Summary Report (Draft)

Summary Report (draft) Meeting between Commission and Romania on the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive

Bucharest, 26th January 2016

Participants

COM, DG ENV, Unit D4 Mr Joachim D’Eugenio, Deputy Head of Unit, Adam Daniel Nagy

Mrs Gabriela Dragan …to be completed by RO delegation (detailed list will follow)

Agenda item 1. Setting the scene

DG ENV introduced the context for the bilateral meetings as set out in the background by highlighting in particular:

 meetings are envisaged with most Member States on the topic of bad implementation, and the same topic will also be discussed at the upcoming MIG-P meeting in December,  these meetings are drawing on the conclusions on implementation based on the analysis of MS reports, the EU geo-portal, and the mid-term evaluation report as well as studies,  it was indicated that meeting with Romania is the 9th in the row,  meetings have as objective to look into the future, see assistance, funding possibilities and to see where Member States may have difficulties, and to draw up a roadmap,  the meetings also have a principle focus on priority-setting and common understanding with Member States on the environmental acquis as part of the INSPIRE implementation process as well as a contribution to the new initiative on streamlining of monitoring and reporting. The priority-setting was presented to the MIG-P in December as well. Bi-laterals with MS and Maintenance and Implementation Work Program processes go hand in hand. 2

 there is a need for a holistic view of the implementation of the Directive that serves multiple purposes related specifically to environmental policy areas, but also broader initiatives, such as the Digital Single Market priority of the European Commission (in particular concerning cross-border and cross-sector interoperability and e- Government). RO reassured COM of commitment for implementation and cooperation.RO indicated that implementation of the Directive was late, but that they are on track. RO answered all the questions raised in the document sent by the Commission. Action plan will be discussed by the government for INSPIRE implementation. After adopting this government decision on funding (to be sent to DG ENV along with reply to summary report), all relevant authorities can apply, as this was done by RO Ministry of Environment already.  DG ENV indicated that all the implementation gaps and the priority-setting should be addressed in the action plan to be submitted along with the report on INSPIRE due in May. The Commission will assess this action plan and draw the necessary conclusions in view of the reporting priority setting and the legal obligations based on the INSPIRE Directive. Agenda item 2. Introduction by DG ENV on missing data sets and key priorities for implementation and reporting DG ENV explained the complexity of INSPIRE implementation and main challenges, and how implementation can be stepped up, by priority-setting. Based on section 2 of the meeting document, DG ENV introduced the idea for a priority setting in order to address the problem of missing datasets and future implementation challenges more effectively. This has developed into a policy approach since the MIG-P meeting in December 2015, when the concept was presented to all MS. As a pragmatic approach the EU environmental directives which have upcoming reporting deadlines until 2020 should be covered when ensuring that the related datasets are being made INSPIRE compatible (in accordance with the implementation roadmap respecting requirements on metadata, services, interoperability). So far, it seems that only limited amount of reporting datasets were available in RO. DG ENV explained the usefulness of having a more focused coordination with experts in charge of environmental reporting in other policy areas. DG ENV highlighted that there are missing datasets for reporting, by 2013 the datasets should have been made available as is, without harmonisation. It was found that this is not the case. DG ENV explained that a priority-setting activity is undertaken in terms of identifying priority datasets under Annexes I-III of the Directive in view of the reporting stream (see Table 1.). Priority setting is also important to streamline activities across the borders also in order to avoid duplication of work. MIG-T meeting will be presented the list of priority datasets in April. MIG-P in June will be informed of the outcome of this process and will be presented the final list (that can be updated as required by future needs). Pilots are on-going at EU level eg. AQ and Marine also show how EU aims to merge different policy areas with INSPIRE objectives and requirements. It is not only for the EU however, but also MS need to take action in terms of coordination and funding prioritization in view of a better INSPIRE implementation. RO highlighted that legislative process is crucial and to have responsible authorities. Annex I will be covered in 2016 with data and services. Some adjustments were needed in light of the right understanding of the INSPIRE Directive, eg. how central coordination and local implementation is balanced. RO confirmed commitment to identify the priority datasets by May 2016.

2 There were developments under UWWT, in particular making available data and setting up a website. RO indicated that the geo-portal is functional. It was further improved by a data-catalogue. Project was also concluded from EU funding for protected sites. Funding is planned to be used to develop services further. Ministry of Defence has also competences as data-holder as regards certain data themes. Conformity is around 90-95%. One of the problem is the national coordination system, the problem will be remedied in 1-2 months, some guidance would be welcome from EU. RO indicated that the UWWT, nature is not yet connected to the geoportal. On floods data metadata was created, in totality it will not be entirely accessible to the public By end of February nature database will be available in an INSP compliant manner. RO explained that the Birds and habitats Directive reporting will be done in INSP compliant manner this year, therefore fulfilling the 2019 deadline for priority setting. There is also a dedicated website for this. Some further nature and defense-related questions were addressed, see summary in conclusions below. Agenda item 3. Introduction by DG ENV on compliance with INSPIRE requirements on "Interoperability of spatial data sets and services"

Based on section 3 of the meeting document, DG ENV presented the main figures on the implementation of interoperability and the related use of common data models. In particular, the importance of interoperability was highlighted that has demonstrated to deliver concrete benefits for those involved in implementation on certain cross-border use cases. Moreover, the priority-setting discussed earlier was particularly relevant also for harvesting the added value of interoperability. DG ENV highlighted the usefulness of a roadmap to handle the implementation and that priority setting would be helpful and also to include this in the INSPIRE report due by 2016 May. Clarification was requested on how harmonisation was done and how it is planned to be achieved in terms of upcoming deadlines? Progress is foreseen for this year and for the next year as regards Annex II and III data. On Annex I data, protected sites datasets were published contrary to what was indicated by DG ENV. This shall be also reported in May 2016. National coordination structures are functional and further meetings will be held. For hydrography there will be progress made on compliance provided there was outside funding to make the data compliant. As a result of the AQ pilot data was made available and by end of 2016 interoperability will be achieved. Question was also raised on radioactivity see conclusions. RO indicated that under meteorological data interoperability is not a problem, data can be made compatible within a reasonable period of time. Collaboration for the Danube is a good example of cross-border cooperation. On the floods Directive a cooperation was started in 2010. Spatial data study is made available as regards hydrography. BG, UA, MD data exchange is very difficult. Datasets will become compliant as regards RO, not non-EU countries.

Another example of cross-border cooperation is a project covering BG and RO, covering land cover mark-up language, a first set of data harmonized that will be updated and extended. It was explained by DG ENV that reporting formats shall be explained in a roadmap as a result of the on-going activity on REFIT of reporting covering 55 Directives. DG ENV highlighted that it is very important that the final product is user-friendly and useful contributing to better implementation. Agenda item 4. on compliance with metadata under Annex I-III Based on section 4 of the meeting document, DG ENV presented the information as regards the INSPIRE compliance of number of metadata.

It was highlighted that there is an implementation gap on metadata. Metadata quality was quite high quality. There was a problem with communication with the thematic clusters, no feedback received on metadata.

RO explained that there was a communication problem. It took some time to understand the underlying logic of implementation. RO agreed with assessment by DG ENV. The number of services in the INSP geo-portal can be identified if looking at the proxy services.

RO flagged that waters datasets metadata are not possible to be provided due to technical issues.

Further technical questions were raised by RO as summarized in the conclusions.

- Agenda item 5. Introduction by DG ENV on non-compliance of Spatial Data Services (discovery, view and download services) with the requirements of the INSPIRE Directive Based on section 5 of the meeting document, implementation progress and gaps with conformity and availability of network services were presented.

DG ENV highlighted that the use cases are very important and to demonstrate benefits.

As regards reporting it would be advisable to have an automated system, as contrary to manual reporting. RO expects that there will be good practices on electronic reporting. DG ENV indicated that there are activities aiming to have a completely automated system for 2019 reporting. For 2016 reporting it will remain as it was in the past.

There is an issue with the RO translation of Annex III.19 with the term of “distribution”. DG ENV explained that this needs to be done via the Perm Rep. The technical issue to be solved at Commission level. It will be followed up after signalled officially by RO with detailed explanation.

Agenda item 6. Introduction by DG ENV on compliance with INSPIRE requirements on data-sharing between authorities Based on section 6 of the meeting document, DG ENV introduced the topic, by explaining the importance of coordination between the different levels in the public administration. It was also highlighted that effective data-sharing policies are one of the key objectives of the Directive and requested that a further explanation on technical obstacles in RO is provided. 4 DG ENV highlighted that based on INSPIRE and access to environmental information Directive the available datasets should be in the public domain.

RO agreed with assessment. Communication was highlighted as one of the key obstacles. There are some progress made, such as conclusion of some inter-institutional agreements. There also need for specialized experts in the national authorities with specialized departments. DG ENV highlighted best practice implemented by UK, one-fit-all open data licence via an open data portal. RO was asked to clarify obstacles in the way of this objective.

RO confirmed ambition for free data access. However, there are authorities that are funded from other sources, not from public budget, as a result restrict access.

DG ENV highlighted that these objectives should be coupled with concrete action detailed in the May report, in particular how an open data policy can be achieved.

Agenda item 7. Discussion with Member States experts on funding opportunities

DG ENV presented briefly the financing opportunities at EU level which may be used in support of implementing the INSPIRE Directive. DG ENV indicated that it will provide additional information in a structured way to all Member States and will encourage them to share their experiences with EU-funded projects. RO indicated that recently the Cadastral Agency received 500 million EUR from EU funds also covering 14 authorities.

Conclusions/follow-up.

The meeting was welcomed by all participants to take stock on the current state of implementation and identified collaborative ways forward to close the existing implementation gaps.

RO Delegation agreed to take the following actions: - To respond to the draft summary report within two weeks of receipt. The final, agreed summary report will be made publicly available by the Commission. - To follow-up on the issues raised at the meeting and to reply to the letter sent by the European Commission to the Permanent Representation of 14th July 2015 within three months of the meeting, including the 2016 due report on INSPIRE. This reply will also include information on the recent government decisions and activity planning mentioned during the meeting. - Without prejudice to the legally mandated deadlines, to prepare an action plan including a timetable which addresses remaining implementation gaps discussed at the meeting as soon as possible with particular priority on those data sets which are relevant for EU environment legislation. The action plan together with the timetable for actions will be communicated together with the next INSPIRE implementation report in May 2016 at the latest. - To reinforce national coordination structures between national INSPIRE experts and other national experts to discuss the issues of datasets used for reporting of environmental legislation in order to make a coordinated effort in data-identification covering both reported priority data sets and INSPIRE data themes. - To review the national data sharing policies with the perspective of developing an open data policy as promoted by the Digital Single Market strategy.

The Commission, DG ENV, agreed to take the following actions: - To circulate the draft summary report within two weeks of the meeting to the delegation for comments and approval. - To trigger a discussion at EU level on a minimum set of datasets linked to EU environmental legislation. This issue was raised at the MIG-P meeting in December where a first document was presented and discussed and endorsed by the MS representatives. DG ENV will continue following up on the process in 2016 and will discuss the draft in MIG/T and MIG/P. - To clarify and respond to a number of technical questions and, if necessary, organise a specific bilateral session between the Romanian technical experts and the experts of the JRC and EEA to discuss particular technical solutions. The following questions were raised: - In the context of AQ, the datasets are not clear on radioactivity. RO has near real-time data, how can these be used/reported? - On nature the following questions were raised: o Annex III data on protected areas, RO tries to get a higher precision data. That set of data is delivered by EU, but higher precision is already achieved by RO, so not useful for MS. What is the planned follow-up by EU? o Do internal zoning data fall within the remit of INSPIRE and the CDDA reporting? o N2K data which will be reported soon are already INSPIRE compliant. Is the EU ready to accept these datasets (same for AQ data). - Clarifications were also requested on defense data and a project where technical solutions still have to be found. Overall, there was interest to collaborate with other MS on defence related issues under INSPIRE, and COM was asked to identify such MS. - EU validator does not recognize specific RO characters, can this be solved? - Translation error in the Annex of the RO version of INSPIRE Dir, corrigendum maybe needed. - System of coordinates and how to use national co-ordinates systems in the context of INSPIRE. - Question on interpretation of Art 4, in particular which datasets are exempted, eg. defense. - Is there a procedure used for clarifying the names of datasets for reporting.