Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). Therefore, we use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat). Decrease of habitat type 2120 is mainly due to spontaneous fixation of mobile dunes and subsequent succession into grey dune 2130 or scrub 2160. ||
->HabCondition: 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: 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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 2120 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool. Seventeen 10 km grid cells generated by the range tool that had no coastline or no suitable coastline (i.e. rocky shoreline and cliffs) 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 10 km squares in the range (154) is one square higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). This additional square is due to the use of a slightly different methodology, with all 10 km grid cells with a suitable coastline retained within the range within the current reporting period.
The Favourable reference range has increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) due to the use of a different method. The Favourable reference range is the current range, reported in 4.1. ||
->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 1996 and 2016 that are listed in Section 3.2.
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) a range was provided for the FRA, the maximum of which was set at 4.72 km2, 9% more than the current area.
During the current reporting period eleven 2120 sites were visited and ten of these were assessed for Area, nine by Martin et al. (2017) and one by Devaney et al. (2014). The ten sites assessed for Area represent 0.55 km2 (13%) of the total area of 2120 habitat recorded in Ireland. This represents a smaller proportion of the total area than the 36 sites with 2120 habitat that were surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 141 sites with 2120 that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009), limiting the conclusions that can be made.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing due to a loss of 0.02 ha due to anthropogenic impacts reported during the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013). The magnitude of the known loss is approximately -0.01% per annum, measured over a period of 12 years (2007-2018). This figure is calculated by expressing the 0.02 ha area that was lost as a per-annum percentage of the 2.15 km2 area surveyed in the last two reporting periods, including the area that has been lost within the total.
The long-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing based on the fact that a 0.02 ha loss of 2120 habitat due to anthropogenic activities was reported in NPWS (2013).
The difference in habitat extent between the area of 4.33 km2 reported during this reporting period and the figure of 3.33 km2 reported during the previous reporting period is due in part to genuine change, but largely due to improved knowledge/more accurate data. With regards to improved knowledge/more accurate data, the older data were superseded by the data collected during recent field surveys by Devaney et al. (2014) and Martin et al. (2017). There was a genuine change, a net increase, of 19.6 ha across ten of the 2120 sites in which Area was assessed during the current reporting period, with all gains and losses considered to be due to the natural fluctuations in a dynamic habitat. Martin et al. (2017) reported an increase in area (24.3 ha) at five sites due to habitat succession, including post-storm habitat succession, and a reduction in area (2.5 ha) at four sites also due to habitat succession, and erosion. Devaney et al. (2014) reported a net reduction of 2.2 ha in the Rogerstown Estuary due to the natural processes of stabilisation and succession. ||
->HabCondition: During the current reporting period eleven 2120 sites were visited and ten of these were assessed for Structure and functions, nine by Martin et al. (2017) and one by Wilson and Duff (2014). The ten sites assessed for Structure and functions represent 0.56 km2 (13%) of the total area of 2120 habitat recorded in Ireland. This represents a smaller proportion of the total area than 36 sites with 2120 habitat that were surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 141 with 2120 that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009), limiting the conclusions that can be made.
Of the ten sites assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 97% (0.54 km2) of the area was assessed as Favourable and 3% (0.02 km2) was assessed as Unfavourable. Although based on a smaller sample size this result does not deviate significantly from the findings of NPWS (2013) presented below.
The approach used to estimate the percentage of the 2120 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 2120 area was classified as unfavourable and the whole area of 2120 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 2120 area being classified as having unfavourable Structure and functions; if 3 to 4 assessment criteria failed this resulted in 50% of the 2120 area at the site being classified with unfavourable Structure and functions; if 5 to 6 criteria failed at the site level this resulted in 75% of the 2120 area at the site being classified as unfavourable; if 7 assessment criteria failed at the site level this resulted in 100% of the area of 2120 being assessed as unfavourable.
During the last reporting period 90% of the 2120 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013). The most frequent criteria to fail were ‘damage due to disturbance’ and ‘interference with sediment dynamics’. During the current reporting period these same criteria were again the most frequent to fail the assessment. Based on expert judgement 90% was utilised when calculating the current area of 2120 habitat in good condition, as the figure is based on a larger sample (NPWS, 2013) and considered to be more accurate than the figure of 97% calculated during the current reporting period.
Although during the current reporting period Structure and functions were assessed at only 10 sites, the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition is taken to be stable based on expert opinion.
Typical species: Ammophila arenaria, Elytrigia juncea, Leymus arenarius. ||
->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 as NPWS (2013) reported a loss in area of 0.02 ha due to anthropogenic impacts during the last 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 Stable as there is no evidence to suggest that these minor losses will continue into the future.
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 Favourable as 90% of the habitat is in Good condition.
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 and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Inadequate, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions is assessed as Favourable during this reporting period, whilst it was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate in the previous reporting period. This is due to the lower threshold required to attain a Favourable status rather than any notable improvements.
The Overall assessment of Conservation Status was 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 due to small losses since the Directive came into force.
Trend in Overall assessment of Conservation Status was assessed as stable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: The reported loss of 0.02 ha due to trampling and beach cleaning in the last reporting round is not considered sufficient to warrant an overall declining trend. ||
->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. The 2013-map was not correct however, and the previous reported range should have been 5700. As we consider a change of 10% as a threshold for positive or negative trends, there is no genuine change. 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 ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS. ||
->Future: Future prospects for S&F are scored GOOD, because the trend of S&F (see 6.4) is scored as positive. Many typical species of this habitattype show an increase in their distribution (Calystegia soldanella, Sonchus arvensis var. maritimus, Eryngium maritimum). ||
->Conclusion: Functioning based on NDFF analysis = U1, TS = FV. Because the trends of typical species are all very positive, the overall assessment is FV. ||
->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 Scotland and 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 - decreasing.
||
->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: information from habitat mapping and information about coastal processes used ||
->Coverage: 7,35 km2 reported on 2006, 5,58 km2 reported on 2012, now spatial data available for 5,02 km2 (95% of coastal line inventoried). Every period more precise information is available and some change in area is due to more acurate data. In the same time comparing information on N2000 sites, there is increase in habitat area, especially on open sea coastline. ||
->HabCondition: Information from plant monitoring - Angelica palustris, Dianthus arenarius un Linaria loeselii populācijas un dzīvotņu stāvokļa novērtējums (2014-2016) https://www.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/dati1/valsts_monitoringa_dati/#augi.
Rateniece A. 2015. Baltijas jūras reģiona endēmo augu sugu Tragopogon heterospermus un Anthyllis maritima populāciju ekoloģija Latvijā. Maģistra darbs. Latvijas Universitāte, Rīga.

Accordingly to habitat mapping habitat in good condition occurs on 50%, not in good 30% (mainly due to antropogenic pressure) ||
->Future: Due to recreation activities habitat quality minimises. ||
->Conclusion: The habitat is dynamic and depends on the coastal processes, in recent years there have been no large storms and habitat is stable. Influencing factors - recreation pressure, erosion, storms, invasive species (for example Rosa rugosa). Habitat can be in complex with other coastal habitats.
Accordingly to specific species monitoring data and EU habitat mapping preliminary results, the proportion of habitat in low quality do not exceed 25% of total surface area of habitat (indicated as habitat in bad quality). In the same time there is dominating good and medium quality habitat in average, but proportion of excelent quality habitat is ~ 10% (this 10% area of total surface area is indicated as area in good condition where no neccessary to implement any specific management measure). ||
->JustificationThreshold: There is no possibility to compare data to use justification of 1%, as amount of available information and data accuracy vary between reporting periouds. Spatial data has been evaluated to see differences on habitat distribution during this reporting perioud and previous years. ||
->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 for 2120 in the boreal region is assessed as decreasing based on visual inspection of aerial photographs (A. Jacobson, unpublished data) that indicate a severe overgrowth by vegetation in the white dunes at many sites (e.g. Gotska sandön) during the last decades. ||
->HabCondition: No regular monitoring at the biogeographical level takes place in the coastal sand dune habitats. Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. The proportion of habitat in good condition was instead estimated from visual inspection of aerial IR photos with ArcMap (Jacobson unpublished data). The conservation status was assessed in 50 sample points randomly distributed in each habitat type and biogeographical region using the Create Random Points tool in ArcMap 10.4.1. The assessment focused on a radius of approximately 50m around each point. The assessment was based mainly on the extent of the tree- and bush layer, the lushness of the field layer, and the amount of open sand.

The presence of one H-ranked and two M-ranked pressures and threats, and one threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as 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: The area reported in the field 6.1 may be greater than the total area of the habitat (field 5.2), because of the choice to use the data of the standard forms as a source for the conservation status. ||
->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 (3 500km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (125 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: N/A ||
->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

Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono na 23 stanowiskach.
Dotychczas dwukrotnie przeprowadzono monitoring tego typu siedliska przyrodniczego w ramach PMŚ. Pierwszy cykl miał miejsce w latach 2013-2014, drugi w latach 2016-2018.
Płaty siedliska cechują się obecnie dużą dynamiką wynikającą z procesów eolicznych oraz działalności morza. Najważniejszymi oddziaływaniami powodującymi negatywne zmiany w siedlisku i powodującymi obniżenie ocen są aktualnie procesy abrazyjne oraz presja turystyczna. ||
->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 ||
->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 for 2120 in the continental region is assessed as increasing based on visual inspection of aerial photographs (A. Jacobson, unpublished data). The reason is a major LIFE project where relatively large areas of 2120 have been restored (SandLIFE, Ahlstrand et al. 2018, Borgström & Olsson 2018). White dunes respond relatively quickly to restoration measures. ||
->HabCondition: No regular monitoring at the biogeographical level takes place in the coastal sand dune habitats. Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. The proportion of habitat in good condition was instead estimated from visual inspection of aerial IR photos with ArcMap (Jacobson unpublished data). The conservation status was assessed in 50 sample points randomly distributed in each habitat type and biogeographical region using the Create Random Points tool in ArcMap 10.4.1. The assessment focused on a radius of approximately 50m around each point. The assessment was based mainly on the extent of the tree- and bush layer, the lushness of the field layer, and the amount of open sand.

The presence of one H-ranked and three M-ranked pressures and threats, and one threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

Thanks to a major LIFE project, the trend for structures and functions is assessed as increasing for this habitat (SandLIFE, Ahlstrand et al. 2018, Borgström & Olsson 2018). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as 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 74,78 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: 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 pour évaluer ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; dynamique sédimentaire et processus morphodynamiques (mouvements de sables suffisamment importants) ; structure de la végétation et position caténale ; dynamique trophique de l'habitat ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de la tendance générale "En détérioration" : Les tendances pour la surface de l'habitat sont négatives ||
->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: 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: The area reported in the field 6.1 may be greater than the total area of the habitat (field 5.2), because of the choice to use the data of the standard forms as a source for the conservation status. ||
->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