Minutes 11th expert meeting final - inspire.ec.europa.eu _11expert_meeting.pdf · 44 PG Grivet Patrick Luxembourg 45 RB Boucke Raoul Netherlands . Infrastructure for Spatial Information

INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe

Minutes of the 11th INSPIRE EXPERT GROUP MEETING 1-2/12/2004 Title Minutes 11th expert meeting Creator H.De Groof Date 22/12/2004 Subject Minutes INSPIRE Expert Group meeting, The Hague Status Final Publisher European Commission - Directorate-General Environment Type Text Description The document presents the draft minutes of the 11th Meeting of the

INSPIRE Expert Group meeting on 1-2/12/2004 in The Hague Contributor Format MS Word 95/2000 (doc) Source Not applicable Rights INSPIRE Expert group – participants to the meeting - public Identifier Language En Relation Coverage The minutes of the INSPIRE Expert Group meeting are available as a ‘non-paper’. It does not represent an official position of the Commission. The views expressed are purely those of the participants as an individual and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission or the organisations to which the experts belong. In no way does it predetermine the decisions by Commission, Council or European Parliament with regard to the elements of INSPIRE and any proposal for amendment or changes during the Co-Decision Procedure.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 2 of 24

Content

I. PARTICIPANTS - 11TH INSPIRE EXPERTS’ MEETING........................................................... 3

II. AGENDA ........................................................................................................................................ 5

III. SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 6

IV. OPENING...................................................................................................................................... 9

V. REPORT BY THE DUTCH PRESIDENCY AND COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF THE CO-DECISION PROCEDURE............................................................................................................... 9

VI. PRESENTATION BY THE COMMISSION ON 2005-2006 WORK PROGRAMME (OVERVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS – ROADMAP) ......................................................................... 12

VII. PRESENTATION BY THE COMMISSION ON 2005-2006 WORK PROGRAMME - (BROADER CONTEXT – INVOLVING SPATIAL DATA INTEREST COMMUNITIES AND THE PROCESS) ............................................................................................................................................ 13

VIII. PRESENTATION BY THE COMMISSION ON 2005-2006 WORK PROGRAMME (DETAILED ACTION PLAN 2005-2006)........................................................................................... 16

IX. PRESENTATIONS FROM STAKEHOLDERS OF EXISTING SPATIAL DATA INTEREST COMMUNITIES................................................................................................................................... 21

X. PRESENTATIONS OF PROJECTS SUPPORTING THE WORK PROGRAMME .................. 23

XI. CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING.......................................................................................... 23


I. Participants - 11th INSPIRE EXPERTS’ MEETING The Hague, 1-2 December 2004-11-30

Acro. Invitees List Representing Service 1 FL Lux Felix Austria 2 GS Schennach Gerda Austria Bundesamt für Eich- u. Vermessungswesen 3 JPK Kinnaert Jean-Pierre Belgium Ministère de la Région Wallonne 4 WS Steinborn Wolfgang CEC EC – DG ENTR – GMES PO 5 JH Hradec Jiri Czech Republic Ministry of The Environment 6 MK Konecny Milan Czech Republic Laboratory on Geoinformatics & Cartography 7 PC Creuzer Peter Denmark Katasteramtwob niedersachsen WPLA 8 SHH Hansen Henning Sten Denmark Department of Policy Analysis 9 JR Ryttersgaard Jes Denmark Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen 10 AA Annoni Alessandro EC EC - JRC 11 IC Clark Ian EC EC - DG ENV 12 HDG De Groof Hugo EC EC - DG ENV - GMES PO 13 HD Dufourmont Hans EC EC - Eurostat 14 PH Hasenohr Paul EC EC - JRC 15 DR Rizzi Daniele EC EC - Eurostat 16 PW Wicks Peter EC EC - DG ENV 17 CS Steenmans Christiaan EEA European Environment Agency 18 SP Pinnock Simon ESA ESA Staff 19 MV Verbauwhede Michel ESA European Space Agency 20 TD Dislis Tiina Estonia Rahandus Ministerium 21 PK Krusberg Peep Estonia Riigi Maa-Amet / Estonian Land Board 22 NL Land Nick EuroGeographics EuroGeosurveys 23 PC Christmann Patrice EuroGeosurveys EuroGeosurveys 24 FR Robida Francois EuroGeosurveys EuroGeosurveys 25 SG Gizzy Sandro Eurogi AM/FM Italia (Stand In) 26 BM Marchesini Bino Eurogi Eurogi 27 AV Vertanen Antti Finland MAA-JA Metsatalous Ministerio 28 HU Ursin Heli Finland National Land Survey 29 FB Bertrand Francis France IFEN 30 JMN Nataf Jean-Michel France IGN France 31 FS Salgé Francois France Conseil National de l’Information Géographique 32 MB Bilo Michael Germany Bundesamt für Naturschutz 33 DG Gruenreich Dietmar Germany Bundesamt fur Kartographie und Geodäsie 34 JR Riecken Jens Germany Landesvermessungsamt 35 TH Hatzichristos Thomas Greece National Technical University of Athens 36 AMH Homata Alexia-Maria Greece Ministry for the Environment 37 DM Mikus Deszo Hungary Kornyezetvedelmi es Vizugyi Miniszterium 38 GR Remetey-Fulopp Gabor Hungary Ministry Of Agriculture and Rural Development 39 CB Bray Colin Ireland Ordnance Survey Ireland 40 SC Crotta Stefania Italy Regione Lombardia 41 MP Pasca Monica Italy Ministerio dell’ambiente 42 VB Bedinovs Vladislavs Latvia Latvian Environment Agency 43 AG Gudaitis Aidas Lithuania Ministry of Environment 44 PG Grivet Patrick Luxembourg 45 RB Boucke Raoul Netherlands


Acro. Invitees List Representing Service 46 JJdB de Boer Jan Jaap Netherlands Dutch Presidency Representant

47 NH Hooyman Noud Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning & Environment

48 MP Peersman Martin Netherlands NSDI 49 OO Ostensen Olaf Norway Norwegian Mapping Authority

50 PL Laarakker Peter PCC/EuroGeographics/ Eulis Cadaster

51 JG Gazdzicki Jerzy Poland Ministry of Infrastructure

52 KM Millard Keyran Project - MOTIIVE HR Wallinsford Ltd

53 AMS Sassen Anne-Marie Project - Orchestra - WIN - OASIS

Atos Origin

54 JV Valis Juraj Slovak Republic Geodesy, cartography and cadastre authority 55 MT Tuchyna Martin Slovak Republic Slovak Environmental Agency 56 TP Petek Tomaz Slovenia Ministry of the Environment Spatial 57 PF Frantar Peter Slovenia Environmental Agency of The R Slovenia 58 AnA Arozarena Antonio Spain Instituto Geografico Nacional 59 RFB Blanca Ruiz Franco Spain Tresoro Publico Gastos Reembolsad 60 JH Haggbom Jannica Sweden Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 61 ER Rannestig Ewa Sweden Lantmateriet 62 CG Giger Christine Switzerland Institute for Geodesy and Photogrammerty 63 SC Carlyle Stefan UK Environmental Agency for England 64 DE Earnshaw Derek UK Ordnance Survey 65 BM McCormack Bruce Ireland Department of Environment 66 DH Høgvard Dag Norway Ministry of Environment 67 PS Smits Paul EC EC - JRC


II. Agenda 11th INSPIRE Expert Group

The Hague meeting of 1-2 December 2004 Agenda

Conference Room Clingendael

Building Centre Court Voedsel en Waren Autoroteit (VWA)

Prinses Beatrixlaan, 2

2595 AL The Hague (NL)

1 December 2004, Entrance from 13:30 - Start of the meeting: 14:00 14:00 – 14:10 Welcome, practical information and adoption of the agenda 14:10 – 15.10 Oral Report by the Dutch Presidency and Commission on the status of the Co-Decision procedure – Discussion 15:10 – 15:30 Presentation by the Commission on 2005-2006 Work Programme - (Overview of requirements – Roadmap) Coffee break 15:30 – 16.00 16.00 – 16:20 Presentation by the Commission on 2005-2006 Work Programme -

(Broader context – Involving Spatial Data Interest Communities and the Process) 16:20 – 17:00 Discussion Welcome drink and beverages 18:00 2 December 2004, Entrance from 09:00 - Start of the meeting: 09:30 09:30 – 10:30 Presentation by the Commission on 2005-2006 Work Programme

(Detailed Action Plan 2005-2006) - Discussion

Coffee break 10:30 – 11:00 11:00 – 12:30 Presentations from stakeholders of existing Spatial Data Interest Communities – How to contribute to the 2005-2006 Work Programme Discussion Lunch break 12:30 – 14:00 14:00 – 15.30 Presentations of Projects and Pilots - Support to the 2005-2006 Work Programme Discussion Coffee break 15:30 – 16:00 16:00 – 17.00 Closing discussion and further actions


III. Summary Hosted by the Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and The Environment, the 11th INSPIRE Expert Group meeting took place in The Hague on the 1st and 2nd of December 2004. The meeting was attended by 65 experts from the EU Member States, Switzerland and Norway, the European Commission services, DG ENV, JRC, Eurostat, DG RTD, representatives from European umbrella organisations (Eurogi, EuroGeographics, EuroGeosurveys, the Permanent Committee of the European Cadastre, PCC), and European and Community institutions, the European Environment Agency, EEA, the European Space Agency, ESA. The meeting was chaired by Mr.Ian Clark, EC-DG ENV and served a dual purpose. 1) Reporting by the Dutch presidency and the EC on the progress made in the Co-Decision procedure following the adoption by the EC of the INSPIRE Directive proposal in July 2004. 2) Presentation and discussion on the draft 2005-2006 work programme for implementation, prepared by the EC and distributed to the expert group prior to the meeting. 1) Report on progress in the Co-decision procedure: – The working group of the Environment Council reviewed and commented throughout two meetings

in November and December 2004 on the whole text of the INSPIRE proposal. The EC proposal was positively received by all Member States although a certain degree of uncertainty exists. Four key issues were raised: 1. More clarity is needed regarding the costs and benefits of the various measures proposed in the directive. 2. The level of Comitology is high and must be carefully considered. 2. The relations and possible overlaps with other Directives should be further investigated. 3. More clarity is needed regarding definitions and the scope as expressed through the data themes in the annexes of the INSPIRE proposal.

– The Luxembourg presidency intends to take the INSPIRE proposal forward through the Co-decision. An amended, ‘footnoted’ INSPIRE proposal has been produced by the secretariat of the working group of the Environment Council and will be further discussed starting in January 2005. The INSPIRE expert group plays an important role by informing their representatives in the working group of the Council on the process presented in the INSPIRE work programme that is to underpin the Comitology procedure by a broad stakeholder involvement. The INSPIRE expert group is also invited to provide regional and thematic examples of costs and benefits. The INSPIRE expert group is invited to further advice on the relevancy and inter-relations of the data themes in the annexes of the INSPIRE proposal for a Directive.

– The INSPIRE expert group considered it advisable to elaborate more on the four issues through dedicated actions in the INSPIRE work programme. However, the Dutch presidency and the EC explained that the Co-decision procedure is moving rapidly, possibly leading already to an adoption of the INSPIRE directive by Council and Parliament by mid-2005. The INSPIRE work programme for implementation and the discussion in Co-decision are two different issues, whereby the work programme may have to be adjusted in the future depending on eventual changes in the INSPIRE proposal for a directive. It remains however certain that the work programme should help in lowering the level of uncertainty that currently exists in the Environment Council working group.

2) Presentation and discussion of the draft 2005-2006 Work Programme. With regard to the first draft of the work programme as it was presented in Warsaw in July 2004 the new draft now proposes a process and procedures by which stakeholders in Member States and organisations can become associated to the development of the INSPIRE Implementing Rules and hence, to the decision making procedures in the Comitology procedure. In addition the broader context in which INSPIRE develops and interacts with other global and thematic initiatives, such as GMES and GEO or those of organisations such as the WMO, IOC, EUMET etc. is further explained and several examples are presented on how regional and national initiatives, RTD projects and pilots will steer, contribute and assure the user driven development and implementation of INSPIRE.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 7 of 24 The draft work programme was generally well received by the expert group. It was considered to have clearly defined tasks and proposes sound actions. However, the expert group adviced to clarify further a number issues and suggested improvements: – With regard to the ‘roadmap’, the linkages and dependencies between the various Implementing

Rules should be made clearer.

– With regard to the ‘broader context’ the expert group welcomed the further clarifications regarding the interaction with GMES and GEO. However, some experts consider both GMES and GEO to have a too strong emphasis on observations from space. GMES and especially GEO, GEOSS are politically strongly supported, it will be important link up the plan of work to the actions Member States have to undertake in this broader context. It will be necessary to bring the different services in the member states together which are dealing with those initiatives. Logically, INSPIRE, GMES and GEO fit together, however, in order to avoid duplication of efforts and assure adequate allocation of resources, more co-ordination seems needed in the member states. - A number of initiatives such as Global Map and Digital Earth, GSDI and activities launched in the ISPRS could be added.

– The expert group advised positively on the process for involving stakeholders in the development of the Implementing Rules. The concept of “Spatial Data Interest Communities”, SDIC was supported, but the criteria for describing such SDIC should be better explained.

– With regard to the generic procedure by which SDIC would contribute to the development of the Implementing Rules, the experts stressed the need to clarify the definition of various concepts and to establish the terms of reference under which drafting teams would operate. Their funding should be addressed. The role of the Commission services should be better explained. The work programme should also be clear on how eventual conflicts will be resolved if no consensus can reached when preparing the Implementing Rules. Diagrams illustrating the work flow should be further elaborated.

– With regard to the generic process the expert group pointed out that for the development of the less technical implementing rules a different scheme may be necessary.

– The work programme should become more explicit in highlighting the needs of environmental policies in order to set priorities. Especially, the section of thematic SDICs should show more clearly the driving role of the environmental policies. It would then also be easier to assess the impacts and determine the costs and benefits.

– The expert group also advised to schedule as early as possible in the detailed plan of activities the production of guidelines as formal Implementing Rules will only become available within a couple of years. Such is necessary to already guide the many national and regional initiatives intend on developing spatial data infrastructures.

– With regard to setting priorities the experts strongly advised to start from the policy end. Hence, examining the existing and upcoming environmental policy needs on spatial data and to first focus on services and specifications in support of meeting these policy requirements.

– With regard to the action on ‘organisation’ it was suggested to make the co-ordination role of the EC services clearer taking more into account the preparatory work done by a working group of the Expert Group. In general, the various INSPIRE position and orientation papers should serve as input to various activities.

– Socio-economic impacts must be assessed throughout the preparation and implementation phase in order to gain the support of decision makers at the national level. The links with mainstream activities related to the information society must also be stressed.

– The detailed plan of work should shed clarity on a number of definitions, such as ‘upload’, ‘download’ services from the technical side, while the action on ‘data sharing’, corresponding to Article 23 of the INSPIRE proposal, was considered most crucial. In this regard it is necessary to carefully examine the situation in the member states and elaborate on the definition of ‘public tasks’


and ‘at the point of use’. In addition the INSPIRE proposal refers to ‘community bodies and institutions’, it should be made clear which are meant.

– Awareness raising and training should be more prominent and cross-references to other activities such as those in the context of the Water Framework directive implementation should be made more evident.

– Some concerns were raised regarding the availability of sufficiently performing broadband networks in Europe, as eventually big amounts of digital data needs to be transferred. The work programme should probably address this issue.

– The links between the planning of the SDIC participation process and the roadmap presented in the detailed work plan should become more clear. It should be clear which organisational component is charged with the preparation of the various deliverables found in the detailed plan of work.

The presentation made by the regional SDI initiative in Lombardy, Italy illustrated the need to take regional developments into account in the development of INSPIRE implementing rules and to involve them as early as possible to the implementation process. It illustrated the importance to involve regional political levels, local technical levels and users. The importance of cross-thematic co-ordination and cross-border linkages was demonstrated convincingly.

The presentation of the EEA was very well received as it showed explicitly the major driving forces behind INSPIRE, the ambition to reduce the environmental reporting burden on the Member States and the vision to come to a shared environmental information system. The pragmatic and step-wise approach presented will allow through the work programme participation process INSPIRE to respond to thematic policy needs and priorities.

The presentation by EuroGeographics outlined their strategy with a particular focus on the Eurospec programme and RISE project. This illustrated how existing activities could (and should) become part of the work programme process, hereby allowing INSPIRE to build in an optimal fashion on existing relevant activities. It also showed the important contribution of GMES (FP6) and other EU funding programmes (eContent), as they contribute to the funding of these projects.

The links with GMES were further clarified through the presentation of the ORCHESTRA project where the focus will lie on providing service specifications as input to INSPIRE. The MOTIIVE project, equally funded by GMES in support to INSPIRE, providing input on harmonised data specifications and models for mainly marine data themes (where RISE focuses on the data themes needed for the Water Framework Directive)

The presentation by the European Space Agency illustrated how organisations can contribute through their activities both to the definition of INSPIRE and to its later implementation. ESA shows clear commitment with regard to integration INSPIRE principles in its core activities.

Overall, the series of project and programme presentations and their role in the INSPIRE work programme illustrated how, through bundling and aligning the resources and activities of the Community programmes, the regional initiatives and the activities of the major European organisations, INSPIRE can be developed and implemented in a way that responds to the needs of its many stakeholders while avoiding duplication and conflicts. The meeting concluded with the agreement to: – Issue a new version of the work programme taking into account the comments received, produced

by the EC and to be made public on the INSPIRE website.

– For the experts to provide written contributions, with regard to demonstrating the costs and benefits of developing spatial data infrastructures, and with regard to clarifying the inter-relationships between the data themes in the INSPIRE annexes.

A next meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-March – beginning of April.


IV. Opening Chairman Mr.Ian CLARKE, DG Environment opened the meeting. Mr. Nood HOOYMAN welcomed the participants on behalf of the Dutch Presidency and the Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and The Environment, VROM. New participants were welcomed. The agenda was adopted.

V. Report by the Dutch Presidency and Commission on the status of the Co-Decision procedure

Oral report [JJdB - NL] A two page note summarizing this report is distributed to the participants of this meeting. Process and procedure: - Two meetings already took place in the Council working group on the Environment. The whole INSPIRE proposal has been discussed. All the comments of the Member States were heard and we have now an overview of the reactions on the proposal. There were a lot of questions for which the EC provided answers which helped clarifying many issues. The next step after this first round is that the Council secretariat will draft of a ‘footnoted’ text, which is a text of the proposal where all the comments and remarks are compiled together in footnotes at the relevant places in the text. In a next round of discussion the number of footnotes should gradually reduce in order to come to a ‘common position’. The Dutch presidency expresses its appreciation for the many written comments received, from Austria, Belgium, France, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Poland, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. Many members of Expert group probably received copies of these comments via their permanent representatives in Brussels. The Luxembourg presidency for the next 6 months, has announced that it will continue the discussion on the INSPIRE proposal, with the objective to reach a common position in the June 2005 Environmental Council. Also the European Parliament will have to give an advice in the first reading and they have started the process to formulate their advice, which will take a few more months before it becomes available. General impression of the discussions in the working group on the Environment: There is an overall agreement on the general principles of the INSPIRE proposal. There should be harmonisation, it should be about spatial information, it should be about the environment, the necessity of a Committee is understood and that it should be a Directive. These principles were acceptable to the Member States. There were several critical remarks. For example with regard to the timeframe and the amount of Comitolgy - the number of tasks for the Committee. There are concerns regarding the level of ambition, considering it quite high or even too high. Member States felt quite uncertain on the scope and the possible costs of the proposal. This uncertainty seems an important element in the discussion as it may slow down the process. The Member States are uncertain about the eventual changes in existing information systems and associated cost elements. There is a real concern that we do not fully understand in the working group the proposal, although it may be perfectly clear at expert level. It is necessary to have clear examples of the need to cover the themes in annexes I, II and III, which the experts could provided to state the case. Relevant to our group to discuss are therefore four points: 1) the costs and benefits, 2) the level of Comitology, 3) the relations with other directives and 4) the definitions and annexes. This may have to be taken onboard also in the work programme. - More examples and cases are needed with regard to the costs and benefits, the roles of the users and their needs, we should install trust in the non-expert community with regard to the costs. - The second point regards the Comitology, although it is understood that a lot of issues are technical and should indeed be dealt with in Comitology. Comitology can be related to the costs, for example if new themes would be added under Comitology. The Council working group is certainly looking to sharpen the proposal and to eventually limit the amount of Comitology. The involvement of stakeholders and users in the preparation of the Implementing Rules is another issue related to Comitology and strongly stressed by the Council working group. The question was raised whether there would be enough time, funding and man-power to draft the Implementing Rules. This is of course already clarified considerably by the 2005-2006 Work Programme. - The third point is the relation to other Directives, probably less an issue

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 10 of 24 to discuss with the INSPIRE expert group, but more clarity is needed certainly with regard to the Directive on Public Access to Environmental Information and the Directive on the Re-use of Public Sector information. There seems an overlap with INSPIRE while there are some differences in definitions and exceptions. The question is then if it is indeed justified to deal differently with the information covered by INSPIRE. Also the reporting Directives could be involved, one could expect that benefits of INSPIRE will be harvested through facilitating answering the reporting obligations. – With regard to the definitions and annexes many detailed remarks were made by the Member States. The experts may verify the definitions again when they are reformulated, also for the translations there is a challenge. With regard to the annexes there is the issue to limit them eventually, for the experts it is important to consider priorities and to clarify some of the categories. These issues will certainly be discussed in the coming rounds of the Council working group. Conclusion: Positive is that all Member States are favourable to the proposal. Negative at this stage is the level of uncertainty, which could certainly be reduced through the involvement of the INSPIRE Expert group. Comments, questions and discussions Comments [PW - EC]: Thanking JJdB for the comprehensive overview and the Dutch presidency for the considerable progress. Although there are concerns, the positive general feeling may well lead to a first reading agreement, which would also put the work programme on a solid footing, taking then a rescheduling of the actions into account, but this is a technical issue. One important issue is the nature of the proposal, which is not the typical type of proposal the Council working group is used to. It is felt rather technical and this adds to the sense of uncertainty. The experts have therefore a crucial role to support their delegates in the Council. For example the issue of ‘data sharing’ in article 23, was a particular focus of concern. As experts this group can play a crucial role is giving concrete and unambiguous examples of what would be required. Also on costs and benefits, being more precise on amounts and on who will bear costs and who will reap the benefits will add to the comprehension. The relationships with the other directives can be clarified again by being more precise on what we want to achieve. INSPIRE shall be an essential part of the future vision we are developing with Member States on the whole issue on how we gather information in support of environmental - and other policies which need spatial information. With regard to Comitology the concern is again related to the technical nature, not often found in an environmental proposal, but more common for example in the field of statistics. However, some Member States even suggested to introduce more Comitology at certain points, so they are at the moment not 100% consistent with regard to their position on Comitology. As far as the definitions, it is merely a restructuring issue, but one issue to be discussed is certainly the annexes. Many comments were received and when discussing the annexes we were not always certain if the comments were really of a strong concern. In particular when moves of the themes between annexes were proposed. Here the expert group could give advice. Question: [DG – Germany] Another concern brought forward in the working group of the Council regards the role of DG ENV within the context of INSPIRE and GMES - GEO. Germany is active in the expert group since 2001, our experts also have to work on GEO and GMES, having similar goals as INSPIRE. INSPIRE is indeed seen as one of the four pillars of GMES. Are we correctly focussing our efforts on INSPIRE and how does it relate to the efforts we have to bring on GMES and GEO?. Reply [IC – EC]: Suggests to address this issue when the ‘broader context’ will be presented later on. Comment [BC – Ireland]: The costs are also related to the annexes, it is impossible to establish them as detail is missing in the annexes, so we can not even think of the implications. Especially, if we have to transfer to common formats, then we need to know the details. Comment [NL – EuroGeographics]: Proposes to focus on the ‘policies’ and the policy needs as a priority for the work plan and then to see what this requires in terms of data. Only at that point can we estimate the impact. Hence, we should start at the policy end. Comment [PC – EuroGeosurveys]: Supports the comments of EuroGeographics, hereby referring to the natural resource thematic strategies, WFD, soil thematic strategy…etc. The type of data we need should indeed be linked to the policies.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 11 of 24 Reply [HDG – EC]: To comment [BC – Ireland] - INSPIRE does not demands collection of new data. INSPIRE only applies to existing electronic data, only in the future shall new data eventually be collected following the standards, unless other ‘translation’ services allow mapping national to INSPIRE standards. Hence, costs can be estimated on the basis of currently existing data in a first step. With regard to the comments by EuroGeographics and EuroGeosurveys we actually started from an assessment of the policy requirements to determine the content of the annexes. This was done together with the EEA and a dedicated task force of the INSPIRE expert group was involved in the past. Of course throughout the implementation priorities will need to be set, on the one hand driven by the feasibility and on the other hand by the policy priorities. Hence, we fully support the comments of EuroGeographics and EuroGeosurveys with regard to defining the detail of the annexes in function of the priorities as part of the future work programme. Reply [CS – EEA]: The question on the annexes is a difficult one, entering into the detail at this stage is almost a ‘mission impossible’. Yet, the discussion is delicate, also in view of the Comitology. We must come up with a proposal, an approach, formulated by the expert group, on how to best proceed. Comment [ER -Sweden]: Supports the comment made by [BC – Ireland] and proposes a new activity in the work programme in order to better define the data in the annexes as a needed first step before analysis of costs and benefits can be done. Priorities need to be set and the timetable considered also in context of the WFD, which is often mentioned as a pilot to INSPIRE. However, the timetables are different and it is difficult to understand how the WFD implementation will benefit. Hence, timetables need to be better linked and cross-references clarified. Reply [IC – EC]: The roadmap, timetable will be addressed in the next presentation. Comment [DE - UK]: The Council report summarises extremely well the concerns expressed. With regard to INSPIRE and the PSI directive, in response to the comment, to the effect that it is clear that INSPIRE needs to go further than PSI given by [PW-EC] earlier, it remains unclear to UK why INSPIRE needs to go further than the PSI directive. Reply [PW – EC]: A preliminary explanation links to the role of INSPIRE in the overall vision on the role of INSPIRE in the monitoring and reporting in support to environmental policy making. We face two distinct problems, on the one hand many Member States complain about the administrative burden. On the other hand, we are committed to a knowledge-based approach. It is clear we need more and not less information. We are looking with different partners to the development of a shared information system, in order to reduce the burden. Key to success is that the data sets are optimally shared, data mutually accessible and systems are interoperable. This is only a preliminary answer. But if we take the Directive on accessibility to environmental information as an example, it mainly creates transparency as to the access by the public to environmental information, but it says little about the mechanics on how to share data between different institutions or interoperability of the different systems. As far as we know it does not lay down the detail about removing obstacles of legal, procedural, financial nature at the point of use which is quit and important aspect for INSPIRE. Building the shared information system is the key point. Reply [IC – EC]: We recognise the comments made by the different delegations related to this issue. We will have to come forward with a written explanation to support further discussions in the Council. Comment [JR - Germany]: We need clarity in the definitions. We have to focus on a ‘service’ approach. For example ‘Download’ services. We download to bring data together. Yet, this is not the first goal of a geodata infrastructure. We have to think on what services we really need and when. Then we can look at the costs. Only the download services are a problem in my view. The rest is available and can be brought together. Reply [IC – EC]: This issue will be further addressed in the ‘detailed workprogramme’. Comment [BC - Ireland]: Regarding the relationship between PSI and INSPIRE the question is how they can be brought together. The devil lies in the detail, PSI still has to be implemented in Ireland. In my view INSPIRE is more like a ‘tool’ that will help to implement the PSI directive.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 12 of 24 Reply [DR – EC]: Regarding the relationship PSI and INSPIRE. PSI gives a general framework, not touching on any specific sector. A general treatment for public sector information, not preventing that for specific fields other directives would precise the conditions. Hence, PSI is a sort of framework directive. [LF - Austria] Regarding the relationship PSI and INSPIRE. Article 23 part one of INSPIRE clearly defines how public authorities have to work together and that is not covered by PSI. It probably is the most crucial element to our discussion.

VI. Presentation by the Commission on 2005-2006 Work Programme (Overview of requirements – Roadmap)

Presentation by H. DUFOURMONT – EC-Eurostat Based on the INSPIRE legal text, the presentation provides a comprehensive and systematic overview of milestones and deliverables, with the focus on the requirement to have draft Implementing Rules timely available for the implementation in the Member States. For more details see the slide presentation. Comments, questions and discussions Comment [IC - EC]: The Work Programme timetable has to be considered in function of the progress made in the Co-decision. Should indeed INSPIRE be adopted earlier than planned in the work programme, then timing will have to be adjusted in the Directive, rather than in the Work Programme. A realistic amount of preparation is needed and certain actions will be difficult to accelerate more. Question [MV – ESA] Will it be needed to present Implementing Rules to the Council? There seem to be two possibilities. Reply [IC - EC]: There is only one procedure. Voting in the Committee will take place only if a Commission proposal for a decision on a rule is not adopted by the Committee,. Then the Council becomes involved following a strict time schedule. Comment [JR – Germany]: In the future, by 2011, we will have to update data following the new specifications. However, we do not update all data at once. That will be a problem, as we will have two data sets with different models. Reply [HD – EC]: This presents indeed one of the most technically complex issues to address. Migration paths will have to be developed and in the work programme further technical guidance will have to be developed. Comment [JR – Germany]: In Germany we are doing such an activity at the moment. It is expensive and we can not handle two data models in parallel. Reply [PW – EC] Article 15 INSPIRE only applies to new or updated data. Comment [JR – Germany]: To make clear, we still have ‘old’ data? We still have to update but that will take a lot of time. Reply [AA – EC] Article 15 leaves two possibilities. To make conform to the harmonised specifications or to make conform through transformation services, matching the local model to the EU model. So, you will be able to continue to use the national data model. Comment [JR – Germany]: Then we should not say that new data has to be collected according to the new specifications. Reply [PW – EC] That will depend on how the specifications are worded in the implementing rules.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 13 of 24 Comment [ER – SW] Suggest to include, make more clear, in the timetable the dependecies that seem to exist between the different Implementing Rules. Reply [IC - EC]: Yes, this will have to be done. Comment [PC – EuroGeosurveys]: Comments on spatial data harmonisation requirements related to the annexes. In annex I we have ground water bodies, including aquifers. One of the key attributes is geology which is in annex III. There is an inconsistency in the directive. Geology, also in view of the WFD, is needed in annex I and not in annex III. Reply [HDG – EC]: Thanking EuroGeosurveys for the comment, which is indeed very relevant to correctly formulate the annexes in function of the requirements. Such comments should also be made to the experts consulting the representatives in the Council working group.

VII. Presentation by the Commission on 2005-2006 Work Programme - (Broader context – Involving Spatial Data Interest Communities and the Process)

Presentation by H. DE GROOF – EC-DG ENV Explaining how INSPIRE fits in the broader context of global and European initiatives aimed at developing policy relevant information systems. GMES, GEO are key initiatives needing INSPIRE in the EU. Important political leverage can help in implementing INSPIRE. – In this context we should also link and work with US, Australia, Canada etc. In addition the presentation emphasises the need to utilise to the maximum the work done by several communities (meteorology, oceanography, etc.) leading to win-win, enforcing their activities and leading to synergies rather than conflicts or duplications. Those communities need to become involved in the work programme activities. – A procedure, an organisational framework is presented based on the concept of Spatial Data Interest Communities. For more details see the slide presentation. Comments, questions and discussions on ‘the broader context’ Question [DG – Germany] There are two initiatives which have political leverage, one is GMES the other is GEOSS. GMES is the European contribution to GEOSS. At the GEO meeting in Ottawa 29-30/11/2004, the EC was presented in the person of Mr.Mitsos (Director-General DG RTD). However, the Member States have their own interest in contributing to GEOSS and there now seems a conflict at the political level. On the 15th of February there will be the next meeting of GEO, where an official declaration committing the Member States to GEOSS will be signed. The role of the EC is not quite clear to me at the moment. Reply [HDG – EC] The GMES process started at approximately the same moment as INSPIRE, the same people in DG ENV were involved. GEO started following the G8 meeting in Evian in 2004 as an initiative of the US. Invitations were sent to all EU Member States. The Member States, already working on GMES, declared that GMES should be the EU’s co-ordinated contribution to GEOSS. There are differences, GMES includes also the broader security access, GMES is also about providing ‘services’ on a regional basis, while GEOSS cover trans-boundary observations. With regard to the resources dedicated, it will be important to channel the resources in the Member States adequately. The GMES Advisory Council, which will take place on 8/12/2004 in Brussels, chaired by Mrs.C.Day, Director-general of DG ENV, will offer us the possible to clearly pass this message. GMES has as one of its four components, data integration and information management. INSPIRE represents here the EU contribution. GEO embraces GMES, consequently a government which contributes to GEOSS information management, has to invest in INSPIRE. This must be made clear to our administrations, alike Lego© blocks fitting in a bigger construction. Comment [DG – Germany] This is well understood, but from the Member States point of view we first have to serve the projects with the highest political ranking. GEOSS now seems more important than INSPIRE and we need to think of the timing of the activities in the work programme. For instance,

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 14 of 24 when it comes to interoperability of reference datasets the Member States and other member of EuroGeographics are already working together in the Eurospec project, this could already provide interoperable reference data for the region of Europe as a whole to GEOSS. I would ask the EC if this taken into account in the work programme or should we not better join what is going on already. Reply [HDG – EC] With regard to allocating resources to GEOSS a lot still needs to be decided despite of the fact that an implementation plan exists and this includes the difficult issue of governance. With regard to the work of EuroGeographics we made clear in our presentation that such activities, when backed by the user community, should be taken into account both by INSPIRE and GMES. GMES is stimulating the development of Eurospecs, through funding also of projects – as they will be presented tomorrow. There is a very high potential of synergy between the different initiatives which we have been developing over the last years and which we hope to structure better through the work programme. Comment [FS – France] The reference to GSDI, although not explicit in the Work Programme, is important to mention as it illustrates the will of different actors to work together towards a global spatial data infrastructure. We should also stress the importance of the Global Map project, as it was mentioned in Agenda 21 and at the Johannesburg summit. Europe, through EuroGeographics, is organising itself to contribute to the Global Map project. GALILEO is also important as indicated in the work programme, we fully support this and we should also stress that the services, which will use GALILEO data, will benefit from INSPIRE. This should be brought to the attention of the GALILEO Joint Undertaking – in the context of the call for proposals issued under the GALILEO programme. Reply [HDG – EC] The DG TREN and GALILEO Joint Undertaking were very supportive to INSPIRE during the EC Inter-service consultation. It is also mentioned in the recitals to the INSPIRE directive proposal. We will stress it more in the Work Programme. We should indeed foster stronger relationship. Global Map and other projects are indeed important to take into account. Focus lies of course on the European dimension, not excluding inputs from global initiatives. Comment [PC – EuroGeosurveys]: On GEO and GMES we could comment that the geological services feel quite uncomfortable both with GEO and GMES as the accent seems to be very much on space observations. Geological services, with a long standing history of cross-border collaboration even at global scale, see the importance to come to a truly integrated approach, with appropriate emphasis on ground survey, airborne and sub-terrestrial observations. There is not enough balance in GMES and GEO. Reply [HDG – EC] We fully agree, GMES was started from the space community, we gradually introduced, also with the help of the Member States, the importance of a balanced and integrated approach. Space observations are important, in some cases unique, yet recognising that more than 90% of the needed information comes from other sources. In the GMES programme office we are working to stress the importance of finding this balance. Comment [PC – EuroGeosurveys]: In our view GMES would benefit from the concept of the Spatial Data Interest Communities. It should even become part of the GMES ‘governance’ structure. The GMES Advisory Council should have SDIC participation. Comment [WS – EC] Reminds to the group on the Lisbon process to address any possible ambiguities on what initiative, GEO, GMES, INSPIRE should receive most resources. It calls for a competitive knowledge society in the EU. GMES and INSPIRE should be complementary. Especially, learning about data gaps is important, perhaps INSPIRE can provide this. GALILEO can stand model for GMES and we have to come indeed to a more equal footing between earth observation and other observation systems. Comment [MV – ESA] The focus in GMES is not on Earth observation. The focus is on ‘services’, whatever observation method is most adequate. ESA does not insist on any type of balancing. The space observation component is simple more easy to specify and implement than the other component. The SDIC involvement in the GMES process is actually already taking place as many projects currently running have users, providers etc. and are structuring their requirements.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 15 of 24 Comments, questions and discussions on ‘the Spatial Data Interest Communities, SDIC and the Process” Comment [JFK – Belgium]: One of the first tasks should be to have unambiguous definition of terms such as interoperability, harmonisation, data transfer etc. Question [FS – France]: How many ‘drafting teams’ are envisaged to work on the Implementing Rules and how will they be composed? Should the experts ask in their countries the different regional SDI initiatives to participate? How far should we go in this? What will be the process for designating the Legally Mandated Bodies? Comment [JR – Germany]: Supports the comment of [JFK – Belgium]. In the Drafting Phase experienced technical experts will be needed. They may come out of the private sector. They will have to be funded. We also need to start as early as possible, so that we can adjust our national and regional activities, in order not to waste time and money. Comment [AR – Eurogi]: The role of the SDIC has been correctly emphasised. It is very important to stimulate acceptance and the process to collect information in the different countries and sectors may help to define the implementing rules. Eurogi, is a network of many interest communities in public domain, industry, academic world. Eurogi can contribute with the communication, indeed many still don’t know about INSPIRE. We could probably play a strong role in the review phase and stimulate its members to participate in the pilots and projects. Comment [ER and HJ – Sweden]: The SDIC seem a good way to ensure that the stakeholders will take part in the development of the implementing rules. Perhaps this is not a guarantee for the users to participate. It will depend on the result of the call of interest and how will the EC assure user participation? In the end the users will have to pay, and they should be involved. The generic process seems well indicated for the technical implementing rules, less for the procedural. This is important as the article on data sharing is most sensitive. The EC should indeed work closely with the Member States to see how this is handled by them at the moment. We should involve the Legally Mandated Organisations probably earlier in the process. It is also important to have co-ordination between the drafting teams and to understand what levels of interoperability and conformance levels for the data themes etc. we are expecting. The diagram should make more clear where the co-ordination role of the EC is located. Question [VA - FIN] There could be conflicting interests between the different communities. If this happens who will solve them and take the final decision? Also within one drafting team this is possible, for example between ‘users’ and ‘producers’. Question [RJ – DK] Supports comments made by French and Swedish experts. The milestones in the detailed work plan and deliverables should be explained in function of the SDIC involvement. Some milestones have already to be reached before the SDIC will be operational. Comment [GJ – Poland]: One more task should be added to the work plan. We recommend an analysis of comments to the INSPIRE proposal, in particular the 4 issues raised in the Council working group discussion. A document explaining these issues should be prepared. We fully support the very good idea of the SDIC as it will assure the contribution by many groups and countries. INSPIRE milestones are sometimes 5 years away, we have to interact with the rapidly changing situation in the member states. Given the amount of activities already on-going, costs may become less. Preliminary guidelines could be needed before we have the adopted implementing rules. Reply [HDG – EC]: Many questions are raised, and will be further addressed by detailed presentations by ESTAT and JRC who will be tasked with the implementation. We indeed have to clarify several issues also in the working plan. We have to start as soon as possible to steer the many activities and certainly the role of Eurogi in raising awareness and stimulating participation to the review phase will be important. ESTAT and JRC will now present further detail. In reply to the comment of [JA – Sweden] it is important to stress that users are to be registered with each SDIC that will participate to the INSPIRE process. They have a key role is assessing the measures proposed as they will also be the ones having to implement them. With regard to question by [VA – Finland] how conflicts will be

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 16 of 24 resolved, it clear that the EC will have the final responsibility to decide when an implementing rule will be presented to the review phase, even when full consensus is not reached in the drafting teams. [HD – EC] In reply to the question by [JFK – Belgium] Indeed we should be very clear on what is needed and definitions in general. However, INSPIRE is a framework directive, flexibility is needed to adapt to emerging and evolving definitions in the future. In the implementing rules more detail will be provided, which will allow member states to better assess the impact. With regard to the question on the Legally Mandated Organisation by [FS – France] it is clear that the member states should nominate them. LMO are also part of the SDIC, hence, they should preferably be involved as early as possible in the development process. The LMO’s are very important to assess the impact, hence, the reason why they have a particular role in the review phase. With regard to the recommendation made by [JG – Poland] it is indeed foreseen to set up as part of the horizontal measures a Frequently Asked Questions system which will allow to serve as a sort of ‘public memory’. With regard to question by [VA – Finland] how conflicts will be resolved, we should add that finally the member states will have voting power in the INSPIRE Committee. Ad-hoc presentation on the Call for SDIC by [A.Annoni – JRC] More detail is presented on the criteria defining an SDIC and the procedures by which they can become involved in the process leading to the INSPIRE implementing rules. SDIC can participate in different ways as outlined in the work programme. SDIC can allocate experts to the drafting teams, can participate to the review process, can express interest in participating and running pilots. For more details see the slide presentation. Comment [PC – EuroGeosurveys]: On the table on page 40 which presents thematic SDIC, we suggest to redraft the table with a stronger focus on ‘needs’, mainly related to the needs of environmental policies, such as the WFD. Question [FS – France] We understand about 6 to 7 drafting teams will be set up, related to the number of implementing rules. More drafting teams, for example per theme, will be difficult to manage. Experts allocating 30 to 50% of their time will require perhaps funding. Can other calls in the framework programme for research, eContent, structural funds etc. not be used to fund these drafting teams? Question [JFK – Belgium] 6 to 7 teams might not be enough, all depends on the detail needed, which brings me back to my earlier question. - Will the work programme be made public? It will greatly help all experts in the member states to explain further the directive in the context of the Co-decision as it clarifies many questions We also suggest to include the working paper produced in the past on organisational issues. Comment [CS – EEA]: The table on page 40 which presents thematic SDIC, with a focus on application domains may be the wrong approach. It does not clarify sufficiently why we need INSPIRE. It is important to clarify where the needs are with regard to environmental policies. We need then to detail those needs, building on the work already done when preparing the scope of the INSPIRE directive proposal. Reply [EC – HDG] The part on the thematic SDIC will be revised taken these comments into account. However, we should stress that SDIC will of course focus on the needs of environmental legislation, such as an SDIC for the Water Framework Directive. Still we have to show that INSPIRE is not only about supporting EU environmental legislation, but also will allow developing applications using spatial data and services beneficial to the society in many other areas.

VIII. Presentation by the Commission on 2005-2006 Work Programme (Detailed Action Plan 2005-2006)

Presentation by A.Annoni EC–JRC and H.Dufourmont EC-Eurostat Presentation of Chapter 7 of the Work Plan, detailed actions.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 17 of 24 The detailed plan of actions is driven by the INSPIRE timetable for having Implementing Rules available. Sections 7.1 to 7.3 focus on the more technical Implementing Rules, while sections 7.4 to 7.7 focus on the more procedural ones and a number of horizontal actions. For more detail see the slide presentation. Comments, questions and discussions Comments [OO - Norway]: Regarding standards informs that 9 ISO standards were recently approved by CEN, covering reference models, quality, spatial schema, temporal schema, meta-data, spatial referencing by co-ordinates and geographic identifiers. So, there is now a European standard for meta-data, of course identical to the ISO ones. Draws attention to the ACE-GIS project which has been involved with service composition, service semantics, semantic interoperability. This could be interesting input to the drafting teams. Norway recently opened officialy the geo-portal, fully operational and distributed, connecting to several (9) major agencies and municipalities. A technical framework document explaining how to interact with the network is written and could again be valuable input to the drafting teams once translated. Comments and question [DG and JR – Germany]: The definition of deliverables and timescale is very clear. The timescale for deliverables is detailed. However, following Co-decision the content of INSPIRE might change, hence some of the actions and deliverables may become redundant. With regard to the paper as a whole, we need clarification on terms such as ‘upload service’ and ‘data exchange’ which, in our view, are not part of an infrastructure of services. Our data is distributed over several locations. Hence, network services and their interoperability are important, as the data will stay at the location were produced. Why then do we need download services? Comments [JG – Poland]: The Work Programme is a good document, with clearly defined tasks and sound actions proposed. Improvements can be suggested as the issue is very complex. 4 points for improvements are proposed. The Work Programme should include an analysis of the comments on the INSPIRE Directive Proposal, received from the Member States in the Council Working Group. Secondly, parts of the text relating to definitions, requires special attention. Instead of spatial data sets, we would propose “interoperable spatial data sets and services”. Spatial data services are not defined, not in the directive and not in the work programme. We have some definitions regarding network services which is clear, but at the same time we talk about spatial data services, what is the meaning of these different definitions? Thirdly, we have agreements on sharing, access and use, but standards are not mentioned in this list. We propose to change the wording to “agreements on spatial data standards, maintenance, sharing, access and use”. Finally, we have “processes and procedures”. Of what exactly? This is not clear. We propose a title such as “legal and organisational framework”. With regard to the timing we should take the needs of the member states more into account. The implementing rules must be available as soon as possible as many things are already going on. We hope that all planned deliverables will be made available to the expert group for informing stakeholders in their countries. On page 28 we propose to reverse the order between deliverable D3.1 and D3.2. Double numbering of annexes should be avoided. Comments [VA - Finland]: The Work Programme seems very well inline with the INSPIRE proposal and supports the start of the implementation as we have stressed over the last two years. However, we must find means how to resource the experts in the drafting teams and in the member states. The member states experts should be closely involved from the beginning. The operational support can be found in two actions, under horizontal activities and under organisation, this is confusing. Recall the US, where local staff is involved, as they have to implement them in the end. We should make more clear when exactly we have to conduct impact analyses in the member states. Comments and questions [HJ - Czech republic]: In the reporting part of the INSPIRE proposal, we should, as discussed in the Environment Council, describe in a structured way the benefits of cross-border issues. We should set up a team to reconcile when across borders data needs to match. We wonder if only a limited set of data sets (30 to 50) is addressed by INSPIRE, extensive thesauri are really needed. Comment [JA – Sweden]: More cross-reference to user projects is needed. In 7.5.5 we need to add cross-reference to ‘streamlining and reporting’ and the project ‘business process re-engineering’ of the

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 18 of 24 working group in the Water Framework Directive. We also should raise the importance of education and training, possible under horizontal actions, and it should be scheduled in the plan of actions. There is still a need for research on some issues and that should be planned as well. Repy [ AA – EC] Replies on technical issues. Reply to [OO – Norway], we only presented a number of projects starting now. Projects having already produced results or new projects will also be taken into account, through a call of interest dedicated to associate ‘projects’ to the process. With regard to the adopted ISO standards etc., this is clearly an advantage and will simplify our work. With regard to [JR – Germany] comment on ‘upload’ services, we agree that this is ambiguous, in the first activities we should define exactly the services needed. For example use the term ‘publishing’. On ‘download’ services we disagree, as transfer of data may be needed and is therefore important to implement. With regard to the use of member state resources as mentioned by [VA - Finland] we fully agree as it corresponds to the process we have in mind to setup the drafting teams. With regard to the comment by [HJ - Czech republic] on benefits, we intend to use the projects and pilots to always document the costs and benefits. Reply [HD – EC] With regard to the comment by [DG – Germany] on possible changes to the work programme due to changes introduced by the Co-decision, we admit such a risk exists. However, given the results of the internet consultation and the overall support, we believe that most of the work would still be useful. Of course, if drastic changes occur, then we will adapt the tasks. The work programme is a ‘dynamic document’. The need for ‘download’ services etc. needs to be seen in the light of a very heterogeneous situation in the member states. Initially, the situation will be ‘patchy’ in beginning. On the comment from [JG –Poland], the use of the term Spatial Data Infrastructure, served to illustrate the different components. With regard to the comment of timing, we understand the need to move as fast as possible. Balancing between the rapid evolutions and different situations across the EU and the structured development of agreed rules will be a delicate proces. With regard to the remark of [VA – Finland] ,on co-ordination and horizontal issues, we agree there might be some overlap as the section on horizontal measures is not part of the structure of the directive, while the others are. We will clarify this in the review of the work programme. The remark on benefits by [HJ - Czech republic] is relevant, and if concrete examples, going beyond the extended impact assessment results, are available, then we should indeed use them. This is linked to requirements on monitoring and reporting, as the indicators should present quantitative benefits. To the comment by [AJ – Sweden] on training and education, this could indeed be added to the activities, if considered useful by all. Reply [IC – EC] With regard to the comment of [DG – Germany] on the risk of changes due to Co-decision, we should also point out that it is the ambition of the presidencies to move fast, even by June 2005, which leaves the possibility to adapt the work programme early. Comment and Questions [FS – France]: Supports the fast adoption of INSPIRE in order to influence timely all what is going in the member states. – In all the detailed action plan timetables there is no mention on the timing on the review, consultation that is foreseen. This is important to know, so member states can organise themselves. The second question and comment relates to ‘data and service sharing’, which is very important and with a lot of political implications. It will be very important to mention the impact of the needed agreements. What is the definition of Community institutions and bodies. This should be completed with a list so that everybody understands which are meant. With regard to the action on ‘Organisation’ we should analyse also how the member states are getting organised already in the Preparatory phase. Comment [GR – Hungary]: Hungary is preparing the implementation of INSPIRE since the spring of 2004. And SDI task force defined three components to national SDI. INSPIRE does only focus on one. INSPIRE should give more acknowledgement to the data providers of the annex III data, yet they should bring the data into the infrastructure, hence their role should be strengthened. This is very important as it will have a time, financial and institutional building factor. We can convince the decision makers if we have good examples of the societal and economic impacts at national level. A report by economists or internationally recognised groups, including a model could be presented. Also the link with the information society is important, this is a success factor in the US. More effective government through INSPIRE should be stressed at all levels of decision makers, from local to European. Such actions should be part of the work programme more explicitly, especially in the awareness raising activities.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 19 of 24 Comment [MV – ESA]: A challenging timetable is proposed, with deliverables already in the February – March 2005 timeframe. The SDIC process will also be launched in the same period. How will the deliverables be influenced by the SDIC activities, same comment could be made with regard to the input from the projects. SDIC will be set up through an open call. How will EC avoid having “gaps” in the SDIC? Will there be a sort of ‘shopping list ?”. – The implementing rules are different in nature. Will the process be adapted to cope with these differences? - With regard to the awareness issue, we set up in GMES a ‘forum’, which could be considered as an approach also for INSPIRE to fill the gap between the few who will be active in the drafting teams and the wider internet consultation. Comment [PC – EuroGeosurveys]: One of the reasons for INSPIRE is to address environmental issues. Soils and Natural Resources Thematic Strategies will need good, reliable and accessible data. – On thesauri it must be said that it is very important to develop extensive common thesauri. Comment [MP – Italy]: INSPIRE will provide the legal and technical base necessary to boost the development of multi-thematic decision aided systems, certainly a major benefit of the INSPIRE initiative, not only at the EU scale but also on national, regional and local scales. It is important indeed to document the benefits, cross-border certainly but perhaps even more the benefits resulting to better sharing across themes within a region or country. Otherwise we could pass the message as if INSPIRE is only about cross-border co-ordination and sharing for EC purposes. This is not what we have been working on over the last years. – With regard to the definition of the term ‘download services’, we may have in some cases the possibility to use data from a remote site without downloading. This should be expressed. – We have defined spatial data as any data with a direct or indirect reference to a specific location or geographic area. In many cases we should not forget that spatial data are not just maps, we mean really the data located to a location or area. – With regard to SDIC and drafting teams, we agree that good specialist are needed, and that funding may be needed. Member States should also be involved, not deciding, but informed about the selection of the experts. Comment [PC – Eurogeosurveys] – inserted following distribution draft minutes : Supports the statement of [MP – Italy]. The easy identification (via metadata catalogues and a geographic navigational interface) and access to the diverse thematic interoperable databases described in Annex 1 to 3 of the Draft Directive would boost multi-thematic decision aiding systems and be a major benefit of INSPIRE. They are needed to address ever complexifying issues such as land-use planning, resources management (soils, water, biodiversity, minerals, energy, subsurface space, coastal zones ...), environmental mitigation, identification of geohazards and prevention ... Such issues have frequently to be addressed at local and regional scales but optimally benefit from easy access to interoperable, harmonized spatial data (including the 3rd dimension: subsurface). Comment [SC- UK] We are very supportive to the Work Programme. It clearly sets out the main tasks. Our major concerns regards how the work will be carried out. The resourcing of SDIC and drafting teams remains a question. The process diagram should be made clearer. We recommend to built on the position papers produced earlier. The specific concerns we have are on data services and sharing, we need to make this part more explicit. Also the organisational structures requires more detail. – Answering to the 4 points raised in the Council, seem to be a priority for action and we believe they should be part of the work programme. Comment [DE – Uk]: [HD-EC] mentioned the concept of ‘public task’ in the Proposal and also in the work programme. The definition of public task is an issue. For example in UK, my organisation, has to raise revenues and make a profit and also return a dividend to the Treasury. Article 23 would restrict severely our ability to raise revenue. We would then loose the ability to invest in our data infrastructure. This would be a loss of sustainability for the Member State and for INSPIRE. This misunderstanding of ‘public task’ is carried through in article 23, subpar.3 where INSPIRE suggests quite rightly that member states should take measures to prevent distortion of competition but restricts this to where public authorities carry out commercial activities unrelated to their public tasks. For a number of organisations, such as UK Ordnance Survey, these competitive activities are indeed part of their ‘public tasks’ Comments and questions [MT - Slovak Republic]: Slovak Republic has started implementing INSPIRE by setting up a working group commenting on the INSPIRE proposal. Also a geo-portal has been set up. – With regard to the drafting teams we will be asked what will be the terms of references for the experts in the drafting teams. For example, is an expert needed for each member state? The funding

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 20 of 24 remains an open issue. – It is recommendable to use the State-of-Play study results to already structure the organisation of the SDIC at country level. Comments and questions [FR – Spain]: In Spain data models are being defined for land cover and orthoimagery using UML. Spain has 19 autonomous regions and through the modelling exercise we have created important interest communities having an interest in geographic and thematic organisation. We also have created a geo-portal. We have been working according to INSPIRE principles now for a few years. It is important to built on the INSPIRE principles and use the work already done. Questions [NL – EuroGeographics]: Is the function of this group just to provide comments or to approve the work programme? Reply [IC and HD – EC]: This group provides advice, as it has done in the past. Once INSPIRE is adopted we will have an INSPIRE committee. The work programme is dynamic as we make progress in Co-decision. Agreeing on it would be beneficial, and we will certainly take comments into account. It is an informal document, not some sort of Commission decision. The concerns existing in member states should of course be considered. Of course, be should have some kind of agreement on the proces and overall work programme in the light of launching the call for SDIC for example. Comment [NL – EuroGeographics]: Is very concerned about the work plan and the approach. Fully understanding the logical process. Worried about feasibility. EuroGeographics has done something very similar and has experience. The key issue is approach and the process. Issuing a call for tender for drafting groups raises concern, as we are not clear what they should be do. What needs to be done is being done. I understand that the process should connect everything that is being done. The expert group meetings will not lead to a buy in from all those that are now doing the work. Reply [HDG – EC]: To [NL – EuroGeographics] - We will not likely plan a formal “call for experts”, we are essentially trying to connect that what is being done, it is even crucial. The more the activities you mention have progressed, the faster their results can be taken up in INSPIRE. The development of the implementing rules is EC responsibility, they must be timely available. – Our experts are here as individuals, not as country representatives who could for example commit resources. The expert group indeed has an advisory role. Reply [HD – EC]: The community institutions and bodies are indeed community institutions, it will be clarified. - The suggestion to see how countries are organising themselves [TS - Slovak Republic] through the preparatory phase, using the state-of-play will be examined. We do not envisage a full member state representation in the drafting groups, smaller groups are needed with maximum stakeholder involvement as explained in the process. - We will also have to see how we can better acknowledge to role of data providers [GR – Hungary] and improve on the awareness raising. - We will strengthen the message on cross-thematic benefits [MP – Italy]. The expert group will interact at several points with the process. - With regard to comment the [SC- UK], the drafting teams should indeed built on the position papers and we need to work further on the sharing issue and to investigate on the ‘public task’ issue. However, INSPIRE asks to remove certain obstacles, it is up to the member states to see what business model is most efficient to do this. – We have [FR – Spain] to built on what is being done in the member states, what exists at an operational level we need to take it into account] Reply [IC – EC]: Certainly we will amend the work programme following the discussion but we should avoid mixing up the Council discussions and the work programme. Cost and benefits are of course useful for both. Reply [AA – EC]: To [MV – ESA] We hope to launch the call for SDIC as soon as we have amended the work programme, probably throughout January 2005. – Some deliverables early in the work programme will be prepared by the EC services and do not require immediate SDIC input. They are more related to documenting clarifying the INSPIRE requirements. – With regard to the comment by [PC – EuroGeosurveys], we can confirm the pilot activities in the work programme, as well as the projects are based on real use-case scenarios, not just on generic specifications, but based on environmental applications, such as the WFD. See for example the RISE project in which EuroGeographics is involved. – Distributed geo-processing, or remote use of services, as suggested

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 21 of 24 by [MP – Italy] is more an activity for GMES, developing an application using the data, which again shows the link to INSPIRE. - The proposal from [FR – Spain] is most welcome, as any already existing conceptual data model, will be considered in the work programme activities. The activity in Spain is very interesting as a national and regional development which will have to be taken into account and analysed in the INSPIRE development process. Comment [WS – EC]: It would be useful to GMES if INSPIRE could also address existing ‘gaps’ in data. Would like to see this in the work programme of INSPIRE as an activity, even in a broader than EU context. Question [NH – The Netherlands]: How will the EC manage the process, there may be many SDICs, probably around 7 drafting teams, and one Committee in the end. It may not be evident to combine the bottom-up SDIC approach with the top-down Comitology. Comment [FS – France]: Member States may have data service sharing requirement towards community insitutuins and bodies and between the member state institutions. This must be made clear as it will show to member states that there are also benefits for them. Comment [MP – Italy]: Distributed geo-processing is not merely a GMES issue. In Italy we are developing such services, which lie in between just viewing and download. This needs to be further discussed. Comment [NL – EuroGeographics]: The management of the process in essential, what will be the role of the EC? With regard to the call for drafting teams the terms of reference are not clear, it is important to understand and also explain to Council, what they are meant to do. Comment [BC - Ireland]: Ireland is preparing an overall spatial data infrastructure policy framework document. In final draft form foreseen for spring 2005. It would be interesting if the EC could verify and inform if this framework is inline with the state-of-play of INSPIRE at that time. A second point regards article 23, the data sharing. The UK comment on the public sector remit of the national mapping agency is to return a dividend to the government applies also to the situation in Ireland. A possible solution to making the information available without restriction at the point of use is to establish pay-government agreements between different agencies and the government by which the required data sets could be made available for an annual payment to all government bodies. There seems to be no problem in practical terms with article 23 from my point of view. Comment [VA - Finland] We as experts have a dual role, we support our permanent representations and the EC at the same time. This is not evident. Comment [GR – Hungary] Related to the data content and related services which will be influenced by the GPS and very-high resolution satellite imagery. The ISPRS has setup at spatial data infrastructure working group devoted to the ‘information from imagery’ concept. Now chaired by China, where there next conference will take place, afterwards in Hungary. INSPIRE should also be represented at the ISPRS. Comment [PC – EuroGeosurveys]: Cross-thematic benefits are indeed very important, as stated by [MP – Italy]. – With regard to the call for experts we should take into account that such experts are scarce, even if we would encourage our members to participate. Dedicated resources may be needed to fund them. Reply [IC – EC]: Several questions have been raised, they will be dealt with in the closing discussion.

IX. Presentations from stakeholders of existing Spatial Data Interest Communities

Presentation: “Pilot scheme for a regional spatial data infrastructure for the region of Lombardia.” By S.Crotta

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 22 of 24 For more details see the slide presentation. Comment [AA – EC] This project represents only one of the regional activities in which the JRC is interested to collaborate with. It has a important political and user support and covers also transboundary issues. It stands model for the regional SDIC’s to which the work programme refers. Comment [JR – Germany]: In Northrhein-Westphalen a similar project is running with a lot of user interest. Comment [HJ - Czech Republic]: In Czech Republic, a similar activity is being undertaken, with deployment of software in over 80 different sites. Comment [JG – Poland]: In Poland we have several regional initiatives similar to the one presented. Presentation: “Activities of the EEA in support of building the European Spatial Data Infrastructure” C.Steenmans - EEA For more details see the slide presentation. The EEA has the ambition to built one of the geo-nodes, secondly to support the EC on INSPIRE requirements, thirdly with a 5 years perspective develop the ‘in your neighbourhood project’, meaning to find information seamlessly from local, over regional to European level. For a number of activities such as the WFD, the biodiversity strategy, we already have to move faster. - Streamlining monitoring and reporting is an important activity for defining INSPIRE requirements. -Example of the WFD. For more details see the slide presentation. Comments [NL – Eurogeogaphics] The presentation clearly illustrates the vision for INSPIRE. A very pragmatic way by which INSPIRE can start to take shape. It is very exciting to have a node in EEA providing a number of INSPIRE themes. EuroGeographics is doing the same thing for other themes. EUROSTAT has statistical data, the EUMETNET has the meteorological information. These nodes are being put in place, we can start connecting them and deliver the first part of INSPIRE. The policy priorities are the focus, clearly these drive INSPIRE. This story allows us to communicate very well what INSPIRE is. This is however not well presented in the workplan. Comment [GA - Lithuania]: I miss from the presentation how we will exchange the terrabytes of data held in the member states. We should have high-speed broadband connections between the nodes. How sees the EEA this problem solved. Reply [CS – EEA]: We need to avoid the transfer of terrabytes of data. In some cases it will be necessary and high-speed networks for certain applications will be needed. But better is to have applications alike the ones mentioned by [MP – Italy], and then just transfer the data needed. Comment [GA - Lithuania]: Already in Lithuania we have this problem, downloads of gigabytes even, from a very heterogeneous network in terms of capacity will be problematic. These problems should be addressed probably in the work programme. Comment [JR – Germany]: It is a server task, a technical issue, the user should get only a small amount of data over the internet. Article 17 and 18 refers to this task. Reply [IC – EC, HDG - EC]: To comments [NL – EuroGeographics] - we should point out that the work programme summarises the EEA strategy in the context of INSPIRE, this could of course be more detailed. The principal driving force behind INSPIRE is precisely the type of applications the EEA is developing, also behind the scoping of INSPIRE this has played a main role. The work programme clearly states ‘environmental monitoring and reporting in the context of EU regulatory obligations and international conventions is one of the main driving forces of INSPIRE’. But this is not the only reason why we have INSPIRE, INSPIRE is not only a tool for the EC, just to support reporting and monitoring – and this is one of its success factors so far.


X. Presentations of projects supporting the work programme

In addition to the input coming from regional/national Spatial data Infrastructure activities and their associated SDIC, and those coming from the Thematic SDIC, alike the environmental ones where the EEA plays a key role, various projects can contribute to the work programme. A number of these projects are financed in direct support to INSPIRE, based on applications supporting particular SDIC. They receive funding from the 6th Framework Programme for RTD, where INSPIRE is seen as a priority in support to GMES. [NL – Eurographics] will present the RISE project, [A.M.Sassen] the projects ORCHESTRA – WIN – OASIS, [M.Keiran, H.R.Wallingford Ltd ] presents MOTIIVE. Other projects, relevant to INSPIRE, are to be considered as well. To illustrate these types of projects [NL – Eurographics] will present the Eurospec project. In addition, the European Space Agency [S.Pinnock – ESA], in the context of its activities in GMES and other fields, presents how it will support the implementation of INSPIRE on the basis of the user requirements and technical developments realised in the ESA GMES projects. – With the exception of the ESA activities, more information on these projects is given in the work programme. For more details see the slides of the presentations. Comment [AA – EC] On the next call of the 6th Framework Programme for RTD, priority GMES – foreseen in March 2005, an Integrated Project will be called for to support GMES through INSPIRE. This project should again be based on use-case scenarios, it is the intention to cover with this project the whole of the scope, data themes, of INSPIRE, taking also into account the inputs coming from the SDIC and other projects. Obviously, this answers also partially to the funding of expertise issue raised by several experts during this meeting. We call on the expert group to help identifying relevant projects and to make them aware of the opportunity of the upcoming call for SDIC and call for projects. The criteria should meet 4 main criteria which are listed on pages 18 and 19 of the work programme. Comment [HDG – EC] Hopes that following the project presentations a number of issues have become more clear, and invites the experts to brief the representatives of their countries in the Council working group accordingly. More in particular, the link with GMES has been concretely demonstrated by the GMES projects - receiving financial support from the GMES RTD budget – in support to the preparation of INSPIRE. It must be stressed that these projects are based on the requirements from a broad user community and respond to the needs of environmental priorities such as the implementation of the WFD. They also bundle the technical expertise of organisations like EuroGeographics, EuroGeosurveys, OGC, UK Ordnance Survey, just to name a few. This also answers partially to the issue raised regarding the funding of the experts in the drafting teams. Approximately € 20 to 30 mio. of community funding is spend on these projects in support to INSPIRE. Hence, while concrete user needs are driving the projects, the technical expertise needed to support INSPIRE is present as well. We will arrive at a sort of ‘hybrid’ solution where we work with the voluntary experts in the drafting teams and the funded experts in the RTD projects proving input. Question [AV – Finland]: How did EuroGeographics resolve conflicts in developing data specifications? Reply [NL – EuroGeographics]: Consensus building has been the approach. This sometimes takes time. Resolving also what is needed on national, respectively EU level. However, INSPIRE deadlines will speed up the consensus building proces. Key to success is a well-managed proces.

XI. Conclusion of the meeting [IC – EC] Presents the outstanding issues as identified during the meeting, where the EC has to focus on, and where expert advice is called for. Presentation of 2 slides with conclusions [HD - EC] – Distinguishing between issues related to the work programme and those related to the Co-decision. Here of course it is important to emphasise that these discussion and issues will be resolved in the Council. However, an input through the work programme or via the expert group to the representations in the Council working group is important.

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Reference: Minutes 11th expert meeting final.doc Minutes of meeting Page 24 of 24 [HD - EC] Issues related to the work programme : 1) Terms of reference for the drafting teams, 2) Management of the process – interdependence of certain implementing rules, funding of the drafting teams, use of existing results – where indeed the EC intends to built on the position papers and the experiences in the member states at operational level, projects and pilots. 3) Clarify the role of the EC in the process. 4) The importance of showing the benefits to the member states, although this is not always easy to do. To strengthen awareness raising. 5) Consider a procedure for verifying regional/national strategy SDI documents with regard to ‘INSPIRE compliance’ – suggestion of a ‘check-list’ on INSPIRE compliance. [IC - EC] Issues related to the Co-decision: Discussion takes place in Council. However, some elements can be contributed to the experts and through the work programme, more in particular regarding the question on costs and benefits. – 1) Comitology: we hope the discussions have helped to clarify the issue, we hope the experts will report to their country’s representatives in the Council, that there is indeed an issue, but it is being addressed through the work programme and there shouldn’t be so many fears. 2) Relation with other directives: we will probably have to produce, for the Council working group an EC working paper clarifying these issues. 3) Definitions and annexes: interesting comments were heard and we need to resolve theme again in the working paper. 4) Sharing of data: Also here we have to come back, but we understand that solutions are not impossible. Views of Dutch Presidency [NL -JJdB]: There is a distinction to make between the conclusion we draw with regard to the work programme and the discussion in Council working group. The needs of the users and examples on cost and benefits will remain an issue for the work programme. Other issues will be dealt with in the Council working group. Important however, is that the work programme should help to install confidence in the Council working group with regard to the process that leads to the development of the implementing rules. This will certainly help in determining the working group’s position with regard to Comitology. – Annexes and definitions – if indeed we progress as foreseen, then within 6 months this will have been decided in the Council working group. Perhaps, if the presidency requires, a dedicated small working group of experts can be set up to advice the Council working group. – An amended INSPIRE proposal can already be expected before Christmas. The next step in the negotiation process is then to answer to this amended text. The amended INSPIRE proposal should be known to the INSPIRE expert group through their national representation in the Council working group. – The work programme will probably address these issues, and it will be therefore a useful document in support of the discussions in the Council working group. Concluding statement chair: [IC - EC] These are the issues we plan to work on in the next month. A revision of the work plan will be undertaken, distributed to the expert group and made public. Written comments are welcome and a ‘trace’ of these comments and how they are taken on-board in the new version will be made available. The next meeting, tentatively scheduled between mid-March - beginning of April - shall focus on the new version of the work programme, the result of the call of interest for SDIC, projects and the expert recruitment for the drafting teams. An update on the Co-decision process will be presented. Thanking the Dutch hosts for the excellent organisation and support.

Documents

Minutes 11th expert meeting final - inspire.ec.europa.eu _11expert_meeting.pdf · 44 PG Grivet Patrick Luxembourg 45 RB Boucke Raoul Netherlands . Infrastructure for Spatial Information