Review reporting decision Early feedback from FR, LT, PT and DE No consensus. Other positions than endorsed outcome of 2016.2 (e.g. maximal automated monitoring) Headline opinions No consensus on additional metadata keywords and proposed controlled vocabularies (priority datasets, granularity) (No:FR, LT & DE / Yes: PT) The « once only » principle should lead to use only INSPIRE web services (role EEA). (FR, DE) Suggestions to remove specific indicators versus suggestions to keep these indicators No monitoring of invoke services. (FR, LT) No consensus on automated calculation of indicators based on metadata (No: FR & DE / Yes: PT)

CHAPTER 2 The additional metadata and individual indicators have not been discussed so far in the Monitoring and Reporting subgroup. As they are shown the first time in this draft they have to be discussed inside the national organisational structures. Starting here and up to article 9 there are no explanations any more on how the indicators are calculated as it was mostly in chapter 4 of the articles 3 to 10 of the existing monitoring and reporting decision. Although the calculation will be done centrally calculation rules should be set in the decision - in the sense of transparency.

Article 10 Information to be provided FR: A MS report can not depends on tools on which it has no control. What if the EU Geoportal makes non-controlled (by MS) interpretations? DE: I have concerns on this procedure, using the EU-Geoportal, too. So far the calculation and providing of indicators is done by the member states. On the one hand a centralized approach using the EU-Geoportal might simplify processes (in the long run) on the other hand there is no guarantee the EU-Geoportal capacities provide reliable results. If these results are taken as final results wrong conclusions might be done. That’s why I suggest - as the French colleague does - to focus on the information provided by Member States via discovery services only. Any use of the EU-Geoportal means, that results on indicators can only be preliminary and have to be communicated and verified with/by each Member State before publishing to exclude contradictions or misunderstandings. PT: Do not agree with the text remove. We consider that this monitoring process through the EC Geoportal simplifies the all process.

Article 11 Updating reports DE: We would like to see a flowchart aside the decision which shows responsibilities, deadlines, participations and tasks in the process of monitoring and reporting to get a better overview. FR: The Country Fiches are not explicitly mentioned in this article. Will there be an online-template which can be updated whenever it is necessary and latest every three years? The process of reporting should be part of the flowchart which was asked for above.