INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Group (MIG)

INSPIRE Implementation:
taking stock and shaping the future priorities

Type / Discussion document
Creator / DG ENV[1]
Date / status / 25/11/2015
Addressee / INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Policy Group (MIG-P)
Identifier / MIG-P of 4 Dec 2015, document no. 1
Description / The implementation of the INSPIRE Directive is at a half-way point and the results emerging from the INSPIRE REFIT evaluation and the INSPIRE report provide a very clear picture. A lot of progress has been made but there is no single country which has fully implemented the Directive to date. At the same time, the most challenging deadlines are still ahead. This discussion document aims at informing an orientation debate at the permanent policy sub-group of the MIG (MIP-P). Following this debate, a set of proposals for action will be prepare for discussion and agreement for the subsequent MIG-P meeting (June 2016) which will aim at shaping the maintenance and implementation in the years to come setting strict priorities, where necessary.
Requested actions: / The members of the MIG-P are invited to:
  • Take note of the document and contribute to the orientation debate;
  • Discuss and agree the follow up, e.g. by requestingthe INSPIRE Consolidation Team (CT) to prepare the necessary conclusions and proposals for follow up actions as a result of this debate for the next meeting.
  • Take note on the progress and the objectives of the bilateral meetings.
The MIG-P members of Member States (in particular those that did not yet have a bilateral meeting with the Commission)are invited to:
  • express interest in such a meeting to take place between January and March 2016;
  • In any case, to follow the example of other Member States and respond to the Commission in writing, in particular by presenting an action plan for closing existing implementation and compliance gaps together with the report foreseen in May 2016.

INSPIRE Implementation: taking stock and shaping the future priorities

(discussion document)

  1. Preliminary findings of the evaluation (REFIT) and implementation report (Art.23 report)

1.1.Background

The Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community Directive, INSPIRE(2007/2/EC), provides for an enabling framework to use spatial information more effectively for the purpose of implementing EU environment policy. By December 2013 all digital spatial data sets falling under the 34 spatial data themes (Annex I-II-III of INSPIRE) should have been, identified, documented and made available 'as-is' online through services conform with INSPIRE.These data sets and services should be accessible through the EU geo-portal. Together with the Access to Environmental Information Directive[2] and the Directive on the re-use of public sector information[3] this should also allow the public and businesses to get better access to environmental information and to facilitate the re-use of public sector spatial data. However, at the half-way mark of the implementation, this potential has not materialised.

1.2.Implementation and evaluation: where are we and what the preliminary findings and possible further actions could be?

The Commission is required to prepare an implementation report in accordance with Article 23 of the Directive. In addition, it decided to use this occasion to prepare an evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive in accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines[4] (REFIT evaluation). Such an evaluation looks typically at effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value.

As part of this evaluation, the JRC and the EEA prepared a report[5] which has been circulated to the MIG-P before. The finalisation of the official Commission report and the related REFIT evaluation has been significantly delayed and is still in its finalisation stages. The Commission aims at publishing these reports in early 2016. Once available, the documents will be presented to and discussed with the MIG-P.

It is, however, already possible to draw a number of preliminary findings which could be subject of an orientation debate at the MIG-P meeting.

Overall, it is clear that further efforts at all levels and by all actors will have to be made over the coming yearsto close the identified gaps in implementation (against targets) and steer future implementation actions towards maximising the societal and environmental benefits from the INSPIRE Directive. Based on the preliminary finding, there are a number of priority issues that should be addressed at Member State level (provided this is still relevant in the particular country), in particular:

  1. Improving coordination: Further efforts to intensify national coordination activities and to further stimulate the buy-in of stakeholders at all relevant levels of government and the private sector as well as citizens are needed in some countries.A particular focus should be on coordination with public authorities responsible for implementing and reporting environmental policies.
  2. Close specific implementation gaps:see bilateral meetings below.
  3. Ensure that spatial data for implementing and reportingof environmental policies are “inspired”. Most Member States have notyet identified all the spatial data sets required for the implementation of environmental law, and made them at least accessible 'as is'[6]to other public authorities and the public through digital services conformant with INSPIRE. This should become an immediate priority to demonstrate that the INSPIRE Directive can have tangible benefits for environmental policy in particular, by identifying all the spatial data sets required for the production and submission of reports and making them available for reporting and wider re-use through digital services and in conformance with the common data models defined inINSPIRE. This is a first important step which will have to be complemented by a wider set of spatial data directly relevant for the implementation of these environment policies.
  4. Further removing inefficiencies in data policies: There is a high level of flexibility on data policies in the INSPIRE Directive at the moment. However, in some Member States practical obstacles continue to exist. It iscritically to review the effectiveness and efficiency of these data policies and take 'best practices' into consideration as a concrete step forward to the legal interoperability across borders advocated in the European Interoperability Strategy and framework and coherent with revised Directive on the re-use of public sector information.

The evaluation has uncovered significant differences and advances between the Member States on these subjects. This offers a significant potential for learning from each other and promoting “best practices”. Since this is one of the main reasons for setting up the MIG and some actions already exist, further discussions may be needed to investigate which other actions we could envisage to encourage sharing and discussion of best practices (see section 5, consequences for the MIWP).In this context, the high potential of using available EU financing opportunities should be explored further.

Also at EU level, there are a number of lessons that can be learnt and common action that could be envisaged as a result and a follow up of the implementation report. A particular priority of this collaborative work will be to ensure that the INSPIRE Directive enhances the efficiency of environmental reporting as envisaged by the regulatory monitoring initiative under the Better Regulation agenda (see below).

Based on the preliminary findings, the following EU-level actions could be considered by the MIG-P, in particular:

  1. Reflect on the need to revise specific issues in the INSPIRE Directive and the Implementing Acts: Following the adoption of the Commission report and the evaluation, a discussion with the Member States should also address the need to revise the existing legal provisions. Whilst some specific improvements could be identified, there are also risks in launching a revision of legal acts, e.g. in terms of timing and political considerations.
  2. Discuss and agree on common priority setting, in particular on interoperability for reporting: (see below)
  3. Develop and ensure effectiveness and efficiency of (EU-level) end-user applications: So far, the benefits of increasing INSPIRE compatibility have not been harvested at large at EU level. The EU institutions and bodies are keen to work closely with the Member States to develop such demonstration tools which will benefit both EU and national level. Linked to the discussion on priority setting, such applicationscould help to harvest more efficiently the data provided through INSPIRE for EU-level policy making and implementation, in particular in relation to reporting and compliance promotion.
  4. Adapt the INSPIRE Directive to “better regulation principles”, e.g. through reducing the monitoring and reporting 'burden': For the reporting round under the Directive in 2019, the results of the evaluation could and should be used to assess how the INSPIRE monitoring and reporting approach can be reviewed in the light of the Better Regulation Guidelines[7] so to ensure that it is in the position to demonstrate that INSPIRE is and will be "fit for purpose". This could then become a concrete contribution to the wider Fitness Check on environmental monitoring and reporting.Look further into the coherence of the INSPIRE Directive with other EU legislation and, in particular promoting its application in the wider Digital Single Market agenda and the “eGovernment” processes.
  5. Promote the implementation also in all relevant European agencies and international partners to the EU (bodies of conventions etc.).

On the basis of these preliminary findings and proposed actions, the MIG-P can have an orientation debate which would help in harvesting its input for the further work on these issues. Inevitably these aspects may also have consequences for the MIG-P and the INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Work Programme (MIWP). However, the specific consequences will be discussed and agreed at the subsequent MIG-P meetings.

2.Priority setting approach – a necessity for the next phase of implementation

In accordance with article 1 of the Directive the identification of the data sets should have been based on the requirements of spatial data for implementation, monitoring, assessment and reporting in the various legal acts of the environmental acquis.

For example: the main obligations under the Urban Waste Water Directive , UWWD require and or result in spatial data for:

  • Planning (e.g designation and establishment of sensitive areas)
  • Regulation (e.g. agglomerations with more than 2000 p.e. are supplied with collecting systems, and that the capacity of these is such that all urban waste water is collected, taking account of normal local climatic conditions and seasonal variations)
  • Monitoring (e.gparameters monitored from both discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants and receiving waters)
  • Information and reporting (e.g. efficiency of treatment plants (i.e. treatment level and monitoring results) and the quality of receiving waters; status of discharges from the food-processing industry to surface waters;)

An assessment of the yearly Member States monitoring reports and the status of the availability through the EU geo-portal clearly shows that a considerable amount of spatial data has not yet been brought online (or reported to).

This lack of compliance with the Directive limits the wider use of the spatial data sets for environmental policies and policies or actions which may have an impact on the environment. In addition to the UWWD, several other environmental directives require spatial data for their implementation and reporting. The table in the Annex lists a number of key directives (non-exhaustive) for which reporting on the status of their implementation is scheduled between 2016 and 2020 and which require a considerable amount of spatial data sets to be reported. They represent as such the thematic priorities for identifying and bringing online all spatial data sets covered by the INSPIRE data themes required to support implementation and/reporting. In this sense, the implementation of INSPIRE can help shift from a current approach of reporting data, to increasingly making them available and shared (and thereby reducing the need for reporting).

This aspect could be used to develop a common priority setting approach at EU and national level in the further implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. To illustrate such a priority setting, which would consist of several interconnected levels or layers, the figure below shows a “priority setting pyramid”.

* Reporting Obligations Database EEA: see for UWWT

To briefly explain the different levels, the following explanations could be provided:

  • Level 1 (blue) is represented by spatial data (sets) which are explicitly and verifiably required to be reported under EU environmental legislation (as set out in reporting decisions, templates or guidance).
  • Level 2 (pink) are the spatial data setswhich are needed to produce the spatial datato be reported. They are directly linked to these reported data but not required explicitly.
  • Level3 (green) are spatial data (sets) which are directly or indirectly needed to implement programmes and measures related to the EU environmental legislation. For example: spatial data required for environmental impacts assessments (EIA/SEA Directives).
  • Level 4 (orange) represents all other spatial data sets also covered by the INSPIRE Directive and its themes in the Annexes 1-3 which have lesser or marginal importance for implementation of environment policy.

Clearly, the INSPIRE Directive covers all these levels and Article 1 makes it very clear that infrastructure for European spatial information shall be set up "for the purposes of Community environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment". In order to get there, however, we need to acknowledge that so far a lot of Member States have focus on the level 4 data sets in their national implementation and benefits for environment policies have not been registered across the board. Hence, a discussion about common priority setting which does, in no way, change the obligations or the ambition level for the INSPIRE Directive.

The question of setting priorities falls also within the remit of the INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Framework[8] through the activities of the Commission expert group on INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Group (MIG), which has amongst it agreed tasks: "to identify and give advice about the priority issues to be addressed in the maintenance of the INSPIRE Directive".

The MIG-P can therefore discuss the approach in its orientation debate and subsequently agree it in future meetings as a basis for further work within the MIWP.

Moreover, this issue has also been raised at the bilateral meetings. It is clear that there is a role for an EU level cooperation on priority setting but this also has to be translated and further developed at the national level in the existing coordination structures. To illustrate this, the Consolidation Team (CT)(EC (DG ENV, JRC) and EEA INSPIRE team) are currently working on a minimum list of spatial data sets which are covered by environmental reporting. This "level 1" list can be discussed and agreed at EU level with all Member States and be shared as a "living document" (which can be updated and further developed, as appropriate) through the MIG process. It can and should also guide all work at EU level linked to the implementation of INSPIRE. In addition, it is for Member States to develop more detailed and specific lists on overall implementation needs, i.e. on the spatial data sets which are which are needed to produce the to be reported spatial data ("level 2") and those relevant for the implementation of the EU legislation at national, regional and local level ("level 3"). Such a wider approach must be linked to the EU level list but going into more detail and taking account of the national particularities. It is important that the two levels are linked and that the spatial data are interoperable and clearly linked up as required by INSPIRE. Through this multi-level approach, we can ensure a minimum level of coordination and a common reference point at EU level but leaving enough flexibility and most of the details to Member States where the competences on implementation are.

Again, this approach can be discussed at the MIG-P where the "CT" will also present a first draft the above-mentioned list focussing on some few pieces of legislation for illustration purposes.

3.Enforcement, compliance promotion actions and bi-lateral meetings with the Member States

Between 2013 and 2015, a number of important deadlines have elapsed under the INSPIRE Directive and the related actions contribute to achieving the objectives of that Directive and to facilitate the work of national authorities. After assessment of the Member State reports to the EU geoportal, a number of shortcomings concerning application of the INSPIRE Directive were identified for all Member States (see report of EEA and JRC).

On the basis of this work, the Commission is currently finalising its implementation report and its REFIT evaluation which is designed to analyse whether the INSIRE Directive is still "fit for purpose" and provides the basis for actions to be taken over the coming years.

During the course of 2014/2015 DG ENV also carried out a compliance-checking exercise as regards transposition of the INSPIRE Directive in all Member States. As a result numerous EU Pilot investigations were launched with the view of solving these non-transposition issues. Currently there are still some EU Pilots open and one letter of formal notice has been sent on non-transposition.

In addition, and as a result of its findings, DG ENV has decided on a three-step follow-up process with all Member States to discuss the state-of-implementation and the "distance to target" and to explore whether dedicated actions could be initiated by each Member State individually to ensure compliance as soon as possible. Such actions could be complied in a dedicated and separate "action plan" which is could be submitted together with the next implementation reports in May 2016.

The three step approach is set up as follows:

As a first step, EU pilot letters were initiated with those MS who failed to connect their discovery services to the EU geoportal (MT, IT, BG, LT, CY). Any further action by the Commission services will be decided following their reply.