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: Même si globalement, l'habitat est en expansion, les feux pastoraux et les gyrobroyages font
régresser localement les vieux peuplements dont le rôle écologique est particulièrement intéressant. ||
->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: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (700km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (642 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: 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: 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: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). Therefore, we use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat). ||
->HabCondition: In Flanders Atlantic, the habitat is rare. Therefore all locations of the habitat are monitored with respect to their habitat structure, vegetation development and environmental disturbances. The areas given in field 6.1 are based on the data of this monitoring.
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: 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: Aufgrund der hohen regionalen Variabilität des Lebensraumtyps, sind die Flächenanteile der Zustände nur schwer einschätzbar. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass der relativ hohe unbekannt-Anteil eine ähnliche Verteilung von guten und schlechten Zuständen aufweist wie der bekannte Anteil und somit die angenommene Schwelle von 75 % der Flächen in gutem Zustand überschritten wird. ||
->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: La surface calculée est plus de la moitié plus faible que lors du précédent rapportage mais ne correspond pas à une différence réelle de l'aire de répartition qui reste équivalente dans l'ensemble. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: La tendance est clairement à l'embroussaillement, voire au boisement de cet habitat. Au niveau de l'habitat au sein des complexes de pelouses calcicoles, on note la quasi disparition du pâturage par parcours extensifs itinérants qui avaient participé à la genèse et au maintien de l'habitat. On note aussi parfois une certaine eutrophisation qui banalise également l'habitat. ||
->Future: Sauf à mettre en place un ambitieux programme de gestion et de restauration dans un grand nombre d'espaces concernés par l'habitat, les perspectives futures ne sont pas très favorables à l'habitat. Pour certaines formes de l'habitat, il serait souhaitable de mettre en place un pâturage par parcours extensif itinérant. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: Aucune perte significatif en surface de cet habitat n'est acceptable. ||
->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 juniper formations. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on comparing data from the 2015 and 2017 surveys (NPWS, 2015; O’Neill & Martin, 2017) with data from the 2007-2012 reporting period (Cooper et al., 2012) No genuine losses in area leading to range contraction were noted. Any changes are due to a change in the interpretation of what constitutes a juniper formation (a minimum density of juniper was introduced) and because of more accurate mapping of the habitat since the previous reporting period.
Favourable Reference Range was deemed to be the same as the current range as there is no evidence of decline since the Directive came into force and there is also no reason to assume that the area of the current range is not large enough to allow the long-term survival of the habitat. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 2009 when the baseline survey was carried out (Cooper et al., 2012) and incorporates updates made by surveys in 2015 (NPWS, 2015) and 2017 (O’Neill & Martin, 2017).
Favourable Reference Area is deemed to be approximately equal to the current area. Some area losses of anthropogenic origin (e.g. road and housing construction) have occurred since the Directive came into force but the current area is considered to be large enough to allow the long-term survival of the habitat.
In 2017, 27 juniper formation sites were surveyed to determine if they were still extant formations (O’Neill & Martin, 2017). One was not relocated, thought to be due to inaccurate GPS coordinates, two others were deemed not to have enough shrubs to qualify as formations, and two more sites were merged into one due to proximity. Formations in the 23 remaining sites were accurately remapped. Some sites contained more than one formation and a total of 82 individual formations were mapped across the 23 sites. These were added to other formations mapped during the baseline juniper survey (Cooper et al., 2012), many of which were resurveyed and remapped as part of an NPWS survey (NPWS, 2015). Approximate areas were mapped for two further areas identified while surveying a different Annex I habitat (unpublished data, BEC Consultants, 2017). There may be other undiscovered formations in the country. Hence, the value entered for the current area of the habitat is a minimum.
The short-term trend in Area was deemed to be stable. Two formations located outside the Natura 2000 network were reduced in area by a total of 0.55 ha due to anthropogenic factors (motorway construction and juniper scrub removal) but at a national level the loss equates to -0.003% per annum in the 12-year period over which this loss is measured, which is considered to be negligible. The magnitude of the loss was calculated by expressing the area lost as a per-annum percentage of the original area. Losses due to prolonged natural flooding were ascribed to natural fluctuations rather than a genuine downward trend.
The large difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is primarily due to a change in how the habitat was defined (a minimum density has been introduced in this monitoring period) and how the habitat was mapped (formations have been very accurately mapped in this reporting period, rather than using the less accurate minimum convex polygon method). ||
->HabCondition: A 5130 Juniper formation in Favourable condition is characterised by having a good proportion of fruiting female bushes, evidence of successful seedling formation, or suitable conditions for seedlings to establish (e.g. patches of bare ground or grikes in limestone rock), and generally healthy bushes with few dead or browning individuals and little or no damage from grazing and browsing animals. The habitat should retain any features of local distinctiveness recorded in a previous monitoring period (e.g. presence of juniper shield bug) and should not be subject to high-intensity damaging impacts such as overgrazing, impacts from non-native invasive species, or succession to another habitat such as overtopping scrub.
Changes between reporting periods are due to use of a different method. Different assessment criteria have been used in this reporting period (see O’Neill & Martin, 2017).
The main reason that sites failed the Structure and functions assessment in the previous period was poor recruitment (low numbers of seedlings). In this reporting period, account has been taken of the fact that juniper seedling recruitment occurs at a slow rate. While seedling recruitment was also low in this reporting period, the criterion was allowed to pass at sites where micro-sites existed for germination (e.g. on bare soil or peat).
The rate of juniper reproduction is not constant, with the most extensive and successful populations of juniper occurring where there have been short periods of intense disturbance interspersed with little or no disturbance and low grazing and browsing pressure (JNCC, 2009). Therefore a more long-term view over several decades may need to be taken when assessing regeneration in 5130 Juniper formations, and it may be appropriate to take into account young mature bushes as well as seedlings. The issue of seedling recruitment is discussed further in O’Neill & Martin (2017).
Area of the habitat in good condition was estimated by calculating the area of sites surveyed in 2017 that were assessed as being in good condition in relation to their structure and functions, based on 2017 assessments. A similar exercise was carried out to calculate area in not-good condition. As the sample is considered representative of the national resource the proportion in good and not good condition were scaled up to the national estimate for Area.
Some revisions were made to the list of typical species. The following species were removed: species indicative of agricultural intensification, disturbance or abandonment (Trifolium repens, Senecio jacobaea, Holcus lanatus, Cynosurus cristatus, Arrhenatherum elatius, Dactylis glomerata and Fraxinus excelsior); species of wetter habitats (Eriophorum angustifolium, Carex viridula, Pedicularis palustris, Juncus articulatus); species of mobile dunes (Ammophila arenaria); and species not represented across a wide range of sites in baseline or 2017 surveys (Jasione montana, Plantago coronopus). Hypericum perforatum was changed to H. pulchrum on the basis of 2017 surveys. Individual orchid species were consolidated under the single family Orchidaceae, as several species not included in the previous list were found to occur frequently. All taxa included in the current list are as follows:
Agrostis canina, Agrostis stolonifera, Anagallis tenella, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Anthyllis vulneraria, Briza media, Calluna vulgaris, Campanula rotundifolia, Carex arenaria, Carex binervis, Carex flacca, Carex nigra, Carex panicea, Danthonia decumbens, Daucus carota, Dryas octopetala, Empetrum nigrum, Erica cinerea, Erica tetralix, Festuca rubra, Galium verum, Geranium robertianum, Geranium sanguineum, Hypericum pulchrum, Hypochaeris radicata, Juniperus communis, Koeleria macrantha, Linum catharticum, Lotus corniculatus, Luzula multiflora, Molinia caerulea, Mycelis muralis, Nardus stricta, Narthecium ossifragum, Orchidaceae, Pilosella officinarum, Plantago lanceolata, Polygala serpyllifolia, Polygala vulgaris, Potentilla erecta, Prunella vulgaris, Ranunculus bulbosus, Schoenus nigricans, Succisa pratensis, Teucrium scorodonia, Thymus polytrichus, Trifolium pratense, Viola riviniana.
Some issues identified in the previous reporting period (e.g. sheep overgrazing) appear to have improved; however, other sites which achieved excellent conservation ratings in the previous period appear to have declined in condition, due to factors such as erosion (perhaps caused by overgrazing or burning) and juniper scrub removal. Because these changes in condition appear to balance each other out, and because of the change in methodology between the two reporting periods in assessing the status of structure and functions, the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition is taken to be stable. ||
->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.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, as no change in range is expected.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Stable.
Current area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Stable, as no change in Area is expected.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Good.

Current Structure and functions are assessed as Favourable as >90% of habitat is in “Good” condition.
Fragmentation or other conditions are not impacting significantly on ecological processes.
Short-term trend direction is Stable (for habitat that is in “good” condition).
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Favourable.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Good. ||
->Conclusion: There were some area losses (0.55 ha) of 5130 habitat since the previous reporting period but the losses occurred outside the Natura 2000 network and the magnitude was classed as insignificant at a national level.
As in the previous reporting period, the favourable reference area (FRA) is considered to be approximately equal to the current extent of the habitat. However, the current extent, and therefore the FRA, is different from the previous reporting period because more accurate mapping was used to delimit formations during the 2017 survey (O’Neill & Martin, 2017), which significantly reduced the total mapped area of 5130 habitat.
Structure and functions were assessed as predominantly Favourable, with the largest formations found to be in good condition. No decline is expected in the immediate future provided the current management regimes remain in place. Therefore the trend is stable.
The Structure and functions parameter in the previous reporting period was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate but in the current reporting period it was assessed as Favourable; this change is largely due to use of a different method to assess the parameter.
Because Area and Structure and functions were both assessed as Favourable and no negative pressures were identified that seriously impacted on the habitat at a national level, the Future prospects of the habitat were also assessed as Favourable. Researching appropriate grazing levels in the aftermath of disturbance to bring about improved levels of seedling recruitment could further improve the future prospects of the habitat.
Range was assessed as Favourable, as in the previous reporting period. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Although several 10x10 km-squares in the periphery of the 2013-range have no records for the 2007-2018 period, without explicit documentation regarding the disappearance of habitat, I assume that 5130 is still present there. 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: No data on area with good S&F available ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: S&F assessment based on previous report (which was based on SDF analysis); no TS analysis. ||
->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: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the Favourable Reference Range is unknown.
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 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 unknown; (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 - stable. If negative future trends for Area and Structure and functions are also taken into account, the Overall trend would be deteriorating. ||
->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:
As previously was not known what the habitat range is, it is not possible to evaluate changes ||
->Coverage:
3.46 ha or 5.24% of previously known habitat surface area has disappeared, therefore the trend is negative.

According to the newest data from the project "Nature Census" the minimum area of ​​habitat is 30 hectares (because 2/3 of country is investigated, but ~30 ha of habitat will be inventoried in historically known locations on 2019), so the maximum possible area if historical locations are in good condition - 68.27 ha. Historically this habitat type was mentioned to be ~100 ha and there is documented information about habitat decrease on several N2000 sites. ||
->HabCondition:
3.46 ha or 5.24% of previously known habitat surface area have disappeared, mainly into N2000 sites (for example Kadiķu nora), therefore the trend is negative. There have been some activities to improve existing habitat quality and to stop succession. ||
->Future: While there is no full information about habitat range, it is not possible to analyse correctly future perspectives. The habitat is so rare and patchy, that every single location is important. This habitat may occur in mosaic with other grassland habitats, so it depends on management practice in other grasslands, too ||
->Conclusion: 3,64 ha of previously known area 66ha or 5,24% of habitat dissapeared during reporting perioud. Restoration activities has been implemented in some sites to improve habitat quality, not to restore habitat area ||
->JustificationThreshold: As in previous reporting period the information about habitat distribution was mainly about N2000 sites, but now country wide habitat mapping is ongoing, it is impossible correctly to compare data ||
->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: Data originate from the NNK and TUVA databases without any adjustments. The geometries recorded in the databases have been imported into ArcGIS where overlaying polygons have been removed. The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The estimates are uncertain since these databases do not cover all possible objects. Also, the 5130 habitat type definition is difficult to interpret since Juniperus communis is common in many types of semi-natural grasslands in Sweden and because previously open pastures quickly may be overgrown by junipers as a result of undergrazing or abandonment. ||
->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 one H-ranked and three 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 as Inadequate-bad.

The trends for the habitat typ is not assessed (i.e. reported as unknown) since the available knowledge is scarce. ||
->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.

The assessment has changed since the habitat type is assumed to have the same overall conservation status as the other semi-natural grassland habitat types (unknown to 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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Cet habitat est dépendant du maintien de pratiques agropastorales extensives ou d'une utilisation intermittente. Si la tendance a été plutôt positive au XXème siècle dans l'Est de la France, l'abandon définitif des parcelles les plus difficiles d'accès ou de maigre intérêt agronomique, l'intensification de pratiques ou la conversion en culture céréalière, et le reboisement spontané ou par plantation pourrait conduire à une diminution des surfaces globales. A l'échelle de la dition, de nombreuses stations en contexte de pelouse bénéficient d'une gestion conservatoire ou d'actions de restauration. En contexte de bas-marais, la tendance n'est pas connue. Le cas des junipéraies du Massif Central devra faire l'objet de compléments d'informations. ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation "Inconnu" de la tendance générale - données factuelles manquantes quand à l'évolution des surfaces et de l'état de conservation ||
->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: While Juniperus communis occurs in a lot of areas defined as 6210, the dividing
line to 5130 has been drawn - with one exception - at a cover of 10% of juniper. ||
->Coverage: While Juniperus communis occurs in a lot of areas defined as 6210, the dividing
line to 5130 has been drawn - with one exception - at a cover of 10% of juniper.

During the initial survey (2007 - 2012), 1,41 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 100% of this area was monitored from 2016 - 2018 showing almost no difference in area or quality. Within wooded areas, this habitat type was not (yet) surveyed (2014 - 2018).

Since quite a lot of restoration measures are being implemented concerning 6210 with (or without) occurence of juniper (for example LIFE ORCHIS project) and since there are also efforts of ex situ reproduction of juniper in order to strengthen the population, future prospects of the habitat are deemed to be improving. ||
->HabCondition: 100% of this habitat type have been monitored between 2016 and 2018. Both the original data and the monitoring data showed that 100% of this habitat type was in good condition. ||
->Future: Areas with less than 10% of juniper have been classified as 6210.
One exception is one of two remaining stations of Orchis morio in Luxembourg, which has been categorised as a 6210 despite the high cover of juniper.
Since quite a lot of restoration measures are being implemented concerning 6210 with (or without) occurence of juniper (for example LIFE ORCHIS project) and since there are also efforts of ex situ reproduction of juniper in order to strengthen the population, future prospects of the habitat are deemed to be improving. ||
->Conclusion: Areas with less than 10% of juniper have been classified as 6210.
One exception is one of two remaining stations of Orchis morio in Luxembourg, which has been categorised as a 6210 despite the high cover of juniper. Thus only one single area was allocated to this habitat type explaining that range and area are evaluated as "bad".
Both the original data and the monitoring data showed that 100% of this habitat type was in good condition. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (5 500km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (8 300 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: Data originate from the NNK and TUVA databases without any adjustments. The geometries recorded in the databases have been imported into ArcGIS where overlaying polygons have been removed. The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The estimates are uncertain since these databases do not cover all possible objects. Also, the 5130 habitat type definition is difficult to interpret since Juniperus communis is common in many types of semi-natural grasslands in Sweden and because previously open pastures quickly may be overgrown by junipers as a result of undergrazing or abandonment. ||
->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 one H-ranked and three 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 as Inadequate-bad.

The trends for the habitat typ is not assessed (i.e. reported as unknown) since the available knowledge is scarce. ||
->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.

The assessment has changed since the habitat type is assumed to have the same overall conservation status as the other semi-natural grassland habitat types (unknown to 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: 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.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.
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.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.
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: Habitat type new for the region ||
->Coverage: Habitat type new for the region ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Habitat type new for the region ||
->Conclusion: Habitat type new for the region ||
->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: Critère à prendre en compte pour évaluer ce paramètre : couverture du sol ; diversité phytocénotique et taxonomique ; fragmentation, connectivité ||
->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  

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