WP 2: Align / synchronise progress reporting under both directives Expert Group Meeting, 2 December 2010 What has been done since 18 May meeting State of the debate on further direction in the work on a streamlined bird reporting system Draft reporting formats – further progress Latest draft of the general reporting format for birds Latest draft of birds status/trends format, esp. SPA contribution Species reference list Request to check the lists, by end of December 5. BiE3 cooperation 6. Next steps, for early 2011

WP 2: Align / synchronise progress reporting under both directives Work done after the previous meeting, 18 May Ornis Committee consultation on the proposal for the direction of the further work of a streamlined bird reporting: July-September 2010 Further revision of bird status/trends report format First full draft of a brief general report format First draft of species reference list WP2 Sub-group meeting: 26 Oct 2010 THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

Ornis Committee consultation, July-Sept 2010: - overview of the result - 14 (15) Member States provided written comments (many were late) - Legal aspects --> change from 3-year to 6-year reporting cycle - Coordination with BiE3 overall accepted, but further clarifications requested on how to be organised etc --> national coordination --> signing off procedure --> ‘arbitration’ procedure - General structure of the bird status report format accepted --> Various details, primarily ref. threats/pressures --> Reluctance on including reporting on SPA contribution IB – does the figure 14 MS include all (including late) respondents – e.g. Germany? Worth quickly checking - also maybe to make the point that most were late, which is why we labour the request for spp ref list responses to be received by end Dec! MATS – 15 in parentheses to indicate Germany, they were too late to be considered when drafting the overview of MS commentts

Ornis Committee consultation, July-Sept 2010: Most MS welcomed the change from a 3-year to 6-year reporting cycle, but some expressed doubts about the legal basis. The Commission considers such a change possible if based on an agreement between MSs and Commission. If MSs would like to see short ”interim reports”, this can be discussed National coordination - Member States are free to set up the kind of national mechanism that best fits the purpose (but EC would like to be assured that mechanisms exist by end of 2011). - Not necessary that national BirdLife Partner takes lead (but still to be involved as key stake-holders to ensure smooth coordination with BiE3).

Ornis Committee consultation, July-Sept 2010: Signing off procedure - Member States sign off, i.e. has ’the last word’ to say about data delivered to EC Further clarification about the proposed arbitration mechanism. To be renamed to e.g. ’scientific advisory committee’ as ’arbitration’ translates very strongly in some languages. Considered as a service to MS Should be last resort; preferable to clear out all disputes on the national level A possibility is to reactivate the Ornis SWG for this purpose.

Draft reporting formats To be discussed: The latest draft of the general reporting format for birds The latest draft of the bird status/trends format for birds -- esp the reporting on the contribution from the SPA network (section 7) - THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

The general report format Analysis of the national Art 12 reports for 2005-07: Large variation in quality and level of detail Contents and information not very consistent Missing as well as superfluous information Commission guidelines are not very precise Not always possible to draw general conclusions Also: certain overlap with other reporting obligations Simplified reporting for the future: A brief “general report” accompanying the species status information Focus to be changed from a progress-based perspective to an outcome oriented one More focus on information for the interested public, rather than internal EC needs Little or no need to retain significant text reporting - THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

General report format - proposed structure - parts analogous to Art 17 reporting 1. Main achievements under the Birds Directive 1-2 pages - special emphasis on the SPA network Additional information to be annexed 2. General information sources in the implementation of the Birds Directive – links to MSs’ information sources General information about the Birds Directive Information about the national SPA network Monitoring schemes (Articles 4(1), 10) Protection of species (Articles 5-8) Transposition of the Directive (legal texts, Article 17) 3. SPA designation (Article 4) 4. Adoption of management plans 5. Measures in relation to plans and projects (Articles 6(4) and 7 of Habitats Directive)

General report format - proposed structure - additional to / different from Art 17 reporting 6. Progress in work related to Species Action Plans and Management Plans (inserted on request by WP2 meeting, 26 Oct) Species subject to SAPs or MPs in the Member State. Measures and initiatives taken pursuant the plans; name + main objective, responsible organisation, web-links for each reported activity. 7. Other research and work required as basis for the protection, management and use of bird populations (Article 10 + Annex V) Maximum 10 most important activities. Name + main objective, responsible organisation, web-links for each reported activity. 8. Reporting on non-native bird species (Annex 11) More precise reporting about species subject to consultation with the Commission.

Bird status report format – structure Species information Population size Population trend; a: short-term (last 10-12 years), b: long-term (base-line ca 1980) Range size – national species distribution/range maps to be provided Range trend; a: short-term, b: long-term Threats / pressures (almost same methodology as for Art 17 reporting) Possible contribution from the SPA network (ref WP3) - population size inside SPA network (to be related to national population under field 2 above, to calculate % inside the network) - population trends inside the network (optional for 2008-13) - management measures taken inside/outside the SPA network Sections 1-5 (=red) Prefilled data for all species (ref Article 2) Section 6 (=black) For the selection of species triggering SPA designations Section 7 (=lilac) As for section 6, but still provisional

Species reference list Species to be reported under sections 1-5 All naturally occurring species, ref. Article 1 - sub-specific units included if: * subspecies identified in Annex I, II or III * specific SAPs, MPs or BMSs have been drafted * listed in AEWA ‘status of migratory waterbirds, column A of Table 1 * ‘globally threatened’ or ‘near threatened’, ref IUCN Red List of 2010 ‘SPA trigger species’ to be reported under sections 6-7 Annex I & ‘key migratory species’ - ‘passage’ species/populations proposed to be reported with reference to threats/pressures (section 6) and measures (section 7), only THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

Species reference list Proposal currently under MS consultation MSs are asked to: check the species proposed for their countries + propose any changes needed wherever possible, to cross-check lists with those used in widely adopted national processes and products (eg national Red Lists) where criteria for including/excluding species are clearly defined to highlight any species or populations considered to be ‘sensitive’ – for adjustments of maps etc to avoid putting them at risk. Please respect deadline and reply by 31 December 2010 THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

Indicative timeline Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quarter 1 2 3 4 1. Technical guidance documents finalised, including species reference lists (based on MS feedback) 2. Approval of an Article12 reporting procedure that involves collaboration with BiE3 (assumption: sufficient funding for BiE3 coordination and delivery is secured) 3. IT system for data collation and delivery developed (via Reportnet) 4. Kick-off meeting held in Brussels, attended by national reporting responsible from MS, BiE3 focal points (BirdLife Partner staff) and potential additional experts suggested by MS 5. National reporting responsible from MS and BiE3 focal points establish consensus-building mechanisms of relevant data holders/ stakeholders (all of whom agree to make relevant data available for reporting purposes). The EC would like to be assured that such mechanisms exist, by end of 2011. Now there are four slides to show the proposed time-table for the bird-reporting exercise. 13

Indicative timeline Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quarter 1 2 3 4 6. National coordinators (to be decided nationally) collate data from all relevant sources and discuss with e.g. national panels - consensus on national data sets should be sought (and any disputes resolved) through expert discussion at this stage wherever possible (rolling process) 7. National coordinators submit agreed national data sets to MS reporting responsible (unless they are identical) to check and sign off on data - highlighting any unresolved disputes (rolling process) 8. MS reporting responsible check data and discuss any issues arising with national coordinators (each data-provider concerned providing evidence to justify any changes needed to data sets) 9. MS reporting responsible are encouraged to refer any unresolved disputes to the Commission for discussion by a scientific advisory panel (could be based on ORNIS SWG) 14

Indicative timeline Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quarter 1 2 3 4 10. The scientific advisory panel considers any issues raised and provides appropriate feedback to MS reporting responsible, to help them make final decisions 11. MS reporting responsible sign off on agreed national data sets and submit them to EC for use as an official data flow; same data are provided to BirdLife for use in BiE3 BL1) BirdLife manages comparable data gathering process from all other (non EU) European countries, encouraging same high standards (e.g. expert panels) wherever possible BL2) BirdLife combines official data from EU MS with those from all other countries and analyses them for BiE3 BL3) BirdLife launches BiE3 (presenting all European data, comparing SPEC assessment results with BiE1/BiE2) 15

Indicative timeline Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quarter 1 2 3 4 13. MS reporting responsible compile data on threats/pressures and Natura 2000 contribution for ‘SPA trigger species’ and submit to EC 14. EC analyses official data from EU MS and uses them to answer various policy-relevant (e.g. 2020) questions 15. EC launches technical report, summarising results at EU level and assessing EU status and trends of birds 16

Building consensus and coordination with Birds in Europe 3 National mechanisms to build consensus Kick-off meeting (autumn 2011) - Bring together national reporting responsibles from MS, BiE3 focal points (BirdLife Partner staff) and other experts suggested by MS – build trust. Ideally, national coordinators identified before kick-off meeting. Emphasise importance of establishing national mechanisms for building broad consensus on the national data MS free to decide how/what form these take – but by end 2011, EC seeks assurance that such mechanisms exist in all 27 MS Scientific advisory committee – a service to Member States Despite emphasis above, it is possible that unresolved disputes may arise, especially in politically-charged situations A transparent mechanism for helping MS to reach decisions in such cases will be established, likely involving ORNIS SWG Aim: to help MS sign off on agreed national data-sets that will not be challenged later and can be used in multiple processes 17

3 March: WP2 Sub-group meeting 13 May: Ornis Committee meeting (prov.) Next steps, for 2011 3 March: WP2 Sub-group meeting 13 May: Ornis Committee meeting (prov.) Guidance for reporting First draft to be presented at WP2 meeting, 3 March 2011 Report formats Last details finalised in WP2 meeting, 3 March – SPA contribution still main issue to resolve Species reference list To be finalised in WP2 meeting, 3 March (please respect deadline and reply by 31 Dec) Presentation and assessment of data on the EU level To be further analysed, but currently postponed THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group