1. Principles for update of Art. 12 checklist
Rob Pople, for Ecosystems LTD
THE N2K GROUP
European Economic Interest Group

2. Introduction Paper based on original note prepared for EGR17
Updated to reflect feedback from Member States during and following EGR17
Key comments and principal changes to paper highlighted here in presentation
Feedback sought on general principles today and on details following the meeting.
1) Apologies for late delivery of paper [considerable time spent checking details of AEWA populations and winter reporting].
2) Thanks due (particularly) to DE, ES, FR, HU, NL, SE and UK for constructive feedback.

3. Taxonomy and nomenclature
Key feedback / changes relating to:
‘Transitional’ stage of update (pending publication of 2nd volume of HBW–BirdLife Illustrated Checklist)  Indication of potential timescales for update of passerine taxonomy/nomenclature (January 2017?)
Need for clear cross-reference with previous version of checklist and other taxonomic standards  Summary of species-level changes (in Table 1) and list of key taxonomic sources included in EU bird list.
1) Latest version of Review plan indicates that “no date fixed yet” for final versions of checklists [would early 2017 be acceptable?].
2) Some changes that relate only to subspecific (not species) names are also captured in Table 2.

4. Subspecific units [1] Key feedback / changes relating to:
Inclusion of all subspecific units with AEWA ISSAPs  Addition of few omissions to Table 2
Compliance with “needs of AEWA reporting” and provision of “information on the highest priority species listing of AEWA” (Column A of AEWA Table 1)  Overview of AEWA reporting and population assessment process, plus addition to Table 2 of Column A (and counterpart) populations for which national, species-level data could not otherwise be allocated to correct population (by AEWA experts).
‘ISSAPs’ = International Single Species Action Plans. Addition of Anser fabalis fabalis (plus A. f. rossicus), Numenius arquata arquata & N. a. orientalis and Limosa limosa limosa & L. l. islandica [ISSAPs for first two species adopted at AEWA MOP6 in November 2015].
2) e.g. Three AEWA populations of Branta leucopsis (×3) [considerable overlap with subspecific units already covered by criterion relating to SAPs/MPs].

5. Subspecific units [2] Key feedback / changes relating to:
Separate reporting for certain geographically isolated and evolutionarily distinct subspecies  Inclusion of relevant subspecies in Table 2 where all relevant Member States requested their retention
Passerine subspecies whose status “under review”  Retain at subspecific level in current draft of checklist (easier to merge than to ‘re-split’).
1) e.g. Tetrao urogallus aquitanicus & T. u. cantabricus (plus Tetrao urogallus ‘all others’) and Fringilla teydea teydea & F. t. polatzeki.
2) For passerine ssp., idea not to pre-empt changes in vol. 2 of HBW–BirdLife Illustrated Checklist; rather to keep things flexible in the working version.

6. Winter reporting [1] Key feedback / changes relating to:
High variability in distribution/numbers in individual Member States (according to winter conditions)  Focus on taxa with co-ordinated monitoring data
Inclusion of other priority taxa that also meet the proposed criteria  Addition of few (previously omitted) Annex-I species with significant overwintering populations which are adequately monitored during winter.
1) In practice, many of the taxa with good-quality and co-ordinated monitoring data are the congregatory waterbirds the original list focused on.
2) Addition of, e.g., Podiceps auritus, Gavia arctica and Pluvialis apricaria.

7. Winter reporting [2] Key feedback / changes relating to:
Proposal to extend winter reporting to “all relevant migratory species covered by Annex I and Article 4” and/or all non-Secure taxa  Maintain focus of universal winter reporting on taxa that provide ‘cost-effective added-value’ to the breeding dataset at EU level  For SPA trigger taxa not meeting these criteria (i.e. no synthesis/assessment appropriate at EU level), potential to reduce reporting burden by not completing sections 2 & 3 (as for passage reports)?
1a) “Cost-effective added-value”: i.e. taxa for which a relatively small increase in reporting burden (for few ‘missing’ Member States) would result in a complete/reliable winter dataset that complements/supplements the breeding dataset (if relevant).
1b) Discussion of potential option to remove need to report on sections 2 & 3 for ‘non-universal’ winter reporting.

8. Feedback requested Now:
On general principles and proposed amendments to these / broad content of the paper.
After meeting (in writing):
On detail of lists of taxa meeting proposed criteria (i.e. in Tables 2 & 3), particularly any significant omissions (bearing in mind current data availability)
Thank you!