated from the public task activity. From the economic measurement perspective a clear separation supports the measurement of economic activity from PSI re-use as the public sector commercial activities can be grouped with other economic actors that are engaged in PSI re-use or benefit indirectly from PSI re-use services. If there is no separation then this gives rise to a further challenge when undertaking measurements of economic activity. Economic studies over the past five years have been faced with a reluctance of both the public and private actors to release financial information related to PSI re-use.

The PSI re-use framework as set down by the Directive supports both commercial and non-commercial re-use. The latter sets yet a further challenge to measuring and estimating the economic value from re-using PSI.

Facing such a challenge then leads to the question: Why bother to undertake such economic measurements? Especially if it is likely to lead to economic estimates that are immediately challenged!

Putting aside human curiosity one reason why economic evidence is required is that those that set and implement policy would like to know whether the policy is meeting the high and lower level objectives or not. Hence the reason that the European Commission supported by the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions wishes to undertake further economic studies and measurements.

The European Commission during the latter half of 2009 has commenced the preliminary steps that are preparing the way for undertaking these measurements and commissioning economic studies. During November 2009 the Commission through the auspices of the PSI Group has commenced work on these preparations.

To support the Commission preparatory actions to collect further economic evidence a public meeting will be held in Madrid on the 8^th June 2010. The objective of the meeting is to bring together those that have an interest in measuring economic activity to consider economic indicators. The desired outcome from the meeting is to agree a small number of indicators that can be used at regular intervals to determine the trend in economic activity related to PSI re-use. Further more whether the indicators need to vary depending on the thematic domain of the information (or sector) or there can be one set of indictors that can be used across all thematic domains?

If you wish to actively take part in proposing and justifying such indicators at the meeting then please contact the European Public Sector Information Platform meeting co-ordinator as soon as possible as the program for the June meeting is now under formation.

1. What indicators would you use if you were set the task of measuring the economic activity from PSI-re-use?
2. Would the indicators that you have chosen be sustainable overtime? Or pose the question another way could the indicators that you have selected be used at six monthly intervals over the five-year period from 1^st July 2010 to 1^st July 2015 without change?
3. Are the indicators that you have chosen applicable to only one thematic information domain or all information domains?
4. In your opinion has the PSI re-use framework in its first five years stimulated economic activity? If so what is the evidence that supports your opinion?