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: Aragon region has reported (instead of having few km2): "There is a double and apparently contradictory trend: At the same time, some areas are being damaged by overgrazing, and others are being degraded by colonization of woody plants, due to abandonment of grazing. So, there is being a loss of area of habitat in good condition. This is due to change in the livestock breeds and the management type, with the choice of very sedentary cow races, and the ongoing absence of shepherds in the field." ||
->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: 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: Powierzchnia zasięgu zwiększyła się od poprzedniego raportu z 5 616 do 6900 km2 w wyniku uwzględnienia dodatkowych danych i innego sposobu jej obliczania.
Trend uznano za niepewny, ze względu na zanik muraw na wielu stanowiskach, a z drugiej strony poprawiający się stan wiedzy i wykazywanie siedliska z nie notowanych dotychczas miejsc.
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: Siedlisko sporadycznie spotykane jest w piętrze pogórza, główne zasoby koncentrują się w górach, na obszarach dawniej intensywnie wypasanych (Podhale, wyższe partie Beskidów), z których większość objęta jest siecią Natura 2000. Najczęściej występuje w postaci niewielkich, rozczłonkowanych płatów, co znacznie utrudnia oszacowanie jego areału. Ponadto z dużym prawdopodobieństwem można przyjąć, że do siedliska zaliczane są płaty o przejściowym charakterze roślinności, w tym także zarastane przez borówkę czarną.
W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na 5 km2. Był to szacunek na podstawie ekstrapolacji wyników PMŚ, obejmującego główne zasoby w regionie (suma eksperckich szacunków powierzchni siedliska w poszczególnych obszarach Natura 2000).
Obecnie, przy szacowaniu powierzchni siedliska punkt wyjścia stanowiły dane z bazy GDOŚ dla obszarów Natura 2000, które jednak wydają się zbyt zawyżone. Posiłkując się informacjami z udostępnionych w internecie planów zadań ochronnych zweryfikowano wartości dla następujących ostoi: Ostoja Jaśliska (22,3 ha zamiast 146 ha), Bieszczady (48,5 ha zamiast 223 ha), Góry Słonne (0,1 ha zamiast 23 ha), Beskid Śląski (53 ha zamiast 500 ha). Powierzchnię siedliska w Ostoi Gorczańskiej oszacowano na ok. 80 ha na podstawie następujących przesłanek: 39 ha w GPN, co stanowi 0,45% powierzchni całego GPN (wg planu ochrony GPN). Dla znacznie większej od GPN Ostoi Gorczańskiej przyjęto analogiczny przelicznik dla oszacowania udziału muraw bliźniczkowych. Po tych korektach łączna powierzchnia siedliska na obszarach Natura 2000 w regionie alpejskim wynosiła 1023 ha i tą wartość uznano za maksymalną, ponieważ zasoby siedliska w niektórych obszarach wydają się zawyżone. Z powyższych względów areał siedliska w regionie oszacowano na 4,5-10 km2.
Podobnie jak w poprzednim raporcie trend zmiany powierzchni określono jako spadkowy. Potwierdzają to wyniki PMŚ (m.in. zanik siedliska na kilku stanowiskach) oraz wieloletnie obserwacje własne. ||
->HabCondition: Do oceny powierzchni siedliska w różnym stanie zachowania wykorzystano wyniki PMŚ, prowadzonego na 45 stanowiskach, uznając je za reprezentatywne dla stanu siedliska w całym regionie.
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

Także trend zmian określono w oparciu o wyniki PMŚ. W porównaniu do okresu 2013-2014 udział stanowisk, na których siedlisko miało dobrą strukturę i funkcje zmniejszył się z 22% do 16%, natomiast znacznie wzrósł udział stanowisk z oceną złą (z 53% do 62%). ||
->Future: . ||
->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 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 total area of semi-natural grasslands across all biogeographical regions was estimated based on data from the RT inventory (a national inventory with a random sampling design; SLU 2018b., H. Gardfjell1, https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). The estimate varies among years and here we used the mean of five estimates calculated from yearly sampling data 2013-2017 (H. Gardfjell, unpublished data) to approximate total grazed semi-natural grassland cover in Sweden. The mean was 3323km2 (yearly estimates varied from 3123 to 3635 km2). It can be assumed that the semi-natural habitat classification in the RT inventory covers the habitat types 1330, 1630, 4010, 4030, 5130, 6120, 6210, 6230, 6270, 6280, 6410, 6450, and 9070 that all are primarily managed by grazing (H. Gardfjell, personal communication). Since area estimates were assessed with data from other sources for all but four of these habitat types (i.e. 4030, 6210 in ALP and BOR, 6230, and 6410), the total area of the four remaining grazed semi-natural grassland habitat types was calculated by subtracting the estimated areas of the already assessed habitat types (i.e. 1330, 1630, 4010, 5130, 6120, 6210 in CON, 6270, 6280, 6450, and 9070) from the total 3323 km2. The difference (471 km2) was distributed among 4030, 6210, 6230, and 6410 based on their relative extent (in % per biogeographic region) as recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases (Naturanaturtypskartan NNK 2018, Jordbruksverket 2018). The resulting area estimates are uncertain given the uncertainty of the total area estimate extracted from the RT inventory and all assumptions behind the subsequent calculations.

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.

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 one H-ranked and one M-ranked recorded 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 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: 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: It is possible that there is still habitat outside the range. ||
->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, …). 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: It is unknown whether a genuine change in overall trend occurred. ||
->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: Der Gesamttrend wird abweichend von den Guidelines mit "sich verschlechternd" beurteilt, weil aufgrund dem negativen Kurzzeittrend bei der Fläche auch bei den Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen ein negativer Trend angenommen werden kann, wofür aktuell jedoch noch keine Daten vorliegen. ||
->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 6230 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 2013). Data used for the short-term trend dated from 2007 to 2014, while those used for the long-term trend dated from 1994 to 2014. The trends are assumed to be valid for the default trends for this reporting period. 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 6230 habitat sites within this reporting period compared with eight sites in the last reporting period, therefore limiting the conclusions that can be made.
The number of 10km squares in the range (127) is 10 squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS 2013). These changes are due to improved knowledge within the current reporting period from new datasets utilised for this reporting period. Stoneparkbrogan, Mayo (one square) (from Coillte Biodiversity Dataset); Carrach, Galway (one square) (from Galway County Council 2017); and Slieve Mish Mountains, Kerry (six squares) and Caha Mountains (two squares) (from Perrin et al. 2014a, 2014b) added to the range.
Favourable Reference Range has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS 2013) 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 1994 when NPWS data for Connemara Bog Complex SAC (002034) were collected and incorporates updates made by surveys between 2000 and 2014 that are listed in Section 3.2.
Area was calculated from the polygon shapefile used for distribution.
During the current reporting period eight datasets with 6230 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 2.3% of the total area of 6230 habitat recorded in Ireland limiting the conclusions that can be made.
More detailed survey work of the 6230 habitat is needed, and it is expected that the area listed in Section 5.2 will be refined as more in-depth mapping of the 6230 habitat is completed. In addition to refining the areas of 6230 habitat currently known, there are probably still areas of unmapped 6230 habitat within the country, particularly outside designated sites. The area value entered is therefore a minimum.
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 1991 to 2011. Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be stable. At the sample of sites covered by the NSUH there is no apparent loss of habitat since 2005.
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) is deemed to be much greater than the current area, given that anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force. There was a loss of approximately 0.43 km2 6230 habitat between 1991 and 2006 at Kilduff, Devilsbit Mountain SAC (000934) due to agricultural improvement (NPWS 2013). This was the most significant reported loss of area of 6230 habitat, representing over 6% of the current known area of 6230 habitat. In addition to this, the ISGS (O’Neill et al. 2013) recorded a loss of 0.36 ha since 2000 due to scrub and heath encroachment, while the NSUH (Perrin et al. 2011) recorded a loss of 0.03 ha since 1995 due to a landslide (combined area loss of 0.4339 km2 or 6.4% of the current area). It is likely that the actual percentage loss is significantly higher due to additional unknown losses outside of the ISGS and NSUH sites due to impacts such as afforestation and agricultural improvement in more accessible sites and agricultural abandonment (scrub and heath encroachment) in inaccessible upland sites. These known losses combined with the small fragmented areas of 6230 habitat remaining resulted in the assessment that the FRA should be at least 110% of the current area.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is due to the availability of more accurate data of the area of habitat 6230. Martin et al. (2018) revisited some areas which were previously mapped as 6230 habitat. Two polygons were reassigned as non-Annex GS3 grassland due to changes in the interpretation of 6230 habitat since the original survey was undertaken. This resulted in a reduction of 0.034 km2 6230 habitat from the area reported in the previous reporting period. A calculation error in one of the datasets utilised in the previous reporting period was detected in this reporting period, and resulted in an additional reduction of the previously reported area by 0.66 ha. Additional surveys in this reporting period resulted in an addition of 0.38 km2 6230 habitat which was previously unmapped. There is no evidence of genuine change in area of 6230 habitat during the current reporting period ((6.42-0.03 – 0.66) + 0.38 = 6.77 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 adopted from O’Neill et al. (2013). The NSUH primarily assesses SACs and is currently incomplete. A total of four monitoring stops were recorded across both NSUH sites surveyed within this reporting period. Three of the four stops (75% of stops) failed either one or more of the criteria assessing ‘cover of scrub, bracken and heath’ (25%); ‘proportion of sward height between 5-50 cm tall’ (50%); and ‘area of the habitat showing signs of serious grazing or disturbance’ (25%) failing. For full details see the NSUH site reports (Perrin et al. 2014a, 2014b).
Of the area of 6230 habitat (0.14 km2) assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 25% 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. The proportion in good (25%) and not-good condition (75%) was scaled up to the national estimate (1.53 km2 in good condition and 4.58 km2 in not-good condition), however as the area assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period only represents 2.3% of the national area of habitat 6230, data from the last reporting period were also utilised.
During the last reporting period 9% of the 6230 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS 2013). This equates to 0.55 km2 of the current area of 6230 habitat and this figure is used as the minimum area in good condition. 91% of the 6230 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS 2013). This equates to 5.56 km2 of the current area of 6230 habitat and this figure is used as the maximum area that is in not-good condition.
The most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment from the ISGS in the last reporting period were ‘species richness’, ‘forb component of forb : graminoid ratio’ and ‘cover of positive indicator species’ (O’Neill et al. 2013). The most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment from the NSUH in the last reporting period were ‘forb component of forb : graminoid ratio’ and ‘number of high quality species present’ (Perrin et al. 2011, 2012, 2013a-c; Roche et al. 2010a, 2010b, 2011).
The default short-term trend period is presented above; however the data used for the short term trend dated from 2007 to 2014. Based on limited data, conclusions could be made that the area in good condition has improved; however, as this is based on data with a poor national sample size and distribution, the short-term trend was taken to be the same as that reported in the previous reporting period. Short-term trend of Structure and functions in the previous reporting period was assessed as stable.
Typical species for 6230 habitat are: Agrostis capillaris, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Carex binervis, Festuca ovina, Galium saxatile, Hylocomium splendens, Luzula multiflora / L. campestris (count as one), Nardus stricta, Polygala serpyllifolia, Potentilla erecta, Rhytidiadelphus loreus, Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus and Veronica officinalis.
High-quality species for the calcareous sub-community are: Alchemilla glabra, Antennaria dioica, Campanula rotundifolia, Conopodium majus, Ctenidium molluscum, Linum catharticum, Lotus corniculatus, Lysimachia nemorum, Primula vulgaris, Prunella vulgaris and Thymus polytrichus.
High-quality species for the acidic sub-community are: Breutelia chrysocoma, Carex caryophyllea, Carex pilulifera, Danthonia decumbens, Lathyrus linifolius, Pseudorchis albida, Viola canina and Viola riviniana. ||
->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 within the next 12 years based on the current listed threats to 6230 habitat.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Stable.
Current area is much less than the Favourable Reference Area (>10% below FRA).
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Negative, as the threats of I04 and L02 are expected to have a negative influence on Area, especially for areas of 6230 habitat outside of Natura sites, even with the conservation measures CA03, CA04 and CA05 in place. These conservation measures are not targeted measures for 6230 habitat, nor are they implemented across the national distribution of the habitat. In NPWS (2013) future trend was also assessed as declining, stating that “it is the view of the NPWS that the area of 6230 within the State is declining” and “in the future the problems of agricultural improvement, afforestation and succession must be tackled to prevent further losses in area”.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Bad.

Short-term trend direction is 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 91% of 6230 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 I04 and L02 are expected to have a negative influence on Structure and functions, irrespective of the conservation measures CA03, CA04 and CA05, no real change in the current status of the Structure and functions would be expected (i.e. 6230 habitat which is already failing due to bracken encroachment and succession will continue to fail until these areas no longer represent 6230 habitat, thus having a negative future trend for Area, but no real change for Structure and functions).
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, 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 <25% of the area of 6230 habitat being assessed as having Favourable Structure and functions, in addition to the current area of 6230 habitat being more than 10% below the FRA.
Overall Trend in Conservation Status was assessed as stable in this reporting period, but as declining in the last reporting period. Overall Trend in Conservation Status is based on the short-term trends of Range, Area and Structure and functions, which were all stable for this reporting period. In the previous reporting period the short-term trend for Area was declining due to an observable loss in area of 0.06% (between 2000 and no later than 2009). There is a slight possibility that this loss occurred between 2007 and 2009 (i.e. within this reporting period’s short-term period), however the exact year of loss was not determined during the ISGS (O’Neill et al. 2013). Short-term trend for Area was based on the NSUH data only for this reporting period, which it should be noted is just 2.3% of the total area of 6230 habitat recorded in Ireland. The change in Overall Trend in Conservation Status was determined to be due to genuine change; however it should be noted that this is based on extrapolation from a limited amount of data. ||
->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 Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS. S&F Functioning (NDFF score)=U1 is overruled by TS =U2 and negative trend of FV-area. ||
->Future: A27/A29 are expected to have lasting negative effects on the range (and S&F), such that only grid cells with large habitat area remain. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data; a formula with 75%/25%-thresholds is used for conservation status of Structure & Function and Typical species. ||
->Other: Report by Rienk-Jan Bijlsma (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is 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 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 - stable, and Structure and functions - increasing. 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 Area trend has changed from decreasing to stable, and 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: 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: Areas of 6230 * is calculated taking into account the fact that 2/3 of the country has been inventoried during EU habitat maping and additional habitat areas in rest of country might be found. The minimum area of ​​6230 * is 486 ha (currently recorded habitat area after habitat maping), the maximum possible area is 632 ha (mapped area plus habitat area teorethically could found). From historicaly known grasslands 5% (25,46 ha) of habitat no longer meets the minimum habitat criteria, but can still be restored. The area reported in the previous report is 550 ha based on approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: Accordingly to habitat mapping results (project "Nature Census") and information from Rural Support Service, 30% of all grassland habitats are abandoned and continues to overgrow. More than half of grassland habitats in bad quality due to inappropriate management. Currently impossible to evaluate proportion of grasslands in good condition. In previous report similar amount of habitats were unmanaged. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No precise data to make trend assessment is available. Conclusions in previous report were based mainly on results of 6120* monitoring in Natura 2000 sites. Currently information on state level analysed. ||
->Other: As comprehensive mapping of 6230* in LV is not finished yet, the real surface area is not known and new localities are expected to be recorded. Distribution map and area calculations is based on fixed data on 6230* after EU habitat maping season 2017-2018. One of the main reason why the situation with the habitat is so vulnerable is the fact that most localities of 6230* are small grassland patches surrounded by non agricultural lands and land owners are not interested in management of such sites – it is too expensive and support from agri-environmental schemes seems to be insufficient to raise economical interest in management activities.

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 total area of semi-natural grasslands across all biogeographical regions was estimated based on data from the RT inventory (a national inventory with a random sampling design; SLU 2018b., H. Gardfjell1, https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). The estimate varies among years and here we used the mean of five estimates calculated from yearly sampling data 2013-2017 (H. Gardfjell, unpublished data) to approximate total grazed semi-natural grassland cover in Sweden. The mean was 3323km2 (yearly estimates varied from 3123 to 3635 km2). It can be assumed that the semi-natural habitat classification in the RT inventory covers the habitat types 1330, 1630, 4010, 4030, 5130, 6120, 6210, 6230, 6270, 6280, 6410, 6450, and 9070 that all are primarily managed by grazing (H. Gardfjell, personal communication). Since area estimates were assessed with data from other sources for all but four of these habitat types (i.e. 4030, 6210 in ALP and BOR, 6230, and 6410), the total area of the four remaining grazed semi-natural grassland habitat types was calculated by subtracting the estimated areas of the already assessed habitat types (i.e. 1330, 1630, 4010, 5130, 6120, 6210 in CON, 6270, 6280, 6450, and 9070) from the total 3323 km2. The difference (471 km2) was distributed among 4030, 6210, 6230, and 6410 based on their relative extent (in % per biogeographic region) as recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases (Naturanaturtypskartan NNK 2018, Jordbruksverket 2018). The resulting area estimates are uncertain given the uncertainty of the total area estimate extracted from the RT inventory and all assumptions behind the subsequent calculations.

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.

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 one H-ranked and three M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and three 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  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: This habitat benefits from large restoration measures taken in the frame of LIFE projects. In military areas, the restored habitats are currently managed by mowing or burning, with very good results. But restored habitats in the frame of other LIFE projects are still very pionner, and some years of management are still needed to assess the effectiveness of the restoration measures. ||
->HabCondition: The methodology for the monitoring of 6230 structure and functions isn't finalized yet, so monitoring will only begin in the next years. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Even if this habitat has benefited (or still benefits) from large restoration measures taken in the frame of LIFE projects, restored habitats are still very pionner and some years of management are still needed to assess the effectiveness of the restoration measures. ||
->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: mírný nárůst rozlohy má důvod v reklasifikaci jiných biotopů při aktualizacích (týká se zejména Šumavy)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Vorkommen in den tieferen Lagen gehen deutlich 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: la situation des espèces caratéristéristiques est très disparate d'un territoire à l'autre au sein du domaine continental, difficile d'évaluer globalement. ||
->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: Data is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 54% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).

During the initial survey, 8,24 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 54% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a decrease of roughly 20% of this habitat type. 6230 habitat type has not been observed during the country wide survey within wooded areas (2014 - 2018, 67% of forest areas surveyed so far).

The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction are based on the monitoring program (random sample) outside woodlands (data from 2016 - 2018, ongoing).

We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the negative trend determined within the random sample. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original, not monitored area plus the monitored area. ||
->HabCondition: Data concerning habitat condition are based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012) and the results of the monitoring of some 54% of this habitat type (2016-2018).
92% of the originally surveyed area and 100% of the monitored area of this habitat type were in good condition (while at the same time, monitoring showed a 20% decrease of the area of this habitat type, which led to the assessment of the short-term trend as "decreasing (6.4)).
Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: While the monitoring showed an important reduction of this habitat type, the remaining area is in good condition.
During the initial survey, 92% of this habitat type were in good condition. 54% of the initial area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a decrease of roughly 21% of this habitat type. All of the remaining area within the monitored sample were evaluated as being in good condition. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Poprzednio, przy bardzo ograniczonym stanie wiedzy, trend zmiany określono jako nieznany, obecnie wydaje się, że jest on stabilny.
Powierzchnia zasięgu zwiększyła się z 13 294 do 17500 km2 w wyniku innego sposobu jej obliczania.
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: W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnia i powierzchnia referencyjna siedliska były nieznane, krótkoterminowy trend zmiany określono jako spadkowy. Znana była powierzchnia siedliska na obszarach Natura 2000 - oszacowano ją na 7 km2.
Z wyników PMŚ wiadomo, że spadkowy trend powierzchni siedliska nadal się utrzymuje. Obecnie przyjęto, że areał siedliska mieści się w przedziale 7-20 km2. Co prawda wg danych GDOŚ dla obszarów Natura 2000 powierzchnia siedliska to ponad 40 km2, jednak z pewnością jest to wartość znacznie przeszacowana. Po części składają się na nią dane z SDF, w których areał siedliska obliczano jako % powierzchni ostoi, co w przypadku siedlisk małopowierzchniowych prowadziło do znacznego zawyżania wartości. Ponadto bardzo często jako siedlisko 6230 klasyfikowane są płaty roślinności o charakterze przejściowym, silnie zarośnięte przez krzewy czy borówkę czarną. ||
->HabCondition: Udział powierzchni siedliska o dobrym i złym stanie zachowania oszacowano w oparciu o wyniki PMŚ, prowadzonego na 65 stanowiskach. Uznano je za reprezentatywne dla całego regionu.
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 total area of semi-natural grasslands across all biogeographical regions was estimated based on data from the RT inventory (a national inventory with a random sampling design; SLU 2018b., H. Gardfjell1, https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). The estimate varies among years and here we used the mean of five estimates calculated from yearly sampling data 2013-2017 (H. Gardfjell, unpublished data) to approximate total grazed semi-natural grassland cover in Sweden. The mean was 3323km2 (yearly estimates varied from 3123 to 3635 km2). It can be assumed that the semi-natural habitat classification in the RT inventory covers the habitat types 1330, 1630, 4010, 4030, 5130, 6120, 6210, 6230, 6270, 6280, 6410, 6450, and 9070 that all are primarily managed by grazing (H. Gardfjell, personal communication). Since area estimates were assessed with data from other sources for all but four of these habitat types (i.e. 4030, 6210 in ALP and BOR, 6230, and 6410), the total area of the four remaining grazed semi-natural grassland habitat types was calculated by subtracting the estimated areas of the already assessed habitat types (i.e. 1330, 1630, 4010, 5130, 6120, 6210 in CON, 6270, 6280, 6450, and 9070) from the total 3323 km2. The difference (471 km2) was distributed among 4030, 6210, 6230, and 6410 based on their relative extent (in % per biogeographic region) as recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases (Naturanaturtypskartan NNK 2018, Jordbruksverket 2018). The resulting area estimates are uncertain given the uncertainty of the total area estimate extracted from the RT inventory and all assumptions behind the subsequent calculations.

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.

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 one H-ranked and three M-ranked pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and three 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  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Critères pour évaluer le paramètre structure et fonctions : fragmentation ; dynamique trophique de l'habitat; "équilibre" agri-écologique ; dynamique de la végétation ||
->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 surface area of the habitat (5.2) is reported as equal to the area of the habitat within the Natura 2000 network (pSCIs, SCIs and SACs) (11.1), because no recent data are available regarding its distribution outside the network. ||
->HabCondition: Assumption: 90% of habitat area is estimated to be in 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  

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