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). Increase in 2130 is mainly due to fixation of mobile dunes, restoration works and spontaneous decay of scrub. Habitat loss is mainly due to scrub encroachment. Mapping indicates that habitat gains prevail over losses. ||
->HabCondition: For the Flanders part of ATL the areas given in field 6.1. are based on a representative monitoring network. Indicators for habitat structure, vegetation development and environmental disturbances are taken into account. The ‘Best single value’ of the area (field 5.2) is multiplied with the % amount of the sample plots in good and not-good condition.
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: The conclusion on specific structures and functions deviates from the data of field 6.1 due to the integration with typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat (data determined on the regional level). The conclusion on specific structures and functions is 'Bad U2' mainly because of the bad status of typical species. In its turn, this is mainly caused by the red list status 'critically endangered' of the characteristic species wheatear - Oenanthe oenanthe. ||
->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: Pelouses annuelles (2130-5), pelouses vivaces calcicoles arrière-dunaires (2130-4) et ourlets dunaires (2130-5) probablement les moins bien conservés ou les plus mal caractérisés dans de nombreux sites. ||
->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 2130 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool. Twelve 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 Stable.
The number of 10 km squares in the range (166) is seven squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). These changes are due to the use of a slightly different methodology, with all 10 km grid cells with a suitable coastline retained within the range (six additional squares), and due to improved knowledge (one additional square) in the current reporting period.
The Favourable reference range has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) to reflect the improved level of knowledge and 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.
During the current reporting period twenty 2130 sites were visited and ten of these sites were assessed for Area, nine by Martin et al. (2017) and one by Devaney et al. (2014). The ten sites assessed for Area represent 9.44 km2 (12%) of the total area of 2130 habitat recorded in Ireland. This represents a smaller proportion of the total national area of 2130 than the 36 sites with 2130 habitat that were surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 152 sites with 2130 that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009), limiting the conclusions that can be made.
A loss in area of 3 ha was not deemed significant during the last reporting period and therefore NPWS (2013) reported the Area parameter as being Favourable. However it is likely that undocumented losses have occurred since the Directive came into force and therefore the FRA is set as greater than the current area and the long term trend is considered to be declining.
The difference in habitat extent between the area of 80.84 km2 reported during this reporting period and the figure of 72.8 km2 reported during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) is due to a number of factors, in part due to genuine changes because of natural fluctuations in this dynamic habitat and improved knowledge/more accurate data, but largely due to the use of a different method. There was a genuine change in area that was assessed during the current reporting period, with a net loss of 15 ha across ten of the 2130 sites, but all losses were considered to be due to the natural fluctuations in a dynamic habitat. Martin et al. (2017) reported a reduction in area (28.6 ha) at five 2130 sites due to habitat succession and erosion, and an increase in area (14.2 ha) at four sites due to habitat succession. Devaney et al. (2014) also recorded a loss, a net reduction in area of 0.62 ha in the Rogerstown Estuary SAC due to succession and erosion. With regards to improved knowledge/ more accurate data, the older data were superseded by the data collected during recent field surveys, such as Devaney et al. (2014) and Martin et al. (2017). The surface area of 72.8 km2 reported during the 2007-2012 reporting period (NPWS, 2013) was an extrapolation of data from the Sand Dune Monitoring project (Delaney et al., 2013). A different method was used in this reporting period, whereby the area was extracted directly from the distribution shapefiles. ||
->HabCondition: During the current reporting period twenty 2130 sites were visited, eleven of which were assessed for Structure and functions, nine by Martin et al. (2017) one by Wilson and Duff (2014), and one site by Woodrow and Denyer (2014). A further nine 2130 sites were visited in this reporting period by Long and Brophy (in prep.) and whilst a number of Structure and functions criteria were assessed during these surveys, these data were not included as site selection was biased towards rank 2130 habitat that provided suitable habitat for the snail species being studied. The eleven sites assessed for Structure and functions represents 9.54 km2 (12%) of the total area of 2130 habitat recorded in Ireland. This represents only a small proportion of the 36 sites that were surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 152 sites with 2130 that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009) and any conclusions that can be made based on this small sample are limited.
Of the eleven sites assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 52% (4.93 km2) of the area was assessed as being in good condition (Favourable) and 48% (4.61 km2) of the area was assessed as not being in good condition (Unfavourable). Although these results deviate from the findings of NPWS (2013) (see below) the overall conclusion of Unfavourable-Bad is the same.
During the current reporting period the approach used to estimate the percentage of the 2130 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 2130 area was classified as unfavourable and the whole area of 2130 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 2130 area being classified as having unfavourable Structure and functions; if 3 to 5 assessment criteria failed this resulted in 50% of the 2130 area at the site being classified with unfavourable Structure and functions; if 6 to 8 criteria failed this resulted in 75% of the 2130 area at the site being classified as unfavourable; if 9 to 11 assessment criteria failed at the site level this resulted in 100% of the area of 2130 being assessed as unfavourable.
During the last reporting period 74.9% of the 2130 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013) and the most frequent criteria to fail the assessment were ‘disturbance’, ‘height of vegetation’, ‘non-native species’ and ‘lack of positive indicator species’. During the current reporting period these same criteria were again the most frequent to fail the assessment.
There is a large deviation between 52% of the 2130 area in good condition (Favourable) reported during the current reporting period and the 74.9% in good condition reported in the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013). Based on expert opinion it was decided that 52% is likely to represent a minimum figure for the percentage of the national area of 2130 in good condition and 74.9% represents a maximum figure. Therefore the two figures were utilised to calculate the minimum and maximum area figures presented in Section 6.1
The short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was taken to be Decreasing. This is due to the fact that for the eight 2130 sites where the Structure and functions were assessed during both this reporting period and the previous reporting period, the status of the Structure and functions had decreased at four sites, increased at one site and remained the same at three sites, although it should be noted that at two of these sites the Structure and functions remained Unfavourable-Bad.
Typical species: Agrostis capillaris, Aira praecox, Anthyllis vulneraria, Carex arenaria, Carex flacca, Carex nigra, Carex pilulifera, Cladonia spp., Crepis capillaris, Daucus carota, Deschampsia flexuosa, Dicranum scoparium, Erodium cicutarium, Euphrasia officinalis agg., Festuca ovina, Festuca rubra, Galium saxatile, Galium verum, Homalothecium lutescens, Hylocomium splendens, Hypnum cupressiforme, Hypochaeris radicata, Linum catharticum, Lotus corniculatus, Luzula campestris, Ononis repens, Peltigera spp., Phleum arenarium, Pilosella officinarum, Plantago lanceolata, Pleurozium schreberi, Poa pratensis, Polygala serpyllifolia, Potentilla erecta, Rhinanthus minor, Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus, Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus, Scleropodium purum, Sedum acre, Syntrichia ruraliformis, Thymus polytrichus, Trifolium repens, Viola chamaedrys, Viola canina, Viola riviniana, Viola tricolor. ||
->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 Stable.
Current Area is 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 further losses will occur.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Poor.

Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is assessed as Decreasing for habitat that is in Good condition.
Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable-Bad as >25% of the habitat is not in “Good” condition.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Bad. ||
->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 Unfavourable-Inadequate in this reporting period, but was assessed as Favourable in the previous reporting period. The difference is due to further consideration of likely losses since the Directive came into force.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Bad in this reporting period, as they were 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 is due to <75% of the area of 2130 being assessed as having Favourable Structure and functions.
Trend in Overall Conservation Status was assessed as deteriorating. This is due to the fact that Structure and functions were assessed as decreasing. Trend was assessed as stable in the previous reporting period. ||
->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. Some vegetation maps still contain uncertainties and relevé data may have gaps, but we assume that total distribution is well covered for 90% or more. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends. 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; however, trends are assessed as negative, based on Mücher et al. (2017) "Meijendel-Berkheide pilot study", and NEM-LMF plots which indicate increase of shrubs and trees (http://www.clo.nl/indicatoren/nl1535-vegetatie-duinen). ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS; NDFF analysis showed a positive trend; however: three subtypes exist, of which the (uneven) scores are difficult to integrate; besides there are negative trends due to ongoing encroachment of shrubs and trees. ||
->Future: As long as the rabbit populations do not increase and there is too high nitrogen input from the atmosphere, it will be very difficult to enlarge the area and restore good structure & functioning. Further, there is a problem related to maintaining the species-rich form of dune grassland in the "Zeedorpenlandschap" and restoring "lichen-rich" decalcified varieties of the habitat type. On the other hand, restoration projects (in which bare areas are created) offer potential for this habitat for the future. ||
->Conclusion: Functioning based on NDFF analysis = U1, TS = U1. In 2013 the TS score was U2 and the NDFF analysis also showed a positive trend, but the area is declining. The overall trend therefore is unknown. ||
->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 John Janssen (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. ||
->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 Very negative - important 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 good; 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: 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: Long term trend - based on coastal vegetation studies from 1992 by B. Laime (please see published sources) and studies of coastal processes.
Short term trend - based on habitat mapping (2002-2007 and 2017 – 20018), specific research studies and previous Natura 2000 monitoring data and studies of coastal processes. ||
->Coverage: On 2006 habitat area was reported as 12,80km2 , on 2013 habitat area was reported 11,71 km2, currently after habitat maping accordingly to spatial data habitat covers 20,25km2. On 2013 the habitat interpretation was updated and several subtypes were divided, as well as so wide field investigation as on 2017-2018 has never been before, therefore now data are more acurate. Some existing sites have disapeared by overgrowing, but in the same time some habitat resoration activities has been conducted, too. During habitat mapping and development of N2000 management plans on 2014-1018, some potential habitat patches are fixed - sites where it is possible to restore habitat and there is historical information about grey dunes habitat in the past. Therefore FRA might be bigger than current mapped area ||
->HabCondition: There are three subtypes of habitat described starting from 2014. The 2130* _1 subtype represents gray dune dominated by Corynephorus canescens, Jasione montana, Carex arenaria, and it is characteristic for places where is active sand blasting or hight antropoghenic pressure. Accordingly to the data of habitat mapping (2017-2018) this type represents 11% of all gray dunes. Second subtype (2130*_2) represents 16,5% , third (2130*_3) - 43%, for the rest of mapped habitat information about subtype is not available during preparation of report. As the 2. and 3. subtype indicates about not so active coastal proceses, these habitat types need irregular management activities to prevent succession and overgrowing. As there is no so detailed information from previous periouds, it is impossible to evaluate correctly trend, therefore trend is uncertain. Additionally several researches shows changes in habitat areas decrease. Accordingly to habitat mapping data, 10-20% of habitat is on very good condition, but 40-50% of habitat is negatively influenced by overgrowing. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: There has not been so detailed information prevoiusly, therefore it is impossible to compare data from previous reports ||
->JustificationThreshold: The habitat interpretation has been changed and habitat subtypes divided after 2013. Previously monitoring occured mainly on N2000 sites, therefore currently it is impossible correctly to compare datasets for changes in quality. For changes in habitat area spatial distribution data analysed, but data accuracy varie between periods and precise comparision is impossible ||
->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. 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.

One H-ranked and four M-ranked pressures and threats support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Furthermore, aerial photos indicates that there have been a severe overgrowth in the grey dunes of the boreal region during the last decades. ||
->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: im Westen des Verbreitungsgebiets ungünstigerer Zustand ||
->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 (4 300km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (2 882 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 siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono na 32 stanowiskach, po raz ostatni w 2018 roku ||
->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 ||
->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.

Thanks to a major LIFE project, the trend for area is assessed as increasing for this habitat (SandLIFE, Ahlstrand et al. 2018, Borgström & Olsson 2018). ||
->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 four M-ranked pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and one threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

Thanks to a major LIFE project, the trend for structures and functioins is assessed as stable for this habitat (SandLIFE, Ahlstrand et al. 2018, Borgström & Olsson 2018). Grey dunes are expected to respond slower to restoration measures than White dunes since it takes time for the appropriate vegetation to recover. Thus, the trend is assessed as stable this period. The trend may change to positive during the coming 6 years. ||
->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 increase of the range area is due to the allocation of some areas from other habitat types to 2130 (specifically 12,04 km² from 2110 and 74,78 km² from 2120), in addition with the aprox. 38,01 km² including for the first time in this report. ||
->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: Se ha seguido la clave de evaluación siguiendo las siguientes pautas y criterios: 1) Se ha estimado a cual o cuales de los tres parámetros afecta cada una de las cinco amenazas con categoria H detectadas para el Hábitat. Cuando para un parámetro existe una o ninguna amenaza se considera como No amenazado. 2) El estado de conservación se calcula siguiendo la MATRIZ de EVALUACION de cada parámetro. 3) Como tendencia se toma la estimada en cada caso y recogida en su correspondiente apartado. 4) Las medidas de conservación se consideran que existen y son adecuadas para el HIC cuando más del 70% del hábitat está dentro de Red Natura, puesto que las amenzas especificado y sus medidad de conservación se correponden con las recogidas en los Planes de conservación de car ZEC o LIC. Los detalles de la Evaluación se pueden consultar en los documentos publicados y reseñados en el campo 3.2. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: To know the interpretation followed for this habitat type in Andalusia see the document
http://laboratoriorediam.cica.es/recursosVisor/pdfs/aplicacionVegetacion/HICA/2130.pdf

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