Description of Work Package

Template

French comments : we would like to thanks the European Commission for this very positive and open process. We think we have two points to work on for this workpackage :

- As you know, INSPIRE does not ask for new datasets, so "creation" word would have to be avoided. We could just define which could be the reference datasets among what exists. Secondly, to be compliant with subsidiarity principle, stronger harmonization would have to answer to strong European use cases we have not at this stage. Thirdly, while recognizing the very good job done by its managers, the few people coming on the thematic cluster website is absolutly not representative of the EU public authorities.

To go a step further asks to go back to users, that is the public authorities and not only technicians and experts.

Title / INSPIRE fitness for purpose
ID / MIWP-xx
Status / ☒ Proposed / ☐ Endorsed / ☐ In Progress / ☐ Completed
Issue / The INSPIRE Directive has reached its half-way mark and important deadlines have already expired. Member States have made individual efforts of the past years which resulted in good progress. However, a large diversity exists throughout the EU and there is no country which has fully implemented the Directive to date. Based on national reports, the Commission has undertaken a substantial evaluation of the state-of-implementation and the fitness of the Directive for its intended purpose (a so-called REFIT evaluation).
Overall, it is clear that further efforts at all levels and by all actors in the Member States will have to be made over the coming years to close the identified gaps in implementation (against targets) and steer future implementation actions towards maximising the societal and environmental benefits from the INSPIRE Directive.
In addition, the Commission is recommended to review and, possibly revise, the INSPIRE implementing acts, to take into account the implementing risks and the complexities with the view to reducing them (simplification of requirements). While many of the actions in the current MIWP are already aiming at simplification of the INSPIRE technical framework (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 the implementation practices in the Member States has taken place.
At the same time, the work programme 2016-2020 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.[1]
Proposed change or action / The action aims at analysing possibilities for streamlining and simplification of INSPIRE implementation, proposing and implementing an action plan based on this analysis. The action will be carried out in two iterations (July 2016 – March 2018, April 2018 – June 2019).
The first iteration will help identify the most crucial measures that should be implemented with priority (e.g. supporting the harmonisation of the Annex I data themes by the Nov 2017 deadline). The second iteration will aim at identifying requirements for INSPIRE use and address the remaining issues.
Based on the identified obstacles and requirements, proposals for streamlining and simplification will be made. These may include, but not be limited to:
  • proposals for simplifying the requirements in the Implementing Acts and/or Technical Guidelines [2]( proposed action MIWP-1),
  • IT mainstreaming of the technical components of INSPIRE infrastructure (ISO/DCAT; GML/JSON etc.), To be detailed : what is the cost/benefits to adapt the infrastructure to every new IT standard?
  • developments of tools supporting INSPIRE implementation and/or usage of INSPIRE data and services (e.g. for complex GML schemas),
  • additional guidance and/or best practices, e.g. on
  • immerging new network services requirements (SOS, WCS, TJS etc..)
  • the harmonization of national implementation approaches (e.g. creationdefinition of national environmental reference data sets),FR-LBT : 1/ It would be impossible to accept an obligation to create data without the corresponding funding, specially for most of the themes of annex I. 2/ As this could be against subsidiarity, we could not accept such harmonization without strong use cases. 3/ for environmental data, we could talk in a wider group (following Make It Work Initiative) about harmonization at EU level for reporting and, maybe, for data used for reporting.
  • the harmonization of thematic priority setting for implementation,
  • data model extensions ( MIG-T ad-hoc action on extensions) not a priority
  • setting up an INSPIRE implementation FAQ page, including legal interpretation & clarifications ( proposed action MIWP-2).
  • setting up an implementation roadmap, based on a tiered maturity model (basic, essential, premium), prioritisation of thematic information requirements and/or levels of governance (national, regional, local), interesting
  • evaluation and proposal of a sustainable maintenance of the INSPIRE architecture, in particular the registers and registry services
  • documentation of good implementation examples ( ARE3NA Reference Platform) and reference implementations.
For each proposed measure, the impact (on the existing legal and technical framework and on existing implementations in the MS), costs and benefits should be described.
After discussion with all concerned INSPIRE stakeholders, an action plan for the implementation of the proposed measures will be drafted and implemented. The implementation of the action plan may involve setting up dedicated MIWP actions).
In the second iteration, the action plan adapted, where necessary.
Links & dependencies / Dependencies:
  • MIWP-xx End-user applications (this action should provide requirements)
Links:
  • 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)
  • MIWP-xx GML-related issues, e.g. flattening, better client support (this could become one of the proposed measures)
  • MIWP14 – The collection of the thematic implementation issues and proposals for changes

Organisational set-up / The analysis of issues and development of an action plan will be carried out by JRC.
The action should be supported by MIG-T and any ad-hoc relevant sub-group once a concrete implementation obstacle(s)/issue(s) have been clearly identified. The ad-hoc sub-group should include members from the MIG-T, DG ENV and EEA thematic units (involved in the planned end user applications) and other INSPIRE stakeholders (e.g. facilitators of the INSPIRE Thematic Clusters; local administrations and businesses).
Four face-to-face workshops with 10-15 participants are planned to discuss the analysis and action plan in the two iterations.
Lead / JRC
Scope / In terms of possible simplifications, the IRs and TGs will be analysed. A proposed revision of the INSPIRE Directive itself is out of scope.
Tasks /
  • Identify obstacles to implementation, features in the INSPIRE framework that are not being used and opportunities for streamlining through 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)
  • Gather requirements from application developers and potential users of INSPIRE data and services as well as the planned end user applications through user surveys, interviews and workshops (specifically in the second iteration)
  • Develop proposals for streamlining and simplification, including an analysis of the impact (on the existing legal and technical framework and on existing implementations in the MS), costs and benefits
  • Discuss proposals with concerned INSPIRE stakeholders
  • Draft an action plan for the implementation of the proposed measures
  • Implement the action plan (this may involve setting up dedicated MIWP actions)

Outcomes /
  • List of issues/obstacles/requirements including their proposed solutions (to be updated in iteration 2)
  • List of proposals for streamlining and simplification
  • Action plan
  • Final report summarizing the implementation of the action plan

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: 30/06/2019 / Actual date of Completion:
Dd/mm/yy
Required human resources and expertise / Members from the MIG-T, DG ENV and EEA thematic units (involved in the planned end user applications) and other INSPIRE stakeholders with an “ear on the ground”, i.e. who have first-hand information (e.g. INSPIRE thematic cluster facilitators) what issues implementers and potential user of INSPIRE data and services face.[3]
Required financial resources / The coordination of the activity and the creation of the outputs will be funded by DG ENV.
Additional resources may have to be made available by implementers in the MS to implement the agreed actions in the action plan.
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
Others:
  • The announcement of possible changes in the Implementing Acts may cause to implementers to stop their implementation until further directions are clear.
  • Lack of resources for implementation of the action plan
  • Nominated people do not have the right expertise and/or availability

Possible funding / Budget from DG ENV is available for reimbursement for four face-to-face workshops with 10-15 participants.

[1]Very positive.

[2]Good news.

[3]. Are Thematic clusters representative of the end-users? It seems that the previous management of use-cases through a handful of experts drove to a dead end. Looking at the last bullet below, we believe that first-hand information is first collected by PoC.