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: 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: 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: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 4010 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend for Range was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013a). Data used for short-term trend dated from 2007 to 2017, while those used for long-term trend dated from 1994 to 2017. There was no loss of range caused by the recorded losses of area in the SACs covered by the NSUH during these two reporting periods. The short-term trend in Range is judged to be stable; however, the NSUH surveyed just two upland SACs within the current reporting period, compared with 13 in the previous reporting period, thus limiting the conclusions that can be made from this data.
Due to improved knowledge from additional survey sources in the current reporting period, the number of 10km squares in the range (605) is 34 greater than for the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013a). The following, all surveyed in this reporting period, added to the range: Dooish Mountain, Donegal (two squares) and Clonmore North, Tipperary (one square) (Coillte Biodiversity Dataset); Ballyglass North, Galway (four squares) (Daly, 2016); Ahasragh, Galway (one square) (Galway County Council, 2017); Stack’s to Mullaghareirk Mountains SPA (16 squares) and Slievefelim to Silvermine Mountains SPA (four squares) (Moran & Wilson-Parr, 2015); Slievereagh, Limerick (two squares) (Perrin, 2017); and Blackstairs Mountains SAC (four squares) (Tubridy et al., 2015).
Favourable Reference Range has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013a) to reflect the improved level of knowledge. The Favourable Reference Range is the current range, reported in section 4.1. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1949 when bog and heath relevés were recorded by Braun-Blanquet and Tüxen (data utilised in Perrin, 2017) and incorporates updates made by surveys between 1959 and 2017 that are listed in section 3.2.
Area was calculated from the polygon shapefile and point shapefile used for distribution. For each point record not intersecting a polygon that was yielding an area, 10 ha of habitat was estimated. This is a conservative expert opinion based on the logic that the 4010 habitat can cover substantial areas, as this habitat along with dry heath (Annex I 4030 habitat), can form the landscape matrix in the uplands. Points within site boundaries of surveys carried out within the current reporting period, but not within 4010 habitat polygons, were examined individually, with four excluded for area due to their proximity to 4010 polygons.
During the current reporting period 21 datasets with 4010 habitat data were utilised; however, Area was only fully assessed by the NSUH datasets (Perrin et al., 2014a, 2014b). The two NSUH sites (Caha Mountains SAC (000093) and Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185)) surveyed in the current reporting period represent just 4.5% of the estimated total area of 4010 habitat in Ireland, thus limiting the representativity of the conclusions that can be made.
The default trend periods are presented above and are used to calculate the magnitude of annual loss; however, the data used for short-term trend dated from 2005 to 2018, while those used for long-term trend dated from 1995 to 2018. The assessments of trend thus obtained were assumed to hold also for the default trends. Approximately 4.18 ha of 4010 habitat, within the two NSUH sites (Caha Mountains SAC (000093) and Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185)), were determined to be lost since 2005 mainly due to new forestry, paths and tracks, and land clearance (Perrin et al., 2014a, 2014b). Another area of 4010 habitat (approximately 0.09 ha) was also determined to be lost within this reporting period due to tracks and site clearance carried out late 2017/early 2018 within the Corraun Plateau SAC (000485) (J. Fossitt, Divisional Ecologist with NPWS, pers. comm.). The total known area of 4010 habitat loss from SACs since 2005 is approximately 8.03 ha (4.27 ha from Perrin et al. (2014a, 2014b) and J. Fossitt (pers. comm.) and an additional 3.76 ha as reported by previous NSUH surveys). The magnitude of the known loss from SACs is therefore approximately 0.0004% per annum, measured over a period of 12 years; however actual losses are likely to be very significantly greater as c.50% of the 4010 habitat resource lies outside of the SAC network and quantitative data on losses incurred here are limited.
Although the magnitude of known loss is < 1% per annum, losses in 4010 habitat were recorded at 13 of the 16 surveyed (NSUH) sites. As only one NSUH site was on undesignated land, this loss is mostly related to that in SACs. However losses in area are likely to be occurring across the geographic spread of 4010 habitat in Ireland as there is limited protection of the c. 50% of the resource which lies outside SACs. There were small reported gains in habitat area (1.2 ha) since 1995 (but none in the current reporting period) in the Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185) (Perrin et al., 2014a) due to revegetated tracks and recolonised bare/disturbed peat, however these gains were not enough to counteract losses at either this site or nationally. Short-term trend in Area was therefore deemed to be decreasing.
To date there has been no comprehensive survey of habitat 4010 in Ireland, thus more detailed survey work for this habitat is needed. This habitat is not always easily detected from aerial imagery and can also form complex mosaics with dry heath, blanket bog and related habitats. It is thus very likely that the area value listed in section 5.2 will undergo refinement as more in-depth mapping of the 4010 habitat is completed. In particular, any area represented within the dataset by only a point needs to be surveyed in more detail. In addition to refining the areas of known occurrence of 4010 habitat, there are still areas of unmapped 4010 habitat in Ireland, particularly outside of designated sites but also within SACs as yet unmapped by the NSUH. The NSUH is currently incomplete, and still almost entirely confined to SACs, but when it does resume, it is likely that more examples of 4010 habitat will be recorded. The area value entered is therefore considered to be a minimum value.
Favourable Reference Area is deemed to be greater (though less than 10% greater) than the current area given that anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Habitats Directive came into force. Based on data from all NSUH sites surveyed to date, there has been a loss of 82.12 ha 4010 habitat since 1995 (0.05% of the total). However data on conservation status of habitat 4010 on undesignated lands is limited as only one of the 16 sites surveyed in the NSUH is not an SAC. Losses of 4010 habitat outside of SACs are likely to be significantly greater due to impacts from a range of pressures including: afforestation; wind farms; agricultural intensification including drainage; vegetation clearance, fertilisation and reseeding for pasture; and inappropriate burning and grazing levels.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the previous one is largely due to the availability of more accurate knowledge on the area of habitat 4010, resulting in refinement of some of the area estimates from the previous reporting period. The majority of this refinement occurred within the Caha Mountains SAC (000093) and Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185) in Counties Cork and Kerry; however there were also refinements made in other parts of the country. Collectively 107.48 km2 of 4010 habitat mapped in the last reporting period was replaced by 101.92 km2 of 4010 habitat in this reporting period. This mapping refinement resulted in a net reduction of 5.56 km2. Additional surveys in this reporting period resulted in the addition of 174.414 km2 of previously unmapped 4010 habitat. These mapping refinements, along with the documented loss in area of 0.0009 km2 from the Corraun Plateau SAC (000485) in the current reporting period, resulted in an area value of 1,598.51 km2 for 4010 habitat ((1,429.656 – 5.56) + 174.414 – 0.0009 = 1,598.51 km2). ||
->HabCondition: The NSUH (Perrin et al., 2014c) assess Structure and functions at a monitoring stop level, using criteria to assess vegetation composition (including typical species), vegetation structure and physical structure; all criteria need to pass for a stop to pass. Criteria were adapted from the UK’s Common Standards Monitoring (JNCC, 2009) using expert judgement. The NSUH primarily assesses SACs and is currently incomplete. Where NSUH sites include commonage land, comparisons were made between NSUH and commonage station data with respect to a few shared parameters (area of bare peat, cover and height of Calluna vulgaris, and sward height).
A total of 58 monitoring stops were recorded on 4010 habitat across both NSUH sites surveyed within this reporting period. Fifty of the 58 stops (86.2% of stops) failed one or more of the criteria assessing the vegetation composition, vegetation structure and physical structure of 4010, with criteria assessing the ‘cover of ericoid species and Empetrum nigrum’ (55.2%), ‘cover of positive indicator species’ (46.6%), and ‘total cover of Cladonia, Sphagnum, Racomitrium lanuginosum and pleurocarpous mosses’ (39.7%) having the highest failure rates. For full details see the NSUH site reports (Perrin et al., 2014a, 2014b).
All eight stops recorded in 4010 habitat in Galway County Council (2017) failed the Structure and functions assessment. The criteria used were the same as the NSUH criteria (Perrin et al., 2014c). Again, those assessing ‘total cover of Cladonia, Sphagnum, Racomitrium lanuginosum and pleurocarpous mosses’ (100%), ‘cover of ericoid species and Empetrum nigrum’ (87.5%), and ‘cover of positive indicator species’ (50%) had the highest failure rates.
Seven of the ten stops from Tubridy et al. (2015) failed the Structure and functions assessment. Their assessment criteria largely followed the criteria as described in the NSUH (Perrin et al., 2014c), though some amendments were made. A cut-off threshold of ≥20% for ‘cover of ericoid species’ (as opposed to ≥15% in NSUH) was used. The criterion ‘<66% cover of Myrica gale showing signs of browsing’ was used in addition to ‘cover of palatable dwarf shrubs (Calluna, Erica cinerea, Vaccinium myrtillus) collectively showing signs of browsing <33%’ (as opposed to ‘grazing of ericoids, Empetrum nigrum and Myrica gale <33%’ in NSUH). An additional criterion was added assessing ‘area of bare peat (with or without evidence of trampling) <10%’. Deschampsia flexuosa was added to the list of negative indicator species and ‘neither cover of dwarf shrubs nor graminoids >75%’ replaced the criterion ‘cover of dwarf shrub species <75%’ from NSUH. For full details see supporting documentation (‘condition assessment of annex habitats in the SAC.xlsx’) for Tubridy et al. (2015). The criterion assessing the ‘presence of Erica tetralix’ had the highest failure rate (60%), followed by ‘total cover of Cladonia, Sphagnum, Racomitrium lanuginosum and pleurocarpous mosses’ (20%) and ‘cover of Pteridium aquilinum’ (20%).
Three relevés (25 m2) recorded in 4010 habitat as part of the Juniper Monitoring Survey (O’Neill & Martin, 2018), and three relevés (1 m2) recorded as part of the Rare Plants Monitoring Survey (O’Neill et al., in prep.), were also utilised to assess the Structure and functions. These relevés lack details pertaining to criteria which assess vegetation composition and structure, and physical structure, within the local vicinity of stops, and therefore represent a “best case” situation in these areas for Structure and functions of 4010 habitat. All three from O’Neill & Martin (2018) failed the Structure and functions assessment, while two failed from O’Neill et al. (in prep.). ‘Total cover of Cladonia, Sphagnum, Racomitrium lanuginosum and pleurocarpous mosses’ (66.6%) was the main criterion which failed from the O’Neill & Martin (2018) data, while criteria assessing the ‘cover of ericoid species and Empetrum nigrum’ (33.3%) and ‘cover of positive indicator species’ (33.3%) failed from the O’Neill et al. (in prep.) data.
Equal weighting was given to each of the stops from the NSUH, Galway County Council (2017) and Tubridy et al. (2015) as each one assesses a comparable area of habitat. For the relevés from O’Neill & Martin (2018) and O’Neill et al. (in prep.), however, only the actual footprint of the relevé (25 m2 and 1 m2 respectively) could be used as no data from the local vicinity were recorded. The proportion of the total area (77.57km2) in good (14.6%) and not-good condition (85.4%) was scaled up to the national estimate (233.93 km2 in good condition and 1,364.58 km2 in not-good condition); however, as the area assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period only represents 4.9% of the national area of habitat 4010, data from the last reporting period were also utilised.
During the last reporting period, 36.75% of the 4010 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013a). This equates to 587.40 km2 of the current area of 4010 habitat and this figure is used as the maximum area in good condition. 63.25% of the 4010 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS, 2013a). This equates to 1,011.11 km2 of the current area of 4010 habitat and this figure is used as the minimum area that is not in good condition.
The most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment in the last reporting period were ‘cover of ericoid species and Empetrum nigrum’, ‘total cover of Cladonia, Sphagnum, Racomitrium lanuginosum and pleurocarpous mosses’ and ‘cover of positive indicator species’ (NPWS, 2013a).
The default short-term trend period is presented above; however the data used for the short-term trend dated from 2007 to 2017. Based on limited data, conclusions could be made that the area in good condition has declined; however, as this is based mainly on data from one part of the country (southwest Ireland: Cork and Kerry) with a poor national sample size, the trend was taken as stable based on expert opinion.
The most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment in this reporting period are the same as those which failed in the last reporting period. Short-term trend of Structure and functions in the previous reporting period was assessed as ‘improving’ due to the assumption that the reduced grazing brought about by the Commonage Framework Plans (CFPs) would have a positive effect on overgrazed areas of 4010 habitat. As destocking took place almost two decades ago it was decided, using expert judgement, that any improvements to the Structure and functions of 4010 habitat by destocking would have stabilised by the current reporting period. While there may still be improvements (recovery) of 4010 habitat in some areas, other areas are suffering from burning, afforestation, agricultural intensification, wind farm development and erosion.
As with the Area assessment, it should be noted that only one of the 16 sites surveyed through the NSUH is not an SAC. The area of 4010 habitat in good condition outside of the NSUH sites is likely to be significantly lower due to impacts such as drainage, overgrazing, burning and agricultural intensification, and at a local level, scrub encroachment from lack of land management.
Typical species for 4010 habitat are: Breutelia chrysocoma, Calluna vulgaris, Carex spp., Diplophyllum albicans, Drosera spp., Erica erigena, Erica tetralix, Eriophorum angustifolium, Myrica gale, Narthecium ossifragum, non-crustose lichens, Pedicularis sylvatica, pleurocarpous mosses, Pleurozia purpurea, Polygala serpyllifolia, Potentilla erecta, Rhynchospora spp., Salix repens, Schoenus nigricans, Sphagnum spp., Succisa pratensis and Trichophorum germanicum. ||
->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 decreasing.
Current area is less than the Favourable Reference Area (< 10% below FRA).
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Area is assessed as negative, as the threats of B01 and D01 in particular are expected to have a negative influence on Area, especially for areas of 4010 habitat outside of SACs, even with the conservation measure CB01 in place.
Future prospects of Area are therefore poor.
Short-term trend direction for Area is deemed to be stable for habitat that is in good condition.

Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable as <90% of habitat is in good condition. A maximum estimate of 85.4% of 4010 habitat is in deemed to be in bad condition, which equates to Unfavourable-Bad Structure and functions.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as stable, as although the threats of A09, A11 and L01 are expected to have a negative influence on Structure and functions, their presence is not expected to change the overall status of Structure and functions within the next 12 years. Where the conservation measures CA03, CA05 and CF03 occur they would be expected to balance the threats, however it should be noted that these are not implemented across the national distribution of the habitat, nor are they specifically targeted measures for the 4010 habitat.
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, as it was in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of the 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 is 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 <25% of the area of 4010 habitat being assessed as having Favourable Structure and functions.
Trend in Overall Conservation Status is assessed as ‘deteriorating’ in this reporting period, but was assessed as ‘stable’ during the previous reporting period. The known losses of area within the current and previous reporting periods (approx. 0.002% per annum since 1994) resulted in the short-term trend for Area to be assessed as ‘decreasing’. However, as the area data are based on two SAC site surveys only, and as c. 50% of the wet heath resource lies outside of SACs, this must be taken as a minimum figure. The trend is the same as that recorded for 4010 Area for the previous reporting period. In the last reporting period the ‘decreasing’ trend for Area was offset by an ‘increasing’ trend in Structure and functions, resulting in the trend in Overall Conservation Status being assessed as ‘stable’. However, as the short-term trend for Structure and functions is assessed as ‘stable’ for this reporting period, the ‘decreasing’ trend in Area cannot be offset, so the trend in Overall Conservation Status is assessed as ‘deteriorating’. ||
->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 Rijksdriehoek 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; Subtype A stable trend (score U1) and subtype B negative trend (score U2); overall trend negative. ||
->Future: Because of the already highly fragmented occurrences, threats A27, K01 and L05 are expected to have lasting negative effects on the range, area and S&F. ||
->Conclusion: S&F score U2 given %area in not good condition but both NDFF-analysis and analysis of typical species of the main subtype A (typical wet heath) indicate the reported U1 which appears a genuine improvement due to many succesful restoration projects. ||
->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: The short term trend direction is considered to be decreasing by 1%/yr or less, because the rate of decline in NI indicates that there has been an overall reduction in area of about 1.5% between 2007-2018. ||
->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 of Structure and functions takes into account that 5-25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable 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 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: Project “Improving of the conservation status of specially protected bird
species in Natura 2000 site “Ādaži”” restored 1120 ha of heath habitats (4010 and 2320) ||
->Coverage:
At present, the total area identified is at least minimum 904,98 ha, but if habitat occurs on all other known sites, the maximum area is 1100.92 ha. Most of the known habitat area (habitat subtype 2) occurs in ​​N2000 site "Ādaži" (82% or 904, 98 ha), where last years several hundreds ha of habitat has been restored. The previously reported area was 353 ha, but then spatial information from habitat mapping was available partially. Other sites where habitat occurs are in Kurzeme and represents other habitat subtype with Erica tetralix (N2000 sites Grīni Reserve, Sakas Grīni) have decreased (~100 ha of habitat has been transformed into other habitat types or disappeared due to overgrowing). As restored area is beyond area that has been disappeared, the overall assesment regarding surface area is improving, but is still inadequate. ||
->HabCondition: The area that has been restored and is regularly managed in N2000 site 'Ādaži" evaluated as in good condition, the rest, especially in Kurzeme region, is in bad condition and restoration activities must be carried out. ||
->Future: The habitat outside N2000 site "Ādaži" is more endangered and these sites are only location for specific, nationally protected species (for example Erica tetralix). Therefore without active restoration activities in Kurzeme region overall assesement will not improve ||
->Conclusion: improvement due to LIFE project activities in N2000 site - Project „Improving of the conservation status of specially protected bird species in Natura 2000 site"Adazi”” LIFE12 NAT/LV/000509. ||
->JustificationThreshold: Previous assessments were based on partial data with some extrapolation- data collection about this habitat started in 2007. Four Natura 2000 sites were studied only once during time period 2008-2012, now there are more information from habitat mapping and habitat occurs on six N2000 sites and information is available about locations outside N2000 network. Therefore it is impossible to compare data directly, and assumption is based on information regarding habitat changes in previously known N2000 sites. ||
->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 grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. 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. 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: The estimate of surface area was based on data from several different sources. The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

Data originate from the NNK and TUVA databases but has been adjusted after comments from the county administrative boards in Västra Götaland, Skåne, Jönköping, and Kronoberg (Glimskär et al. 2018, Toräng 2018a). The geometries recorded in the databases has been added in ArcGIS and overlaying parts has been removed. The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The estimate is thus based on the total habitat area recorded (Toräng 2018) but is uncertain since the databases do not cover all possible objects and the knowledge of this habitat type is limited at the county administrative boards.

The assessment of a negative trend is for most grassland habitat types supported by data that indicate a continuous abandonment of semi-natural grasslands over the last few decades (e.g. Eriksson & Cousins 2014, Borgegård 2015, Cousins et al. 2015, Wallander & Karlsson 2015, Hägglund et al. 2017, Oja 2018, Spörndly & Glimskär 2018, Tyler et al. 2018, Waldén 2018, Anna Nordberg, unpublished data, Hans Gardfjell, unpublished data). ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. 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). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of two 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 Favourable/Inadequate-poor/Inadequate-bad.

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 ‘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: Large restoration measures have been taken in the frame of LIFE projects for
4010 habitat or are still taken in the frame of the PDW fund. These restoration
measures concerned both improvement of structure and functions of the habitat
and an increase of the habitat area. But results are only expected in a mediumterm
period ||
->HabCondition: Large restoration measures have been taken in the frame of LIFE projects for
4010 habitat or are still taken in the frame of the PDW fund. These restoration
measures concerned both improvement of structure and functions of the habitat
and an increase of the habitat area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: We expect only a medium-term response to the restoration measures taken in
4010 habitat. And areas concerned by restoration are still too small regarding
the total area covered by the habitat (in bad conservation status) ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Lücken im Osten des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen z.T. auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück. ||
->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: Des données recueillies en Limousin pour le PNA Maculinea (papillon) montrent, sur plusieurs sites, une forte diminution du nombre de pieds de Gentiana pneumonanthe, une diminution de la floraison au cours de la dernière décennie (Soc. entomologique du Limousin). ||
->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 (1 800km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (2 090 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: N/A ||
->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 grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. 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. 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: The estimate of surface area was based on data from several different sources. The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

Data originate from the NNK and TUVA databases but has been adjusted after comments from the county administrative boards in Västra Götaland, Skåne, Jönköping, and Kronoberg (Glimskär et al. 2018, Toräng 2018a). The geometries recorded in the databases has been added in ArcGIS and overlaying parts has been removed. The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The estimate is thus based on the total habitat area recorded (Toräng 2018) but is uncertain since the databases do not cover all possible objects and the knowledge of this habitat type is limited at the county administrative boards.

The assessment of a negative trend is for most grassland habitat types supported by data that indicate a continuous abandonment of semi-natural grasslands over the last few decades (e.g. Eriksson & Cousins 2014, Borgegård 2015, Cousins et al. 2015, Wallander & Karlsson 2015, Hägglund et al. 2017, Oja 2018, Spörndly & Glimskär 2018, Tyler et al. 2018, Waldén 2018, Anna Nordberg, unpublished data, Hans Gardfjell, unpublished data). ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. 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). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of two H-ranked and 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 as Inadequate-bad.

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 ‘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