Proposed new MIG Actions for the WP 2016-2020
|Status:||Closed||Start date:||12 May 2016|
|Priority:||Normal||Due date:||25 May 2016|
Dear MIG-T representatives,
please find attached draft descriptions of the 3 newly proposed MIWP Actions for your comments/additions etc.:
Fitness for purpose – prepared by Michael L.
Monitoring and Reporting 2019 – prepared by Paul H.
Priority list of eReporting datasets – prepared by Robert T
The proposed new Actions are reflecting the new priority setting included in the draft of the MIWP 2016-2020 (https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2741) that is also published for your commnets/additions etc.
till 25.5. 2016.
#3 Updated by Michael Lutz over 4 years ago
- File INSPIRE_LOPDS_Spain.xlsx added
Dears Michael and Robert:
We support in Spain the three new proposed MIWP Actions and consider they are in the right direction. However it is important to develop a detailed action plan and assign the appropriate resources to assure their success.
Attached you can find our comments about the priority list of eReporting datasets in relation with their alignment with INSPIRE. We have found some inconsistencies between some currently eReporting datasets and the INSPIRE related ones. There are also some datasets that we don’t consider a priority.
Besides, there are repeated datasets that correspond with different information and therefore the number of priority datasets is 48 instead of 46.
- Directive 91/271/EEC
34) location of discharge point linked to WFD water body
35) GIS of sensitive areas, less sensitive areas and catchment
- Directive 91/676/EEC
34) NiD monitoring stations and related data
35) NiD management zone
Marisol Gómez Andrés
Ministry of Environmental , Agriculture and Food
Paseo Infanta Isabel 1 – 28014 Madrid - Spain
Information Technology and Communication Department
Web and GIS Services Manager
#4 Updated by Lars Storgaard over 4 years ago
- File MIWP-xx Priority list of eReporting datasets_DKcomments.docx added
- File MIWP-xx Monitoring Reporting 2019_DKcomments.docx added
- File MIWP-xx Fitness for purpose_DKcomments.docx added
Thank you all for the well described actions which we (DK) overall supports. We have some minor comments, proposals to clarifications and questions to each actions.
#5 Updated by Carlo Cipolloni over 4 years ago
- File MIWP-xx Fitness for purpose_commnets_ITAcomments.docx added
- File MIWP-xx Priority list of eReporting datasets_ITAcomments.docx added
here are attached some small Italy comments to MIG new actions that we (ITA) totally support.
#6 Updated by Marc Leobet over 4 years ago
- File MIWP-xx Fitness for purpose_FR.docx added
- File MIWP-xx Monitoring & Reporting 2019_FR.docx added
- File MIWP-xx Priority list of eReporting datasets_FR.docx added
please find the French comments in the attached files. As an abstract :
FITNESS FOR PURPOSE : we would like to thanks the European Commission for this very positive and open process. We think we have two points to work on for this workpackage :
- As you know, INSPIRE does not ask for new datasets, so "creation" word would have to be avoided. We could just define which could be the reference datasets among what exists. Secondly, to be compliant with subsidiarity principle, stronger harmonization would have to answer to strong European use cases we have not at this stage. Thirdly, while recognizing the very good job done by its managers, the few people coming on the thematic cluster website is absolutly not representative of the EU public authorities.
To go a step further asks to go back to users, that is the public authorities and not only technicians and experts.
MONITORING & REPORTING 2019 : this is a good work, even if comparability between MS would stay unreachable if not taking into account that countries have various institutions, history and situations.
PRIORITY LIST OF DATASETS : we have stong concerns about that text.
if INSPIRE is an infrastructure, it has to facilitate the work done by specific users, by example thematic reporters. Reading this text, we feel it could exist a risk that the infrastructure looks upstairs, trying to define the more useful datasets for another thematic community.
As the French action plan shows us, only the reporters for thematic directives have the knowledge of the European Union consensus on what is mandatory, what is not mandatory but freely accepted and what is accepted as out of the scope. For French authorities, this would be a non-sense to create this Work Package without them.