EIS Implementation Review ISA Coordination group meeting

Transcription

1 JOINING UP GOVERNMENTS EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIS Implementation Review ISA Coordination group meeting 23 October 2012

2 EIS Implementation review Context The EIS Implementation Review aims at guaranteeing the alignment of the EIS implementation with: 1. the EU political agenda. 2. the priorities and actions of the EU countries 1 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 to gather the interoperability-related actions that are implemented or being implemented at EU level, by focusing on their outputs, outcomes and impacts. At EU country level 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

3 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

4 EIS Implementation review Agenda EIS Implementation Review Key findings across EU countries 1. Political willingness 2. National Interoperability Strategies (NISs) Status and drivers Barriers and ways to remove barriers Focus areas tackled Evolving priorities 3. Legislations supporting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled Case study - France 4. Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled by action Focus areas tackled by EU countries Case study - Estonia 4

5 EIS Implementation review Agenda EIS Implementation Review Key findings across EU countries 1. Political willingness 2. National Interoperability Strategies (NISs) Status and drivers Barriers and ways to remove barriers Focus areas tackled Evolving priorities 3. Legislations supporting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled Case study - France 4. Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled by action Focus areas tackled by EU countries Case study - Estonia 5

6 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 : 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)). 2 Based 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

7 EIS Implementation review Agenda EIS Implementation Review Key findings across EU countries 1. Political willingness 2. National Interoperability Strategies (NISs) Status and drivers Barriers and ways to remove barriers Focus areas tackled Evolving priorities 3. Legislations supporting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled Case study - France 4. Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled by action Focus areas tackled by EU countries Case study - Estonia 7

8 National Interoperability Strategies (NISs) Status and drivers Most countries appear to be on the way to have a NIS 3. Main driver: need for a common vision and common goals Status of the NISs Drivers for the elaboration 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). 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. 3 Indicator to measure the level of importance given to IOP at national level: the National Interoperability Strategy (NIS) 8

9 National Interoperability Strategies (NISs) Barriers and ways to remove barriers Interoperability barriers Ways to remove interoperability barriers Barriers to the elaboration of the NISs Ways to remove barriers to IOP Main barrier: organisational Lack of interaction and cooperation among PAs; Lack of resources and expertise; Administrative burden. Other barriers Political and legal; Technical. How to materialise it? 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. 9

10 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 EIS 4. Priority focus areas for countries having already elaborated a NIS Prioritisation of focus areas in the EIS Top three priorities tackled by the NISs: FA5 Interoperability architecture Building blocks; FA2 Information availability and usage; FA1 Semantic interoperability. Top three priorities in the EIS 4 : FA1 Semantic interoperability; FA5 Interoperability architecture Building blocks; FA7 National and cross-border sector-specific legislation sustainability. 4 Priority 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

11 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: FA5 Interoperability architecture; FA1 Semantic interoperability; FA2 Information availability and usage. Evolution of IOP priorities since 2010 IOP priorities of European countries before and after

12 EIS Implementation review Agenda EIS Implementation Review Key findings across EU countries 1. Political willingness 2. National Interoperability Strategies (NISs) Status and drivers Barriers and ways to remove barriers Focus areas tackled Evolving priorities 3. Legislations supporting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled Case study - France 4. Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled by action Focus areas tackled by EU countries Case study - Estonia 12

13 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

14 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. 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. 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: 4 February 2010 PAs recipients: All administrative authorities Domains: Authentication; esignature; Confidentiality mechanism; Timestamp function. 14

15 EIS Implementation review Agenda EIS Implementation Review Key findings across EU countries 1. Political willingness 2. National Interoperability Strategies (NISs) Status and drivers Barriers and ways to remove barriers Focus areas tackled Evolving priorities 3. Legislations supporting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled Case study - France 4. Actions supporting or promoting IOP at national level Focus areas tackled by action Focus areas tackled by EU countries Case study - Estonia 15

16 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

17 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

18 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

19 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

20 Contact Contacts European Commission Margarida Abecasis Head Of Unit - ISA Programme margarida.abecasis@ec.europa.eu Peter Burian Programme manager peter.burian@ec.europa.eu Thank you for your attention. EIS Implementation Review team Kurt Salmon Alessandro Zamboni Manager alessandro.zamboni@kurtsalmon.com Sébastien Gallezot Senior consultant sebastien.gallezot@kurtsalmon.com Céline Monteiro Consultant celine.monteiro@kurtsalmon.com 20