Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe s3

INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe

Summary report of the 3rd INSPIRE MIG-P expert group meeting, 4th of December 2015, Rome

Title Summary report of the 3rd INSPIRE MIG-P expert group meeting

Creator Joeri Robbrecht, Joachim D'Eugenio

Date created 14-12-2015

Date modified 01-06-2016

Subject Summary report of the 3rd MIG-P meeting, held on 4th December 2015, at ISPRA, Rome (IT) (DRAFT)

Publisher EC and EEA INSPIRE Team

Type Text

Description Summary report and actions of the 3rd MIG-P expert group meeting. This document is the result of the 2nd round of consultation on the summary report in which only track changes were introduced by DE. Contributor MIG-P, JRC

Format MS Word (doc)

Identifier Summary Report 3rd MIG-P meeting 4122015 Rome

Language En

Status Final

Page | 1 Summary report of the MIG-P meeting of 4 Dec 2016

1. Welcome and approval of the agenda The meeting was opened and chaired by Joachim D’Eugenio (Commission, DG ENV, Deputy Head of Unit D.4 Governance, Information and Reporting).

The meeting was attended by experts of EU Member States (MS), Iceland, Norway, the Com- mission Services (DG ENV and JRC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA) nominat- ed for the policy sub-group of the Maintenance and Implementation Group for the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. The following Member States were not represented: Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Croatia, Lithuania and Luxemburg. The Hungarian delegation was only present at the beginning of the meeting. A list of participants is available in Annex 1.

The agenda was adopted as proposed. All documents and presentations are available at the collaborative platform of the INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Group.

2. Implementation state-of-play and future priorities [Discussion DOC1]

Introduction The Chair set the scene for the orientation debate on the discussion document “INSPIRE Im- plementation: taking stock and shaping the future priorities” which was the main focus of the meeting. The discussion was structured into several parts, first a general debate and then a specific discussion for every section of the discussion document. In the first round of a general discussion, Member State experts were given the opportunity to provide general comments on the discussion document as a whole and ask question for clarification. Experts were also asked to identify issues which are not covered by the discussion document but which would merit re- flection.

General Discussion During this first round of discussion the following comments were made:

 The document and the proposed approach were welcomed by a large majority of experts. Some Member States asked about the relationship between the feasibility of the alignment of the proposed priority setting with the existing legal INSPIRE obligations and deadlines. It was important to provide more insight in the practical implementation and impact of the new approach in further discussions before taking any decisions. Sev- eral experts highlighted the importance of coordination with the environmental reporting community regarding INSPIRE implementation needs improvement at all levels.  Several experts argued asked the Commission (in particular DG ENV) that as the owner of the policy, i.e. the Commission (in particular DG ENV), should to take a leading role in convincing the environmental reporting community to participate more actively in INSPIRE implementation. Moreover, the application of INSPIRE at EU level, e.g. in

Page | 2 the Commission and the agency, should also be enhanced since it is an important driver also for Member States.  Some experts expressed the view that current Implementing Rules are too technology- focused and rigid, e.g. when it comes to changes induced by technological evolution. Some experts also considered the INSPIRE Directive, in particular the implementing acts and guidance as too complex and ambitious and difficult to understand by a wider user community or decision-makers. At the same time, stability of the legal framework was also essential for the implementation of the Directive. In this context, someone asked the question “how do we prevent INSPIRE from becoming legacy and can we adapt our specs to the evolution of technology so that INSPIRE stays fit-for-use in modern information systems?”  A concern for most MS experts is harmonization. Pragmatism for INSPIRE implementation (like setting priorities) was considered as essential.  It would be valuable to look for extra funding opportunities for implementing the IN- SPIRE directive. Seen the importance of INSPIRE as in-situ component for e.g. Coper- nicus and crisis management, we should explore how different EU actions (Copernicus, External Action Service, Digital Single Market …) can be used as funding instrument for implementation.  The Commission experts and the Chair replied to some of the interventions by high- lighting that the Commission services in collaboration with the EEA are aware of their responsibilities and are keen to use the mid-term evaluation and the orientation debate to develop the implementation in a successful way in close collaboration with the Mem- ber States. This will be a collaborative effort, e.g. it will be important that improving cooperation between the INSPIRE community and the environmental reporting experts needs to happen at EU but also at national level. Moreover, making non-harmonized spatial data, in particular those related to environmental reporting, available “as-is” would already be a big asset and was already required since 2013. Moreover, there are still public administrations which are not willing to share their data and improving ac- cess to data needs further improvements. Finally, it will be useful to decide together on priorities for harmonization for well-defined use cases.

Conclusions of this part of the discussions Overall, the discussion document was welcomed as a good starting point for the further work. However, more detailed discussions also at national level and further work also after the MIG- P will be needed to develop these ideas further into operational conclusions for the work in the context of the INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Framework (MIF). Other important issues which were not (sufficiently) mentioned in the discussion document were, in particular, financing opportunities and collaboration with related policies or initiatives.

1.1 Preliminary findings of the evaluation (REFIT) and implementation report (Art.23 report) Introduction The discussion on this section of the discussion document was introduced by Hugo de Groof (Commission, DG ENV) mainly presenting the preliminary findings of the mid-term evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive (REFIT) and tentative conclusions of the related implementation report which will be published in early 2016 also responding to the Article 23 of the Directive.

Discussion During this specific part of the discussions, the following points were made:  No fundamental disagreement was voiced vis-à-vis the presented findings of the evaluation and, overall, the proposed conclusions and recommendations were appreciated and shared as a starting point for discussion.

Page | 3  As regards the point "1.2 A. Reflect on the need to revise specific issues in the INSPIRE Directive and the Implementing Acts" of the discussion document, most Member State experts argued that there is no need to change the INSPIRE Directive at this stage. However, there may be merit in reviewing, and possibly revising, some of the Imple- menting Regulations to better align the INSPIRE infrastructure with a changing environment and external drivers. Data harmonization is considered the main issue for the moment and near future and consequently the Commission Regulation as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services was put forward as primary candidate for review. This view was supported by most experts.  One Member State expert suggested to consider developing a simple and generic IN- SPIRE super-schema which would include schema extensions for other environmental directives that fully align with the INSPIRE schema. This would not require any addi- tional legislation or changes and would be a practical contribution within the MIF to prioritise environmental reporting, reduce burden and improve interoperability at EU and national level. This idea was supported by most experts.  Some experts raised difficulties with setting up licenses for INSPIRE data sets. One Member State emphasized the need for a transparent and comprehensive licensing framework across Europe that can be used by data providers to publish their data because it was difficult to set up such a framework on national level.  Besides Implementing Regulations, several participants expressed the need to review some of the current technical guidelines. Some of them are considered too complex and bulky.  The Chair responded that this feedback was useful and would be particularly relevant for the further development of the work programme (which was discussed at a later point). A more detailed presentation and discussion of the Commission's report and RE- FIT evaluation would take place at one of the subsequent MIG-P meetings once the documents were adopted.

Conclusions The discussion showed overall support for the preliminary conclusions and recommendations from the INSPIRE evaluation as a starting point for further developing the cooperation between the Member States and the EU partners on the implementation. Note was taken on some concrete ideas which could feed into the further development of the work programme.

1.2 Priority setting approach – a necessity for the next phase of implementation Introduction The priority setting approach and the pyramid illustrating the principles were presented and ex- plained by Joachim D'Eugenio (Commission, DG ENV). The Chair highlighted the importance of setting clear priorities at EU level so that everybody could invest efforts in the same direction which would make it easier to generate and demonstrate benefits of INSPIRE. However, this would not mean that the obligations of the Directive would be changed and the requirements as well as the deadlines would not be altered by any type of priority setting. Moreover, such EU priorities could and should be complemented by national priorities which may differ and can be adapted to national circumstances. The EU priorities could therefore be seen as a minimum first step at EU level to get "quick wins".

Discussion Following this introduction, the following comments were made:  Most experts welcomed the proposed priority setting approach and the pyramid and considered it helpful or even essential for the further INSPIRE implementation work. It would help identify data sets in a collaboratively and coordinated way across Europe,

Page | 4 allowing Member States to implement INSPIRE in the same way (thematically). There- fore, the EU partners should present a list of datasets which are covered by priority 1. The illustrative list which was circulated was a good starting point.  Having said this, many experts said that not all concepts of the priority setting pyramid are clear yet and the pyramid still needs some clarification of concepts and terminology so that it can be used at national level by data providers and reporting authorities as an instrument to map data sets to INSPIRE themes and reporting requirements. Everybody asked for more time for discussion to also allow reflections on these issues at national level.  Some experts made concrete suggestions such as to focus on level one and two to deliv- er them as soon as possible. Moreover, a more detailed priority setting approach may also need to be developed for each environmental legislation. This would stimulate competent authorities responsible for reporting to use the same approach and facilitate coordination.  As contribution to the debate, Dag Høgvard (NO) gave a short presentation that highlights the need for a commonly agreed set of public authority reference data. He argued that it may be a good idea to not only have just one pyramid, but three pyramids: one for An- nex I, one for Annex II and one for Annex III.  In response, the Chair welcomed the ideas and feedback and underlined again that there are no legal obligations attached to this pyramid. The pyramid represents an organization of the data and a priority setting on the EU-level.

Conclusions The MIG-P recognized that this was an important issue and that the proposals were a good input which needs to be discussed further also at national level. More clarity will be needed on some issues and reflections on how to best making this approach operational. The minimum list of datasets for priority 1 would be an important starting point. The next MIG-P meeting will come back to these issues with the view to developing this priority setting ideas further. Also tThe MIG-T was also invited to reflect upon these issues.

1.3 Enforcement, compliance promotion actions and bi-lateral meetings with the Member States Introduction The Chair presented the different instruments that the Commission is using for enforcement and compliance promotion in relation to the INSPIRE Directive. As part of this approach, DG Environment has initiated a series of bilateral meetings with Member States where the implementation progress and gaps are discussed with the view identifying solutions. As a result, all Member States were invited (whether a bilateral meeting had taken palce or not) to prepare a forward-looking action plan to address existing implementation gaps as part of the May 2016 INSPIRE report. The Commission services will take this action plan into account when assess- ing the progress of the different countries.

Discussion The following issues were raised:  Most Member States welcomed this approach and some experts who already participat- ed in such bilateral meetings acknowledge that they had been useful. Others indicated the wish to have a bilateral whereas some stated that this would not be necessary for them at this stage but they would prefer an exchange in writing.  Some experts expressed the wish to have a more detailed template for preparing such action plans.

Page | 5  The Chair replied that it was not envisaged to prepare any specific templates but that Member States should use the structure and the questions included in the background document which was sent to all Member States (see document). Moreover, the current reporting template already had room for addressing such forward-looking actions and it was up to the Member States to integrate their action plan into the report or present it as a standalone document in addition to their report. The Commission services will also make all the outcomes of the bilateral meetings as well as the action plans available in the shared space on our collaboration platform. Conclusions The MIG-P experts welcomed the information and the overall approach of addressing such issues in a collaborative manner. All Member States took note of the Commission's request for preparing an action plan and, if no bilateral meeting had taken place, will reply in writing on their position regarding these issues.

1.4 Fitness Check on Environmental monitoring and reporting and the role of INSPIRE [Presentation] Introduction Joachim D'Eugenio (Commission, DG ENV) presented the initiative of the Fitness Check on environmental monitoring and reporting mainly for information purposes. He highlighted that the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive will play an important role in improving the effi- ciency and effectiveness of the reporting processes. At the same time, there seems to be room for simplification of reporting in the INSPIRE context which is why the Directive falls also within the scope to this Fitness Check. The participants were in particular invited to contribute to the public consultation which is open until 10 February 2016. Participants were invited to share this with colleagues, participate and provide feedback and best practices (see for details: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/reporting_en.htm). Finally, a new EUROPA web page has been launched on the on "Monitoring and reporting of environment legislation" where you will also be updated about the Fitness Check For details, please refer to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/index_en.htm

Discussion No detailed discussion took place.

Conclusions The MIG-P welcomed this information and took note of it. The importance of the INSPIRE Di- rective in this process was recognized. In particular, the MIG-P was invited to participate in the public consultation process.

1.5 Consequences for the Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme (MIWP) [Presentation] Introduction Michael Lutz (JRC) presented the status of the Maintenance and Implementation Work Pro- gramme (MIWP) last updated and agreed by the MIG-P in 2014. On An overview on the latest state-of-play of each action was given.

Discussion In addition to those relevant issues already mentioned under other agenda items, the following points were made:

Page | 6  Some experts raised the issue that the current Work Programme included two types of tasks: commonly agreed and supported tasks (metadata, validation …); and tasks that are more future-oriented and of interest to some Member States, but are not crucial to the infrastructure. It would be good if we would think about separate approaches to handle these two kinds of tasks.  Some interventions underlined that the ongoing MIWP tasks/actions should not be stopped.  Some experts mentioned that the thematic clusters were the place to discuss the simplification of the data specifications. But if the MIG-P signals that there should be a com- mon simplification exercise, this probably should be coordinated across the thematic clusters to avoid that initiatives in different thematic clusters "don't shoot in all different directions". Moreover, the risk of implementations delays due to anticipated changes and instability of the specifications should also be considered.  Some experts raised the questions on the different roles of the various groups. A better synchronization and alignment between the MIG-P and the MIG-T was needed and further efforts are needed to bridge the (perceived) gap between the policy and the technical groups. One concrete suggestion was to develop a MIG-T dashboard showing the progress, the objectives, the importance and the deliverables of work packages in a comprehensive way.  The MIG-P expresses their gratitude for the outstanding work delivered by the MIG-T and, in particular, its Chair, Michael Lutz (JRC).  The Chair underlined that the discussion document, the outcome of the meeting and the minutes of the meeting will underline the need for review and adaptation of the MIWP taking into account priority setting, the elements raised in the MIG-P today and the new circumstances in which we operate. Moreover, the Chair encouraged everybody to actively engage in further discussions at all levels also in the coming months. The absence of contributions or the lack of participations at meetings will hinder a shaping of the future agenda because he intended to take decisions with those present at the next meeting.

Conclusions Overall, the MIG-P acknowledged that the orientation debate as a whole was useful and important in the further development of the MIWP and the operations of it. The discussion and agree- ment of a new or updated Work Programme (MIWP) for the period 2016 and beyond will be an important item on the agenda for the next MIG-P meeting. The ambition is to have a mature document on the table to allow for good discussion and finally endorsement at the meeting. In order to achieve this, the Commission services and the EEA will prepare a first draft which should be ready well in time before the MIG-T meeting. The MIG-T meeting should be sched- uled well before the MIG/P meeting so as to allow input and revision of the document in the light of discussions. Taking account the advice from the MIG-T, the MIG-P will then decide on the best way forward. The following operational timetable was agreed:

Next steps in the MIWP preparations: As a result of the discussion today, the MIG-T can start discussing.  February 2016: COM (ENV, JRC) and EEA to come forward with a first draft working document for the Work Programme.  April 2016: This draft together with the minutes of the MIG-P will allow the MIG-T to provide input to the future MIWP.  In parallel, MIG-P members can discuss the document in their national coordination structures and prepare for the next MIG-P meeting.

Page | 7  June 2016: MIG-P to discuss and, if possible, endorse of the new MIWP.

Actions for all of agenda point 2:

3. Art.21 Monitoring & Reporting [DOC2][Presentation]

1.6 Preparation for 2016 reporting Introduction The Chair presented the approach that the Commission proposed to follow for the 2016 reporting exercise. Overall, the exercise would be the same as the last one which was based on the 2009 Reporting Decision. However, the Commission services introduced an update of the existing reporting template with a limited number of suggestions to improve the quality of reporting [DOC2] “INSPIRE Template for Country Reports 2016 – proposal for revision”. The pur- pose of the meeting was to discuss and agree the template to be used for the next reporting based on these suggestions.

Discussion In the discussion on the proposed amendments to the reporting template, the following points were made:  Several experts considered the existing reporting as being too descriptive to allow for a meaningful and comparative analysis. The report template should make much more use of pre-prepared input fields. The proposed template is more demanding than before and than is needed by the legal framework. Therefore, the current proposal would merit further simplification and optimization.  Others raised the question of timing and urged for clarity on what was required as soon as possible.

In the absence of any significant support for agreeing the proposed amendments to the template, the Chair made another proposal for the way forward. Whilst agreeing that simplification and streamlining of reporting is needed, he proposed to keep the reporting template unchanged and use the same as the last time. Through this approach, there would be clarity on what was expected immediately. At the same time, efforts were started to have a more long term solution for reporting until the subsequent exercise in 2019 (see below). At the same time, the Commission (JRC) and the EEA will prepare a short and separate document on what suggestions they would consider useful when preparing the 2016 reports. MS are free to consider these suggestions or not.

Conclusions The MIG-P did not agree to the proposed new template for the Country Reports 2016. Instead, Tthe MIG-P members supported the compromise proposal by the Chair. However, it was agreed to start developing a streamlining and simplification exercise on monitoring and reporting as part of the future work programme with the view to achieve significant improvements by 2019.

Actions:

1.7 Monitoring & reporting 2019 Introduction

Page | 8 Building on the discussion under the previous agenda point, Joeri Robbrecht (ENV) presented suggestions and a possible roadmap for the 2019 Reporting and Monitoring. This would result in a new MIG Work Package on Monitoring & Reporting 2019 is that suggested to investigate the options (legal & technical), define the roadmap and pilot-test-implement solutions ideally to be completed in 2017.The following roadmap was proposed (see also presentation):  For the next MIG-P meeting in June 2016, a Terms of Reference document for the new “Monitoring and Reporting 2019” work package will be prepared for discussion and endorsement. MS will be asked to participate in the work package.  In the MIG-P meeting of December 2016 a report with suggestions on streamlining of monitoring and reporting and their impact (e.g. do we need to change Commission De- cision 2009/442/EC or not, if yes, how?) will be presented. The work will combine monitoring and reporting and build on the successful work of WP16. A detailed implementation roadmap for 2017 will be discussed and possibly agreed.  In 2017 the new monitoring and reporting process is prepared by the MIG and the new process will be piloted, tested and implemented (technical and legal) as soon as possible.

Discussion The short discussion was overall consensual and clarified, in particular that if it is decided to review the reporting decision, the INSPIRE Committee will have to be convened to rule on the proposed roadmap and actions. The Chair confirmed that it was the intention of the Commis- sion to organise a meeting of the Committee, possibly back-to-back with a MIG-P meeting in the end of 2016 provided there are issues to be addressed within the remit of the Committee.

 Despite the support for the proposals, some experts regretted the fact that it was not possible to make some progress already for the 2016 exercise and would have preferred changes to the current reporting template to make it less cumbersome.

Conclusions The MIG-P welcomed the suggestions and endorsed the roadmap in principle. The next MIG-P meeting will come back to these issues and should agree the more detailed terms of references.

Actions:

4. Information points [Information DOC3] Introduction Joeri Robbrecht (Commission, DG ENV) gave a general and short overview of the information points raised in the document. In addition, Hugo De Groof (Commission, DG ENV) gave a status update on the organization of the 2016 INSPIRE Conference in Barcelona. Finally, Michael Lutz (Commission, JRC) proposed to the MIG-P to send any questions on the information points by mail, so that they can be forwarded to the owner of the information point for appro- priate handling.

Discussion During a short discussion, the following points were highlighted:  A close relation between the ISA program and INSPIRE activities is considered to be valuable with respect to e-Government and Open Data. Activities such as ARE3NA and EULF should continue in the future.

Page | 9  Some experts wanted to know more about the status of the "Make It Work" initiative. The Chair agreed to report back and provide details at the next MIG-P meeting as an information point.

Conclusions The MIG-P members took note of the information provided and were invited to share it, as ap- propriate.

Actions:

5. Any other business No any other business was raised.

6. Closing of the meeting The Chair thanked all the MIG-P members for the constructive and fruitful meeting and was confident that this forms an excellent basis to develop the collaboration and the work pro- grammed of the MIF further in a good direction.

Special thanks went to the Italian hosts, especially Carlo Cippoloni, for organizing the MIG meetings in the ISPRA facilities. Actions:

Page | 10 Annex I. List of participants

Country Name Organisation AT Marcus Jobst BEV AT Wolfgang Fahrner BMLFUW BE Dominique Buffet SPW BE Ouns Kissiyar AGIV BG Nikolay Ivanov Petrov ESMIS CZ Jitka Faugnerová CENIA CZ Lenka Rejentova CENIA DE Markus Meinert BMUB DE Martin Lenk BKG DE Janet Heuwold BMI DK Ulla Kronborg Mazzoli GST DK Lars Storgaard GST EE Viljo Roolaht Estonian Land Board ES Emilio López Romero IGN ES Marisol Gómez Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente FI Panu Muhli National Land Survey of Finland FR Marc Leobet MEDDE HU Gyula Ivan HU Tamas Palya IS Eydis Lindal Finnbogadottir IT Laura Petriglia Ministerio Ambiente LT Mindaugas Pažemys GIS Centras LV Ilona Ekmane Ministry of Defense MT Kurt Bonnici MT Martin Saliba NL Christiaan De Jong Minist. Infrastructure and Environment NO Dag Høgvard KMD NO Kåre Kyrkjeeide PL Ewa Surma GUGIK PL Jacek Jarząbek GUGIK PT Mário Caetano Direção-Geral do Território RO Gabriela Dragan ANCPI SE Anna Berglund RK

Page | 11 SE Margareta Lindquist LM SE Susanne Gerland RK SE Christina Wasström LM SI Tomaž Petek Geodetska Prava Republike Slovenije SK Martin Tuchyňa SAZP SK Marek Žiačik SAZP UK John Dixon DEFRA UK Jason King DEFRA

EC/ENV Joachim D'Eugenio Deputy Head of Unit DG ENV/D4 EC/ENV Hugo de Groof DG ENV/D4 EC/ENV Joeri Robbrecht DG ENV/D4 EC/JRC Michael Lutz DG JRC/H6 EC/JRC Vanda Nunes de Lima DG JRC/H6 EU/EEA Stefan Jensen EEA

Page | 12