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). Main cause for the expansion of habitat type 2170 is the decay of Hippophae in mixed Hippophae/Salix repens scrub (=type 2160) due to long lasting winter inundation of dune slacks. ||
->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 new method is based on plot information and leads to a different conclusion on specific structure and functions. ||
->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: Abweichend von der Empfehlung in den Guidelines bei einer FV-Bewertung der Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen einen Schwellenwert von 90 % Flächenanteil in gutem Zustand anzuwenden, wurde in Deutschland im Regelfall der Schwellenwert von 80 % beibehalten, um unter anderem die Kontinuität zu den vorherigen Bewertungen zu wahren. ||
->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: L'existence de vastes massifs dunaires aujourd'hui protégés pour leur patrimoine naturel et l'importance des forêts domaniales ou communales littorales devraient permettre de conserver ou de restaurer cet habitat sur des espaces suffisants dans l'ensemble de son aire, dans la mesure où il y a une réelle volonté publique d'assurer la préservation des habitats d'intérêt communautaire les plus menacés, notamment en diminuant les surfaces occupées par des boisements artificiels ou semi-artificiels de résineux, de peupliers ou d'autres feuillus introduits. Ceux-ci, tout comme les boisements naturels d'ailleurs, perturbent de manière non négligeable le fonctionnement hydrogéologique superficiel, en diminuant l'inondabilité des pannes, plaines, lettes et dépressions dunaires favorables à cet habitat. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Habitat complexe regroupant deux types de fourrés dunaires dont la sensibilité à l'assèchement n'est pas la même. Ainsi, même si les fourrés à optimum nord-atlantique, les plus hygrophiles, s'étendent parfois au détriment de l'habitat 2190, ils apparaissent globalement en voie d'altération trophique, avec notamment l'extension d'herbacées nitrophiles témoignant d'une inondabilité insuffisante et de la perturbation trophique des sols. Pour les fourrés thermophiles plus mésophiles occupant souvent de plus faibles espaces, la menace la plus grande est liée a leur envahissement par des ligneux...voire
par une espèce invasive, Baccharis halimifolia, car ils sont souvent situés en contexte forestier ou en bordure de forêt, l'assèchement jouant là aussi un certain rôle, même s'il n'y a pas eutrophisation de la flore. Globalement, la fonctionnalité écologique de cet habitat est donc perturbée et sa diversité ou
son originalité floristique altérée. ||
->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 2170 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool. One 10 km grid cell generated by the range tool that had no coastline was 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 (30) is one square higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). This change is due to the use of a slightly different methodology with all 10 km grid cells with a suitable coastline (i.e. capable of supporting sand dune habitats) retained within the range within the current reporting period.
The Favourable reference range has been 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 1995 with the first data available on the 2170 habitat coming from Management Planning Support Unit Mapping carried out between 1995 and 2001 (NPWS, 2012) and incorporates updates made by surveys carried out between 1995 and 2016 that are listed in Section 3.2.
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) was not determined exactly, but is estimated to be approximately equal to the current area. There is little evidence of anthropogenic losses of the 2170 habitat since the Directive came into force.
During the current reporting period two 2170 sites were visited and one of these was assessed for Area by Martin et al. (2017). The one site assessed for Area represents 0.39 km2 (15%) of the total area of 2170 habitat recorded in Ireland. This one site is a very small subsample of the 14 sites with 2170 habitat that were surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 17 sites with 2170 that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009), limiting the conclusions that can be made.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be Stable. This is due to the fact that no anthropogenic loss was recorded at the one 2170 site assessed for Area in the current reporting period, or in the 14 sites assessed in the previous reporting period, or the 17 sites assessed in the 2001-2006 reporting period (NPWS, 2013). During the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013), the short-term trend in Area was reported to be Increasing due to increases in the habitat recorded due to natural processes. However, based on current expert opinion the short-term trend of Area in the 2170 habitat in the last reporting period is now considered Stable, as any increases were due to natural fluctuations in the 2170 habitat.
The long-term trend in Area was deemed to be Stable based on the fact that there have been no reported losses in 2170 habitat area over the last three reporting periods.
The difference in habitat extent between the area of 2.61 km2 reported during this reporting period and the figure of 1.5 km2 reported during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) is due to a number of factors, in part due to improved knowledge/more accurate data and genuine change due to natural fluctuations in this habitat, but largely due to the use of a different method. With regards to improved knowledge/more accurate data, some older data was superseded by more recent field surveys conducted by Martin et al. (2017). Martin et al. (2017) reported a gain in 10.33 ha at the one 2170 site in which Area was assessed during the current reporting period; this gain, which is a genuine change, is considered to be due to natural fluctuations in the habitat. The surface area of 1.5 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 calculated 2170 area was based on all of the distribution shapefiles, including a large site (111 ha) in Portmarnock (adjacent to Baldoyle Bay SAC) with 57 polygons of certainty 2. ||
->HabCondition: During the current reporting period two 2170 sites were visited, both of which were assessed for Structure and functions, one by Martin et al. (2017) and one by Woodrow and Denyer (2014). This represents 0.4 km2 (15%) of the total area of 2170 habitat recorded in Ireland. These two sites represent a much smaller proportion of the 14 sites with 2170 habitat that were surveyed by Delaney et al. (2013) and the 17 sites with 2170 that were surveyed by Ryle et al. (2009), limiting the conclusions that can be made.
Of the two sites assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 75% (0.30 km2) of the area was assessed as being in Good condition (favourable) and 25% (0.10 km2) of the area was assessed as not being in Good condition (unfavourable). These results deviate slightly from the findings of NPWS (2013) but the overall conclusion of Unfavourable-Inadequate is the same. The figure of 75% of the 2170 area being in Good condition was utilised when calculating the area figures in Section 6.1.
The approach used to estimate the percentage of the 2170 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 2170 area was classified as unfavourable and the whole area of 2170 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 2170 area with unfavourable Structure and functions. During the current reporting period two sites were assessed. No criteria failed at Sheskinmore (SAC 000197) and one criterion failed at Magherabeg (SAC 001766). At Magherabeg 25% of the 2170 area was assigned as having unfavourable Structure and functions due to a high incidence of Senecio jacobaea throughout the habitat, including a cover score of 15% within 4 of the 12 monitoring stops.
During the last reporting period 78% of the 2130 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013) and the most frequent criteria to fail the assessment were ‘height of Salix repens’ and ‘the presence of negative indicator species’, the latter of which is the one criterion that failed in this reporting period.
The short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was taken to be stable. This is due to the fact that the Structure and functions assessment results in the current reporting period, whilst based on a small number of sample sites (two sites), was very similar to the assessment made in the last reporting period. During the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013), the short-term trend in Structure and functions was considered to be stable.
Typical species: Carex arenaria, Carex flacca, Euphrasia officinalis agg., Festuca rubra, Holcus lanatus, Lotus corniculatus, Ononis repens, Pilosella officinarum, Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus, Salix repens ssp. argentea, Scleropodium purum. ||
->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 2170 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.
Current 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 assessed as Favourable in the reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions and Future prospects are assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate in this reporting period, 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 25% of the 2170 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 (FV) should have been the same in the previous reports. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: No new data; S&F assessment in previous report ( based on SDF analysis) was U1; no TS analysis. However, from an expert point of view the habitat is overall in good condition, and therefore assessed as 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 Joop Schaminée (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: 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 - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average ||
->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 uncertain; 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 - uncertain, and Structure and functions - decreasing.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Structure and functions trend has changed from stable to decreasing.
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) 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  

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: used range tool to create map. Used new information from mapped habitats as well as historical information from previous period. ||
->Coverage: In the previous report 70 ha of habitat was recorded, currently according to the project "Nature Census" fixed 29,09 ha (all known sites, except for Ovisi and Užava, are inventoried). Ovisi and Uzava are main sites for habitat, but accordingly to cameral investigation the existing habitat poligons had been decreasing -information from study conducted in Užava indicates that grey dune habitat (including 2170) area decreases during last 25 years. Therefore accordingy to partial data we assume that habitat area decreases, but in next reporting perioud it will be possible to prove that change is mainly due to genuine changes. ||
->HabCondition: from existing mapping results information to analyse habitat quality was not available during preparation of report ||
->Future: There is need for management activities to keep open landscape ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: There is not totally investigated all sites where habitat occur and it is impossible to compare data to justify any treshold. To describe changes the information about habitat spatial distribution is used. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There are no information of exactly where this habitat occur. To obtain the range the occurrences of Salix repens var. argentea growing in open sand dune habitats was used. The data was obtained from Artportalen (The Swedish Species Reporting System). The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to the use of a different method and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods. ||
->Coverage: The habitat 2170 cannot be delimited from aerial photographs and available information in national data bases is incomplete. No monitoring of this habitat occurs. Thus, the CV estimate is based on the assumption that each 10x10 km quadrat in the distribution map contains 1 ha (0,01 km2) of the habitat. The distribution map is based on occurrences of Salix repens var. argentea in open sand dune habitats. The data was obtained from Artportalen (The Swedish Species Reporting System). ||
->HabCondition: No regular monitoring at the biogeographical level takes place in the coastal sand dune habitats. 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). The assessment was based on the assumption that the overall status of 2170 is similar to the other open sand dune habitats, especially 2130, 2140 and 2190.

One H-ranked and three M-ranked recorded pressures and threats, support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

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 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: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (2 000km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (1 183 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ znacznej 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: Siedlisko 2170 w warunkach Polski występuje w obrębie wydm nadmorskich wydm szarych i białych. W obrębie wydm białych zarośla wierzby piaskowej porastają najczęściej zbocza wałów wydmowych jak również obniżenia międzywydmowe. Na wydmach szarych siedlisko to często jest w fazie sukcesji w kierunku sosnowego boru bażynowego ||
->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 przeprowadzono na 11 stanowiskach. ||
->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: There are no information of exactly where this habitat occur. To obtain the range the occurrences of Salix repens var. argentea growing in open sand dune habitats was used. The data was obtained from Artportalen (The Swedish Species Reporting System). The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to the use of a different method and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods. ||
->Coverage: The habitat 2170 cannot be delimited from aerial photographs and available information in national data bases is incomplete. No monitoring of this habitat occurs. Thus, the CV estimate is based on the assumption that each 10x10 km quadrat in the distribution map contains 1 ha (0,01 km2) of the habitat. The distribution map is based on occurrences of Salix repens var. argentea in open sand dune habitats. The data was obtained from Artportalen (The Swedish Species Reporting System). ||
->HabCondition: No regular monitoring at the biogeographical level takes place in the coastal sand dune habitats. 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). The assessment was based on the assumption that the overall status of 2170 is similar to the other open sand dune habitats, especially 2130, 2140 and 2190.

One H-ranked and three M-ranked recorded pressures and threats, support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

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 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