Expert Group on the Birds and the Habitats Directives (NADEG), 8 November 2016, Brussels Zelmira Gaudillat – ETC/BD Carlos Romão - EEA Reporting formats under Art. 17 (Habitats Directive) and Art. 12 (Bird Directive) Presentation has three parts: Review of the reporting process and background information on review Overview of comments from the written consultation this summer Information on status of the guidelines and further steps ETC first two points and EEA the third point

Why review formats and guidelines? Member States replies to the questionnaires & experience from the EU/EU biogeographical assessment and EU level analysis …revealed that several aspects of the reporting including formats and guidance should be improved … helped to frame the review work (to identify issues and sections of the formats and guidelines to be improved)

Main objectives of the review of report formats Reducing reporting burden (removing information that is not used in the assessment of the status and/or for analysis) More relevant and better structured information (simplifying reporting, improving use of information for analysis) Needs for new or extended information (dealing with poorly documented parameters, additional needs to collect information related to implementation of the Directives) Harmonising reports (between Art. 12 and Art. 17, and between MS)

Main achievements of review work Reducing reporting burden Removing: range maps, area of the habitat and suitable habitat for species, data quality fields for birds More relevant and better structured information Revising: Range area and range trends for birds, Pressures and threats, Conservation measures, Habitat for species, Population size for species, Additional (optional) information fields Needs for new or extended information Adding: Information related to sustainability of hunting and exploitation, Structure and functions for habitats, Trends within the Natura 2000 network, Future prospects for habitats and species Reducing reporting burden In comparison to the formats for the previous period we removed : range maps ( these were not used for the EU biogeogrpahical assessment, although range area should be calculated for the Art 17 no need to prepare a map following standards) area of the habitat and suitable habitat for species (the link between this information and assessment matrix was ambiguous, replaced by more relevant information) data quality fields for birds (large degree of overlap/redundancy with fields for ‘methods used’ and ‘year or period’) More relevant and better structured information Many improvements, but the most important: Range area and range trends for birds (replacing with breeding distribution trend, so the range calculation is not needed for birds) Pressures and threats (simplifying the reporting - merging two tables into one, so no need to provide the list twice; separating pressures and threats in the Art 12)) Conservation measures (section revised to be more relevant for analysis of impact of the conservation measures and Natura 2000 to the status, reporting simplified as assessment of measures done in bulk) Habitat for species (section revised to contain information more relevant for the assessment matrix) Population size for species (the role of the reporting unit clarified, the reporting unit revised to be adapted to situation where adequate methods for estimating individuals do not exist or are excessively costly) Additional (optional) information fields (possibility to provide additional information separately for each section) Others if somebody will ask (typical species list to be reported only if there are changes, interval estimates, uncertain trend for birds) Needs for new or extended information Adding: Information related to sustainability of hunting and exploitation Structure and functions for habitats (MS replies to the questionnaire) Trends within the Natura 2000 network (were optional in last period to allow for some time to adapt monitoring) Future prospects for habitats and species (MS replies to the questionnaire) Harmonising reports EG evaluated several areas where harmonisation between Art 12 and 17 is relevant: Regarding the information provided: long term trends, species to be reported under P&T and measures - were not harmonised for reasons provided later; pressures were split from threats in the Art 12 format Regarding format of information: audit trail of reported information (data quality, additional information, type of estimate), format of pressures and threats

Report formats - timeline Preparatory works within EG Discussions within EG Discussion and approval within NADEG Nov 2014 Mar 2015 Dec 2016 Apr Jul Preparatory works Review plan - main objectives of review work Annotated formats – indicating items to be revised

Report formats - timeline Preparatory works within EG Discussions within EG Discussion and approval within NADEG Nov 2014 Mar 2015 Dec 2016 Apr Jul Draft revised formats (versions 1, 2 & 3) Discussions at the EG meetings in November 2015 and March 2016 Written consultation in December 2015

Report formats - timeline Preparatory works within EG Discussions within EG Discussion and approval within NADEG Nov 2014 Mar 2015 Dec 2016 Apr Jul Updated revised formats (versions 4 & 5) Discussions at the NADEG meeting in April 2016 Written consultation in summer 2016

Report formats - timeline Preparatory works within EG Discussions within EG Discussion and approval within NADEG Nov 2014 Mar 2015 Dec 2016 Apr Jul Final revised formats (version 6) Informal approval by NADEG

NADEG written consultation (Summer 2016) (c) Carlos Romão

Outcomes of written consultation Replies from 20 Member States, including specific proposals for the formats by 10 Member States General comments discussions on several issues in the guidelines are ongoing, the work on revised guidelines should be finalised before the approval of formats (in relation to potential increase of work load) approval of formats and guidelines in one block

Outcomes of written consultation Comments to Art. 17 format Hunting bag or quantity taken Population size and Favourable reference population Area and quality of occupied habitat Condition of habitat Conservation measures Comments to Art. 12 format Pressures and threats & Conservation measures Period for Long-term trends More requests for clarification and proposed corrections Comments to Art. 17 format (some of the comments received under the Art . 17 format but are relevant also to Art. 12 ( hunting bag and conservation measures) Hunting bag or quantity taken Report per hunting season and not per year What we did: corrected Information is not available at so detailed level - return to average per 6 year Population size and Favourable reference population Using grids represents loss of information if local units are more precise, lack of clarity on use of reporting versus monitoring units at MS and EU level, problems with conversion into reporting units – no adequate conversion methods, using individuals or grids for entire species groups is too broad solution, duplicated assessment of favourable reference population Area and quality of occupied habitat Sufficiency of area of occupied habitat and habitat quality should be assessed/reported separately Condition of habitat Increased workload, problems with 2 level (good and no good) assessment , if at national level 3 level assessment had been implemented. Conservation measures Still unclear how to report for this section; how to provide aggregated answer in case of multiple measures; the list is unavailable; was added to process in late stage. What we did: No action yet, should be dealt with in guidelines in later stage. Art. 12 Pressures and threats & Conservation measures Species to be reported – consider increased reporting burden if these sections are to be reported for Annex I plus non-secure birds Period for Long-term trends In previous format this was left open; some MS in favour of 24 years shifting window ( data quality, absence of data to estimate the trends since 1980), some MS favoured 1980 baseline ( loss of info on earlier declines if 24 years shifting window is used, data quality remains an issue even later than 1980) More requests for clarification and proposed corrections e.g. errors in Optional label, suggestions for changing the field name, requests for clarification of descriptive text of the field, but also comment related to guidelines and reporting tool

Sections modified in reaction to MS comments Art. 17 format / field by field guidelines Hunting bag or quantity taken Population size and Favourable reference population Area and quality of occupied habitat Condition of habitat Conservation measures Art. 12 format / field by field guidelines Pressures and threats & Conservation measures Period for Long-term trends More requests for clarification and proposed corrections Hunting bag or quantity taken What we did: possibility to report unknown, we are aware of the fact that information is not available for all years; therefore reporting per year and not average per 6 year, which is probably not representative for this period as the sample is incomplete. Population size and Favourable reference population What we did: partially resolved, clarifying the difference between the reporting and monitoring population units in guidelines; removing field for favourable reference population in reporting units, MS should use units used for assessment, if two estimates of population size are available Area and quality of occupied habitat What we did: it is acknowledged in the guidelines that at the national level these can be assessed separately Condition of habitat What we did: No action. Conservation measures What we did: No action yet, should be dealt with in guidelines in later stage. Art. 12 Pressures and threats & Conservation measures What we did: returning to the previous situation Period for Long-term trends What we did: 1980 baseline More requests for clarification and proposed corrections Corrected and clarified as far as possible

Main changes from June 2016 version - Art. 17 Main pressures and threats & Conservation measures OLD List pressures/threats NEW List a maximum of 10 pressures and a maximum of 10 threats … High importance (maximum of 5 entries for pressures and 5 for threats) Re-instating fields: Additional information, Short and Long-term trends for Habitat for species Deleting fields: Favourable reference population in additional units Editing and modifying layout of several fields

Main changes from June 2016 version - Art. 12 Main pressures and threats & Conservation measures OLD To be reported for all Annex I species and for other species with a non-secure (or unknown) population status at the EU level (Art. 12) NEW To be reported for all Annex I species and non-Annex I species triggering SPA classification (Art. 12) OLD List pressures/threats NEW List a maximum of 10 pressures and a maximum of 10 threats … High importance (maximum of 5 entries for pressures and 5 for threats)

Main changes from June 2016 version - Art. 12 Population trend & Breeding distribution trend Long-term trend Period OLD (under discussion) NEW 1980–2018 or period as close as possible to that Deleting fields: Quality (of data) Editing and modifying layout of several fields

Report formats and guidelines (c) Carlos Romão

Structure of the reporting guidelines Species Habitats General report GUIDELINES ART.17 INTRODUCTION PART 1: FIELD BY FIELD GUIDELINES PART 2: DEFINITIONS AND METHODS General issues GUIDELINES ART.12 Birds

Formats and field-by-field guidelines… … describe and detail all information that Member States need to collect, analyse and report Formats List all items that should be included in the national reports (i.e. list of fields) and provides a short field descriptions Field-by-field guidelines Contain detailed field descriptions and basic requirements for reported information (e.g. ‘short term trends should be ideally reported over last 12 years, but some flexibility is permitted’)

Definitions and methods (guidelines) This section of the guidelines Elaborates on concepts and gives definitions (for more conceptual assessments, like Structure and functions, Favourable Reference Values), assessment methods (e.g. for Future prospects) and worked examples (best practice) Is largely based on the guidance from 2007-2012, but several sections are being revised Work on this part is ongoing within the Expert Group on Reporting and its ad hoc groups

Issues & tasks to be finalised early 2017 (i) Favourable Reference Values Ad hoc group meeting 31/01-1/02 EC Service contract Additional and more practical guidance, no impact on formats – March 2017 Checklists – species & habitats Principles/categories already discussed Refinement of lists for each Member State, no impact on formats – May 2017 (for Reference Portals)

Issues & tasks to be finalised early 2017 (ii) Code lists (May 2017 for Reference Portals) Pressures & threats Conservation measures Complete reporting guidelines Revised or additional guidance and examples on Favourable reference values Structures & functions, future prospects, habitat for species Calculation of trends for birds Final draft – Expert Group on Reporting: 21 March 2017 Final version – April 2017 (Reference Portals)

What’s next? Approval of reporting formats (today!) Finalise full guidelines, checklists and code lists (April 2017) Start designing, adapting and developing IT-tools: 2017-2018 IT tools and Central Data Repository operational by mid-2018 Delivery Article 17: 30 April 2019 Delivery Article 12: 31 July 2019

Thank you for your attention (c) Otars Opermanis