MIWP-21: Pilots for INSPIRE-based applications
|Assignee:||Vanda Nunes de Lima|
Action MIWP-21 was endorsement in the MIG-P meeting in September 2014 in Brussels and then further discussed in the workshop of MIG-P/NCPs on reporting under environmental acquis in January 2015.
Based on these discussions, the attached documents propose
- an updated description of action MIWP-21: Pilots for INSPIRE-based applications (MIWP-21_Action_description_for_MIG-T+P_review.docx)
- the corresponding draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for a temporary MIG sub-group (ToR_MIG_temporary_sub-group_MIWP-21_for_MIG-T+P_review.docx)
- the prioritisation schema for the action (Prioritisation_schema_MIWP-21_for_MIG-T+P_review.docx)
Comments are welcome from MIG-T and MIG-P until 12 June 2015.
The comments will be incorporated into the documents by 26 June 2015.
The call for participation will then be launched in July.
#1 Updated by Alex Ramage about 5 years ago
I have some comments and questions in the ToR that you have put together.
I have reviewed the priritisation schema and I think that you need more explanation in sections 2a, 2b especially at the regional and local level, 3a, 3b where your satement about MS needs justification, and for 4 it would be helpful to identify which TG need to be reviewed.
I hope that this is helpful.
#2 Updated by Daniela Hogrebe about 5 years ago
- File MIWP-21_Action_description_for_MIG-T+P_review-DE.docx added
- File Prioritisation_schema_MIWP-21_for_MIG-T+P_review-DE.docx added
- File ToR_MIG_temporary_sub-group_MIWP-21_for_MIG-T+P_review-UK-DE.docx added
please find attached some comments and views on the three documents (for comments on ToR I have used Alex version).
Basically, the relation between MIWP-21 and pilot activitities under ISA (EULF) or other initiatives and programmes is not yet clear enough and should be more precisely defined in the ToR/action description. From my understanding the sub-group should identify ongoing acticities and connect these activities to MIG and Member States. The pilot activities themselves should be out of scope of the sub-group.
Regarding your questions about the nomination and the participants: members of the sub-group should be nominated by the MIG. One member per country would be sufficient, otherwise the group will become very large.
#3 Updated by Vanda Nunes de Lima about 5 years ago
Thank you, Alex and Daniela for your comments. A quick reaction before addressing all comments, as other colleagues may raise the same issue. I agree with the Daniela's opinion that the pilots are runing outside this sub-group, that is the reason I din't include them in the ToR, only what the sub-group can do to bridge and link the pilots with the implementation of INSPIRE through MIG. In fact, to keep it clear, it needs to be explained in the ToR
#4 Updated by Christian Ansorge about 5 years ago
We had a discussion on the subject and would like to provide you our view and questions. Please find them in the document included which builds on the comments Alex provided.
Chris and Darja
#5 Updated by Christina Wasström about 5 years ago
Sorry for a late feedback. I agree to most of what's already been said by my MIG colleagues. The only addition I have is about the scope;
"The tasks of the temporary sub-group shall be:
create and maintain a network of national thematic contact points responsible for the implementation of the selected policy areas"
Since this is a temporary group. How can it maintain the network?
#6 Updated by Vanda Nunes de Lima almost 5 years ago
- File resolution_comments_ToR.docx added
- File resolution_comments_Priorit Schema.docx added
- File resolution_comments_Action description.docx added
- File ToR_MIG_temporary_sub-group_MIWP-21_for_MIG-T+P_after review 1.docx added
- File Prioritisation_schema_MIWP-21_after_MIG_review.docx added
- File MIWP-21_Action_description_after_MIG_review.docx added
I upload the comments received and related resolution regarding the 3 documents submitted for consultation. Only a few countries commmented, in the platform or by email. The role and tasks foreseen for this MIG temporary sub-group were not always clearly understood as described in the former ToR . A new version is now available, using mainly the Background to clarify the frequently raised questions and reordering the tasks attributed to the temporary sub-group and its members.
I see the need for further discussion at the next MIG meetings, deciding then how to proceed. It will become clear when applying it to a policy area with regulatory reporting and existing thematic INSPIRE pilot as an example.
The INSPIRE MIWP prioritisation schema had an error in category 4 Explanatory text, which was corrected in the attached new version.
Thank you for your collaboration with the review and comments