Summary Report (draft)
Meeting between Commission and DK, FI and SE on the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive
Brussels, 25thApril 2016
Participants
COM, DG ENV, Unit D4
Mr Robert Konrad, Head of Unit,
Mr Joachim D’Eugenio
Mr Joeri Robbrecht
Ms Claire Meynard
Mr Adam Daniel Nagy
DK
ThorbenBrigsted Hansen
Ulla Kronborg Mazzoli
Anders Raahauge
Lars Storgaard
FIand Aaland
MaijaHäggblom,
InkeriAhonen,
Panu Muhli,
Antti Vertanen,
SE
Mrs Susanne Marie Gerland
Mrs Anna Maria Berglund
Mrs Christina Wasström
Mr Anders Olof Rydén
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:
•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.The meetings have as objective to look into the future, seek assistance, funding possibilities and to see where Member States may have difficulties, and to draw up an action plan.This particular meeting was set up to address MS with similar problems, solutions and approach in terms of implementing the INSPIRE Directive.
•REFIT report is about to be published, which also contributes to the evidence base on implementation. Fitness Check of reporting is also on-going and relates to the priority-setting of INSPIRE implementation. The discussions 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 and to the MIG-T in April as well.
•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, free flow of data initiative, Cloud initiative and e-Government, etc.).
•DK reassured commitment for support of Commission of work on the described activities. FIagreed with the approached and also highlighted that INSPIRE is principally for the establishment of national spatial data infrastructure, therefore it is broader than the reporting exercise. SE agreed that INSPIRE is useful for both EU and national infrastructures.
Agenda item 2. Introduction by DG ENV on missing data sets and key priorities for implementation and reporting and data-sharing
DG ENVexplained the complexity of INSPIRE implementation and main challenges, and how implementation can be stepped up, by priority-setting. MS need to focus on the same priorities. Based on section 2 of the meeting document, DG ENV introduced the suggestion for a priority setting in order to address the problem of missing datasets and future implementation challenges more effectively. 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). At first count this seems to be around45 reporting datasets, stemming from over 175 actual reporting obligations. In the long term the list will be broadened to cover other than the priority environmental data themes (top of the priority pyramid in the 2nd agenda point ppt). This is also based on the pairing of the INSPIRE implementation and the Regulatory Monitoring initiative. The list based on the priority setting will firstly focus on the priority one area. This first list was communicated to MIG/T in April 2016. This will be further elaborated in view of the most important reporting obligations. The list of 45 is a working tool for making the link between the reporting and INSPIRE Directive. The INSPIRE implementation is however much broader. Failure to comply with the list, is a clear failure to implement the INSPIRE obligations. There needs to be a parallel action at EU and national level, also with the EEA involvement. The main change of paradigm is that the principal objective is to make the availability of information more dynamic, phasing out a static robust reporting data-flow. This means more focus on interoperability, active dissemination and accessibility. There is an overlap between INSPIRE and reporting obligations (eg. location of UWWT plans). Dataset should be accessible as is, given that it is reported physically. User needs, user cases - reporting is one of them - are at the focus of activity at EU level.
DG ENV highlighted the benefits of open data policies, building on the 7th EAP, some binding legal obligations stemming from Article 14 of the INSPIRE Directive, Directive 2003/4/EC and on-going initiatives at EU level with a clear political priority, linked to DSM. It was highlighted that the rule should be to have easy and free access to datasets. Currently activity is on-going on the Fitness Check of reporting and the change of paradigm, which focuses on more active dissemination of information.
SE indicated that active dissemination and relation to INSPIRE is not always obvious for the Aarhus community. DG ENV clarified that this is one of the reasons that it would be good to strengthen national coordination structures, i.e. more interaction between INSPIRE and reporting communities (including Aarhus) also at national levels.
DK announced establishment of new body in charge of data supply and efficiency. Focus of activity is also on e-government. Strategy 2011-2015 was a turning point. Common data infrastructure is being worked on, and one of the drivers is INSPIRE (though no specific budget available for INSPIRE).
Discussions also focused on extensions and good use cases and how reporting can be considered as one good candidate to show specific benefits. The role of e-government was also highlighted that it needs to contribute to implementation and it should be a cornerstone.
Agenda item 3-5. Introduction by DG ENV on compliance on "Interoperability of spatial data sets and services", on compliance with metadata under Annex I-III and on non-compliance of Spatial Data Services (discovery, view and download services) with the requirements of the INSPIRE Directive
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. Progress was made on Annex I, but challenges still exist for Annex II and III.
DK indicated that aerial information is in pdf, etc., therefore exempt from INSPIRE scope. At least 10 datasets will be removed from the list, therefore there will be a significant improvement.
FI explained the history of reference datasets. The “as is” phase takes a bit longer than expected. It was explained that the ELF project will also give a boost to further progress.
SE explained that progress is quiet good and implementation will be done in accordance with the required deadlines. Trainings are also undertaken in the field.
DG ENV asked for first reactions on priority datasets communicated to MIG-T and –P. DK indicated that many of the data-holders lack the skills for INSPIRE implementation. By the time there will be a clear list of priorities, it will be done and brought online.
It was flagged that JRC undertook the activity to create a common platform (ARENA) to publish data and set up services. One could consider an INSPIRE cloud to be set up, that would leave sole requirement of harmonisation on MS. This approach was used in the MSFD pilot.
SE highlighted that it might be difficult to put online by next year as is, it is a question:what format should be used?
FI indicated that in order to make progress next year, we need to make the planning already now.
DG ENV highlighted that we are at an initial stage of prioritisation, where it is premature to talk about exact deadlines. The first step is to agree on the common understanding of the way forward.
MS expressed need to have more information on the reporting-monitoring workflow.
Based on section 4 of the meeting document, DG ENV presented the information as regards the INSPIRE compliance with metadata.
SE highlighted that the metadata is indeed crucial for implementation.
FI indicated that in many cases services are already available, but metadata is still missing.
Based on section 5 of the meeting document, implementation progress and gaps with conformity and availability of network services were presented.
It can be stated that there is a good maturity of services, however, download services seems problematic.
DK indicated that due to the change of government the links have been changed in September 2015 pointing in many cases into blank. This has been remedied. COM will revalidate.
SE agreed that protecting data is an obstacle, and in order to track usage it is important to keep this control. DG ENV indicated that access needs to be provided to be able to assess conformity. SE indicated that data policies will progressively be more open.
Agenda item 6. Data-sharing and access by public to environmental information
Mainobstacles were presented at MS levels. The main initiatives were also presented at EU level that could be considered as ways forward to improve the situation, such the possible revision of legal framework and parallel DSM initiatives, such as the free flow of data initiative.
DK indicated that the SDI web services need to be freely accessible. When initially set up pre-registry requirement was required. In 2008 a mandatory registration requirement was introduced for government bodies, however problems still persisted. Finally e-government action introduced free data even for private sector as a best practice. The rule was that there is no licensing, with some exceptions, such as meteorological data, etc.
FI described the data policy by virtue of which major data resources were made accessible freely and openly. There is an important discussion on how the citizen data is reused. The government also aims to foster the data-sharing improvement between different national authorities. In some cases there are legal barriers on data protection. It is indicated that the technical problems are not so much of a problem. There are some issues with forest owners, as there are many areas in the possession of private individuals, where public authorities are arguing for better control andimproved sharing of information.
SE indicated that it has a general regime for data-sharing, pay once and get access to all between authorities. The DK model is looked into. Financing these open data-sharing models are also considered an obstacle.
DG ENV asked if there was a different regime for trans-boundary cases. In DK there are no separate regimes.
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 on EU-funded projects. DG ENV highlighted that there is a further need to strategically coordinate.
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.
Delegations 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, set up an action plan and to reply to the letter sent by the European Commission to the Permanent Representation on the 1st December 2015by the15th September 2016.
-Without prejudice to the legally mandated deadlines, to submit the action plan including a timetable, which addresses remaining implementation gaps discussed at the meeting as soon as possible with particular view of the priority-setting on those data sets and related services which are relevant for EU environment legislation. Action plan related to the priority setting and implementation gaps should be already be reflected in the May 2016 INSPIRE report.
-To further carry on with strengthening national coordination structures between national INSPIRE experts and other national experts to discuss the issues of datasets used for reporting of environmental legislation. This will be a coordinated effort in data-identification covering both reported priority data sets and INSPIRE data themes.
The Commission, DG ENV, agreed to take the following actions:
-To circulate the draft summary report within two weeks of the meeting to the delegations for comments and approval.
-To continue discussion at EU level on a minimum set of datasets linked to EU environmental legislation. DG ENV will continue following up on the process and aims to provide priority datasets list by June 2016.
- To keep MS INSPIRE experts more informed on the monitoring and reporting initiative, eg. via MIG-P in June 2016 and circulate roadmap for reporting.[1]
[1]