1. Group 3 – strategies for identification, definition of national datasets for INSPIRE + environmental reporting
Identification of INSPIRE datasets/providers was usually done at the time of INSPIRE transposition - now the list is being updated:
top down or bottom up approach? – the trend is from the top down more to the bottom up approach = domain agreement is needed
Higher complexity when the MS operates with the federal structure (multi - layers of the public administration) in place (Germany, Italy, France...)
eReporting obligation has usually not been yet taken into account when identifying the datasets, but it is a good way for defining the data scope for INSPIRE themes.
Political prioritization = selecting those thematic obligations (reporting) that are high in the national political agenda= use/implement INSPIRE infrastructure there first

2. Not forcing rather convincing approach
Flexibility needed to respect a different level of INSPIRE implementation/maturity in the MS (especially for Annex 3 data themes data providers = covers the issues of the responsibility for the provision of the agreed country datasets, sustainability (also the IT infrastructure robustness/knowledge etc.
Defining national use cases + national data specifications is also important (not to strictly follow only the INSPIRE legal requirements)
INSPIRE x eReporting = 2 ways discussed:
Full integration in data model extensions
Core INSPIRE services as-is + additional eReporting data/services.
Capacity building is needed
EU directions for the use of INSPIRE for eReporting are appreciated also for MS coordination/prioritization discussions