Adaptations to the reporting formats identified so far Review Art.17/12 Adaptations to the reporting formats identified so far

Why we need to update the formats? errors found during preparation of the last reports additional requirements for information some fields were added to the formats temporarily as optional fields harmonising reporting between two nature directives some parameters are badly documented in the reporting formats (Article 17) comments from Member States

Corrections of errors in the formats Art.12 /17 Range maps - should follow the same standards as distribution maps, FAQ General report: Measures taken in relation to approval of plans & projects, Year - allow for a period for projects which take several years Reason for change - allow for indicating ‘No change’ in reported value of a parameter Range and Habitat for species, Short-term trend and Long-term trend - the fields for ‘Method used’ are missing Art.17

Additional requirements for information so far Art.17 Information related to progress towards the Target 1 - adding Reasons for change between Overall CS or/and Trend in CS between reporting periods 2000-2006, 2007- 2012 and 2013-2018 Future prospects - adding future (short-term) trends in the format as the equivalent of the Future prospects assessment in the Article 17 formats Pressures and threats - should be reported for all, not only for the SPA trigger, species. Should be reported separately as for the Article 17 reporting Art.12

Changing status of optional fields Art.12 /17 Short term trend within the Natura 2000 network - population trend /habitat area trend within the network should be mandatory for the next reporting period. Reason for change (related to value reported for population size and range area) - Art. 12 format foresees that this information should be provided starting from the next reporting period. Art.12

Review of guidance identified so far Review of the guidance may reveal further need to modify the formats Main issues, that needs to be reviewed identified so far: Species trends Pressures and threats Natura 2000 and Conservation measures Checklists Spatial data – INSPIRE specifications Population units and Habitat for species Structures and functions Future prospects Use of Qualifiers Art.12 /17 Art.17

Planned discussions on method and data quality issues Art.17 Method used and Data quality (Do we need a Data quality separately from the Method used?) Population size – type of estimate (Do we need it also for the Art. 17 for species) Method used for Breeding distribution map and Range surface area (Should we have Method used for both?) Method used (How to better distinguish data gaps from situation when habitat species was not found?) Art.12 Art.12 /17

Planned discussions on method and data quality issues Art.12 /17 Sources/Published sources (How to report sources?) Other relevant/Additional information (How to report additional information?) Method used and Data quality for Pressures and threats (How to report?)

Planned discussions on long-term trends Art.12 Long-term trend period (1980 as a policy-relevant baseline or a shifting 24 years window?) Long-term trends (Should this information become mandatory for the next reporting period?) Art.17 Planned discussions on other issues Art.17 Surface are of habitat (Should the Surface area of habitat be reported as a minimum – maximum?) Short-term trend Magnitude (Reporting using classes)

Discussion Corrections of errors in the formats Additional requirements for information (Information related to progress towards the Target 1, Future prospects for Art. 12, Pressures and threats for Art. 12) Changing status of optional fields (Trends within the Natura 2000 network, Reason for change)

Discussion Review of guidance (main topics) (For many topics we already started reflections on what to improve and they are discussed separately) How can we improve reporting on following issues: Effectiveness of the Natura 2000 and Conservation Status Conservation measures (Pressures and threats)

Adaptations to the guidelines envisaged Review Art.17/12 Adaptations to the guidelines envisaged

Why we need to update the guidelines? errors found during preparation of the last reports some aspects still pose problems, particularly in the Art. 17 or pressures and threats and information related to the Natura 2000 and conservation measures the structure and readability of guidelines needs improving harmonising reporting between Member States and between two nature directives streamlining with MSFD and WFD comments from Member States

Guidelines– improving structure and readability Revise the Guidelines (Art. 17) so that they relate more directly to the formats. Simplify and restructure (mainly Art. 17) Guidelines to make it easier to navigate Assess which areas of guidance across the Art. 12 and Art. 17 guidelines can be usefully harmonised In spite of the harmonisation keep the two sets of guidance separate. Integrate the suggestions from Member States

Guidelines– harmonising between the Art. 12 and Art. 17 reporting Similarity of approach in terms of the structure of documents and language across both directives Allows correspondence across the reporting under both directives when using similar information e.g. on population size Guidance relating to particular reporting fields/sections common to both directives should be common to both Guidelines

Thank you for your attention