Overview on questionnaire feedback Art 12 & Art 12 reporting Expert Group on Reporting Brussels, 25.3.2014 Marita Arvela

Many thanks for your feedback! Feedback received from 18 Member States for Art 12 (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, HU, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SL, UK) 21 Member States for Art 17 (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, MT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SL, UK) Many thanks for your feedback! 09/12/2018

Data transfer issues (Art 12 & Art 17) Reporting tool Used by most of the MS Number of proposals for technical improvement Too many versions of the tool Range tool Most MS used Considered useful, but also many technical problems, reported slow (Art 12). Also doubts whether the tool is fit for purpose. Proposal: final versions of all tools and guidance should be available at least 12 months in advance. 09/12/2018

Delivery Manual & Manual for the range tool Inbuilt QA/QC on CDR In general considered useful, but also problems encountered esp with GIS part Requested to have possibility to have certain GIS checks done at earlier stage Delivery Manual & Manual for the range tool Delivery Manual mostly fine, but Range tool Manual deserves improvement QA/QC reports (for Art 12 MS are still working on these) Idea was good, but presentation could be improved, unnecessary errors listed To use e.g. Excel to report errors & full range of EEA validation rules available earlier in process? 09/12/2018

Proposal: to be built in the reporting tool Audit trail (Art 17 only) Mixed comments. ‘Very happy, very grateful’, ‘hardly provides a reliable analysis..’. Revision of definitions of codes & examples requested Proposal: to be built in the reporting tool Issues in relation to the General Report Satisfactory and clear, but duplication with Art 17 Some technical improvements proposed Translation of ‘Main achievements under HD’ into English obligatory? Is information of general report used by EC/ETC? 09/12/2018

Issues in Species/Habitats/Birds Reports Lot of comments Revision of list of threats & pressures requested. Art 12 to follow Art 17 in distinguishing threats & pressures? SPA/Natura 2000 coverage ‘existing solution is a difficult compromise’…WP3 is called back Most comments on ‘conservation measures’. Also issues like % would be easier/more accurate for population size, more guidance on trend field requested (Art 12) 09/12/2018

Too many fields asking source, problems with ‘year/period’ Art 12 Birds reports General: Too many fields asking source, problems with ‘year/period’ New field for trend?: whether trends due to genuine change or increase/decrease in knowledge or diversification in sampling method To report voluntarily all non-native species? Discussion on reporting on species on passage requested 09/12/2018

Population/Breeding range trend Population size some units contested, estimations recalculated from different units were problematic. To use ‘best estimate’ as well together with min/max? Population/Breeding range trend More guidance requested (e.g. on magnitude), negative trends should be made possible. Longterm trend to be 24 years? Would be better to ask distribution trend instead of range trend 09/12/2018

Art 17 species/habitats reports General: ‘Reason for change’ needs more guidance, Field on ‘quality of data’ requested. Why no ‘methods used’ field for range trend? Future prospects: lot of subjectivity, 12 y period not useful, use of qualifier difficult, text in evaluation matrix imprecise, rediscussion requested Overall conclusions should be automated in tool Not to change too much as monitoring etc at national level already adjusted to reporting needs 09/12/2018

Typical species. More guidance needed. Value of reporting this? Habitats Structures & functions badly captured. New field to indicate what % of a habitat is considered to be in FV or unfavourable condition? Explicit thresholds if s&f is reported as FV or U1? Discussion proposed on approach taken to concluding on habitat range/area Typical species. More guidance needed. Value of reporting this? 09/12/2018

‘Habitat of the species’ (field 2.5) remains a difficult issue Population units. Revision of list of exceptions and definition of ‘individual’ requested, to use unit with highest confidence in detecting changes between reports? Individual not relevant/problematic for number of taxa To generate common understanding of meaning of ‘locality’ using field 2.4.3. information? New field proposed for Sphagnum etc to capture decline of individual species/changes in composition 09/12/2018

Issues in relation to maps Purpose and value of range maps is questioned Proposal: not to ask GIS shapefiles but only Excel files or database files via xml transfer with presence/absence of habitats/species and EU grid cell number 09/12/2018

Issues in relation to the assessment of CS Further discussion is appreciated by many MS (‘FRVs are still the most difficult values to assess…’) New approach for FRA and FRP established by BE To have an EU-biogeographical level approach for species and habitat? Use of operators is also requested as an option for next round Qualifier for FV should be made obligatory Some guidance on how reporting should cope with climate change impacts is needed. Discussion on the role of population dynamics in the assessment of CS would be appreciated More guidance needed on assessment of 7120 09/12/2018

Issues in relation to the given guidance Explanatory Notes & Guidelines Art 17: Overall considered relevant, but proposals improving the structure and content given. More examples requested. Art 12: In general positive, but issues for improvement proposed as well FAQ: useful but hard to keep with updates Reference portal: Useful, helpful, good structure Helpdesk by the ETC (& EC contractor): positive feedback (‘Couldn’t do without’) CIRCA BC: Not so straighforward… 09/12/2018

Other UK: Would have been useful to meet up with other MS c. 9 months before the submission deadline -FI: Problems in interpretation of certain habitat types (3130, 3110, 6510, 6520 ) and with habitat types which can overlap (1110 & 1610, 1170 & 1620). Reference list concerning Thymallus thymallys and Coreconus lavaretus should be revised -DE: Time period between end of the reporting period and delivering the national reports should be extended from the present 6 months to 12 months or more. More discussion is needed on how to use effects of nitrogen input in assessments of CS IE, UK, DK: Assessment process warrants external review (to see whether significant differences in approach in different MS, relevance to the reporting aims and what could be reduced). IE: More formal process for streamlining reporting under MSFD and Nature Directive needs to be further developed/agreed. PL: It is more user-friendly if single reports can be opened on CDR (not all in one time) PT: Challenges the reporting frequency of 6 years. Requests review of nomenclature of species checklist. 09/12/2018