WP 1 - Review of the Art.17 reporting format & guidelines Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives Brussels, 22.3.2011 Marita Arvela, Zelmira Sipkova, Brian Mac Sharry

This presentation is about State of debate Reporting Format (excl. WP3) Guidelines Art 17 Reference Portal Art 17 Checklists (Zelmira Sipkova) Outlook on technical implementation (Brian Mac Sharry)

State of debate After previous EG meeting of 2.12.2010, comments received from 8 MS (Reporting Format & Guidelines) 2nd consultation of the Habitats Committee on the revised Reporting Format on 4.-25.2.2011 - incl. Guidelines  Discussion between ETC, EEA and EC on development of Reporting tool and Range tool on 16.3.2011 Art 17 Checklist – 2nd discussion with MS starts asap No Subgroup meetings held or foreseen Harmonisation between Art 17, Birds reporting & SDF continues – Meeting of WP1-WP4 leaders in Jan & March 2011 List of threats and pressures - finalised Approval expected on 13.5.2011

2nd consultation on the revised Reporting Format & Guidelines: 15 MS commented (AT, DE, DK, EE, ES, IE, FI, IT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK) RO & additional comments from SE received yesterday There is general support in the work done so far Comments mainly at the level of details Document with all comments and proposed solutions distributed to Expert Group (see CIRCA)

Proposed changes General report (Annex A) 3. Natura 2000 - site designation Distinctions between fields “terrestrial area of sites” and “marine area of sites” to be clarified 4. Management plans (Art 6(1)) Comprehensive management plans - for this reporting purpose Text from SDF to be added on “requirement by Directive” for management plans Optional field to report % of sites covered by partial management plans – not accepted

Reporting format – both Annex B & D 1.1.5. Range map: Submit the map that was used for range evaluation Field “Method used”: to unify the wording across the formats (also section 3) All optional fields to be marked clearly Flexibility in the use of long/short term trends in assessment? Some level of flexibility exists (to use fields “Reason for change” & “Other relevant information”) Fields “Additional information” (with a question “Is the difference between reported value…and previous reporting round mainly due to…”): to change title into “Reason for change” To add “unknown” to list of threats & pressures

Reporting format - Annex B – species 2.3.Range A field 2.3.2. “Method used” to be added  field numbering to be updated 2.4. Population 2.4.8. Short term trend-magnitude, b) Confidence interval Indicate confidence interval if a statistically reliable sampling scheme is used (field 2.4.5) 2.5.9. Area of suitable habitat for species a) Give area…“if appropriate” does not mean optional (but should not be ignored) Harmonisation between Annex B and Birds reporting format continues

Reporting format - Annex D – habitat types 2.3.Range A field 2.3.2 “Method used” to be added  field numbering to be updated 2.4. Area covered by habitat Field 2.4.9 Long-term trend-Direction to be added  field numbering to be updated 2.7. Complementary information 2.7.2. Typical species-method used: Describe method(s) used to assess the status of typical species as part of the overall assessment of structure & functions field numbering to be updated

Revision of the Guidelines Structure is considered in overall ok Several comments on details (listed in the overview of MS comments) Revision needed: Wording of specific issues to be revised (conservation status & degree of conservation, Red listing and CS…) Large grid size for some marine species/habitats To make clear that examples are not rules, but examples of good practise CS of grouped Annex V species Cladonia (subgenus Cladina), Lycopodium spp, Sphagnum spp: same treatment as 2001-2006

not possible to completely cover all aspects Guidance on « Future prospects » is under revision Parameter «Habitat for the species » – not perfect, but progress made compared to previous reporting round Structure & functions, incl typical species – text to be revised Marine example from UK under preparation Marine habitat types for reporting – to keep the list as it is now Threats and pressures: list has been updated after comments by FR, IE, DE – uploaded on CIRCA Complex issues – not possible to completely cover all aspects

Next: Revised Reporting Format to be submitted to Habitats Committee in early April 2011 comments from 2nd consultation of the Committee & Expert Group taken into account all fields included to the format where data requested from MS (= fields in the Reporting tool) submission together with the final draft Guidelines  Format hopefully to be approved on 13.5.2011!

Art 17 Reference Portal prepared by ETC/BD http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal Includes: Tables of codes needed to fill in the format, checklist of species and habitat types, list of threats and pressures, conservation measures etc Target: all documents available at latest by mid-May Will be used for any updates when necessary (e.g. map of marine regions)

Article 17 Checklists Indicate to MS which species and habitat types are expected to be reported 2007-2012 1st MS consultation took place 28.7.-17.9.2010 Last reply arrived in December 2010 Delays of getting feedback  delayed ETC work + time-consuming work on complex taxonomic issues

Article 17 Checklists 2nd version of the Checklists are available in the Art 17 Reference Portal MS will receive an invitation from ETC to comment by 29.4.2011 Target: to finalise the lists in May Target: to provide a single checklist also including bird species Checklist for Reporting under the Nature Directives

Article 17 check-list The list of the habitats and species for which the ARTICLE 17 report is expected

The 2nd draft - MS Access database The species check list Codes – EUNIS and SDF Name in the directive, Name used in the assessment Country Biogeographical region The habitat check Code as in SDF

General principles set in the Guidelines: report should be submitted for all of the habitats and species occurring in the country marginal population in the region Not enough information about marginal occurrences separate reports following recent taxonomic splits (if feasible) The species occur in different geographical areas Morphologically different Increased workload

the confusion between criteria for the site proposal and reporting Some problems: the confusion between criteria for the site proposal and reporting Basically reporting for the habitats and species having a stable or regular occurrence in the country even if it does not qualify for the site proposal – eg. harbor porpoise in E Baltic Sea different interpretation of mainly OCC, SR Uncertainty linked to taxonomic progress mainly in southern Europe

Some changes of OCC, SR, EX, N What was done? The check-list completed with the information from the 2010 update of the Natura 2000 Reference List Some changes of OCC, SR, EX, N Taxonomy issues discussed in the separate document with suggestion for the Reporting The cases discussed in the paper are marked in the Check list as SR TAX

Outlook on technical implementation Art 17 & Birds reporting Reporting Tool The difficulties of last Art 17 reporting round are well documented and will be taken into account MS Access database simple editing mask (not on-line) improved QA/QC (for pre- and post-submission) specific functions?

Provisional timing of Reporting Tools Testing by MS: potentially in last quarter of 2011 Database + User guidelines available: 1st March 2012 Workshop to train MS: March 2012 Questions to MS prefilled information?, consultation?, audit trail? ETC will send a note, replies requested within 2 weeks Range Tool Target: January 2012