Update on Reporting Information point 10 Habitats Committee 25.4.2013 Brussels

Reminder & update on the time plan 2013-2015

2014 2015: publication of the EEA Technical Report and EC Composite Report

Update on Art 17 Reference Portal Documentation sections: 2) Explanatory Notes & Guidelines for the period 2007-2012 -corrigenda 3) Guidelines for submitting Art 17 data –delivery manual 4) Reporting Tool Software – new versions 5) FAQ – new questions Reference material sections: 2) Checklist for HD Art 17 reporting –’STP’ corrected into ‘STE’ (for RO) 3) Biogeographical regions – marine borders

State of the reporting tool 4.2.2013 version 1.7 (28.2. version 1.8 for Romania) Note on changes sent to MS 4.2. RO informed on 11.3. 19.4.2013 version 1.9. Note on changes sent to MS on 22.4.

Delivery You will receive a letter from the EC: Information on submission and resubmission of national report Final delivery manual CDR ready to be used 6.5. onwards Your deadline is 30.6.2013!

Delivery manual: 1. Role of national co-ordinator 2 Delivery manual: 1. Role of national co-ordinator 2. How to ensure data are technically valid 3. How to upload data (incl in-built QA/QC & automatic validation process) 4. What happens after submission

New marine boundaries for Kattegat Art 4 of Marine Strategy Framework Directive includes Kattegat in North-east Atlantic Ocean region. Currently the Art 17 border is result of informal working agreement between MS and EC and is based on Helcom convention.

Concerns only Denmark and Sweden & is agreed with them Impacts: Art 17 checklist updated Sufficiency assessments Natura 2000 reference list No impact on Union list

National summaries + Explanatory notes 1 General information 2 Number of habitats and species/subspecies 3 Information on Conservation status, e.g.: In previous version: SACs were in brackets. Number of sites was mistakenly in %

4 Frequency of main pressures and threats (%) 5 Natura 2000 coverage and conservation measures 6 Data quality and completeness 7 Habitats and species reported and their conservations status

Proposal for a scoreboard 1. Timeliness of report delivery Two parts: 1. timeliness of report delivery and 2.data quality

2. Data quality 2.1. Unknown overall conclusions (Art 17 only) 2.2. Missing obligatory information 2.3. Information reported as ‘absent’ and ‘unknown’ 2.1. Unknown overall conclusions (Art 17 only) % of overall conclusions on conservation status reported as ‘unknown’

2.2. Missing obligatory information % of obligatory fields with missing information 2.3. Information reported as ‘Absent’ and ‘Unknown’ % of obligatory fields reported as ‘absent’ & ‘unknown’

Measuring progress towards Target 1 Habitats directive component … 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show (a favourable or) an improved conservation status Percentage of 'favourable conservation status‘ (A) plus Percentage improving assessments (B) minus Percentage deteriorating assessments (C) A + B - C 15

Change in conservation status between reporting periods Measuring ‚improvement‘ Change in conservation status between reporting periods CS in 2007-2012 FV U1 + U1 U1 - U2 + U2 U2 - XX CS in 2001 - 2006 A C (-)  n/a A (+) B (+) n/a 16

Thank you for your attention © O. Opermanis