Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Les différences de résultats sur l'évaluation du critère "Aire de répartition" sont plus liées à la difficulté de définir l'habitat 1410 dans le domaine atlantique qu'à une amélioration réelle. En effet, selon la définition actuelle, encore en cours de discussion, l'aire de répartition de cet habitat semble assez stable sur le court et les long terme (celui-ci incluant l'exercice précédent de rapportage). ||
->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 calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 1410 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool. Thirty-three 10km grid cells generated by the range tool that had no coastline or suitable estuarine habitat were removed.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). None of the area losses recorded during these two reporting periods led to a contraction in the range. The short-term trend is assessed as stable.
The number of 10km squares in the range (238) is 17 squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). This change is likely due to the use of a slightly different methodology for the derivation of the distribution of 1410 on which the range was based and a change to the field survey method.
The Favourable Reference Range (FRR) has increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) due to the use of a different method. The FRR is the current range, reported in 4.1. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 2006 (McCorry, 2007) when the pilot baseline survey was carried out, and incorporates updates made by surveys carried out between 2006 and 2018, the details of which are listed in section 3.2, namely McCorry and Ryle (2009), Brophy et al. (in prep.) and Perrin (2018b).
There are still areas of unmapped 1410 habitat in the country, mostly in the form of narrow fringes along the shoreline in places. Some such areas were recorded during the 2017-18 survey; however, all significant saltmarsh areas have been covered by McCorry (2007), McCorry and Ryle (2009) and Brophy et al. (in prep.), either via field survey or desk study.
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) was not determined exactly, but is estimated to be <10% more than the current area. FRA is deemed to be greater than the current area, given that some anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force and there have also been losses due to natural processes. In NPWS (2013), the FRA was set as the area calculated for that reporting period (10km2). While some loss was acknowledged, it was considered to be negligible over the period in question.
During the current reporting period 81 sites containing 1410 were visited and assessed for Area, 76 by Brophy et al. (in prep.) and five by Perrin (2018b). The 81 sites assessed for Area represent 4.04km2 (42%) of the total area of 1410 habitat recorded in Ireland. This represents a significant proportion of the total area of 1410, covering all coasts, and therefore it is considered that the conclusions drawn for the surveyed areas can be applied to the country as a whole.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing due to a loss of 15.46ha to anthropogenic activities since the previous reporting period. This represents 3.69% of the area surveyed in the period 2017-2018 and combined with losses that were considered negligible in the previous reporting period leads to the short-term trend of decreasing. The majority of the loss (73%; 11.3ha) was attributed to the spread of Phragmites australis swamp at the expense of 1410 at Castlebridge (SMP site number 0038), caused by a reduction in, or cessation of, grazing. The remaining loss of area occurred across seven sites and was almost entirely due to infilling and reclamation for a range of uses, including agriculture, roads, and buildings, and extraction of saltmarsh material for use in embankment repairs.
The long-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing based on the fact that a 0.07% loss of 1410 habitat due to anthropogenic activities was noted for the 2007-2012 reporting period, which was considered negligible along with the minor loses noted for the 2002-2007 monitoring period NPWS (2013). These minor losses, along with the significant increase in losses during the current reporting period, leads to the long-term trend of decreasing.
The difference in habitat extent between the area of 9.64km2 reported for this reporting period and the figure of 10km2 reported during the previous reporting period is largely due to the change in methodology and partly due to genuine change. Where entire polygons were previously often assigned to the dominant habitat, with mosaics recorded in some cases, the current survey (Brophy et al., in prep.) assigned percentages to the various habitats within any given polygon, allowing greater resolution of habitat area. The apparent decrease in 1410 also represents some genuine loss of 1410 to anthropogenic activities and natural processes, such as erosion and succession, while also incorporating some areas of increase where 1410 has spread into areas that were previously 1330-dominated. ||
->HabCondition: The typical species used in assessing the 1410 habitat are: Aster tripolium, Cochlearia spp. (Cochlearia anglica and Cochlearia officinalis), Glaux maritima, Juncus acutus, Juncus maritimus, Juncus gerardii, Leontodon autumnalis, Oenanthe lachenalii, Plantago maritima, Triglochin maritimum.
During the current reporting period, 81 sites containing 1410 were visited and all 81 were assessed for Structure and functions: 76 by Brophy et al. (in prep) and five from data collected by the SAMFHIRES project (Perrin, 2018b). The 81 sites assessed for Structure and functions represent 4.04km2 (42%) of the total area of 1410 habitat recorded in Ireland. This represents a significant proportion of the total area of 1330, covering all coasts, and therefore it is considered that the conclusions drawn for the surveyed areas can be applied to the country as a whole.
Of the 81 sites assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 91% (8.77km2) of the area was assessed as Favourable and 9% (0.87km2) was assessed as Unfavourable. This result does not deviate significantly from the findings of NPWS (2013) presented below.
The approach used to estimate the percentage of the 1410 habitat in Unfavourable condition at each site was as follows:
If none of the assessment criteria failed at the site level then none of the 1410 area was classified as Unfavourable and the whole area of 1410 at the site was assigned as being in good condition; if 1 to 2 criteria failed at the site level this resulted in 25% of the 1410 area being classified as having Unfavourable Structure and functions; if 3 assessment criteria failed this resulted in 75% of the 1410 area at the site being classified with Unfavourable Structure and functions; if 4 or more criteria failed at the site level this resulted in 100% of the 1410 area at the site being classified as Unfavourable. The most frequent criterion to fail was “Disturbed ground (stop level)”, which reflects the fact that 1410 was often intensively grazed.
During the last reporting period, 85-98% of the 1410 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013). Due to the fact that the percentage of 1410 habitat assessed as Favourable in the current reporting period (91%) falls in the centre of the previously reported range, the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition is taken to be stable. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current Range is equal to the 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 based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.
Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Decreasing, a loss of 3.69% of the total surveyed area was recorded for the current reporting period, following a loss of 0.07% for the previous reporting period.
Current area is <10% less than the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Negative as no conservation measures have been identified to counteract the listed pressures and return the habitat to the FRA.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Poor.
Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is Stable for habitat that is in Good condition
Current Structure and functions are assessed as 91% of the habitat in Good condition, which is above the 90% threshold for Favourable.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as Stable.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Good. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range is Favourable in this reporting period, as it was in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Area is assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate during this reporting period, while it was assessed as Favourable in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions is Favourable, while it was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Future prospects is Unfavourable-Inadequate, as is was in the previous reporting period.
The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate, as it was during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Inadequate during the current reporting period was due to the current area being below the Favourable Reference Area and due to the area of the habitat decreasing.
Overall Trend in Conservation Status was assessed as deteriorating due to the fact that 4.16ha of 1410 habitat had been lost due to anthropogenic causes in the current reporting period (1.02% of surveyed area). In NPWS (2013), the Overall Trend in Conservation Status was assessed as stable, as a loss in area, representing 0.07% of the surveyed area, was not deemed significant for the future trend in Area. Based on the increase in the rate of loss, and in light of the fact that loss of area has continued into the current reporting period, the level of anthropogenic loss is considered significant and therefore the Overall Trend in Conservation Status is assessed as deteriorating. ||
->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: Area covered by habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Surface area was used. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->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: 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: 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 of the habitat type was calculated on the basis of it's mapped distribution with buffer of 1 km. The Range map and the area of the Range are based on the available distribution data of the habitat type, including the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic Cyprus, the area not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus as well as the British Sovereign Base Areas. Distribution data from the area that is not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, concerns mainly the occurrence of the habitat type in the grid cells and thus due to the low accuracy of distribution data, the gap distance was not applied for this area. ||
->Coverage: The area covered by the habitat type is reported on the basis of the area of recent mapping polygons of the habitat type. However, due to lack of extensive mapping of the habitat, more data is needed to provide more detailed information.
The value of Surface Area, given in 5.2, concerns only the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, but in the map of the area also the grid cells where the habitat types is known to occur from the area not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus as well as the British Sovereign Base Areas, were added. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future prospects for the range and area were estimated by best expert
judgment, while for structure and functions on the basis of the data included in Hab_Mon CYPRUS database (ver. 3) (Dimopoulos et al. 2019). ||
->Conclusion: Differences in area, structure and functions, future prospects and in overall assessment, in comparison with the previous reporting period are attributed to more accurate mapping and assessment conducted during the present reporting period. ||
->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: Les surfaces de cet habitat continuent de diminuer, y compris au sein du réseau Natura 2000. ||
->HabCondition: Critères à prendre en compte pour évaluer le paramètre structures et fonctions : fragmentation, connectivité ; fonctionnement hydrologique / salinité ; dynamique de la végétation ; dynamique des espèces exotiques envahissantes ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de la tendance générale "En détérioration" - Tendance négative du paramètre surface ||
->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 habitat area is estimated to be in not-good condition. ||
->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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: In the Maltese Islands the Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) habitat is rare and is found on the sloping parts of banks and also along clay slopes (the clay mimics the sloping ground). The habitat is characterised by rare species such as Juncus subulatus, Juncus maritimus and also Carex extensa which is endangered in the Maltese Islands. Due to the limited space and very small size of the habitat, regeneration and extension of the communities is difficult. Moreover, many areas were affected due to competition between the typical species and alien and problematic native species, anthropogenic disturbance and also inappropriate afforestation, especially when considering Pinus spp., Tamarix spp. and Acacia spp.. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The data in this report has been mostly updated through habitat surveys carried out by the Environment and Resources Authority in 2017 and 2018. This exercise has enabled the assessment of the distribution and habitat condition with considerable accuracy. Field surveys were also complemented with desk studies, focussing on orthophoto analysis, and additional ground truthing, where possible. In this regard, the Authority has acquired drones with the aim to facilitate and assist future monitoring and surveying of all Annex I habitats.

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