Introduction¶
The current Monitoring and Reporting system (requirements, processes and supporting tools) is based on Article 21 of the Directive and on the 2009 Reporting Implementing Decision. Experience from the previous reporting rounds and the evaluation have shown that this system leaves room for improvement and streamlining. Textual information is still quite significant in this system but since it is not always relevant nor comparable and that it represents a significant burden, updated information should be collected in an easier, comparable and less burdensome way for the reporting actors (MS, EEA, EC).
While the resources needed at MS and EC/EEA level to handle the monitoring process have been reduced due to the work of the finalised MIWP-16, the reporting process is reported by MS as being still time consuming and of an unknown added value. In particular, the current process does not allow for the provision of comparable results across MS. This concern was also highlighted in the discussions at the MIG-P meeting in December 2015.
In MIWP-16 the monitoring indicators have been evaluated and several issues indicated in the final report of action still need to be addressed. This might require changes of the 2009 Decision and corresponding technical guidelines. It is therefore relevant to review the INSPIRE Monitoring and Reporting process and obligations in order to develop and implement an optimized and effective process according to Art. 21 of INSPIRE Directive, in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines (COM(2015)111) and the aims of the Fitness Check on environmental monitoring and reporting (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/fc_overview_en.htm).
Scope¶
Reviewing 2009 MR Decision and related guidelines. The scope of the action should be to modernise and streamline the monitoring and reporting process in order to make it more fit for purpose, less cumbersome for all partners involved and based to the maximum extent possible on indicators automatically derivable from existing INSPIRE services.
Any IT developments done should be usable by MS at MS level for MS needs and by the EC at European level for EC needs.
Organisational set-up¶
A dedicated temporary 2016.2 sub-group is established, similarly to what has been done for MIWP-16. The sub-group should ideally consist of members of MIG-P, MIG-T and INSPIRE rapporteurs in order to have a right mix of hands-on and policy knowledge. It should also include users of the report. The sub-group may organise itself in working groups if deemed appropriate by its members.