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: A complete nationwide mapping of type 1160 have been conducted in 2018 adding new areas compared to the former reporting. For the Marine Ranges, we used the Danish cost line to exclude that part of the area that was placed on land in order to only get the marine part of the range. Some of the difference in range from last periode is due to a new coastline maps used.The short and long term increase in area do not reflect that more bays and inlets are present but just the fact that a complete mapping is done. ||
->Coverage: A complete mapping of bays and inlets have made it possible to give a robust estimate of the areal of those habitats in Danish waters and not just in Natura 2000 areas. The short and long term increase in area do not reflect that more bays and inlets are present but just the fact that a complete mapping is done. ||
->HabCondition: Evaluation made based on DKI fauna indeks, information on eel grass depth distribution and macroalgae vegetation cover. Supported by information on oxygen deficiency and clorophyl and planned further reduction in nutrient load to coastal waters. ||
->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: Range was estimated based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling.
The change in range since the last reporting period is due to improved knowledge/more accurate data relating to the distribution of the habitat.
FRR was considered to be the same as the current range as there is no evidence of decline since the Directive came into force. Due to the physical nature of this habitat change in range is considered highly unlikely. ||
->Coverage: GIS mapping of Large shallow inlets and bays was primarily achieved by reference to a dataset generated by the Environmental Protection Agency in fulfilment of the Water Framework Directive requirement of identifying transitional and coastal water bodies. This dataset was generated by reference to salinity values and was digitised from the open coast by prominence of enclosing headlands. This data was cross-referenced against the high and low water marks/vectors delineated by the Ordnance Survey of Ireland (OSI) Discovery Series (1:50,000). This was supplemented with reference and verification from the aerial ortho-photography data set, where appropriate, published by OSI in 2005.
Minor change to the area of Large shallow inlets and bays due to erosion of soft sediment features, e.g. sand spits, is possible and has occurred at one location in the south-west of Ireland. However, the resulting change has altered the form rather than reduced the area of the habitat in this instance. The current distribution includes areas that were omitted in error from the distribution in the previous reporting period. This does not represent a genuine increase in area. ||
->HabCondition: 1,690 km2 of the total resource of 4,768 km2 of Large shallow inlets and bays within fourteen Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) around the coast of Ireland were surveyed to assess Structure and functions of this habitat during the current reporting period (Scally et al., in prep.). This represents 35% of the total national resource of this habitat and it was deemed to be representative of the national resource.
The site-based conservation assessment was Unfavourable-Bad at eight sites (Kenmare River SAC, Valentia Harbour/Portmagee Channel SAC, Mulroy Bay SAC, Clew Bay Complex SAC, Broadhaven Bay SAC, Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex SAC, Kingstown Bay SAC and Roaringwater Bay SAC). This amounted to 88,037ha or 52% of the area surveyed and 57% of the sites sampled.
One site, Kilkieran Bay and Islands SAC, was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate, representing 18,760ha or 11% of the area sampled. Four sites (West of Ardara/Mass Road SAC, Galway Bay Complex SAC, Tralee Bay and Magharees Peninsula, West to Cloghane SAC and Lower River Shannon SAC) were assessed as Favourable. This represents 62,169ha or 37% of the area sampled.
Therefore Structure and functions have been assessed as Unfavourable-Bad for this habitat.
During the most recent monitoring project (Scally et al., in prep.), subtidal soft sediments were sampled using a 0.1m2 Day grab from three stations within each of the MCTs described and mapped for a site. Multivariate analysis in Primer version 7 was subsequently used to assess the frequency of species and to aid the identification of community complexes and changes in benthic communities between the present and previous reporting period.
Keystone species (maërl, eelgrass, Pachycerianthus multiplicatus and Serpula vermicularis) were surveyed using spatially encoded dropdown video transects across previously mapped areas of these communities. The video imagery derived from these surveys was reviewed by examining the video footage in ESRI ArcGIS Full Motion Video® as an overlay on the previously mapped areas of these marine communities. This provided a method to calculate the current extent of the area occupied by these species and their associated communities and to calculate change, should it have occurred, since the last reporting period. It also provided the method by which to assess the health, presence of negative indicators, e.g. invasive alien species, opportunistic species and other pressures on these communities.
Assessment of the Structure and functions of Limaria hians and Edwardsia delapiae communities was conducted by diver survey within previously mapped locations for these species and their associated communities. Species abundance was recorded on a SACFOR scale and characterising features ware noted and photographed. The presence of negative indicators was also recorded.
The principal reason for the failure of the habitat to meet Favourable Conservation Status in the majority of SACs was the loss of eelgrass beds (Zostera marina in particular); this occurred in seven SACs (Kenmare River SAC, Valentia Harbour/Portmagee Channel SAC, Mulroy Bay SAC, Clew Bay Complex SAC, Broadhaven Bay SAC, Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex SAC and Kingstown Bay SAC). This ranged from a gross negative change in abundance to a total loss of an area of eelgrass. A change in the sediment composition was also a significant contributing factor to a negative assessment of this habitat. Within the fourteen SACs assessed, three recorded a negative assessment for this indicator. In each of these cases an increase in the proportion of fine grain size classes was recorded.
The loss of 23.99% of the very vulnerable Edwardsia delapiae-associated community was a factor in the negative assessment for one SAC (Valentia Harbour/Portmagee Channel SAC) and the damage to 8.54km2 or 100% of the keystone community Serpula vermicularis-associated community for the negative assessment in another (Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex SAC). ||
->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 as the physical and geological nature of the habitat makes a change in range unrealistic.
Future prospects of Range are therefore good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as stable.
The potential for a significant change (increase or decrease) in the area is considered highly unlikely in the medium term.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Area is assessed as stable, as no change in area is expected based on the current threats, conservation measures and the physical structure of the habitat.
Future prospects of Area are therefore good.

Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable-Bad.
Significant losses in the area of eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) have been recorded since the last reporting period. The health of eelgrass appears to be compromised by the presence of epiphytic algae. The invasive alien species) Sargassum muticum has become established within the majority of Large shallow inlets and bays. The biogenic reef formed by Serpula vermicularis has been destroyed in Blacksod Bay, Co. Mayo. A significant proportion of the habitat for the rare anemone Edwardsia delapiae has been lost in Valentia Harbour/Portmagee Channel SAC. Changes in benthic sediment composition have been recorded within a number of bays.
Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is decreasing.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Bad. ||
->Conclusion: 1,690 km2 of the total resource of 4,768 km2 of Large shallow inlets and bays within fourteen Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) around the coast of Ireland were surveyed to assess Structure and functions of this habitat during the current reporting period (Scally et al., in prep.). This represents 35% of the total national resource for this habitat.
Eight of the fourteen sites surveyed (57%) and 52% of the area sampled was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad. The conservation status of Large shallow inlets and bays has been therefore assessed as Unfavourable-Bad.
A change in sediment composition, resulting in an increased proportion of fine grain size class, was recorded at three of the SACs surveyed. An increase in fines within a sediment is considered an indicator of increased sedimentation.
Significant changes were documented in the areas previously recorded for eelgrass beds between 2005 and 2009. In some SACs the loss of entire eelgrass beds was recorded in a number of places (Mulroy Bay SAC, Valentia Harbour/Portmagee Channel SAC, Clew Bay Complex SAC and Mullet/ Blacksod Bay Complex SAC). In these and other SACs a significant decrease in the abundance of eelgrass within a bed from the previous baseline survey was also recorded. An increase in negative indicators, e.g. epiphytic algal cover on eelgrass leaves, the presence of opportunistic species and invasive alien species, was also recorded in many of the eelgrass beds surveyed. Eelgrass beds are considered sensitive subtidal communities and pressures are likely to be noted in these communities prior to more resilient communities.
The Serpula vermicularis-dominated community complex in Blacksod Bay, which had previously (2008 survey) been shown to be comprised of large aggregations of biogenic reef formed by Serpula vermicularis, now consists of broken tubes of Serpula vermicularis. Very few living aggregations are still present and the total habitat area of this MCT has been negatively impacted. The cause of this impact is physical damage due to benthic dredging. Physical damage to maërl thalli was also observed in the maërl beds adjacent to the Serpula vermicularis-dominated community complex.
Significant negative impacts were recorded in the maërl community within Roaringwater Bay SAC. Here pseudofaeces deposition and/or extensive algal cover over the maërl beds, including the rare Lithothamnion dentatum, were recorded in the vicinity of mussel longlines. The opportunistic ascidian Ascidiella aspersa was also recorded as “dominant” within the maërl beds in the immediate vicinity of the mussel longlines.
A total of 0.29ha or 23.99% of the total known national resource of the marine community type for the rare burrowing worm anemone Edwardsia delapiae within Valentia Harbour/Portmagee channel SAC has been lost. This has resulted from the indirect impact of the construction of a floating breakwater over this MCT leading to a negative change in the sediment requirements for this species.
Minor increases in the habitat for Pachycerianthus multiplicatus were recorded in Kenmare River SAC and Kilkieran Bay and Islands SAC. However these increases are considered to be the result of increased survey effort rather than an increase in species distribution. No significant increase in the extent of the area of other keystone species was recorded. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution map based on habitat maps of the coastal region. For marine habitats 1110 to 1170 both the delivered maps and reported range are based upon data in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data available, but the area has been enlarged by connecting the formerly endiked area "Rammegors" ||
->HabCondition: The trend is negative, because of ongoing erosion of mud flats and salt marshes. ||
->Future: No measures are foreseen in the near future to solve the problem of erosion of mud flats and salt marshes ||
->Conclusion: More than 25% of the area is unfavourable as regards its specific structures and functioning ||
->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 Tom Ysebaert (WMR)

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 favourable reference range is expected to be the same as the current value and the trend stable. The same data on national occurrence is used as in the last reporting period, updated with the new data from Nature 2000 areas (NNK). The changes in NNK data are very small and therefore no changes are expected on biogeographical level. However, the new range tool calculate the range differently and the national boarders used in the tool are slightly different from last reporting resulting in new numbers of range. ||
->Coverage: Favourable reference area is set to be the same as current value and the trend as stable. There is no change in surface area from last reporting and the trend is set to stable as there are no indication of habitat loss. ||
->HabCondition: Some of the typical species fish is targeted by the national monitoring of commercial fish species (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2018). Among the typical species for the large shallow inlets and bays MATL are the populations of Anguilla anguilla, Gadus morhua, Platichthys flesus, Pleuronectes platessa, Salmo trutta and Scophthalmus maximus evaluated. The population of A. anguilla is not sustainable managed which is complicated by reduced recruiting capacity. The population of the commercial P. flesus and P. platessa are reported to be stable and the same for S. maximus even if the population is considered to be just some percentage of its size in the beginning of the 20th century (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2018). The situation differs between the G. morhua populations where the offshore populations seems to slowly recover, but the recovery of the genetically distinct inshore spawning populations are even slower and their future status is in some cases still uncertain. The information on Salmon trutta are limited due to lack of knowledge, but the population is considered as stable after measures been taken for decreasing different pressures on the species in other habitats (e.g. facilitating river migration).
Also Mytilus edulis and Ostrea edulis are considered as commercial but are not monitored. M edulis, the blue mussel, is common, but there has been multiply reports of large scale disappearances of adult blue mussels within the area along the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish coast during the last reporting periods (Andersen et al. 2016). The reason is not fully understood, but some suggestions that have been suggested are changes in the climate (water temperature increase and acidification); changes in the food web structure and its interactions; competition (invasive species e.g. Crassostrea gigas); predation; genetic drift or pathogens (Mortensen & Strohmeier, 2018). So far none of these suggestions has been able to explain the whole pattern of the disappearances, so it could be a mix or something completely different that is causing the changes in the blue mussel distribution. A contributing factor for the difficulties in diagnosing the cause is the deficiency of background information. However, the mussels are not found at many places where it used to be. The O edulis is also considered to be impacted, at least locally, by the invasive C gigas (Åsa Strand pers. com.) However, the O edulis is known to have high abundance variation due to its distribution range. There is a lack of knowledge considering both the cause and process of the lost blue mussels and also the ecological consequences for the habitat of this the alarming event has yet not been evaluated, which is highly unsatisfactory and it is urgent to bridge the knowledge gaps and identify possible measures.

There are several studies that indicate that the loss in large carnivorous fish populations (e.g. cod, but also pike and perch and pikeperch) within Swedish marine waters have significant impact on the ecological status of coastal ecosystems. The cause of the loss has primarily been the fishing pressure. For cod along the Swedish West Coast has the commercial fishing being contributed with the largest pressure both offshore and in inshore areas. Regulations for restricting the fishing pressure has been implemented, but the populations have still not recovered for uncertain reasons, why ecological regime shifts and/or high predation pressure has been suggested but more knowledge are needed (Aarts et al).

The national monitoring of fish health status (Mustamääki et al, 2018) with long time series (1992-2017) on Zoarces viviparous health indicators from the Fjällbacka area, considered as a low impacted reference area, reveals significant increase in EROD and GR activity this together with affected metabolism, lower fat content in muscle (lower bodyweight and condition) and an elevated rate of dead juveniles in females do clearly indicate an overall negative trend in health status. The cause of this deteriorating status is still unclear but the unknown contaminants has been suggested. The status of the health of Z. viviparous can probably be considered as an indication on current fish health along the Swedish West coast, but more knowledge is preferable.
The trends for typical species bird are disparate. While the annual average have been increasing during the period of 1998-2017 for Sterna hirundo (2.2%) both Sterna paradisaea and Tadorna tadorna has decreased around 2% yearly for the same period. Cygnus olor are stable (Svensk fågeltaxering 2018, Gren et al. 2018).
Three of the habitats typical species are red listed Lamprothamnium papulosum (EN decreasing habitat area and quality), Anguilla anguilla (CR) and Gadus morhua (VU) (ArtDatabanken 2015).

The analysis of the physical disturbances during the reporting period (Törnqvist et al. In prep; Törnqvist personal com/PM.), show that 30 % of the area of the large shallow inlets and bays in the marine Atlantic region is significantly or highly effected by physical disturbances (e.g. exploitation, dredging, swelling etc.). This if only considering the e two highest classes of disturbance within the analysis; class 3 (significant) and class 4 (high). The choice of using only the highest classes of disturbance is due to the need for further analysis on the actual impact on habitat biota from the specific pressures (Näslund and Nyström Sandman. Pers. com (PM)). If all three classes indicating some or higher disturbances, 40 % of the habitat area are affected. No matter which the analysis indicate that an large area of the habitat are modified and disturbed within the reporting period and that impact on ecosystem functions is high. No bottom trawling is occurring in the habitat.

Due to implemented measures for decreasing the pressure of the anthropogenic nutrient load to marine waters the inshore coastal water quality indicates improvement and is considered to be of high (Skagerrak) or moderate status (Kattegat) along the Swedish west coast. Some water parameters (e.g. DIN, tot-N, chlorophyll, water transparency) indicates also improving trends while others just are stable (DIP, tot-P) (WISS 2018; Havsmiljöinstitutet, 2016). The trend for the temperature is increasing while salinity is stable (Havsmiljöinstitutet, 2016). The overall trend for water quality for the inshore coastal Skagerrak and Kattegat is a slight improvement. The impact from local residential load can however be considerable in shallow coastal areas (Ejhed et al 2017)

The shortage of carnivorous fish and its implications for especially shallow habitats may cause trophic cascades and ecological regime shifts making it difficult for the fish populations to recover, however more knowledge are needed. ||
->Future: The future prospects of structure and functions for 1160 MATL is set as: Bad
The assessment is set due to the continuous high pressure of physical disturbances (coastal modification e.g. exploitation, dredging) and the high threat from the significant decrease in Mytilus edulis, but also the medium pressure from agricultural, residential or recreational activities generating nutrient load and pollution, the disturbance from sport and leisure activities, and the shortage of carnivorous fish caused by recreational and commercial harvesting of marine species. ||
->Conclusion: Despite initiative taken for the development of monitoring methods (e.g. visual monitoring with underwater video; fish recruitment; physical disturbance) and a program for biogeographical data collection it has, except for the physical disturbance, so far not been implemented. No monitoring data except for the analysis of physical disturbances has therefore been biogeographically generated within the large shallow inlets and bays 1160 in MATL. Therefore the conservation status of the structures and functions has been set mainly by expert assessment and extrapolation based on a limited amount of data.

Overall assessment:
- The condition of habitat is assessed mainly on extrapolation from a limited amount of data.
- The condition of habitat has not been classified by the county boards.
- The short-term trend of habitat condition is set as: stable
- The condition status of habitat structure and functions is set as: Bad U2
- The assessment is set due to the condition of the typical species their population status and development and their health condition as indicators on the ecological condition of the habitat. The assessment is also set in line with habitat quality conditions. The assessment for the quality of large shallow inlets and bays 1160 MATL is due to the large area being significantly or highly physically disturbed despite the improvement seen on water quality parameters due to measures implemented. The assessment for the trend is in line with the worrying unknown pressures impacting blue mussels, fish health but also due to the slow and potentially non-existing recovery of some coastal cod populations.
-The future prospects of structure and functions for 1160 MATL is set as: Bad
The assessment is set due to the continuous high pressure of physical disturbances (coastal modification e.g. exploitation, dredging) and the high threat from the significant decrease in Mytilus edulis, but also the medium pressure from agricultural, residential or recreational activities generating nutrient load and pollution, the disturbance from sport and leisure activities, and the shortage of carnivorous fish caused by recreational and commercial harvesting of marine species.
-In comparison with last reporting there is a change in the guidelines for the Conservation Status assessment according the definition and assessment of pressures and threats, which have had significant impact on the assessment. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 4.1-Large shallow inlets and bays are physiographic features and so their range is determined primarily by geomorphological and hydrographic processes occurring over long time-scales and is not related to biological communities or processes supported by communities. Therefore, the range was considered equivalent to the surface area of the habitat.
4.3-Large shallow inlets and bays are physiographic features and so their range is determined primarily by geomorphological and hydrographic processes occurring over geological time-scales and is not related to biological communities or processes supported by communities. The trend is thought to be stable. While the surface area of some of these individual habitats may have declined due to localised pressures, the geographic spread and distribution of features is not thought to have been reduced.
4.11-As a result of improved mapping of the habitat, the surface area of range in UK Large shallow inlets and bays is smaller than the figure that was reported in 2013.
Further details on the approach taken in this section are provided on the JNCC website in the 2019 UK Approach Document. ||
->Coverage: 5.1-The data sources used to produce this map ranged from 1994 to 2018.
5.4-The 2013 UK Article 17 surface area data for Annex I Large shallow inlets and bays was revised at a UK level by the JNCC following updates submitted by the UK Country Agencies. For further details see JNCC website (JNCC 2018a).
5.6-Expert judgement was used to determine the short-term trend at the UK-level. The surface area of the feature is thought to be stable in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. A very small decrease has been identified in England.
5.14-As a result of improved mapping of the habitat, the surface area of UK Large shallow inlets is smaller than the figure that was reported in 2013.
For further details on the approaches taken in this section please refer to the JNCC website for the 2019 UK Approach Document. ||
->HabCondition: 6.1-The area of habitat in 'good' (favourable) 'not good (unfavourable) and unknown condition was assessed in each of the four countries and the results were summed. 22% of the habitat is thought to be in unfavourable (not good) condition, 59% of the habitat is thought to be in favourable (good condition) and 20% of the habitat is in unknown condition. The structure and functions conservation status is, therefore, unfavourable-inadequate.
The overall UK short-term trend for structure and functions has been identified as stable. The parameter conservation status was unfavourable-bad in 2013. The change in status is thought to be due to a change in methods as data sources used to determine condition may have changed between reporting years. It should be noted that if some of the area (>3% of the total area) in unknown condition were deemed to be in unfavourable 'not good' condition, this would result in an unfavourable-bad conclusion for this parameter.
6.4-The short-term trend of habitat in good condition was assessed by the four countries and the results were aggregated (see 2019 UK Approach Document). The overall UK short-term trend is thought to be stable compared with 2013 when the trend was declining. This is because the majority of the resource was assessed as stable. There were no notable deteriorations in assessed Scottish SACs and existing management measures in Northern Ireland are thought to be mitigating against pressures within assessed SACs.
For details on the approaches taken in this section please refer to the JNCC website for the 2019 UK Approach Document and the country-level reporting information. ||
->Future: Future trends for each parameter were selected by the four countries and then aggregated to give a future trend for the UK (see 2019 UK Approach Document). Table 32 in the EU Guidelines was used to bring the future trend and conservation status of each parameter together to conclude on future prospects.
9.1a) Future prospects are good because the future trend for range is thought to be stable and the conservation status for range is favourable. Future prospects were also good in 2013.
9.1b) Future prospects are good because the future trend for area is thought to be stable and the conservation status for area is favourable. Future prospects were also good in 2013.
9.1c) The future trend for structure and functions is thought to be positive and the conservation status for structure and functions is unfavourable-inadequate. This results in poor prospects for the parameter. Prospects were bad in 2013, however, the condition of the habitat is predicted to improve in Scotland, which has led to an improvement in the prospects of the parameter.
For further details on approaches taken in this section please refer to the JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach Document and relevant country-level reporting information. ||
->Conclusion: 10.1-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.
10.2-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 to the Favourable Reference Area.
10.3-Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that between c.5-25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition. 22% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition, 59% of the habitat is in favourable (good) condition, 20% of the habitat is in unknown condition. It should be noted that if some of the area (>3% of the total area) in unknown condition were deemed to be in unfavourable 'not good' condition, this would result in an unfavourable-bad conclusion for this parameter.
The structure and functions conclusion has changed from bad (2013) to inadequate. The change in status is thought to be due to a change in methods as data sources used to determine condition may have changed between reporting years.
10.4-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 poor .
The Future prospects have improved for this habitat with Scotland predicting an improvement in condition in the next two reporting cycles. The Future prospects conclusion has changed from bad (2013) to inadequate.
10.5-Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because one or more of the conclusions are Unfavourable-inadequate.
10.6-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-stable.
10.7-The overall assessment of Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019. The Future prospects have improved for this habitat with Scotland predicting an improvement in condition in the next two reporting cycles. The Future prospects conclusion has changed from bad (2013) to inadequate.
The structure and functions conclusion has also changed from bad (2013) to inadequate. The change in status is thought to be due to a change in methods as data sources used to determine condition may have changed between reporting years. It should be noted that if some of the area (>3% of the total area) in unknown condition were deemed to be in unfavourable 'not good' condition, this would result in an unfavourable-bad conclusion for this parameter and would result in the overall assessment of Conservation Status being unfavourable-bad.
For methods see JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach Document and country-level reporting information.
||
->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: A complete nationwide mapping of type 1160 have been conducted in 2018 adding new areas compared to the former reporting. For the Marine Ranges, we used the Danish cost line to exclude that part of the area that was placed on land in order to only get the marine part of the range. Some of the difference in range from last periode is due to a new coastline maps used.The short and long term increase in area do not reflect that more bays and inlets are present but just the fact that a complete mapping is done. ||
->Coverage: A complete mapping of bays and inlets have made it possible to give a robust estimate of the areal of those habitats in Danish waters and not just in Natura 2000 areas. The short and long term increase in area do not reflect that more bays and inlets are present but just the fact that a complete mapping is done. ||
->HabCondition: Evaluation made based on DKI fauna indeks, information on eelgrass depth distribution and macroalgae vegetation cover. Supported by information on oxygen deficiency and clorophyl and planned further reduction in nutrient load to coastal waters. ||
->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: The habitat data, used in the previous reporting, were amended with habitat occurrence point data from Åland islands which resulted in new, broader range of the habitat. The actual surface area of the habitat will be amended by the Åland data after a geographic examination on the boundaries of each identified habitat feature in the Åland Islands. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Habitat condition assessment was based on the site specific WFD waterbody state assessment and the cumulative effects of human activities on site (human activities, loss of shoreline and overgrowth by common reed). The minimum area in good condition and the maximum area in not-good condition were assessed based on the areal coverage of the habitat having other than good ecological status as reported under the EU Water Framework Directive. If either the human activities or the use of coastline or a combination of these exceeded 20% of the habitat coverage, the whole habitat feature was assessed to be in not-good condition. ||
->Future: Additional measures are needed to reduce the effects of eutrophication in coastal habitats. Further, measures to mitigate the effects of coastal construction activities and small-scale dredging and dumping of material should be developed to reduce the loss of structure and function of habitat. ||
->Conclusion: As explained in the reporting guidelines (p. 85) trend magnitudes should be considered. In this case the decreasing trend of structure and functions is so minor that it does not justify the overall trend to be D. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: W okresie raportowania 2013-2018 przedstawiono definicję siedliska, która m. in. zawiera sposób wyznaczania granic. W POM jest jedno stanowisko siedliska (Zatoka Pucka). Granicę siedliska wyznaczono po granicy obszaru Natura 2000 PLH220032 Zatoka Pucka i Półwysep Helski. Na tej podstawie możliwe było podanie zasięgu siedliska. W poprzednim Raporcie zasięg został wyznaczony na innej podstawie, stad nastąpiła zmiana wartości, a nie z rzeczywistej zmiany zasięgu. ||
->Coverage: W okresie raportowania 2013-2018 przedstawiono definicję siedliska, która m. in. zawiera sposób wyznaczania granic. W POM jest jedno stanowisko siedliska (Zatoka Pucka). Granicę siedliska wyznaczono po granicy obszaru natura 2000 PLH220032 Zatoka Pucka i Półwysep Helski. Na tej podstawie możliwe było podanie zasięgu siedliska. W poprzednim Raporcie wartość dla powierzchni jak została podana to 148 km2. Zmiana nie wynika z rzeczywistej zmiany powierzchni. ||
->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 favourable reference range is expected to be the same as the current value and the trend stable. The small change in area of the habitat does not affect the distribution since the last reporting period. The changes in the counties and in NNK data are very small and therefore no changes are expected on biogeographical level of range. However, the new range tool calculate the range differently and the national boarders used in the tool are slightly different from last reporting resulting in new numbers of range. ||
->Coverage: The favourable reference range is expected to be the same as the current value and the trend stable. The small change in area of the habitat does not affect the distribution since the last reporting period. The changes in the counties and in NNK data are very small and therefore no changes are expected on biogeographical level of range. However, the new range tool calculate the range differently and the national boarders used in the tool are slightly different from last reporting resulting in new numbers of range. ||
->HabCondition: The national monitoring on commercial fish stocks (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2018; Olsson 2019) indicate that the populations of pike Esox lucius one of the typical species fish of large shallow inlets and bays is suffering from high fishing pressure and predation from sticklebacks; also the pikeperch, Sander lucioperca, is heavily targeted by recreational fishing and are decreasing despite benefitting from higher temperatures and eutrophication (Olsson, 2019). However, the populations of perch, Perca fluviatilis, which is also benefitting from increased temperatures and decreased salinity, are considered as sufficient. The populations of Pleuronectes platessa and Platichthys flesus, are stable and the later are indicated to increasing in inshore areas. The population of Anguilla anguilla is not sustainable managed which is complicated by reduced recruiting capacity.
The coastal Gadus morhua (cod) western Baltic population are heavily exploited and the individuals are very small and the reproducing stock is small in size indicating bad conditions with severe implications on juvenile abundance and coastal food web.

There are several studies that indicate that the loss in large carnivorous fish populations (e.g.. cod, pike, perch and pikeperch) within Swedish marine waters have significant impact on the ecological status of especially coastal shallow soft bottom ecosystems. The cause of the loss has primarily been the fishing pressure. In the Baltic there is a further need for decreased fishing pressure and increase in restricted/protected areas (Bergström et al, 2016; Helcom 2018, Olsson et al, 2019). For the inshore coastal populations it is the recreational fishing that have the largest impact, but also local predation from seals and cormorants (more knowledge needed) and other fish (e.g. Sticklebacks on pike and perch), and loss of recruiting habitat (Hansen et al, 2018; Sundblad & Bergström 2014) may impact on population development (Hansson et al, 2017; Bergström et al 2016). The loss of carnivorous fish has impact on the ecological functions and overall condition on inlets and bays due to the risk of trophic cascades.

The national monitoring of fish health status with long time series (1992-2017) on Zoarces viviparous and Perca fluviatilis health indicators from the three different areas in along the Swedish Baltic coast (Holmöarna, Torhamn, Kvädö), reveals significant increase in EROD and GR activity this together with affected metabolism, lower fat content in muscle (lower bodyweight and condition) and an elevated rate of dead juveniles in females do clearly indicate an overall negative trend in health status (Mustamääki et al, 2018a-c). The cause of this deteriorating status is still unclear but unknown contaminants have been suggested, despite decreased concentrations of monitored contaminants. The status of the health of Z. viviparous and P fluviatilis can probably be considered as an indication on current fish health along the Baltic, but more knowledge is preferable for strengthening the effects on the specific habitat.

The trends for typical species bird are disparate. While the annual average have been increasing during the period of 1998-2017 for Sterna hirundo (2.2%) have Sterna paradisaea and Tadorna tadorna decreased around 2% yearly for the same period and Anas penelope has decreased around 6 % every year. The reason for the decrease is not fully understood but impact from eutrophication and an increase in raptors have been suggested. The population of Cygnus olor are stable (Svensk fågeltaxering 2018, Gren et al. 2018). Of the typical species for shallow inlets and bays in MBAL are 2 red listed Anguilla anguilla (CR) and Gadhus morhua (VU).

The analysis of the physical disturbances during the reporting period (Törnqvist et al. In prep; Törnqvist personal com/PM.), show that 12 % of the area of the large shallow inlets and bays in the marine Baltic region is significantly or highly effected by physical disturbances (e.g. exploitation, dredging, swelling etc.). This if only considering the e two highest classes of disturbance within the analysis; class 3 (significant) and class 4 (high). The choice of using only the highest classes of disturbance is due to the need for further analysis on the actual impact on habitat biota from the specific pressures (Näslund and Nyström Sandman. Pers. com (PM)). If all three classes indicating some or higher disturbances, 20 % of the habitat area are affected. No matter which the analysis indicate that an moderate area of the habitat are modified and disturbed within the reporting period and that impact on ecosystem functions is medium. The pressure from physical disturbances are especially significant in certain areas. In the archipelagos close to larges urban areas with high importance for recreational activities may be significant.

Only one third of the shallow inlets and bays habitat area within the Mbal region is located in Bothnian Sea or Bothnian Bay. When assessing the habitat water quality this geographical distribution is taken into account, as the water quality parameters are somewhat disparate considering different parts of the Baltic. The habitat is mainly located in inshore, highly exploited areas and is therefore especially targeted for residential pollutions and also agricultural run offs. In these areas, the implemented measures for decreasing the nutrient load to the marine waters have been indicated by decreasing trends in DIN and tot-N (WISS, 2018: Havsmiljöinstitutet, 2017). For phosphorous such measures have cut the total external load with half, but unfortunately these measures are now at risk being consumed by the immense internal load of phosphorus being released from deeper sea bottom sediments during anoxic conditions (for more information on internal load and its cause and effects see Conley et al. 2002; Stigebrandt et al. 2014; Hall et al 2017). This load of phosphorus is at first hand impacting offshore areas, but also in the outer parts of the archipelagos the phosphorus concentrations indicate impact. Therefore the overall water quality trend is stable or slightly negative (coastal Baltic and Bothnian). The overall status is somewhat various with high to moderate in the northern Baltic and moderate to inadequate in the Southern Baltic.

The shortage of carnivorous fish are considered in the Baltic to lead to deteriorating habitat quality especially due to an increase in filamentous algae competing with important macrophytes, caused by a trophic cascade (Östeman, et al, 2016 Eriksson et al, 2011; Donadi et al. 2017). This is especially the case on shallow and vegetated soft bottoms such as shallow inlets and bays. ||
->Future: -The future prospects of structure and functions for 1160 MBAL is set as: Poor
The assessment is in line with the continuous high pressure from recreational and commercial fishing causing loss of carnivorous fish and the medium pressure from physical disturbances (coastal modification e.g. exploitation, dredging etc.). Also the medium pressure from agricultural, residential or recreational activities generating nutrient load and pollution. Internal load (phosphorous), fish health deterioration and predation from native species are also considered. ||
->Conclusion: Despite initiative taken for the development of monitoring methods (e.g. visual monitoring with underwater video; fish recruitment; physical disturbance) and a program for biogeographical data collection it has, except for the physical disturbance, so far not been implemented. No monitoring data except for the analysis of physical disturbances has therefore been biogeographically generated within the large shallow inlets and bays 1160 in MATL. Therefore the conservation status of the structures and functions has been set mainly by expert assessment and extrapolation based on a limited amount of data.

Overall assessment:
- The condition of habitat is assessed mainly on extrapolation from a limited amount of data.
- The condition of habitat has not been classified by the county boards.
- The short-term trend of habitat condition is set as: stable
- The condition status of habitat structure and functions is set as: Inadequate U1
- The assessment is set due to the condition of the typical species their population status and development and their health conditions as an indicator on the ecological condition of the habitat. The assessment is also set in line with habitat quality conditions. The assessment for the quality of large shallow inlets and bays 1160 MBAL is also due to the moderate area being significantly or highly physically disturbed despite the improvement seen on water quality parameters due to measures implemented. The assessment for the trend is in line with unknown pressures impacting fish health and the loss of carnivorous fish as well as the disparate trend for water quality due to impact of internal load.
-The future prospects of structure and functions for 1160 MBAL is set as: Poor
The assessment is in line with the continuous high pressure from recreational and commercial fishing causing loss of carnivorous fish and the medium pressure from physical disturbances (coastal modification e.g. exploitation, dredging etc.). Also the medium pressure from agricultural, residential or recreational activities generating nutrient load and pollution. Internal load (phosphorous), fish health deterioration and predation from native species are also considered.
-In comparison with last reporting there is a change in the guidelines for the Conservation Status assessment according the definition and assessment of pressures and threats, which have had significant impact on the assessment. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Expert judgement ||
->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: Ces milieux, très littoraux, très faciles d'accès, dans des secteurs à hydrodynamisme réduit, sont soumis à une très forte pression en raison des pressions anthropiques, notamment les remblaiements et aux pollutions venant directement de la terre. Le piétinement notamment estival contribue grandement à la dégradation de ces milieux. Il est à peu près impossible d'avoir des données sur les sites. ||
->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: Assumption: 20% of the habitat area is estimated to be in not-good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Most of the collected data regarding habitat type 1160 status across Greece result from the HCMR Monitoring activities under the article 8 of the Water Framework Directive.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The surface area is determined based on expert opinion, using available maps and very limited data. Year or period when the distribution and surface area was last determined is 2012 (compilation date of Natura 2000 SDFs is 12/1/2012). ||
->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. Estimate of surface area reported here refers to the area of habitat inside the Natura 2000 Network. Surface area of this habitat outside the N2k network is not currently available. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report