1. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 1 Introduction and Project Overview

2. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Review Meeting – 28 January 2010 – 09:30 - 13:15 EC 25, Avenue de Beaulieu, B1160 Brussels (Room 0/S10) AGENDA TimeRef. WP- Deliverable 09:30Welcome and introduction. Context, purpose and objectives of the review Participants presentation PO 9' 09:39Introduction and project overview Recommendations from the 1st Review meeting GISIG 8' Discuss. 8’ 9:55State of Play and European Analysis Indicators for the SoP Synthesis at European level WP3-D3.1KU Leuven 15' Discuss. 15’ 10:25Good Practices Overview of the overall process The Good Practice Catalogue and its content Good Practice comparative analysis and link to WP4 WP2-task2.2 D2.4.2 D2.4.2 (a) D2.4.2 (b) GISIG 4’ ICCOPS 4' TEE 7’ Discuss. 15’ 10:55Coffee break15’

3. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 11:10WP4 ICT Roadmap outlines  Technical approach  ICT Roadmap  Guidelines on ICT for environmental monitoring and reporting WP4 D4.2.2 D4.1.2 TEE 15’ Discuss.15’ 11:40Contributions by the EIONET NFPs partners  State of Play – Good Practices  Networking at National level WP2 WP7 EIONET NFPs 25' Discuss.25’ 12:30Dissemination and Network development  Web site (www.nesis.eu)www.nesis.eu  NESIS workshops WP7 D7.3.3-D7.3.4 GISIG 8’ Discuss. 8’ 12:46Project management issues Indicators-Resources - Plan for future activity WP1 D1.2.2 GISIG 10' Discuss. 10’ 13:06Quick oral feedbackPO-Reviewers- 5' Expected conclusion: around 13:15

4. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 4th semester

5. WP7 Networking and Dissemination WP1 Project management Oct ‘10 May ‘10 Nov ‘09 May ‘09 Nov ‘08 May ‘08 WP2 SoP T2.1 WP5 ICT Roadmap validation WP6 Consultation/ assessment WP2 T2.2 Best Practice Network development WPs Timetable WP2 T2.2 Best Practice WP3 Sop Synthesis ICT Roadmap Guidelines Structure Draft Version WP4 ICT Roadmap outlines

6. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 RecommendationAction No. 1 - WP1 Consider definition of an internal review procedures for deliverables. E.g. document to be available x days in advance for review by task leader, WP leader or Coordinator. D1.1 Project handbook revised. Internal review procedures established See Project management issues presentation

7. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Recommendation Action No.2 – WP2 The templates for the state-of-play and best-practice don ’ t facilitate exploitation of the results in the next stage (WP3). Try to clearly separate quantitative and categorical information from textual annotations. No. 4 – WP2 (Un)ambiguity of each question [in the templates] is to be checked if the responses have to be comparable. The future WP3 deliverable with the synthesis should contain a clear explanation of the methodology used to obtain these results and put them in context. SoP and Good Practices Templates reviewed to i) better clarify what is expected, ii) detail the ICT parts and iii) separate, where possible, quantitative and categorical information from textual annotations See Good Practices presentation The European Synthesis (D3.1) includes a chapter on the approach and methodology for the analysis of the State of Play and the choice of the indicators See State of Play and European Analysis presentation

8. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 RecommendationAction No. 5 – WP2 The “state-of-play” report contains information about 10 Countries and should be completed with information about the other countries in the Consortium. The missing National State of Play report has been uploaded.

9. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Recommendation Action No. 6 – WP3 Project should make available to the EC the list of “ indicators ” that will be used as the basis for the synthesis and recommendations in an early stage, for comments and approval. The proposed indicators and a chapter on the methodology how to use them have been circulated for comments and feedback. They have been included in the D3.1 deliverable. See State of Play and European Analysis presentation

10. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 RecommendationAction No. 7 – WP4 Consortium to have a more specific enumeration of the components/services in the infrastructure they will cover with the ICT recommendations to define the scope of the recommendations. Reviewers recommend focusing on ICT services needed to support the core data flows based on the use cases (representative subset) from WP3. The core data flows should be examined using a “ service-oriented architecture ” -approach with the main focus of delivery from delivery organisation and transaction/flow issues, both point to point communication between clients and servers, but also workflows utilizing services in a chained manner. It may be too wide for the NESIS project also to cover client issues such as Portal/map viewers etc. The WP4 deliverables include the description of the ICT components and/or services of the SEIS infrastructure. See WP4 ICT Roadmap outlines presentation

11. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Recommendation Action No.8 - WP 4 Reviewers recommend adopting in the report structure, the INSPIRE taxonomy of services (See Data Specification, Metadata and Network Services IR: e.g. discovery, downloading, viewing, transformation, invoke spatial data service etc.) and complement with additional services only when needed (with proper argumentation). This also includes the treatment of issues such as necessary registries, authentication and access control functionalities. No. 9 – WP4 Consortium is encouraged to instantiate/adopt/tailor the INSPIRE IR for the environmental domain. The INSPIRE taxonomy of services was taken as reference, even if they are oriented to geo-information and not specifically designed to cover the various aspects of data reporting and aggregation. I.e. INSPIRE services and the INSPIRE IR were seen mainly as the underlying infrastructure to assist SEIS implementation, using as possible SOA standards. See WP4 ICT Roadmap outlines presentation

12. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 RecommendationAction No. 3 - WP2, WP7 Workshops The workshop reports should contain a conclusion/ action list/noticeable events resulting from the workshop. The purpose is not to just organise yet another workshop. No. 10 - WP2, WP7 Workshops Past and future workshop reports should contain a conclusion/action list/noticeable events resulting from the workshop. The purpose is not to just organise yet another meeting, and only list individual presentations. The Workshop reports have been revised, to include the outcomes of the event, according to a new template, used also for the new events. See Dissemination and Network development presentation

13. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 RecommendationAction No. 11 – WP7 Project should have a link to the NESIS Web site from the SEIS web site to increase the visibility. A request has been addressed to the Commission and the link has been created (at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/seis/l inks.htm)

14. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 RecommendationAction General No. 1 Project to put more emphasis on the ICT parts of the project in-line with the objectives of the DOW See the responses to specific recommendations: N. 2 Good Practice template N. 7 to 9 for the ICT Roadmap General No. 2 Recommendation to attract more ICT expertise in the Advisory Board An additional ICT-oriented expert has joined the Advisory board in March 2009 See list in the Project management issues presentation

15. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 RecommendationAction General No. 3 Project should more proactively use existing results from INSPIRE and focus on the complementarity of the NESIS recommendations w.r.t. to already existing (draft) INSPIRE recommendations which may also relevant for the environmental domain. After consultation with JRC and Country representatives, the WP4 deliverables are now more explicitly looking at INSPIRE as one of the underlying infrastructure for SEIS. See WP4 ICT Roadmap outlines presentation General No. 4 Meaning of “validation” in WP 5,6,7 is to be clarified. What is exactly meant? It is a two step consultation before the final approval of the ICT-Roadmap: during WP5, by the NESIS Members and the Commission Directorates and Agencies involved in SEIS. During WP6, in consultation with stakeholders of environmental Information across Europe.

16. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Deliverable NoDeliverable nameStatus 1.1Project HandbookRevised 2.1 Template for Best Practice and National State-of-play Report Revised 2.2Report of kick-off workshopRevised 2.3 State-of-Play report on national environmental information systems and services Revised 2.4 NESIS Best Practice Catalogue (template) Online Catalogue (prototype) Revised 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3NESIS Best PracticesRevised 2.5Report of first semester WorkshopRevised Project Deliverables modified following the I Review Meeting

17. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Activity Nov 08-Oct 09 (reported period) Revision of project deliverables following the recommendations received from the Reviewers after the first review meeting of January 2009 (see recommendations from the I Review Meeting) Finalisation of the collection of information at the national level about the ICT components that will contribute to the development of SEIS in the different Partner Countries; the work has been carried-out according to a refined template (ref. WP2 - State of Play at national level - Task 2.1) Synthesis of the national information in order to get an overview of the State of Play in a European dimension (ref. WP3 - State of Play synthesis and validation at EU level) D3.1 see presentation “State of Play and European Analysis”

18. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Activity Nov 08-Oct 09 (reported period) GOOD PRACTICES Collection of new Good Practices and revision of those collected in the first phase, according to a new more structured template, which underlines the ICT aspects (ref.WP2 – Task 2.2 Analysis and best-practices) To overcome delays in the SEIS implementation process, the NESIS background: Analysis of the good practices to get added value information for the project, in view of a NESIS proposal for the SEIS ICT implementation. That leaded to two different elaborations (new deliverables):  a synthesis to point out features that are more recurrent and relevant, accompanied by  a comparative analysis, to take out basic processes that present excellence aspects and might be used for drafting general (high level) models New version of the NESIS Good Practice Catalogue and the additional D2.4.2 (a) and D2.4.2 (b) see presentation “Good Practices”

19. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Activities of the Second Period Production of the draft of a ICT Roadmap about “what to do” for the implementation of SEIS, together with the draft of complementary “Guidelines on ICT supporting environmental and monitoring”, about “how to do” it. (Ref. WP4-ICT roadmap outlines). D4.2.1 and D4.2.2 see presentation “WP4 ICT Roadmap Outlines” Further development the NESIS network both at a National and European level, including the NESIS web site and the organisation of NESIS workshops (Ref. WP7 - Networking and dissemination). See presentation “Dissemination and Network Development”

20. Brussels, II Review Meeting, 28th January 2010 Inputs for a “Pilot A” action Moreover, the promotion of a ICT-PSP Pilot A action was one of the NESIS objectives: Draft outlines for a Pilot A action for the ICT-PSP 2010 Programme have been discussed among the partnership leading to two complementary and combined abstract proposals:  Draft outlines for content and priorities of a Pilot A Action for the 2010 ICT-PSP Work programme, including a general framework with different thematic applications, of which a detailed one on:  e-TFS (electronic administration of Transfrontier Shipment of Waste) This activity has been stopped by the Commission, being not any longer a priority for ICT-PSP 20