1. Expert Group on the Birds and the Habitats Directives (NADEG), 8 November 2016, Brussels
Zelmira Gaudillat – ETC/BD Carlos Romão - EEA
Reporting formats under Art. 17 (Habitats Directive) and Art. 12 (Bird Directive)
Presentation has three parts:
Review of the reporting process and background information on review
Overview of comments from the written consultation this summer
Information on status of the guidelines and further steps
ETC first two points and EEA the third point

2. Why review formats and guidelines?
Member States replies to the questionnaires & experience from the EU/EU biogeographical assessment and EU level analysis …revealed that several aspects of the reporting including formats and guidance should be improved … helped to frame the review work (to identify issues and sections of the formats and guidelines to be improved)

3. Main objectives of the review of report formats
Reducing reporting burden
(removing information that is not used in the assessment of the status and/or for analysis)
More relevant and better structured information
(simplifying reporting, improving use of information for analysis)
Needs for new or extended information
(dealing with poorly documented parameters, additional needs to collect information related to implementation of the Directives)
Harmonising reports
(between Art. 12 and Art. 17, and between MS)

4. Main achievements of review work
Reducing reporting burden
Removing: range maps, area of the habitat and suitable habitat for species, data quality fields for birds
More relevant and better structured information
Revising: Range area and range trends for birds, Pressures and threats, Conservation measures, Habitat for species, Population size for species, Additional (optional) information fields
Needs for new or extended information
Adding: Information related to sustainability of hunting and exploitation, Structure and functions for habitats, Trends within the Natura network, Future prospects for habitats and species
Reducing reporting burden
In comparison to the formats for the previous period we removed :
range maps ( these were not used for the EU biogeogrpahical assessment, although range area should be calculated for the Art 17 no need to prepare a map following standards)
area of the habitat and suitable habitat for species (the link between this information and assessment matrix was ambiguous, replaced by more relevant information)
data quality fields for birds (large degree of overlap/redundancy with fields for ‘methods used’ and ‘year or period’)
More relevant and better structured information
Many improvements, but the most important:
Range area and range trends for birds (replacing with breeding distribution trend, so the range calculation is not needed for birds)
Pressures and threats (simplifying the reporting - merging two tables into one, so no need to provide the list twice; separating pressures and threats in the Art 12))
Conservation measures (section revised to be more relevant for analysis of impact of the conservation measures and Natura 2000 to the status, reporting simplified as assessment of measures done in bulk)
Habitat for species (section revised to contain information more relevant for the assessment matrix)
Population size for species (the role of the reporting unit clarified, the reporting unit revised to be adapted to situation where adequate methods for estimating individuals do not exist or are excessively costly)
Additional (optional) information fields (possibility to provide additional information separately for each section)
Others if somebody will ask (typical species list to be reported only if there are changes, interval estimates, uncertain trend for birds)
Needs for new or extended information
Adding:
Information related to sustainability of hunting and exploitation
Structure and functions for habitats (MS replies to the questionnaire)
Trends within the Natura 2000 network (were optional in last period to allow for some time to adapt monitoring)
Future prospects for habitats and species (MS replies to the questionnaire)
Harmonising reports
EG evaluated several areas where harmonisation between Art 12 and 17 is relevant:
Regarding the information provided: long term trends, species to be reported under P&T and measures - were not harmonised for reasons provided later; pressures were split from threats in the Art 12 format
Regarding format of information: audit trail of reported information (data quality, additional information, type of estimate), format of pressures and threats

5. Report formats - timeline
Preparatory works within EG
Discussions within EG
Discussion and approval within NADEG
Nov
2014
Mar
2015
Dec
2016
Apr
Jul
Preparatory works
Review plan - main objectives of review work
Annotated formats – indicating items to be revised

6. Report formats - timeline
Preparatory works within EG
Discussions within EG
Discussion and approval within NADEG
Nov
2014
Mar
2015
Dec
2016
Apr
Jul
Draft revised formats (versions 1, 2 & 3)
Discussions at the EG meetings in November 2015 and March 2016
Written consultation in December 2015

7. Report formats - timeline
Preparatory works within EG
Discussions within EG
Discussion and approval within NADEG
Nov
2014
Mar
2015
Dec
2016
Apr
Jul
Updated revised formats (versions 4 & 5)
Discussions at the NADEG meeting in April 2016
Written consultation in summer 2016

8. Report formats - timeline
Preparatory works within EG
Discussions within EG
Discussion and approval within NADEG
Nov
2014
Mar
2015
Dec
2016
Apr
Jul
Final revised formats (version 6)
Informal approval by NADEG

9. NADEG written consultation (Summer 2016)
(c) Carlos Romão

10. Outcomes of written consultation
Replies from 20 Member States, including specific proposals for the formats by 10 Member States
General comments
discussions on several issues in the guidelines are ongoing, the work on revised guidelines should be finalised before the approval of formats (in relation to potential increase of work load)
approval of formats and guidelines in one block

11. Outcomes of written consultation
Comments to Art. 17 format
Hunting bag or quantity taken
Population size and Favourable reference population
Area and quality of occupied habitat
Condition of habitat
Conservation measures
Comments to Art. 12 format
Pressures and threats & Conservation measures
Period for Long-term trends
More requests for clarification and proposed corrections
Comments to Art. 17 format
(some of the comments received under the Art . 17 format but are relevant also to Art. 12 ( hunting bag and conservation measures)
Hunting bag or quantity taken
Report per hunting season and not per year
What we did: corrected
Information is not available at so detailed level - return to average per 6 year
Population size and Favourable reference population
Using grids represents loss of information if local units are more precise, lack of clarity on use of reporting versus monitoring units at MS and EU level, problems with conversion into reporting units – no adequate conversion methods, using individuals or grids for entire species groups is too broad solution, duplicated assessment of favourable reference population
Area and quality of occupied habitat
Sufficiency of area of occupied habitat and habitat quality should be assessed/reported separately
Condition of habitat
Increased workload, problems with 2 level (good and no good) assessment , if at national level 3 level assessment had been implemented.
Conservation measures
Still unclear how to report for this section; how to provide aggregated answer in case of multiple measures; the list is unavailable; was added to process in late stage.
What we did: No action yet, should be dealt with in guidelines in later stage.
Art. 12
Pressures and threats & Conservation measures
Species to be reported – consider increased reporting burden if these sections are to be reported for Annex I plus non-secure birds
Period for Long-term trends
In previous format this was left open; some MS in favour of 24 years shifting window ( data quality, absence of data to estimate the trends since 1980), some MS favoured 1980 baseline ( loss of info on earlier declines if 24 years shifting window is used, data quality remains an issue even later than 1980)
More requests for clarification and proposed corrections
e.g. errors in Optional label, suggestions for changing the field name, requests for clarification of descriptive text of the field, but also comment related to guidelines and reporting tool

12. Sections modified in reaction to MS comments
Art. 17 format / field by field guidelines
Hunting bag or quantity taken
Population size and Favourable reference population
Area and quality of occupied habitat
Condition of habitat
Conservation measures
Art. 12 format / field by field guidelines
Pressures and threats & Conservation measures
Period for Long-term trends
More requests for clarification and proposed corrections
Hunting bag or quantity taken
What we did: possibility to report unknown, we are aware of the fact that information is not available for all years; therefore reporting per year and not average per 6 year, which is probably not representative for this period as the sample is incomplete.
Population size and Favourable reference population
What we did: partially resolved, clarifying the difference between the reporting and monitoring population units in guidelines; removing field for favourable reference population in reporting units, MS should use units used for assessment, if two estimates of population size are available
Area and quality of occupied habitat
What we did: it is acknowledged in the guidelines that at the national level these can be assessed separately
Condition of habitat
What we did: No action.
Conservation measures
What we did: No action yet, should be dealt with in guidelines in later stage.
Art. 12
Pressures and threats & Conservation measures
What we did: returning to the previous situation
Period for Long-term trends
What we did: 1980 baseline
More requests for clarification and proposed corrections
Corrected and clarified as far as possible

13. Main changes from June 2016 version - Art. 17
Main pressures and threats & Conservation measures
OLD List pressures/threats
NEW List a maximum of 10 pressures and a maximum of 10 threats …
High importance (maximum of 5 entries for pressures and 5 for threats)
Re-instating fields: Additional information, Short and Long-term trends for Habitat for species
Deleting fields: Favourable reference population in additional units
Editing and modifying layout of several fields

14. Main changes from June 2016 version - Art. 12
Main pressures and threats & Conservation measures
OLD To be reported for all Annex I species and for other species with a non-secure (or unknown) population status at the EU level (Art. 12)
NEW To be reported for all Annex I species and non-Annex I species triggering SPA classification (Art. 12)
OLD List pressures/threats
NEW List a maximum of 10 pressures and a maximum of 10 threats …
High importance (maximum of 5 entries for pressures and 5 for threats)

15. Main changes from June 2016 version - Art. 12
Population trend & Breeding distribution trend
Long-term trend Period
OLD (under discussion)
NEW 1980–2018 or period as close as possible to that
Deleting fields: Quality (of data)
Editing and modifying layout of several fields

16. Report formats and guidelines
(c) Carlos Romão

17. Structure of the reporting guidelines
Species
Habitats
General report
GUIDELINES ART.17
INTRODUCTION
PART 1: FIELD BY FIELD GUIDELINES
PART 2: DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
General issues
GUIDELINES ART.12
Birds

18. Formats and field-by-field guidelines…
… describe and detail all information that Member States need to collect, analyse and report
Formats
List all items that should be included in the national reports (i.e. list of fields) and provides a short field descriptions
Field-by-field guidelines
Contain detailed field descriptions and basic requirements for reported information (e.g. ‘short term trends should be ideally reported over last 12 years, but some flexibility is permitted’)

19. Definitions and methods (guidelines)
This section of the guidelines
Elaborates on concepts and gives definitions (for more conceptual assessments, like Structure and functions, Favourable Reference Values), assessment methods (e.g. for Future prospects) and worked examples (best practice)
Is largely based on the guidance from , but several sections are being revised
Work on this part is ongoing within the Expert Group on Reporting and its ad hoc groups

20. Issues & tasks to be finalised early 2017 (i)
Favourable Reference Values
Ad hoc group meeting 31/01-1/02
EC Service contract
Additional and more practical guidance, no impact on formats – March 2017
Checklists – species & habitats
Principles/categories already discussed
Refinement of lists for each Member State, no impact on formats – May 2017 (for Reference Portals)

21. Issues & tasks to be finalised early 2017 (ii)
Code lists (May 2017 for Reference Portals)
Pressures & threats
Conservation measures
Complete reporting guidelines
Revised or additional guidance and examples on
Favourable reference values
Structures & functions, future prospects, habitat for species
Calculation of trends for birds
Final draft – Expert Group on Reporting: 21 March 2017
Final version – April 2017 (Reference Portals)

22. What’s next?
Approval of reporting formats (today!)
Finalise full guidelines, checklists and code lists (April )
Start designing, adapting and developing IT-tools:
IT tools and Central Data Repository operational by mid-2018
Delivery Article 17: 30 April 2019
Delivery Article 12: 31 July 2019

23. Thank you for your attention
(c) Otars Opermanis