1. Questions round 1 (what and why?) Is the purpose of current M&R requirements at EU level clear and justified? Are the requirements clear in relation to ‘why report’ and ‘what to report’? What initiatives are participants aware of that address specific problems? (e.g. examples of best practice showing positive changes) What else might be done to reduce problems on M&R requirements?

2. Questions round 1 (what and why?) Definitions, categorisations -Annex 1, Facility versus installation, SOx - SO2, fuel sold – fuel used, CRF versus NFR -INSPIRE Double reporting -Waste (E-PRTR and …), NEC/LRTAP, facilities: E-PRTR, ETS, UWWTP and LPS -Information available at other EU institutions, EU as reporter (Kyoto, EU MM) Information needed -Information asked that is already known (long-latitude and NUTS3 and ZIP and …) -Needed to do QA/QC? Responsibility? Non mandatory items -Useful to get the bigger picture -Useless because always incomplete, extra burden in the tooling Status report (every 3 years) -Needed to show the level of implementation -Copy and paste -Management by change

3. Questions round 2 (who and how?) Are the requirements clear in relation to who needs to report and how? Can you name any structural/ systematic issues and/or specific examples that should be considered under the reporting review? (The discussion paper mentions several issues in applying EU level M&R requirements concerning who reports and how reporting is undertaken, including: the same information needs to be reported several times to different audiences; the same information needs to be reported in different formats; M&R specifications are not communicated timely enough so efficient monitoring process does not take place; collecting information is unnecessarily burdensome or leading to very high costs. What initiatives are participants aware of that address specific problems? (e.g. examples of best practice showing positive changes) What else might be done to reduce problems on M&R requirements?

4. Questions round 2 (who and how?) Centralised reporting structure in the MS versus decentralised -Consistent but complex -Integrated reporting from the operators -Back to back EU expert meetings (nobody has the whole picture) -Integration of deliverables of comparable obligations (NEC/LRTAP with UNFCCC) -Works well for E-PRTR, LCP, IED and its tooling Tooling -Variation (Webforms, XML, XLS, DOC, CRF-reporter) -EIONET works well, state of the art? -Report once, multiple usage, by law! -Collecting versus submitting Timing -On facility level versus national total (you need facilities to calculate the national total) -Data consistency, one date (snapshot)