Action : Streamlining the monitoring and reporting for 2019

Transcription

1 INSPIRE MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/1.0 Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Action : Streamlining the monitoring and reporting for 2019 Review of the Monitoring & Reporting Decision (2009/442/EC) and the indicator framework for monitoring and reporting Type Document for discussion Creator sub-group Date/status/version 30/05/2017 / DRAFT / version 1.0 Addressee Identifier Description MIG (for discussion and possible endorsement of suggested follow up) MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/1.0 Working area 2 of the MIWP will carry out activities to significantly simplify and streamline monitoring and reporting under the INSPIRE Directive. Action was agreed at the June 2016 meeting of the MIG-P and is implemented as set out in the endorsed action mandate. A sub-group was set up. This paper documents the review of the Commission Decision of 5 June 2009 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC (INSPIRE) as regards monitoring and reporting (2009/442/EC) in view of the Better Regulation Fitness Check for environmental monitoring and reporting. actions: MIG to: Take note of the document and discuss it at the meeting; Provide feedback, discuss and agree on continuation actions to be further elaborated into a mandate for approval by the MIG in December and inclusion in the MIWP. Endorse the successful completion of action Proposed actions in Changes are proposed to INSPIRE monitoring indicators which require an update of the Commission decision implementing the INSPIRE Directive as 1

2 this document regards monitoring and reporting (2009/442/EC) and the corresponding Guidance documents. A country fiche template is introduced to guide the streamlining of the existing monitoring and reporting process into a more effective and cost-efficient process that makes optimal use of already existing information. A country fiche system should be set up to manage static reporting information, maximally reuse metadata for monitoring and provide additional information on request through targeted surveys. Additionally, suggestions were made for changes to the Metadata Implementing Rule and/or guidance to simplify metadata documentation, stimulate pragmatic use of metadata in applications and at the same time better accommodate the metadata for gathering information on performance indicators. If the scenario for changing metadata is supported an update of the metadata IR needs to be prepared. 3 possible scenarios are presented: Scenario 1: No change to Reporting decision, no change to the metadata IR. Scenario 2: Change the Reporting Decision, no change to the metadata IR Scenario 3: Changes to Reporting Decision and metadata IR In view of the mandate for this action, scenario 2 is preferred. No other regulation is impacted, the reporting burden is partially addressed through automated gathering of monitoring information through metadata and the information collection is streamlined and fixed through a country fiche template. Further optimization of metadata for use and reporting purposes could be documented in the reporting guidance as part of a common implementation strategy and should be driven by real-life use cases and possible return on investment. Next steps / Planning June 2017 Sept-Nov 2017 December 2017 January- May 2018 June 2018 July October 2018 December 2018 January May 2019 May 2019 discussion of document/agree follow up preparation of action mandate(s) for MIWP Agree new actions as part of MIWP Implement actions Review progress agree outcome of actions, if possible Implement actions Review progress agree outcome of actions, if possible Transition to updated reporting process INSPIRE reporting using the updated reporting process. 2

3 3 MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/1.0

4 Action : Streamlining the monitoring and reporting for 2019 Review of the Monitoring & Reporting Decision (2009/442/EC) and the indicator framework for monitoring and reporting 1 Context The INSPIRE Directive has been identified as one of the main vehicles to streamline existing reporting processes in order to make them more effective and efficient. INSPIRE provides a common process for the delivery of monitoring and reporting information with a spatial component and allows for linking non-spatial information to spatial reporting units. In addition to help streamline the reporting under other pieces of legislation, the monitoring and reporting regime under the INSPIRE Directive itself needs streamlining. The current system is based on Article 21 of the Directive and the 2009 Reporting Implementing Decision. The experience from the previous reporting rounds and the evaluation has shown that this system leaves room for improvement. The presence of administrative and textual information is still quite significant in the existing system and in many cases it is not meaningful to collect these, or slightly updated information, on a regular basis. Moreover, the principles on streamlined monitoring and reporting currently developed in the context of the Environment Fitness Check strongly argue for using quantitative data for key performance indicators or implementation benchmarks and making the rest of the information publically available at national level. The progress in the monitoring action (MIWP-16), dashboard and validation tools would allow for a much more streamlined, electronic and simple monitoring and reporting process under INSPIRE. As a result, working area 2 of the MIWP ("End user applications for environmental reporting and implementation") will carry out activities to significantly simplify and streamline monitoring and reporting under the INSPIRE Directive in time before the next national reports are due in An analysis of the existing documents (Reporting Decision and guidance) will be carried out and a concept for a future approach will be developed. The MIG, supported by its permanent technical subgroup, will oversee the work by the dedicated subgroup. In June 2017 the intermediate results will be discussed in the MIG and presented to the Committee to seek a mandate for the further development and implementation of a streamlined monitoring and reporting process for the INSPIRE Directive. 4

5 STATUS BASED ON 3 YEARS REPORT 2 Country Fiches, a model for streamlined reporting MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/1.0 The concept of INSPIRE Country fiches was introduced by the Commission and discussed with the experts from the Member States in the MIG and its permanent technical subgroup. A detailed Country Fiche example is provided in Annex 2. In general, the proposed INSPIRE country fiche template was appreciated by the Member States as it: can be a driver for simplifying the reporting under INSPIRE, maximizes the reuse of existing metadata, serves comparability of reports across Member States, is an instrument for feedback by the Commission on the implementation effort of the Member States. The country fiche is modelled after the template for the tri-annual INSPIRE Implementation report (slow-changing descriptive information), the yearly monitoring report indicators (dynamic measurement of the implementation progress) and the template prepared for the bilateral meetings (forward looking implementation aspects). The results of the previous subgroup on monitoring (MIWP-16) was taken into consideration and the action was coordinated with the EEA activities on reporting and the INSPIRE dashboard. STATE OF PLAY (Based on Report) Coordination National Contact point Coordination Strategy (image if available) Progress Functioning and coordination of the infrastructure Progress Usage of the infrastructure for spatial information Progress Cross-border Data Sharing Arrangements Progress Costs and Benefits Progress on accessing costs Progress on accessing benefits 5

6 RECOMMEN DATIONS OPTIONAL SUMMARY GENERAL ASSESMENT OUTLOOK BASED ON ACTION PLAN STATUS BASED ON DASHBOARD MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/1.0 KEY FACTS AND FIGURES (From INSPIRE dashboard) Identification of spatial data with relevance to the environment Documentation of the data (metadata) Accessibility of the data through digital services Technical conformity and level of interoperability of spatial data, metadata and services OUTLOOK (Based on Action plan) SUMMARY How country is doing SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Part 1: Implementation Report the static part of the country fiche The existing template for the tri-annual implementation report was used as input for the country fiche. The content provided by the MS needs to be streamlined and synthesized to reflect a similar approach and comparable content across MS. If possible, extensive textual descriptions should be summarized and/or clarified by visuals/graphics. This part of the country fiche is considered to be the static part of the country fiche. In future this content will not be requested separately in a report but will be updated by the MS upon changes conform the tri-annual reporting cycle as mandated in the INSPIRE Directive or can be continuously maintained by MS on a voluntary base. 2.2 Part 2: Monitoring the dynamic part of the country fiche delivering Key Performance Indicators (KPI) Part 2 of the Country Fiche builds further on the results of MIWP-16 (Monitoring 1 ) and MIWP-5 (Validation and Conformity 2 ). The main target is to fully automate the gathering and validation of 1 Final activity report of the MIWP-16: 6

7 monitoring information based on metadata made available by the Member Stated through their registered discovery services. To assess the possibility of automatic harvesting of information for measuring the performance of the INSPIRE implementation the monitoring and reporting obligations and the existing monitoring indicators have been reviewed. A lot of the work in this area has already been done in MIWP-16. The results of this MIG work package were the starting point for further streamlining of the monitoring process, fit for purpose screening of the Reporting Decision and the impact assessment on the metadata regulation Review of existing INSPIRE monitoring indicators based on past experiences The subgroup has reviewed the INSPIRE Reporting Decision and the existing indicator framework. Part of this exercise included the mapping of reporting and monitoring information to metadata content to identify double information obligations (see Annex 3) and the proposal for an indicator development methodology in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines for new indicators (see Annex 1). The following need for changes to the INSPIRE Reporting Decision were identified: No change to Article 1 (Subject Matter) No change to Article 2 (Common Provisions) Drop Article 3 (Monitoring of existing metadata) o In case of moving to a fully automated monitoring we recommend that the general indicator MDi1 and its specific indicators MDi1.1, MDi1.2, MDi1.3 and MDi1.4 (respectively for spatial data sets in Annex I, II, III and for spatial data services) are removed from the list of INSPIRE monitoring indicators. Article 3 of the Commission Decision (2009/442/EC) needs to be dropped. No change to Article 4 (Monitoring of the conformity of metadata). Further recommendations will be provided in guidelines. Drop Article 5 (Monitoring of the geographical coverage of spatial data sets). o It is proposed to stop the collection of the relevant and actual area of spatial data sets and to consequently remove DSi1 from the list of INSPIRE monitoring indicators. This indicator is identified in Chapter III of the Implementing Rules, Article 5. We recommend that this entire Article is dropped from the Implementing Rules. No change to Article 6 (Monitoring of the conformity of spatial data sets). Further recommendations will be provided in guidelines. Drop Article 7 (Monitoring of the accessibility of metadata through discovery services). o In case of moving to a fully automated monitoring we recommend that the general indicator NSi1 and its specific indicators NSi1.1 and NSi1.2 (respectively for spatial data sets and spatial data services) are removed from the list of INSPIRE monitoring indicators. Article 7 of the Commission Decision (2009/442/EC) needs to be dropped. 2 Wiki page of MIWP-5: 7

8 No change to Article 8 (Monitoring of the accessibility of spatial data sets through view and download services). A proposal will be made to change the metadata IR to better accommodate the definition of view and download services in the metadata of a data set. Drop Article 9 (Monitoring of the use of network services). o It is proposed to stop the collection of the annual number of requests per network service and to consequently remove NSi3 from the list of INSPIRE monitoring indicators. This indicator is identified in Chapter III of the Implementing Rules, Article 9. We recommend that this entire article is dropped. No change to Article 10 (Monitoring of the conformity of network services). A change to the Metadata IR was proposed to include a metadata conformance statement on Network services. No change to Article 11 (Information to be provided). o Future Reporting will be based on country fiches. Country fiches for 2016 will be finished by mid of March and bilaterally shared with MS. Based on the outcome of the exchange with the MS, the final fiche will be endorsed for future reporting. No change to Article 12 (Coordination and quality assurance). No change to Article 13 (Contribution to the functioning and coordination of the Infrastructure). Article 14 (Use of the infrastructure for spatial information) o o Article 14 a): proposal to be rephrased. Article 14 e): proposal to drop Article 14 discussion: it is difficult to monitor usage. The current indicator does not provide any insight, nor does it provide insight in the uptake of INSPIRE. No specific alternative indicators were proposed. MIG is invited to do proposals based on national practices. No change to Article 15 (Data sharing arrangements). Further recommendations will be provided in guidelines i.e. open data portals, licenses and link to their descriptions. It was e.g. suggested to add indicators on the percentage of INSPIRE spatial data under open data. No change to Article 16 (Cost and benefit aspects). Further recommendations will be provided in guidelines. Changes are proposed to INSPIRE monitoring indicators which require an update of the Commission decision implementing the INSPIRE Directive as regards monitoring and reporting (2009/442/EC) and the corresponding Guidance documents. Suggestions were made for changes to the Metadata Implementing Rule and/or guidance to simplify metadata documentation, stimulate pragmatic use of metadata in applications and at the same time better accommodate the metadata for gathering information on performance indicators in an automated way. 8

9 2.2.2 Proposed changes to metadata in order to improve its quality and usefulness MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/1.0 Change the metadata IR to better accommodate the definition of view and download services in the metadata of a data set. o To facilitate the use and the accessibility of data sets and services in end-user applications, it would be recommended that the comprehensive description (e.g. service endpoint, UUID, view or download request, name of view layer or download file, protocol WMS/FTP/File/ ) of view and download service endpoints is mandated in the dataset metadata. This is already foreseen to some level in the INSPIRE metadata regulation and supported by the ISO19115 profile. See also the following discussion on the thematic clusters for more insights. New keywords on priority datasets, o The new MIWP is setting priorities on environmental reporting and fit for purpose of INSPIRE implementation in view of use by the larger digital community and enduser applications. One of the main instruments to guide the implementation towards these priorities is the rolling list of priority datasets. To be able to monitor the progress of making these priority datasets available within an automated system and to be able to find data related to reporting obligations in an easy way, data set metadata should include information from a controlled vocabulary (e.g. EUR-Lex) that references the legislation under which the data has been made available or reported. Metadata conformance statement on Network services It was proposed to make some elements mandatory: o metadata UUIDs of spatial data sets; o metadata UUIDs of the discovery, view and download services related to a spatial data set; o metadata UUID of the discovery service servicing the metadata of a network service; o direct accessibility of a service. 2.3 Part 3: MS Action Plan Objectives for each MS and the actions to achieve them, aligned with the objectives of the INSPIRE implementation strategy This part of the Country Fiche contains the forward looking aspect for closing identified INSPIRE implementation gaps in the MS and delivering on INSPIRE implementation objectives (priority data sets, harmonization ). A common set of objectives need to be developed to steer MS INSPIRE implementation towards a common direction/goal. Based on the INSPIRE state of play, MS have been invited to develops a country-specific action plan for realizing the common objectives as discussed in bilateral meetings between Commission and Member States in National actions and their timing can differ; the common objectives and timing for achieving these objectives are the same. Where the MIWP is the common INSPIRE Action Plan outlining the EU implementation strategy and EU objectives, the MS Action Plans outline the country-specific operational actions for aligning with EU implementation strategy, EU objectives, national strategy and national objectives. For the Country fiche our focus is on EU-level objectives. Country specific objectives can be used to build a case for national INSPIRE benefits. For every EU-level objective, indicators to measure performance need to be developed and if necessary added to the monitoring requirements. Ideally all information needed for these new monitoring 9

10 indicators is harvested automatically through the monitoring process by assessing the metadata provided by the MS discovery service endpoints. For some indicators it might be necessary to initiate separate information gathering (e.g. by doing surveys) if it is not opportune to integrate them in the metadata. Member States will be invited to update the outlook perspective in the country fiche whenever new national initiatives emerge to improve INSPIRE implementation or address implementation deficits. 2.4 Scenarios and trade-offs Scenario 1: No change to Reporting decision, no change to the metadata IR. Business as usual. Pro: No impact on the legal framework, existing processes or existing information systems. Con: Streamlining of the implementation framework cannot be fully achieved; double information is still requested through metadata and reporting obligations and the presence of contextual information in the reports hinders comparability and burdens the reporting process. Non-mandatory optimizations supporting a maximized reuse of metadata for monitoring and pragmatic reporting will be subject of a common monitoring and reporting implementation strategy agreed between Commission and Member States Scenario 2: Change the Reporting Decision, no change to the metadata IR Partially streamlined reporting within the context and boundary of the metadata component. Pro: Supports full reuse of existing metadata. No additional information elements are requested. No impact on metadata implementations. Allows for partially streamlining the reporting process and the INSPIRE indicator framework (optimized gathering through reuse of metadata, align with better regulation guidelines for indicators on effectiveness, efficiency ). Con: The optimization/automation of the reporting process is bound by the information scope of the current metadata specifications and as such will not provide for the mandatory provisions of additional indicators (e.g. keywords identifying priority reporting data sets, legal scope, geographical scope ). Non-mandatory optimizations supporting new effectiveness and efficiency indicators in line with better regulation guidelines will have to be subject of a common monitoring and reporting implementation strategy agreed between Commission and Member States Scenario 3: Changes to Reporting Decision and metadata IR Streamlined reporting under the INSPIRE Directive aligned with Fitness Check and better regulation guidelines. Pro: The reporting requirements are streamlined with the metadata obligations, pragmatic use of metadata in applications is facilitated and metadata better accommodates for gathering information on performance indicators. The legal framework guarantees the availability of the necessary information through monitoring, reporting and metadata provision. The level of reuse of metadata for monitoring and reporting purposes is maximized and the reporting burden minimized. 10

11 Con: Although the changes to the metadata IR will be proposed to be backwards compatible with existing metadata implementations, they might still impact existing metadata processes as additional information is requested Conclusion In view of the mandate for this action, scenario 2 is preferred. No other regulation is impacted, the reporting burden is addressed through automated gathering of monitoring information through metadata and the information collection is streamlined and fixed through a country fiche template. Further optimization of metadata for use and reporting purposes could be documented in the reporting guidance as part of a common implementation strategy and should be driven by real-life use cases and possible return on investment. 11

12 ANNEX 1: INDICATOR FRAMEWORK 1 A changed context for indicators As clearly stated in the Better Regulation Guidelines 3, a good monitoring system links objectives with their relevant indicators. In order to facilitate and streamline the reporting to Commission bodies INSPIRE monitoring has to be aligned with the Better Regulation Guidelines. In many cases monitoring indicators are focused on performance and compliance assurance of the implementation of the legal framework. They have a technical focus and seldom provide a comprehensive view on the benefit the recorded progress brings or how this progress contributes to more tangible strategic objectives for the end-users and stakeholders. To bridge the information gap between technical monitoring of system performance, end-user expectations and business responses (REFIT results, Fitness Check, MIWP ), the indicator approach as suggested in the Better Regulation Guidelines (p. 46) will be implemented. This introduces the concept of Output indicators (specific deliverables), Outcome/Result indicators (immediate effects) and Impact indicators (impact on the wider economy/society) to measure the progress on interventions/actions against the common set of objectives on technical INSPIRE implementation (Output), immediate benefits for environmental policy making and evaluation (Outcome/Result) and indirect or direct benefits to other policy domains like the Digital Single Market (Impact). Figure1 Better Regulation intervention logic and the 5 key evaluation criteria

13 The new strategic direction, that has been translated in the MIWP and has been subject of discussion in the Member State bilateral meetings, identifies strategic and operational objectives for INSPIRE implementation (e.g. lower administrative burden by optimizing monitoring and reporting processes; improve interoperability and capacity by aligning the INSPIRE framework with other policy domains ). The MIWP and the MS action plans will define actions as a COM\EEA and MS response to what should be done to achieve the envisaged strategic objectives. The strategic objectives and the common action plan should guarantee a fit for purpose implementation of INSPIRE taking also the end-user perspective into consideration and not only the legal conformity of the implementation. When the action plan is executed (e.g. "INSPIRE Monitoring & Reporting 2019" action), we should be able to monitor the performance of the implementation and the distance to target. For this purpose, quantitative KPI's (e.g. "Time to report" as output indicator, "MS satisfaction" as outcome indicator) can be introduced that give an indication of the level of success of the actions against the implementation of strategic objectives. The above objective and KPI examples focus on the effect of the action plan (e.g. an optimized M&R system) to achieve the target (e.g. lower administrative burden). The existing monitoring indicators that are mandated by the Reporting Decision are mainly output indicators that focus on technical implementation. Part of the indicator screening will be the definition of a comprehensive set of KPI s (Output, Outcome and Impact) and objectives that guide and monitor INSPIRE implementation. 2 Methodology for developing a more fit for purpose indicator framework 2.1 The indicator framework It is proposed to adopt a framework for the INSPIRE activities that allows to align the different activities into a coherent approach. Such a draft framework is presented in Figure 2. This figure links the intervention logic, which describes how the policy issue relates to specific objectives and main activities, with the results chain the logical steps that need to be taken to achieve the desired goals and results and given by the sequence inputs-activities-outputs-results-impacts in the figure. Thus, the INSPIRE specific objectives are translated into activities with planned outputs and intended results. The actually realised results will depend on the effectiveness of the activities implemented and on other, often external factors. One or more result indicators are associated with a particular result. Result indicators are ex-ante developed in a consultative process. Once result indicators are chosen, a baseline must be establishedthe value of the result indicator before the activities have been undertaken or its value for a situation that is used as a reference. In addition, result targets need to be defined the values of the result indicators that the activities aim to achieve. Insight in impacts of the activity concerned is obtained by assessing whether and by which extent changes in result indicators are the results of the activity itself or of other factors. The evaluation criteria are defined as follows: 13

14 The relevance of the objectives is the extent to which strategies and practices of INSPIRE are aligned and consistent with the rationale, goals, objectives and requirements defined by the EU in general. Efficiency measures how economically the resources/ inputs (financial, human and material resources used) are converted to the outputs (products and services which may result). Effectiveness is a measure of the extent to which INSPIRE is expected to achieve the objectives. Effectiveness can be measured at the level of outputs and results. Figure 2: framework for indicators based on intervention logic Indicators measure progress along the results chain during the implementation process and are used to evaluate the overall success. An indicator should be made up by a definition, a value and a measurement unit. Different types of indicators are used to measure progress along the results chain. These indicators may be classified as descriptive or as performance indicators: Descriptive indicators describe a situation or change and provide information that is not connected to a concrete target. These indicators respond to the question: what s happening? Performance indicators are quantitative metrics measuring the progress towards reaching a goal or an objective over time that is represented by a target value relative to a baseline. These indicators respond to the question: Does it matter? Are we reaching targets? 14

15 Both descriptive and performance indicators are used to measure progress in the result chain: Input indicators describe the input data needed in the process or measure the financial, human and material resources used. Example: Availability of data sets used for EU M&R in 20xx. Activity indicators measure the actions taken or work performed as a result of which inputs are mobilised to produce specific outputs. Example: the availability of priority data sets Output indicators measure the products, capital goods and services which result from the activities. Example: Number of European core data sets. Result indicators measure the likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention s outputs. Example: Use of core data sets in EC reporting processes. Impact indicators measure the positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by the activities, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability indicators can be used to monitor and evaluate efficacy. These indicators do not measure results, but present information about how changes at one level of the results chain translate into changes at the next level(s). Efficiency and effectiveness indicators are constructed from indicators along the results chain. 2.2 Indicator metadata fact sheet It is suggested to produce an indicator fact sheet for each (Key Performance) Indicator. This fact sheet will be provided with a view to: ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the indicators, ensure that the data collection process is efficient, and that information provided across Member States is comparable; Proposed template & example DOCUMENT INSPIRE/2016.5/INPUT/3 V0.1 Prepared by subgroup Date of preparation 23/01/2017 Revised by -- Date of revision -- PROCESS Related INSPIRE objective Related activity Position in the result chain Identify, document and make accessible spatial data that is relevant for the environmental acquis in a consistent way. List of priority data sets INPUT indicator INDICATOR 15

16 Indicator name Definition Rationale and interpretation INSPIRE/2016.5/INPUT/3 Reporting obligations satisfied by MS data sets in 20xx-1. Identify which (ENV) reporting obligations are satisfied by the published data sets and how many data sets are made available that are collected or used to satisfy reporting obligations. Data sets used for a myriad of reporting obligations can be identified as core data sets for reporting and also indicate a possible need for streamlining of reporting obligations and data harmonisation. Clearly identify the spatial data sets available and relevant for environmental reporting; Identify reporting redundancies and explore opportunities for streamlining of reporting; Monitor progress on INSPIRE implementation in general and for the reporting use case in specific Promote the reuse of the INSPIRE infrastructure for reporting purposes. Method of computation & unit of expression Baseline value & Target value Identify available data sets in the geoportal, based on a specific keyword referencing the list of priority data sets and/or EU reporting obligation; Extract metadata and express in a result set identifying the data set and the legal obligations for which it is used. Baseline: 50% all data sets on the initial list in 20XX-1 representing the reporting data sets (top level). Reporting obligations highlighted by COM as highest priority for publication should be accounted for. Target Value: All reporting obligations with spatial data sets on the list in 20XX-1. Sources and data collection Use of the indicator Guide for data acquisition The source of the information is the data set metadata in the geoportal catalogue. The data is collected by querying the discovery service in the European geoportal based on a common agreed keyword (keyword TBD). The indicator can be used to: identify for which reporting obligations spatial data is available (e.g. for reuse and integrated/impact assessments); demonstrate the maturity of the flow of a specific reporting obligation for ereporting; measure progress of making INSPIRE data and services available for ENV reporting obligations; To be elaborated. MS to add metadata tag/keyword with legal reporting obligations to metadata. Keywords have to be defined in a controlled vocabulary. Candidates for voc are EEA ROD identifier (proprietary for ENV legislation) and EurLex identifier (generic). The list 16

17 of priority data sets can be extended with URIs to identify specific entries. These URIs can be used as references (INSPIRE proprietary solution). Data reporting Supplementary information (comments, limitations ) The indicator is automatically harvested from available metadata. MS have to provide extra metadata (keyword) to tag an entry as a priority data set and to report under which legislation the data set has to be provided. Dependency on metadata for data collection. Keyword and code register for identifying the data sets still has to be developed. 2.3 New additional Indicator set: data sets for ereporting POSSIBLE INDICATORS FOR THE LIST OF PRIORITY DATA SETS 17

18 ANNEX 2: COUNTRY FICHE EXAMPLE 2.4 Introduction The INSPIRE Directive sets the minimum conditions for interoperable sharing and exchange of spatial data across Europe as part of a larger European Interoperability Framework and the e-government Action Plan that contributes to the Digital Single Market Agenda. Article 21 of INSPIRE Directive defines the basic principles for monitoring and reporting. More detailed implementing rules regarding INSPIRE monitoring and reporting have been adopted as COMMISSION DECISION regarding INSPIRE monitoring and reporting on the 5th of June This country fiche highlights the progress of Country in the various areas of INSPIRE implementation and presents an outlook of planned actions for further improvement of the INSPIRE implementation. The country fiche is a summary of the information acquired through: the 2016 tri-annual INSPIRE implementation report, the 2016 monitoring report in May 2016, a bilateral meeting on the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive between the Commission and Country representatives State of Play A high-level view on the governance, use and impact of the INSPIRE Directive in Country. More detailed information is available on the INSPIRE knowledge base Coordination National Contact point Name of public authority Mailing address Telephone number Fax number Website address Contact person Telephone number Contact person substitute Telephone number Coordination Structure 18

19 Progress o Country abolished the discrepancies with the passing of the Act Amending NSDI Act with Article 17 (3) of the INSPIRE Directive [Effectiveness] o Third Country INSPIRE NSDI Day organised in 2016 [Relevance] Functioning and coordination of the infrastructure Information available through the Country INSPIRE geoportal Inclusion of INSPIRE in to the broader Geoinformation strategy and EGovernment [Coherence] Usage of the infrastructure for spatial information The public use of spatial data services and spatial data themselves has increased in 2014 and 2015 [Efficiency] Project for the establishment of INSPIRE compliant network services was carried out in 2015 A practical example of cross-border cooperation is being carried in the scope of flood protection with neighbouring countries [EU-added value] Data Sharing Arrangements National interoperability framework was established as a tool to ease the cooperation inside public administration [Effectiveness] [Coherence] Public Information Access Act has been slightly changed in 2016 according to the Directive on the re-use of public sector information [Coherence] Costs and Benefits The transparency and opening of data stimulates the efficiency in the public sector and help with the broadening of digital economy and business development [Efficiency] Monitoring the advantages and benefits is not systematically regulated Key Facts and Figures In addition to the above mentioned issues, the implementation of INSPIRE Directive requires Member States to take four main steps in relation to management of spatial datasets which fall under the Directive: Step 1: Identify spatial datasets 19

20 Step 2: Document these datasets (metadata) Step 3: Provide services for identified spatial datasets (discovery, view, download) Step 4: Make spatial datasets interoperable by aligning them with the common data models. The key facts and figures presented in this country fiche are based on the reported information provided by Country on the INSPIRE EU geoportal. Detailed information on the progress of INSPIRE implementation in the Member States can be found on the INSPIRE dashboard. The conformity of the implementation is assessed against the full set of legal specifications set out by the Directive and the Implementing Rules and the commonly agreed good practices set out by the technical guidelines. 20

21 Identification of spatial data with relevance to the environment (step 1) a. Evolution of the data offering MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/ b. Data sets made available per INSPIRE theme in

22 c. Data sets per annex (Annex 1 & 2: spatial reference data; Annex 3: environmental spatial data) Evaluation of progress for step 1: Country has identified a total of 108 spatial data sets with relation to the themes listed in the INSPIRE annexes. Additional spatial data sets have been identified in 2015, mainly under Annex II data themes. A lot of relevant spatial data sets have already been identified for the different data themes. However, the identification still seems incomplete and Country could further improve by identifying and documenting spatial data sets required under the existing reporting and monitoring regulations of EU environmental law. 22

23 Documentation of the data (metadata) (step 2) a. Evolution of documented data and conformity of the documentation MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/ b. Documented data per annex in

24 c. Evolution of documented services and conformity of the documentation MIWP/2016.2/REVIEW/ d. Evolution of the overall conformity of the documented metadata Evaluation of progress for step 2: Country has documented and published metadata through a discovery service for 92,6% (100 out of 108) of the identified spatial data sets and 46,9% (15 out of 32) of the digital services. Overall, 44% of the metadata conforms to the INSPIRE metadata specifications. The documentation of spatial data sets has further improved in 2015 and shows a high level of maturity. The documentation of services is lagging behind and should be addressed. To support data discovery for 24

25 the end-users of the INSPIRE infrastructure, Country should aim to achieve better technical conformity of the available metadata Accessibility of the data through digital services (step 3) a. Digitally accessible spatial data per INSPIRE theme in 2015 Note: This figure reflects the amount of spatial data sets made available through a digital service, not the amount of available digital services. A digital service can make several spatial data sets available b. Evolution of spatial data made accessible through digital services 25

26 c. Evolution of the conformity of the digital services 26

27 Evaluation of progress for step 3: Country has: - 60,2% of its data sets accessible for viewing through a view service; - 43,5% of its data sets accessible for download through a download service. None of the available digital services are conform to the INSPIRE network service specifications (0%). Country shows that it has built the necessary capacity and competences to make data accessible through digital INSPIRE network services. The offering is stagnating and a significant amount of the spatial data still has to be brought online. The technical conformity of the available services with the INSPIRE network service specifications is poor. Country should boost their effort to further improve the accessibility of their spatial data through digital INSPIRE services Interoperability of spatial data sets (step 4) The interoperability of spatial data sets is an outlook on the readiness of Member States to make their spatial data interoperable according to the interoperability specifications laid down in the INSPIRE interoperability implementing regulation (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010). The deadlines for implementation of the spatial data interoperability are in the future: 23/11/2017 for Annex I data and 21/10/2020 for Annex II and III data a. Evolution of the conformity with INSPIRE interoperability specifications for spatial data Evaluation of progress for step 4: 27

28 Country has not reported any data set to be conform to the INSPIRE interoperability specifications in With a reported dataset conformity of 0% across the INSPIRE annexes for 2015, we can conclude that Country has not yet started its preparations for the 2017/2020 data interoperability deadlines. None of the reported datasets are reported to be conform to the INSPIRE interoperability requirements Outlook Country has critically reviewed their INSPIRE implementation and provided an action plan in 2016 to remediate existing implementation issues and further improve the overall conformity of the implementation. The following actions are set up to directly address previously identified issues: a. Coordination (1.1; 1.2) Strengthening cooperation (Regular task for the period ): strengthening the cooperation and connection od individual. Furthermore, the following continuous tasks have been defined to guarantee maintenance, capacity building and further development of the INSPIRE infrastructure: o Realization of NCP obligation (monitoring report, data management, geoportal maintenance ). o Education and awareness raising (training program and awareness raising). o Activities of individual subgroups of the INSPIRE project group (metadata, standardization, open data, data quality, service quality) b. Data sharing and exchange (1.4) The following continuous tasks have been defined to install a data policy for spatial datasets aligned with INSPIRE implementation rules: o Ensuring data sharing and reuse: agreements on data sharing; monitoring of actual response times. o Coordination of data sharing and data exchange: connecting activities with tasks of egovernment and the ISA2 program (Re3gistry, Are3na, EULF, GeoDCAT); open data initiative. o Educating and training: regular informing and training on unifying data policy for spatial data; updating recommendations and best practices regarding data access policy and data reuse policy c. Metadata (2.2) Metadata for the national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI) (Regular task): ensuring complete compliance of metadata descriptions for all datasets from the list (view network service) as stated in the INSPIRE Directive and Commission regulation for metadata; creation of metadata for new datasets and network services. Maintaining the metadata system of the geoportal (Regular task): software upgrade for the metadata system d. Network services (2.3) Working and accessible network services compliant with the implementation rules for all new and substantively renewed spatial data (by 10 December 2016): production of a compliant view network service for spatial dataset WMS for new and substantively renewed spatial data; production of a 28

29 download network service for spatial data (ensuring data in and INSPIRE compliant scheme) WFS for new and substantively renewed spatial data. View, download and transformation network services for all datasets from the spatial data themes corresponding with the themes of Annex I and compliant with the implementation rules for interoperability (by 23 December 2017): establishment of missing network services compliant with the implementation rules for interoperability for all datasets from the spatial data themes corresponding with the themes of Annex I; implementation of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 of 23 November 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data services for the remaining spatial datasets from Annex I which are still being used in the timeframe of the bill passing. Network services for all datasets from the spatial data themes (Annex II and Annex III) compliant with the implementation rules for interoperability (by 21 October 2020): establishment of all network services; for all datasets from the spatial data themes (Annex II and Annex III) compliant with the implementation rules for interoperability; enabling access to the other spatial datasets from Annex II and III in compliant with the implementation rules for Annex II and Annex III e. Data Interoperability (2.4) Harmonization of spatial datasets to ensure interoperability (by 10 December 2020): establishment of a code list register and unique identifiers for defining and classifying spatial objects published in geoportal; forming of rules for geo-referencing and interrelations between spatial objects; establishment of a common system of identifiers for spatial objects and defining of key attributes; forming connections to multilingual glossaries; unified way for data exchange of the time dimension of spatial datasets and a defined way for exchange automatically maintained (changed) dataset content Summary - How is Country doing? INSPIRE key obligation Overall implementation status and trend Outlook Dashboard Legend Implementation Status: Ensure effective coordination Data sharing without obstacles Step 1: Identify spatial datasets Step 2: Document datasets (metadata) : implementation of this provision is well advanced or (nearly) completed. Outstanding issues are minor and can be addressed easily. : implementation of this provision has started and made some progress but is still far from being complete. Outstanding issues are significant and need to be addressed to ensure that the objectives of the legislation can still be reached by : implementation of this provision is falling significantly behind or has not even started. Serious efforts are necessary to close implementation gap. 29

30 Step 3: Provide services for identified spatial datasets (discovery, view, download) Trend: : the trend of the implementation is positive. : the trend of the implementation is neutral. Step 4: Make spatial datasets interoperable by aligning them with the common data models. : the trend of the implementation is negative. Outlook: : clear and targeted actions have been identified which allow reaching the objectives of the legislation in an effective way. : No real progress has been made in the recent past or actions which have been identified are not clear and targeted enough to predict a more positive outlook. : no actions have been identified to overcome identified implementation gaps. 30

31 2.9 Specific recommendations: Country has made good progress on the implementation of the essential components provisioned by the INSPIRE Directive but has made little improvement on the technical conformity of the implementation. In order to be able to: fully contribute to the European Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI); render the NSDI more effective in view of support for EU environmental legislation and better reusable in the context of cross-border and cross-domain applications; The NSDI should be further improved by: critically reviewing the effectiveness of its data policies and amend them, taking 'best practices' into consideration; identifying and documenting spatial data sets required under the existing reporting and monitoring regulations of EU environmental law, and make these data sets and documentation at least accessible 'as is' to other public authorities and the public through the digital services foreseen in the INSPIRE Directive; Further improving the conformity of the technical implementation. 31

32 ANNEX 3: METADATA MAPPING Mapping indicators to metadata allows for identifying double information requests. If information for an indicator can be harvested through mandatory metadata elements (directly or indirectly), then the corresponding obligation to monitor or report can be omitted from the Reporting Decision. Indicator MDi1 (Existence of metadata) In case of moving to a fully automated monitoring we recommend that the general indicator MDi1 and its specific indicators MDi1.1, MDi1.2, MDi1.3 and MDi1.4 (respectively for spatial data sets in Annex I, II, III and for spatial data services) are removed from the list of INSPIRE monitoring indicators. Variables Definition Availability in/from MD in the INSPIRE geoportal (for any given MS) DSv_Num1 number of spatial data sets for Annex I DSv_Num2 number of spatial data sets for Annex II DSv_Num3 number of spatial data sets for Annex III SDSv_Num number of spatial data services NSv_NumDiscServ number of discovery services NSv_Num_View_Serv number of view services NSv_NumDownlServ number of download services 32

33 NSv_NumTransfServ number of transformation services NSv_NumInvkServ number of invoke services MDv1.1 number of spatial data sets for Annex I that have metadata Nb of results returned by a search filtering hierarchylevel=dataset and identificationinfo/*/descriptivekeywords/*/keyword = "a theme from Annex I" MDv1.2 number of spatial data sets for Annex II that have metadata Nb of results returned by a search filtering hierarchylevel=dataset and identificationinfo/*/descriptivekeywords/*/keyword = "a theme from Annex II" MDv1.3 number of spatial data sets for Annex III that have metadata Nb of results returned by a search filtering hierarchylevel=dataset and identificationinfo/*/descriptivekeywords/*/keyword = "a theme from Annex III" MDv1.4 number of spatial data services that have metadata Nb of results returned by a search filtering hierarchylevel=service 33