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). ||
->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: 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). ||
->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: Régression importante ou grande fragilisation de cet habitat dans la partie nord et centrale de son aire de distribution. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Les diverses synthèses ou études spécifiques sur cet habitat réalisées depuis 2012 ont permis d'avoir une vision plus objective de sa distribution actuelle, de son état de conservation actuel, de ses potentialités de restauration ou d'extension de sa surface et de ses perspectives générales, ces différents paramètres étant toutefois bien différents selon les secteurs géographiques, au sein de l'aire de répartition générale de cet habitat dans le domaine atlantique français. ||
->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 2150 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). The fact that the 2150 habitat was not located at Crummies Bay (SAC 002012) during the current reporting period led to a contraction in the range of one 10 km square. As no confirmed areas of 2150 had been previously mapped for Crummies Bay this contraction in the range is most probably due to improved knowledge or more accurate data and the short-term trend is assessed as Stable.
The Favourable reference range has been decreased 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 2010 (data presented in NPWS, 2013) and these data were updated during the current reporting period (Martin 2018a; 2018b).
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) was not determined exactly, but is estimated to be approximately equal to the current area. No anthropogenic losses have been recorded since the Directive came into force. However, as no comprehensive survey for the habitat was undertaken until 2010 it is unclear if grazing pressure that took place before this date may have reduced the area of dune heath below the FRA.
During the current reporting period the seven 2150 sites where the habitat had been recorded previously (NPWS, 2013) were surveyed by Martin (2018a; 2018b). The Annex I habitat was located at five of the seven sites visited, Aghleam (SAC 000470), Brittas Bay (SAC 000729), Lough Nagreany (SAC 000164), Maghera (SAC 000190), and Sheskinmore (SAC 000197), and 0.205 km2 of 2150 habitat was mapped, which represents the total area of the habitat recorded within Ireland. The 2150 habitat was not located at two of the seven sites visited, Crummies Bay (SAC 002012) and Kincaslough (SAC 001141). For Crummies Bay no areas of 2150 had been previously mapped, and the areas of potential 2150 mapped at Kincaslough occurred on rocky habitat rather than sand dune.
The short-term trend was deemed to be Stable as no anthropogenic losses were recorded within the current reporting period or during the previous reporting period of 2007-2012 (NPWS, 2013). The two sites, Crummies Bay and Kincaslough, where the 2150 habitat was not recorded were not considered to be losses as there is no evidence that the 2150 habitat occurred within Crummies Bay and the habitat had been misidentified at Kincaslough.
Long-term trend in Area was deemed to be Stable with no anthropogenic losses recorded during the current or previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). However, it is difficult to assess the long-term trend as the habitat was not defined or comprehensively surveyed until 2010.
The difference in habitat extent between the area of 0.205 km2 reported during this reporting period and the figure of 0.5 km2 reported during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) is due to improved knowledge/more accurate data and the use of a different method. During the current reporting period all areas of 2150 were accurately mapped, whereas during the previous reporting period the area was estimated with some extrapolation. During the current reporting period the definition for the 2150 habitat was more clearly defined with only areas of sand dune habitat with a minimum of 25% cover of Calluna vulgaris and/or Erica species mapped as 2150. ||
->HabCondition: During the current reporting period seven potential 2150 sites were visited and the habitat was located at five of these sites. All five of these sites were assessed for Structure and functions by Martin (2018c), with 18 monitoring plots recorded across four of the sites. At Lough Nagreany only 30 m2 of the 2150 habitat was located and an assessment of the Structure and functions was made without recording a monitoring plot. The total known area of 2150 habitat was assessed during the current reporting period.
Of the five sites assessed for Structure and functions, two sites were Favourable (Maghera and Sheskinmore) and three were Unfavourable-Inadequate (Aghleam, Brittas Bay, and Lough Nagreany). No site-based assessment of Structure and functions was presented during the previous reporting period. In total, 86.4% of the 0.205 km2 of 2150 habitat that was surveyed during the current reporting period was in Good condition (favourable) and 13.6% was not in Good condition (unfavourable).
The approach used to estimate the percentage of the 2150 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 2150 area was classified as unfavourable and the whole area of 2150 at the site was assigned as being in Good condition; if 1 to 2 criteria failed at the site level then a site-based assessment was made that assigned the proportion of the 2150 area with unfavourable Structure and functions. During the current reporting period there were no 2150 sites where more than two assessment criteria failed. At Aghleam 75% of the 2150 area was assigned as having unfavourable Structure and functions due to a scarcity of sand-binding species such as Carex arenaria and inadequate sand depth (inadequate was defined as sand that was not > 15 cm deep). For Brittas Bay 100% of the 2150 area was assigned unfavourable Structure and functions due to a high incidence of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) throughout the habitat, including a cover score of 45% within one monitoring stop. At Lough Nagreany 100% of the 2150 area was assigned as having unfavourable Structure and functions due to a scarcity of sand-binding species such as Carex arenaria.
During the last reporting period 85% of the 2150 habitat was assessed as Favourable. This assessment was based on expert judgement and no specific reasons were listed for 15% of the habitat being unfavourable.
Based on expert opinion the short-term trend of the habitat area in Good condition is taken to be Stable with the small difference between the reporting periods due to the different approaches that were used.
The new typical plant species list for the 2150 habitat is: Calluna vulgaris, Ammophila arenaria, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Carex arenaria, Danthonia decumbens, Festuca ovina, Festuca rubra, Holcus lanatus, Hylocomium splendens, Hypericum pulchrum, Lotus corniculatus, Potentilla erecta, Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus, Rosa spinosissima, Scleropodium purum, Succisa pratensis, and Viola riviniana. ||
->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 approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Stable as there have been no reported losses in area for the 2150 habitat over the last two reporting periods
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 and Area are Favourable in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Inadequate, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-Inadequate. This is the same as the previous reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Inadequate is due to 13.6% of the 2150 habitat not being in good condition.
Trend in Overall assessment of Conservation Status was assessed as stable. This is the same as 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 ||
->HabCondition: There is no data on area with good S&F available. There is no method for assessing S&F for this habitat type yet, but the assessment of S&F (U1) should have been the same in the previous reports. The score U1 is based on fragmentation and too high nitrogen deposition in most area of the habitat type. ||
->Future: Structure and function remain poor due to high atmospheric nitrogen deposition. ||
->Conclusion: S&F assessment based on previous report (which was based on SDF analysis); no TS analysis. ||
->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 Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; 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 poor; (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.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because of the removal of the Future prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall trend. ||
->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 documents http://laboratoriorediam.cica.es/recursosVisor/pdfs/aplicacionVegetacion/HICA/2150_1.pdf http://laboratoriorediam.cica.es/recursosVisor/pdfs/aplicacionVegetacion/HICA/2150_2.pdf http://laboratoriorediam.cica.es/recursosVisor/pdfs/aplicacionVegetacion/HICA/2150_0.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