Guest Blogs

In the world of PSI, meteorological data rarely seems to be leading the debate, and the reason why met data has such a small voice? Because we are a small sector. Private sector weather provision in Europe is an immature and underdeveloped market whose growth has been severely restricted by the difficulties accessing crucial PSI.

A brief comparison with the US market gives a clear illustration of how the market has been limited in Europe. In the US the market for commercial services is valued at over $1.4bn, with more than 250 private sector businesses employing thousands of staff. By comparison, here in Europe, the market is valued at only €650m, the number of private sector businesses across all of Europe is estimated to be no more than 60-70 employing relatively small numbers.

In terms of population or of GDP, there is no reason why the European market shouldn’t be of equivalent size to the US. The issue has been access to PSI, pricing of PSI and how PSI has been leveraged by the National Met Services in Europe to present barriers to entry for the private sector.

There’s no question that much has been achieved in selected EU territories since the passing of the PSI Directive, there are countries with liberal and forward thinking data policies, countries where met data is largely made available free or at marginal cost of dissemination.

But weather knows no borders, private sector weather businesses forecast the weather across Europe and we need data to do that. In order for Europe to benefit from a healthy, competitive weather market and for European businesses to compete on the world weather stage, the PSI Directive needs to be effectively implemented Europe-wide. Data needs to be readily accessible, on reasonable commercial terms, across ALL EU territories.

We are a long way from this, pricing of met data is hugely variable and in some cases hugely prohibitive. Prices for a single synoptic observation in some European countries can be as much as 64 euro cents – over €5k per annum for hourly data from a single weather station. Given that automatic weather stations can be purchased for between €5k and €20k you have a situation where the National Meteorological Service is recovering between 25% and 100% of the entire infrastructure cost from a single customer every year.

The emerging private sector in Europe is prevented from making a valuable contribution in the area of climate change as a result of prohibitive data pricing. The private sector can play a hugely important role in product innovation for corporate and industrial customers in the areas of energy conservation and carbon emissions. The private sector has the ability to create bespoke products to meet specific needs, as the market demands products in these areas so the private sector innovates and delivers. But our ability to do this is curtailed by the cost of climate data. The National Met Offices have access to historical data sets going back many years, for all of Europe. These same comprehensive data sets would cost the private sector millions of euros according to current tariffs.

All told we are a long way away from effective and consistent implementation of the PSI Directive Europe-wide, and as a result we have a weak private sector in Europe and serious restraints on innovation and product development.

A key move towards addressing this issue would be to close the loophole under Article 6 of the PSI Directive, which, in addition to recouping costs, allows for a “reasonable return on investment” – in other words charge anything you want!

However, such action is not imminent and in the meantime, at a time when weather and climate could not be of more importance to the world, opportunities are being missed.

In this last blog I have decided to write about one of our key daily tasks – PSI legislation and Commission's responsibilities in connection to this. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, the Commission ensures that community law is applied correctly. Consequently, it may launch infringement procedures against those Member States who fail to comply with Community law.

In the last 2 years we have initiated 3 infringement proceedings, namely against Poland, Sweden and Italy, for incomplete and/or incorrect implementation and application of the PSI Directive. I will not go into details where we stand with these proceedings. You can always get an up-date on our PSI Website.

What I would like to do today is to pass an important message to both the law makers and the re-users in these countries. Infringement proceedings are an opportunity to prepare better legislation, building on what we know today. My message to the law makers: "Be proactive! Bring together all stakeholders and discuss together about what kind of revised legislation would best help the PSI markets in your countries to grow and add value to your economies." And a message to the re-users: "This is your opportunity to actively participate in the drafting of new legislation." The Directive provisions have of course to be transposed into national laws, but Member States can go beyond by for example setting up quick and inexpensive means of redress. Many have already done so.

Finally, I would like to thank to the ePSIplatform people for giving me the chance to participate and share my views with the users of their Website. Any comment, and even critics, to my any of my views are welcome.

We are witnessing recently a positive political engagement and willingness to make government information more widely available and reusable in Europe. These are really good news. The UK's announcement to follow the USA www.data.gov initiative[1] was a first important milestone. Engaging Tim Berners-Lee for the job was an excellent choice. The Visby and Malmö Ministerial Declarations are important messages for the further development of the EU PSI policy agenda. They both recognise the economic potential of PSI re-use and call on the MS "to make data freely accessible in open machine-readable formats, for the benefit of entrepreneurship, research and transparency"[2].

"The demand side", reusers and other citizens, are also making their views known. In the Open Declaration on Public Services 2.0, a bottom up initiative of well known supporters of PSI reuse, such as Tom Steinberg or Alberto Ortiz de Zárate, they propose that public sector organisations provide information in open, standard and reusable formats, in ways that others can easily build on them. These messages add to the work of the PSI Alliance.

All these latest developments recognise PSI re-use as an important strand of the digital agenda. The task is now to concretise these high-level declarations into concrete actions and results, in every Member State, in all public sector bodies. Let's work hard for it. Last Friday Mme Kroes was appointed Commissioner designate for the Digital Agenda. Be sure that I will feed her with many ideas for supporting our work. We have a good opportunity ahead, but we will only succeed with the joint effort of all stakeholders. I count on your support.

[1] The UK's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has invited Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a British engineer and computer scientist and MIT professor credited with inventing the World Wide Web, to work with the UK Government to help them make data more accessible on the Web, building on the work of the Power of Information Task Force. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/10/berners-lee-downing-street-web-open

[2] Creating impact for an eUnion 2015 – "The Visby Declaration"

PSI is a raw material which can be re-used by many at the same time. Exclusive agreements limit the re-use of PSI to one or few re-users and the opportunities this can bring to the markets. It distorts fair competition which is central to the operation of the EU markets, and limits innovation, productivity and growth, all of which bring better, cheaper and higher quality products and services to the citizens.

The PSI Directive stipulates that the re-use of PSI shall be open to all potential actors in the market. This means that public sector bodies are not allowed to grant exclusive rights for the re-use of PSI. There may be however exceptions, notably if the existence of such exclusive agreement is a must for re-use itself. In that case the exclusive agreement has to be transparent and made public, and the reasons for granting the exclusive right have to be regularly reviewed, at least every 3 years.

The UK and the Netherlands have taken actions to identify possible exclusive agreements within their public sector bodies. Both assessments have identified the existence of some exclusive agreements and their specific nature. It has been reported that currently remedy measures are being taken by the above mentioned MS to terminate these agreements. Sweden also plans to carry out a similar exercise.

Last June my Unit launched the "Exclusive Agreements Study" in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain. These MS represent, together with the UK, NL and SW, more than 80 % of the GDP and more than 75 % of the inhabitants of the EU27. In terms of the market size and its potential it could be assumed that for these countries the study would cover 80 % of the EU25 market. We will investigate the situation in other MS next year. The work already started in Austria, Belgium and Italy, while we are finishing with the administrative procedures for the others.

The main purpose of the study is to investigate the possible existence of exclusive agreements. We want to get this information from both the PSI holders and the re-users. Subsequently we will investigate the nature of these arrangements and will work with the MS to phase them out or make them fully transparent if the exceptions provisions would apply.

You can follow the progress of this activity on our PSI Website. I am also inviting you to let us know if you are aware of any exclusive agreements in your respected countries. I personally hope that the study will not result in too many exclusive agreements as this would mean that the PSI Directive works.

This year's review of the PSI Directive (Commission Communication of 7 May 2009) confirmed its positive impact in promoting the PSI re-use in the EU in the past years. It is certainly not a perfect instrument, but I am an optimist and I prefer to present the situation as a half full glass rather than a half empty one. But of course our duty is to add a drop to the glass every day.

There is still much work to be done to reach the full potential of the EU PSI market and the European Commission continues its work to persuade the Member States (MS), the PSI holders and possible re-users of the advantages a developed PSI market can bring to the economy and citizens.

Our key activities at the moment are:

• encouraging the authorities in the MS to take proactive measures that facilitate the re-use of PSI (e.g. PSI portals);
• monitoring the implementation and application of the PSI Directive in the MS; in this respect we have started infringement procedures against 3 MS, with two of them (Sweden and Poland) already working on new legislation to come;
• scrutinising possible exclusive agreements; and
• as a follow up to many studies, move forward in the area of PSI re-use metrics and economic modelling on reuse.

Today I will write about the first point. Encouraging PSI re-use across all MS: all sectors require a joint effort by all stakeholders. Member States are crucial actors, and where proactive policies have been put in place, results have flourished. We see this in the UK and more recently in Spain. These actions require motivated officials, project champions. We need many more of them.

A concrete example of proactive measures is PSI portals. I believe we all agree that being able to find reusable data and know its conditions of re-use is a first crucial step in the process of PSI re-use. On 25 September 2009 we organised a meeting on PSI portals with representatives from the MS, industry and other stakeholders. A few MS have projects underway as concerns the PSI portals. The British, Spanish, French, Belgians and the Italians of the Piemonte region have portals in place or are working towards this objective. After the Aporta project was launched, the interest in PSI re-use matters rose dramatically in Spain. We drew a parallel between the PSI portals (existing and foreseen) presented during the meeting:

• the majority of them are built on open-source tools;
• they have published the re-use legislative framework; the conditions for re-use are published in the form of the legal notices or licences; and
• the reusable data is presented in the data catalogues and asset lists, or is directly available for download.

It is important to add that the portals don't only enable access to information but also help to raise the debate on the subject, awareness, knowledge, the "unlocking" service of OPSI (Office of Public Sector Information) in the UK, etc. In the recently launched "data.gov.us" portal, a major initiative of the Obama administration, a repository of "Apps", of applications that add value to the data resources is being put in place as a shared resource for re-users.

It appears from the outcome of the meeting that technological, organisational and financial aspects of PSI portals do not represent a real issue. There is enough knowledge, technology and good practice available on which to build PSI portals. Open-source tools enable setting up a PSI portal with relatively low costs. At this point one question is inevitable. Why aren't there more PSI portals around!? Of course, this is a rhetorical question. The answer is clear: we lack political will in those countries where more could be done; we desperately need more PSI champions.

My Unit will follow the work of the MS where PSI portals are underway. Good cases persuade others to follow the example. To help them even more, we are considering taking a step forward by preparing some kind of specifications/checklist paper/guidelines for those wishing to implement portals in the future.

I have taken the opportunity to prepare a further PSI Blog Topic as a direct result of information that has recently been posted on the ePSIplatform.

It is my understanding that The National Archives within the UK is currently reported to be engaged on a re-branding programme which may have ramifications impacting upon the PSI Re-use industry. The aim of the re-branding exercise is one of change management which will seek to present the National Archives as a single unified presence which can be identified by one effective trading title.

Whilst the National Archives are of course free to address change to their management structure in such fashion as they believe fit and whilst it is fairly obvious that there may well be downstream benefits deriving from a single unified brand and market presence, I personally, am a little concerned as to possible repercussions concerning the effective phasing out of the OPSI brand.

Anyone who is involved with the wider PSI Re-use agenda within the UK will be aware of the sheer amount of dedication and hard work that Carol Tullo and her small team at the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) have invested in creating a ‘Brand’ that is widely recognised and highly respected in its own marketplace.

The potential loss of the OPSI name in the brand transition being initiated by the National Archives will be regarded as a cause of some concern within the highly charged and vociferous PSI Re-use community, where a great deal of respect is vested not only in the brand itself, but also in the staff who have succeeded in creating and servicing same. It would indeed be true to state that the OPSI Brand has resonance not only within the UK but also within the Pan-European PSI re-use market, where the reputation of OPSI - precedes it.

Whilst I have no doubt that there will be a managed transition in terms of the brand unification programme, there will remain concern within the PSI community as to the loss of such a valued kite-marked presence.

Although there have been no formal announcements of which I am aware from within the National Archives, OPSI itself or the Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI), I am given to understand that preparations for the re-branding exercise are well advanced.

My concerns may well be alleviated somewhat if there are clearly stated objectives and a well managed & signposted transition in which elements of the PSI community are recognised as stakeholders within the process encompassing the change management.

I have had the opportunity to post a number of blog topics on the ePSIplatform during the Month of October and I would look to this final blog posting as a means of summing up my arguments with regards the effective promotion of the PSI resource.

In my view, the ‘value’ of PSI should be exemplified in order that all participants within the information matrix are aware of the potential benefits of an effective information exchange mechanism. The burden of failing to realise this opportunity would fall on both public and private sector players and will be evidenced to the detriment of the pan European economies as a whole.

• The key message here is that public sector has to be engaged as an active and willing participant rather than being viewed as an adversary.

In my second Blog posting – the discussion centred on the prevailing cultural differences which affect the workplace relationship between Public & Private Sector participants

• It is this area where the strongest leadership and focus are required if we are to succeed in fostering positive engagement with the public sector data holders.

The third Blog posting concentrated on the differing ‘Value’ of PSI dependent upon the position within the information matrix.

• We are now in the 21^st Century – The Information Age – and it is essential that clearly a mandated policy framework is in place to deliver fair, open, transparent and accountable access & pricing policies from within the public sector.

The forth Blog posting related mainly to the UK Property Search market and showed proof that effective lobbying can grant access rights BUT that increased access rights:

• Come at a price in terms of actual cost and bureaucracy which remain beset by the divergence between public & private sector cultures

This blog is intended as a summary highlighting the positives, in order the PSI community are able to interface & engage in a reasonable manner with Public Sector bodies and exert reasoned arguments underlining the need to achieve that level of access which will allow the real growth of value added products to generate additional goods, services and benefits within the information market.

Finally, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the ePSIplatform for having allowed me the opportunity to voice my opinions.

Within the UK market, the Property search sector, where there is a critical interface between public sector data-holders and potential private sector re-users, shows the relationship between sectors at it’s most confrontational.

Since 2002, we have witnessed specific high level lobbying of the UK Government. There are many reports & studies which have impacted upon this area of the market with the intention of promoting information re-user rights, good practice and clear & accountable charging. These include.

• OFT Property Searches Study 2005
• OFT Commercial Use of Public Sector Information Report 2007
• ODPM Personal Search Guidelines 2005
• DCLG Personal Search Guidelines 2007
• CIPFA Property Searches Charging study 2006
• DCLG (KPMG) Charges for Property Searches Study 2008

At a high level, the proliferation of reports, studies and PSI related activities indicate a degree of success in lobbying for information rightsBUT the harsh realities of information trading tell a different story.

The OFT Property Search Study although rightly viewed as groundbreaking in its scope – has largely failed to alter the working & trading relationships which exist between data holders and data re-users.

The Personal Search Good Practice guidelines (2005 & 2007) have often been ignored and where changes have occurred, the perception is that these have often been of a negative nature with public sector attitudes becoming more entrenched & hard line.

The CIPFA Charging study (withdrawn following concerns from within the private sector) led to the DCLG (KPMG) (Charges for Property Searches) Study. This study HAS changed the relationship field, although not necessarily in the manner initially envisaged by private sector trade associations & interests.

• Improved access (where same exists) has come at greatly increased levels of bureaucracy
• New Charging powers have been imposed where previously there had been no charging
• Rationing of access rights by public sector data holders continue to exist with greater delays & restrictions being evident now than before the publication of the KPMG Study
• Local Authorities (who are the main data – holders in this market sector) continue to ignore the solutions provided by OPSI – (Click Use Licensing, IFTS and Licensing Forums).
• The sheer scale of differential charging across all 412 District & County Level Authorities is astounding with 92 fee levels ranging from £6 to £67.00 being imposed for a standard information report (LLC1).
• A similar scenario has recently occurred with Building Regulations information where new charging rights introduced under the KPMG Study have resulted in a) Differential Fees for information which range from 0 to £38; b) Examples where each of the LA’s have initiated their own particular level of Bureaucracy determining the manner in which information can and cannot be requested, gathered & collected; c) Where (even in the 21^st Century) an inordinately high % of the LA’s are unable or unwilling to accept instructions or provide replies by email.

There is also much recent concern in the property search market with regards the case of Birmingham City Council where a statutory dataset of Adopted Highways (which has always been provided free of charge via access rights granted under Section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980) is from October 26^th to be charged out at a cost of £23.05 per individual property search via a Licensing arrangement. Interestingly, this charge will not be applied to the search report services produced by Birmingham City Council and which has led to suggestions that this represents a clear abuse of monopolistic position. The proposed License does not in any event, accord with the Click Use License model pioneered by OPSI and there is much concern within the property search sector that unless successfully challenged, a precedent will be set and other Local Authorities will follow suit in introducing further charging regimes.

In summing up, whilst there has been some success in terms of high level lobbying for re-use rights, it would be prescient of Public Sector Data Holders to understand that the increasingly high cost burden being imposed on participants in the property information marketWILL fall eventually on to the homeowner. It is however a matter of some concern, that irregular, inconsistent and ill considered charging schemes are being introduced to the market and may ultimately threaten the tenuous success of one of the governments key mandated policy themes – Home Information Packs.

I have previously commented upon PSI as a realizable asset and also on the cultural divides which continue to impede innovative re-use models within the European markets.

Public Sector Information is of obvious and transparent value to the economy and has been estimated as being the largest source of information within the European economic model. The US information industry by comparison, is approximately five times the size of the European market despite a similarity of size within the respective economies and populations and this disparity represents an enormous ‘opportunity cost’ loss to the European markets.

Commenting on the United States model, David Worlock (Outsell) states:

‘The US is an information Society for which the value of information as a resource is culturally embedded. Information is widely regarded as a tradable commodity’

However, the position within the European model is somewhat different:

‘There are innovative trading models within the current markets whose very ‘innovation’ continues to be stifled by red tape and bureaucracy’ – John Gray, PSI Consulting

Whilst there is obvious value to PSI, the perceptions as to actual value will differ widely across the sectoral divide and will impact upon potential re-use.

1. Within the Private Sector, the perception as to the value of PSI equates empirically to the cost of acquisition & capture of an information resource and which is by necessity viewed as a key determinant factor where Zero or Marginal Cost Pricing is favoured. (Marginal Cost Pricing in this context (within the UK) dates back to the Governments Cross Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy in 2000). Marginal Cost prising is again promoted strongly within the Power of Information Review (2007) in aiming to promote a landscape which supports innovation within the information industries and a pricing model which is fair, equitable and transparent.
2. Within the Public Sectors of European economies however, the perception of value is often seen to equate to the maximisation (of value) to the information holder (even though the creation of the base information resource has often been largely tax funded) and of the recovery of all costs in allowing the re-use of that information resource, which can of course, act as strong disincentive to potential & effective re-use.
3. The perception of value therefore can be seen to differ quite radically, dependent upon the position of the information holder and that of the information re-user, within the wider information matrix. It is at this point that the dichotomy between sectors (PSI – The Cultural Divide 07/10/09) still prevails and distorts the downstream value. This is particularly so in the case of Trading Funds – as has been evidenced across the European marketplace to the cost ultimately of growth & innovation within the European Economies.

If we look to the lead of cutting edge players within the ‘Global’ marketplace, we will see the rise of the phenomenon of ‘Freemium Pricing’ (Free products that allow the sale of premium products) This model exists where the near zero marginal cost of digital distribution have created a new marketplace where potentially ‘free’ pricing is a force of economic ‘gravity’. A leading proponent of this activity model - Chris Anderson - argues that future markets will have companies competing with ‘free’ as a non price model. We see evidence of the ‘free’ model already at the cutting edge of the digital world economy with players such as Skype, Google & Spotify.

Given the rapid growth of these companies and others within the Global digital economy and of their wide impact upon Global society, it is possible to visualise the vast and as yet, unrealised potential of the European Public Sector Information resource.

My belief however, is that the true equitable value of PSI will only be recognised once we have an element of certainty in a mandated policy where there is CLEAR direction on fair, open, transparent & accountable pricing policies from within the Public Sector which will allow the full and unimpeded flow of innovative products & services.

Despite the increasingly high level political & institutional support afforded to the PSI Re-Use agenda as evidenced in many governmental policy initiatives (including a range of recent pragmatic solutions arising from Belgium, Denmark, France, Spain & Sweden), there is a clear and evident risk that the full economic value of the public information resource will fail to be delivered unless we can attempt to bridge the cultural dichotomy which has long existed between the Private & Public sectors within the wider pan European economic model.

The adversarial & antagonistic attitudes which are as prevalent in many areas today as they have ever been despite many governmental initiatives, continue actively to impede and obstruct the flow of information as a resource in its own right and to threaten the Re-Use agenda.

Pressures for access & engagement from within the Private sector continue in many areas to be blocked by ‘Gatekeeper’ attitudes from within large areas of the wider Public Sector where protectionist and obstructive attitudes often lead to a decrease of effective PSI re-use.

The private sector ‘cultural drivers’ are often borne from entrepreneurial instincts which by necessity are proactive, fast moving and subject to cutting edge commercial pressures whereas those within the generality of the public sector may often be seen as reactive, risk adverse, bureaucratic & lacking in the commercial awareness that permeates the private sector. This often negative interface between public sector & private sector within the economic system is where the widest dichotomy is evidenced and where the divergence in culture is at its most apparent.

If we really are intent on promoting the re-use agenda , we need to eradicate the proliferation of silo mentalities, narrow self interest agenda and resistance to change which whilst not confined to the public sector by any means ARE in many areas a fairly common indicative phenomena.

Peter Krantz, (www.opengov.se) has produced a Paper which states authoritatively, that whereas the information resource will increase in value within a system as it is actively shared and promoted, it will actually decrease in value & degrade in circumstances where it is hoarded. The views & objectives of Opengov are mirrored in the UK by the Open Knowledge Foundation (www.okfn.org) who have recently reaffirmed the need for improved and co-operative working relationships between public & private sectors.

Within the Pan European market there is great political support and vision which is increasingly providing & promoting a compelling argument to actively share the information resource but although the political leadership (as evidenced in the OPSI Model within the UK) remains highly focused, inertia and ignorance in large areas of the public sector continue to stifle progress and actively threaten the public sector information reform agenda. Making the best use of resources & paving the way for progress in effective service delivery remains a major challenge and one which needs to be addressed if the strategic aims of the re-use agenda are to be fully achieved.

The structure of high level management within the public sector from where ‘leadership’ would be expected to flow may itself be part of the problem. (Robert Heller – Management Today)

• The principle of the ‘Generalist’ still rules
• Rapid high level staff turnover diminishes the growth of expertise
• Objectives are often inappropriately estimated as a result of inadequate planning
• The chain of Command is long
• Policy directives lose impetus as they filter many levels of Bureaucracy
• The effective focus of downstream policy implementation suffers

There are of course very real resource implications implicit in delivering policy change and public sector bodies are by their very nature often overly pressured in financial terms in coping with the funding & fulfilment of their primary public task duties. Within the UK in particular, there are centres of excellence where the information resource is managed & promoted to the highest standards. In those areas of the wider market where the attainment and achievement of goals is evident and recognised, we should seek to build on that success leading by example to show how the public and private sectors can work supportively in promoting an open information resource that is available for re use and subsequent provision of value added services.

Notwithstanding same, the cross cultural interface where the custodians of the public information resource & the highly charged commercial pressures of the private sectors meet and interface continues to remain an area where the divide in workplace culture is at its greatest and where attitudes can often be seen as attritional. It is precisely THIS area where the strongest leadership is needed and where the potential benefits of successful policy implementation will be seen to be most effective in producing deliverables deriving from effective re-use.

It is certainly the case that the public sector needs to and must be engaged proactively as a full & active participant and stakeholder in the PSI Re-use agenda. Clear and unambiguous policy directives need to be laid down from within the political leadership through a structured educative programme emphasising the ‘win win’ ethos where the added value of effective psi re-use itself promotes downstream economic growth &revenue generation to the benefit of all.

The inception & subsequent transposition of the European Directive on the Re-Use of Public Sector Information was (and remains) a keystone in promoting an open information resource where both public and private sector players within European economies can release and promote the often unrealised commercial value of Public Sector information.

European Commission studies have long estimated that the public sector is the largest creator & producer of information within the wider European economy and that there is great opportunity for effective exploitation of content within the vibrant information markets that have been created on the growth of the internet & related e-commerce platforms – a trend which continues to evolve.

There is much in the way of research that has long predicted that an often inert body of Public Sector Information that had realised its primary or public task could in fact be re-energised in its utilization by private sector players to develop value added products and services & act as a stimulus to the promotion & creation of further ‘downstream’ economic activity. There is clear evidence illustrating the fact that usage of the PSI resource will rise rapidly as a result of innovation within the market where barriers to the information resource are reduced and particularly, where charging practices associated with access are based on marginal cost pricing. (Flow-modelling of the increased economic activities (from studies deriving from the North American markets) provide a clear and unambiguous indication as to the eventual feed through of wider societal benefits).

Within the UK specifically, there are strong links with other legislative enactments and the active promotion of information itself as a realizable asset. The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) who have been tasked with promoting cohesive information policy standards throughout the wider Public Sector have enjoyed a great deal of success particularly with regards to information re-use policies within Central Government.

What is in effect a ‘culture of change’ in promoting the potential of effective information re-use within the UK Central Government sector has been achieved largely as result of the drive, enthusiasm & strong leadership shown by OPSI. The value of similar Governmental agencies within other European economies could well act as a catalyst in changing the ‘culture’ of information management and focusing motivation & leadership in managing the imposition and promotion of proactive information polices.

However, the success of information re-use policies both within the UK and across the wider European marketplace is dependent upon clear unambiguous direction & political drivers and whilst the recent history of the promotion of re-use within the UK has shown itself to be well advanced – there remain large areas within the greater Public Sector where effective re-use has yet to be fully realised and where there remains a low awareness of the effective value of intellectual property assets within an open information resource.

Whilst the emphasis on promotion and training within the information markets is quite naturally inclined towards effective management of re-use policies and is directed at the ‘holders’ of the information resource – the public bodies themselves, perhaps we should also be seeking to educate and train the potential ‘seekers’ of information within the Private Sectors of the economy both within the UK and also in the wider Pan European marketplace, as to how to interact positively with the information resource.

Training initiatives could and should seek to educate those requesting the re-use of information as to the ‘sectoral culture’ with which they are seeking to engage and of the views, fears and concerns of those who act as ‘gatekeepers’ to the information resource.

The true potential ‘value’ of public sector information should be exemplified in order that all participants within the information matrix are aware of the potential downstream benefits of an effective information exchange mechanism. The very fact that there may be a cost associated with the generation of entrepreneurial activities should not necessarily be seen as a disincentive providing that charging policies are fair, transparent and accountable.

The burden of failing to realise the potential opportunity cost inherent of under estimating the true value of the information resource will ultimately fall on both Public and Private sectors and will be evidenced to the detriment on Pan European economies as a whole, if we fail to achieve this aim.

This is an underpinning and frequently avoided question throughout all the commercial sectors that rely upon the re-use of Public Sector Information (PSI) to create value-added products for end users. But it should not be so¹.

Public Sector Information, is just that. It is information (of whatever kind) generated by enterprises that are government owned, run or commissioned at public cost (i.e. paid for out of revenues raised through taxation). One might therefore suppose that, fundamentally, such data “belongs” to the “public”; that is it belongs to those who have ultimately funded its generation, its management, handling and storage. But is this how ownership of these data are seen by those who, on behalf of the “public”, undertake the generation, management handling and storage of them?

Sadly, no. In fact, those government organisations responsible for these tasks on behalf of the public all too often regard the data as “theirs”, that is they see it as “owned” by them and to be provided to others only as a concession in return for some consideration such as a license fee or re-use fee, and not at all if, in their judgement, to do so might somehow make life too much harder for them. This is particularly (but not exclusively) so when those “others” lie within the commercial sector of the economy and intend to re-use the data to provide value-added products and services to the overall benefit of the economy in terms of employment and the generation of relative wealth.

A clear example of this thinking is to be found in the field of meteorology. Here the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the international Agency of the United Nations that co-ordinates meteorology world wide, has passed a Resolution of its Executive Council (WMO RESOLUTION 40 CG XII (1995)) that effectively allows all National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS) to withhold the free provision of meteorological data that they have generated or hold (other than a strictly limited sub-set that in practice is too difficult to protect) to any organisation other than another NMHS. This deeply protectionist measure is rooted in the concept that the data “belongs” to the NMHS and not to the “public” who paid for it. In publicly available documents that can be found (with some searching) on the WMO web site, one can find statements such as:

“However, in some cases, the competition with private service providers has led to conflicts. Among the key issues that cause concern are access to NMHSs data and information (my italics) and the possible reduction in services provided by NMHSs.”

This mindset, is surely not one that a UN Agency charged with representing the interests of the entire meteorological sector world wide and not just those of the NMHSs, should support or encourage? The data are not “theirs” they are “ours”. They belong to the public and, subject to a reasonable charge for the additional work of retrieval and re-transmission; they should be freely available to us all.

[1]A detailed exploration of the nature and status of meteorological data can be found in:
Ton W. Donker; Access to and re-use of public-sector environmental data
And information. Policy developments with a focus on the european hydro-meteorological scene. Polish Academy of Sciences, Geographia Polonica, Vol. 80 No.2 (Autumn 2007).

Scientists at Imperial College, London have reported in the journal Science[1] that shorter, milder winters experienced since 1985 on St Kilda Island in the Hebrides, have resulted in smaller Soay sheep. This seems to be one of many impacts that are arising from changes in climate. Others, such as short term flooding, increasing storminess, longer and more frequent hot and cold spells, will give rise to significant social and economic consequences and the meteorological industry could potentially make a significant contribution to their management. But the charges levied by the National Meteorological Services (NMS), the custodians of climate data, for access to those data, are preventing this in many cases by making the resulting value-added contributions uneconomic.

“Climate” is actually the historical, integrated effect of “weather” and establishing what the past climate was and the current climate is requires the analysis of what are, on a day to day basis, mainly normal weather observations. Some observations are made specifically to allow the climate to be more fully defined than would be possible using only routine weather observations but often these “climate” observations are available to and used by the NMS for routine weather work as well. Which makes it all the more strange that some of these same NMS do not make such observations available to the Private Sector in real time. Moreover, when they are eventually made available as “climate data”, the NMS often charge huge sums of money for access to them.

It is true that data on which climate records are eventually based require additional quality control and computation beyond that which is normal for purely “weather” observations. A “daily” average temperature, for example, may be compiled from several hourly temperature measurements but in the age of automatic observing, processing and communication, this hardly justifies either preventing real time access to the original observational data or, when access to the climate data is available, the massive costs that are often charged for them. To obtain the full set of daily average temperatures (that is one number per day!) from a single station in Latvia for ten years (not at all an unusual requirement for the simplest climatological task) costs about 27,010 Euro! And this is for PSI for which the industry and the citizens, through their taxes, have already paid!

Is it any wonder that the information economy in weather and climate is growing at less than 2% per annum in Europe and is less than half the size of that of the USA?

[1] Ozgul A, et. Al. The dynamics of phenotypic change and the shrinking sheep of St Kilda. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1173668

At this time of shrinking national economies and falling Treasury revenues it is hard to imagine why European nations should simply forego a minimum of almost 300 million Euro of taxation annually. But they do.

Using 2006 figures, the value-added meteorological market in the US and Europe should be rather similar in total potential size at around $2 x 1011 p.a. In the US, penetration of this market is around 0.7%, at $1.4 billion per annum, whereas in Europe, it is around 0.3% at $650 million per annum Moreover, net growth in this market in the US has been around 17% per annum over the period since 2000 while in Europe this growth has been around 1.2% per annum. It is a simple calculation to show that if the European market performance matched that of the US, then European Treasuries would annually gain a net 290 € million in taxation revenue from this small sector alone.

The major difference between the US and Europe in the exploitation of the inherent market value of PSI in this sector lies in the re-use model. In the US the data are available to all at the marginal cost of re-distribution and re-use is governed in general by simple, overarching, non restrictive license terms. The US government, as originator of the PSI, makes no attempt to compete with the private sector in exploiting the PSI to generate revenue from the market. By contrast, in Europe, most (though not all) governments, operating a model developed in the 1970s, charge significant sums for the PSI, apply restrictive, often complex and expensive licenses and have downstream trading arms that compete with the private sector for the value added business. The effect is that they inhibit market growth in the private sector and to fail to grow the market themselves, particularly at the low price end, because their trading arms are fighting high fixed costs and, often, entrenched bureaucracies.

At a time when every government needs to stimulate its economy, increase employment opportunities and increase tax revenues it is crazy to continue to operate in this 1970s mindset. The late Peter Weiss (see Borders in Cyberspace: Conflicting Public Sector Information Policies and their Economic Impacts U. S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service 2002) has argued that reason why the US market thrives and the European market does not is primarily because of the differences between the two models for the supply of wholesale data (PSI) outlined above. Although this argument has been challenged anecdotally, there seems to be little, if any, convincing published argument against it. Moreover, it is very difficult to find any clear, credible alternative explanation of why this very large difference in the development and growth rates of the respective markets should exist.

 <br/><br/>

Stockholm

I think we agree upon the difficulties in creating a fair market place for PSI re use. This is a marathon race and it will take a considerable amount of time to make the changes that will result in real growth in this European marketplace. However, if you look at the positive signs, it is easier to endure consistent work towards a better market place in the long run than a stop and start approach. Positive examples have a tendency to spread and this is why PSI Alliance now is looking for good practice in different countries.

We have a vision of a market where

• You can easily find information that is available for re use ( open asset lists )
• You are met by a positive attitude from the PSI Holder who really understands your role and wants to co-operate with you as a re user
• You are offered a fair price, primarily based upon the distribution cost
• You are offered conditions that do not restrict your product development
• You are not competing with the information holder itself, but with other value adding companies on the market
• You can easily and quickly find a way to solve any conflicts with the PSI Holder about the access to the information.

We obviously have the same vision. But how to get there?

As I have stressed before I think we have to join forces. One way to do it is to take part in the PSI Alliance, as I know you already are doing. The PSI Alliance is actively trying to find information about good and bad practice in different countries. But as you point out this does not seem to be enough to create the fast changes that we want. We have therefore suggested to the EU Commission that they should make continuous observations of the PSI market. This is similar to the review process that you are suggesting. I believe that the EU Commission needs to create a permanent PSI Market Observatory (PSIMO); this will assist in making observations between countries and between different PSI Holders. An Observatory, will enable us to follow the effects of different PSI price models, the different results if the authorities are or are not competing with the private industry, how special re-dress mechanisms influence the re-use business, the effects of active government support or non active support to re-users and other things that have an influence on the market.

Hopefully the creation of an Observatory will help show that changes in line with our vision will make the PSI re use market grow. We hope that evidence provided by an Observatory will help convince national governments and different authorities all over Europe to join us on the road to a better market for re use of PSI. Growth in the PSI marketplace will inevitably create more jobs in the European information industry – which is to everyone’s benefit. That is what we really want to happen - isn’t it?

Rolf Nordqvist

Chairman PSI Alliance

The European market for the re-use of Public Sector Information (PSI) is estimated to be 27 billion Euros a year. A huge amount of money. But we are not there yet and it is a large market to be exploited by the re-users. Why does it take such a long time to do what US re-users have already done? Why is Europe so far behind? I think that we have the answer in the way the different government authorities handles PSI in Europe. They act as if PSI belongs to them and not to the people and they are especially reluctant if private companies come and want to make profit out of “their” information. So when EU calls for PSI re-use the authorities continues the same way that they always have done – being restrictive and often preferring to distribute the information by themselves.

But what are the re-users doing? They often handle the discussion about access and re-use one by one with the authorities. Sometimes they complain about their situation to administrative courts or in some cases they complain to the EU Commission. But often they remain silent to avoid disturbing the relationship with their supplier of information, normally an authority in a monopoly situation.

Some of the re-users have started an organization to be stronger in their struggle to get better conditions for PSI re use. The PSI Alliance was founded last year (2008) with ambitions to exchange good and bad practice among its members and to speak with one voice to different stakeholders.

The PSI Alliance is now one year old and is active in the debate about what actions could or should be taken in order to raise the activity on the re-use market. On the 25 June PSI Alliance held a members meeting in Brussels to discuss different ways of going forward. We all agreed that the best way of doing that is to highlight good practice or good thinking and spread the best solutions among the re-users and PSI Holders. This was the theme on our re-user conference and is the theme for PSI Alliance during the forthcoming year.

Key examples of good practice and good thinking highlighted at the conference were:

• New pricing policies in the Netherlands. They are moving towards marginal cost/delivery cost on PSI. Of special interest in the meeting was pricing in the meteorological area. As from January 2009 prices on synoptic and radar observations are to be based on delivery costs.
• A new and more flexible re-dress mechanism has been implemented in Slovenia. In Slovenia you can apply to the Information Officer if you are dissatisfied with the decisions from Public Sector Bodies. In 2008 the Information Officer had to deal with 328 cases when Public Sector Bodies denied access/re-use to PSI or did not make any decision at all.
• The Competition Authority in Sweden has suggested (in a report to the Swedish government) that central government agencies should be prohibited to sell goods and services (including information) in competitive markets. Competitive distortions should be reduced by more effective rules for public selling activities.

This is good news for the PSI Alliance. We have for a long time struggled for better solutions when it comes to fair prices (marginal costs/delivery costs), fair competition (only competition among private companies) and more flexible ways to appeal when re-users and companies disagree. Now we can see signs that changes may happen in different European countries. So, if you have examples of good practice or good thinking please send them to the PSI Alliance and we will publish it on our web site for others to follow.

Rolf Nordqvist

Chairman PSI Alliance

In most countries there are authorities that are committed to sell the information that they have created for other purposes, as part of their public task. Since the information they hold is stored in their databases they can easily sell it on the market. Sometimes these businesses goes under the name of trading funds or in my country ( Sweden ) they are called information providing authorities. This is big business when it comes to maps, real estates, company information or weather information. The money created covers daily production, goes into the development of new products and the surplus is sometimes delivered directly to the Government .

If you are a re-user you often have to buy information from this kind of authority and re-sell it on the market. You are then buying value added data since, in many cases , the raw data is not available. The price is set by the authority and can sometimes be very high if the authority is making costly product development or if you have to pay for their service organisation around their products. As a consequence of their product development, you sometimes as a re-user meet your information provider on the market in the shape of a competitor and have to find some way to compete and make money on your own products. Your product is the result of value adding to the already value added products that you bought. That can sometimes be really tough.

This, sadly, is the situation in many markets. Is this what we want? To have to compete directly with PSI Holders? No , what you want is to buy information from an authority that is not on the market. And of course you want to buy raw data, so that you can get a fair price and have the margin that you need to add value to the information and still be able to offer a reasonable price to your customers. Adding value to existing value added data often results in prices that are too high.

To have a situation that supports existing and new PSI re-users, I think it is necessary to regard the sale of public data not as a public task but as a task for companies dedicated to disseminate information on the market. If the Government wants to stay in this market they have to follow the same rules as other re-users, which means not being part of a PSI Holder organisation, not having the advantage of exclusive contracts with PSI Holders and having an economy under the same rules as their competitors.

The Swedish Competition Authority has recently published a report stating that authorities shall not add value to raw data to be actors on a competitive market. You can find the same conclusions in another report from a special Swedish Administrative Committe specially designed to investigate the meaning and range of the public task in Sweden. I think both of the reports are correct in their conclusions. Neither the Government or local authorities should sell information on the market. It is not their public task. They have other things to do instead of competing with private companies , who work as professional PSI re-users on the market.

The EU Commission has in their review of the PSI Directive also highlighted this situation and is encouraging member states to look into the meaning and range of the public task when it comes to PSI. We are waiting for the member states to do this. If Member States look into the meaning of their public task they will see where the skills are to add value to public data, create new products , market and sell the information to different customers, namely inside the private actors on the market. And they will understand the need for fair play on the market without the government as a competitor.

We are waiting for actions taken by the member states to create better conditions for the PSI re-users on the market.

Rolf Nordqvist
Chairman PSI Allliance