Implementation of INSPIRE in EIONET Core Data Flows Jose Miguel Rubio I 23 November 2017 I NRC-EIS Meeting (Copenhagen, Denmark) Implementation of INSPIRE in EIONET Core Data Flows Consultation and results

Summary report recently made available to NRC-EIS group Background NRC-EIS meeting in December 2016 agreed to develop and share a common understanding of progress in INSPIRE by EIONET Main aim: share progress in the INSPIRE implementation in priority datasets of EIONET CDF at national level Blueprint: CZ analysis of availability of metadata and network services for datasets reported under EIONET Core Data Flows Process: Targeted consultation launched on 26 June and closed on 21 August in time for the KO meeting of 2016.5 activity Opportunity to feed in as input to activity “2016.5 Priority List Datasets” Responses received after deadline were also integrated! Summary report recently made available to NRC-EIS group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow-up and next steps Countries not having responded to the consultation, or updates to the responses given, are welcome by 8 December Summary report – feedback by 8 December A second version of the report including comments and country updates to be sent before mid-January The second version will develop further the link between the first results of the MIWP 2016.5 activity and the survey outcomes An updated screening could be carried out in 2018 building on the use of keywords (tagged metadata), together with 2016.5

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