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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 , and
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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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?)

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. 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)

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

13. 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 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Thank you for your attention