1. WP 1 - Review of the Art.17 reporting format & guidelines
Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives Brussels, Marita Arvela, Zelmira Sipkova, Brian Mac Sharry

2. This presentation is about
State of debate
Reporting Format (excl. WP3)
Guidelines
Art 17 Reference Portal
Art 17 Checklists (Zelmira Sipkova)
Outlook on technical implementation (Brian Mac Sharry)

3. State of debate
After previous EG meeting of , comments received from 8 MS (Reporting Format & Guidelines)
2nd consultation of the Habitats Committee on the revised Reporting Format on incl. Guidelines 
Discussion between ETC, EEA and EC on development of Reporting tool and Range tool on
Art 17 Checklist – 2nd discussion with MS starts asap
No Subgroup meetings held or foreseen
Harmonisation between Art 17, Birds reporting & SDF continues – Meeting of WP1-WP4 leaders in Jan & March 2011
List of threats and pressures - finalised
Approval expected on

4. 2nd consultation on the revised Reporting Format & Guidelines:
15 MS commented (AT, DE, DK, EE, ES, IE, FI, IT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK)
RO & additional comments from SE received yesterday
There is general support in the work done so far
Comments mainly at the level of details
Document with all comments and proposed solutions distributed to Expert Group
(see CIRCA)

5. Proposed changes General report (Annex A)
3. Natura site designation
Distinctions between fields “terrestrial area of sites” and “marine area of sites” to be clarified
4. Management plans (Art 6(1))
Comprehensive management plans - for this reporting purpose
Text from SDF to be added on “requirement by Directive” for management plans
Optional field to report % of sites covered by partial management plans – not accepted

6. Reporting format – both Annex B & D
Range map: Submit the map that was used for range evaluation
Field “Method used”: to unify the wording across the formats (also section 3)
All optional fields to be marked clearly
Flexibility in the use of long/short term trends in assessment? Some level of flexibility exists
(to use fields “Reason for change” & “Other relevant information”)
Fields “Additional information” (with a question “Is the difference between reported value…and previous reporting round mainly due to…”):
to change title into “Reason for change”
To add “unknown” to list of threats & pressures

7. Reporting format - Annex B – species
2.3.Range
A field “Method used” to be added  field numbering to be updated
2.4. Population
Short term trend-magnitude, b) Confidence interval Indicate confidence interval if a statistically reliable sampling scheme is used (field 2.4.5)
Area of suitable habitat for species
a) Give area…“if appropriate” does not mean optional (but should not be ignored)
Harmonisation between Annex B and Birds reporting format continues

8. Reporting format - Annex D – habitat types
2.3.Range
A field “Method used” to be added  field numbering to be updated
2.4. Area covered by habitat
Field Long-term trend-Direction to be added  field numbering to be updated
2.7. Complementary information
Typical species-method used: Describe method(s) used to assess the status of typical species as part of the overall assessment of structure & functions
field numbering to be updated

9. Revision of the Guidelines
Structure is considered in overall ok
Several comments on details (listed in the overview of MS comments)
Revision needed:
Wording of specific issues to be revised (conservation status & degree of conservation, Red listing and CS…)
Large grid size for some marine species/habitats
To make clear that examples are not rules, but examples of good practise
CS of grouped Annex V species Cladonia (subgenus Cladina), Lycopodium spp, Sphagnum spp: same treatment as

10. not possible to completely cover all aspects
Guidance on « Future prospects » is under revision
Parameter «Habitat for the species » – not perfect, but progress made compared to previous reporting round
Structure & functions, incl typical species – text to be revised
Marine example from UK under preparation
Marine habitat types for reporting – to keep the list as it is now
Threats and pressures: list has been updated after comments by FR, IE, DE – uploaded on CIRCA
Complex issues –
not possible to completely cover all aspects

11. Next: Revised Reporting Format to be submitted to Habitats Committee in early April 2011
comments from 2nd consultation of the Committee & Expert Group taken into account
all fields included to the format where data requested from MS (= fields in the Reporting tool)
submission together with the final draft Guidelines
 Format hopefully to be approved on !

12. Art 17 Reference Portal prepared by ETC/BD
Includes: Tables of codes needed to fill in the format, checklist of species and habitat types, list of threats and pressures, conservation measures etc
Target: all documents available at latest by mid-May
Will be used for any updates when necessary (e.g. map of marine regions)

13. Article 17 Checklists
Indicate to MS which species and habitat types are expected to be reported
1st MS consultation took place
Last reply arrived in December 2010
Delays of getting feedback  delayed ETC work + time-consuming work on complex taxonomic issues

14. Article 17 Checklists
2nd version of the Checklists are available in the Art 17 Reference Portal
MS will receive an invitation from ETC to comment by
Target: to finalise the lists in May
Target: to provide a single checklist also including bird species
Checklist for Reporting under the Nature Directives

15. Article 17 check-list
The list of the habitats and species for which the ARTICLE 17 report is expected

16. The 2nd draft - MS Access database
The species check list
Codes – EUNIS and SDF
Name in the directive,
Name used in the assessment
Country
Biogeographical region
The habitat check
Code as in SDF

17. General principles set in the Guidelines:
report should be submitted for all of the habitats and species occurring in the country
marginal population in the region
Not enough information about marginal occurrences
separate reports following recent taxonomic splits (if feasible)
The species occur in different geographical areas
Morphologically different
Increased workload

18. the confusion between criteria for the site proposal and reporting
Some problems:
the confusion between criteria for the site proposal and reporting
Basically reporting for the habitats and species having a stable or regular occurrence in the country even if it does not qualify for the site proposal – eg. harbor porpoise in E Baltic Sea
different interpretation of mainly OCC, SR
Uncertainty linked to taxonomic progress
mainly in southern Europe

19. Some changes of OCC, SR, EX, N
What was done?
The check-list completed with the information from the 2010 update of the Natura 2000 Reference List
Some changes of OCC, SR, EX, N
Taxonomy issues discussed in the separate document with suggestion for the Reporting
The cases discussed in the paper are marked in the Check list as SR TAX

20. Outlook on technical implementation
Art 17 & Birds reporting
Reporting Tool
The difficulties of last Art 17 reporting round are well documented and will be taken into account
MS Access database
simple editing mask (not on-line)
improved QA/QC (for pre- and post-submission)
specific functions?

23. Provisional timing of Reporting Tools
Testing by MS: potentially in last quarter of 2011
Database + User guidelines available:
1st March 2012
Workshop to train MS: March 2012
Questions to MS
prefilled information?, consultation?, audit trail?
ETC will send a note, replies requested within 2 weeks
Range Tool
Target: January 2012