Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting legislation INSPIRE Maintenance & Implementation Framework Work Programme Michael Lutz MIG-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 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 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

Proposed process for updating the MIWP [continuous] MIG representatives propose actions (collected from national stakeholders) [once every month] MIG representatives review newly submitted actions, propose a prioritization for them and identify urgent and minor issues (e.g. bug fixes) to addressed directly. [once every 6 months]  Based on the identified issues, the MIG drafts an updated WP  National stakeholders are consulted on the draft WP (for at least one month)  In a MIG-T meeting, a final draft WP is prepared based on the feedback received from MS  The final draft WP is submitted to the MIG-P for discussion and adoption

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 TaskMSrelated to Flattening principles for INSPIRE data models BEMIWP-18 Making INSPIRE requirements/documents more easily accessible BEMIWP-1/15 How to use M&R indicators CZMIWP-16 Inventory of EU legislation requiring INSPIRE data DEMIWP-21 Use cases / repository of use cases, applications, best practices... DK, SKMIWP-14/21 GML and INSPIRE architecture FRMIWP-11/12/18 Methodology for governance & maintenance of INSPIRE resources FRMIWP-5/7/18 Reducing complexity FRseveral Cross-border harmonisation SKMIWP-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 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 2 nd 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