1. Art. 12 species population trends: feedback on discussion paper
Rob Pople, for Ecosystems LTD
THE N2K GROUP
European Economic Interest Group

2. Background
Scoping note on Art. 12 trends prepared for Nov meeting of Expert Group – need for further discussion by relevant experts acknowledged
More detailed discussion paper sent to members of Ad hoc group on Structures & functions, Future prospects and Trends – plus other MS who had previously provided written comments on Art. 12 trends – on 29th July 2016
Member States asked to provide feedback (with particular focus on potential areas for improvement of Art. 12 guidelines) by 12th September.

3. Overview of feedback
Feedback received from five Member States: DE, ES, FR, IT and NL
Full text of feedback captured in Appendix to the document prepared for current meeting
Relatively little feedback on more detailed / technical questions focusing on improving guidelines
Much of feedback on the issue of long-term periods, and on additional issues (some outside intended scope of original discussion paper).

4. ‘Unknown’ trends
No suggestions of other ways to reduce uncertainty implicit in national trends reported as ‘unknown’ (which complicated estimation of EU-level trends), so…
New text proposed for guidelines capturing original proposal, i.e. discouraging use of ‘unknown’ category unless absolutely necessary, and encouraging provision of any relevant supplementary information (e.g. expert judgement of plausible trend scenarios).

5. ‘Fluctuating’ trends
No feedback on range of population fluctuations occurring (and measurable) nationally, nor on subset of these for which categorisation as ‘fluctuating’ would be helpful/interesting, so…
New text proposed for guidelines, clarifying distinction from new ‘uncertain’ category, and suggesting use of ‘fluctuating’ restricted to instances where species regularly show year-to-year population increases/decreases of ≥50%.

6. ‘Stable’ vs increasing/decreasing trends
Support from one MS for proposal to encourage reporting of confidence intervals for ‘stable’ trends, but no feedback on request for suggestions of other ways in which guidelines could be amended to improve consistency between MS, so…
New text proposed for guidelines, suggesting possible criteria for distinguishing slight directional trends from ‘stable’ trends (according to type of data available nationally), and encouraging provision of relevant supplementary information.

7. Extrapolation/truncation of trends
Suggestion from one MS to report national trends as annual changes (rather than total change over specified trend period) to facilitate comparison between MS, but…
Need for extrapolation of (or assumptions about) ‘non-ideal’ trends would still remain, and some additional complications – e.g. average or cumulative trends, greater (misleading) ‘precision’ of annual trends, and possible presentational issues, so…
Proposal to retain existing method for next round.

8. Long-term trend period
All five MS expressed opinion on issue: three in favour of retaining c.1980 baseline; two in favour of change to 24-year moving window
Range of arguments provided in support of both positions (see p.4 and Appendix of document), but…
Responses to associated questions [p.8 of original discussion paper] confirmed that change to 24-year period would require significant changes to existing method for assessing EU population status, hence make assessment of Target 1(ii) progress harder, so…
c.1980 baseline retained for next reporting round.

9. Additional issues raised
Two MS recommended involvement of EBCC and/or Wetlands International in estimation of EU-level trends, given their expertise with PECBMS & IWC
Ongoing need for reporting of national trends noted, to provide info on regional differences in fortunes
Potential benefits of common framework for national assessments of implementation of Directive
Need to consider efficiency of / potential synergies between Art. 12 and, e.g., regional Red Lists.

10. Feedback?
Any key omissions, misunderstandings or elaboration (particularly on ‘Additional issues raised’)?
Any further feedback on more technical questions focused on improving the guidelines for reporting of trends during 2013–2018 round?
Any additional comments or observations?
Thank you!