Transcript INSPIRE Maintenance & Implementation Framework Work Programme Michael Lutz MIG-T Meeting, 30 September – 1 October 2014, London www.jrc.ec.europa.eu Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting legislation.

INSPIRE Maintenance & Implementation
Framework Work Programme
Michael Lutz
MIG-T Meeting, 30 September – 1 October 2014, London
www.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Serving society
Stimulating innovation
Supporting legislation
Overview
• Process for creating and updating the work
programme
• Comments received during the MIG-P consultation
• Status MIWP tasks
• Proposal & discussion
Creating the initial version of the MIWP
• Summer 2013: 143 M+I issues
submitted by MS
• 14 Oct 2013 (MIG kick-off meeting):
clustering and prioritisation of issues
• 28 Nov 2013 (MIG telecom):
discussion and prioritisation
• 16 Dec 2013: Initial draft of MIWP
sent out for MS consultation
 missing topics that should also be addressed
 topics which your country would like to lead or
in which you would like to participate, or
 any potential funding sources and on-going projects or developments
that we should take into account.
• 19 Feb 2014 (MIG telecon): Discussion of additional actions
proposed during the consultation
Creating the initial version of the MIWP
• 28 Feb 2014: Draft of MIWP sent out to
INSPIRE Committee / MIG policy sub-group
• 28 March: Presentation of MIWP in informal
meeting of IC members
• 9+10 April: Further discussion in MIG-T
meeting
 Proposal to merge MIWP-13 and -14 and to create a new MIWP-21
• 18 June: Draft MIWP presented at the INSPIRE Conference
• 30 June: Final draft MIWP sent out to MIG-P members for
consultation
• 5 September: Comments received from 13 MS (AT, BE, CZ,
DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, PL, SE, SK, UK)
• 15 September: Discussion and endorsement by MIG-P
Creating the initial version of the MIWP
• Inclusive approach
 Include all activities that were proposed by MS (if MIG-T agreed)
 No explicit selection criteria or cost-benefit or impact analysis
• Don’t exclude issues that are (currently) of interest only to a
few MS, if there is potential benefit for others
 Encourage sharing of good practices & learning from each other
 Example: TJS
• Prioritisation by "natural selection“
 MS/EC/EEA will only invest resources in issues they find relevant
 Can be observed now – several dormant issues
• Endorsement not thought to be problematic
• But difficult to see priority areas and to decide where to focus
increasingly scarce resources
Consultation
• Feedback only from 13 MS (AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK,
EE, ES, FI, FR, PL, SE, SK, UK)
 What is the opinion of the “silent” MS?
• Endorsement
 Yes (with comments): AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, PL,
SE, SK, UK
 No (with comments): FR
• Some contradicting messages  communication
between MIG-T and MIG-P representatives and
with national implementers?
Comments received
• Thanks for putting together the MIWP (AT, FI, DK,
CZ, DE, FR, EE, PL) and for the progress made (FR,
SK)
• Provide regular updates on the status and
remaining work of the MIWP tasks (AT, FI, DK, DE,
UK)
 Regular update and review of the status of the MIWP every
6 months (DE)
 Use standardized wording for status and timeline (DE)
 Produce a management tool for MS to get a regular, quick
and easily understandable view of how each work package
is progressing as planned - or not (UK)
Comments received
• Add an evaluation of the impact to task
descriptions (what will happen if the task is
done/not done?) (AT, DK, DE, SE)
 Use standardized categories (DE, SE)
• Add information on risk factors (level and
description) (DE)
• Add an estimate of required resources
(manpower) and timeline for the execution to task
description (FI, DE, SE)
 Split estimate by profile (“manager”, “experts”, “editors”,
…) (DE)
 Ensure sufficient (EC) resources (CZ, ES)
 Identify skill and resource gaps (UK)
Comments received
• Evaluate potential synergies with other similar
projects and programmes in order to avoid any
redundant work effort (FI, DK, BE, SE)
 Work on convergence of INSPIRE with other similar
initiatives (BE)
 See INSPIRE as part of other Directives & initiatives (SE)
• Clarify governance – who is deciding what in the
preparation of the MIWP (DK)
• Add use case descriptions to MIWP task
descriptions to make them more understandable
for the wider community (AT, DK)
• Clarify dependencies between work packages
(UK, SE)
Comments received
• Concentrate work on most important tasks
(DK, FR, UK)
 Devise criteria and a method under which each work
package is given an objective priority rating (UK)
 Clarify how much of the content of each work package
has been agreed by the MIG (avoid 'pet projects' that are
not critical to the success of INSPIRE) (UK)
 Prioritisation and endorsement of MIWP is difficult when
tasks are already ongoing (SE, BE, DE)
 Current MIWP already contains only issues that were
identified in the beginning as major and critical (SE, BE)
• Number of tasks shows the complexity (SK)
Comments received
• Include non-technical issues (organisation,
governance) and discussion of complexity to
MIWP (FR, SK)
 Main outcomes of the INSPIRE mid-term evaluation
should be considered (SK)
 Support & promote cross border harmonization and
capacity building (incl. stronger user involvement) (SK)
• More pragmatic implementation guidance to
achieve full interoperability (data, metadata,
service, network, security, portal) (BE)
• Ensure European-level coordination to improve
consistency between existing solutions or with
other standards (BE)
Priority issues
• No objective picture because of small sample (13)
and lack of prioritization criteria
• But still some trends emerge
 Most important issues (in order of priority)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Validation
Registers
M&R
Identifiers/RDF
Thematic clusters
Pilots
Simplifying TGs
Licencing
Metadata TG
 For many issues, disagreement about priority
Additional issues proposed
Task
MS
related to
Flattening principles for INSPIRE data models
BE
MIWP-18
Making INSPIRE requirements/documents more
easily accessible
BE
MIWP-1/15
How to use M&R indicators
CZ
MIWP-16
Inventory of EU legislation requiring INSPIRE data
DE
MIWP-21
Use cases / repository of use cases, applications,
best practices...
GML and INSPIRE architecture
DK, SK
MIWP-14/21
FR
MIWP-11/12/18
Methodology for governance & maintenance of
INSPIRE resources
Reducing complexity
FR
MIWP-5/7/18
FR
several
Cross-border harmonisation
SK
MIWP-14?
Support capacity building and community
engagement
SK
MIWP tasks – life-cycle
Identify issues
(stakeholders)
Propose new
MIWP task for
further
investigation
(MIG-P/T)
Define workplan /
ToR temporary
sub-group
(MIG-P/T)
Initial
investigation
(workshop,
study, …)
Endorse
inclusion of
task in MIWP
(MIG-P)
Execute the
task / address
the issues
(e.g. temporary
sub-group)
Status MIWP tasks (September 2014)
MIWP-1
no MIG activities yet
MIWP-10
almost completed
MIWP-2
started
MIWP-11
started
(GML workshop)
MIWP-3
on-going
(ARE3NA study)
MIWP-12
started
(GML workshop)
MIWP-4
on-going
(ARE3NA study)
started
MIWP-5
started
MIWP-14
MIWP-6
on-going
MIWP-15
no MIG activities yet
on-going
MIWP-7a
on-going
MIWP-16
MIWP-17
no MIG activities yet
MIWP-7b
started
on-going
MIWP-7c
no MIG activities yet
MIWP-18
MIWP-8
started
MIWP-19
no MIG activities yet
MIWP-9
no MIG activities yet
MIWP-20
no MIG activities yet
MIWP-21
no MIG activities yet
(FAQ collection)
(ToR & work plan)
(ARE3NA study,
ToR)
(ARE3NA study,
ToR)
(WCS workshop)
(ToR & work plan)
(call for
facilitators, platform set-up)
(active sub-
group)
(GML workshop,
Annex I schema updates)
Proposal – MIWP endorsement
• Endorse initial version of the rolling MIWP (and
update it following an agreed procedure)
• Yes, it can be improved
 Technical focus and no policy-related issues yet (e.g.
outcomes/follow-up actions from mid-term evaluation)
 Task descriptions can be improved (following the
suggestions from the consultation), e.g.
–
–
–
–
stage in the life-cycle
Risks & impacts
Resource requirements
Dependencies and synergies
 Some additional tasks may need to be added
… BUT we need to have some agreed basis for the
further work of the MIG and its sub-groups
Proposal – Future MIWP updates
• Aim for future updates: more consolidated MIWP
(focus on fewer, but relevant tasks)
• Follow life-cycle more strictly
 MIG-T or MIG-P propose new tasks
based on the input they received
from stakeholders
 MIG-P or MIG-T further investigate
task and define workplan/ToR for a sub-group
 MIG-P endorses the inclusion of the task in the MIWP
• Endorsement (following standard rules of
procedure for EC expert groups)
 written procedure
 Opinion by consensus or, if a vote is necessary, by a
simple majority of the members
Proposal – Sharing good practices
• Exchange of implementation experiences and
good practices is an important goal of the MIG
• Not much activity yet
• If such activities are not explicitly included in the
MIWP, we need alternative ways to increase
activities in this area, e.g.





Share national/EC/EEA work programmes
Regular agenda point in all MIG-T and -P meetings
Separate webinars on specific topics
Discussion forums of thematic clusters
Others?
Proposal – Role of the MIG-P
• Dual role
 Propose additional issues to be addressed
 Evaluate/endorse issues proposed for inclusion in the
MIWP
• Initial issues could already be identified at this
meeting, starting from
proposed additional actions
• MIG-P working methods:
meetings, tools, screening
of new initiatives, dialogue
with MIG T, etc.
 Use same/similar working
methods and tools as MIG-T?
Proposal
• Endorse today the MIWP at least for the work items that have a
workplan / ToR









MIWP-5 (Validation & conformity)
MIWP-6 (Registers)
MIWP-7a (Download service for observation data)
MIWP-8 (Metadata)
MIWP-10 (Annex I DS updates)
MIWP-14 (Thematic clusters)
MIWP-16 (Monitoring information)
MIWP-18 (Annex I XML schema updates)
MIWP-21 (Pilots?)
• Elaborate 2nd version as soon as possible (end of 2014?)
 MIG-P to propose and elaborate additional tasks (start today)
– Long-term objectives / prioritisation criteria
– MIG-P governance (incl. working methods & communication with MIG-T)
 MIG-T to do impact analyses for remaining issues
 Incorporate other comments from consultation