1. Update on Reporting Information point 10
Habitats Committee
Brussels

2. Reminder & update on the time plan 2013-2015

3. 2014
2015: publication of the EEA Technical Report and EC Composite Report

4. Update on Art 17 Reference Portal
Documentation sections: 2) Explanatory Notes & Guidelines for the period 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

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

6. 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 !

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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 %

11. 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

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

13. 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’

14. 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’

15. 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

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

17. Thank you for your attention
© O. Opermanis