1. Evaluating Progress Towards Achieving Targets Identified in the Communication on Halting the Loss of Biodiversity to 2010 and Beyond Member State Contribution to the Evaluation Chris Mees

2. Monitoring and evaluation of the BAP
The Communication and its EU Action Plan to 2010 and Beyond (The BAP, or Biodiversity Action Plan) provided an EU biodiversity policy framework
It specified M&E with annual reporting and
A mid term review (MTR) in 2008
Full term review in 2010
Review of post 2010 targets in 2013

3. The BAP can be monitored at a number of levels
What to monitor: Can monitor achievement at different levels: Objective, header target, target or actions
Indicators of achievement: BAP tends not to define indicators. SEBI2010 relates to higher level indicators (e.g. Objective, or Header Target)
Actions occur, and can be monitored, at at Community and MS level – some apply only to COM or MS
To monitor achievement of COM / MS Actions, Indicators need to be defined – Often more than one indicator is required to capture all the detail within a specified action
Clusters of actions evaluated in Individual actions will be evaluated in 2010

4. Evaluation process in 2008
Process in 2010 will not be the same but there will be a Country Profile (MS achievements) and a synthesis of MS achievements that can contribute to a Consolidated Profile.

5. The 2008 Process for the Country Profile and Synthesis of MS achievements
Profile contained qualitative narrative and quantitative data.
Country summary largely qualitative narrative
Profile and country Summary were two separate documents – both needed to be updated after each verification step
MS inputs at two points. 2 steps with MS and the additional steps with EC shown led to inefficiencies and missed deadlines
As Country Profile not verified, not all quantitative data could be used in synthesis

6. Simpler process in 2010 for Country Profiles (MS inputs)
Single document (Country Profile) to contain all information: no need to ensure consistency between documents
Data inputs from existing data sources plus a questionnaire element – questions will be limited to those BAP actions with no data source and/or those Countries that have not yet contributed to the data source- i.e. maximum use of existing data sources.
The number of steps in the process will be reduced – ideal is for one step MS involvement.
Profile to be completed and verified on line (COM verification and MS inputs and verification). MS and or COM amendments done directly into the on-line Profile which will be the document used in the final evaluation (no need to transcribe amendments)
Quantitative and qualitative data all verified so all can be used in 2010 assessment – As required a narrative summary and quantitative synthesis can be generated.
The aim in 2010 is to have all materials for the evaluation ready by the end of April 2010

7. 2010 evaluation will represent a value added analysis since Mid Term Review in 2008
MTR was initial ‘look-see’ at data available
In 2010 individual BAP Actions / Targets will be evaluated rather than clusters – 2010 evaluation will more accurately address the BAP
2010 evaluation based on detailed assessment of the BAP and information available from existing data sources – supplementary data will be provided by MSs.
2010 evaluation will be more quantitative to provide an evaluation of progress.

8. Process to develop the Country Profile and MS inputs to the Consolidated Profile
nnaire 14
nnaire 10 10 10
Where we are now. Forget the detail: Take home message = A rigorous process is being undertaken to define the requirements from MSs for the 2010 evaluation

9. Similarly rigorous process to generate the Country Profile
More than one indicator needed to evaluate the BAP Action.
Any one BAP action may require a questionnaire for one indicator, and have data sources for others.
Where data sources do not cover all countries, those ‘missing countries’ will need to complete a questionnaire. Same may apply to countries with data constraints – none shown here
DGENV will review the Consultants recommendations to derive a shortlist. Recommendations suggest whether Indicators should be addressed through a questionnaire or available data sources? The final agreed shortlist will be the BAP Actions and Indicators in the Country Profile. [BAP=198 Actions. Step 1 longlist derived174 actions and 324 Indicators examined in Step 2. In Step 2, 19 actions & 52 indicators Rejected, 115 Indicators = to be addressed by MSQ only; 66= data source only; 68=data & MSQ]

10. What the Country profile might look like
Yet to be developed
One Profile per country, completed on line
Profile will contain only BAP actions and indicators agreed in the shortlist, structured by BAP Objective.
MSs to verify prefilled information from existing data sources
MSs also to provide a certain amount of ‘questionnaire’ data.

11. Example of what the Country Profile may look like – Prefilled data element
Countries that have contributed to the data source will need to verify the data have been interpreted correctly. May be All or some specified countries
MSs to verify / amend the information as appropriate directly, and once completed, sign-off on this information
Data prefilled by contractor from the data source indicated

12. Example of what the Country Profile may look like – MS questionnaire element
Structured like BAP
Only MSs with no data in an existing standard data source need to complete questionnaire. Some questions have no data source – ALL MSs to complete.

13. Process timeline for 2009/10: Questionnaire and data sources completed consecutively
Advantage: MS have a one step process. Cleaner and more efficient – less chance of confusion over partially completed data source information for verification.
Disadvantage: MS and contractor have limited time for data inputs (2.5 months each) – is this feasible? Potential that the desired aim to have all inputs by April 2010 will need to be put back.

14. Process timeline for 2009/10: Questionnaire and data sources completed simultaneously
Advantage: MS and contractor have reasonable timescale for data inputs
Disadvantage: MS have a two step process. Less efficient and potential for confusion.
In practice information from data sources will be uploaded but partial until end Jan - a mechanism would be needed to indicate if they could be verified earlier.

15. When will MS inputs be needed?
By 24 June DGENV will require any feedback on the process proposed for MS involvement in 2010 evaluation.
Further discussion with Member States will occur within the framework of CGBN at the next meeting in October 2009
By 28 February 2010 Country Profiles completed and signed off