1. WP 2: Align / synchronise progress reporting under both directives
Reporting Expert Group Meeting, 22 March 2011
What has been done since 2 December meeting?
State of the debate
Reporting formats
Guidelines
Art 12 Reference Portal
Species checklists
Timing and BiE3 cooperation
(Outlook on technical issues – covered by WP1)
Next steps, for spring-summer-autumn 2011

2. WP 2: Align / synchronise progress reporting under both directives
Work done after the previous meeting, 2 December
Consultation on the species check-lists: November 2010 – January 2011
Consultation to the ORNIS Committee on guidelines and further revised report formats, 4-25 Feb 2011
WP2 Sub-group meeting: 3 March 2011
THE N2K GROUP
European Economic Interest Group

3. Ornis Committee consultation, February 2011: - overview of the result
- 11 (12) Member States provided written comments (see document)
- Legal aspects
--> still questioned by two MSs
- Coordination with BiE3 overall
--> some questions on national coordination and involvement by national NGOs etc in any national panel
- General and species’ status/trends report formats
--> Remarks on various details
--> Still some reluctance on including reporting on SPA coverage and conservation measures
--> No consensus on if/how to include a selection of non-native species
- Guidelines (1st draft)
--> Structure OK – remarks on various details....

4. General report format (1)
Main achievements under the Birds Directive OK
2. General information – links to MSs’ information sources
3. Overview on SPA designation
Distinctions between terrestrial/marine sites and terrestrial/marine surface areas to be better clarified.
4. SPA management plans
Consensus at WP2 meeting to stick to the criteria, proposed in the guidelines (Art 12 as well as Art 17) to be met for the plans to be covered by the reporting
To clarify that the reporting concerns only ‘comprehensive management plans

5. General report format (2)
5. Measures in relation to plans and projects (Articles 6(4) and 7 of Habitats Directive)
- OK
6. Other research and work required as basis for the protection, management and use of bird populations (Article 10)
Maximum 10 most important activities.
Questioned at WP2 meeting – how will the information be used at EU level? More useful to ask....
what research work requires EU coordination, e.g. via LIFE/FP funding or
Information on activities of special relevance on EU-level e.g. new atlases, updated red lists, monitoring overviews, etc
--> RELEVANCE OF THIS SECTION TO BE FURTHER DISCUSSED...
7. Reporting on non-native bird species (Annex 11)
Only reporting about species subject to consultation with the Commission.
Questioned at WP2 meeting – very few (any?) consultations done – will not cover the ‘problematic’ escapers, invasive species etc
--> TO DISCUSS: Section to be retained or deleted?
For Section 6, can think about two options: (1) to retain but to restrict to e.g. updated red lists, new atlases, monitoring overviews etc (with web-links), or (2) to take out and give more strict guidance on what to report under ”main acheivements” in Section 1.-

6. Bird status report format (1)
1) Species information
additional field for species codes (SDF and/or EURING)
additional fields for ‘alternative species name’ and national name’ – as for the Art 17 reporting
2) Population size
Some questions on population units for species not appropriate to report on ‘breeding pairs’ during the ‘breeding’ season (to be specified in further revised checklist)
3) Population trend; a: short-term (rolling 12 years window), b: long-term (base-line ca 1980)
A few questions on ‘stable’ contra ‘fluctuating’, and if/how to report on ‘magnitude’ for these options (to be specified in further revised guidelines)

7. Bird status report format (2)
4) Range size – Distribution & Range Maps
Further clarifications needed:
--> Suggestion now to have distribution and range map as for Art 17 reporting.
--> When using range – tool, make it possible to make adjustments after the tool has automatically calculated the range as for Art 17 reporting
--> Concerns by one MS that publication of data at 10x10 km grid scale might be difficult as data held by independent bodies – Possible solution to be further discussed: publish data at 50 x50 km grid scale
5) Range trend; a: short-term, b: long-term
Proposed at WP2 meeting to give possibility to describe whether range is fragmenting, shifting north, etc.
Both Ian and Mats are bit lost with the maps right now What we would ideally like to see is all MS providing 10 km distribution maps, which the ETC then combines to produce EU27 maps for internal analyses, but coarsens to 50 km scale for publication on web. Doubt if useful or helpful for MS to send range maps (i.e. GIS polygons) – obvioulsy something to take up again at the meeting, and afterwards (23rd)

8. Bird status report format (3)
Progress in work related to SAPs, BMSs and MPs
Clarification of which species to be covered (= for each species for which a plan has been developed, this section should be filled in by each MS for which any measures have been proposed)
7) Threats / pressures (almost same methodology as for Art 17 reporting)
What future timescale should threats be considered on? Proposal: 12 years – as for Art 17 reporting
SPA coverage and conservation measures
Still questioned by some MSs
--> same time periods as for the reporting on population size and short-term trend on the national level

9. European Economic Interest Group
Guidelines (1st draft)
Structure OK
Various comments raised in writing and in WP2 mtg - will be taken on board in revised version
Several comments on details – mostly linked to remarks on corresponding sections and fields in the formats -
THE N2K GROUP
European Economic Interest Group

10. European Economic Interest Group
Reference portal
To include all checklists, with codes etc.
To store latest masters of the final versions of all relevant documents
Currently under preparation by ETC/BD – available on line but not completed.
CONTENTS WILL INCLUDE:
Country codes
Population units
Species checklists
Pressures/threats checklist
Conservation measures checklist
Guidelines for submitting data
THE N2K GROUP
European Economic Interest Group

11. Species checklist 1st consultation: 21 MS responded,
- still missing: CY, DK, EL, IE, LU, MT, RO
Species to be reported under sections 1-5 (+6)
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
Species for which SAPs, BMSs or MPs have been drafted are indicated in the checklist (for reporting under section 6)
‘SPA trigger species’ to be reported under sections 7-8
Annex I & ‘key migratory species’ (ref. Art 4.1 and 4.2)
- ‘passage’ species/populations proposed to be reported with reference to threats/pressures (section 7) and measures (section 7), only
Maybe, final point about passage spp can simply be deleted here (very detailed, but still an issue to be reflected in the guidelines)

12. – additional proposals
Scope of the reporting
– additional proposals
Non-native species (small selection)
4 bird species among 100 ‘worst invaders’ (ref. DAISIE)
3 species listed in Annex II of Birds Directive
A selection of species being e.g. widespread, well-known and/or of concern to the general public and/or potentially invasive species.
--> No overall consensus at WP2 meeting (except for including the 3 species listed in Annex II, group rather sceptical)
Sub-national units
Gibraltar – separately from UK - accepted
Azores and Madeira – separately from mainland Portugal - accepted
Canary Islands – separately from mainland Spain – still to be cleared out -

13. Proposals under consultation, November 2010-January 2012
Species checklists
Proposals under consultation, November 2010-January 2012
Some MS reported problems to determine the ‘SPA trigger species’ for their country.
Splitting and lumping of sub-specific units
- any proposal on further splits should be manageable for all MSs concerned (field identification, or separated geographically or in time), if to be accepted
but several tweaks to clear out by further bilateral checks with MSs.
Confusion between seasons
further clarification ref. ‘passage’ (=to be reported only when trigger SPA classification)
Proposals on additional winter reporting
National extinctions
Agreed 1980 should be used as common baseline – also for MS that acceded o the EU after that date

14. Species checklists What remains to be done?
Second drafts proposed to be communicated:
- 13 May – revised versions sent to MS
- 17 June – deadline for MS comments
- Mid-July – final versions sent to MS, to inform national planning during second half of 2011

15. Indicative timeline (very briefly)
2011
Kick-off meeting, 13 October
National focal points established
2012
National collation and agreements on data
MSs draft the sections on SAPs etc, threat/pressures and SPA coverage / conservation measures
2013
Check of data
Sign-off of data, by 31 Dec at latest
2014
EU analyses of official data submitted by MSs
EU summarise results on the EU level and assess status and trends of birds on the EU level.
Technical report launched.
As the detailed time-tables need to be updated, propose just to give very rough lines this time

16. European Economic Interest Group
Next steps, for 2011
Report formats
Final versions to be sent to ORNIS Committee, April 2011
Guidance for reporting
Final draft sent for consultation to ORNIS Committee, April 2011
Species checklists
Second draft to be communicated, 13 May-17 June
Final version to be circulated by mid-July
Kick-off meeting for the bird reporting
Thursday 13 October, Centre Borschette, Brussels
Combined with ORNIS Committee on 14 October
Anything to say about (1) further revised BiE3/timing document and/or (2) scoping study on EU level assessment.
THE N2K GROUP
European Economic Interest Group