Article 17 web tool

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Les tendances et perspectives futures pour l'habitat étaient jugée stables et bonnes en 2012. Cependant, au regard des scénarios actuels d'élévation du niveau de la mer liée au réchauffement climatique et du manque de solution de repli, ces tendances et perspectives ont été changées ici en négatives et médiocres pour les surface de l'habitat. ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des structures et fonctions U1. En l'absence de donnée de suivi de l'état de conservation de l'habitat, la tendance à court et à long terme est impossible à évaluer. Cependant, les espèces typiques sont peu menacées. ||
->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 1420 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool. All 10km grid cells generated by the range tool had coastline or suitable estuarine habitat.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). The area losses recorded during the current reporting period led to a contraction in the range. The short-term trend is assessed as decreasing.
The number of 10km squares in the range (3) is one square lower than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). This change is due to the loss of 1420 habitat from one site (Taulaght – SMP site code 0043) due to the deposition of algal mats, believed to be the result of eutrophication of the associated waterbody.
The Favourable Reference Range has remained the same as the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) due the fact that the habitat should be able to re-establish in the lost site if the conditions that caused the loss are addressed, as Sarcocornia perennis continues to be present at the site. ||
->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).
Given the limited range of the habitat in Ireland, it is unlikely that there are any areas of unmapped 1420 in the country.
In NPWS (2013), the Favourable Reference Area (FRA) was set as more than 25% greater than the area calculated for that reporting period (0.011km2) and, at that time, the habitat was known to have been lost from two sites (Duncormick and Grange). For the current reporting period, the FRA was not determined exactly, but is estimated to be >10% more than the current area, given that anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force and since the last reporting period (Taulaght), and there may also have been losses due to natural processes. As noted in NPWS (2013), the mapping of the 1420 habitat is problematic as it can change depending on whether clusters of plants are divided into separate patches of habitat or included in one patch of habitat, with the latter method increasing the area significantly. This is exacerbated by the fact that the total area of this habitat nationally is very small.
During the current reporting period four sites containing 1420 were visited and assessed for Area, three by Brophy et al. (in prep.) and one by Perrin (2018b). The four sites assessed for Area represent the total 0.0028km2 area of 1420 habitat recorded in Ireland. Therefore, the conclusions drawn for the habitat are applicable to the entire extent of the habitat in Ireland.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing. Loss due to anthropogenic activities in the current reporting period was calculated to be 120m2, which represents 4% of the area surveyed in the period 2017-2018. Losses of area were also reported from the previous reporting period (NPWS 2013).
The long-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing based on the fact the previous reporting period assessed it as decreasing (NPWS, 2013), and there has been no change in direction of the trend for the current reporting period. ||
->HabCondition: The typical species for the 1420 habitat are: Sarcocornia perennis, Salicornia spp., Puccinellia maritima, Limonium humile, Plantago maritima, Suaeda maritima, Aster tripolium, Spergularia marina and Atriplex portulacoides.
During the current reporting period, four sites containing 1420 were visited and all four were assessed for Structure and functions: three by Brophy et al. (in prep.) and one from data collected by the SAMFHIRES project (Perrin, 2018b). The four sites assessed for Structure and functions represents 0.0003km2 (100%) of the total area of 1420 habitat recorded in Ireland. As this represents the total area of 1420, the conclusions drawn for the surveyed area apply to the total extent of the habitat in Ireland.
Of the four sites assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 88% (0.0025km2) of the area was assessed as Favourable and 12% (0.0003km2) 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 1420 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 1420 area was classified as Unfavourable and the whole area of 1420 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 1420 area being classified as having Unfavourable Structure and functions; if 3 assessment criteria failed this resulted in 75% of the 1420 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 1420 area at the site being classified as Unfavourable. The only criterion for which a site failed was “Vegetation composition: negative species (stop level)”, which reflects the fact that Spartina anglica is spreading at the site in the vicinity of the 1420 habitat.
During the last reporting period, all sites were assessed as Favourable for Structure and functions of 1420, where the habitat was still present (NPWS, 2013). For the purposes of comparison, it is assumed that this constitutes 100% of the habitat being in good condition. The percentage of 1420 habitat assessed as Favourable in the current reporting period (88%) is based on a field survey of the entire national resource, and so represents the current area of 1420 habitat in good condition.
The percentage of 1420 habitat assessed as Favourable in the current reporting period (88%) differs from the previously reported area due to the fact that the previous assessment did not consider Spartina anglica to pose a threat to 1420, while the current assessment does, resulting in the failed criterion. For this reason, 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 Decreasing.
Current range is more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, based on the current threats and range and the likelihood of further loss.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Bad.
Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Decreasing, as NPWS (2013) reported a loss of area due to anthropogenic impacts during the last reporting period and further losses have occurred.
Current area is more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
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 Bad.
Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is Stable for habitat that is in Good condition
Current Structure and functions is assessed as 88% of the habitat in Good condition, which is below the 90% threshold for Favourable.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as Stable.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Poor. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range is Unfavourable-Bad in this reporting period, while it was Favourable in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Area is Unfavourable-Bad, as it was in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions is assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate for this reporting period, while it was Favourable in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Future prospects is Unfavourable-Bad, while it was Unfavourable-Inadequate in the previous reporting period.
The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, as it was during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Bad during the current reporting period was due to the range decreasing and being below the FRR, the current area being below the FRA and the area of the habitat decreasing, and the Future prospects declining from Unfavourable-Inadequate to Unfavourable-Bad.
Overall Trend in Conservation Status was assessed as deteriorating due to the fact that 0.012ha of 1420 habitat had been lost due to anthropogenic causes in the current reporting period (4% of surveyed area, resulting in the total loss of the habitat from one site - Taulaght), in addition to losses of two sites reported in NPWS (2013). In NPWS (2013), the Overall Trend in Conservation Status was assessed as declining. Based on this, and in light of the fact that loss in area has continued into this 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  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; and (ii) the current Area is not more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - stable, and Structure and functions - uncertain.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Area trend has changed from unknown to stable, the Structure and functions trend has changed from increasing to uncertain, and because of the removal of the Future prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall trend [note that the reason for change is due to less information/accuracy or certainty in the information available]. ||
->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: 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: 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: Range of the habitat type was calculated on the basis of it's mapped distribution with buffer of 1 km. 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: The difference in the Conservation status of the habitat type from the previous
reporting period is due to the following facts:
a) the structure and functions were revealed in inadequate conservation status
on the basis of the sampling conducted during the period 2013-2018
b) the reference vales for area was judged as higher than the recorded value on the basis of expert judgement and taking into account the reduction of the habitat type’s distribution, during the last decades, due to land-use changes and human-caused disturbances. ||
->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: Critères à prendre en compte : fragmentation ; structure spatiale, architecture ; diversité et représentativité phytocoenotique ; dynamique sédimentaire ; salinité ; dynamique trophique de l'habitat ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation que les structures et fonctions sont en U1. Le point le plus problématique semble être la salinité parfois modifiée (diminuée) par l'action de l'homme. Les autres points sont dans l'ensemble bon ||
->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: 90% of habitat area is estimated to be in 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, this habitat is characterised by hardy, often succulent halophilous shrubs typified by Atriplex halimus, Halimione portulacoides, Arthrocnemum macrostachyum and Limbarda crithmoides. It is confined to coastal areas, on low-lying rocks and in the vicinity of saline marshlands or ‘estuaries’ frequently in co-association with Crithmo-Limonietea species, including Crucianella rupestris, Limonium melitense and Crithmum maritimum (which fall under habitat 1240 - Vegetated sea cliffs of the Mediterranean coasts with endemic Limonium spp.).

Re-evaluation and assessment of similar communities not occurring in marine saline muds is currently ongoing. ||
->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