Article 17 web tool

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: Alpine and boreal heaths are mainly located in Natura 2000 –areas. Intensive reindeer grazing and climate change affect also alpine heaths in protected areas. Intensive grazing weakens the structure and function of the habitat, especially the amount of reindeer lichens. Climate change will affect the tree line and increase the growth of bushes.

Suurin osa tunturikankaista sijaitsee Natura-alueilla. Porojen voimakas laidunnuspaine ja ilmastonmuutos uhkaa myös suojelualueiden sisällä olevia esiintymiä. Voimakas laidunnuspaine heikentää luontotyypin rakennetta ja toimintaa, erityisesti poronjäkälän määrää. Ilmastonmuutos vaikuttaa puurajan nousun sekä pensoittumisen kautta.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Le surpâturage ou la surfréquentation humaine (piétinement) entraîne une dégradation localisée pour les codes 4060-1, 2 et 3. La dynamique des Pins entraîne une modification des conditions et une dégradation du 4060-5. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation FV des Structures et fonction - Rien ne justifie une modification du statut depuis le rapportage précédent. Aucune raison non plus de ne pas confirmer un état favorable des structures et fonctions de ce type d'habitat. ||
->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 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 (800 km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (639 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: 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: 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 increase is due to the new range tool. ||
->Coverage: For the Alpine region, the best data is still the same as reported 2013, where the estimation of the habitat area was based on a prediction model using data from the National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) in combination with extra sampling within the Life + project MOTH (Monitoring of Terrestrial habitats). More detailed information about the estimation model is available in ‘Description of sampling estimation techniques used by THUF in the 2019 Article 17 reporting’ (in prep). ||
->HabCondition: The short term trend of habitat in good condition is considered stable mainly based on information from NILS and the County Administrative Boards. The status of the entire area is not known. However, there are no indications of pressures/threats which could lead to any other conclusion than favourable (apart from the glaciers). The guidelines says that a favourable assessment requires at least 90 % of the area in ‘good’ condition and no more than 10 % ‘unknown’. Consequently, a pragmatic approach has been used, just performing a simple percentage exercise in order to meet these requirements. An effect of this is the production of what appears to be very exact numbers, though in reality just dividing them in 90 % and 10 % groups. ||
->Future: Future prospects of parameters range/area/structure and functions are heavily based on the assessment of ‘pressures and threats’, in particular the ‘threat’ part, since this is focusing on the future. Due to the absence of data indicating negative future prospects within the considered time period this habitat is assessed as having ‘good future prospects’ for all parameters. ||
->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: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->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 4060 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013a). Data used for the short-term trend dated from 2007 to 2017, while those used for the long-term trend dated from 1994 to 2017. The trends thus obtained were assumed to hold also for the default trend periods. There were no recorded losses of area resulting in a loss of range at the sample sites covered by the NSUH during these two reporting periods. The short-term trend is stable. It should be noted that the NSUH surveyed two 4060 habitat sites within this reporting period compared with 13 sites in the last reporting period, therefore limiting the conclusions that can be made.
The number of 10km squares in the range (365) is two squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS 2013a). These changes are due to improved knowledge within the current reporting period. North of Coolagh, Galway (two squares) (Galway County Council, 2017), surveyed in this reporting period, added to the range.
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 1959 (data utilised in Perrin, 2017) and incorporates updates made by surveys between 1965 and 2017 that are listed in section 3.2.
Area was calculated from the polygon shapefile and point shapefile used for distribution. For SACs for which 4060 is a Qualifying Interest (QI), and where a localised point was recorded, the habitat area from the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form was used (if multiple points were recorded within the SAC, area was assigned to one point only (this resulted in 77 points excluded for area)). If points coincided with polygons yielding an area within SACs for which 4060 is a QI, no area was assigned to the points (this resulted in an additional 93 points excluded for area). Outside of SACs for which 4060 is a QI, for each point record not intersecting a polygon that was yielding an area, 0.94 ha of habitat was assigned. This is the average area of 4060 based on 4060 habitat recorded from the NSUH. Prior to area assignment, each of these points was examined individually, with fifteen excluded for area due to their proximity to 4060 polygons.
During the current reporting period, 13 datasets with 4060 habitat recorded within them were utilised; two of these datasets were sites assessed for Area as part of the NSUH. The two NSUH sites (Caha Mountains SAC (000093) and Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185)) represent 3.0% of the total area of 4060 habitat recorded in Ireland, limiting 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 the short-term trend dated from 2005 to 2011, while those used for the long-term trend dated from 1995 to 2011. Approximately 0.04 ha of 4060 habitat, within the Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185)), were determined to be lost since 2005 due to a landslide (Perrin et al., 2014a). The magnitude of known loss is approximately 0.00002% per annum, measured over a period of 12 years, but actual losses are likely to be higher.
Although the loss could be considered to be insignificant at a national scale, small losses in area at the site level may be important and conservation measures should be implemented to counteract these losses. A decline equivalent to a loss of less than 1% per year results in an assessment of Unfavourable-Inadequate for Area. Short-term trend for Area is declining.
There has not been a comprehensive survey of this habitat in Ireland, with more detailed survey work of the 4060 habitat needed. It is expected that the area listed in section 5.2 will be refined as more in-depth mapping of the 4060 habitat is completed. In particular, any area represented within the dataset by only a point needs to be surveyed in more detail, while data from the NPWS (2007) dataset needs to be validated. In addition to refining the areas of 4060 habitat currently known, there are probably still areas of unmapped 4060 habitat within the country, particularly outside designated sites. The NSUH is currently incomplete and more examples of the 4060 habitat are likely to be found. The area value entered is therefore a minimum.
FRA is deemed to be approximately equal to the current area. There is no information showing that an enlarged area is necessary for either typical species to reach favourable conservation status or for the necessary structure and functions to exist, therefore the surface area of the habitat when the Directive came into force in 1994 is taken to be the FRA. Whilst this figure is unknown it is deemed to be approximately equal to the current area as there is no evidence of significant declines since this time. It should be noted that only one of the 16 sites surveyed through the NSUH is not an SAC. Losses of 4060 habitat due to impacts such as recreational activities (e.g. hill-walking), afforestation, wind farms and overgrazing outside of the SACs may be higher.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is largely due to the availability of more accurate knowledge of the area of habitat 4060, resulting in the refinement of some area estimates from the last 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, the Blackstairs Mountains in Counties Carlow and Wexford, and the Knockmealdown Mountains in Counties Tipperary and Waterford. Collectively 28.43 km2 of 4060 habitat mapped in the last reporting period was replaced by 8.28 km2 4060 habitat in this reporting period resulting in a net reduction of 20.15 km2. Additional surveys in this reporting period resulted in an addition of 0.795 km2 4060 habitat which was previously unmapped. This resulted in an area of 150.74 km2 4060 habitat ((170.095 – 20.15) + 0.795 = 150.74 km2). ||
->HabCondition: The NSUH (Perrin et al., 2014c) assesses 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 11 monitoring stops were recorded across both NSUH sites surveyed within this reporting period. None of the stops failed any of the criteria assessing the vegetation composition, vegetation structure and physical structure of 4060. For full details see the NSUH site reports (Perrin et al., 2014a, 2014b).
None of the three stops recorded in 4060 habitat by Galway County Council (2017) failed the Structure and functions assessment. The criteria used were the same as the NSLP criteria (Wilson & Fernández 2013), which are used to assess the 4060 lowland community (Dryas heath on limestone).
One relevé (25 m2) recorded in 4060 habitat as part of the Juniper Monitoring Survey (O’Neill & Martin, 2018) and 27 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 that 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 4060 habitat. The relevé from O’Neill & Martin (2018) passed the Structure and functions assessment, while 17 of the 27 relevés from O’Neill et al. (in prep.) failed the assessment. ‘Cover of negative species’ (44.4%) and ‘cover of dwarf shrubs’ (40.7%) were the main criteria which failed in the data from O’Neill et al. (in prep.).
Of the area of 4060 habitat (c. 4.50 km2) assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 59.5% of the area was assessed as being in good condition (Favourable). Equal weighting was given to each of the stops 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 in good (59.5%) and not-good condition (40.5%) was scaled up to the national estimate (89.73 km2 in good condition and 61.01 km2 in not-good condition); however, as the area assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period only represents 3.0% of the national area of 4060 habitat, data from the last reporting period were also utilised.
During the last reporting period 69.47% of the 4060 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013a). This equates to 104.72 km2 of the current area of 4060 habitat and this figure is used as the maximum area in good condition. 30.53% of the 4060 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS, 2013a). This equates to 46.02 km2 of the current area of 4060 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 positive indicator species’ and ‘cover of negative indicator species’ for the upland 4060 community, while there were no failures of any criteria for the lowland 4060 community (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 with a poor national sample size (and from a survey whose remit did not include the condition assessment of 4060 habitat), the trend was taken as improving based on review of the NSUH 4060 habitat condition data sample for the current reporting cycle and the reduced sheep numbers in upland areas brought about by the Commonage Framework Plans (CFPs). There was also evidence that the Burren Farming for Conservation Programme (Anon., 2013) was starting to have a positive effect in the areas where it had been implemented (NPWS, 2013a). While there may still be improvements (recovery) of 4060 habitat in some areas, other areas continue to experience impacts from overgrazing and hill-walking. 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 4060 habitat in good condition outside of the SACs may be lower due to impacts mentioned above.
Typical indicator species from the NSUH (Perrin et al., 2014c) for upland 4060 habitat are: Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Calluna vulgaris, Carex bigelowii, Cetraria islandica, Cladonia arbuscula, Cladonia portentosa, Cladonia rangiferina, Cladonia uncialis, Diphasiastrum alpinum, Diplophyllum albicans, Empetrum nigrum, Erica cinerea, Erica tetralix, Herbertus aduncus, Juniperus communis spp. nana, Persicaria vivipara, Racomitrium lanuginosum, Salix herbacea, Scapania gracilis, Solidago virgaurea, Vaccinium myrtillus, Vaccinium vitis-idaea. Note that Dryas octopetala was listed an indicator species for the upland subtype of 4060 in the 2013 NCA report (NPWS, 2013a) though not included on the list in the NSUH Manual (Perrin et al., 2014c).
Typical indicator species from the NSLP (Wilson & Fernández 2013) for lowland 4060 habitat are: Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Breutelia chrysocoma, Calluna vulgaris Campanula rotundifolia, Carex caryophyllea, Carex flacca, Carex pulicaris, Cladonia rangiformis, Ctenidium molluscum, Dicranum scoparium, Dryas octopetala, Empetrum nigrum, Erica cinerea, Festuca spp., Helianthemum oelandicum, Hylocomium splendens, Hypericum pulchrum, Juniperus communis, Linum catharticum, Lotus corniculatus, Molinia caerulea, Polygala vulgaris, Potentilla erecta, Scleropodium purum, Sesleria caerulea, Solidago virgaurea, Succisa pratensis, Thymus polytrichus, Viola spp. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as stable.
Current range is equal to Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Without further focused studies to clarify the likely effect of climate change on 4060 habitat with regard to the Future prospects of Range, future trend of Range is assessed as stable. No change in range is expected based on the balancing of the other threats (i.e. A09 and F07) 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 approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area (FRA).
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Area is assessed as stable, as although the threats of A09 and F07 are expected to have a negative influence on Area (small, localised area loss) their presence is not expected to change the overall status of Area within the next 12 years.
Future prospects of Area are therefore poor.

Short-term trend direction for Structure and functions is improving 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 40.5% of 4060 habitat is 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 and F07 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 4060 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, but was Favourable in the previous reporting period. There was a decline equivalent to a loss of less than 1% per year within this reporting period (0.04 ha) resulting in the Conservation Status of Area being assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate.
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 was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, as it was during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Bad during the current reporting period was due to less than 25% of the area of 4060 habitat being assessed as having Favourable Structure and functions.
Trend in Overall Conservation Status was assessed as improving in this reporting period due to the assumption that the reduced grazing brought about by the CFPs continues to have a positive effect on this habitat. The short-term trend for Area was assessed as decreasing in this reporting period (from stable in the previous reporting period) due to loss of area. However, this loss is considered to be negligible and therefore the ongoing improvements to condition dictate the overall improving trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: The declining trend in Area is considered too small to influence the trend in the Overall status. ||
->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 Very negative - important deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; 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 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 - stable, and Structure and functions - improving. If the very negative future trend in Structure and functions is also taken into account, the Overall trend would be stable.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Structure and functions trend has changed from decreasing to 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: Alpine and boreal heaths are mainly located in Natura 2000 –areas. Intensive reindeer grazing and climate change affect also heaths in protected areas. Intensive grazing weakens the structure and function of the habitat, especially the amount of reindeer lichens. However, the situation is better in boreal region, because the grazing pressure is mainly lower in boreal region than in alpine region. Climate change will affect the tree line and increase the growth of bushes. Construction/extension of skiing complexes can destroy single alpine and boreal heath areas.

Suurin osa tunturikankaista sijaitsee Natura-alueilla. Porojen voimakas laidunnuspaine ja ilmastonmuutos uhkaa myös suojelualueiden sisällä olevia esiintymiä. Voimakas laidunnuspaine heikentää luontotyypin rakennetta ja toimintaa, erityisesti poronjäkälän määrää. Kuitenkin tilanne on perempi boreaalisella alueella, koska laidunpaine on pääosin pienempi boreaalisella kuin alpiinisella alueella. Ilmastonmuutos vaikuttaa puurajan nousun sekä pensoittumisen kautta. Laskettelukeskusten rakentaminen/laajentaminen voi tuhota yksittäisiä tunturikankaiden esiintymiä.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The slight increase is due to the new range tool. ||
->Coverage: For the Boreal region, no monitoring data are available. Area estimate has been calculated as follows. The total area of alpine habitats (4060 and 6150) within the Boreal region has been estimated from aerial photos (515.9 km2). Then, it is expected that the ratio between the habitats is the same in the Boreal as it is in the Alpine region. Consequently, since there is 4.1 times more 4060 than 6150 there will be approximately 300 km2 of 4060. ||
->HabCondition: The short term trend of habitat in good condition is considered stable mainly based on information from NILS and the County Administrative Boards. The status of the entire area is not known. However, there are no indications of pressures/threats which could lead to any other conclusion than favourable (apart from the glaciers). The guidelines says that a favourable assessment requires at least 90 % of the area in ‘good’ condition and no more than 10 % ‘unknown’. Consequently, a pragmatic approach has been used, just performing a simple percentage exercise in order to meet these requirements. An effect of this is the production of what appears to be very exact numbers, though in reality just dividing them in 90 % and 10 % groups. ||
->Future: Future prospects of parameters range/area/structure and functions are heavily based on the assessment of ‘pressures and threats’, in particular the ‘threat’ part, since this is focusing on the future. Due to the absence of data indicating negative future prospects within the considered time period this habitat is assessed as having ‘good future prospects’ for all parameters. ||
->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: 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: 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 (1 100km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (665 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: 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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: The actual range and area represents almost all the available area for this habitat in the Region. ||
->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: Critères à prendre en compte pour évaluer ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; dynamique de la végétation ; structuration ||
->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: Assumption: 20% of habitat area is estimated to be in not-good condition. ||
->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 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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report