Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives

Draft Summary Record

7th Meeting of 18th May 2010, Brussels

Chairman: Stefan Leiner (morning), Angelika Rubin (afternoon), both DG ENV B3

List of participants: see Annex 1

Member States that were absent: Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovak Republic

Please note: All documents discussed and presentations given in the frame of this meeting can be downloaded from (go to the "library" & "An expert group on reporting"). Sub-group documents are only uploaded in the folder of the respective work-package.

1Adoption of the agenda, adoption of the minutes of 6th meeting

The agenda was adopted without comments. The Commission announced one small change in the order of the agenda, namely that point 5 would be discussed before point 4. The minutes of the last meeting were adopted (no comments were received), however UK informed that there would still be a few typos to be corrected, and it would send a list.

2General progress on work plan & Outlook

The Commission gave a short overview on the overall progress of each work-package and main objectives of the meeting (see PPT "Workplan in progress"on CIRCA).It informed that the next Reporting Group would be postponed to the 2nd of December and that the Reporting Group meetingsshall most likely be continued in 2011 (e.g. technical implementation of the reporting formats, finalising of guidance documents), although some discussion will be needed on the future purpose and functioning of the group. It also informed of the upcoming Habitats Committee (planned for 15th October) where the Article 17 reporting format and the revision of the Standard Data Form should be on the agenda.

3Strategy discussion – recalling the vision of streamlined reporting & looking ahead

After some introductory words, the Commissionpresented briefly a discussion paper on "Streamlining and modernising the reporting tasks under the Habitats and Birds directives" (see CIRCA). The debate took place at the request of UK at the last Habitats Committee (March 1st 2010) and the Commission paper is based on a welcomed paper UK had submitted to the group in February. The Commission outlined the main purposes of the existing data-flows under the Nature Directives and set out its vision for the next composite reports as well as how to set priorities in the work of the group and ensuring synergies with other reporting obligations. The Commission stressed the central importance of the reporting work under the Nature Directives, which is now even more important since the adoption of the new 2020 biodiversity target by the European Council and the need to monitor progress towards achieving a favourable conservation status of EU's most important species and habitats and the status of Bird populations. The Commission concluded by emphasising the strategic importance of the Reporting Group's work in implementing EU policies, especially for measuring progress with regard to the 2010 and 2020 biodiversity targets. Defining sub-targets and measuring progress on them ensures that the investments made in implementing the Nature Directives are acknowledged at the highest political level.

EEA informed the group of the current efforts engaged in producing the Biodiversity Baseline and the crucial importance of the nature data-flows in providing the necessary reliable data for this exercise. This data, combined with data from other sources (Corine Land Cover, IUCN red lists, etc), was used to compile facts and figures organised according to large ecosystems (grasslands, freshwater, forests, marine, etc.) in view of supporting policy through the production of sub-targets and the monitoring of progress. The Environment Commissioner Potocnik and the EEA Executive director are to launch the baseline in June, during the Green Week (at this stage a brochure presenting the main statistics). At the same time, the new Biodiversity Information system for Europe (BISE) will be launched. For the Nagoya COP, in October, EEA will publish a report on the biodiversity baseline with a general overview on states and trends of species and habitats. The consultation process so far has involved EIONET and CGBN.It will be continued in August, by another one-month consultation on the technical aspects of the reports.

The Commission invited the members of the group to attend this year's Green Week, dedicated to biodiversity (first week of June 2010).

Following main comments were made during the discussion:

  • UK thanked the Commission for its paper that clarified the Commission's overall vision and the type of work performed by the EEA and ETC/BD. UK invited the Commission to keep this paper up-to-date as it would remain useful in providing a general overview of the Commission's activities over time and how they all fit together. UK reiterated its desire to explore more in depth marine issues and informed the group of a meeting among the ETC-consortium members dedicated to this topic that would take place the following week (28 May) at the ETC/BD. The meeting would be a preliminary exploration of the work that can be accomplished in this field and its results should naturally feed into the subsequent WP1 subgroup meeting. UK invited the Commission to expand its vision to also a wider timescale as to ensure the usefulness of the work for e.g. the 2020 target and that at the same information can be reused effectively throughout several reporting obligations (Ramsar, Article 17, CBD, etc.).
  • The Commission assured the UK that the reuse and interlinking of existing data was already a priority and that modern data-handling was one element in making information re-usable. As for marine issues, the Commission acknowledged the need to increase the knowledge in this field and welcomed the new efforts put in place, however this must not lead to any delays of remaining work on reporting procedures. For the marine issues, also coordination is needed with work under the Marine Framework Strategy Directive (potential topic for a future subgroup).
  • NL expressed its desire to attend the next week's meeting on marine issues. Thereupon the ETC/BD asserted the exploratory nature of this preliminary meeting, an initial brainstorming exercise to facilitate subsequent discussion between Member States concerned by marine issues. It did not object to the request by Member States to attend this meeting but insisted on its role as a preparatory meeting paving the way for further discussion.
  • DE expressed its appreciation of UK's initiative and believes a similar discussion should occur at the beginning of each new project. It regretted its absence in the case of the current technical revision of the Standard Data Form, but understood it should not hinder the progress made to this date.
  • FR welcomed the discussion and invited the Commission to take into account the links between Natura 2000 and other reporting exercises. FR also expressed its position to no longer use thewording of "conservation status"for birds. The Commission confirmed that it uses the term "status and trends".
  • EEA stressed the importance of Art.17 reporting in terms of having for the first time reliable data on status and trends for the production of reports to support policy and inform Member States about the impact of the community policy on the conservation status of species and habitats. Birds must be included in these assessments. Reporting should also provide the evidence of the efficiency (or absence thereof) of certain policy measures in the field of, for example, agriculture or fisheries. Article 17 is a first step in providing the fundamental data for answering some of these questions but much progress is yet to be made.
  • The Commission concluded that there was the impression that the general vision presented was welcome by Member States and stated that further comments can be given on this topic in writing.

5WP 2 - Align / synchronise progress reporting under both directives

The Commission presented the strategic approach to data-collection that had been discussed in the last WP2 sub-group meeting on 13 April 2010. It would allow a strong reduction of workload for Member States due to close collaboration with BirdLife's "Birds in Europe 3" exercise and would focus the Member States efforts on few additional data-fields for Annex 1 and key migratory species (see the discussion paper "Proposal for further direction in the work on a streamlined Bird Reporting System" and PPT on CIRCA). Main points made in the presentation were:

  • Time has now come to change from a process-based to outcome-based reporting, to include e.g. status and trends of species, and the Art 17 (HD) exercise has already shown that status data is very useful.
  • With reference to birds, they have so far not fed in properly in the biodiversity baseline setting, which is both remarkable and regrettable, considering that birds is the best known group of organisms with reference to status and trends, and that there is excellent data, but it has not had any official status for biodiversity reporting.
  • With the shift from a 3-year to 6-year cycle, reporting would be aligned to the reporting under the Habitats Directive. The reports expected for 2013 and 2019 match the assessments of 2015 milestones and 2020 targets.
  • During the work on alignment of the reporting, the feedback from MSs has reflected concern about the scope and burden of reporting.
  • Furthermore, it has to be kept in mind that BirdLife has already done two Pan-European assessments of the status of birds, published in 1994 and 2004, and a third compilation is planned for 2014 (BiE3). This has raised concern about how to avoid duplicated work and risks of conflicting data. Thus, a proper mechanism for collaboration between the Art 12 (BD) reporting and BiE3 is needed.
  • The data to be collected within the BiE3 process on status and trends would effectively allow for pre-filling of sections 1-5 of the currently proposed reporting format, and that these data might be subject to a consultation or peer-review process by the competent authority for the Birds Directive in each MS; to ensure that consensus is maximised and best available data is used. It is important to clarify that this is a data collection exercise, distinct from the subsequent analyses of these data.
  • However, it is also necessary to make this exercise fully relevant for setting and analyses of strategic policy targets. This requirement is proposed to be met as follows: 1) Additional information for species of special concern for priority and policy setting, such as species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and some “strategic” migratory species (“SPA species”). This requires information about threats and pressures for these species. 2) Having in mind that there is now a shift from establishing SPAs to their effective protection and management, information to make possible assessments of the role of the SPA network for these species is needed; i.e. this raises the question on joining up with WP3.

The N2K gave a short report on other issues discussed at the last sub-group meeting for information.

The Commission informed that the CGNB would be consulted and also the Ornis Committee. It invited the floor to comment, in particular on the proposed direction of the work, i.e. cooperation with BirdLife and the proposed enlargement of WP3 to deal with birds and the role of the SPA network.

Following main comments were made:

  • DE stated it had no opinion on the 2nd question (WP3) as many points were still unclear, but considers the close cooperation with BiE3 exercise the right direction. It inquired if such cooperation should be a regular procedure every 6 years. The Commission reacted that if the first experience was to be proven fruitful, the exercise would naturally be continued. Improvement would be accommodated where necessary.
  • UK acknowledges the opportunity and necessity for streamlining and welcomes the collaboration with BirdLife. UK, where a structure for collaboration already exists, has been working with BirdLife for a long time and is ready to share its experiences. UK however questions if the timescale should be extended from six years to ten in order to adapt to the usual BirdLife cycle. Regarding WP3 UK sees the need to discuss how to deal with SPAs.
  • FR appreciates the clarification on the methodology, wants to avoid duplication but stresses that the practical details in dealing with BirdLife have yet to be sorted out, in particular in relation to the integration / validation of the data by other stakeholders and the competent authorities, also question what the role of the ETC could be in this. The process and the roles of the different institutions and partners are yet to be clarified. Regarding WP3, a first test with Article 17 data, excluding birds, would be an adequate first approach.
  • DK supports the cooperation with BirdLife and shares UK'ssuggestion in exploring the relevance of a larger ten-year timescale. DK noted that the obligation to report on birds, in addition to other species and habitats in the same year, would impose a big strain on its services. DK invites the Commission to consider the possible "communication" issue linked to this issue: synchronising both reporting rounds in the same year could leave a void of five years to fill between successive exercises.
  • The Commission recognised the relevance of the different viewpoints and considerations. However, it insists that a single dataset makes things easier to assess and improves comparability. Also it should be kept in mind that synchronised reporting by 2013 will provide data for a mid-term assessment of the 2020 targets. While the Commission will reflect on the pros and cons of 6-years versus 10-years cycles, in preliminary terms the Commission finds the 10-year timescale a bit long considering policy cycles, review cycles for legislation and political mandates (e.g. not each Commission would have a progress report). The collaboration between BirdLife and Member States naturally needs to be worked out and formalised in an efficient way, but the Commission is already pleased to see that the general idea is overall welcomed.
  • The EEA added that the timing of the reporting was indeed a crucial aspect and that the policy cycles should not be ignored (especially 2015 and 2020). Echoing the earlier discussion on the strategy and vision for reporting, EEA reminded that the data should be available when it is most needed and its impact most noticeable.
  • The Commission supports the intervention by EEA: the two reporting exercises planned up to 2020 will provide the crucial information on progress re. biodiversity targets. Of course, the necessary lessons and conclusions will be taken from the 2013/2014 reporting experience (for the mid-term review in 2015) and the 2019/2020 reporting. The SPA-dimension should naturally be taken into account in this strategic debate as SPAs form a fundamental component of the network.
  • FI understands the need for a good collaboration with BirdLife as it is probably the only way to do the work. However it believes that the proposal will bring significant change to the existing working structures. Due to the consequences on the workload and available resources, FI is hesitant in assessing the SPA's role on the conservation status of species and proposes that this assessment be postponed to the next reporting exercise.
  • ETC/BD stated that its own concerns were rather practical and technical. It is up to the Member States to express the role they wish the see ETC/BD play, but they will only be able to fulfil it with the necessary resources. Careful planning is required.
  • UK understands the need to consider policy cycles but reiterates its desire for a longer time period for collecting the necessary data to identify trends, as shorter time periods increase cost and uncertainty. The Commission assured it would reflect on this.
  • BirdLife expressed its satisfaction on the general consensus about its collaboration with Member States. It suggested that a possible way forward could imply the creation of stable cooperation structures on the national level that would then feed into the reporting process. On the issue re. trend-periods, it stated that the WP2 subgroup had already agreed on a 10-year trend period, but that this would also be compatible with the development of reports every 6 years using the "rolling window" approach.

The Commission concluded that the BirdLife cooperation approach seems to have been accepted by the Expert Group, but reminded that this will need to be further discussed by the CGNB and the Ornis Committee. It invited Member States to initiate discussions with BirdLife on the national level. The Commission would explore opportunities to support BirdLife International in the data-collation exercise on European level. However, there seem to be some doubts about the proposal to extend WP3 to include birds and SPAs, with reference to workload and scale (network or site related). It is therefore proposed to involve a few bird-experts in the next WP3 sub-group meeting to get a clearer picture about the actual implications and the extra work that would actually be required in practice.