1. Overview on questionnaire feedback Art 12 & Art 12 reporting
Expert Group on Reporting
Brussels,
Marita Arvela

2. Many thanks for your feedback!
Feedback received from
18 Member States for Art 12 (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, HU, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SL, UK)
21 Member States for Art 17 (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, MT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SL, UK)
Many thanks for your feedback!
09/12/2018

3. Data transfer issues (Art 12 & Art 17)
Reporting tool
Used by most of the MS
Number of proposals for technical improvement
Too many versions of the tool
Range tool
Most MS used
Considered useful, but also many technical problems, reported slow (Art 12). Also doubts whether the tool is fit for purpose.
Proposal: final versions of all tools and guidance should be available at least 12 months in advance.
09/12/2018

4. Delivery Manual & Manual for the range tool
Inbuilt QA/QC on CDR
In general considered useful, but also problems encountered esp with GIS part
Requested to have possibility to have certain GIS checks done at earlier stage
Delivery Manual & Manual for the range tool
Delivery Manual mostly fine, but Range tool Manual deserves improvement
QA/QC reports (for Art 12 MS are still working on these)
Idea was good, but presentation could be improved, unnecessary errors listed
To use e.g. Excel to report errors & full range of EEA validation rules available earlier in process?
09/12/2018

5. Proposal: to be built in the reporting tool
Audit trail (Art 17 only)
Mixed comments. ‘Very happy, very grateful’, ‘hardly provides a reliable analysis..’. Revision of definitions of codes & examples requested
Proposal: to be built in the reporting tool
Issues in relation to the General Report
Satisfactory and clear, but duplication with Art 17
Some technical improvements proposed
Translation of ‘Main achievements under HD’ into English obligatory?
Is information of general report used by EC/ETC?
09/12/2018

6. Issues in Species/Habitats/Birds Reports
Lot of comments
Revision of list of threats & pressures requested. Art 12 to follow Art 17 in distinguishing threats & pressures?
SPA/Natura 2000 coverage
‘existing solution is a difficult compromise’…WP3 is called back
Most comments on ‘conservation measures’. Also issues like % would be easier/more accurate for population size, more guidance on trend field requested (Art 12)
09/12/2018

7. Too many fields asking source, problems with ‘year/period’
Art 12 Birds reports
General:
Too many fields asking source, problems with ‘year/period’
New field for trend?: whether trends due to genuine change or increase/decrease in knowledge or diversification in sampling method
To report voluntarily all non-native species?
Discussion on reporting on species on passage requested
09/12/2018

8. Population/Breeding range trend
Population size
some units contested, estimations recalculated from different units were problematic. To use ‘best estimate’ as well together with min/max?
Population/Breeding range trend
More guidance requested (e.g. on magnitude), negative trends should be made possible. Longterm trend to be 24 years? Would be better to ask distribution trend instead of range trend
09/12/2018

9. Art 17 species/habitats reports
General:
‘Reason for change’ needs more guidance,
Field on ‘quality of data’ requested. Why no ‘methods used’ field for range trend?
Future prospects: lot of subjectivity, 12 y period not useful, use of qualifier difficult, text in evaluation matrix imprecise, rediscussion requested
Overall conclusions should be automated in tool
Not to change too much as monitoring etc at national level already adjusted to reporting needs
09/12/2018

10. Typical species. More guidance needed. Value of reporting this?
Habitats
Structures & functions badly captured. New field to indicate what % of a habitat is considered to be in FV or unfavourable condition? Explicit thresholds if s&f is reported as FV or U1?
Discussion proposed on approach taken to concluding on habitat range/area
Typical species. More guidance needed. Value of reporting this?
09/12/2018

11. ‘Habitat of the species’ (field 2.5) remains a difficult issue
Population units. Revision of list of exceptions and definition of ‘individual’ requested, to use unit with highest confidence in detecting changes between reports? Individual not relevant/problematic for number of taxa
To generate common understanding of meaning of ‘locality’ using field information?
New field proposed for Sphagnum etc to capture decline of individual species/changes in composition
09/12/2018

12. Issues in relation to maps
Purpose and value of range maps is questioned
Proposal: not to ask GIS shapefiles but only Excel files or database files via xml transfer with presence/absence of habitats/species and EU grid cell number
09/12/2018

13. Issues in relation to the assessment of CS
Further discussion is appreciated by many MS (‘FRVs are still the most difficult values to assess…’)
New approach for FRA and FRP established by BE
To have an EU-biogeographical level approach for species and habitat?
Use of operators is also requested as an option for next round
Qualifier for FV should be made obligatory
Some guidance on how reporting should cope with climate change impacts is needed.
Discussion on the role of population dynamics in the assessment of CS would be appreciated
More guidance needed on assessment of 7120
09/12/2018

14. Issues in relation to the given guidance
Explanatory Notes & Guidelines
Art 17: Overall considered relevant, but proposals improving the structure and content given. More examples requested.
Art 12: In general positive, but issues for improvement proposed as well
FAQ: useful but hard to keep with updates
Reference portal: Useful, helpful, good structure
Helpdesk by the ETC (& EC contractor): positive feedback (‘Couldn’t do without’)
CIRCA BC: Not so straighforward…
09/12/2018

15. Other
UK: Would have been useful to meet up with other MS c. 9 months before the submission deadline
-FI: Problems in interpretation of certain habitat types (3130, 3110, 6510, 6520 ) and with habitat types which can overlap (1110 & 1610, 1170 & 1620). Reference list concerning Thymallus thymallys and Coreconus lavaretus should be revised
-DE: Time period between end of the reporting period and delivering the national reports should be extended from the present 6 months to 12 months or more. More discussion is needed on how to use effects of nitrogen input in assessments of CS
IE, UK, DK: Assessment process warrants external review (to see whether significant differences in approach in different MS, relevance to the reporting aims and what could be reduced). IE: More formal process for streamlining reporting under MSFD and Nature Directive needs to be further developed/agreed.
PL: It is more user-friendly if single reports can be opened on CDR (not all in one time)
PT: Challenges the reporting frequency of 6 years. Requests review of nomenclature of species checklist.
09/12/2018