Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: In the Belgium Atlantic region there is 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: 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: Un seul habitat élémentaire dans le domaine atlantique. ||
->Future: L'aire de répartition de l'habitat semble stabilisée sur le long terme. Une forte proportion des surfaces de l'habitat étant incluse dans le réseau N2000, les mesures de gestion d'ores et déjà mises en œuvre dans les sites pour maintenir les surfaces de l'habitat sont des signes encourageants pour endiguer la perte de surface. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->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. The 2013-map was not correct however, and the previous reported range should have been 7900. As we consider a change of 10% as a threshold for positive or negative trends, there is no genuine change. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS. S&F Functioning (NDFF-score)=U1 with positive trend and TS=U1 are overruled because they result from distribution data which are not consistent with CBS trends from abundance data for characteristic lichens (5 negative, 5 stable and 7 uncertain since 2006; overall only three (fauna!) species show postive trends since 2006 from which 2 have negative trends since 1990) ||
->Future: A27/A29 are expected to have lasting negative effects even on the range such that only grid cells with large habitat area remain ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->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  

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 Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; and (ii) the current Area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that less than c.5% 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 poor.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because one of the conclusions is Unfavourable-inadequate and none are Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - stable, and Structure and functions - stable.
The Overall assessment of Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the conclusion for Structure and functions has changed from Unfavourable-bad to Favourable, and the conclusion for Future Prospects has changed from Unfavourable-bad to Unfavourable-Inadequate. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The previously there was information about habitat occurence in N2000 site "Sventajas upes ieleja" and there were no information about other sites as specific habitat mapping was not conducted. The historical site still occurs and has been reinvestigated - the habitat area and quality has decreased, but with this information from one site we can not make any assesment. ||
->HabCondition: As total habitat area maximum might be 50 ha, from which 42 ha of habitat has been found on new localities just on 2018, there is no specific criteria set to evaluate habitat quality. After habitat mapping all information will be analysed to make base for next monitoring and to set quality requirements. Then it will be possible for next reporting period to evaluate some changes in general ||
->Future: The range information has improved (new habitat locations has been found), and some additional habitat areas could be found in some inland dunes completing EU habitat mapping. As just one site, where habitat occur, has been known before, the future parameters regarding structures and functions has been set taking into account information from that site. There are the same problems as with other seminatural habitats who lacks extensive management - if area is abandoned, it overgrows and quality decreases. ||
->Conclusion: After state level EU habitat mapping information about range, area and structures and functions will be analysed, as currently the available information is poor. Future prospects are similar to other seminatural habitats who depend on extensive management - there is risk of abandonment and overgrowing with trees and schrubs or change to agricultural land. ||
->JustificationThreshold: Taking into account fragmented information from previous reports and newly found habitat locations, it is impossible to compare correctly datasets ||
->Other: Habitat management is needed in Sventajas upes ieleja, for this site currently N2000 management plan is developed. Country-wide habitat inventory is ongoing and for next reporting will be available more information

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 2320 and 2330 the surface area was based on a special inventory of inland dunes (Andersson et al. 2014). Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors 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. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: For 2320 and 2330 the surface area was based on a special inventory of inland dunes (Andersson et al. 2014). The trend is unknown for inland sand dune habitats and there is little indirect information available. It is possible that these habitats have faced a similar negative areal trend as most semi-natural grassland habitats but there is too little data available to draw any conclusions since the sandy habitats covers small areas and the creation of large military fields and air fields during the 20th century may have affected the area covered by the habitats in a positive way. ||
->HabCondition: No regular monitoring at the biogeographical level takes place in the inland 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 four M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and one threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment of structures and functions as Inadequate-bad. A large number of red-listed species are also associated with inland sand habitats.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as 'poor' or ‘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: In 2017 and 2018, the habitat is completely cartographied in the military camp of Lagland, which is the main site in Continental Belgium for that habitat. ||
->HabCondition: A structures and functions pilot-survey has been done for that habitat during the 2013-2018 period and within the military camp of Lagland. There is currently no point of comparison that could allow trendsetting. Area of open sand with less than 10 % vegetation cover are considered as area of habitat where condition is not known (6.1c ). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: overall trend unknown because one parameter with unknown trend which could be stable, increasing but also decreasing… ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: L'aire de répartition de l'habitat semble stabilisée sur le long terme. Une forte proportion des surfaces de l'habitat étant incluse dans le réseau N2000, les mesures de gestion d'ores et déjà mises en oeuvre dans les sites pour maintenir les surfaces de l'habitat sont des signes encourageants pour endiguer la perte de surface. Néanmoins les surfaces actuelles sont si faibles que la fonctionnalité de l'habitat n'est pas assurée, malgré mesures de gestion. ||
->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: 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 (16 000km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (16 339 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. 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 wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Powierzchnia referencyjna określona została na równą aktualnej ze względu na stabilność siedliska, trwałą egzystencję małych, izolowanych w naturalny sposób płatów siedliska oraz na brak gatunków związanych wyłącznie z tym siedliskiem. ||
->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 2320 and 2330 the surface area was based on a special inventory of inland dunes (Andersson et al. 2014). Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors 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. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: For 2320 and 2330 the surface area was based on a special inventory of inland dunes (Andersson et al. 2014). The trend is unknown for inland sand dune habitats and there is little indirect information available. It is possible that these habitats have faced a similar negative areal trend as most semi-natural grassland habitats but there is too little data available to draw any conclusions since the sandy habitats covers small areas and the creation of large military fields and air fields during the 20th century may have affected the area covered by the habitats in a positive way. ||
->HabCondition: No regular monitoring at the biogeographical level takes place in the inland 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 four M-ranked pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and two threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment of structures and functions as Inadequate-bad. A large number of red-listed species are also associated with inland sand habitats.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as 'poor' or ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report