Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: overall trend unknown because one parameter with unknown trend which could be stable, increasing but also decreasing… ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Abweichend von der Empfehlung in den Guidelines bei einer FV-Bewertung der Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen einen Schwellenwert von 90 % Flächenanteil in gutem Zustand anzuwenden, wurde in Deutschland im Regelfall der Schwellenwert von 80 % beibehalten, um unter anderem die Kontinuität zu den vorherigen Bewertungen zu wahren. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Si la situation pour les landes incluses dans les sites Natura 2000 a des chances de se stabiliser à terme si la politique de mise en place de mesure de gestion est à la hauteur, ce n'est pas le cas pour les landes situées en dehors de ce réseau qui subissent la majeure partie des dégradations. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 4030 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend in Range was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013a). Data used for the short-term trend dated from 2007 to 2016, while those used for the long-term trend dated from 1994 to 2016. There were no recorded losses of area resulting in a loss of range at the sample sites covered by the NSUH during these two reporting periods. The short-term trend is stable. It should be noted that the NSUH surveyed two 4030 habitat sites within this reporting period compared with 13 sites in the last reporting period, thereby limiting the conclusions that can be made.
The number of 10km squares in the range (666) is 34 squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013a). These changes are due to improved knowledge within the current reporting period. The following surveys, all with data utilised in this reporting period, added to the range: Slieve Beagh SPA, Monaghan (four squares), Slievefelim to Silvermine Mountain SPA, Limerick (three squares) and Stack’s to Mullaghareirk Mountains SPA, Limerick, Cork and Kerry (14 squares) (Moran & Wilson-Parr, 2015); Lemgare Rocks, Monaghan (three squares) (Daly & Barron, 2014); Tara Hill, Wexford (one square), Slieveanard, Tipperary (one square), Killeen and Black Rock, Limerick (two squares) and Carrigatubbrid and Tory Hill, Kilkenny (four squares) (Coillte Biodiversity Dataset); and Ballinlough, Waterford (two squares) (O’Neill et al., 2013a).
Favourable Reference Range (FRR) has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013a) to reflect the improved level of knowledge. The FRR is the current range, reported in section 4.1. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1949 when bog and heath relevés were recorded by Braun-Blanquet and Tüxen (data utilised in Perrin, 2017) and incorporates updates made by surveys between 1959 and 2017 that are listed in section 3.2.
Area was calculated from the polygon shapefile and point shapefile used for distribution. For each point record not intersecting a polygon that was yielding an area, 10 ha of habitat was estimated. This is a conservative expert opinion based on the logic that the 4030 habitat can cover substantial areas as this, along with wet heath (Annex I 4010 habitat), can form the landscape matrix in the uplands. Points within site boundaries of surveys carried out within the current reporting period, but not within 4030 habitat polygons, were examined individually, with ten excluded for area due to their proximity to 4030 polygons.
During the current reporting period 21 datasets with 4030 habitat recorded within them were utilised; two of these datasets were sites assessed for Area as part of the NSUH. The two NSUH sites (Caha Mountains SAC (000093) and Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185)) contain only 1.0% of the total area of 4030 habitat recorded in Ireland, thus limiting the conclusions that can be made.
The default trend periods are presented above and are used to calculate the magnitude of annual loss; however the data used for the short-term trend dated from 2005 to 2014, while those used for the long-term trend dated from 1995 to 2014. Approximately 0.09 ha of 4030 habitat, within the NSUH site Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185), was determined to be lost since 2005 mainly due to a landslide (Perrin et al., 2014a). In addition to this, J. Fossitt, Divisional Ecologist with NPWS, reported a loss of limestone pavement, calcareous heath and calcareous grassland from within the Ardaun Local Area Plan (LAP) lands, County Galway. In an ecological survey carried out by Natura (2012) for the purposes of the LAP, it was estimated that the area of calcareous grassland/heath was approximately 1 ha. As per J. Fossitt’s correspondence, this area was subsequently lost due to excavation and land reclamation sometime between 2012 and 2014. It is assumed for the purposes of this report that the calcareous heath mentioned is synonymous with the Annex I habitat 4030, with 1 ha taken as the maximum area of 4030 habitat lost. The total known area of 4030 habitat lost since 2005 is approximately 2.27 ha (1.09 ha from Perrin et al. (2014a) and J. Fossitt (pers. comm.) and an additional 1.18 ha as reported by previous NSUH surveys). The magnitude of the known loss is therefore approximately 0.0002% per annum, measured over a period of 12 years, but actual losses are likely to be significantly higher.
There were small reported gains in area (3.1 ha) since 1995 in the Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185) (Perrin et al. 2014a), Comeragh Mountains SAC (001952), Carlingford Mountain SAC (000453) and Croaghaun/Slievemore SAC (001955) due to succession (revegetation of bare ground), with 0.29 ha of this area gained since 2005 in the Comeragh Mountains SAC (001952). These gains were not enough to counteract losses on a national scale, however. Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing.
There has not been a comprehensive survey of this habitat in Ireland, with more detailed survey work of the 4030 habitat needed. It is expected that the area listed in section 5.2 will be refined as more in-depth mapping of the 4030 habitat is completed. In particular, any area represented within the dataset by only a point needs to be surveyed in more detail. In addition to refining the areas of 4030 habitat currently known, there are probably still areas of unmapped 4030 habitat within the country, particularly outside designated sites. The NSUH is currently incomplete and more examples of the 4030 habitat are likely to be found. The area value entered is therefore a minimum.
Favourable Reference Area is deemed to be more than the current area, but less than 10% more, given that anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force. Based on all NSUH sites surveyed to date, there has been a loss of 12.8 ha of 4030 habitat since 1995 (0.01% of the total). It should be noted that only one of the 16 sites surveyed through the NSUH is not an SAC. Losses of 4030 habitat due to impacts such as scrub encroachment, inappropriate burning, afforestation and agricultural reclamation and intensification outside of the SACs are likely to be significantly higher.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is largely due to the availability of more accurate knowledge of the area of habitat 4030, resulting in the refinement of some area estimates from the last reporting period. The majority of this refinement occurred within the Caha Mountains SAC (000093), Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185) in Counties Cork and Kerry and in the Blackstairs Mountains in Counties Carlow and Wexford; however there were also refinements made in other parts of the country. Collectively 103.60 km2 of 4030 habitat mapped in the last reporting period was replaced by 83.41 km2 of 4030 habitat in this reporting period, resulting in a net reduction of 20.19 km2. Additional surveys in this reporting period resulted in the addition of 155.98 km2 of 4030 habitat which was previously unmapped. This refinement along with the documented loss in area of 0.01 km2 from the Ardaun LAP lands, Co. Galway, in this reporting period resulted in an area of 1,230.01 km2 of 4030 habitat ((1,094.223 – 20.19) + 155.984 – 0.01 = 1,230.01 km2). ||
->HabCondition: The NSUH (Perrin et al., 2014c) assessed Structure and functions at a monitoring stop level, using criteria to assess vegetation composition (including typical species), vegetation structure and physical structure; all criteria needed to be passed for a stop to pass. Criteria were adapted from the UK’s Common Standards Monitoring (JNCC 2009) using expert judgement. The NSUH primarily assessed SACs and is currently incomplete in that habitat mapping and baseline plot data are still required for many upland areas. Where NSUH sites include commonage land, comparisons were made between NSUH and commonage station data with respect to a few shared parameters (area of bare peat, cover and height of Calluna vulgaris, and sward height).
A total of 16 monitoring stops were recorded across the two NSUH sites surveyed within this reporting period. Five of the 15 stops (33.3% of stops) failed one or more of the criteria assessing the vegetation composition, vegetation structure and physical structure of 4030, with the following criteria having the highest failure rates: ‘no signs of burning within sensitive areas in local vicinity’ (20%); ‘all growth phases of Calluna vulgaris throughout the local vicinity’ (20%); ‘cover of Pteridium aquilinum’ (13.3%); ‘number of positive species present’ (13.3%); and ‘cover of non-native species in relevé’ (13.3%) and ‘cover of non-native species in local vicinity’ (13.3%). For full details see the NSUH site reports (Perrin et al., 2014a, 2014b).
Three of the seven stops recorded in 4030 habitat in Galway County Council (2017) failed the Structure and functions assessment. The criteria used were different from those described by Perrin et al. (2014c), with criteria including ‘number of positive indicator species ≥ 7’; ‘cover of herbaceous negative indicator species ≤ 10%’; ‘cover of non-native species ≤ 1%’; ‘cover of trees and scrub (excluding Juniperus communis) ≤ 25%’; and ‘cover of disturbed bare ground (not including rocks/stones) ≤ 10%’. Those assessing ‘cover of positive indicator species’ (28.6%) and ‘cover of trees and scrub (excluding Juniperus communis)’ (28.6%) had the highest failure rates.
Twenty-three of the 33 stops from Tubridy et al. (2015) failed the Structure and functions assessment. Their assessment criteria largely followed the criteria as described in the NSUH (Perrin et al., 2014c), however they used a cut-off threshold of ≥2 for ‘number of bryophyte or non-crustose lichen species present’ (as opposed to ≥3 in NSUH), 25-75% for ‘cover of positive indicator species for species-rich heaths’ (as opposed to 50-75% for calcareous heaths), ≥60% for ‘cover of positive indicator species for other heath’ (as opposed to ≥50% for siliceous heaths’) and added the criterion of ‘≥25% cover for indicator dwarf shrubs’ (as opposed to ‘proportion of dwarf shrub cover composed of Myrica gale, Salix repens, Ulex gallii collectively <50%’ in addition to ‘area of bare peat (with or without evidence of trampling) <10%’. For full details see supporting documentation (‘condition assessment of annex habitats in the SAC.xlsx’) for Tubridy et al. (2015). The criteria assessing ‘no signs of burning within sensitive areas in local vicinity’ (36.4%) and ‘cover of Pteridium aquilinum’ (33.3%) had the highest failure rates.
Of the area of 4030 habitat (~33.84 km2) assessed for Structure and functions within this reporting period, 44.6% of the area was assessed as being in good condition (Favourable). Equal weighting was given to each of the stops as each one assesses a comparable area of habitat. The proportion in good (44.6%) and not-good condition (55.4%) was scaled up to the national estimate (549.11 km2 in good condition and 680.90 km2 in not-good condition); however, as the area assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period only represents 2.8% of the national area of habitat 4030, data from the last reporting period were also utilised.
During the last reporting period 69.7% of the 4030 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013a). This equates to 857.28 km2 of the current area of 4030 habitat and this figure is used as the maximum area in good condition. 30.3% of the 4030 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS, 2013a). This equates to 372.73 km2 of the current area of 4030 habitat and this figure is used as the minimum area that is not in good condition.
The most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment in the last reporting period were ‘cover of positive indicator species for calcareous heaths’, ‘browsing of ericoids and Empetrum nigrum collectively’ and ‘all growth phases of Calluna vulgaris throughout the local vicinity’ (NPWS, 2013a).
The default short-term trend period is presented above; however the data used for the short-term trend dated from 2007 to 2016. Based on limited data, conclusions could be made that the area in good condition has declined; however, as this is based mainly on data from one part of the country (southwest Ireland: Cork and Kerry) with a poor national sample size, the trend was taken as stable based on expert opinion.
Short-term trend of Structure and functions in the previous reporting period was assessed as ‘improving’ due to the expectation that the reduced grazing brought about by the Commonage Framework Plans (CFPs) after 1998 would have a positive effect on overgrazed areas of 4030 habitat. While there are still gradual improvements (recovery) of 4030 habitat in areas on many commonages and SACs, recovery in other areas is being retarded by grazing and/or uncontrolled burning.
As with the Area assessment, it should be noted that only one of the 16 sites surveyed through the NSUH is not an SAC. The area of 4030 habitat in good condition outside the SACs is likely to be significantly lower due to activities such as afforestation, land reclamation and also uncontrolled burning. There was no evidence from the NSUH sites surveyed in the previous reporting period, or from this reporting period, that A10 (undergrazing) was a pressure.
Typical indicator species from the NSUH for 4030 habitat are: Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Calluna vulgaris, Daboecia cantabrica, Empetrum nigrum, Erica cinerea, Ulex gallii, Vaccinium myrtillus and Vaccinium vitis-idaea.
Typical indicator species from Galway County Council (2017) for 4030 habitat are: Breutelia chrysocoma, Calluna vulgaris, Campanula rotundifolia, Carex flacca, Carex pulicaris, Dicranum scoparium, Erica cinerea, Festuca ovina, Festuca rubra, Galium verum, Hypericum pulchrum, Lotus corniculatus, Molinia caerulea, Potentilla erecta, Scleropodium purum, Sesleria caerulea, Succisa pratensis and Thymus polytrichus.
Typical indicator species from Tubridy et al. (2015) for 4030 habitat were not listed. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as stable.
Current range is equal to Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as stable, as no change in range is expected within the next two reporting periods based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place. It is likely that Range (and Area) will decline in the longer term due to the threat of climate change.
Future prospects of Range are therefore good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as decreasing.
Current area less than the Favourable Reference Area (< 10% below FRA).
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Area is assessed as negative, as the threats of A09, B01 and D01 in particular are expected to have a negative influence on Area, especially for areas of 4030 habitat outside SACs, even with the conservation measures CA03 and CB01 in place.
Future prospects of Area are therefore poor.

Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is stable for habitat that is in good condition.
Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable as <90% of habitat is in good condition. A maximum estimate of 55.4% of 4030 habitat is in bad condition which equates to Unfavourable-Bad Structure and functions.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as stable, as although the threats of A09 and A11 are expected to have a negative influence on Structure and functions, their presence is not expected to change the overall status of Structure and functions within the next 12 years. Where the conservation measures CA03 and CA05 occur they would be expected to balance the threats, however it should be noted that these are not implemented across the national distribution of the habitat, nor are they specifically targeted measures for the 4030 habitat.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore bad. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range is Favourable in this reporting period, as it was in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Area is Unfavourable-inadequate in this reporting period, as it was in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Bad in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, as it was during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Bad during the current reporting period was due to <25% of the area of 4030 habitat being assessed as having Favourable Structure and functions.
Trend in Overall Conservation Status was assessed as stable in this reporting period. There have been recorded losses of area within the current reporting period and within the last reporting period (approx. 0.001% per annum since 1994), resulting in the short-term trend for Area to be recorded as decreasing. In the last reporting period the decreasing trend of Area was offset by an increasing trend in Structure and functions, which resulted in the trend in Overall Conservation Status being assessed as stable. Although the Structure and functions short-term trend was assessed as stable for this reporting period, the decreasing trend in Area was considered too small to trigger an overall deteriorating trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: The declining trend in Area, estimated to be c 0.001% per annum since 1994, is considered too small to trigger a deteriorating trend in the Overall status. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The 6 years ago reported range is incorrect and should be 16900; therefore the range is increasing, but less than 10%.
Distribution map is based on vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites and relevé data in- and outside Natura 2000-sites over a period of 12 years. Some vegetation maps still contain uncertainties and relevé data may have gaps, but we assume that total distribution is well covered for 90% or more. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends. Favourable Reference Values are based on Bijlsma et al. (2014), WOt report 125. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS. Overall NDFF-score U1 and positive trend is overruled because 1) TS score U2 and 2) four characteristic species show long term negative trend in distribution and 3) charactistic fauna was not included in the NDFF-analysis. S&F trend therefore unknown. ||
->Future: Threats will result in loss of area and even range in the fragmented margin of the range (due to Molinia encroachment and succession). Nutrient imbalances due to acidification and high nitrogen load will increase. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data; a formula with 75%/25%-thresholds is used for conservation status of Structure & Function and Typical species. ||
->Other: Report by Rienk-Jan Bijlsma (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Very negative - important deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; and (ii) the current Area is approximately equal tothe Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - stable, and Structure and functions - increasing. If the very negative future trend in Structure and functions is also taken into account, the Overall trend would be stable.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Structure and functions trend has changed from decreasing in to increasing, and because of the removal of the Future prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report