You are browsing the archive for eu.

Europe’s proposed PSI Directive: A good baseline for future open data policies?

- June 21, 2018 in eu, licence, Open Data, Open Government Data, Open Standards, Policy, PSI, research

Some weeks ago, the European Commission proposed an update of the PSI Directive**. The PSI Directive regulates the reuse of public sector information (including administrative government data), and has important consequences for the development of Europe’s open data policies. Like every legislative proposal, the PSI Directive proposal is open for public feedback until July 13. In this blog post Open Knowledge International presents what we think are necessary improvements to make the PSI Directive fit for Europe’s Digital Single Market.    In a guest blogpost Ton Zijlstra outlined the changes to the PSI Directive. Another blog post by Ton Zijlstra and Katleen Janssen helps to understand the historical background and puts the changes into context. Whilst improvements are made, we think the current proposal is a missed opportunity, does not support the creation of a Digital Single Market and can pose risks for open data. In what follows, we recommend changes to the European Parliament and the European Council. We also discuss actions civil society may take to engage with the directive in the future, and explain the reasoning behind our recommendations.

Recommendations to improve the PSI Directive

Based on our assessment, we urge the European Parliament and the Council to amend the proposed PSI Directive to ensure the following:
  • When defining high-value datasets, the PSI Directive should not rule out data generated under market conditions. A stronger requirement must be added to Article 13 to make assessments of economic costs transparent, and weigh them against broader societal benefits.
  • The public must have access to the methods, meeting notes, and consultations to define high value data. Article 13 must ensure that the public will be able to participate in this definition process to gather multiple viewpoints and limit the risks of biased value assessments.
  • Beyond tracking proposals for high-value datasets in the EU’s Interinstitutional Register of Delegated Acts, the public should be able to suggest new delegated acts for high-value datasets.  
  • The PSI Directive must make clear what “standard open licences” are, by referencing the Open Definition, and explicitly recommending the adoption of Open Definition compliant licences (from Creative Commons and Open Data Commons) when developing new open data policies. The directive should give preference to public domain dedication and attribution licences in accordance with the LAPSI 2.0 licensing guidelines.
  • Government of EU member states that already have policies on specific licences in use should be required to add legal compatibility tests with other open licences to these policies. We suggest to follow the recommendations outlined in the LAPSI 2.0 resources to run such compatibility tests.
  • High-value datasets must be reusable with the least restrictions possible, subject at most to requirements that preserve provenance and openness. Currently the European Commission risks to create use silos if governments will be allowed to add “any restrictions on re-use” to the use terms of high-value datasets.  
  • Publicly funded undertakings should only be able to charge marginal costs.
  • Public undertakings, publicly funded research facilities and non-executive government branches should be required to publish data referenced in the PSI Directive.

Conformant licences according to the Open Definition, opendefinition.org/licenses

Our recommendations do not pose unworkable requirements or disproportionately high administrative burden, but are essential to realise the goals of the PSI directive with regards to:
  1. Increasing the amount of public sector data available to the public for re-use,
  2. Harmonising the conditions for non-discrimination, and re-use in the European market,
  3. Ensuring fair competition and easy access to markets based on public sector information,
  4. Enhancing cross-border innovation, and an internal market where Union-wide services can be created to support the European data economy.

Our recommendations, explained: What would the proposed PSI Directive mean for the future of open data?

Publication of high-value data

The European Commission proposes to define a list of ‘high value datasets’ that shall be published under the terms of the PSI Directive. This includes to publish datasets in machine-readable formats, under standard open licences, in many cases free of charge, except when high-value datasets are collected by public undertakings in environments where free access to data would distort competition. “High value datasets” are defined as documents that bring socio-economic benefits, “notably because of their suitability for the creation of value-added services and applications, and the number of potential beneficiaries of the value-added services and applications based on these datasets”. The EC also makes reference to existing high value datasets, such as the list of key data defined by the G8 Open Data Charter. Identifying high-quality data poses at least three problems:
  1. High-value datasets may be unusable in a digital Single Market: The EC may “define other applicable modalities”, such as “any conditions for re-use”. There is a risk that a list of EU-wide high value datasets also includes use restrictions violating the Open Definition. Given that a list of high value datasets will be transposed by all member states, adding “any conditions” may significantly hinder the reusability and ability to combine datasets.
  2. Defining value of data is not straightforward. Recent papers, from Oxford University, to Open Data Watch and the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data demonstrate disagreement what data’s “value” is. What counts as high value data should not only be based on quantitative indicators such as growth indicators, numbers of apps or numbers of beneficiaries, but use qualitative assessments and expert judgement from multiple disciplines.
  3. Public deliberation and participation is key to define high value data and to avoid biased value assessments. Impact assessments and cost-benefit calculations come with their own methodical biases, and can unfairly favour data with economic value at the expense of fuzzier social benefits. Currently, the PSI Directive does not consider data created under market conditions to be considered high value data if this would distort market conditions. We recommend that the PSI Directive adds a stronger requirement to weigh economic costs against societal benefits, drawing from multiple assessment methods (see point 2). The criteria, methods, and processes to determine high value must be transparent and accessible to the broader public to enable the public to negotiate benefits and to reflect the viewpoints of many stakeholders.

Expansion of scope

The new PSI Directive takes into account data from “public undertakings”. This includes services in the general interest entrusted with entities outside of the public sector, over which government maintains a high degree of control. The PSI Directive also includes data from non-executive government branches (i.e. from legislative and judiciary branches of governments), as well as data from publicly funded research. Opportunities and challenges include:
  • None of the data holders which are planned to be included in the PSI Directive are obliged to publish data. It is at their discretion to publish data. Only in case they want to publish data, they should follow the guidelines of the proposed PSI directive.
  • The PSI Directive wants to keep administrative costs low. All above mentioned data sectors are exempt from data access requests.
  • In summary, the proposed PSI Directive leaves too much space for individual choice to publish data and has no “teeth”. To accelerate the publication of general interest data, the PSI Directive should oblige data holders to publish data. Waiting several years to make the publication of this data mandatory, as happened with the first version of the PSI Directive risks to significantly hamper the availability of key data, important for the acceleration of growth in Europe’s data economy.    
  • For research data in particular, only data that is already published should fall under the new directive. Even though the PSI Directive will require member states to develop open access policies, the implementation thereof should be built upon the EU’s recommendations for open access.

Legal incompatibilities may jeopardise the Digital Single Market

Most notably, the proposed PSI Directive does not address problems around licensing which are a major impediment for Europe’s Digital Single Market. Europe’s data economy can only benefit from open data if licence terms are standardised. This allows data from different member states to be combined without legal issues, and enables to combine datasets, create cross-country applications, and spark innovation. Europe’s licensing ecosystem is a patchwork of many (possibly conflicting) terms, creating use silos and legal uncertainty. But the current proposal does not only speak vaguely about standard open licences, and makes national policies responsible to add “less restrictive terms than those outlined in the PSI Directive”. It also contradicts its aim to smoothen the digital Single Market encouraging the creation of bespoke licences, suggesting that governments may add new licence terms with regards to real-time data publication. Currently the PSI Directive would allow the European Commission to add “any conditions for re-use” to high-value datasets, thereby encouraging to create legal incompatibilities (see Article 13 (4.a)). We strongly recommend that the PSI Directive draws on the EU co-funded LAPSI 2.0 recommendations to understand licence incompatibilities and ensure a compatible open licence ecosystem.   I’d like to thank Pierre Chrzanowksi, Mika Honkanen, Susanna Ånäs, and Sander van der Waal for their thoughtful comments while writing this blogpost.   Image adapted from Max Pixel   ** Its’ official name is the Directive 2003/98/EC on the reuse of public sector information.

Europe’s proposed PSI Directive: A good baseline for future open data policies?

- June 21, 2018 in eu, licence, Open Data, Open Government Data, Open Standards, Policy, PSI, research

Some weeks ago, the European Commission proposed an update of the PSI Directive**. The PSI Directive regulates the reuse of public sector information (including administrative government data), and has important consequences for the development of Europe’s open data policies. Like every legislative proposal, the PSI Directive proposal is open for public feedback until July 13. In this blog post Open Knowledge International presents what we think are necessary improvements to make the PSI Directive fit for Europe’s Digital Single Market.    In a guest blogpost Ton Zijlstra outlined the changes to the PSI Directive. Another blog post by Ton Zijlstra and Katleen Janssen helps to understand the historical background and puts the changes into context. Whilst improvements are made, we think the current proposal is a missed opportunity, does not support the creation of a Digital Single Market and can pose risks for open data. In what follows, we recommend changes to the European Parliament and the European Council. We also discuss actions civil society may take to engage with the directive in the future, and explain the reasoning behind our recommendations.

Recommendations to improve the PSI Directive

Based on our assessment, we urge the European Parliament and the Council to amend the proposed PSI Directive to ensure the following:
  • When defining high-value datasets, the PSI Directive should not rule out data generated under market conditions. A stronger requirement must be added to Article 13 to make assessments of economic costs transparent, and weigh them against broader societal benefits.
  • The public must have access to the methods, meeting notes, and consultations to define high value data. Article 13 must ensure that the public will be able to participate in this definition process to gather multiple viewpoints and limit the risks of biased value assessments.
  • Beyond tracking proposals for high-value datasets in the EU’s Interinstitutional Register of Delegated Acts, the public should be able to suggest new delegated acts for high-value datasets.  
  • The PSI Directive must make clear what “standard open licences” are, by referencing the Open Definition, and explicitly recommending the adoption of Open Definition compliant licences (from Creative Commons and Open Data Commons) when developing new open data policies. The directive should give preference to public domain dedication and attribution licences in accordance with the LAPSI 2.0 licensing guidelines.
  • Government of EU member states that already have policies on specific licences in use should be required to add legal compatibility tests with other open licences to these policies. We suggest to follow the recommendations outlined in the LAPSI 2.0 resources to run such compatibility tests.
  • High-value datasets must be reusable with the least restrictions possible, subject at most to requirements that preserve provenance and openness. Currently the European Commission risks to create use silos if governments will be allowed to add “any restrictions on re-use” to the use terms of high-value datasets.  
  • Publicly funded undertakings should only be able to charge marginal costs.
  • Public undertakings, publicly funded research facilities and non-executive government branches should be required to publish data referenced in the PSI Directive.

Conformant licences according to the Open Definition, opendefinition.org/licenses

Our recommendations do not pose unworkable requirements or disproportionately high administrative burden, but are essential to realise the goals of the PSI directive with regards to:
  1. Increasing the amount of public sector data available to the public for re-use,
  2. Harmonising the conditions for non-discrimination, and re-use in the European market,
  3. Ensuring fair competition and easy access to markets based on public sector information,
  4. Enhancing cross-border innovation, and an internal market where Union-wide services can be created to support the European data economy.

Our recommendations, explained: What would the proposed PSI Directive mean for the future of open data?

Publication of high-value data

The European Commission proposes to define a list of ‘high value datasets’ that shall be published under the terms of the PSI Directive. This includes to publish datasets in machine-readable formats, under standard open licences, in many cases free of charge, except when high-value datasets are collected by public undertakings in environments where free access to data would distort competition. “High value datasets” are defined as documents that bring socio-economic benefits, “notably because of their suitability for the creation of value-added services and applications, and the number of potential beneficiaries of the value-added services and applications based on these datasets”. The EC also makes reference to existing high value datasets, such as the list of key data defined by the G8 Open Data Charter. Identifying high-quality data poses at least three problems:
  1. High-value datasets may be unusable in a digital Single Market: The EC may “define other applicable modalities”, such as “any conditions for re-use”. There is a risk that a list of EU-wide high value datasets also includes use restrictions violating the Open Definition. Given that a list of high value datasets will be transposed by all member states, adding “any conditions” may significantly hinder the reusability and ability to combine datasets.
  2. Defining value of data is not straightforward. Recent papers, from Oxford University, to Open Data Watch and the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data demonstrate disagreement what data’s “value” is. What counts as high value data should not only be based on quantitative indicators such as growth indicators, numbers of apps or numbers of beneficiaries, but use qualitative assessments and expert judgement from multiple disciplines.
  3. Public deliberation and participation is key to define high value data and to avoid biased value assessments. Impact assessments and cost-benefit calculations come with their own methodical biases, and can unfairly favour data with economic value at the expense of fuzzier social benefits. Currently, the PSI Directive does not consider data created under market conditions to be considered high value data if this would distort market conditions. We recommend that the PSI Directive adds a stronger requirement to weigh economic costs against societal benefits, drawing from multiple assessment methods (see point 2). The criteria, methods, and processes to determine high value must be transparent and accessible to the broader public to enable the public to negotiate benefits and to reflect the viewpoints of many stakeholders.

Expansion of scope

The new PSI Directive takes into account data from “public undertakings”. This includes services in the general interest entrusted with entities outside of the public sector, over which government maintains a high degree of control. The PSI Directive also includes data from non-executive government branches (i.e. from legislative and judiciary branches of governments), as well as data from publicly funded research. Opportunities and challenges include:
  • None of the data holders which are planned to be included in the PSI Directive are obliged to publish data. It is at their discretion to publish data. Only in case they want to publish data, they should follow the guidelines of the proposed PSI directive.
  • The PSI Directive wants to keep administrative costs low. All above mentioned data sectors are exempt from data access requests.
  • In summary, the proposed PSI Directive leaves too much space for individual choice to publish data and has no “teeth”. To accelerate the publication of general interest data, the PSI Directive should oblige data holders to publish data. Waiting several years to make the publication of this data mandatory, as happened with the first version of the PSI Directive risks to significantly hamper the availability of key data, important for the acceleration of growth in Europe’s data economy.    
  • For research data in particular, only data that is already published should fall under the new directive. Even though the PSI Directive will require member states to develop open access policies, the implementation thereof should be built upon the EU’s recommendations for open access.

Legal incompatibilities may jeopardise the Digital Single Market

Most notably, the proposed PSI Directive does not address problems around licensing which are a major impediment for Europe’s Digital Single Market. Europe’s data economy can only benefit from open data if licence terms are standardised. This allows data from different member states to be combined without legal issues, and enables to combine datasets, create cross-country applications, and spark innovation. Europe’s licensing ecosystem is a patchwork of many (possibly conflicting) terms, creating use silos and legal uncertainty. But the current proposal does not only speak vaguely about standard open licences, and makes national policies responsible to add “less restrictive terms than those outlined in the PSI Directive”. It also contradicts its aim to smoothen the digital Single Market encouraging the creation of bespoke licences, suggesting that governments may add new licence terms with regards to real-time data publication. Currently the PSI Directive would allow the European Commission to add “any conditions for re-use” to high-value datasets, thereby encouraging to create legal incompatibilities (see Article 13 (4.a)). We strongly recommend that the PSI Directive draws on the EU co-funded LAPSI 2.0 recommendations to understand licence incompatibilities and ensure a compatible open licence ecosystem.   I’d like to thank Pierre Chrzanowksi, Mika Honkanen, Susanna Ånäs, and Sander van der Waal for their thoughtful comments while writing this blogpost.   Image adapted from Max Pixel   ** Its’ official name is the Directive 2003/98/EC on the reuse of public sector information.

GDPR: Λήψη αυτοματοποιημένων αποφάσεων και κατάρτιση προφίλ

- February 16, 2018 in eu, gdpr, profiling, protection, regulation, Μη κατηγοριοποιημένο

Ο Γενικός Κανονισμός για την Προστασία Δεδομένων (ΓΚΠΣ) θα ισχύσει από τις 25 Μαΐου 2018 αντικαθιστώντας την οδηγία 95/46/ΕΚ για την Προστασία Προσωπικών Δεδομένων. Στα πλαίσια του κανονισμού, εισάγεται ρύθμιση για την κατάρτιση προφίλ και τα δικαιώματα των υποκειμένων έναντι της απολύτως αυτοματοποιημένης λήψης αποφάσεων και τις συνέπειες της.

GDPR: Τα δικαιώματά μου ως χρήστης

- February 14, 2018 in consent, eu, gdpr, privacy, protection, Rights, Μη κατηγοριοποιημένο

Ο Γενικός Κανονισμός για την Προστασία Δεδομένων (ΓΚΠΣ) θα ισχύσει από τις 25 Μαΐου 2018 αντικαθιστώντας την οδηγία 95/46/ΕΚ για την Προστασία Προσωπικών Δεδομένων. Στα πλαίσια των αρχών του κανονισμού, τα υποκείμενα των δεδομένων αποκτούν νέα δικαιώματα, μεταξύ άλλων αυτών της ενημέρωσης, της πρόσβασης και της λήθης.

GDPR: Πεδίο εφαρμογής, αρχές και ασφάλεια

- February 12, 2018 in eu, gdpr, personal-data, protection, Μη κατηγοριοποιημένο

Ο Γενικός Κανονισμός για την Προστασία Δεδομένων (ΓΚΠΣ) θα ισχύσει από τις 25 Μαΐου 2018 αντικαθιστώντας την οδηγία 95/46/ΕΚ για την Προστασία Προσωπικών Δεδομένων. Ο κανονισμός στοχεύει τόσο στην θέσπιση ενός ενιαίου πλαισίου προστασίας των προσωπικών δεδομένων σε όλη την Ένωση όσο και στην διασφάλιση της ελεύθερης διασυνοριακής διακίνησης δεδομένων.

Framtiden för Personlig Datahantering är här och du är inbjuden att utveckla den på MyData2016 i Helsingfors mellan 31/8-2/9!

- August 7, 2016 in Conference, Dataskyddsförordning, digitala rättigheter, eu, Helsingfors, integritet, mydata, ultrahack

MyData2016-logo-transp Som du är, rör dig och lever, lämnar du spår av data överallt. Vilka organisationer vet vilken din favoritfilm är? Vilka organisationer vet vad du köpte från butiken igår? Hur vet du faktiskt vad som är känt om dig? MyData är ett initiativ som föddes i Finland 2013 och nu efter EU:s Allmänna Dataskyddsförordning (GDRP) lanserats blir det mer verkligt än någonsin. GDRP är den mest strikta dataskyddsreglering hittills och kommer att påverka alla organisationer i världen. Under MyData2016-konferensen kommer deltagare att försöka hitta lösningar där de individuella dataägarna får ta kontroll över sina egna uppgifter och data igen. Internationella grupper av företagare, forskare, statstjänstemän och aktivister samlas i Helsingfors Hall of Culture för att utveckla MyData och staka ut vägen framåt! Samtidigt som konferensen och på samma plats kommer Ultrahack MyData att skapa aktuella och konkreta förslag som går att implementera direkt i det vardagliga livet. Du är mer än välkommen att ansluta dig till själva evenemanget, eller genom att delta på nätet! Är du anställd i privat eller offentlig sektor eller medlem i en förening i civil sektor så hör av dig till mattias[snabel-a]okfn[punkt]se för bra rabatter på biljettpriser!

#MyData2016 Infomercial:

Open Knowledge Sweden partners up to support DiploHack Stockholm 2016!

- May 13, 2016 in 2030 Agenda, Bert Koenders, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, eu, hackathon, Impact Hub Stockholm, SDG, Sustainable Development Goals, Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, TransparencyCamp Europe, Utrikesdepartementet

DiploHack Stockholm 2016Diplohack Stockholm 2016:

Sustainable development of a Smart Government

– a gathering of diplomats, devs and designers to make EU Open Data a citizens’ friend

Impact Hub Stockholm and The Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Stockholm joins forces with the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, supported by Open Knowledge Sweden to organize Diplohack Stockholm, a diplomatic hackathon that brings sustainable change and transparency into the EU social and government sector using open data and Freedom of Information requests. After an ideation workshop (Tuesday – May, 10th), where pressing issues are identified, developers, designers, socialpreneurs, diplomats and active members of society will spend 54 hours without interruption, building a better and more sustainable digital future. They will develop new ideas, products and services that solve imminent concerns and bottlenecks, and lead to a transparent, accessible and connected decision making. Last year, the UN adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to end poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change by 2030. These SDGs will serve as a guideline and a reference point for the creators at Diplohack Stockholm, to ensure a unified strive towards feasible solutions. Diplohack Stockholm is part of a series of hackathons organized all over Europe in the context of the Netherlands’ EU Presidency during the first semester of 2016, in response to a call by Dutch foreign minister Bert Koenders. He had challenged EU citizens to “shine light in the black box of Brussels”. The winners in the local events will participate in TransparencyCamp Europe that takes place this year on June 1st in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This unconference will focus on open data, new technologies and policies that make the EU work for people, stimulate open government and help grasp the workings of the various EU institutions with open data and Freedom of Information requests. Open data leads to better value, fewer risks, and more stakeholders. In the face of a rapidly-changing Europe, participatory and co-creative processes can unlock the potential of the citizenry on a path toward a more abundant, inclusive, and sustainable future. May 10th, Tuesday (18.00 – 20.00) – Ideation workshop Gathering creative minds, experts and government officials to brainstorm over the most pressing, current issues and drawing up a “hack protocol” guide. May 13th, Friday (18.00 – 22.30) – Meet&Greet, Pitches, Team formation – Introducing the participants to each other and the concept. Hearing and evaluating viable product pitches. Forming teams around the most feasible ideas. May 14th-15th – Sleepless and inspired product building. May 15th (18.00 – 20.00) – Final presentations, evaluation by the jury and selection of winners and prize recipients. May 15th (20.00-TBA) – Mingle, aftermath and reflection. June 1st – TransparencyCamp Europe in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Core Goals

  • Create new, collaborative and creative methods for diplomacy
  • Familiarize the civil society and tech industry with diplomats and diplomacy through co-creation.
  • Familiarize diplomats not just with social entrepreneurship, social media and open/big data, but with the tech industry and their start-up culture and practices
  • Actively look for added value in technology, social media and open/big data for diplomacy/public diplomacy
  • Recognize the role of networks and social media and open/big data as central to modern human interaction, including in international relations and especially in public diplomacy.
  • Do all of the above in a sustainable manner.

#Diplohack

The world is changing and diplomacy has to keep up. Networks and collaborations are becoming increasingly important. #Diplohack combines the specific know-how and skill sets of diplomats, social entrepreneurs, tech developers and designers, along with that of journalists, academics, NGOs and businesses to ‘hack’ traditional diplomatic problems in start-up style groups. It all begins with IDEATION in a WORKSHOP: We gather key actors in a room and listen to the challenges they face. Through the magic of Imagineering, the most compelling (and solvable) issues are described, aligned and engraved into the “hack protocol”. This will serve as a gentle guide to hint the “hackers” of what is in dire need of resolution. A few days down the road, the DIPLOHACK itself begins: On a lovely Friday evening, a presentation takes place, a few key figures say a few key words and we begin with laughs and icebreakers, culminating into a warm-up, 15-minute hackathon. Once the crowd gets a feel of what is there to come, Pitch Street opens up. To encourage all to pitch is a goal of great importance. 50 people, 60 seconds and a microphone is all you have, to convince us your idea rocks. Once the pitchers come to end, we put their “babies” on a wall and every “hacker” gets 3 votes to cast for a “baby” they would raise. A thousand options. Only 10 get chosen. Now recruitment starts. 10 idea owners look to build a team passionate, diverse and strong. The search is tough but often fruitful. 30 longest minutes later, teams are gathered, placed and work begins. After 54 dense hours of ups, downs, sweat and brain ache, on the eve of Sunday, the Lion Cage cracks open. 5 short and painful minutes is what you have, to teamfully present your labor’s fruit and face 5 Lions, trained expertly to pick apart your pitch in seconds. 5 more minutes Q&A and you’ve concluded. Lions listen with a hungry patience, take a note or two, and once all teams are good and done a council is formed – decisions made, winners chosen, feedback given and poof!

Beer, tears, chit-chat and reflection is how all ends.

ImpactHub Stockholm’s invitation is found here.

DiploHack Stockholm 2016

Embassy_of_the_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands ImpactHub Stockholm

Ministry for Foreign Affairs - Government Offices of Sweden

EU2016

International Open Data Day Stockholm 2016 Part I: How can one host an Inclusive Open Data Day?

- March 13, 2016 in AskTheEu, crowdsource, crowdsourcing, digitisation, eu, event, FrågaStaten, Global Open Data Index, godi, KÖK, Local Open Data Index, LODI, Open Data Day, Wikimedia Sverige

This is the first part out of a four part series recap from the International Open Data Day Stockholm 2016.

Open Data Day Stockholm 2016 37 The question of inclusivity was one of the questions explored this year in Stockholm by inviting people into the world of open data. The focus was on participation and user input for the projects that Open Knowledge Sweden and Wikimedia Sweden are running. The International Open Data Day in Stockholm 2016 was held on 5th March at the Wikimedia Sweden offices. It was a relaxed atmosphere and very casual event – yet very productive! The featured projects were FrågaStaten.se, Local Open Data Index with both regions and municipalities as well as the project on Connected Open Cultural Heritage Data (Kopplade Öppna Kulturarvsdata) (KÖK) in Swedish. Open Data Day Stockholm 2016 09 It all started off very calm and inviting with mingling as participants were arriving and the last preparation were taken care of. Then the workshop session started off with some welcoming words and a circle in a check-in letting participants share their names and answer the question: “Why are you here today?”. It was a diverse group of people who had come for different reasons all with diverse backgrounds three short presentations. It then followed with a 10-minute presentation from each featured project explaining their concepts and philosophies, introducing them to participants to get an insight of the projects. Stay put for the next part of this four part series about International Open Data Day Stockholm 2016. Open Data Day Stockholm 2016 25 Our blog post with the invitation to the event is published here.
The event on the wiki for OpenDataDay.org is located here. The International Open Data Day in Stockholm 2016 was held on 5th March at the Wikimedia Sweden offices hosted by Open Knowledge Sweden and Wikimedia Sweden.

Ändrade redovisningsprinciper förvirrar

- August 4, 2015 in biljetter, datajournalistik, eu, flygplats, flygsubventioner, okfn, OKFNSE, Open Spending, opengov, OpenSpending, öppna data, priser, Ryanair, Stop Secret Contracts, StopSecretContracts, subventioner, Sverige, Sweden, Västerås

I föregående inlägg ställde undertecknad frågan varför aktieägartillskotten till Västerås flygplats har redovisats med olika belopp.1 Det beror på att kommunen har ändrat sina redovisningsprinciper, meddelar Lars Lundström, redovisningsekonom på Västerås flygplats. Enligt Lars Lundström har aktieägartillskotten hittills sett ut så här:
2003 38,5 Mkr 2005 8 Mkr 2006 65,5 Mkr 2008 47 Mkr 2010 35 Mkr 2015 25 Mkr

Anledningen till att beloppet 38,5 miljoner står med i årsredovisningen för 2004 är följande, meddelar Lars Lundström via e-post:
Aktieägartillskottet redovisades först som en separat post i ”Förslag till behandling av årets resultat” under ett antal år (då summerat år för år vilket kan tolkas som att det ges varje år). Sedan bytte Västerås Stad revisorer och de önskade en ändring, där tillskottet skulle redovisas som ingående i det egna kapitalet (då redovisades endast det tillskott som gavs just det redovisade året).
Detta innebär att sammanställningen över hur mycket pengar flygplatsen har kostat skattebetalarna måste korrigeras. Mellan 2001 och 2014 kostade flygplatsen därmed bara 380 miljoner räknat på aktieägartillskott, driftbidrag och fastighetsaffär.2 I år har flygplatsen tydligen fått 25 miljoner kronor i aktieägartillskott. Om årets kostnader hittills räknas in har alltså kostnaden för skattebetalarna ändå överstigit 400 miljoner kronor sedan 2001.

Noter

1. Se tidigare inlägg ”Är 38,5 miljoner felräkningspengar?”.

2. Se tidigare inlägg ”Fastighetsaffär kostade skattebetalarna 125 miljoner ”.

Är 38,5 miljoner felräkningspengar?

- August 3, 2015 in datajournalistik, eu, flygplats, flygsubventioner, Open Data, Open Spending, OpenSpending, öppna data, priser, Ryanair, Stop Secret Contracts, subventioner, Sverige, Sweden, Västerås

EU:s beslut om att fria Västerås flygplats från otillåtet statsstöd1 innehåller även en sammanställning över aktieägartillskott till flygplatsen under åren 2003 till 2010. Enligt EU fick flygplatsen inget aktieägartillskott alls 2004, visar tabellen nedan.2 < p class="P1">  Aktieägartillskott till VFAB enligt EU

 

EU anger flygplatsens årsredovisningar som källa. I Västerås flygplats årsredovisning för 2004 står det däremot att flygplatsen erhöll 38,5 miljoner i aktieägartillskott det året, se nedan.3

 

Ur Västerås flygplats årsredovisning för 2004.
Emellertid är det svårt att avgöra om det är EU eller flygplatsen som har skrivit fel. Västerås flygplats årsredovisning för 20054 påstår helt plötsligt att aktieägartillskottet för föregående år var 0 kronor, se nedan.

 

Ur Västerås flygplats årsredovisning för 2005.

Ingen förklaring till de vitt skilda beloppen går att hitta i årsredovisningarna. Revisorerna har inte heller haft några anmärkningar varken för 2004 eller 2005. Undertecknad har därför e-postat till stadsledningskontoret och bett om en förklaring. Tips och kommentarer är som alltid välkomna.

Noter

1. Mer om utredningen går att läsa i ett tidigare inlägg: ”Stora luckor i EU:s flygplatsbeslut”.

2. Se ”Påstått stöd till Västerås flygplats och Ryanair Ltd”. EU-kommissionen.

3. Se ”Årsredovisning för räkenskapsåret 2004-01-01 — 2004-12-31”. Västerås Flygplats AB.

4. Se ”Årsredovisning för räkenskapsåret 2005-01-01 — 2005-12-31”. Västerås Flygplats AB.