INSPIRE Maintenance & Implementation Framework Work Programme

1. INSPIRE Maintenance & Implementation Framework Work Programme Michael Lutz MIG-T Meeting, 30 September – 1 October 2014, London

2. Overview • Process for creating and updating the work programme • Comments received during the MIG-P consultation • Status MIWP tasks • Proposal & discussion

3. Creating the initial version of the MIWP • Summer 2013: 143 M+I issuessubmittedby 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 orin 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

4. Creating the initial version of the MIWP • 28 Feb 2014: Draft of MIWP sent out toINSPIRE Committee / MIG policy sub-group • 28 March: Presentation of MIWP in informalmeeting of IC members • 9+10 April: Further discussion in MIG-Tmeeting • Proposal to merge MIWP-13 and -14 and to create a new MIWP-21 • 18 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

5. 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

6. 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?

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. Comments received • Evaluate potential synergieswith other similar projects and programmesin 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)

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. 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

13. Additional issues proposed

14. MIWP tasks – life-cycle Identify issues (stakeholders) Propose new MIWP task for further investigation (MIG-P/T) Initial investigation (workshop, study, …) Define workplan / ToR temporary sub-group (MIG-P/T) Endorse inclusion of task in MIWP (MIG-P) Execute the task / address the issues(e.g. temporary sub-group)

15. Status MIWP tasks (September 2014)

16. 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

17. 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 tasksbased on the input they received from stakeholders • MIG-P or MIG-T further investigatetask 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

18. 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?

19. 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 fromproposed additional actions • MIG-P working methods:meetings, tools, screeningof new initiatives, dialoguewithMIG T, etc. • Use same/similar workingmethodsand tools as MIG-T?

20. 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 2nd 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