www.jrc.ec.europa.eu

Serving societyStimulating innovationSupporting legislation

INSPIRE Maintenance & Implementation Framework Work Programme

Michael LutzMIG-T Meeting, 30 September – 1 October 2014, London

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 issuessubmitted 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 toINSPIRE Committee / MIG policy sub-group

• 28 March: Presentation of MIWP in informalmeeting of IC members

• 9+10 April: Further discussion in MIG-Tmeeting 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 toFlattening 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...

DK, SK MIWP-14/21

GML and INSPIRE architecture FR MIWP-11/12/18

Methodology for governance & maintenance of INSPIRE resources

FR MIWP-5/7/18

Reducing complexity FR several

Cross-border harmonisation SK MIWP-14?

Support capacity building and community engagement

SK

MIWP tasks – life-cycle

Identify issues(stakeholders)

Define workplan / ToR temporary

sub-group (MIG-P/T)

Propose new MIWP task for

further investigation

(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-2 started (FAQ collection)

MIWP-3 on-going (ARE3NA study)

MIWP-4 on-going (ARE3NA study)

MIWP-5 started (ToR & work plan)

MIWP-6 on-going (ARE3NA study, ToR)

MIWP-7a on-going (ARE3NA study, ToR)

MIWP-7b started (WCS workshop)

MIWP-7c no MIG activities yet

MIWP-8 started (ToR & work plan)

MIWP-9 no MIG activities yet

MIWP-10 almost completed

MIWP-11 started (GML workshop)

MIWP-12 started (GML workshop)

MIWP-14 started (call for facilitators, platform set-up)

MIWP-15 no MIG activities yet

MIWP-16 on-going (active sub-group)

MIWP-17 no MIG activities yet

MIWP-18 on-going (GML workshop, Annex I schema updates)

MIWP-19 no MIG activities yet

MIWP-20 no MIG activities yet

MIWP-21 no MIG activities yet

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 investigatetask 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 fromproposed additional actions

• MIG-P working methods:meetings, tools, screeningof new initiatives, dialoguewith 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