Executive summary

1. An as-is assessment of the current PoA landscape, focusing on digital, legal, and social aspects.
2. A to-be analysis exploring future scenarios, including use cases, Proof of Concept and alignment with EU-wide frameworks like the EUDIW and the Once Only Technical System (OOTS).

Key takeaways

As-Is

1. Variations in platforms solutions to access and handle PoAs, the adoption of electronic IDs (eID), approaches to national PoA registries, and digitalization level of PoA creation, result in differing levels of digital PoA maturity across the Nordic-Baltic region. Most countries have sector-specific platforms to handle PoAs for healthcare, taxation, and business matters separately, while some have a single solution, consolidating PoAs. Further, most countries have adopted eIDs, but the level of advancement vary with some countries supporting multiple EU notified eIDs, and others offering alternative forms of authentication and verification. The PoA registry landscape is also complex, with few countries operating with a national cross-sector PoA registry, meaning that PoAs are generally stored and registered in many different registries nationally. Finally, the digitalization level of PoAs varies, with some countries offering fully digital PoAs across all sectors via national solutions, and others relying on PDF forms signed with e-signatures. This results in a complex landscape for digital PoAs, especially with regards to cross-border interoperability.
   
2. Wide-ranging differences in PoA governance, legal standards, and digital readiness across the Nordic-Baltic countries create barriers to interoperability, which refers to the ability of different systems to work together seamlessly across borders. The current PoA landscape in the Nordic-Baltic region is highly complex, as countries prepare for cross-border interoperability. Many countries have enabled login via an eIDAS node, allowing foreigners to login with their local EU notified eIDs. However, identification of actors is currently dependent on personal identifiers located in national registries. Thus, matching and verifying international identities of legal and natural persons remains a general challenge, as well as matching PoA mandates across borders, with only a few cases of existing cross-border PoAs. Consequently, developing cross border initiatives for PoAs may be difficult. The EU initiatives regarding cross-border interoperability may help with this.
   
3. EU-wide initiatives, including the European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDIW), offer critical opportunities for enhancing interoperability. Alignment with these initiatives and leveraging their frameworks for proof of concepts can provide valuable insights and models for advancing cross-border PoA solutions. Testing use cases and integrating verified credentials and attestation mechanisms are essential steps toward overcoming current technical and legal obstacles.
   
4. The legal frameworks governing PoAs in the Nordic-Baltic countries are, to a high degree, built on the same principles, including the fundamental freedom to enter into agreements. However, the application of these legal principles differs to some degree, especially regarding legal barriers, e.g. age requirements, mental capacity stipulations, and residency prerequisites. A more uniform legal approach in the Nordic-Baltics should make for cross-border easier and more available to Nordic-Baltic people and companies.
   
5. While there are ongoing challenges in achieving full digital inclusion, such as the risk of excluding vulnerable groups, especially the elderly, individuals with cognitive impairments, and those with limited digital skills or health conditions, significant progress has been made in the Nordic-Baltic region. Efforts have been made to improve access to digital Powers of Attorney (PoAs), including providing physical PoA options for those unable to use digital platforms. Additionally, accessibility measures, such as English language resources and provisions for individuals with impairments, have been introduced. Alternative pathways for obtaining digital identification and options for trusted representatives to assist individuals unable to manage their digital tasks have also been established. Educational and support services, including digital literacy workshops, have played a crucial role in helping those with limited digital skills navigate PoA processes. However, the rapid pace of digitalization still presents challenges, particularly in preventing the exclusion of certain groups as in-person interactions decrease. While substantial progress has been made, continued efforts are necessary to ensure equitable access to PoAs for all citizens across the region.

To-Be

1. The verification and authentication mechanisms could be enabled via EUDIW, which will be key multiple times during login, confirmation, and accepting processes for digital PoAs. EUDIW could integrate national eID solutions to authenticate users, often through national registries. Security is key for identity verification and authentication, with strong ID infrastructure standards being necessary to ensure this.
   
2. Different countries require varied attributes for PoA creation, with basic data needed for platform login and more detailed information for PoA assignment. EUDIW could formalise most of these required attributes, but additional local attributes may need to be sourced, for instance via OOTS. Consequently, aligning national attributes required with eIDAS 2.0 regulations may be key.
   
3. Some countries still rely on manual processes for PoA creation, using PDFs. To facilitate EUDIW integration, it could be essential to explore how PoAs can be created, validated, and stored digitally. Increased digital maturity could streamline processes and enhance interoperability across borders.
   
4. Assignors may need to grant PoA rights to foreign organizations, but current systems do not support cross-border assignments on national platforms. Including foreign entities in the PoA scope could be achieved through OOTS, which allows data retrieval from foreign registries.
   
5. For cross-border PoAs, it is essential to accurately identify and assign international assignees. Current systems struggle with this but allowing log-in via eIDAS nodes may improve functionality. Additionally, OOTS could help retrieve international assignee data.
   
6. OOTS could retrieve PoA data directly from national registries to be used in cross-border PoA systems. EUDIW can store documents and credentials, but integrating OOTS mechanisms could ensure accurate, up-to-date data. Although manual validation may be necessary initially, over time, OOTS could optimize the process, streamlining cross-border PoA workflows.
   
7. Notifications could be needed to ensure assignees are aware of their assigned PoAs. Some countries lack effective notification systems, leaving the assignor responsible for informing assignees. Integrating PoA notifications into EUDIW could provide secure and timely updates, supporting successful cross-border PoA adoption and improving user experience.
   
8. In some countries, assignees must accept their PoA assignment. This could be important for verifying PoA accuracy and strengthening trust in the system. Whether, when and where PoA acceptance should occur, possibly combined with a notification, could be clarified.
   
9. National PoA platforms, despite eIDAS node implementation, struggle to reliably match identities, when foreigners login to local platforms. EUDIW, along with interlinking systems such as OOTS and ongoing initiatives with NCM, could resolve these issues.
   
10. For cross-border PoAs, national platforms must be able to match foreign PoAs mandates with local requirements. EUDIW may be used to provide the initial PoA data, while OOTS could be used to retrieve additional data if needed. Streamlining legal requirements across borders may facilitate cross-border PoA implementation.

Concluding remarks

• Achieving a streamlined cross-border PoA framework within the EU may necessitate concerted efforts to ensure format and attribute compatibility with the EUDIW, foster public-private partnerships, and harmonize legal and technical standards.
• Additionally, developing clear policies could provide important guidance, while a phased, incremental implementation approach may allow for careful integration of digital PoAs into EUDIW.
• Furthermore, initiating pilots in countries with advanced digital PoA systems could help provide insights for broader application.
• Finally, targeted testing of PoA components in the EUDIW architecture may inform system development, while a dedicated focus on resolving interoperability challenges, possibly with the aid of the Once Only Technical System (OOTS), could be key for facilitating a cross border PoA landscape.