Article 17 web tool

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

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: En l'absence d'une généralisation des mesures de gestion, la régression de cet habitat pourrait continuer fortement, et s'accélérer du fait de sa très grande fragmentation spatiale et de l'augmentation de son exposition aux pollutions diffuses et aux éventuels et désormais probables changements climatiques. ||
->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: 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.
Zasięg siedliska może być nieco większy niż poprzednio z powodu odnalezienia łąk zmiennowilgotnych w Beskidzie Śląskim, na Pogórzu Ciężkowickim i Jasielskim. Powierzchnia zasięgu zmieniła się z 824 na 1500 km2 ||
->Coverage: Dokładna wielkość powierzchni siedliska w bioregionie nie jest znana. Łaki trzęślicowe występują przede wszystkim w piętrze pogórza, które jest o wiele słabiej zbadane niż wyższe położenia. Ostatnio w związku z opracowywaniem PZO stan wiedzy stopniowo się poprawia, ale rozpoznanie zasobów siedliska ogranicza się głównie do obszarów N2000. W poprzednim raporcie do KE powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na 1 km2. Obecnie wartość tę potraktowano jako maksymalną. Minimalną powierzchnię oszacowano na około 50 ha. Wartość tę uzyskano podwajając powierzchnię znanych stanowisk siedliska z Pogórza Wielickiego: okolice Mogilan – 3 ha (Bator 2005); Pogórza Wiśnickiego: koło m. Zasań – kilka arów (Stawowczyk 2005); Beskidu Wyspowego: PLH 120082 Łąki koło Kasiny Wielkiej (wg danych z SFD z 2009 roku – 14 ha, wg późniejszych prac związanych z PMŚ w tym obszarze - ok. 3 ha), stanowisko koło Porąbki - 10 arów (Bartoszek 2008 ); Pogórza Ciężkowickiego: PLH180041 Łąki nad Młynówką - 0,25 ha (PZO Łąki nad Młynówką); Pogórza Jasielskiego: PLH180033 Józefów-Wola Dębowiecka – 18 ha (PZO Józefów-Wola Dębowiecka), stanowisko koło Bóbrki – 2 ary (D. Suder 2012, Fitosocjologiczna baza danych); Beskidu Śląskiego: Laliki-Czerna – kilka arów (Kostuch 2002). Łącznie jest to ok. 25 ha.
Do siedliska nie zaliczono 26 ha łąk wilgotnych podawanych w Projekcie planu ochrony obszaru Natura 2000 Bieszczady, ponieważ nie ma pewności czy płaty zbiorowiska z Succisa pratensis i Betonica officinalis rzeczywiście reprezentują siedlisko 6410. W dokumencie nie przedstawiono danych, które pozwoliłyby na identyfikację siedliska.
Poprzednio krótkoterminowy trend zmiany powierzchni siedliska był nieznany. Obecnie, w oparciu o wyniki dwóch cykli PMŚ prowadzonego w głównych zasobach siedliska w Beskidzie Wyspowym oraz badania łąk na Pogórzu Wielickim (Bator 2005), określono go jako spadkowy.
Na mapie rozmieszczenia siedliska liczne stanowiska, które faktycznie leżą w piętrze pogórza i należą do bioregionu alpejskiego, znaczone są już w bioregionie kontynentalnym. Wynika to z wielkości kwadratów kartogramu (10 km x 10 km). ||
->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.
W poprzednim raporcie Specyficzną strukturę i funkcje określono jako niezadowalające (U1), pogarszające się. Na podstawie wyników PMŚ i literatury można przyjąć, że trend spadkowy nadal się utrzymuje.
Siedlisko jest monitorowane w ramach PMŚ na 4 stanowiskach w jednym obszarze N2000. Procesy i przemiany, którym podlega (postępująca fragmentacja płatów na skutek zarzucenia koszenia, degeneracja struktury gatunkowej, głównie przez rozprzestrzenianie się ekspansywnych gatunków roślin zielnych i krzewów) obserwowane są także na stanowiskach znanych, lecz nie objętych monitoringiem. Dlatego przyjęto, że monitoring oddaje stan ochrony siedliska w całym bioregionie. ||
->Future: Płaty łąk trzęślicowych są z reguły wyłączone z koszenia, co pogarsza perspektywy zachowania dla powierzchni oraz struktury i funkcji siedliska. Negatywne zmiany silniej zaznaczają się w strukturze siedliska, powierzchnia zmniejsza się relatywnie powoli.
W poprzednim raporcie perspektywy ochrony siedliska określono jako niezadowalające, pogarszające się. ||
->Conclusion: Na połowie monitorowanych stanowisk strukturę i funkcje siedliska oceniono jako złe, na połowie jako niezadowalające. Zbliżony obraz kondycji siedliska prezentują PZO, stąd ocena Specyficznej struktury i funkcji, a w konsekwencji także Ogólnego stanu ochrony, w całym bioregionie została określona jako zła. Poprzednio oba parametry oceniono jako niezadowalające (U1), lecz pogarszajace się.
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: 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: L’habitat 6410 regroupe une grande diversité de communautés végétales ; les plus oligotrophiles sont en état de conservation médiocre et sont encore très grandement menacées ; les sites basiques semblent avoir plus fortement régressé que les prés acides. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: Dans l’état actuel des connaissances, il est impossible d’estimer objectivement un seuil de % pour les tendances. ||
->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 6410 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). In the south of the range, counties Cork and Waterford, the area losses recorded during the current reporting period led to a contraction in the range by nine 10km squares. These losses were due to the anthropogenic pressures of agricultural intensification, forestry, and abandonment. Due to these losses from the south of the range the short-term trend direction is decreasing
Overall, the number of 10km squares in the range (207) is 11 squares higher than the last monitoring period and these changes are mostly due to improved knowledge and more accurate mapping of the habitat since the previous reporting period.
The Favourable Reference Range (FRR) has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) due to improved knowledge. The current range is 4% below the FRR. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1995 and incorporates updates made during the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) and surveys that have taken place during the current reporting period: 2015-17 GMS, Daly and Barron (2014), O’Neill and Martin (2015), Daly (2016), and Galway County Council (2017).
There are probably still areas of unmapped 6410 habitat within the country, hence the area value entered is a minimum.
Favourable Reference Area was not determined exactly. However, it is deemed to be >10% greater than the current area, given that anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force (assuming that no corresponding increases took place since then).
The 2015-17 GMS visited 33 of the 113 6410 sites that had been previously surveyed by the 2007-12 ISGS (O’Neill et al., 2013). Four sites no longer contained a significant area of 6410, one site had been agriculturally improved, one site had been planted with forestry, one was abandoned and scrubbed over, and at one site the habitat had been misidentified as 6410. The remaining 29 sites were surveyed to determine the extant area of 6410 and to monitor the Structure and functions. At five of the 33 surveyed sites, areas of 6410 had been lost due to impacts such as forestry, agricultural intensification and undergrazing. The total recorded area of 6410 lost to impacts such as agricultural improvement was 0.12 km2, which represents 7% of the surveyed area.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be “decreasing” because the area of 6410 had been reduced at 5 of the 33 surveyed sites due to anthropogenic factors, such as undergrazing. The magnitude of the known loss is -1.0% per annum, measured over a period of 7 years between this monitoring period and the previous, calculated by estimating the area lost and expressing this as a per-annum percentage of the original area. This area loss is taken to be the minimum with other undocumented losses likely to have taken place in sites not surveyed since the previous monitoring period. If the 7% loss in area is applied to the 6410 area of 5.64 km2 reported in NPWS (2013), the total reported loss in area nationally during the current reporting period would be 0.39 km2.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is primarily due to anthropogenic impacts such as forestry, agricultural intensification and abandonment. However, the current area of 5.86 km2 reported in Section 5.2 is larger than the 5.64 km2 reported in NPWS (2013), even with the known losses of 0.39 km2. Primarily this is due to the fact that some areas of 6410 habitat that had not been mapped during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) have now been added to the dataset.
There were two points from O’Neill et al. (2013) and one from Martin et al. (2018) where the habitat was found but the area was below the minimum mapping area. A value of 0.02 ha was assigned to these three points. To allow point files to contribute to the total area of 6410 calculated for the current reporting period, a review of the point datasets was carried out using remote imagery, and following this review a mean value of 0.35 ha was assigned to each of the remaining points. ||
->HabCondition: Changes between the percentage of the habitat in good condition reported by NPWS (2013) and the current reporting period are due to the use of different methods with modified assessment criteria used in this reporting period (see Martin et al., 2018).
The area of 6410 habitat in good condition was estimated for each of the 29 surveyed sites based on the percentage of monitoring stops at each site that were assessed to have Favourable Structure and functions. As the sample of 29 GMS sites is considered representative of the national resource the proportion in good and not-good condition was scaled up to estimate the national area.
The percentage of the 6410 habitat with Favourable Structure and functions has increased from 15% in the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) to 63% in the current reporting period. However, trend is reported as stable as the assessment criteria have been modified (e.g. high quality indicator species within a 20 m vicinity of the stop were taken into consideration during the current reporting period) and the nature of the assessed areas have changed (e.g. most areas that were surveyed during the current reporting period were >1 ha). Also the methodology for calculating the percentage of the habitat nationally that is in good condition was changed. In the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) only sites where the total area of 6410 was assessed to have Favourable Structure and functions were included within the percentage in good condition. In this reporting period the approximate area of each site with Favourable Structure and functions was calculated based on the percentage of monitoring stops that were assessed to have Favourable Structure and functions.
All taxa included in the current list of typical species are as follows:
Achillea ptarmica, Carex echinata, Carex flacca, Carex nigra, Carex panicea, Carex pulicaris, Carex viridula, Carum verticillatum, Cirsium dissectum, Crepis paludosa, Equisetum palustre, Filipendula ulmaria, Galium palustre, Galium uliginosum, Juncus acutiflorus, Juncus articulatus, Juncus conglomeratus, Lathyrus palustris, Ophioglossum vulgatum, Lotus pedunculatus, Luzula multiflora, Mentha aquatica, Molinia caerulea, Potentilla anglica, Potentilla erecta, Ranunculus flammula, Succisa pratensis, Viola palustris, Viola persicifolia.
The orchid species included within the list of typical species for the 6410 habitat also includes the two common species Dactylorhiza fuchsii and Dactylorhiza maculata and the rarer Dactylorhiza majalis. ||
->Future: Section 8.5 lists conservation measures that are currently being implemented. Section 8.6 lists additional conservation measures that are recommended, but which are not currently being implemented. If the recommendations were to be implemented, the future trend of Area could be assessed as stable rather than negative. However, because it is impossible to be certain that any such recommended measures will in fact be carried out over the next monitoring period, the future trend must be assessed as negative.
Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Decreasing.
Current range is 4% less than the Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Negative, as the range is expected to decrease based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Poor.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Decreasing.
Current area is >10% less than Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is Unfavourable-Bad with the magnitude of the known loss -1.0% per annum.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Negative as the area is expected to decrease based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Bad.

Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable-Bad as >25% of habitat is in “Unfavourable” condition.
Short-term trend direction is Stable (for habitat that is in Good condition).
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Bad. ||
->Conclusion: The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, as it had been during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Bad during the current reporting period was due to the current area being >10% less than the Favourable Reference Area, and the fact that >25% of the surveyed area had Structure and functions that were unfavourable.
Overall trend in Conservation Status was assessed as deteriorating during the current reporting period, as some areas of the habitat had been lost due to impacts such as agricultural intensification, undergrazing and forestry. These impacts are expected to continue into the future. During the previous reporting period the overall trend had been assessed as decreasing.
Although the range has been increased since the last reporting period, due to improved knowledge, there have been losses due to anthropogenic pressures. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution map is based on vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites and relevé data in- and outside Natura 2000-sites over a period of 12 years. The 2013-distribution map has been corrected, and should have 10 grid cells more, resulting in a range of 11900. This means there is no change, as a threshold of 10% is used for positive or negative trends.
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; NDFF analysis showed a stable trend. ||
->Future: Area is starting to increase due to restoration projects; it is expected that some further increase will take place. There is uncertainty about the actual area and therefore it is unclear how large the gap is between actual AREA and the FRA. ||
->Conclusion: Functioning=U1; TS=U1 ||
->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 Joop Schaminée (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The short term trend direction is considered to be decreasing by 1%/yr or less, based on the rates of decline identified in Northern Ireland, England and Scotland. ||
->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 - slight/moderate deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is decreasing by 1% per year or less; and (ii) the current Area is 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 bad; 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 - increasing. If negative future trends for Area and Structure and functions are also taken into account, the Overall trend would be deteriorating.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Structure and functions trend has changed from decreasing to increasing. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Area of 6410 has been calculated taking into account the fact that 2/3 of the country has been inventoried and additional habitat areas will be mapped in the rest of country. The minimum area of ​​6410 is 3253.68 ha (currently mapped), the maximum is 4230 ha (currently mapped area plus theoretically available area in the rest of country). 8% (265 ha) of inventoried grasslands no longer meet the minimum habitat criteria but can still be restored. The area estimated by partial data in the previous report was 1400 ha. ||
->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 6410 monitoring in Natura 2000 sites. Currently information on state level analysed, but still information is incomplete ||
->Other: As comprehensive mapping of 6410 in LV is not finished during preparation of report, the real surface area is not known and new localities are expected to be recorded. The main reasons why the situation with the habitat is so vulnerable, is that the most localities are private owned and management is upon their willingness.

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 four 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: 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: A very limited number of plots (grasslands) were surveyed
during the summer 2018 and on 13 grasslands no had
disappeared, but 4 ones were abandoned with high
Filipendula/Phalaris stands, 4 were abandoned with schrubs and
young trees, one has been drained (old drains "cleaned out")
and one has been transformed in highly grazed grassland). ||
->HabCondition: A very limited number of plots (grasslands) were surveyed during the summer
2018 and on 13 grasslands no had disappeared, but 4 ones were abandoned with
high Filipendula/Phalaris stands, 4 were abandoned with schrubs and young
trees, one has been drained (old drains "cleaned out") and one has been
transformed in highly grazed grassland). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The habitat has become very rare and the distribution very patchy. It seems to
be completely absent from the Condroz ecological region.

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: Situation im Süden des Verbreitungsgebiets U1. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Situation im Süden des Verbreitungsgebiets U1. ||
->Conclusion: Situation im Süden des Verbreitungsgebiets U1. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: 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: The indicated difference in surface area since the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018) and genuine change.
The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction are based on a monitoring program (random sample) outside woodlands (data from 2016 - 2018, ongoing).
During the initial survey (2007 - 2012), 8,21 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 31% of this area was monitored from 2016 - 2018 showing an decrease of roughly 1% of this habitat type. Additional 2,28 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas (0% in good condition).
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the negative trend determined within the random sample and the area within the 67% surveyed forests. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original, not monitored area plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100% plus the monitored area. ||
->HabCondition: Data concerning habitat condition are based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 31% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
76% of the originally surveyed area, 67% of the monitored area and 0% of the area found within wooded areas were in good condition.
Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: During the initial survey, 76% of this habitat type were in good condition. 31% of this area was monitored from 2016 - 2018 showing an decrease of roughly 1% of the area of this habitat type. 67% of the remaining monitored area was evaluated as being in good condition.
Additional 2,28 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas (0% in good condition). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Brak zmian w porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu w rozmieszczeniu, ale powierzchnia zasięgu siedliska zmniejszyła się z 219 208 do 182 200 km2 w wyniku zmiany 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: Wg bazy GDOŚ na obszarach Natura 2000 siedlisko zajmuje ok. 200 km2 (19 609 ha). Jednak z pewnością jest to wartość przeszacowana, ponieważ w sporej 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. Potwierdziła to weryfikacja danych dla tych obszarów, które mają dostępne w internecie PZO, np. Dolina Dolnej Tanwi (104 ha, a nie 452 ha), Dolina Dolnej Pilicy (28 ha, a nie 318 ha), Dolina Biebrzy (462 ha, a nie 3 000 ha). Jednak łąki trzęślicowe występują również poza siecią Natura 2000, z reguły w postaci niewielkich płatów. Z powyższych względów przyjęto, że siedlisko zajmuje w regionie w przybliżeniu około 200 km2.
W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnia siedliska była nieznana, a krótkoterminowy trend jej zmiany – spadkowy, zaznaczono jednak, że ubytek powierzchni nie jest bardzo znaczący. Porównując wyniki PMŚ z lat 2010-2011 oraz 2017-2018 można zauważyć, że w tym okresie powierzchnia nie zmniejszyła się; oceny parametru nawet się nieco poprawiły, dlatego przyjęto, że krótkoterminowy trend zmian jest stabilny. ||
->HabCondition: Udział powierzchni siedliska w różnym stanie zachowania oszacowano na podstawie wyników PMŚ, prowadzonego na 106 stanowiskach, dość równomiernie rozmieszczonych w całym regionie, dzięki czemu powinny dobrze oddawać stan siedliska i jego zmiany.
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: W ocenie stanu ochrony siedliska opierano się na danych PMŚ. 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 four 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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Critères pour évaluer le paramètre structure et fonctions : fFragmentation, connectivité ; dynamique trophique de l'habitat ; fonctionnement hydrologique ; fonctionnement du cycle de la matière ; dynamique de renouvellement de la végétation ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat U1 pour les structures et fonctions - L'habitat se situe plutôt en arrière-pays ce qui fait que les critères sont dans l'ensemble plutôt favorable au maintien de l'habitat sauf localement
QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation "En détérioration" de la tendance générale à dire d'expert (au moins une tendance à court terme négative) ||
->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  

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