purpose - europa web viewthe original discussion document has now been developed further ... this...

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

INSPIREInfrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe

Action 2016.1 Fitness for purpose – AnalysisOutcome of discussions and suggested way forward

Type Document for discussion

Creator DG ENV, JRC, EEA with input from the Reflection Group

Date/status/version 28/10/2016 / DRAFT / version 2.0

Addressee MIG-P (for discussion and possible endorsement of suggested follow up)

Identifier [DOC7]

Description Action 2016.1 was agreed at the last meeting of the MIG-P and implemented as set out in the mandate (see annex 1). A sub-group was set up and met in the margins of the INSPIRE Conference in September (see report in annex 2). This "Reflection Group" looked at a discussion document which identified a number of areas and questions for discussion addressing on one hand, the "simplification of requirements" and on the other hand, the "simplification of use". The first Reflection Group meeting focused in particular on the "simplification of requirements" and on the question of review and possible revision of the data specifications for Annex III data (see meeting report).

In addition, the reflection group gave some feedback on a questionnaire which aimed at collecting input beyond the INSPIRE MIG community. The questionnaire will be discussed separately to this document.

The original discussion document has now been developed further representing also the input from the first Reflection Group meeting. In addition, some concrete and operational suggestions have been made under the various headings so as to have a basis for discussion. It is clear already that some issues require further reflection before operational conclusions can be drawn. Others may be quite straight forward and consensual and may be translated directly into a new action to be agreed under the new MIWP.

This document is sent to the MIG-P and the Reflection Group at the same time. The Reflection Group will meet again on the 16 th November and review the proposals and, as appropriate, amend and further develop them. A revised version of the document will be made available to the MIG-P on the 21st

November (preferably) with further track changes to show in a transparent way, what the Reflection Group has changed. It will then be for the MIG-P to take

1

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

stock of the progress and decide on the way forward. An amendment of the action 2016.1 mandate is also prepared (see track changes in Annex 1) so as to ensure a continuation of the mandate for this action until June 2017.

Requested actions: The members of the MIG-P are invited to:

Take note of the document and discuss it at the next meeting; Suggest amendments and additional elements for action, if not already

covered. Endorse the way forward for this action for the period until June 2017

and consequently support the amendments to the mandate (annex 1).

2

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

1 PurposeThis paper outlines a number of discussion topics that could be discussed in the new MIWP action 2016.1 Fitness for purpose – Analysis. It aims at structuring the discussion with the aim to, ultimately, identify a number of possible MIWP follow-up actions that could be defined/proposed by this action as a follow up in 2017 or beyond.

This revised version will serve as input for the discussion at the MIG-P and, before that, the second meeting of the 2016.1 sub-group on 16 November 2016. The original discussion document was developed further into a document summarising the proposals of the group for MIWP follow-up actions.

2 IntroductionAccording to its description in the MIWP 2016-2020, action 2016.1 aims at systematically analysing and reviewing INSPIRE requirements in the legal (implementing rules) and technical (guidelines, etc) framework and of the implementation practices and concrete difficulties in the Member States, with the aim to identify and propose to the MIG possible measures for streamlining and simplification of INSPIRE implementation. The MIWP states:

"…the Implementing Acts (except for the 2009 Reporting Decision) and technical guidelines will be screened to identify areas where most gains could be harvested. Repeatedly, the focus of discussion is linked to the interoperability specifications, in particular in relation to Annex III data themes. A more in-depth reflection may be needed for this particular aspect. Based on the identified obstacles and requirements, proposals for streamlining and simplification will be made. These may include, but not be limited to:

opportunities to simplify the requirements in the Implementing Acts and Technical Guidelines (e.g. for Annex III data),

additional guidance or clarifications through Q/A documents (e.g. to reduce differences in implementation approaches or align thematic priority setting for implementation),

promotion or developments of tools supporting INSPIRE implementation and/or usage of INSPIRE data and services,

setting up a tiered maturity roadmap for implementation (basic, essential, premium) – see below,

IT mainstreaming of the technical components of INSPIRE (ISO/DCAT; GML/JSON; reuse/endorsement of existing vocabularies e.g. ELF …).

As regards the Implementing Acts, any outcome will be reported to the INSPIRE Committee."

Based on the mandate for action 2016.1, the action will prepare a discussion document for MIG-P (or Committee, if appropriate) by November 2016 with the following elements:

List of identified priority issues including their proposed solutions (technical and/or legal) (see discussion document)

3

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

List of proposed MIWP action(s) for 2017 and beyond for implementing the proposals for streamlining and simplification (see discussion document)

Description of the impact of the proposed changes on existing implementations (see questionnaire) and on possible users

The complete action description is available in the Annex 1. It was amended to take account of the discussions in the Reflection Group.

In the following, we outline a number of discussion topics the action / sub-group should address. The document includes a number of questions which should guide the discussion of the sub-group. In preparation of the MIG-P, the document is now introducing possible and proposed actions for the future MIWP. Since it will be difficult to address all issues at the same time, the document should also clearly indicate, which of the issues should be prioritised and outline a timeline for carrying out the proposed actions.

3 Defining “fitness for purpose”The current action description focuses heavily on streamlining and simplification, mainly for data and service providers. However, the action is embedded in the larger MIWP work package 1, which is aiming at improving INSPIRE’s “fitness for purpose”, i.e. also focusing on how well (or not) INSPIRE data and services can be used for a large number of applications. Any streamlining/simplification should take place within the context of the expected objectives (output/outcome/effect) of the Directive and focus on how these objectives can be realised in a most efficient and effective way for the providers and the users of the infrastructure. Also, depending on the purpose, other measures than streamlining/simplification may be appropriate. However, there are still different opinions on what the main/priority purposes of INSPIRE are, so we need to work on a common understanding.

Clearly, the main purpose of the INSPIRE infrastructure being set up by the Directive is the support of “Community environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment”. The wide definition of its purpose clearly included support to environmental reporting (in view of the ongoing Fitness Check for environmental monitoring and reporting), support to implementation and monitoring of environmental policies and international initiatives (e.g. UN-GGIM, Aarhus Convention) and easy access of environmental information for the public. However, Member States (e.g. as illustrated in their 2016 reports) and other Commission DGs also see support for (national) eGovernment strategies, other policy areas (e.g. disaster management, energy, intelligent transport systems, Copernicus) and the data economy as important purposes.

4 Simplification of implementationOne of the main tasks of the group was to analyse issues/obstacles for data and service providers in INSPIRE implementation. As outlined in the action description, this task will be supported by the questionnaire developed by the action, but will also consider input from the sub-group experts and comments provided by MIG-T and MIG-P members. Based on this input, the sub-group shall define in detail obstacles to the implementation in the MS, features in the INSPIRE framework that are not being used and opportunities for streamlining.

4

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

The analysis shall be based on and supported by input, e.g. from the 2016 INSPIRE reports, the minutes from the bilateral meetings between MS, the Commission and MS action plans or data from the annual monitoring or the INSPIRE geoportal.

4.1Simplification of Implementing Rules, in particular data interoperability requirements, especially for Annex III

Overall, most of the existing Implementing Rules (in particular for metadata, network services and interoperability of Annex I data themes) are now widely used and tested, but there is still a lack of implementation experience and practical examples in particular for the IRs on data interoperability for Annex III. Due to perceived difficulties in implementation, there has been some push from some Member States to take out Annex III from the IRs on data interoperability and to re-cast it as Technical Guidance, following the minimum requirements defined in Art. 7(4) of the INSPIRE Directive for Annex III data models in the IRs: “the definition and classification of spatial objects … and the way in which those spatial data are geo-referenced”. However, there has not yet been a detailed analysis of the concrete implementation problems leading to this proposal. Also in the bilateral meetings and in several environmental reporting communities, the complexity and the potential costs (with limited benefits for the community itself) of the Annex III data models have been raised repeatedly.

At the same time, some MS point out in their 2016 reports that some of the data models are actually too simplistic and would need to be extended in order to be useful for specific applications, such as environmental monitoring.

Moreover, this review should also allow addressing similar issues with other Implementing Rules, should they exist. So far, no significant problems in the implementation have been highlighted (except for the burden of reporting which will be addressed in a separate exercise, see action 2016.2).

Therefore action 2016.1 should aim at understanding in detail where the conceptual (theme by theme) data models in the IR (application schema) are too complex (compared to the data actually held in the public authorities). Under this heading, the main focus of discussion should be on the legally binding provisions and the flexibility that is already enshrined in the INSPIRE Directive and its IRs. It should identify whether the revision of the IRs would actually be the most effective way of addressing the issues and what type of amendments would be needed. As part of the wider discussion, it should be explored whether some of the identified issues could not be overcome through other measures within the existing legal framework, in particular better tool support, alternative encodings (in addition to GML), common applications to specific environmental legislation (monitoring and reporting) and best practices/guidelines for creating extensions (ongoing). This will be discussed in more detail under section 5.

Input from the Reflection Group:

This was the most intensively discussed subject at the first meeting of the reflection group. There were different points of view as regards the need, the advantages and the disadvantages of revising the Implementing Rules. Several experts identified the interoperability requirements for Annex III data sets (including the relationship between Article 7 and 8) as the prominent issue and suggested addressing this issue with the highest priority. Some MS experts agreed that it is not good practice to remediate implementation issues by removing legal obligations as this would undermine the effectiveness of the

5

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Directive and the anticipated outcome. The preferred outcome of the analysis in regard of feasibility and timely action would be minimal but efficient changes to the implementing acts addressing the identified bottlenecks in an intelligent (backwards compatible, fit for purpose, tailored to client needs …) way. Whilst mentioning the reference for the roadmap 2016-2020 is the report from the European Commission report to Council and European Parliament and the recommendation to give priority to environmental datasets, specifically with regard to e-reporting, the following approach is suggested:

Identify possible implementation issues (e.g. those regarding data harmonization, risks and complexity)

Check the legal obligations for Annex III data sets in the context of Article 7 (4). Propose policy options (e.g. revision of implementing act or support to Member States) to

remediate identified issues.It was suggested to address bugs/corrigenda in Annexes I and II in parallel with the analysis of issues and possible simplification for Annex III.

After dealing with the interoperability requirements, the other topics in the discussion document should be addressed.

The subgroup will have to reflect on smart changes to introduce the needed flexibility in the legal framework without having to go through a full legislative process. E.g. a redefinition of the "voidable" concept or the "where practicable" clause were proposed as possible hooks in the existing legislation that might provide a way out.

In conclusion, it appears that the main Implementing Rule which may benefit from a "simplification of requirements" would be the data specifications with particular focus on Annex III data. All other IRs have been judged as "fit for purpose" by the experts involved in the discussions.

Questions for discussion:

Are the IR on data specifications for Annex III the most important (only) issue that should be considered for revision or are there other issues in the legally binding IRs (e.g. metadata, network services) which need attention (see also questionnaire)?

What precisely is the problem with the data specifications given the degree of flexibility in the current IRs?

Is there a clear differentiation between the provisions of the Directive, IRs and guidance? How can these be separated to make sure that legal compliance is not measured in light of non-binding guidance materials?

Proposed actions and follow up:

Overall, it seems that most of the Implementing Rules are considered "fit for purpose" except for the IR on data specifications where some questions were raised. Consequently, it is proposed that any follow up action should focus on the IRs on data specifications (in particular on Annex III but not only). The time for analysing any issue (e.g. the data specifications) in more detail was too short. It is therefore proposed that such an analysis of possible implementation problems should continue and should be the main focus of activities of the reflection group in early 2017. The outcome of this analysis and proposals for possible solutions will then be presented to the 6th MIG-P meeting in June 2017. The action 2016.1 mandate has been amended accordingly (see annex 1).

6

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

4.2Implementation approach & compliance & conformityOne possible way forward (for the issue discussed above) without making (m)any further changes to the existing legal framework and TGs is a clearer approach to implementation and compliance which makes better use of the existing flexibilities and introduces clear priority setting. This is based on the assumption that we will not reach 100% compliance for all components by the final 2020/2021 deadline if we consider all elements in the IRs and the TGs.

While clearly expressed in all TG documents and in the work of action 2016.3 on validation and conformity testing, sometimes there seems to be a lack of clarity (at management level) of what is legally binding (without any flexibility) and where are requirements which can be applied in a more flexible way so to maximise benefits and avoid unnecessary costs. For example, some Member States have reported in the bilateral that they perceived the Technical Guidance requirements as binding, which is legally speaking not correct. Moreover, there are concerns that in 2020 the level of compliance with the Annex III data specifications will be low which may raise concerns regarding the legal conformity and possible trigger legal actions by the Commission.

To address all these issues, we may have to be more precise (in communication at all levels) when talking about "legal compliance" (with the IRs) and "technical conformity" (with the TGs). In this respect, it will be important to stress that the common validator developed by action 2016.3 focuses on conformity with the TGs only and should be seen as a tool for supporting implementers (to check the progress of their implementations) rather than for checking legal compliance. This is also reflected by the fact that the work in action 2016.3 already recognises that, instead of black-or-white conformity (yes/no), conformity should be measurable and expressed in percentages or similarly in conformance classes.

This discussion could also include the further development of the proposed framework of implementation levels (INSPIRE basic / essential / premium) and how to use it, including possible prioritisation of implementation at different levels (national, regional, local).

In order to still achieve a coherent and comparable progress of INSPIRE implementation across Europe (rather than the many different implementation priorities and approaches), this would require a coordination between countries and the EC on a common priority setting and on an alignment of implementation approaches (of course allowing for national differences where necessary because of the administrative situation). The 2016 MS reports and action plans provide already significant and detailed information on that direction.

Potentially, this discussion should consider dedicated approaches for

1. the reference data in Annex I (NB the data interoperability deadline at the end of 2017)2. the environmental data in Annexes II+III (with strong relevance for the INSPIRE/reporting

discussion)


The group recognized that a discussion distinguishing between legal compliance and technical conformity could bring higher transparency and compliance for INSPIRE implementers. This was

7

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

recognized as an important issue but to start with, these two terms would need to be defined. Evidence is needed and we should take all aspects of the framework (legal, guidance, tools …) into consideration.

The participants raised also other issues, including the eReporting use case as driver for the interoperability requirements. EEA, involving Eionet, should support this use case to provide tangible benefit from INSPIRE implementation, e.g. through legal reporting. Moreover, there may also be other, equally important aspects to identify, such as problems setting up compliant services and finding proper use cases. The EEA will involve Eionet on the simplification exercise from the eReporting perspective.

Moreover, the proposed framework of implementation levels (INSPIRE basic / essential / premium) was considered interesting but still unclear and difficult to explain to those involved in the INSPIRE implementation.

In response to the discussions at the Reflection Group, a number of issues can be clarified further. First, the relationships between the INSPIRE legal acts (the INSPIRE Directive and Implementing Rules) and the INSPIRE Technical Guidelines is described in all guidelines as follows: "The INSPIRE Directive and Implementing Rules include legally binding requirements that describe, usually on an abstract level, what Member States must implement. In contrast, the Technical Guidelines define how Member States might implement the requirements included in the INSPIRE Implementing Rules. As such, they may include non-binding technical requirements that must be satisfied if a Member State data provider chooses to conform to the Technical Guidelines. Implementing these Technical Guidelines will maximise the interoperability of INSPIRE spatial data sets." This means that there may also be other (simpler) ways to comply with the INSPIRE Directive from a legal point of view.

Second, the INSPIRE IRs on data specifications introduce the concept of "voidable" ("‘voidable’ means that, for an attribute or association role a value of ‘void’ may be made available if no corresponding value is contained in the spatial data sets maintained by the Member States or no corresponding value can be derived from existing values at reasonable costs. If an attribute or association role is not voidable, the table cell specifying its voidability is left blank".) Whilst the criteria for applying this seem clear, i.e. there is either no corresponding value or it is too expensive to transform it, this provision leaves quite some room for Member States to assess the costs and judge whether they are reasonable for them. It could be discussed further how to apply this in a flexible, pragmatic and non-bureaucratic way so as to address the concerns mentioned above.

Third, the Article 1 of the IR on data specifications (and in a similar way Article 7.1 of the Directive) provides that "This Regulation sets out the requirements for technical arrangements for the interoperability and, where practicable, harmonisation of spatial data sets and spatial data services corresponding to the themes listed in Annexes I, II and III to Directive 2007/2/EC." This addition of "where practicable" is an indication that there is some form of flexibility and that a "practicability test" can be applied by Member States before investing in harmonization. Again, it may be valuable to reflect on this aspect further in order to address the above mentioned concerns and that where one could draw the line between interoperability and harmonisation.

Finally, there is the question how the rules set out under INSPIRE to the agreements made under other environment legislation with respect to reporting. Often they include also specifications for data harmonization which may or may not (fully) be consistent with the INSPIRE IRs. At the same time, these sectorial data specifications often have similar legal effect. If they are not consistent, the question of of

8

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

which rule prevails may be asked in 2020 (e.g. what is "lex generalis" and what "lex specialis", as it is considered as a general rule that special rules prevail over general ones). A discussion on compliance and conformity should as much as possible lead to a situation that there is clarity about what is required and what rules have to be followed for certain datasets relevant for environmental reporting. It should also be highlighted that in some cases sectoral approach can also be considered in view of sector-specific needs (eg: data theme Protected sites out of 7 attributes 5 are voidable, it is of course necessary to have further attributes under basic category apart from the 2 non-voidable elements, namely Geometry and InspireID, to have fit for purpose datasets, that actually serve environmental policy needs in a meaningful way).

In this context, one may also consider associating the different obligations and approaches with the maturity level concept. In order to illustrate this with an example, the above-mentioned elements could be grouped as follows: interoperability that is compliant with the minimum obligations in the INSPIRE Directive and the "non-voidable" attributes could be described as "basic". Implementing the voidable elements as well would then be "essential" and applying the technical guidelines including all recommendations therein could be labelled as "premium".

In conclusion, this issue is important but also complex but the discussions should be pursued further looking at solutions and clarifications so that the concerns raised above on the potential risk of non-compliance can be mitigated without changes to the legal requirements (as discussed under 4.1). The previously envisaged action MIWP-1 Making TGs more readable, as initiated with Data Specifications and MIWP-2 INSPIRE FAQ could be picked up again but would have to be combined and redefined so at to meet the purpose outlined above. It should also be further clarified how the tools developed by action 2016.3 can support the purpose outlined above.


How can we address identified implementation challenges? Are there flexibilities in the legal system that we are not using sufficiently? Do we need a discussion about "what is compliance" and "what should be our priorities"?

Do you consider it useful to further develop the proposed framework of implementation levels (INSPIRE basic / essential / premium)?


Draft new action mandate to launch a combined action on making INSPIRE TGs more readable and simpler, distinguishing between legal and technical compliance, creating a better common understanng of what the minimum levels of compliance are and (e.g. by introducing the maturity concept) and answering FAQ on identified implementation challenges. This mandate will be prepared as soon as possible and presented for endorsement of MIG-P on 30 Nov.

4.3Dependency on standardsStandards are often very complex because they try to cover all possible cases. The INSPIRE profiles defined in the TGs already restrict the possible choices, but still allow a number of different alternative implementations (based on different base standards), e.g.

9

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

The TG for discovery services supports 3 federated scenarios, multiple protocols. The TG for download services define options based on Atom for predefined dataset download

(currently the option used by the majority of services) and options based on WFS, WCS and SOS standards for direct access download.

The TG for view services support different versions and flavours (e.g. WMS, WMTS) and a wide range of CRS.

Complexity is also introduced by the fact that the NS IR is adding requirements that go beyond OGC standards (e.g. language parameter, extended capabilities and the requirement to also support pre-defined dataset download also if you are supporting direct access), so that OGC-compliant off-the-shelf products and existing services are not 100% INSPIRE-compliant, unless extensions are implemented.

The heavy dependency on OGC specifications itself could also be considered to be an issue. Certain functionalities could be simplified by alternative standards and best practices, e.g. those defined for (spatial) data on the web1 (see also section 5.2).


This issue was not discussed in detail at the first meeting of the Reflection Group.


Should the implementation options in the TGs be (further) limited or kept flexible (different implementation options)?

Is the dependency on OGC specifications an issue for implementation? If so, what could be alternative standards or technologies?


At the moment, no action is proposed for inclusion into the MIWP207 but may be included at a later stage, subject to preparation of an appropriate action proposal based on the template.

1 Data on the Web Best Practices: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html, Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices: https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/

10

https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/

http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

5 Simplification of useAs mentioned above, the perceived complexity of the IRs could also be addressed through simplifying the use. In other words, some of the identified issues could be overcome through other measures within the existing legal framework, in particular better tool support, alternative encodings (in addition to GML), common applications to specific environmental legislation (monitoring and reporting) and best practices/guidelines for creating extensions (ongoing). This will be discussed in more detail under section 5.

The other main task of the group will be to analyse issues/obstacles for the use of INSPIRE data and services. It has been frequently highlighted that there are problems of using the INSPIRE infrastructure in practice; however, also here there has not yet been a detailed analysis of the concrete problems encountered by users.

For this area, it will be important to collect feedback from actual or potential users of data and services within the INSPIRE scope (whether already compliant or not). Users will generally not only be “end users” (e.g. EC/EEA/MS policy makers/analysts or the general public), but also GI/SDI professionals, software/application developers or system-integrators, who perform spatial analyses or build value-added services or applications. There are already a number of ways, in which the different user groups are being engaged, most importantly through the INSPIRE Conference, EC, EEA and MS groups (e.g. EIONET, the Focus Group on the Fitness Check of environmental monitoring and reporting), the Thematic Clusters discussion platform or contacts to thematic umbrella organisations. However, there is not currently a coherent strategy for user engagement and for collecting their feedback and requirements and feeding it back into the maintenance and evolution process of INSPIRE.



Input from the MIG-T:

In the 34th MIG-T meeting2, the MIG-T noted that there was a growing number of presentations on use of INSPIRE at the 2016 INSPIRE Conference, but identifying users and user requirements is still an issue and, therefore, use of INSPIRE could be one of the main focuses for INSPIRE Conference 2017.

Discussion questions:

Are other EU-level measures necessary to simplify the use of the INSPIRE infrastructure, e.g. related to tools and/or capacity building and training?

2 https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/mig-inspire/wiki/MIG-T_meeting_34

11

https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/mig-inspire/wiki/MIG-T_meeting_34

MIG\2016\5\DOC7


Draft a new action mandate for the development of an INSPIRE user engagement strategy, covering the identification of key categories of INSPIRE users and proposed activities and engagement channels (tailored for each category) for better collecting their input, requirements and proposals for simplification of use. This mandate will be prepared as soon as possible and presented for endorsement of MIG-P on 30 Nov.

5.1Where (for which tasks specifically) do potential users of INSPIRE data and services encounter problems? Data sharing and access by public to environmental information

Easy and user-friendly access to environmental information by the public (including citizens and) is also an important objective of the INSPIRE framework. The REFIT evaluation found that the national data policies for sharing data are very variable and heterogeneous and most Member States still report problems in this area. Reflecting the wide flexibility of approaches provided in the Directive (see Article 17.2), policies range from fully open and free access and use, to full cost recovery, raising revenue and various types of public-private partnerships. This is also reflected in the feedback from the bilateral meetings and the 2016 MS reports.

The issue will become even more important when starting to developing applications based on INSPIRE data and services or when trying to build pan-European data sets (see the example of ELF or the EULF transportation pilot). Again, it will be important to capture the experiences not only of data/service providers, but also of data/service users (see proposed action in the previous section).

One of the actions on the EC from the REFIT evaluation is consequently to “evaluate the shortcomings of the national data policies in relation to Article 17 of the Directive in more detail and explore synergies with the ‘free flow of data’ initiative under the Digital Single Market with the view to resolving these issues through that”.




When doing an analysis or creating an application based on pan-European or cross-border data, is there an impact of the existing heterogeneous licences and access control approaches across Europe?

If this is a problem, what could be possible solutions that can be easily implemented to solve (parts of) the problem?


At the moment, no action is proposed for inclusion into the MIWP207 but may be included at a later stage, subject to preparation of an appropriate action proposal based on the template.

12

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Within the 'free flow of data', discussions are still ongoing within the Commission also about the scope. Moreover, DG ENV is trying to secure funding for a specific study on analysing the implementation of Article 17 in more detail as a concrete translation of the action set out in the Commission Report. If and when the study is going ahead, the MIG will be informed about it.

5.2Technological evolutionTechnologies and standards keep evolving, and there is a push by some to move away from the geo-ICT standards (OGC and ISO/TC 211) and related “niche” technologies, which INSPIRE is now heavily based on, to more mainstream ICT/web standards and technologies. This includes the fundamental question whether the service oriented architecture (SOA) paradigm, that INSPIRE is built on, is still timely.

Of course, we always need to find a balance between stability and up-to-dateness of the INSPIRE IRs and TGs. On the other hand, simply adding additional guidelines for new technologies or standards might also be counter-productive, since it will ultimately lead to less interoperability.

The role and functionality of the INSPIRE geoportal should also be discussed in this context. It is currently providing access to all data and services on an equal basis and provides only basic search, viewing and downloading functionalities. It should be discussed if the geoportal’s functionality should be extended and/or whether its content should be curated in some way, e.g. in order to promote “gold/premium” data sets.

This is another area where feedback from actual users (incl. data analysts and application developers) is crucial. It is, however, important to ground these discussions on real implementation examples.



Input from the MIG-T:

In the 34th MIG-T meeting, several proposals were discussed that could improve user uptake of INSPIRE data and services. These included

alternative technological approaches for implementing INSPIRE IRs (e.g. agreed database schemas to meet the data interoperability requirements, or vector tiles3 for view services), and

possible activities to filter, enrich and/or curate the content of the INSPIRE geoportal, in order to make it easier to discover relevant resources.

However, these proposals have not yet been developed into detailed action proposals for inclusion in the MIWP 2017-2020.


3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_tiles

13

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Is the service oriented architecture (SOA) paradigm, that INSPIRE is built on, is still timely? If not, what could be alternative paradigms, or how could the current architecture be augmented to make it easier to use?

Should the implementation options in the TGs be (further) limited or kept flexible (different implementation options)?

Is the dependency on OGC specifications an issue for users? If so, what could be alternative standards or technologies?

How should the INSPIRE geoportal evolve?


MIG-T should propose detailed action proposals for the proposed actions discussed at the 34 th MIG-T meeting. These will be presented either for endorsement of MIG-P on 30 Nov or at a later stage.

14

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Annex 1: 2016.1: INSPIRE fitness for purpose – AnalysisTitle INSPIRE fitness for purpose – Analysis

ID 2016.1

Status ☐ Proposed ☒ Endorsed ☐ In Progress ☐ Completed

Issue As part of the INSPIRE Report and REFIT evaluation, the Directive (but not the Implementing Rules of Guidelines) has been assessed as regards its "fitness for purpose". (the purpose of the Directive is set out in its Article 1). Member States and stakeholders have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding the (perceived) complexity of the INSPIRE data models and guidelines, in particular for Annex III, and the expected difficulty to have them implemented by the 2020 deadline. In the report to Council and European Parliament4, the Commission is recommended to “review, and possibly revise, the INSPIRE rules, in particular on spatial data harmonisation, to take into account the implementing risks and complexities with a view to reducing them (simplification of requirements)”.

While many of the actions in the current MIWP are already aiming at simplifying INSPIRE implementation for stakeholders in the Member States (e.g. through improvement of and additional Technical Guidance, development of tools and best practices), no systematic screening of the requirements in the legal and technical framework and of the implementation practices and concrete difficulties in the Member States has taken place yet. Such a screening would allow collecting the practical experiences with the implementation, in particular the implementing rules and the guidelines since 2008.

At the same time, the work programme 2017-2020 aims at making INSPIRE more user-centric. Hence, any investigation into possibilities for simplification should not be a theoretical exercise, but based on existing implementation experience and concrete requirements from end-user applications, in order to make INSPIRE more fit for purpose.

Ideally fit for purpose and simplification go hand in hand. DSM and other digital drivers have big political leverage and critical resource mass behind them that can deliver the necessary capacity for further INSPIRE implementation. As already indicated by several MS (MIG-P, MIG-T, Action plans ...), aligning INSPIRE with the principles set out in these initiatives would allow MS to focus resources on the development of a generic information infrastructure ready to be harvested for environmental end-user applications and use cases such as reporting, while at the same time the objectives for the INSPIRE Directive can be aligned with Commission priorities.

Proposed action The action aims at systematically analyzing and reviewing INSPIRE requirements in the legal (implementing rules) and, if needed, technical (guidelines, etc) framework and of the implementation practices and concrete difficulties in the Member States, with the aim to identify and propose to the MIG possible measures for streamlining and simplification of INSPIRE implementation.

The analysis should not be a theoretical exercise, but pragmatic and based on concrete implementation experience in the Member States. It is therefore important that feedback from all levels of the implementation, the policy makers and the actual implementers in public authorities will be collected. It should also aim at a differentiated view, investigating the situation for different themes and Member States. Suggestions for simplification already made by some Member States or existing solutions for simplification developed

4 Reference to be added

15

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

into projects can be tabled as written input to the review.

The approach to the review and the preparation of proposed actions shall take into account the existing and relevant legal provisions of the INSPIRE Directive (e.g. Article 7.2 regarding feasibility and proportionality and Article 8,.1 regarding the requirements for interoperability), the outcome of the Commission's REFIT evaluation and the Better Regulation Guidelines (COM(2015)111), which provide a methodological framework for assessing "fitness for purpose".

Based on the analysis, one or several follow up actions will be proposed, which will be discussed and, if relevant, endorsed by the MIG-P or the Commission, following consultation of the Committee (depending on the nature of the proposed action).

For example, such measures may include, but are not be limited to: proposals for simplifying the requirements in the Implementing Acts and/or

Technical Guidelines, developments of tools supporting INSPIRE implementation and/or usage of

INSPIRE data and services (e.g. for complex GML schemas), proposed additional guidance and/or best practices, e.g. on the harmonization of

national implementation or pan-European approaches (e.g. definition and provision of national reference data sets) or on the harmonization of thematic priority setting for implementation,

setting up implementation roadmap(s), based on different implementation levels and concrete use-case-driven priorities at different levels of governance (e.g. use cases for environmental reporting at EU level, management of an underground cadaster and/or utility network infrastructure at national level, cross-border flood management or air quality observation and forecasts at regional or local level, etc.),

For each proposed measure, the likely impact (e.g. on the existing legal and technical framework and on existing implementations in the MS or information on costs or benefits) should be described as much as possible within the available timeframe. If any proposed action would require more in depths analysis of such impact, this should be highlighted as well. Also, possible dependencies, impacts and synergies with other MIWP actions should be considered.

Link to REFIT evaluation

Direct follow up to the proposed actions on "simplification of requirements" and "simplification of use" set out in Recommendations (page 12 of COM(2016)478).

Links & dependencies

The following proposed actions under the previous MIWP could be relevant in this context and could feed into the review as a way to address some of the potential shortcomings that will be identified.

MIWP-1 Making TGs more readable, as initiated with Data Specifications (this could become one of the proposed measures)

MIWP-2 INSPIRE FAQ (this could become one of the proposed measures) 2016.4: The collection of the thematic implementation issues and proposals for

changes

If necessary, these actions will be refined or revised and will be presented for endorsements as a follow up to the review at a later stage. No other activities under these proposed actions is foreseen at the moment.

16

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Also coordination with the parallel action 2016.2 on streamlining monitoring and reporting will be needed.

Organisational set-up

The analysis of issues and development of measures and new MIWP actions to be proposed to MIG will be carried out by DG ENV and the JRC in close collaboration.

The action is supported by a dedicated temporary MIG sub-group "fitness-for-purpose review" based on the mandate set out here. This sub-group will receive input from experts of all Member States, including the policy level, the implementers and the technical experts. The group consists of volunteers of the MIG-P and the MIG-T that are well aware of the implementation in their country (in all thematic domains) and across borders. They are familiar with the legal, technological and organisational approach proposed for INSPIRE implementation. The participation list is enclosed to the meeting reports.

Two face-to-face workshops took place, on 30 September and on 16 November 2016. The meetings discussed the analysis and proposed measures and prepared a document for the next MIG-P meeting.

The sub-group also discussed a simple questionnaire which will allow collecting views and inputs from all Member States. The questionnaire is now circulated to all MIG-P and MIG-T members and feedback will be expected. The questionnaire will also allow others, e.g. users, other administrations, businesses, international organizations (with through the webpage or at the INSPIRE conference) to provide feedback. Deadline for contribution is the end of 2016.

The progress and outcome of the work until November 2016 was somewhat slower than expected and some issues require further in-depth discussions. On other issues, some concrete proposals for actions to be included in the MIWP (to be started in 2017) were made. New actions will agreed through a separate mandate. As regards the issues that need further discussions, the sub-group will continue its work until June 2017. It will build on the issues and suggestions identified in DOCX of the 5 th MIG meeting. The sub-group will also compile and review the input from the questionnaire and take them into account when finalizing its proposals. It is therefore envisaged to have another meeting of the sub-group in the first half of 2017 and to prepare a document for the 6th MIG-P meeting, as appropriate.

Lead DG ENV (chair) and JRC

Scope In terms of possible simplifications, the IRs and TGs will be analysed and reviewed. A review of the INSPIRE Directive itself is not foreseen and therefore out of scope. This action does not include the 2009 Decision on monitoring and reporting which will be covered by a separate, parallel action (see 2016.2).

Tasks Review the Commission's REFIT evaluation and identify relevant aspects for this action.

Prepare questionnaire to systematically gather input from all Member States on which elements of the INSPIRE Directive work well and which my need attention (e.g. which implementing rule, which guideline, which other aspect) and collect suggestions for simplification.

Review feedback from questionnaires and outcome of other input received and identify those priority areas which need most urgent attention.

Identify (additional) obstacles to implementation not identified in the Commission's REFIT evaluation, features in the INSPIRE framework that are not

17

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

being used and opportunities for streamlining through feedback from the working group members as well as desktop studies (e.g. analysing issues raised in the past by MIG, and MIG sub-groups e.g. current Proposal for changes to the INSPIRE Data specification (IR,TG), MS action plans, M&R 2016, the mid-term evaluation survey and the minutes of the bilateral meeting with MS).

Develop proposals for streamlining and simplification, including an analysis of the potential impact, as far as possible within the available timeframe.

Draft document for MIG-P (or Committee, if appropriate) with proposal for MIWP actions for 2017 and beyond.

Outcomes This action / sub-group has prepared a discussion document by November 2016 with the following elements:

List of issues/obstacles/requirements including their proposed solutions List of proposed MIWP action(s) for 2017 and beyond for implementing the

proposals for streamlining and simplificationParts of this document will be developed further and presented in a similar way to the subsequent MIG-P meeting in June 2017 provided a suggested way forward can be identified.

Proposed Impact ☒ Technical Adjustment / Bug Fixing

☒ Technical Improvement / Development

☒ Practical Support for Implementing Process

☒ Cost Reducing Effect for Implementing Process

☐ Direct Support on Policy-Making / - Activities

Timeline Date of Kick-off: September 2016

Proposed date of Completion: 31/05/2017

Thereafter, the sub-group seizes to exist unless a new mandate is agreed by the MIG-P.

Required human resources and expertise and possible funding

Members/Volunteers from the MIG-P and the MIG-T who have been identified will continue to be involved.

Required financial resources

The coordination of the activity and the creation of the outputs will be funded by DG ENV through the Administrative Arrangement with the JRC.

Additional resources may have to be made available by the sub/group members to prepare input to the work, by everybody to complete the questionnaire and by implementers in the MS to implement the agreed MIWP actions.

Risk factors Overall risk level of the action

☐ High

☒ Medium

☐ Low

Risk factors to be considered

☒ Missing Resources (especially in 2016 as resource planning for 2016 already took place)

☒ High Complexity

☒ Interdependencies with other Actions

18

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Others: The announcement of possible changes in the

Implementing Acts may cause to implementers to stop their implementation until further directions are clear.

Radical changes require new additional resources and capacities to implementers which have already implemented. It may undermine any further implementation plans.

Limited time available.

19

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Annex 2: 2016.1: Summary report of the 1st meeting of the MIG subgroup on MIWP Action 2016.1 "Fitness for Purpose", 30 September 2016, Barcelona

Title Summary report of the 1st meeting of the MIG subgroup on MIWP Action 2016.1 "Fitness for Purpose", 30 September 2016, Barcelona.

Creator EC INSPIRE TEAM

Date created 04-10-2016

Date modified 28-10-2016

Subject Kick-off meeting minutes (FINAL DRAFT)

Publisher Reflection group on fitness for purpose.

Type Text

Description Revised summary report, conclusions and actions following comments from BE, DE, DK, FR and SE.

Contributor DG ENV

Format MS Word (doc)

Identifier MIWP 2016-1_30092016_draft_minutes_v1.docx

Language En

Status Final Draft

20

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

6 Welcome The meeting was opened and chaired by Robert Konrad, Head of DG ENV Unit E.4 (Compliance and Better Regulation)5.

The meeting was attended by those experts of EU Member States (MS) which were nominated for this MIG subgroup, the Commission Services (DG ENV and JRC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA). A list of participants is available in Annex 1.

Two documents have been made available by the Commission in preparation of this meeting:

A discussion paper on the Fitness for Purpose analysis. A draft questionnaire to gather evidence for change/simplification, if any, from the

different stakeholder groups (INSPIRE MIG, Eionet …). The meeting was conducted in an informal way and held under Chatham House rules.

7 DiscussionThe discussion document provided by COM is considered to be very complete and captures the essence of the discussions the subgroup should have. Nevertheless the scope of the exercise is considered too broad to be able to deliver on all aspects by November 2016. It is not considered feasible to finish the entire exercise by the end of 2016. An initial high-level analysis of issues and options related to data interoperability requirements for Annex III data themes could be the first step when it is decided to continue the exercise in 2017. .

Several MS experts identified the interoperability requirements for Annex III data sets (including the relationship between Article 7 and 8) as the prominent issue and suggested addressing this issue with the highest priority. Some MS experts agreed that it is not good practice to remediate implementation issues by removing legal obligations as because black-and-white solutions are rarely the best. This would undermine the effectiveness of the Directive and the anticipated outcome. The preferred outcome of the analysis in regard of feasibility and timely action would be minimal but efficient changes to the implementing acts addressing the identified bottlenecks in an intelligent (backwards compatible, fit for purpose, tailored to client needs …) way. Whilst mentioning the reference for the roadmap 2016-2020 is the report from the European Commission report to Council and European Parliament and the recommendation to give priority to environmental datasets, specifically with regard to e-reporting, the following approach is suggested:

Identify possible implementation issues (e.g. those regarding data harmonization, risks and complexity)

Check the legal obligations for Annex III data sets in the context of Article 7 (4).

5 Please note that this is the result of a re-organisation and re-naming of the Unit responsible for the INSPIRE Directive which took effect on the 1st July 2016.

21

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Propose policy options (e.g. revision of implementing act or support to Member States) to remediate identified issues.

It was suggested to address bugs/corrigenda as well as risks and complexity in Annexes I and II in parallel with the analysis of issues and possible simplification for Annex III. After dealing with the interoperability requirements, the other topics in the discussion document should be addressed.

A discussion distinguishing between legal compliance and technical conformity could bring higher transparency and compliance for INSPIRE implementers. This was recognized as an important issue but to start with, these two terms would need to be defined.

Evidence is needed and we should take all aspects of the framework (legal, guidance, tools …) into consideration.

The subgroup will have to reflect on smart changes to introduce the needed flexibility in the legal framework without having to go through a full legislative process. E.g. a redefinition of the "voidable" concept or the "where practicable" clause were proposed as possible hooks in the existing legislation that might provide a way out. Some MS consider that the regulation about data interoperability went far out of the legal framework stated by the directive in Articles 7 and 8 although they were agreed by all MS at the time and not challenged by the European Parliament.

Member State experts are invited to provide feedback on the discussion document by 24 October 2016 and share known issues related to the data interoperability requirements by 4th November 2016 for discussion in the November meeting.

The participants raised also other issues, including the eReporting use case as driver for the interoperability requirements. EEA, involving Eionet, should support this use case to provide tangible benefit from INSPIRE implementation e.g. through legal reporting. Moreover, there may also be other, equally important aspects to identify, such as problems setting up compliant services and finding proper use cases.

The draft questionnaire is considered general but helpful. The subgroup suggests not to do a consultation of the wider public at EU level but agrees that consulting specific stakeholder groups (e.g. Eionet …) beyond the MIG and the INSPIRE community might provide valuable information. Some Member States preferred that the national contact point will consult the national stakeholders, in particular through the national structure of coordination. The source of the stakeholders input can be clearly identified based on the identification question in the beginning. It was mentioned that the same approach as for the INSPIRE mid-term review consultation was useful to consider. COM will finalize the questionnaire. Experts are invited to provide feedback on the questionnaire by 24 October 2016. The Commission will then decide on how to proceed with the questionnaire and explain the way forward at the next meeting.

EEA will involve Eionet on the simplification exercise from the eReporting perspective.

It was highlighted that the aim of this exercise was to present a general overview document of issues and possible actions for the MIWP to the next MIG-P meeting where discussions with all countries can be held and decisions can be taken as regards possible follow up actions in 2017. The subgroup on MIWP Action 2016.1 "Fitness for Purpose" will therefore provide concrete

22

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

suggestions for actions about the necessary steps as an input for discussion at the MIG-P. The MIG-P will then decide on the mandate for further actions.

One specific idea for an action was to prepare an option paper with focus on Annex III interoperability requirements considering Article 7(4). It is suggested that COM\EEA will revise and further develop the discussion document by drafting a first set of operational actions for the MIWP for further discussion in the subgroup and the MIG.

The subgroup experts are invited to provide further feedback, if any, on the discussion paper and the questionnaire by 24 October 2016 and to share known issues related to the data interoperability requirements by 4 November 2016.

The next meeting on the 16th November is aiming to identify, as far as possible, areas within which implementation obstacles of any kind are occurring (even if it is likely that Annex III is the major one), and focus on working out general approaches for how to further identify “concrete” problems with each identified area including a proposal for action(s) including timetable(s) to be made to the MIG-P.

Actions on COM:

Further develop the discussion document for the subgroup of 16 November 2016.

8 Closing of meetingThe Chair thanked all participants for their contributions to the meeting's outcome and closed the meeting.

Action overview

The subgroup experts are invited to provide further feedback, if any, on the discussion paper and the questionnaire by 24 October 2016 and to share known issues related to the data interoperability requirements by 4th November 2016.

Actions on COM:

• Further develop the discussion document for the subgroup meeting of 16 November 2016 .

23

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

Annex I. List of participantsCountry Surname Name

AT Jobst Markus

BE Buffet Dominique

BE Kissiyar Ouns

CZ Polacek Jiri

DE Lenk Martin

DK Kronborg Mazzoli Ulla

ES López Romero Emilio

FI Reini Jari

FI Muhli Panu

FR Leobet Marc

NL De Visser Ine

NO Lillethun Arvid

PT Caetano Mário

RO DONCUŢĂ Marilena Daniela

24

MIG\2016\5\DOC7

SE O Rydén Anders

UK Dixon John

UK King Jason

Commission and EU services

BE Konrad Robert

BE Robbrecht Joeri

BE De Groof Hugo

BE Nagy Adam

IT Lutz Michael

IT Cetl Vlado

IT Tomas Robert

IT Nunes de Lima Vanda

DK Jensen Stefan

DK Ansorge Christian

25

purpose - europa web viewthe original discussion document has now been developed further ... this...

Documents