The role of geographic information in facilitating accession into the European Union

Transcription

1 The role of geographic information in facilitating accession into the European Union Max Craglia 1, Jean-Francois Dallemand 2, Ian Masser 3 1 Department of Town & Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK gisdata@sheffield.ac.uk 2 Environment and Geo-Information Unit, Joint Research Centre, Space Applications Institute, TP 262, I Ispra (Va) Italy, j.f.dallemand@jrc.it 3 EUROGI, P.O. Box 9046, 7300 GH Apeldoorn, The Netherlands, masser@itc.nl Abstract. The paper reports on the findings of a workshop jointly organized by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission and the European Umbrella Organisation for Geographic Information (EUROGI) in November 2000 to analyse the contribution made by geographic information policies and infrastructures to the accession of Central and Eastern European countries into the European Union. The paper considers the experience of Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The comparative evaluation of these experiences indicates the extent of political commitment, often at the highest levels of government, and the significant progress made in developing a framework of policies and infrastructures having geographic information as a core focus. Whilst the political and institutional efforts to comply to the accession criteria are not the main driving force behind the development of GI policies and infrastructures, it clearly is contributing by raising the political profile and securing momentum. The paper is organized into five sections providing the short introduction, overview of the accession process, comparison of the twelve countries in respect to their characteristics, summary of the role of GI in the accession process, and conclusions respectively. 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Structure There is an increasing recognition that Geographic Information (GI) plays an important role in the decision-making process in a modern society e.g. environment, urban planning and transport. It is used by public and private institutions to provide added value to the quality of services. However we are only at the beginning of a new era in Europe that will see a much greater use of GI supporting policy analysis and implementation, and the provision of a wide array of location-based services from multiple platforms. One of the most significant challenges in Europe at the present time is the process of enlargement of the Union, and to explore the potential contribution of GI to this process, EUROGI and the JRC organized a meeting in Brussels in November 2000 to which all candidate countries were invited, in addition to representatives from Albania and Croatia. This paper summarises the key findings of that meeting and the subsequent research, and is organized as follows. A brief overview of the Accession process and the potential role of GI in it are outlined in the remainder of this Introduction. This is followed in Section 2 by a comparison of the countries involved in the process as they differ to a very considerable degree in respect to key features such as size, economic structure, and standards of living. Only 12 of the 13 accession countries are considered, as it was not possible to gather homogeneous information for Turkey. Section 3

2 then summarises the achievements in relation to the accession process and the role that GI is playing in supporting key facets of social and economic development as well as decisionmaking in each country. Section 4 concludes the paper. The full report on the role of GI in the enlargement of the EU, from which this paper derives, is shortly to be available from the EUROGI and JRC web sites (see References). 1.2 The Enlargement of the European Union The European Union has developed over the last 40 years from the original six countries signatory of the Treaty of Paris in 1951, which established the European Coal and Steel Community, and the Treaty of Rome (1957), which launched the European Economic Community and EURATOM, to the current fifteen members. This gradual process of enlargement has not been without challenges but has also offered enormous opportunities to its members. The decision in 1997 by the European Council to initiate the process of enlargement to a further thirteen countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey) is a unique challenge because it has no comparison to the previous process in terms of number of countries involved, area, population, and wealth of different traditions and cultures. The criteria for accession to the EU were designated at the European Council in Copenhagen in They are therefore often referred to as the Copenhagen Criteria. They include: Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities; The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces in the Union; The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence the aims of political, economic, and monetary union. The process of enlargement encompasses the European Conference, a multilateral discussion forum on issues of common interest such as foreign and security policy, regional co-operation and economic matters, and justice and home affairs (the three pillars set up by the Maastricht Treaty), and the accession process which involves the development of a preaccession strategy, the accession negotiations, and the screening of the extent to which candidate countries are adopting the acquis communautaire. The acquis covers 31 Chapters as shown in Table 1 below. The negotiation process takes the form of bilateral inter-governmental conferences between the EU member states and each candidate country on a chapter-by-chapter basis. They are held at the level of Minister or deputy for the Member states and Ambassadors or chief negotiators for the candidate countries. The Commission prepares yearly reports on the state of progress in each country in adopting the acquis. The results of the negotiations are incorporated in a draft treaty submitted to the European Council for approval and Parliament for assent. After signature the accession treaty is submitted to the Member states and the candidate country for ratification. Once this is done, the candidate country becomes a Member state. The alignment of national legislation to the acquis is a major undertaking for the legislative system of the countries involved, the size of which cannot be over emphasized. More crucially though, is implementing legislation once adopted, and undertake the necessary changes in administrative practices, cultures, and procedures for effective implementation, monitoring, and reviewing. The challenge here is really major because organisations and people s way to do thing have to change. Moreover, there are significant impacts on society

3 and existing economic structures, so that engendering change AND maintaining political support throughout the process is possibly the greatest challenge of all. To assist in this process, the EU has developed a framework of accession partnerships and National Programmes for the Adoption of the Acquis. Moreover, it is supporting the process through three programmes: PHARE, ISPA, and SAPARD. PHARE has an annual budget of 1,560 million, and finances institution building measures across all sectors not covered by the other two programmes, including integrated regional development programmes. PHARE is under the direct responsibility of DG Enlargement, which also has overall co-ordination between the three instruments. ISPA has an annual budget of 1,040 million and is dedicated to major environmental and transport infrastructure. This comes under the responsibility of DG REGIO. SAPARD has an annual budget of 520 million, and finances agricultural and rural development. It is under the responsibility of DG AGRI. (DG Enlargement 2000). Table 1: The Chapters of the Acquis Communautaire Free movement of goods Statistics Environment Freedom of movement for persons Social Policy and employment Consumer and Health protection Freedom to provide services Energy Cooperation in justice and home affairs Free movement of capital Industrial policy Customs union Company law Small and Medium Sized undertakings External relations Competition policy Science and research Common foreign and security policy Agriculture Education and training Financial control Fisheries Telecommunications and information technologies Transport policy Culture and audio-visual policy Institutions Taxation Regional Policy Other Economic and monetary union Financial and budgetary provisions 1.3 The Potential Role of GI Geographic information and related handling technologies such as Geographic Information Systems have two potentially key roles to play in the accession process. The first relates to the need to develop the infrastructures necessary to support the process of modernizing public administration. With the term infrastructure we include digital data (geographic, statistic, administrative), computer systems, networks, procedures, people, and skills necessary to inform policy, target delivery, monitoring progress, and evaluating impacts. The existence of an efficient administration, able to perform ex-ante, and ex-post evaluation is for example a pre-requisite to qualify for structural funds. Hence the pressure from the EU to develop legal and administrative procedures such as the establishment of appropriate administrative units (NUTS), collection of relevant data, and setting up of the necessary computerized monitoring systems.

4 The second role is even more direct as there has been a significant shift in policy at EU level during the 1990s away from sectoral approaches and top-down regulatory mechanisms, which were manifestly unable to address the increasing complexity and interaction of environmental, economic, and social issues. What has emerged, particularly in the light of increasing environmental concerns, is a more integrated approach to policy where the interactions and cumulative impacts of different policies and actions are assessed ex-ante to increase their effectiveness. This shift to a more integrated, joined-up approach is evident in all key policy areas. Directly flowing from the point above is the emergence of spatial planning at the regional scale as a powerful framework for analysis, co-ordination of intervention, and evaluation of impacts. The formulation of the European Spatial Development Perspective is most clear embodiment of this approach, but its principles are also present in the other areas of policy. These include for example the requirements for rural development plans as part of the reformed Common Agricultural Policy, river basin plans as part of the Water Directive 2000/60/EC, and integrated plans for coastal zone management (COM(2000)547). The regional approach to planning, the increasing recognition of the importance of local issues and local stakeholders, and a tightening of the requirements for monitoring and evaluation, have also increased the importance of more focused interventions, and hence the importance of geographic information to assess needs, target intervention, and monitor effectiveness. The increasing specific requirement to adopt GIS for policy monitoring and evaluation in fields such as agriculture, and water management are examples of this increasing importance. Whilst the potential role of GI in supporting the accession process, and after that, membership of the EU is vast and growing, the way in which it is approached may vary. Before discussing the different approaches taken, it is important to appreciate the enormous differences that exist among the countries considered in respect to very basic characteristics such as land and population size, economic development, and standard of living. This is presented in the next Section. 2. Country Characteristics Table 2 overleaf summarizes some of the key statistical indicators for each country. Area The difference in size among the countries considered is massive, as the ratio of the largest country (Poland) to the smallest (Malta) is approximately 1000:1. Within this range we can see three distinctive groupings: three large countries (Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria), six middle sized countries between approximately 50 and 100 thousand square Kilometers, and three smaller countries, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta. Population The differences in respect to population are less pronounced, although still considerable, as the ration between the largest and the smallest is approximately of 100:1. Again three groups can be discerned, the largest being the one with population of less than 5.5 million inhabitants (7 countries), three countries between 8-11 million, and two countries (Poland and Romania) with significantly larger populations. GDP per capita The average per capita GDP in the 11 countries for which data is available is of approximately 9500 pps (Purchase Parity Standard). The Table clearly shows that two

5 countries Cyprus and Slovenia have significantly higher GDP per capita than the others, coming reasonably close to the EU average (81% and 71%). A second group consisting of Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic have GDPs approximately equivalent to 50% of the EU average, while the third, and largest, group includes six countries with GDPs that are between a quarter and a third of the EU average. Unemployment In respect to unemployment, Cyprus stands out as having almost full employment. Five countries follow with unemployment similar or lower to the EU average of 8%, although the figure for Romania may underestimate the extent of rural poverty, while six other countries have unemployment higher than the EU average and close to twice that average Economic Structure Looking at the economic structure, Romania stands out as having a largely rural workforce with almost 42% engaged in agriculture, and a small service sector absorbing less than one third of the workforce. Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland have also an economy strongly based on agriculture with employment in this sector in the range 10-30%. It is worth noting that the EU-15 average for 1999 was of less than 2% employed in agriculture (Eurostat). Employment in the industrial sector is broadly within the EU average of 30%. In respect to employment in the service sector we can distinguish three categories: the first includes Romania and Bulgaria, which employ between 30 and 40% of the workforce in this sector. The second and largest group includes nine countries with employment at around 50-60% of the workforce, and not too distant with the EU average of 67%. A category on its own in represented by the two islands of Cyprus and Malta, which have clearly a strong dominance of the service sector in their economy.

6

7 Table 2: Comparison of selected statistical indicators Area Population GDP Unemplmt Employment Cars Telephones On-line* 1000 km.sq Millions PPS/inh % EU avg. % Agricult. Industry Services /1000inh /1000inh % of pop Bulgaria Cyprus Czech R Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta n.a. n.a Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia Average *year 2000 Sources: DG Enlargement Country Report 2000 NUA surveys for

8

9 Standard of Living Two proxy indicators have been selected in Table 2: number of cars and number of telephone subscribers per 1000 inhabitants. The figures indicate that Bulgaria has the lowest ratio with approximately 1 car per 8 inhabitants, a group of six country has approximately 1 car per 4 inhabitants, while the others have approximately 1 car in 3 and in the case of Malta and Slovenia 1 car in 2. The proportion of population on line in 2000 is only a rough indication coming from Nua Survey and is not comparable to the quality of the data provided in the other categories, partly because of the difficulties of measurement. Having made this proviso it is interesting to note the relative high level of penetration in Slovenia and Estonia (more than 20%), followed by Slovakia, Cyprus, Malta, and Latvia at around 10-12%. The gap then becomes bigger and includes all the other countries at 2-7%. The figures are not entirely surprising if analyzed next to GDP with two exceptions: Estonia appears to have a very high degree of on-line connections, higher than France and similar to Germany and Italy, considering that its GDP per capita is only 36% of the EU average. Latvia also stands out for a penetration of almost 10% against a GDP of 27% of the EU average, which is the second lowest among the countries considered. The relative small size of the population in these two countries may provide some explanation, but in broad terms it indicates the existence of a deliberate policy to extend access. 3. Progress to Accession and Role of Geographic Information In respect to the progress made by each country on the road to accession to the EU, key information sources are the country reports regularly prepared by DG Enlargement (2000). For the purpose of this paper, we have focused on only some chapters of the acquis, which are likely to be more relevant. These are: Freedom to Provide Services Agriculture Statistics Research Policy Telecommunications Regional Policy Environmental Policy This does not mean that GI is not relevant to the other chapters of the acquis. Clearly areas such as transport, and border control make significant use of GI. Nevertheless, the ones above are clearly crucial in more than one way. For example Freedom to Provide Services includes legislation on data protection, and telecommunication deregulation has major implications for access to data and electronic services. This part of the country profile is followed by an overview of key developments directly related to GI, including key providers, policy framework, extent to which a national spatial data infrastructure is coming into being, and presence of a national GI association to support these developments. Information on the role of GI in the accession process and more generally the approach adopted by each country in relation to the development of GI infrastructures, draws primarily on the information provided by the participants in the workshop organized by JRC and EUROGI. More details will be available from the full report via the EUROGI and JRC web sites (See References). Below is a summary of the key patterns and trends.

10 Overall progress on the road to accession All twelve countries fulfill the political criteria for accession, i.e. stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities. In respect to the economic criteria, most countries have developed an open market economy, able to sustain the pressures that will derive from entering the European Union. Romania is still facing the greatest challenges in restructuring its largely agriculture-based economy and needs more time to undertake this transformation. Bulgaria is not yet able to cope with the competitive pressures that would derive from accession, but has already achieved some very impressive results in restructuring its economy. Freedom to Provide Services This chapter of the acquis includes important sectors such as banking and insurance, as well as the legal framework for the protection of personal data and the free movement of such data. Given the extent to which the service sector is the main employer in modern economies, the legal and regulatory framework in this sector is of significant importance for all the countries considered. With this in mind, it is important to notice that almost all the countries considered have made significant progress in this area, passed relevant legislation, and are by and large now in the process of implementation. Romania and to an extent Slovakia have a longer list of activities still to undertake but progress is widespread. Agriculture Of the economic sectors, agriculture has the strongest GI component because it includes major issues such as land restitution, consolidation, and registration into relevant Cadastres to develop. From a policy perspective, agriculture is crucial for the accession countries not only because it still employs large sections of the population, but also because it incorporates important social dimensions, and rural development issues. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is also the largest funded policy of the Union, and therefore qualifying for its support measures has major economic benefits. In this respect the development of an Integrated Administration and Control System is a prerequisite for receiving assistance and can be used as an indicator of the level of preparation of the countries involved. All the countries involved have still considerable advances to make before they have the legal, administrative, and technical infrastructure in place to benefit from the CAP, although good progress is being made. Statistics The development of an independent and authoritative statistical infrastructure is crucial for policy monitoring and evaluation, and we have seen over the last few years a much increased emphasis in the EU on the use of indicators across policy areas to quantify impacts and increase accountability. The evaluation of the experiences of the twelve countries considered in this report indicates that the development of a good statistical infrastructure has been given very high priority in all countries, with excellent progress throughout. This progress and degree of political support may well contribute to the initiatives taken in respect to a national GI infrastructure as discussed below. Research All the countries considered are now associated with the EU R&D programme, and this is excellent news not only for the tangible benefits that derive from this for each country but also for the partnerships and networks that participating in EU R&D programmes entails. To maximize the benefits, all EC Country Reports argue that the level of investment in R&D should increase and that the private sector, and small and medium enterprises in particular

11 should also be associated more in the research programme. The position of the twelve countries is similar in this respect although the level of R&D investment varies from 0.22% of GDP in Latvia to 1.4% in Slovenia, against a EU average of 1.9%. Whilst investment in this sector is clearly important, particularly for the future, it is also understandable that countries in the midst of a profound economic, social, and cultural transition may have relatively little to invest in R&D at the present time. Telecommunications The development of a vibrant telecommunications sector is crucial to the transition towards an information society as shown by the relatively recent experience in the EU member states. In this field, again, we see that most of the accession countries have performed very well in liberalizing the market and developing both the infrastructure and the appropriate regulatory frameworks. Latvia, Romania, and to a degree Slovakia and Malta have still further progress to make but the degree of awareness and commitment is high. Regional Policy The development of appropriate structures for regional governance and administration is a fundamental part of EU policy as much of the sectoral interventions from the environment, to spatial planning have a strong regional perspective, and structural funds are targeted and deployed on a regional basis. The challenges are not only to develop the legislative framework, but also to establish regional administrations with a degree of competence and infrastructure, including human, financial, and technical resources, to deliver at this crucial scale. For governance structures that were strongly centralized this is a particularly difficult challenge, and we see that progress in this area is mixed. Some countries like Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia have made the most progress, while the others are still some way from having the necessary structures in place. Environment The increase in environmental awareness has been substantial in the EU over the last years and this has resulted not only in more legislation, but also, and most crucially in the increasing integration of environmental objectives across the policy spectrum. Given the extent to which environmental issues straddle national and administrative boundaries, there has been a significant effort to include the accession countries into a Europe-wide, and indeed global, environmental policy. We can see this at its clearest in the Baltic area where there has been a significant degree of collaboration and partnership between the Nordic countries and the Baltic States in managing their common environment. It is thus not surprising that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have made significant progress already in aligning to the acquis and developing structures and policies for environmental management. Most of the other countries have also made good progress. At least in adopting the relevant legislation, with focus now shifting to the development of the necessary administrative capabilities for monitoring and implementation. Romania, and to a degree Malta appear to have furthest to progress in this field. National Spatial Data Infrastructures As argued in the Introduction to this paper, the integration of environmental concerns into much of EU policy, and the recognition of the complexity of society, have significantly increased the spatial dimension of EU policy, and the use of tools such as GIS for policy monitoring and targeting. These policy drivers do not however necessarily lead to a coherent national policy for GI or national spatial data infrastructures. Proof of that is that even among the EU member states, only few have a well-articulated NSDI (see for example Craglia et al for an overview of national GI policies in some of the member states).

12 Whilst it is not necessary to have a NSDI for the purpose of accession, taking a strategic view of the role of such infrastructure to support economic, social, and environmental objectives clearly helps as it avoids duplication of efforts and helps putting in place key components of the accession priorities such as land and real estates cadastres, parcel identification and monitoring systems, the IACS, and other geographically based monitoring systems for regional and environmental policy. The review of the experience of the twelve countries considered in this paper sends a very clear message of the extent of awareness and political commitment of these countries in respect to the strategic role of GI. Clearly the political importance of land restitution and registration has helped support a broader strategic commitment, but the extent of this commitment is truly impressive, and one that many existing member states of the Union should learn from. Looking at the individual countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia have not only developed a clear framework for NSDI as part of a broader national information infrastructure but have also gone furthest in implementing its key components which include coordination, core data and metadata. Their excellent development is followed by Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia all of which have explicit NSDI policies articulated by the government as part of their Information Society Strategies, which in itself is an indication of the strategic importance attached to GI policies. Whilst the development of core data and metadata in particular need still considerable progress, the most crucial battle that is making the case for an NSDI, gathering the necessary political support, and crystallizing into legislation appears to have been already won. In this respect, Romania deserves particular praise considering that in many other respects it is the country still facing the greatest challenges in its transition towards EU accession. Among the other countries, Poland, Estonia, and Cyprus are also at varying degrees of developing a NSDI framework with Poland for example having recently completed a study that now awaits legal backing. Malta, Latvia, and Bulgaria have less developed frameworks although in all cases there are some clear indications of a dynamic process taking place which could rapidly alter their position. The crucial role of national GI associations in raising awareness, exchanging ideas and best practice, acting as forum for debate, and developing the necessary support is clearly shown in the context of the accession countries. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland have all strong national associations that have supported the development of NSDI frameworks. Slovenia has made excellent progress without such an association, but its Geoinformation Centre has acted a strong focal point for action. Romania does not have a national association as such but the Forum for the Information Society has had a seminal role in helping develop the Information Society Strategy within which the NSDI is nested. Bulgaria is the only other relatively big country without an association, although the Technical University of Sofia has been playing a key role through its activities and international collaboration in raising awareness and bringing together interested parties as shown at the GII conference in Sofia in June The other countries have small populations and therefore may not require formal associations. In fact, Malta is the extreme example where the interested GI professionals are members of the AGI in the UK. Some regional form of association in collaboration with EUROGI may however be useful as a way of sharing information and best practice. In respect to the other elements of the GI infrastructure, most countries have already available small-scale topographic data, and varying degrees of environmental and socio-economic data.

13 Where the major effort lays at present is in the development of land information and cadastral data, which promises to become a key block of the infrastructure at the detailed level. In respect to metadata, it is worth noticing that it appears to be given a varying degree of priority. In some countries like Hungary, metadata services are well developed and had specific funding and policy support. In other countries, metadata is given a lower priority, with first choice given to the production of digital data. In many ways this is understandable and replicates the patterns found in many EU member states. Moreover, if it is already a battle to secure funding for the production of data, its documentation may be seen as a suitable lesser priority. Understandable as it may be, there are also good reasons for giving a much higher priority to metadata including: 1. It is easier and less costly to capture metadata at the same time as the data is produced 2. Metadata enables users and society at large to see progress being made and start utilizing data resources even if the coverage is not yet complete. 3. Metadata enables all parties concerned in understanding who has what data, and thus avoid the ever present risk of duplication of efforts 4. Metadata is not just a technical issue, but also much more fundamentally a cultural one of educating individuals and organisations to value their data resources. This is process that takes considerable time, and the sooner one starts the better it is. A potential danger that needs to be avoided is to spend so much time and resources in creating base data that are complete and accurate before making them available, that for years there is a void in the market, which then gets filled in a chaotic way with considerable waste in energy and resources. Adopting a strategy of early releases as the data is created helps instead develop confidence in the market, and also helps in improving data quality as the best way to do so is for data to be used. In respect to metadata standards it is worth noticing how many countries have adopted the CEN TC287 pre-standard as reference. This is helpful in building operational experience in data documentation, but it is also important to bear in mind that an international standard for GI is coming into being (ISO 19115), and that there is an increasing convergence of views on the need to adopt metadata practices that can be sustained in an organisation, i.e. that are light enough to ensure that people take the time to document their data resources, and that in many instances the priority should be in knowing who has got what, i.e. metadata for discovery, rather than the full details. For this purpose it is important that a closer dialogue is developed between the accession countries and international organisations (ISO, CEN), as well as projects such as ETeMII 1 and MADAME 2 that address metadata issues so that best practice is shared at an early stage, and the specific needs of the accession countries are duly considered by these organisations. 4. Conclusions This paper has provided an overview of the activities taking place in twelve of the thirteen accession countries in respect to the accession process itself, and the contribution made by geographic information to this process. 1 European Territorial Management Information Infrastructure 2 Methods for Access to Data and Metadata in Europe

14 The analysis of the countries considered shows what a tremendous effort they are all making in moving from the command economy that characterized the last 50 years of their history to an open market economy benefiting the whole of society and not just small parts of it. It is a huge challenge that involves not only the adoption of new legislation, but also a major reorganization of administration with decentralization at regional and local levels, and the development of new skills, procedures, and ways of working to be able to benefit fully from integration in the Union, administer wisely the funding opportunities that arise from this process, and guide the whole of society through this transition process. Although only a selected number of chapters of the acquis have been analyzed in this report, they have already provided a feel for the massive scale of the undertaking for most of the countries involved. With respect to the development of NSDI strategies, it is very important to notice that the vast majority of the countries analyzed has taken a very strategic view of GI infrastructures by formulating and adopting national strategies either on their own or as part of a National Information Strategy and/or Information Society Strategy. These are very significant initiatives because they are not related to the level of economic development of the countries involved, but show a genuine awareness of the strategic role of government in enabling the development of an information society, and the key role of geographic information for both public policy and service provision, and the development of the information market. The degree of vision and political commitment displayed by most of the countries analyzed is admirable, and significantly higher than that of many governments of the existing EU member states, as indicated by the EUROGI-JRC report on GI Policies: National and Regional Perspectives prepared in 2000 (see The relationship between enlargement and the development of national GI policies is not one of cause and effect. In most instances the two processes have developed in parallel and the development of an Information Society does not depend on accession. Having said that, it also clear that there are numerous areas of common ground. In particular, the accession process requires: The modernization of public administration The development of land and property markets, supported by efficient cadastral systems Computerised support systems for policy monitoring and evaluation, such as IACS, which includes inter alia agricultural parcel identification, and animal identification and registration to track the source and movement of animals and prevent the spread of disease, an issue all too topical in the light of the current BSE and foot and mouth crisis. Specific GIS-based systems and geographical indicators for a range of environmental and agri-environmental policies including nature protection, water quality protection, and integrated coastal zone management, An increasing shift to spatial planning as the conceptual and analytical framework for policy integration across sectors. Geographic information systems and infrastructures are clearly crucial to all of the above either directly or indirectly. There is certainly a high degree of consensus that public administration benefits considerably from having modern information systems, not just on direct support of its activities but also by allowing a more open access to public sector information, which in turn enables more informed public participation and accountable administrations.

15 The difficulties faced by the accession countries in implementing geographic information strategies and infrastructures are largely the same as those of the EU member states and include lack of awareness across different levels of the public sector, lack of management support and technical skills, varying policies in respect to access to data and pricing, weak motivation and coordination across agencies. In addition, these problems are exacerbated by the more limited financial resources. To address these common problems there is an urgent need for greater resources, such as direct support for GI strategies and systems from PHARE, SAPARD, and ISPA, closer collaboration and dialogue to share common experience, and learning from best practice, and more integrated R&D and educational programmes in this field addressing both technical and organisational issues. The meeting organized by EUROGI and the JRC is a step in this direction, and it will hopefully also play a part in raising awareness of both the achievements made and issues yet to be addressed. References Craglia M. Annoni A. and Masser I Geographic Information Policy: National and Regional Perspectives ( DG Agriculture, 1998, Agricultural situation and prospects in the Central and Eastern European Countries, May, DG Enlargement: Country Reports DG Enlargement, European Union Enlargement: a historic opportunity Brussels: CEC EUROGI: European Umbrella Organisation for Geographic Information: European Environment Agency Europe's Environment, The Dobris Assessment, (Editors Stanners D. and Bourdeau Ph.) Copenhagen, EEA European Environment Agency, EUROSTAT Europe's Environment, Statistical Compendium for the Second Assessment. Copenhagen, EEA. European Environment Agency, European Environment Information and Observation Network EUROSTAT Agricultural Statistics for Central European Countries, Proceedings of the Fifth International Working Group AGRI Seminar, EUROSTAT/FAO/OECD/UN-ECE, Budapest, November Luxembourg, EUROSTAT Dallemand J.F., Perdigao V (Eds.) Phare Multi-Country Environment Programme, MARS and Environmental Related Applications (MERA) Project Proceedings of the Results Conference, Bratislava, December 1996, ISPRA, Joint Research Centre, EUR EN. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission GI Portal: PANEL GI Compendium, A Guide to GI and GIS. Disclaimer The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be taken to represent those of the countries discussed, the European Commission, or EUROGI.