Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Belgische Staat (2018). Actualisatie van de initiële beoordeling voor de Belgische mariene wateren. Kaderrichtlijn Mariene Strategie – Art 8 lid 1a & 1b: België 2018-2024. BMM/Federale Overheidsdienst Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu: Brussel. 243 pp
http://odnature.naturalsciences.be/msfd/ ||
->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: New mapping and new knowledge have made it possible to give a rough estimate of the areal distribution of reef habitats in Danish waters and not just in Natura 2000 areas. The vast majority of short and long term increase in area do not reflect that more reefs are present, except in a few case due to the nature restoration projects. Blue Reef cofinanced by LIFE in Kattegat and a minor reef in Limfjorden in 2016. 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. A minor part of the difference in range from last periode is due to a new coastline maps used. ||
->Coverage: New mapping and new knowledge have made it possible to give a rough estimate of the areal distribution of reef habitats in Danish waters and not just in Natura 2000 areas. The vast majority of short and long term increase in area do not reflect that more reefs are present, except in a few case due to the nature restoration projects. Blue Reef cofinanced by LIFE in Kattegat and a minor reef in Limfjorden in 2016. ||
->HabCondition: The condition of structure and function is based on expert judgement on algal cover data from reefs mainly in the protic zone were further reduction in nutrient load is expected to improve the algal cover below 3-7m water depth.
Improvements do take place over a long time range in many locations. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Area is judged as inadequate due to intensive exploitation of boulders from many shallow reef areas over 100 years. Some reef restoration projects has been conducted and others planned to improve the area covered with shallow reefs. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Surface area=59400 Km2. This figure comes from the estimation of the range in UTM projection using a 10x10 grid. ||
->Coverage: Surface area (best single value) = 1766.17 Km2

This data comes from the calculation of the surface of polygons that correspond to 1170 (reefs). However, many of the available data are points of presence (without information about the area covered by the habitat). These presence points increase the range of the habitat but not the surface.

The estimation of the area covered by the habitat 1170 comes from the use of different methods: location in situ, modeling, application of different thresholds depending on the researcher's criterion. For this reason, we provide a unique value, and not an interval. ||
->HabCondition: We do not have information on the status or condition of the habitat. For this reason, the entire area covered by the habitat has been considered as area in unknown ​​condition.
In relation to the identification of the typical species of each habitat, it is necessary to apply a standard methodology. An indicator (known as BH1) has been developed within the framework of the OSPAR Convention for the identification of the typical species of each habitat. In 2017 this indicator has been declared as "Common Indicator" for use by European countries. This methodology should begin to be used to be able to report on typical species adequately in the future. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: It is necessary to continue improving the knowledge of the habitat 1170 in order to evaluate its conservation status and its future perspective.

In the last 6 years, studies have been carried out focused on the location of the habitat in Spanish waters and the development a better cartography. It is worth highlighting the effort that has been made in this regard within the framework of the project LIFE+ INDEMARES.

In addition, conservation measures have been taken mainly focused on expanding the Natura 200 Network in areas where this habitat occurs (among others). However, studies focused on the knowledge of the ecological structure and functions, as well as on the establishment of thresholds, favorable reference areas and their state of conservation should be developed in the coming years. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Pour cet indicateur "Aire de répartition", ce sont les cartes "fonds rocheux" intégrées aux "contribution thématiques DCSMM pour l'Evaluation de l'Etat Initial de 2012" qui ont été réutilisées. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Pour le moment, l'absence de données chiffrées sur la surface des habitats en bon et mauvais état de conservation ne permet pas d'évaluer précisément l'état de conservation du paramètre "Structures et fonctions". ||
->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 is due to increased knowledge of the offshore, particularly the area between the near shore and 200m contour (MESL 2017). ||
->Coverage: Short-term and long-term trends were estimated based on best expert judgement. It is considered highly unlikely that the area of this habitat will change significantly due to the physical and geological nature of the habitat.
The change in area is due to technical issues which overestimated the area in the previous round. ||
->HabCondition: 618km2 of inshore reef habitat within twelve Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) around the coast of Ireland were surveyed to assess Structure and functions during the current reporting period (Scally et al., in prep.). The offshore surveys of 2017 (Ross et al., 2018) and 2018 (Ross et al., in prep.) delivered a lot of information on extent and species composition of both biogenic and geogenic reef encountered. While considerable work remains to be done to assess the condition of the reef surveyed in the 102 dives undertaken covering 277km of the seafloor, the greater proportion of the sites showed no evidence of fishing pressure. Therefore, Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate using expert judgement.
Inshore subtidal reef surveys were conducted by surveying three stations within each MCT documented and mapped for a site. Surveys were carried out by dropdown video using a 4K dropdown video camera combined with spatial encoding. Video surveys were supplemented by diver surveys. Dive surveys were carried out at a single station within each MCT. The video surveys thereby resulted in a permanent georeferenced record of the physical characteristics and typical species for each site surveyed. Kelp height and density was assessed at three stations where a kelp community occurred at the site. This was achieved using a spatially referenced acoustic echosounder mapping system. This system provided spatially referenced acoustic data on the height and density of kelp. Habitat maps derived from these data were then created to obtain an overview of the characteristics of the kelp canopy, thereby creating a permanent record of the kelp structure at each site surveyed.
Intertidal reef surveys were carried out using the methods described in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) rocky shore macroalgal species richness tool. This system provides a method for recording a range of physical characteristics for a given area of intertidal reef and assessing the range of macroalgal species within that area against the diversity of the physical features recorded. The resulting score is taken as a proxy for the ecological status of the reef. At a number of SACs, data derived from the WFD rocky shore monitoring programme was available against which the current survey data could be assessed and change, should it have occurred, be measured.
Intertidal biogenic reef (Sabellaria spinulosa and Mytilus edulis) was surveyed by conducting walkover surveys of areas where these reef types had been described and mapped for a site. Species abundance of the main reef-forming species and any noted pressures were recorded.
Offshore reef surveys (Ross et al., 2018; Ross et al., in prep) utilised a remotely operated submersible vessel deployed from a research vessel. Video and stills imagery was collected upon defined transect routes and where possible species were logged and georeferenced. A total of 100 dive sites were visited during the reporting period. The majority of the data from these surveys is still to be analysed. ||
->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.

Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is stable.
Conservation status of Structure and functions has been assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Although bottom trawling below 800m has been banned it will take a long time for impacted reefs to recover.
Future trend of Structure and functions is stable.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore poor. ||
->Conclusion: The 2017 and 2018 offshore surveys (Ross et al., 2018; Ross et al., in prep.) increased knowledge of the extent of both biogenic and geogenic reef in this area. It increased our knowledge of the typical species and new community aggregations. It also revealed that, while some areas still appeared to be devoid of anthropogenic pressure, there was also evidence of pressure, the degree and extent of which remains to be analysed. Regulation (EU) 2016/2336, which proscribes the use of bottom trawls below 800m, is a positive action in conserving the offshore reef. However, due the difficulty in policing the vast area in which this vulnerable habitat occurs, and due to the fact that a single trawling event will result in permanent destruction of the habitat, Future prospects continue to be assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution map is based on habitat maps of the coastal regions, EUSeaMap2016 of the North Sea and specific inventory of the characteristic elements of H1170 with side-scan sonar and groundtruthing with video, samples, visual sensing by divers (literature references). FRR has been corrected to 3000. For marine habitats 1110 to 1170 both the delivered maps and reported range are based upon data in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: Bos et al., 2014; Eurofins/Aquasense et al., 2018; Van den Oever et al., 2018 ||
->HabCondition: S&F based on BISI analysis and limited (video) information for 2011 (Wijnhoven 2018), showing a slight improvement between 2002 and 2015; however no BISI thresholds exist yet for filling 6.1; No TS analysis available, due to few typical species. More than 25% of 1170 is assessed to be in unfavourable condition. ||
->Future: Current fisheries restrictions might lead to significant improvements as they concern the most impacting fisheries and protect the largest part of habitat 1170 surface area; fisheries activities and large construction works in the vicinity including international waters might counteract the improvements and might result in a better quality status. ||
->Conclusion: Quality status is stable compared to last reporting period or slightly improved; however there are many uncertainties due to differences in monitoring techniques and because the monitoring is not exactly targeted on habitat 1170. The assessment of Structure and Function is U2, as more than 25% of the area is in a bad condition. In the previous report (2013) Structure and Function should have been U2 as well. ||
->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 Sander Wijnhoven (Ecoauthor)

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 there is no change from last reporting on current value due to lack of new data. There are ongoing work on new models for improved interpretation and maps of the habitat area, however the results are not finalized in time for the reporting. Implemented bottom trawling restrictions have had a positive effect decreasing/eliminating the pressure of habitat loss being of major concern in the last reporting. However, despite the desired effects of implemented measures of bottom trawling, there is another recent threat causing an on-going decrease of mussels threatening the area and conservations status of biogenic reef sin MATL (Mytilus edulis beds). The cause and extent of this threat is yet unknown. The assessment for the trend is set to decreasing according to the potential loss in habitat area due to this new threat. ||
->HabCondition: During the reporting period measures have been taken limiting the fishing pressure, however, the results from this differs geographically (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2018). In southern Kattegat there are increase in populations but this is not the case further north. The fishing pressures outside the restricted areas are still unsustainable for some species (e.g. cod).

Several of the typical species of fish is not commercial and are therefore not targeted within the ongoing national monitoring of commercial fish stocks. However, the population of Anguilla anguilla is and is considered to not be sustainable managed which is complicated by reduced recruiting capacity. The spring spawning Clupea harengus shows high mortality and low spawning biomass resulting in low recruitment for a long time, however, the autumn spawning population is in good condition. The situation differs between the Gadus 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 is in some cases still uncertain. Also the Salmo trutta is considered to be sufficient even if the knowledge are limited (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2018). Other commercial species that are typical for the habitat is Cancer pagurus and Homarus gammarus. C pagarus is not monitored but log data indicates that the population is large probably due to decreased predation from cod, however, the H gammarus is fished heavily and the population is on historically low level.
Also Mytilus edulis and Ostrea edulis are considered as commercial but are not monitored. M edulis, the blue mussel, are a common species 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 by the invasive C gigas, but there is no monitoring and the O edulis is known to have high abundance variation due to its distribution range. As biogenic reefs constitute one of the under types of the habitat reef 1170, the condition and future outlook of reef building organisms such as mussels and oysters are of significant importance for the assessment of the habitat. The defective knowledge and understanding of the course of the alarming event is highly unsatisfactory and it is urgent to bridge the knowledge gaps and identify possible measures.

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 unknown contaminants have been suggested.
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 in 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).
Of the typical species for reefs 1170 in the marine Atlantic region 5 are found in the Swedish red list Somateria mollissima (VU), Anguilla anguilla (CR), Gadus morhua (VU), Hathrometra sarsii (VU (small presence) ) and Lophelia pertusa (CR (decreasing size and quality of habitat, fragmentation)). A anguilla has reduced reproduction capacity/recruitment but are also unfavorable managed. The coastal Gadus morhua (cod) populations (genetic different) are not recovering as hoped (see also above). The S mollisima and also Clangula hyemalis has decreased in population size with about 2-3% per year since the late 1990’s (Svensk fågeltaxering, 2018).
However, since last report of Article 17 and the Swedish red list of 2015, there has been improvement in the case of Lophelia pertusa. New sites with live coral has been found and the pressure from bottom trawling has been reduced.

The analysis of the physical disturbances during the reporting period (Törnqvist et al. In prep; Törnqvist personal com.), shows that about 0.5% of the area of reefs in Marine Atlantic region is significantly or highly (sum of the 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 (Näslund and Sandman. 2019). If all three classes indicating some or higher disturbances, still only 1.1% would be disturbed indicating a low pressure of different kind of physical disturbances (e.g. exploitation, dredging, swelling etc.). Bottom trawling is not taking place in the habitat. However, the unsatisfactory quality of the biogeographical basis for the habitat should be considered in the assessment.

Due to implemented measures for limiting the anthropogenic load of nutrient to the coastal waters of the Swedish West Coast (Skagerrak and Kattegat), some water chemistry parameters (DIN, tot-N, chlorophyll, water transparency ) has been indicating improving trends while others has not (DIP, tot-P) (WISS, 2018; Havsmiljöinstitutet, 2016, Ejhed et al, 2016) and the trends for temperature and salinity is increasing. The overall trend for water quality for the offshore and coastal Skagerrak and Kattegat is a slight improvement.

The ecological consequences of the loss of blue mussels considering biogenic reefs within the MATL region is yet to be understood. Also the lack of large predatory fish and its consequences for specific habitats are to be further investigated. ||
->Future: -The future prospects of structure and functions for 1170 MATL is set as: Bad
The assessment is set according to the continuous high pressure from the unknown cause of the large scale decrease in Mytilus edulis as well as the threat from the shortage of carnivorous fish (e.g. recreational and commercial fishing). The medium threat from agricultural, residential and recreational activities has also been considered as well as the decreased pressure from fishing activities causing physical disturbances on sea floor. ||
->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 reefs 1170 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 reef 1170 MATL is due to the significant improvement in the condition of the Lophelia reefs and implemented fishing regulations removing the direct and indirect pressure from bottom trawling. The assessment of the trend is set after also considering the hopefully recovery in fish populations after the implemented fish regulations. 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 1170 MATL is set as: Bad
The assessment is set according to the continuous high pressure from the unknown cause of the large scale decrease in Mytilus edulis as well as the threat from the shortage of carnivorous fish (e.g. recreational and commercial fishing). The medium threat from agricultural, residential and recreational activities has also been considered as well as the decreased pressure from fishing activities causing physical disturbances on sea floor.
-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-The UK range map was developed from the UK surface area map, but additionally included an area of iceberg ploughmarks off North-West Scotland in offshore waters, where cobble reefs had been recorded (JNCC, 2018a). 4.3-The trend should be reported uncertain because of the biogenic reefs that make up part of this Annex I habitat. The range of the biogenic reefs could have been affected by factors such as changing climate, pH, river discharges etc. There is not enough data available to draw conclusions about the effects of these.
4.11-As a result of improved mapping of the habitat, the surface area of range for UK reefs is smaller than the figure reported in 2013.
For further details see the 2019 UK Approach Document (JNCC website). ||
->Coverage: 5.1-The data sources used to produce this map ranged from 1960 to 2018
5.4-JNCC created the Annex I Reef habitat map (JNCC, 2018a). It is composed of both high confidence reef data (where survey data is available to verify the records) and potential rocky reef data derived from habitat modelling (where the UK Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) believe, from the best available evidence, that Annex I Reef might be present.
5.6- Expert judgement was used to determine the overall short-term trend at the UK-level. We have data but not enough to establish a trend direction. Area is a more specific parameter than range and we don't generally have good enough data to establish a trend. Change in area will probably be due to improved mapping / method change. Continued small losses have been reported in Wales inshore waters.
5.14- As a result of improved mapping of the habitat, the surface area for UK reefs is smaller than the figure reported in 2013.
For further details see the JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach document.
||
->HabCondition: 6.1-The area of habitat in 'good' (favourable),'not good' (unfavourable) and unknown condition was assessed in the inshore areas of the four countries and in the offshore area. 23% of the habitat is thought to be in unfavourable (not good) condition, 68% of the habitat is thought to be in favourable (good condition) and 10% of the habitat is in unknown condition. The structure and functions conservation status is, therefore, unfavourable-inadeqaute. The parameter conservation status was also unfavourable-inadequate in 2013. The result is driven by the offshore reef assessment because the majority of reef is located in the offshore area. The 'Extent of Physical Damage to Predominant and Special Habitats (BH3)' indicator (OSPAR Commission, 2017) was used to assess the condition of offshore reef. There is low confidence in the assessment. It should be noted that if some of the area (>15% 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 in the inshore areas of the four countries and in the offshore area. The results were then aggregated (see 2019 UK Approach Document). The trend was identified as decreasing in the offshore area where the largest proportion of UK reefs are found. The results of the extent of physical damage indicator (BH3), which was used to assess the condition of offshore reefs (6.1), suggest that reefs are highly disturbed as a result of widespread fishing. Therefore, it is likely that the condition of reefs has deteriorated over the last 12 years. There is low confidence in this assessment. A decreasing trend was also reported in 2013.
For details on the approaches taken in this section see the JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach Document and relevant country/offshore-level reporting information. ||
->Future: Future trends for each parameter were identified in the inshore areas of the four countries and in the offshore area. The results were 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) The future prospects are unknown because the future trend for range is unknown and the range conclusion is unknown. The range of the rocky reef component of Annex I reefs is determined by geological processes and is unlikely to change over shorter time scales. However, the range of the biogenic component of reefs could be affected by a number of pressures and it unclear how these will affect the range in the next 12 years. The future prospects were also unknown in 2013.
9.1b) The future prospects are poor because the future trend for area is negative and the area conclusion is unknown. The future prospects were unknown in 2013, however, improved knowledge has allowed the field to be reported on in 2019.
9.1c) The future prospects are poor because the future trend for structure and functions is negative and the conclusion for structure and functions is unfavourable-inadequate. The future prospects were also poor in 2013.
For details on approaches taken in this section see JNCC website for the 2019 UK Approach Document and relevant country/offshore-level reporting information. ||
->Conclusion: 10.1-Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is uncertain; and (ii) the Favourable Reference Range is unknown.
10.2-Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is uncertain; and (ii) the Favourable Reference Area is unknown.
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. 23% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition, 68% of the habitat is in favourable (good) condition and 10% of the habitat is in unknown condition. It should be noted that if some of the area (>15% 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.
10.4-Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are unknown; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are poor.
The Future prospects conclusion was unknown in 2013, however, in 2019 habitat sensitivity information was used to make a prediction on future trends.
10.5-Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-inadequate.
It should be noted that if some of the area (>15% 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 the structure and functions parameter and would result in the overall assessment of Conservation Status being unfavourable-bad.
10.6-Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - uncertain, Area covered by habitat - uncertain, and Structure and functions - decreasing.
10.7b)- The Overall Trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 (declining) and 2019 (unknown). This was a methodological change because of the removal of the Future Prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall Trend. 2013: Range = unknown, Area = unknown, S&F= declining, FP = unknown. 2019: Range=uncertain, Area = uncertain, S&F = decreasing, [FP not included].

For methods see JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach Document and country/offshore-level reporting information. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report