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). The area of dune woodland is increasing due to spontaneous woodland development in scrub or herbaceous vegetation. Differences in reported areas are mainly due to improved knowledge. ||
->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: Improving trend in conservation status is due to increase in area and positive management results. ||
->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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des structures et fonctions U1. La forte exploitation sylvicole de cet habitat ne permet pas une expression optimale dans de nombreux secteurs géographiques. ||
->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: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS (primary source); Secondary source: Analysis of average dead wood volume per ha based on a large sample of plot data from the Fifth (2001-2005) and Sixth (2012-2013) Dutch Forest Inventory. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: S&F score based on 1) overall Functioning=U1 (U1 for subtypes A en B; U2 for subtype C), 2) overall Functioning trend=positive, 3) DeadWood score=U2 but trend= positive ||
->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 Rienk-Jan Bijlsma (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  

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: The information from habitat mapping (project "Nature Census") and other spatial data from Nature Conservation Agency and JSC "Latvian State Forests" is used to prepare range map. Additionally geological information used to set border between inland and coastal dunes habitats ||
->Coverage: Currently 95% of coastal line is mapped during habitat inventory, but several large sites with coastal wooded dunes still will be mapped on 2019/2020, including Slitere National Park and Kemeri National Park. The definition of habitat 2180 has been revised and updated, accordingly to this clarification habitat mapping is carried out in the project "Nature census". Due to the clarification of the habitat interpretation, the overlaping of habitats is not allowed, therefore some areas of the boreal forest (9010 *) that was previously mapped and overlaped with wooded dunes (2180) is excluded and all these sites are counted only as wooded dunes. The building is a main treat to decrease habitat area, but forestry activities can decrease habitat quality. As a result of building 27,31 ha of wooded dunes has been destroyed (information from certified expert opinion database host by Nature Conservation Agency). Compearing data from habitat mapping into nature data base "Ozols" with State Forest Service database about new stands, we can conclude that on the beginning of 2019 from 51341,8 ha of wooded dunes 2,36% or 1211 ha were new stands. In the two previous reports, the area occupied by the habitat was estimated at 600km2, at present the habitat occupies 51341,80 ha or 513,4 km2 according to the habitat mapping data. It means that maximum habitat area will not exceed 600km2. Estimation of distribution is assessed as insufficient because more than 2% of mapped area has been destroyed ||
->HabCondition: Using information from habitat inventory, both NCA and JSC "Latvian State Forest" analyses shows that the quality of registered habitats is generally judged as medium and good, while very few are fixed excellent quality habitats (AS “Latvijas valsts meži”
Vides pārskats par 2018. gadu https://www.lvm.lv/images/lvm/sabiedribai/Vides_aizsardziba/lvm_vides_parskats_2018-pdf.pdf).
In average accordingly to the results of habitat mapping, currently 6% of mapped habitat is evaluatd as a low quality habitat. That percentage is calculated from mapped areas. Accordingly to the quality evaluation, 10% of wooded dunes in average are in good quality (quality analysis of 2017 mapping results) =this evaluation has been used for all mapped areas.
There has no been specific research and quality parameters before, therefore there is no possibility to compare data from prevoius periouds on state level. Neverless information from N2000 management plans shows, that in some protected areas the habitat quality increases, but problems with structures occur if habitat are close to villages and cities - the dead wood has been collected and eutrophication is more intensive. ||
->Future: Accordingly to the results of project "Nature census", medium quality habitats dominate, many are single- aged forest stands. The risk of building and recreational load increases, especially close to populated areas, as well as eutrophication, invasive species, pressure to change legislation regarding forest management. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: Due to the lack of a general habitat mapping in past, and taking into account information from the current habitat mapping, it is not possible to calculate and precisely evaluate genuine changes. ||
->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. 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 presence of two H-ranked and two 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.

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 (5 900km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (4 017 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: Większość zasobów siedliska znajduje się w chwili obecnej w zarządzie Lasów Państwowych, mniejsza w Pasie Technicznym Urzędów Morskich oraz w Parkach Narodowych (Słowiński, Woliński). Ocenę zasobów oparto o wyniki inwentaryzacji przyrodniczej Lasów Państwowych oraz dane z Urzędów Morskich. Zasoby siedliska są stabilne, w ostatnich latach nasiliły się abrazyjne czynności fal morskich, co skutkuje zmniejszaniem się zasobów siedliska. Na razie skala zjawiska jest niewielka i lokalna, ale w związku z prognozowanym podniesieniem się poziomu Morza Bałtyckiego może nabrać poważnych rozmiarów. ||
->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.

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. 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 presence of one H-ranked and two 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.

Furthermore, more than 90 % of the area is in bad condition according to fresh information (from 2018) from the County Administrative Board of Skåne, where a large part of this habitat in the continental region occurs. No equivalent information is available from the CAB of Halland where almost all occurences of 2180 in the continental region outside Skåne are located. There is however little reason to assume that the situation is better in Halland than in Skåne.

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