1. Implementation of INSPIRE in EIONET Core Data Flows
Jose Miguel Rubio I 23 November I NRC-EIS Meeting (Copenhagen, Denmark)
Implementation of INSPIRE in EIONET Core Data Flows
Consultation and results

2. Summary report recently made available to NRC-EIS group
Background
NRC-EIS meeting in December 2016 agreed to develop and share a common understanding of progress in INSPIRE by EIONET
Main aim: share progress in the INSPIRE implementation in priority datasets of EIONET CDF at national level
Blueprint: CZ analysis of availability of metadata and network services for datasets reported under EIONET Core Data Flows
Process: Targeted consultation launched on 26 June and closed on 21 August in time for the KO meeting of activity
Opportunity to feed in as input to activity “ Priority List Datasets”
Responses received after deadline were also integrated!
Summary report recently made available to NRC-EIS group

3. Consultation
Qualitative self-assessment of fulfilment of INSPIRE obligations: MD, Network services, Data Interoperability on 21 priority datasets from 13 ECDF (i.e. at national level.)
Three choices: [1] Inexistent or not available; [2] Existing but not INSPIRE compliant; [3] INSPIRE compliant.
Catalogue URL, Metadata identifiers and plans for implementation were also requested.

4. 20 countries (16 EU and 4 non-EU) responded the survey
Survey results
20 countries (16 EU and 4 non-EU) responded the survey
In several areas datasets appear to have been well identified (Natura 2000, CDDA), other posed some difficulties (Noise, Birds Directive art. 12)
Some NRC representatives have coordinated with different responsible agencies, a few reported only their own datasets;
Metadata unique identifiers were reported in many cases, facilitating the access and analysis of the metadata;
Most countries provided a (positive) outlook of the implementation of services and data interoperability

5. A more in-depth analysis of metadata reported in a few areas:
Discussion of the outcomes
Qualitative analysis of the responses – trend identification by dataset
A more in-depth analysis of metadata reported in a few areas:
Is it a dataset really related to reporting?
Is it a nation-wide dataset? Is it temporally relevant?
Is the dataset available through view/download services?
Is the dataset available as INSPIRE compliant format?
Is the dataset available in the current Geoportal?
Some preliminary conclusions by area and overall

6. Discussion of outcomes – Nature Directives
Positive picture in Metadata and Network Services
Data harmonisation plans in the short term (Annex I)
CDDA already piloting reporting using INSPIRE
Very positive outlook for Natura 2000 datasets
Mixed picture of Art 12 Birds Directive and Art 17 Habitats Directive

7. Discussion of outcomes – Urban Waste Water and Water
Good availability of INSPIRE metadata
Many countries report upcoming plans for data harmonisation
UWWTD:
Low availability of network services
A few countries provide references to SIIF
Water:
Good availability of services, some dataset adapted to DS
Clear identification of the spatial datasets in the responses received

8. Discussion of outcomes – E-PRTR, Bathing waters and Noise
Mixed picture both in availability of metadata and network services
Harmonisation plans by 2020 in most cases
Bathing waters: positive picture on MD and services
E-PRTR: low availability of services, but positive outlook with the implementation of the EU Registry
Noise: very initial stage, even on metadata, lack of clarity on INSPIRE theme

9. Discussion of outcomes – Air Quality
Positive picture in AQ monitoring stations
Datasets should actually reflect the current alignment with INSPIRE!
Mixed responses received need to be further analysed

10. Discussion of outcomes – metadata analysis
When analysing specific metadata (Natura 2000, Noise, Water and E-PRTR)
An analysis of abstract and lineage is not always enough to confirm whether the datasets are really those reported or derived versions
This confirms the convenience of using keywords to identify PDS
Most datasets reported have a nation-wide coverage, with a few exceptions (federal states, countries with overseas territories)
Temporal coverage and up-to-date-ness is difficult to assess from the metadata; some appear to be outdated datasets.
Mixed picture about the associated online resource: some are quite advanced (View and Download services), others provide a link to a website, others none.
Can be addressed by making mandatory the documentation of network services
Most metadata reported were found in the INSPIRE Geoportal

11. Conclusions
Replies from 20 countries - reliable snapshot of the overall INSPIRE progress;
Good availability of INSPIRE metadata, mixed picture on the network services, rarely data harmonisation achieved;
Mixed or inconsistent results may be in many cases due to lack of clarity in the dataset requested or time to coordinate at national level;
Natura 2000, CDDA, AQ monitoring stations, WFD water bodies are the best/most identified datasets;
Positive statements about upcoming harmonisation plans (especially Nature area);
Natura 2000, CDDA, AQ monitoring stations and WFD related datasets offer the most positive outlook for the creation of pan-European applications based on INSPIRE datasets and/or services;

12. Follow-up and next steps
Countries not having responded to the consultation, or updates to the responses given, are welcome by 8 December
Summary report – feedback by 8 December
A second version of the report including comments and country updates to be sent before mid-January
The second version will develop further the link between the first results of the MIWP activity and the survey outcomes
An updated screening could be carried out in 2018 building on the use of keywords (tagged metadata), together with

13. Thank you! José Miguel RUBIO IGLESIAS Jose.Rubio@eea.europa.eu
Jose Miguel Rubio I 4 September I INSPIRE Conference 2017 – Kehl
Thank you!
José Miguel RUBIO IGLESIAS