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: 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: A very limited number of plots (grasslands) were surveyed
during the summer 2018 and on 13 grasslands no had
disappeared, but 4 ones were abandoned with high
Filipendula/Phalaris stands, 4 were abandoned with schrubs and
young trees, one has been drained (old drains "cleaned out")
and one has been transformed in highly grazed grassland). ||
->HabCondition: A very limited number of plots (grasslands) were surveyed during the summer
2018 and on 13 grasslands no had disappeared, but 4 ones were abandoned with
high Filipendula/Phalaris stands, 4 were abandoned with schrubs and young
trees, one has been drained (old drains "cleaned out") and one has been
transformed in highly grazed grassland). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The habitat has become very rare and the distribution very patchy. It seems to
be completely absent from the Condroz ecological region.

Open Original Report  

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: Situation im Süden des Verbreitungsgebiets U1. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Situation im Süden des Verbreitungsgebiets U1. ||
->Conclusion: Situation im Süden des Verbreitungsgebiets U1. ||
->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: 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: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->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: The indicated difference in surface area since the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018) and genuine change.
The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction are based on a monitoring program (random sample) outside woodlands (data from 2016 - 2018, ongoing).
During the initial survey (2007 - 2012), 8,21 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 31% of this area was monitored from 2016 - 2018 showing an decrease of roughly 1% of this habitat type. Additional 2,28 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas (0% in good condition).
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the negative trend determined within the random sample and the area within the 67% surveyed forests. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original, not monitored area plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100% plus the monitored area. ||
->HabCondition: Data concerning habitat condition are based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 31% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
76% of the originally surveyed area, 67% of the monitored area and 0% of the area found within wooded areas were in good condition.
Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: During the initial survey, 76% of this habitat type were in good condition. 31% of this area was monitored from 2016 - 2018 showing an decrease of roughly 1% of the area of this habitat type. 67% of the remaining monitored area was evaluated as being in good condition.
Additional 2,28 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas (0% in good condition). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Brak zmian w porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu w rozmieszczeniu, ale powierzchnia zasięgu siedliska zmniejszyła się z 219 208 do 182 200 km2 w wyniku zmiany sposobu jej obliczania.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Wg bazy GDOŚ na obszarach Natura 2000 siedlisko zajmuje ok. 200 km2 (19 609 ha). Jednak z pewnością jest to wartość przeszacowana, ponieważ w sporej części składają się na nią dane z SDF, w których areał siedliska obliczano jako % powierzchni ostoi, co w przypadku siedlisk małopowierzchniowych prowadziło do znacznego zawyżania wartości. Potwierdziła to weryfikacja danych dla tych obszarów, które mają dostępne w internecie PZO, np. Dolina Dolnej Tanwi (104 ha, a nie 452 ha), Dolina Dolnej Pilicy (28 ha, a nie 318 ha), Dolina Biebrzy (462 ha, a nie 3 000 ha). Jednak łąki trzęślicowe występują również poza siecią Natura 2000, z reguły w postaci niewielkich płatów. Z powyższych względów przyjęto, że siedlisko zajmuje w regionie w przybliżeniu około 200 km2.
W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnia siedliska była nieznana, a krótkoterminowy trend jej zmiany – spadkowy, zaznaczono jednak, że ubytek powierzchni nie jest bardzo znaczący. Porównując wyniki PMŚ z lat 2010-2011 oraz 2017-2018 można zauważyć, że w tym okresie powierzchnia nie zmniejszyła się; oceny parametru nawet się nieco poprawiły, dlatego przyjęto, że krótkoterminowy trend zmian jest stabilny. ||
->HabCondition: Udział powierzchni siedliska w różnym stanie zachowania oszacowano na podstawie wyników PMŚ, prowadzonego na 106 stanowiskach, dość równomiernie rozmieszczonych w całym regionie, dzięki czemu powinny dobrze oddawać stan siedliska i jego zmiany.
Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: W ocenie stanu ochrony siedliska opierano się na danych PMŚ. Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->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: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The total area of semi-natural grasslands across all biogeographical regions was estimated based on data from the RT inventory (a national inventory with a random sampling design; SLU 2018b., H. Gardfjell1, https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). The estimate varies among years and here we used the mean of five estimates calculated from yearly sampling data 2013-2017 (H. Gardfjell, unpublished data) to approximate total grazed semi-natural grassland cover in Sweden. The mean was 3323km2 (yearly estimates varied from 3123 to 3635 km2). It can be assumed that the semi-natural habitat classification in the RT inventory covers the habitat types 1330, 1630, 4010, 4030, 5130, 6120, 6210, 6230, 6270, 6280, 6410, 6450, and 9070 that all are primarily managed by grazing (H. Gardfjell, personal communication). Since area estimates were assessed with data from other sources for all but four of these habitat types (i.e. 4030, 6210 in ALP and BOR, 6230, and 6410), the total area of the four remaining grazed semi-natural grassland habitat types was calculated by subtracting the estimated areas of the already assessed habitat types (i.e. 1330, 1630, 4010, 5130, 6120, 6210 in CON, 6270, 6280, 6450, and 9070) from the total 3323 km2. The difference (471 km2) was distributed among 4030, 6210, 6230, and 6410 based on their relative extent (in % per biogeographic region) as recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases (Naturanaturtypskartan NNK 2018, Jordbruksverket 2018). The resulting area estimates are uncertain given the uncertainty of the total area estimate extracted from the RT inventory and all assumptions behind the subsequent calculations.

The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

The assessment of a negative trend is for most grassland habitat types supported by data that indicate a continuous abandonment of semi-natural grasslands over the last few decades (e.g. Eriksson & Cousins 2014, Borgegård 2015, Cousins et al. 2015, Wallander & Karlsson 2015, Hägglund et al. 2017, Oja 2018, Spörndly & Glimskär 2018, Tyler et al. 2018, Waldén 2018, Anna Nordberg, unpublished data, Hans Gardfjell, unpublished data). ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of one H-ranked and four M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and two threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report