JOINING UP GOVERNMENTS
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
EIS Implementation Review
ISA Coordination group meeting
23 October 2012
EIS Implementation review
Context
•
The EIS Implementation Review aims at guaranteeing the alignment of the EIS
implementation with:
1.
2.
•
the EU political agenda.
the priorities and actions of the EU countries1 regarding European public service & interoperability (IOP)
activities.
To verify this alignment, the EIS Implementation Review team collected the projects,
programmes and actions related to IOP activities:
–
At Commission DGs and services level
•
–
At EU country level
•
•
•
to gather the interoperability-related actions that are implemented or being implemented at EU level, by focusing on their
outputs, outcomes and impacts.
to gather the interoperability-related actions that are implemented or being implemented at national level, by focusing on
their outputs, outcomes and impacts.
to assess the NISs (political priority, EIS alignment and legal support).
This presentation aims at displaying the key findings related to the data collection
performed across EU countries.
1 EU
countries are to be understood as the 16 Member States, 2 Non-MSs EEA countries and 1 acceding country having participated to the EIS Implementation Review
data collection, namely Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Malta, Portugal, Romania,
Slovak Republic, Spain, the Netherlands, United Kingdom.
2
EIS Implementation review
Context
•
EU countries – data collection methods:
–
–
–
•
Data collection across EU countries –
level of participation
Interviews with Member States (MSs);
Survey launched on 22 May 2012;
Desk research.
Participation to the data collection:
19 EU countries
–
–
–
16 MSs;
2 Non-MSs EEA countries;
1 acceding country.
3
EIS Implementation review
Agenda
EIS Implementation Review – Key findings across EU countries
1.
2.
Political willingness
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
•
•
•
•
3.
Legislations supporting IOP at national level
•
•
4.
Status and drivers
Barriers and ways to remove barriers
Focus areas tackled
Evolving priorities
Focus areas tackled
Case study - France
Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level
•
•
•
Focus areas tackled by action
Focus areas tackled by EU countries
Case study - Estonia
4
EIS Implementation review
Agenda
EIS Implementation Review – Key findings across EU countries
1.
2.
Political willingness
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
•
•
•
•
3.
Legislations supporting IOP at national level
•
•
4.
Status and drivers
Barriers and ways to remove barriers
Focus areas tackled
Evolving priorities
Focus areas tackled
Case study - France
Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level
•
•
•
Focus areas tackled by action
Focus areas tackled by EU countries
Case study - Estonia
5
Political willingness
•
At MS level, 74% of the EU countries consider interoperability as a high priority in their
political agenda.
Political priority level of IOP
High priority: IOP promoted at political level or one of the
main priorities of a national strategy.
Medium priority: main specific measures on IOP mentioned in a
national strategy.
Low priority: measures (not the main ones) on IOP mentioned
in the national ICT or eGovernment strategy.
•
At EU level, the following aspects of IOP have been highlighted since 20072 :
–
–
–
–
–
–
2 Based
Digital Service Infrastructure (e.g. Proposal for a Regulation establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF));
Standards (e.g. Draft for a Communication on guidelines for standards-based public procurement of ICT
systems);
EU legal framework (e.g. Communication Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe);
Organisational framework - roles and responsibilities, governance (e.g. IMI Regulation);
Transparency (e.g. General Data Protection Regulation);
Trust and privacy (e.g. Proposal for a review of the Directive 2006/24/EC (Data Retention)).
on a 22 political documents inventory, drawn by the EIS Implementation Review team, in the context of the PESTL analysis, in particular the political axis.
6
EIS Implementation review
Agenda
EIS Implementation Review – Key findings across EU countries
1.
2.
Political willingness
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
•
•
•
•
3.
Legislations supporting IOP at national level
•
•
4.
Status and drivers
Barriers and ways to remove barriers
Focus areas tackled
Evolving priorities
Focus areas tackled
Case study - France
Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level
•
•
•
Focus areas tackled by action
Focus areas tackled by EU countries
Case study - Estonia
7
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
Status and drivers
•
Most countries appear to be on the way
to have a NIS3.
Status of the NISs
For 79% of the EU countries (15) the NIS is either
already adopted or under elaboration.
In additional, 16% foresee to have one (3) and
only 5% do not (1).
3 Indicator
•
Main driver: need for a common vision
and common goals
Drivers for the elaboration of the NISs
IOP is considered as an enabler of cooperation
improvement among Public Administrations (PAs);
PAs’
internal
operational
performance
improvement; better public services delivery to
citizens and businesses.
to measure the level of importance given to IOP at national level: the National Interoperability Strategy (NIS)
8
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
Barriers and ways to remove barriers
•
Interoperability barriers
•
Ways to remove interoperability barriers
Barriers to the elaboration of the NISs
•
Main barrier: organisational
–
–
–
Lack of interaction and cooperation among PAs;
Lack of resources and expertise;
Administrative burden.
Ways to remove barriers to IOP
•
How to materialise it?
–
–
–
•
Other barriers
–
–
–
Involve PAs in the strategy elaboration;
Create places for exchanging views and
experiences;
Increase political support in decisions and actions
regarding ICT;
Enhance cooperation between PAs, private sector
and standardisation organisations.
Political and legal;
Technical.
9
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
Focus areas tackled
•
The focus areas tackled by the NISs are not fully aligned with the top priority areas set in
the EIS4.
Priority focus areas for countries having already
elaborated a NIS
Top three priorities tackled by the NISs:
–
FA5 – Interoperability architecture – Building blocks;
–
FA2 – Information availability and usage;
–
FA1 – Semantic interoperability.
4 Priority
.
Prioritisation of focus areas in the EIS
Top three priorities in the EIS4 :
–
FA1 – Semantic interoperability;
–
FA5 – Interoperability architecture – Building blocks;
–
FA7 – National and cross-border sector-specific
legislation sustainability.
areas first established during a workshop held on 1 April 2009, with the Member States’ and countries’ experts, in the context of the elaboration of the EIS.
10
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
Evolving priorities
•
Since 2010, priorities have changed for
63% of the EU countries (12).
•
Nevertheless, the top three focus areas
tackled by the EU countries are the
following:
–
–
–
Evolution of IOP priorities since 2010
FA5 – Interoperability architecture;
FA1 – Semantic interoperability;
FA2 – Information availability and usage.
IOP priorities of European countries before and
after 2010
11
EIS Implementation review
Agenda
EIS Implementation Review – Key findings across EU countries
1.
2.
Political willingness
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
•
•
•
•
3.
Legislations supporting IOP at national level
•
•
4.
Status and drivers
Barriers and ways to remove barriers
Focus areas tackled
Evolving priorities
Focus areas tackled
Case study - France
Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level
•
•
•
Focus areas tackled by action
Focus areas tackled by EU countries
Case study - Estonia
12
Legislations supporting IOP
Focus areas tackled
•
Overall, 74% of EU countries have adopted legislations supporting or promoting IOP
among national, regional and local PAs.
•
The top three focus areas covered by those legislations are:
–
–
–
FA3 – Trust and privacy;
FA2 – Information availability and usage;
FA5 – Interoperability architecture – Building blocks.
FAs supported by legislations in European
countries
13
Legislations supporting IOP
Case study - France
•
•
In France, IOP is considered as a high priority at political level.
Two main legislations support IOP:
–
–
the “Référentiel Général d’Intéropérabilité” (RGI);
the “Référentiel Général de Sécurité” (RGS).
Référentiel Général d’Intéropérabilité (RGI)
Référentiel Général de Sécurité (RGS)
The RGI aims to assist PAs in the adoption of norms
and standards, in order to reinforce the IOP of their
information systems.
The RGS aims to reinforce the security of electronic
exchanges and to set the framework of the necessary
rules related to specific functions contributing to
information security.
Entry into force: 9 November 2009
PAs recipients: All administrative authorities (state
services, public bodies and local authorities)
Domains:
–
Semantic conception of exchange;
–
Language and specification methods;
–
Semantic resources to be reused, elementary
formats;
–
Composite formats, multimedia, web services
and infrastructure.
Entry into force: 4 February 2010
PAs recipients: All administrative authorities
Domains:
–
Authentication;
–
eSignature;
–
Confidentiality mechanism;
–
Timestamp function.
14
EIS Implementation review
Agenda
EIS Implementation Review – Key findings across EU countries
1.
2.
Political willingness
National Interoperability Strategies (NISs)
•
•
•
•
3.
Legislations supporting IOP at national level
•
•
4.
Status and drivers
Barriers and ways to remove barriers
Focus areas tackled
Evolving priorities
Focus areas tackled
Case study - France
Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level
•
•
•
Focus areas tackled by action
Focus areas tackled by EU countries
Case study - Estonia
15
Actions supporting or promoting IOP
Focus areas tackled by action
•
Overall, 51 actions supporting or promoting IOP have been identified across EU
countries (29 completed; 22 on-going).
•
The main focus areas supported by those actions overall are:
–
–
–
FA5 – Interoperability architecture;
FA2 – Information availability and usage;
FA8 – Interoperability awareness.
Percentage of IOP actions supporting each focus
area
Completed actions focus more on FA3 – Trust and Privacy and FA1 – Semantic interoperability than on FA8 –
Interoperability awareness.
16
Actions supporting or promoting IOP
Focus areas tackled by EU countries
•
The main focus areas supported by the EU countries through those actions are:
–
–
–
FA5 – Interoperability architecture;
FA2 – Information availability and usage;
FA3 – Trust and privacy.
Percentage of countries supporting each FA
through IOP actions
•
Those top three focus areas are the same as the top three areas covered by the
legislations.
Countries are more supporting the FA1 – Semantic interoperability and FA8 - Interoperability awareness than FA3 – Trust
and Privacy, through on-going actions.
17
Actions supporting or promoting IOP
Case study - Estonia
•
In Estonia, the Data Exchange Layer X-Road is an example of a completed
action implementing IOP.
Data Exchange Layer X-Road
The Data Exchange Layer X-Road is a technical and organisational environment, enabling:
–
secure Internet-based data exchange between the state’s information systems.
–
people’s access to the data maintained and processed in state databases.
Evolution of the use of X-Road services from 2003 to 2011
Starting year: 1999 (implemented in 2001)
Ending year: 2011 (version 1.0) – 2012 (version 5.0)
Main beneficiaries: Public and private sector enterprises
and institutions
Legal basis: Public Information Act
Impacts:
–
Interoperability of services;
–
More effective data exchange (within the state
institutions and between the state and citizens);
–
Efficiency gains (resources saved).
18
Conclusions
Summary of the key aspects
•
There is an overall strong political willingness to promote interoperability at national level.
“74% of the EU countries consider interoperability as a high priority in their political agenda.”
•
Mainly pushed by the need to share a common vision and common goals, most countries have
established, are elaborating or foresee to adopt a NIS (95%).
“IOP is considered as an enabler of cooperation improvement among Public Administrations (PAs); PAs’ internal
operational performance improvement ; better public services delivery to citizens and businesses.”
•
Barriers towards IOP, which are mainly organisational, should be overcome.
There are several ways to do so: “involve PAs in the strategy elaboration; create places for exchanging views and
experiences; increase political support in decisions and actions regarding ICT; enhance cooperation between PAs, private
sector and standardisation organisations.”
•
The focus areas tackled by the NISs and by the legislations promoting or supporting IOP at national
level (FA5 – Interoperability architecture; FA2 – Information availability and usage; FA1 – Semantic interoperability) are
not fully aligned with the top priority ones set in the EIS (FA1 – Semantic interoperability; FA5 –
Interoperability architecture – Building blocks; FA7 – National and cross-border sector-specific legislation sustainability).
•
Overall, IOP seems to be well implemented at national level but the priorities tackled by those actions
(FA5 – Interoperability architecture; FA2 – Information availability and usage; FA1 – Semantic interoperability) are not
fully aligned with the main priorities of the EIS.
19
Contact
Contacts
European Commission
Margarida Abecasis
Head Of Unit - ISA Programme
[email protected]
Peter Burian
Programme manager
[email protected]
Thank you for your attention.
EIS Implementation Review team
Kurt Salmon
Alessandro Zamboni
Manager
[email protected]
Sébastien Gallezot
Senior consultant
[email protected]
Céline Monteiro
Consultant
[email protected]
20