Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: In 2017, habitat type 2110 was mapped in detail for the entire Belgian coast, so accurate figures are available for the current period. Due to different methods used previously, potential change cannot be determined. ||
->HabCondition: A completely new method was used for the assessment of habitat quality, so no information on trends is yet available, but since we conclude a FV status this cannot be decreasing.
Information on typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat is determined directly on the regional level. As a consequence, this information cannot be integrated in the areas given in field 6.1, but it is used to assess the conclusions on specific structures and functions (field 10.3). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: A new method was used for quality assessment based on complete survey of the habitat type. As a result we conclude that specific structure and functions are favourable but these findings cannot be compared to previous assessments. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Évaluation de la surface de l'aire de répartition révisée mais qui semble encore trop importante car de nombreuses mailles ne peuvent être occupées qu'à quelques % et non à 49% comme l'indique la nouvelle méthode utilisée. ||
->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 2110 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool. Fourteen 10 km grid cells generated by the range tool that had no coastline 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 anthropogenic area losses recorded during the current reporting period led to a contraction in the range. Therefore the short-term trend is Stable.
The number of 10 km grid cells in the current range (146) is one lower than the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). This change can be attributed to both the use of a slightly different methodology, with all 10 km grid cells with a coastline retained within the range, and improved knowledge. One 10 km grid cell present in the NPWS (2013) range was removed from the current range as it had no coastline. Another 10 km grid cell with a small stretch of coastline that had been manually removed from the NPWS (2013) range was retained in the current range. Finally, there was one 10 km grid cell lost from the current range since NPWS (2013) due to natural fluctuations in this dynamic habitat.
The Favourable reference range value is the same as the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). The Favourable reference range is the current range, reported in 4.10, plus the one 10 km grid cell where there was a natural loss of 2110 since the last reporting period (i.e. the 10 km grid cell L98). ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1996 (Crawford et al., 1996) when the first baseline survey was carried out and incorporates updates made by surveys carried out between 2004 and 2016 that are listed in Section 3.2.
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) is approximately equal to the current area. Some very minor losses have been reported, since the Directive came into force, which were linked to once-off beach cleaning which does not permanently remove the habitat.
During the current reporting period ten 2110 sites were visited, eight by Martin et al. (2017), one by Devaney et al. (2014) and one by Wilson and Duff (2014). This represents only a small proportion of the 36 sites surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 118 sites with 2110 habitat that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009) and any conclusions that can be made based on this small subsample are limited.
The short-term trend in Area is stable as the losses incurred by beach cleaning were considered to be negligible. No anthropogenic losses were recorded from the nine sites; Wilson and Duff (2014) make no accurate assessment of area during the current reporting period.
During this reporting period there was a net gain of 1.69 ha across the nine sites surveyed by Martin et al. (2017) and Devaney et al. (2014). All gains were attributed to natural fluctuations in this dynamic habitat.
The difference in habitat extent between the area of 2.17 km2 reported during this reporting period and the figure of 1.99 km2 reported during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) is due to a number of factors such as genuine changes due to natural fluctuations in this dynamic habitat, improved knowledge/more accurate data and largely due to the use of a different method.
The surface area figure of 1.99 km2 reported during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) was the total area of 2110 habitat mapped by Delaney et al. (2013) and Ryle et al. (2009). The area of 2.17 km2 for the current reporting period was extracted directly from the distribution shapefiles using all sources listed in Section 3.2. The 2110 polygons mapped during NPWS (2013) were updated/superseded by the data collected during this reporting period. In addition to this, all certainty=1 and certainty=2 polygons in the NPWS (2013) dataset were reviewed. Following this review, 135 polygons totalling 0.84 km2 were removed from the dataset due to the fact that the spatial data had been superseded by data collected during more recent field surveys (Delaney et al. 2013; Ryle et al. 2009). ||
->HabCondition: During the current reporting period ten 2110 sites were visited, eight by Martin et al. (2017), one by Devaney et al. (2014) and one by Wilson and Duff (2014). This represents only a small proportion of the 36 sites surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 118 sites with 2110 habitat that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009) and any conclusions that can be made based on this small subsample are limited.
During the current reporting period, data were only available to assess the Structure and functions at seven 2110 sites, six surveyed by Martin et al. (2017) and one surveyed by Wilson and Duff (2014). At all seven 2110 sites the Structure and functions were assessed as Favourable. This sample only represents 0.1 km2 (5%) of the total area of 2.17 km2 of 2110 habitat in Ireland, therefore it is not considered representative.
During the last reporting period 87% of the 2110 habitat was assessed as Favourable. The most frequent criteria to fail the assessment were ‘damage due to disturbance’ and ‘interference with sediment dynamics’ (NPWS, 2013). Based on expert judgement 87% was utilised when calculating the current area of 2110 habitat in good condition, as the figure is based on a larger sample and considered to be more accurate than the figure of 100% in good condition calculated during the current reporting period.
Although only seven sites were assessed for Structure and functions during the current reporting period, the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition is taken to be stable based mainly on expert opinion.
Typical species: Elytrigia juncea, Leymus arenarius. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current range is one 10km grid cell less than the Favourable Reference Range. However, this is attributed to natural loss of 2110 rather than anthropogenic loss.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, as no change in Range is expected based on an assessment of the pressures and threats.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Stable.
Current area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Stable.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is Stable for habitat that is in Good condition.
Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate as >75% but <90% of the habitat is in Good Condition.
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, Area, Structure and functions and Future prospects are all the same as the previous reporting period.
The Overall assessment of Conservation Status is assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate. This is the same as the previous reporting period. The current status of Unfavourable-Inadequate is due to 13% of the 2110 habitat being in poor condition. ||
->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 vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites and relevé data in- and outside Natura 2000-sites over a period of 12 years. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends. However, the previously reported map was missing 10 grid cells and therefore the 2013 range value should have been 5700 km2. Therefore a stable trend has been reported. Favourable Reference Values are based on Bijlsma et al. (2014), WOt report 125. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available, but large increases are known from the mainland dunes and the Kwade Hoek. ||
->HabCondition: There is no data on area with good S&F available. The conditions have improved due to sand suppletion ("zandmotor"). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: S&F assessment based on previous report (which was based on SDF analysis); no TS analysis.
In 2013 no trend has been reported, but it is supposed to have been already increasing.
The habitat is currently unsuitable for typical beach breeding birds (Charadrius alexandrinus) due to intensive recretation, but this aspect has presently not been included in the assessment of S&F. ||
->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 Bart de Knegt (WEnR)

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 short term trend direction is considered to be decreasing by 1%/yr or less, based on the rate of decline identified in Wales. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->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 decreasing by 1% per year or less; 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 - decreasing, and Structure and functions - uncertain.
The conclusion reached on the Overall trend deviates from that prescribed within the EU guidelines. Expert opinion of UK habitat specialists is that the Overall trend should be assessed as Deteriorating (rather than Unknown), because: (i) the decline in area for H2110 is a critical issue; and (ii) it is more likely that the Uncertain short-term parameter trends are either Stable or Decreasing, rather than Increasing. ||
->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: 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: information from habitat mapping used (95% coastline observed) ||
->Coverage: 207 ha of this habitat has been detected in the previous period, according to the habitat mapping data (2017-2018) and information from N2000 managtement plans, the area of ​​the habitat currently reaches 226 ha (95% of coastal areas surveyed). The increase can be explained by the absence of very strong storms in recent years as well as by new information ||
->HabCondition: The habitat has been subdivided in 3 categories. The 2110_3 type is
characterized by a large variety of psammophytic grasses, rich dunes, it is characteristic of permanent or periodic accumulation shores. This type covers 0,61km2. For other habitat categories specific species are common, too.
Accordingly to EU habitat mapping, in good condition is 50-70% of habitat, in bad condition - 20% (due to antropogenic pressure), the rest - medium quality. ||
->Future: Unregulated recreation pressure can pose a threat in the future, but if coastal recreation development process will be regulated, the pressure will be minimised ||
->Conclusion: Accordingly to EU habitat mapping results, in good condition is 50-70% of habitat, in bad condition - 20% (due to antropogenic pressure), the rest - medium quality. Therefore evaluation of Structures and Functions is U1. ||
->JustificationThreshold: It is not possible to measure a change of 1%, as previous assessments were based mainly on N2000 sites assesment, but now assessment inludes all state area. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the sand dunes, all known occurrences of the habitats were recorded in an inventory performed by ArtDatabanken using aerial photos (A. Jacobson, unpublished data). Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.
The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. No changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: A new baseline inventory of these habitats was conducted by visual interpretation of IR aerial photographs, old aerial photos (1960 and 1975) and a national elevation model (A. Jacobson, unpublished data). The current area estimates are relatively accurate. Any changes in the area estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes in habitat area.

The short term trend is unknown for most sand dune habitats. There is little information available since no monitoring takes place in these habitats. ||
->HabCondition: No regular monitoring at the biogeographical level takes place in the coastal sand dune habitats. Based on expert judgement the structure and functions parameter is assessed as inadequate-poor. Human disturbance, littering, and eutrophication of the sea affects the habitat negatively.

The scarce information available for the habitat types 2110, 2170, and 2180 is out-of-date and not useful for the assessment of habitat area in good condition. It is therefore reported as unknown for these habitats. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). This expert judgement was based on current pressures and threats affecting the habitats and discussions with a reference group of professionals working with research, administration, and active conservation management in sand dune habitats.

The trend is assessed as ‘Unknown’ as there is no available information regarding the temporal variation in habitat area in good condition for this habitat type. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (4 100km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (965 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Monitoring of the natural habitat was carried out on 31 sites [similar to the previous cycle]. ||
->HabCondition: Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2

Głównym czynnikiem pogorszenia oceny stanu ochrony byłao działalność morza, w szczególności intensywne sztormy w latach 2016-2017, w wyniku których na znacznej liczbie stanowisk siedlisko uległo zniszczeniu. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the sand dunes, all known occurrences of the habitats were recorded in an inventory performed by ArtDatabanken using aerial photos (A. Jacobson, unpublished data). Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.
The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. No changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: A new baseline inventory of these habitats was conducted by visual interpretation of IR aerial photographs, old aerial photos (1960 and 1975) and a national elevation model (A. Jacobson, unpublished data). The current area estimates are relatively accurate. Any changes in the area estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes in habitat area.

The short term trend is unknown for most sand dune habitats. There is little information available since no monitoring takes place in these habitats. ||
->HabCondition: No regular monitoring at the biogeographical level takes place in the coastal sand dune habitats. Based on expert judgement the structure and functions parameter is assessed as inadequate-poor. Human disturbance, littering, and eutrophication of the sea affects the habitat negatively.

The scarce information available for the habitat types 2110, 2170, and 2180 is out-of-date and not useful for the assessment of habitat area in good condition. It is therefore reported as unknown for these habitats. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). This expert judgement was based on current pressures and threats affecting the habitats and discussions with a reference group of professionals working with research, administration, and active conservation management in sand dune habitats.

The trend is assessed as ‘Unknown’ as there is no available information regarding the temporal variation in habitat area in good condition for this habitat type. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The decline of the range area is due to the allocation of some areas to other habitat type (specifically 12,04 km² to 2130) ||
->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 has been calculated on the basis of 1x1 km grid cells using recent and previous mapping polygons of the habitat, with a gap distance of 4 km. Additionally, using expert judgment, cells with unsuitable ecological conditions (i.e. non-maritime sands) have been excluded from the range of the habitat type.
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 mapping polygons including pure or mixed occurrences of the habitat type. 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 mainly due to structure and functions which were revealed in inadequate conservation status, on the basis of the sampling conducted during the period 2013-2018. ||
->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 en prendre en compte pour évaluer le paramètre structure & fonctions : fragmentation ; dynamique sédimentaire et processus morpho-dynamiques (sables modérément mobiles sur des dunes jeunes ou haut de plage) ; structure (formations ouvertes dominées par les vivaces) et situation caténale ||
->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 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: The location of 'Daħlet ix-Xilep' in Malta was removed from the last reporting cycle due to the natural growth and increase of plant species typical of other habitats co-existing with habitat 2110 – Embryonic shifting dunes. This natural increase of these species occurred to the detriment of the typical species of the dune. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: In the Maltese Islands, the ‘Embryonic shifting dunes’ habitat is usually found along foredunes and the initial zones of the more ‘inland’ yellow dunes. It persists in almost all extant dunes, especially at the Natura 2000 sites: MT0000005 - L-Inħawi tar-Ramla in Gozo and MT0000009 - L-Inħawi tar-Ramla tat-Torri u tal-Irdum tal-Madonna, but is also found in varying degrees in other areas.

In terms of the structure and function of the habitat, the presence of the typical species (such as Elytrigia juncea, Eryngium maritimum, Medicago marina, Sporobolus pungens and Pancratium maritimum) and their relative coverage; the extent of sand mobility and saltation processes; the presence/absence of invasive alien species; as well as direct evidence of intense human interference were taken into consideration. ||
->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