Expert Group on Reporting Under the Nature Directives

EXPERT GROUP ON REPORTING UNDER THE NATURE DIRECTIVES

Summary Record

1st Meeting of 11 th April 2008, Brussels

Chairman: Patrick Murphy (morning) & Angelika Rubin (afternoon), both DG ENV. B2

List of participants: see Annex 1

Member States, which were absent: Italy, Austria, Romania

Please note: All documents discussed and presentations given in the frame of this meeting can be downloaded from http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/home (go to the "library" & "An expert group on reporting")

1 Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted without amendments.

2 Objectives of the Working Group

The Commission presented the overall objective and context of this new working group (the respective PPT-presentation can be downloaded from CIRCA). Member States (MS) were invited to give their views.

Following comments were made:

 The use of conclusions derived solely from the IT-tool could be misleading without considering the ecological context.

 Federal states have a severe workload when compiling information for the Art.17 reports from numerous regions/Länder; full synchronisation of reporting would mean even more work at the same moment – spreading re. timing should be considered

 A streamlined approach for reporting would not necessarily mean less work for MS (at least not in the initial phase) but would be worthwhile. Any additional work should be kept to a minimum.

 The regular updating of software by the Commission must be guaranteed and the systems must be sufficiently flexible

 The accessibility and synchronisation of reporting was supported but there needs to be a change from process to outcome based reporting.  Differences between the wildlife directives should be recognised, e.g. regarding the definition of conservation status. The link of the conservation status definition through the liability directive should be explored.

3 The Draft Terms of references (version 1)

a) General part

The Commission presented the general parts of the Draft Terms of References (the respective PPT-presentation can be downloaded from CIRCA). In relation to questions regarding the working method, the Commission expressed the intention to have much of the work done in sub-groups which then would report back to the whole reporting group at its 2-3 meetings per year. The reporting working group again would report to the coordination group, approximately every 6 months.

b) The work packages

The Commission briefly presented each work-package (the respective PPT-presentation can be downloaded from CIRCA) followed by a debate with the group on the content and approach to each one.

Work-package 1 - Review of the Art.17 (HD) reporting exercise 2001-2006

The purpose of this package is to recommend concrete improvements to the conservation status reporting in view of the report for the 2007-2012 period. The first task should be to compile suggestions for improvement from Member States, ETC-BD, EEA & DG ENV and establish a list of tasks to work on. Detailed discussions would be started under point 4 of the agenda.

Comments made:  Several MS complained about the fact that the national Art.17 reports submitted to the CDR of reportnet cannot be viewed in a user-friendly way. There is room for improvement.

 The Art.17 exercise has brought new knowledge which is also relevant for the Natura 2000 database, which should be updated in view of this information. This is relevant for the discussions under work-package 4.

 Some issues re. the improvement of the reporting method need to be tackled asap as they have an impact on how information is collected for the next report due in 2013. A distinction between urgent and less urgent issues needs to be made.

Work-package 2 - Align (merge) progress reporting under both directives

The purpose of this package is to align or even merge implementation reporting under Art.12 of Birds Directive with reporting under Art.17 Habitats Directive – thereby reducing reporting frequency for birds & produce similar data on status and trends of species and habitats of community interest. The legal issues involved here (different wording/timing in relevant provisions) could be approached in two different ways: firstly work on basis of ‘loyal cooperation’ based on Art.10 of the EC Treaty between Member States and Commission and secondly also pursue a possible adaptation of the relevant provisions via the revision of the "reporting directive”, an initiative currently envisaged.

2 Comments made:  The nature of the existing legal obligations on Member states regarding reporting should not be changed.

 The Birds Directive does not require Member States to report on the conservation status

 Before discussing this approach it should be clear how the Commission is aggregating information and how it is made available to the public

 Spreading of tasks should be considered as to report on all birds, other species and habitats at the same time might be impossible

 A number of Member States confirmed that their available data on birds are substantial and that the establishments of reports on status and trends of bird-species would be feasible.

 A 6-year period for reporting on birds would be useful, while 3 years are a too short period.

The Commission stated that as the information on birds seems to exist but needs to be analysed in a common way. One alternative could be for Member States to request NGOs to collect and submit the information on their behalf. However in that case the question would be how much ownership Member States would take of the results. It is in any case indispensable to get a clear, factual view on the efficiency of the nearly 30 years old Birds Directive. In relation to the timing of the reporting it should be kept in mind that in order to have a consistent and strong message, the results on different species groups should be available at more or less the same time.

The chairman concluded that legal and procedural aspects need to be clarified (some of the reservations expressed by Member States as listed above, were also expressed in the coordination group meeting the day before). Furthermore the feasibility of synchronisation of progress reporting needs to be examined as well as the workload aspect (eg. staggered reporting 12 months out of phase). Further on a clear view on what data on birds are needed & reasonable to collect on EU-level and a review on what information is already generated is needed.

Work-package 3 - Find methods for the evaluation of Natura 2000 impact (as part of progress reporting)

The purpose of this work-package is the development of methods for the evaluation of the impact of the Natura 2000 network on conservation status and efficiency of the network (within the progress reporting under Art.17 HD/Art.12 BD). As the Commission has no concrete proposal to offer an open brainstorming among WG-participants was suggested.

3 Comments made:

 The monitoring system for surveillance of conservation status was now explicitly designed to get an overview on all the range of species/habitats (i.e. sampling is done inside and outside the network). To introduce a distinction inside/outside now would need again large investments.

 A favourable conservation status of habitats and species is the objective of the directive – why is it necessary to assess exactly the contribution of the network? However, it was acknowledged that it may be helpful in political terms to be able to show the concrete contribution of the network.

 If information on that point needs to be included in the next report, the question should be dealt with very soon.

 The Natura 2000 network is dynamic. Whatever method is established, this needs to be recognized.

 The question is a very complex scientific challenge; two different monitoring systems would need to be connected. As the network is rather new, such assessments might not give many results. Also as long as sites are not fully protected (nationally designated / managed) such an assessment would be difficult.

 To judge the value of sites for the status of species and habitat is a very difficult undertaking as it assumes that there is a direct link. It will be difficult to get that from reporting. Maybe a research project would be more relevant here than reporting? Assessing the contribution of the network is according to Art.17 more the task of the Commission than the Member States.

 The network is to make a significant contribution to the conservation status of Annex I and II habitats and species – but the network was established first and only then we assessed the conservation status.

The Commission stated that basic information on the implementation of the network is needed and also there is a need to review from time to time the functionality/completeness of the network (is it covering enough?). The chairman concluded that while there is a clear political interest to quantify how the network contributes to conservation status, the methodology for describing/quantifying this relationship was not immediately apparent. This point requires further consideration and should be discussed among DG ENV, DG Research and ETC as well as group members with a view to a reflexion paper.

Work-package 4 - Revision of dataflow re. Natura 2000 sites

The purpose of this work-package is to prepare a revision of the dataflow re. Natura 2000 sites (standard data forms and maps) and switch to exclusively electronic data-flow (also in “legal” terms). A first task should include an assessment of the current situation and listing of all difficulties and the development of a vision for a better management of Natura 2000 data. This should include a review of the Standard Data Form (SDF) and proposals on how to deal with changes more efficiently. A step-by-step plan should be elaborated, starting with submission of Natura 2000 information from MS electronically via reportnet

Comments made:

4  Natura 2000 data is a core European dataset; it will be a central element of the envisaged biodiversity data centre. The dataflow needs urgent improvements

 The content of SDFs should be looked at. E.g. the criteria used for Art.17 assessments and the one used in the SDFs are not in conformity; several fields could be suppressed.

 The N2K software needs urgent improvements.

 The data need to be made public in an easy to access way. That would also give a powerful communication tool.

 The group should look at an outcome-based Natura 2000 dataflow - there is a close link to work-package 3.

Overall the group was supportive to improving the Natura 2000 dataflow.

Work-package 5 - Finalise HaBides (derogation reporting)

The purpose of this work-package is to support the modernisation of derogation reporting and the creation of links with conservation status reporting. Habides (the internet application tool for reporting derogations is planned to be transferred into the reportnet-system of EEA. However no decisions have been taken yet. Possible tasks for the group could be: Revisit the reporting format in view of possible links to other species information (e.g. conservation status); Send final reporting format for approval to the Committees. Hardly any comments were made.

Work-package 6 - Improve notification procedure on compensatory measures under Art. 6.4 (HD)

The purpose of this work-package is to consider the establishment of an IT- tool for the notification of compensation measures under Art.6.4 of the Habitats Directive in order to ensure standardized & timely notification of the Commission and to track the information received better & make notifications publicly available (or at least summaries). No comments were made.

Work-package 7 - Develop vision for the presentation & access to data

The purpose of this work-package is to develop a vision for the presentation & access to all reporting results and Natura 2000 GIS information. First experiences will now be made with results from the Art.17 reports, where a web-based technical report is planned.

Comments made:

 Public accessibility is supported. The accessibility of reports in reportnet should be improved / made easier.

The problems of access to the national Art.17 reports were rediscussed. The Commission explained its intentions as to the various products resulting from the Art.17 exercise. A first outcome would be the national summaries (envisaged for June 2008 – first a consultation of the Member States will be undertaken in May). ETC-BD showed a draft national summary in order to give the group an impression on how it would look. Further on the consultation on the draft biogeographic assessments (envisaged for end-June) will be a next step in accessing the information. After that the technical report and the composite report will follow. In view

5 of all this the group accepted that an additional effort from the Commission side (Member States are of course free to do their own publishing) to make the national reports more easily accessible would not have much added value.

In conclusion, for all work-packages a draft plan for first tasks should be established by the Commission and discussed at the next meeting, where working group members would be expected to take on concrete tasks.

4 Starting a review of reporting round 2001-2006 under Art.17 of Habitats Dir.

State-of-the-Art regarding Art.17 work

ETC-BD gave a brief overview on where the work on Art. 17 reporting stands: all 2nd deliveries were received, the last one on 10 April (with exception of EE and MT, who sent the 1st delivery too late to have a revision phase). This means that due to the late 2nd submissions there is 3-4 weeks delay in the work-plan, which puts additional pressure on ETC. Expert evaluation on biogeographical region level will start now. A consultation on draft results is envisaged for the summer (to start end June/early July). National summaries will be sent to Member States for verification in May.

Review of 2001-2006 reporting

A questionnaire had been sent to the working group before the meeting in order to capture experiences and suggestions for improvement from Member States. Responses were received from 17 Member States (they can be viewed on CIRCA). The Commission thanked participants for the very interesting contributions. Based on these responses, ETC gave a presentation (the respective PPT-presentation can be downloaded from CIRCA) summarising the main points which were made. However replies will have to be further considered and analysed later. It was also stated by the chair that those Member States who had not replied yet, could do so after the meeting. The presentation of each section was followed by a debate.

Issues about the general report (Annex A)

The use and need of following information should be reviewed: e.g. optional information, lists of sites / management plans. A better definition of questions and harmonisation should be introduced (more use of check lists). A summary text in the beginning of each national report should be considered.

Issues about descriptive data - Annexes B & D

Following main points were made through the questionnaires: More standardisation: methods, units, 'check lists'; Keep flexibility, allow for more free text, explanations; Marine issues need further work; Limit info to the strict minimum and only related to Conservation Status; Differentiate 'zero' values from 'unknown'.

Comments made:

 Distinguish urgent (of importance to data-collection) from less urgent tasks

 Streamline approaches of Member States to certain concepts (e.g. range)

6  Improve pressures and threats lists

 Allow for better integration of expert-judgement

 Include audit-trails, more free-text fields, allow for introducing information which is basically only of use to the ones who gave made the report and not the assessors on EU-level

 Review the usefulness of typical species

 More flexibility versus more standardisation: both demands are not necessarily in contradiction to each other

Issues about geographic data - Annexes B & D

Main issues identified: Use GML format versus industry GIS; Single file versus bulk/zipped upload; Naming of files; Common grid system; Poor GIS layers: MS boarders, coast lines; Merge range & distribution maps; Allow qualitative data into distribution maps.

Comments made:

 GISCO (Daniele Rizzi): common grid system exists within EC, respective information will be passed on to DG ENV.

 There is an advantage to receive information in national grid systems as it avoids the number of errors when transforming.

 The problem of definition of the biogeographical regions borders

 Due to the very different interpretation of range one might consider to delete the range information and calculate it on EU-level from distribution maps (problem: changes in range are a parameter used in the assessment)

Issues about interpretation & guidance

Several concepts need further definition and clarification: Pressures & threats; Structure & functions; Range (standardise calculation); Suitable habitat for a species; Typical species; Future prospects; Favourable reference values. Also consistency should be ensured across all reporting documents coming from Commission/ETC.

Comments made:

 The possibility to change / introduce new things are limited now, as the next reporting period should give comparable results, i.e. do not change too much

 Experiences of EEA and ETC have to be added to this debate (but as the EU- evaluation has not finished yet the picture is not yet complete)

 Guidance on how to balance things (in assessment) should be further elaborated

Issues about reporting process & IT tool & other issues

7 Main issues identified: Speed of tool and server; Validation procedures before release of envelop; Review QA/QC procedures at different stages; Improve search functionalities within envelop; simply use and adapt tool to deal with info as in Annex A.

Other issues: Use of national language in free text fields and other files: not possible to have quality translation or even machine translation for many languages; Difficult to use Complementary Information for QA/QC and assessments; Evaluation matrix 'pushes' assessments towards "red" category.

Comments made:

 It was mentioned that the national reports should better only be open to public view in reportnet once they have been quality checked and revised, while now also the 1st submission can be viewed – could that be changed?

The Commission asked whether MS would be interested to see each others responses to the questionnaire and whether any Member State would have a problem with DG ENV to put the answers on CIRCA-Reporting. No problems with this were raised.

Next steps regarding the Art.17 review:

The chairman stated:

 The responses of Member States would be made available on CIRCA so Member States can see each others points.

 The ETC will make a draft paper analysing more thoroughly the issues raised in the Member States responses. Such a paper should be provided late May/early June and it shall be discussed in the next meeting. The paper would also make suggest a planning for 2007-2013 exercise, identify urgent tasks and priorities.

5 Any other business

On request the Commission clarified that the discussions of this group have no influence on the current reporting round under Article 12 of the Birds Directive (ie. report due in 2008).

The Commission stated that a draft work-plan will be elaborated by DG ENV for all work- packages (prioritising urgent tasks) and shall be discussed in the next meeting. At the same time working group members would be asked to commit themselves to work on certain tasks identified in the work plan in small groups.

Preliminary dates for the next meetings of the Reporting Working Group: 26 June 2008, 7 November 2008.

Annex 1: Participants List