Article 17 web tool

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

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Despite the below 75 % of habitat area in good condition, the status of structure and function should remain FV. The remaining habitat area is within the not known category because field inventories have not yet been conducted. However, because there are very few threats and pressures on this region, the procentage of overall area protected within the alpine region is very high and all habitat area which has been inventoried so far has been in good condition, it is reasonable to assume that vast majority of the "not known" area is in fact in good condition. In addition, to some extent, reindeer grazing helps keeping these areas open. Therefore U1 would not be justified. ||
->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'évaluation de l'état de conservation mériterait d'être réalisée à une échelle plus fine étant donnée le grand nombre d'associations végétales différentes, écologiquement, chorologiquement ou floristiquement parfois fort éloignées. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (13 800km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (9 998 km2). 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: Powierzchnie siedliska w regionie oszacowano na podstawie danych z SDF obszarów Natura 2000. Nastąił niewielki wzrost powierzchni siedliska z 11 km2 do 11.27 km2 wynikający z lepszego stanu wiedzy na temat siedliska przyrodniczego. ||
->HabCondition: Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The estimate of surface area was based on data from several different sources. The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

Data originate from the NNK and the TUVA databases. The geometries recorded in the databases have been imported into ArcGIS where overlaying polygons have been removed. The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The estimated area is very uncertain since the knowledge of this habitat type is poor and since the database probably do not cover all possible occurrences.

The trends f 6430 is not assessed (i.e. reported as unknown) since the available knowledge of this habitat type is very limited. ||
->HabCondition: There is no available information deemed useful for the assessment of condition for the habitat type 6430 in any region. ||
->Future: The Range and Area parameters are assessed as favourable and there is no information suggesting that the conditions will change in the future for this habitat type in the alpine region.

There is no available information deemed useful for the assessment of structures and functions for the habitat type 6430 in the Alpine region. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines.

The trend is assessed as ‘unknown’ in all regions as one or more parameter trends is assessed as ‘unknown’. ||
->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: Be careful in using of the list of typical species for evaluation purposes. The habitat is defined too widely (from lowlad to high mountain riparian habitats), consequently there is no locality, where all species can grow together.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Flanders: Following field checks, some grid cells previously reported as part of the range have been found not to harbour the habitat. These are no longer considered part of the range. It is however possible that there is still habitat outside the currently known range. ||
->Coverage: "Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with large knowledge gaps for 6430 (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). It is unknown whether genuine change in area occurred.
Wallonia: The assessment of the habitat’s area is based on the mapping work inside the Natura 2000 sites that has begun in 2005. Regarding the estimation of the area of the habitat outside the Natura 2000 network, information inferred from different other mapping work (Agro-environmental Measures, PCDN, SGIB) has been used. But we mostly used an extrapolation on the basis of the length of the watercourses inside and outside the Natura 2000 network." ||
->HabCondition: Flanders: 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: Flanders: It is unknown whether genuine changes 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: Les mégaphorbiais sont sans doute globalement en augmentation avec la déprise agricole mais pas celles inscrites à la directive (qui ne comprend pas les mégaphorbiaies en nappe). ||
->HabCondition: Habitat globalement fragmenté à fonctionnement hydrologique souvent perturbé. Qualité physico-chimique des eaux souvent dégradée. État des espèces typiques globalement favorable. Végétation transitoire souvent à l'interface entre prairies et forêts. ||
->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 6430 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013a). There were minor recorded losses of area between the previous and current reporting periods resulting in the loss of one 10km square from the range reported in the previous reporting period. The removal of this one 10km square from the current range of 6430 habitat occurred as a result of a loss of 6430 habitat at Curraghnalaght, Co. Cork. The 6430 habitat here had been mapped as part of the Irish Semi-natural Grasslands Survey (ISGS) (O’Neill et al., 2013a) in 2008. By examining aerial photographs of this location post-2012, it was determined that this 6430 habitat was lost due to agricultural improvement of the field it was located within. The short-term trend is decreasing. It should be noted that the NSUH mapped 6430 habitat at two sites within this reporting period but no assessments were made. Short-term trend was assessed over the period 2007-2016, and long-term trend was assessed over the period 1994-2016. Both assessments are assumed to be valid also for the default trends presented.
The number of 10km squares in the range (191) is 28 squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013a). These changes are due to improved knowledge within the current reporting period. The Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185) (Perrin et al., 2014a) (four squares), Caha Mountains SAC (000093) (Perrin et al., 2014b) (five squares), Galway City Transport Project (Galway County Council, 2017) (one square), Kerry Wetland Survey (Crushell et al., 2015) (one square), Waterford Wetland Survey (Foss et al., 2015a, 2015b) (three squares), Grassland Monitoring Survey (GMS) (Martin et al., 2018) and Old Roosky Canal survey (Brophy & D’Arcy, 2016) (five squares), Lough Allen Blueway survey (Brophy & Martin, 2015) (four squares) and Survey of Potential Turloughs (O’Neill & Martin, 2015) (six squares), all from surveys with data utilised in this reporting period, added to the range. In addition to these 29 x 10km squares, there was also the aforementioned loss of one 10km square in Co. Cork due to agricultural improvement.
Favourable Reference Range (FRR) has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013a) to reflect the improved level of knowledge. It also includes the 10km square which was lost due to agricultural improvement since the previous reporting period. FRR is therefore 19,200 km2. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1995 when original survey work for the CPU Habitats commenced and incorporates updates made by surveys between 2000 and 2016 that are listed in Section 3.2.
Area was calculated from the polygon shapefile, polyline shapefile and point shapefile used for distribution. For each point record not intersecting within a polygon that was yielding an area, 400 m2 of habitat was estimated (37 points). This was based on expert opinion applied in the previous reporting period and carried over to this reporting period in order to maintain consistency. For the polyline shapefile the total length of 6430 habitat was calculated and multiplied by a width of 1 m to provide an area.
During the current reporting period, 16 datasets with 6430 habitat recorded within them were utilised; Area was only fully assessed by Martin et al. (2018). This one GMS site represents 0.4% of the total area of 6430 habitat recorded in Ireland, limiting the conclusions that can be made. It had no recorded loss since the previous reporting period. Due to a paucity of data for Area assessment from this reporting period, all 6430 habitat polygons recorded in the previous reporting period from the ISGS (O’Neill et al., 2013a) were therefore examined for losses in area using aerial photography for the purposes of informing the current reporting period.
One area (220.3 m2) of the 6430 lowland riparian community, mapped during the ISGS, was determined to be lost post-2012 due to agricultural improvement. This loss was based on aerial photograph interpretation (API) carried out for the purposes of informing this reporting period. Two other areas of 6430 mapped during the ISGS were also determined to be lost, one entirely and one partially, due to agricultural improvement. One area (459.7 m2) was revisited as part of the Waterford Habitat Corridor Map Project in 2013 and was remapped as improved grassland (O’Neill et al., 2013b). The other area was revisited in 2014 as part of the Kildare Wetland Survey, with part of the 6430 habitat (438.9 m2) remapped as wet grassland (Foss & Crushell, 2014), which in turn was further determined to be improved grassland by 2016 by API for the purposes of informing this reporting period. The total known area of 6430 habitat lost due to agricultural improvement since the previous reporting period is therefore 0.001 km2. A final area of 6430 habitat (0.001 km2), mapped during the Louth Wetland Survey (Foss et al., 2012) and revisited as part of the Marsh Fritillary Survey (Daly & Barron, 2014), was lost due to scrub and woodland encroachment (most likely due to drainage of surrounding fields) since the previous reporting period. The magnitude of the known loss is approximately 0.02% per annum, measured over a period of 11 years between 2005 and 2016 (based on best available data for this trend period). This magnitude is assumed to be applicable also to the default trend period of 2007-2018. Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing. Although loss of area per year is very small, it results in a loss of range and therefore cannot be considered negligible.
There has not been a comprehensive survey of this habitat in Ireland, and more detailed survey work of the 6430 habitat is needed. It is expected that the area listed in Section 5.2 will be refined as more in-depth mapping of the 6430 habitat is completed. In particular, any area represented within the dataset by only a point needs to be surveyed in more detail. In addition to refining the areas of 6430 habitat currently known, there are probably still areas of unmapped 6430 habitat within the country. The NSUH is currently incomplete and more examples of the upland community are likely to be found. The ISGS (O’Neill et al., 2013a) only recorded the lowland riparian community where it occurred within or adjacent to semi-natural grassland. There are likely to be many more examples along lowland rivers that have not been mapped. The area value entered is therefore a minimum.
Favourable Reference Area is deemed to be more than the current area, but no more than 10% more, given that anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force. With a rate of 0.02% loss per annum and assuming that no corresponding increases took place since then, this equates to a loss of 0.48% over 24 years. It is likely that the actual percentage loss is higher due to the proximity of the 6430 lowland riparian community to lowland farmland, thereby being impacted by agricultural improvement and changes in drainage management along watercourses; however data are not available to confirm or calculate the actual loss in area since the Directive came into force. The very small patch size and fragmented nature of the lowland community suggest that an enlarged area is necessary for either typical species to reach favourable conservation status or for the necessary structure and functions to exist.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is mainly due to the availability of more accurate knowledge of the area of the 6430 habitat resulting in the addition of 0.2 km2 which was previously unmapped. This along with the documented loss in area of 0.002 km2 resulted in an area of 1.004 km2 6430 habitat ((0.8027 + 0.2037) – 0.002 = 1.004 km2). ||
->HabCondition: Criteria for the lowland riparian community of 6430 were adapted from the UK's Common Standards Monitoring (JNCC 2004) and Dwyer et al. (2007) using expert judgement by the ISGS (O’Neill et al. 2013a). Galway County Council (2017) and Martin et al. (2018) assessed Structure and functions at a monitoring stop level, using criteria to assess vegetation composition (including typical species), vegetation structure and physical structure. A total of 16 monitoring stops were recorded across both Galway County Council (2017) and Martin et al. (2018) within this reporting period. Two of the 16 stops failed the criteria that assessed the cover of negative indicator species and cover of scrub/bracken/trees.
Criteria for the upland community of 6430 were presented in NPWS (2013a). These were adapted from the UK’s Common Standards Monitoring (JNCC 2009) using expert judgement. Three relevés within the 6430 upland community were recorded from across the two NSUH sites surveyed within this reporting period. These relevés were retrospectively assessed for Structure and functions using the criteria presented in NPWS (2013a). Structure and functions were assessed at a monitoring stop level, again using criteria to assess vegetation composition (including typical species), vegetation structure and physical structure. As this was a retrospective assessment of the NSUH data only certain criteria could be applied and therefore represent a “best case” situation for Structure and functions of 6430 upland communities. One of the three relevés failed the criterion assessing the cover of positive indicator species.
Of the sites assessed (approximately 0.07 km2) for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 84.2% 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 (84.2%) and not-good condition (15.8%) was scaled up to the national estimate (0.84 km2 in good condition and 0.16 km2 in not-good condition); however as the area assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period only represents 6.9% of the national area of habitat 6430, data from the last reporting period were also utilised.
During the last reporting period 50% of the 6430 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS 2013a). This equates to 0.50 km2 of the current area of 6430 habitat and this figure is used as the minimum area in good condition. 50% of the 6430 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS 2013a). This equates to 0.50 km2 of the current area of 6430 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 in the last reporting period for the 6430 lowland riparian communities were ‘mode herb height’, ‘cover of positive indicator species’ and ‘number of positive indicator species’. The ‘proportion of vegetation composed of positive indicator species’ and ‘proportion of vegetation composed of non-native species’ were the most frequent criteria to fail for the 6430 upland communities (NPWS 2013a).
The short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was taken to be stable as, based on the data recorded during this reporting period, there is no evidence that status has declined since the last reporting period. In fact, based on limited data, conclusions could be made that the status has improved; however, as this is based on data with a poor national sample size and distribution, the trend was taken as stable based on expert opinion.
Typical indicator species for the lowland 6430 habitat are: Alisma lanceolata, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Angelica sylvestris, Calystegia sepium, Cicuta virosa, Crepis paludosa, Epilobium hirsutum, Epilobium parviflorum, Equisetum fluviatile, Equisetum palustre, Eupatorium cannabinum, Filipendula ulmaria, Galium palustre, Hypericum tetrapterum, Iris pseudacorus, Lysimachia vulgaris, Lythrum salicaria, Mentha aquatica, Myosotis scorpioides, Persicaria amphibia, Rumex hydrolapathum, Sium latifolium, Solanum dulcamara, Stachys palustris, Symphytum officinale, Trollius europaeus and Valeriana officinalis.
Typical indicator species for the upland 6430 habitat are: Alchemilla spp., Angelica sylvestris, Cochlearia officinalis agg., Crepis paludosa, Filipendula ulmaria, Geum rivale, Heracleum sphondylium, Hieracium spp., Hypericum spp., Oxyria digyna, Primula vulgaris, Ranunculus acris, Rumex acetosa, Sedum rosea, Solidago virgaurea, Succisa pratensis, Thalictrum minus, Valeriana officinalis and Viola riviniana. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Decreasing.
Current range is less than the Favourable Reference Range (<10% below FRR).
Conservation status of Range is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Negative, as the threat of A31 is expected to have a negative influence on Range, particularly as there is no corresponding conservation measure in place to balance this threat.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Poor.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Decreasing.
Current area is less than the Favourable Reference Area (<10% below FRA).
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Negative, as the threat of A31 is expected to have a negative influence on Area, particularly as there is no corresponding conservation measure in place to balance this threat.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Poor.

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 50% of 6430 habitat is in poor 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 Negative, as the threats of A09, A31, I01 and I02 are expected to have a negative influence on Structure and functions, irrespective of the conservation measure CA03 as this is not a targeted measure for the 6430 habitat, nor is it implemented across the national distribution of the habitat.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Bad. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range is Unfavourable-Inadequate in this reporting period, but was Favourable in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Area is Unfavourable-Inadequate in this reporting period, as it was in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of the Structure and functions and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Bad in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, as it was during the previous reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Bad during the current reporting period was due to <75% of the area of 6430 habitat being assessed as having Favourable Structure and functions.
Overall Trend in Conservation Status was assessed as deteriorating in this reporting period, but as stable in the last reporting period. There is evidence that both Range and Area are declining since the previous reporting period, largely due to agricultural improvement through drainage. The change of trend for Range and Area between reporting periods resulted in the change of trend in Overall Conservation Status. ||
->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. 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. Some provinces indiace a declining area due to different mowing reghimes (during summer instead of winter), but others report an increasing area. ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS; NDFF analysis showed a stable trend. ||
->Future: This is a habitat type of which functioning and dynamics relatively little is known. Therefore it is very difficult to predict future developments. ||
->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: 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 Overall stable ||
->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 Favourable Reference Area is unknown.
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 unknown; 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. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: 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 6430 has been calculated taking into account the fact that 2/3 of the country has been inventored and in the rest of state additionally area of ​​this habitat can be found. The minimum area of ​​6430 is 514.38 ha (actually mapped area), the maximum - 669 ha (maximum area calculated by summing up actual area with teoretically available area in unmapped part of country). The area reported in the previous report is 1600 ha, based on approximate estimates. The decrease of habitat area is partly due to improved habitat description and EU habitat maping methodology that has been changed since the previous report. 4,5% (23,05 ha) of this grassland habitat type has disappeared in N2000 sites, but this is mainly because of interpretation changes. ||
->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. For this habitat type intensive management has been recorded, by managing river banks in inhabited places. For this habitat type structures and functions are in better condition than for other semi-natural grasslands as natural processes (for example flooding) prevents rapid overgrowing. Currently impossible to evaluate proportion of grasslands in good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: As nationally habitat interpretation has been improved, currently impossible to compare data and to evaluate overall trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: No precise data to make trend assessment is available. Conclusions of previous report were mostly based on results of 6430 monitoring in Natura 2000 sites, currently country wide information analysed. EU habitat maping data shows that the habitat is in unfavourable condition (structures and functions), but comparing with other semi-natural grassland habitats in general this habitat type is in better conservation statuss. ||
->Other: As comprehensive mapping of 6430 in LV is not finished, the real habitat surface area is not known and new localities are expected to be recorded. In the next years drainage project development might influence rivers and this grassland habitat type.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The estimate of surface area was based on data from several different sources. The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

Data originate from the NNK and the TUVA databases. The geometries recorded in the databases have been imported into ArcGIS where overlaying polygons have been removed. The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The estimated area is very uncertain since the knowledge of this habitat type is poor and since the database probably do not cover all possible occurrences.

The trends f 6430 is not assessed (i.e. reported as unknown) since the available knowledge of this habitat type is very limited. ||
->HabCondition: There is no available information deemed useful for the assessment of condition for the habitat type 6430 in any region. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines.

The trend is assessed as ‘unknown’ in all regions as one or more parameter trends is assessed as ‘unknown’. ||
->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: This habitat is not surveyed regularly and the parameters and thresholds for
assessing the conservation status are still to be stabilized. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The assessment of the habitat’s area is based on the mapping work inside the
Natura 2000 sites that has begun in 2005. Regarding the estimation of the area
of the habitat outside the Natura 2000 network, information inferred from
different other mapping work (Agro-environmental Measures, PCDN, SGIB) has
been used. But we mostly used an extrapolation on the basis of the length of the
watercourses inside and outside the Natura 2000 network.

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: Lücken im Nordosten des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen z.T. auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->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: Donne des moyens pour mettre en place des mesures de l'état de conservation des habitats ||
->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: The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction are based on a monitoring program (random sample) outside woodlands (data from 2016 - 2018, ongoing). ||
->Coverage: The indicated difference in surface area since the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: finalisation of the national inventory of biotopes outside woodlands, monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018) and genuine change.
During the initial survey, 26,66 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 22% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a decrease of roughly 53% of this habitat type.
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 is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012) and the results of the monitoring of some 22% of this habitat type (2016-2018).
92% of the originally surveyed area and 50% of the monitored area was in good condition.

Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: With the exception of range, all parameters for this habitat type are evaluated as "bad" including future prospects. For a habitat type that is quite easy to conserve and to create, this is rather a depressing insight.
During the initial survey, 92% of this habitat type were in good condition. 22% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a decrease of roughly 53%. Only 50% of the remaining area within the monitored sample were evaluated as being in good condition while the habitat type was not found within the 67% of forest areas surveyed so far. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (62 800km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (67 795 km2). Wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski.
Trend został uznany za wzrostowy z uwagi na fakt, że w latach 2015-2018, w regionie wyznaczono w sumie 32 nowe stanowiska ziołorośli. ||
->Coverage: W latach 2015-2018 w regionie wyznaczono w sumie 32 nowe stanowiska ziołorośli.
W porzednim raporcie powierzchniew siedliska określono na 30km2 w obecnym na 60 km2. Zmiana powierzchni siedliska jest efektem lepszego stanu wiedzy na temat danego siedliska przyrodniczego. Dane do oszacowania powierzchni pochodzą głownie z SDF obszarów Natura 2000. ||
->HabCondition: Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The estimate of surface area was based on data from several different sources. The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

Data originate from the NNK and the TUVA databases. The geometries recorded in the databases have been imported into ArcGIS where overlaying polygons have been removed. The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The estimated area is very uncertain since the knowledge of this habitat type is poor and since the database probably do not cover all possible occurrences.

The trends f 6430 is not assessed (i.e. reported as unknown) since the available knowledge of this habitat type is very limited. ||
->HabCondition: There is no available information deemed useful for the assessment of condition for the habitat type 6430 in any region. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines.

The trend is assessed as ‘unknown’ in all regions as one or more parameter trends is assessed as ‘unknown’. ||
->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: Critère pour évaluer ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; fonctionnement hydrologique ; intégrité de la composition floristique ; qualité physico-chimique des eaux ; dynamique naturelle de la végétation ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: 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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Assumption: 20% of habitat area is estimated to be in not-good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: 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: Be careful in using of the list of typical species for evaluation purposes. The habitat is defined too widely (from lowlad to high mountain riparian habitats), consequently there is no locality, where all species can grow together.

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