1. Towards a new format for the Prioritised Action Framework (PAF) Summary of outcomes of the last meeting & written comments from Member States
Frank Vassen, Unit D3 – nature conservation, DG ENV, European Commission
Brussels, 4 December 2017

2. written feedback on the PAF format received from 15 Member States: AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, HU, IT, LT, PL, SE, SK

3. General objective of the PAF
Is the current definition of the purpose of the PAF sufficiently clear?
Should the PAF primarily be a supporting document for the programming of EU funds, providing reliable estimates of EU funding needs, or should it have a wider purpose (e.g. for the acquisition other national or international financing)?
To what extent should the PAF be aligned with the objectives of Article 8 Habitats Directive?

4. Substantive scope of the PAF
Should the PAF only cover Natura 2000-related priorities, measures and costs sensu stricto, or also other conservation issues (f. ex. measures outside of the network, EU species protection, other EU biodiversity strategy issues, national priorities, national protected areas, etc.) ?
Should the PAF only cover a limited set of priorities, or should it cover everything that is required to achieve the objectives of Natura 2000 / the EU nature directives ?
Should the temporal scope of the PAF only cover the next MFF period ?
Should the PAF include actions and costs that are not strictly needed to achieve the core objectives of the nature directives (such as visitor centres, etc.) ?

5. Approaches to prioritization
What kind of general criteria should be used for establishing priorities? How should Member States communicate/justify their priorities in the PAF?
Should information on status and trends from individual species and habitats from Article 17 / Article 12 reporting be used to establish conservation priorities?

6. Priorities, measures and costs: level of detail
Should priorities, measures and costs be provided per individual habitat types and species, or rather be clustered by habitat and species groups with similar requirements?
Would rough cost estimates be sufficient?
Why did the Commission not consider an approach based on aggregating information for individual sites/ site management plans (as recommended in the Special Court of Auditors report) ?
To what extent could the required level of detail be aligned with the structure of the MFF post 2020, given current uncertainties?

7. Improving the communication value of PAFs
The importance of the PAF as a communication/awareness raising tool should be reflected by the format
All PAFs should start with a standard explanatory introduction, framing its context, objectives, status and future uses
any information/text box that is not strictly necessary should be removed (“lean” PAF)
Should the PAF include an assessment of the expenditures during the current MFF period?
Taking into account uncertainties about the future MFF, should there be any reference in the PAF to current and future programmes?

8. Usefulness of the current list of 25 measures
Is the current list of 25 types of measures fit for purpose (in terms of consistency with types of measures and budget allocations in EU programmes)?
Several Member States suggested simplified lists of measures. Would these also be fit for purpose?