Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution data are quite poor. There are certainly still more occurrences than displayed in the distribution map, but many of them are either very small or not very typical. ||
->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: Trend abnehmend außerhalb der FFH-Gebiete, in den Gebieten stabil ||
->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: 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 (9 200km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (6964 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: W regionie alpejskim siedlisko występuje na granicy swego wysokościowego zasięgu, wykazuje nawiązania do łąk górskich 6520, od których często trudno je odróżnić. Dlatego też podano przedziały powierzchni siedliska. ||
->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: 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. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: "Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). 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).
Wallonia: The assessment of the habitat’s area is based on mapping work inside the Natura 2000 sites that has begun in 2005. Regarding the habitat outside the Natura 2000 sites, information inferred from different other mapping work (‘convention bords de route’, Agro-environmental Measures, PCDN, SGIB) has been used as well as the results of important field campaign initiated in 2012 and still ongoing, aimed at delivering a good assessment of the habitat’s area outside the Natura 2000 sites. The method that is used is based on the systematic detection of the habitat (+ list of characteristic species) in all of the 5x5 km cells (based on the EU 10x10km grid) and carried out by 12 people. All this information has allowed to make a first extrapolation of the area of the 6510 habitat in the walloon atlantic region in 2013 and a much better one now." ||
->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).
Wallonia: Only 45 grasslands mapped in 2012 and checked outside the N2000 in 2018 on a estimated total number of 1736 outside N2000, and no grassland checked inside the N2000 network." ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: "Flanders: It is unknown whether a genuine change in overall trend occurred.
Wallonia: There is a genuine negative change (loss of habitat by 17% in 6 years) but that doesn't change any of the parameters assessed." ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 6510 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Range is fourteen 10km squares larger than the 67 x 10km grid squares reported in NPWS (2013), with 12 squares lost since the previous reporting period from the north, east and south of the range, and 26 squares gained, mostly from the centre and west of the range. The increase in the range was almost all due to improved knowledge except for one 10km square in Kilkenny where there was a genuine change due to the management of the site changing. Any reductions in the range were mostly due to genuine change, with areas of 6510 habitat lost from Sligo, Cavan and Offaly due to anthropogenic impacts.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). In Sligo, Cavan and Offaly the area losses recorded during the current reporting period led to a contraction in the range by eleven 10km squares. These losses were due to agricultural intensification. The loss of one 10km square in Dublin was due to improved knowledge with the area of grassland misidentified as 6510 during the previous round of reporting. Although there was one additional 10km square recorded during the current reporting period due to genuine change, the short-term overall trend direction in Range is decreasing.
The number of 10km grid squares in the range (81) is 14 squares higher than the last monitoring period. This increase is mostly due to improved knowledge and more accurate mapping of the habitat since the previous reporting period, particularly in the west of the range in Co. Galway (Galway County Council, 2017). As stated above there was one 10km square in Kilkenny where there was a genuine increase in the range due to the management changing to annual mowing.
The Favourable Reference Range (FRR) has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) mostly due to improved knowledge. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1999 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, Martin and Brophy (2015), O’Neill and Martin (2015), and Galway County Council (2017).
There are probably still areas of unmapped 6510 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 (Martin et al., 2018) visited 24 of the 36 sites with 6510 that had been previously surveyed by the 2007-12 ISGS (O’Neill et al., 2013). At three of the sites permission was not granted by the landowner to undertake a survey, at two of the sites the habitat had been previously misclassified as the 6510 habitat, and one site had been agriculturally improved. The remaining 18 sites were surveyed to determine the extant area of 6510 and to monitor the Structure and functions. At 10 of the 18 surveyed sites, areas of 6510 had been lost due to impacts such as agricultural intensification. The total recorded area of 6510 lost to impacts such as agricultural improvement was 0.23 km2, which represents 28% of the surveyed area.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be “decreasing” because the area of 6510 had been reduced at 10 of the 18 surveyed sites due to anthropogenic factors, such as agricultural intensification. The magnitude of the known loss is approximately -4.1% 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. The area of 6510 genuinely increased within Cullahill Mountain SAC (site code 000831) in Kilkenny due to a change in management at the site, but this increase in area was small when compared to the overall loss. The total 6510 area lost is taken to be the minimum, with other undocumented losses having taken place in sites not surveyed since the previous monitoring period. If the 28% loss in area is applied to the 6510 area of 1.45 km2 reported in NPWS (2013) the total reported loss in area nationally during the current reporting period would be 0.41 km2.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is primarily due to improved knowledge with approximately 0.35 km2 of newly documented 6510 habitat reported, 0.31 km2 of which was located within the vicinity of Lough Corrib SAC (site code 000297) by Galway County Council (2017). The improved data collected during the current round of reporting has resulted in a net increase in the area of 6510 from 1.45 km2 reported in NPWS (2013) to 1.60 km2 reported in Section 5.2, despite the documented loss of 0.23 km2 due to human impacts during the current reporting period. ||
->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 6510 habitat in good condition was estimated for each of the 18 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 18 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 6510 habitat with Favourable Structure and functions has increased slightly from 50% in the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) to 53% in the current reporting period. However, trend is reported as decreasing 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 6510 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. It is also important to note that during the current reporting period only three of the eighteen 6510 sites surveyed had Favourable Structure and functions, whereas eight of these eighteen sites were reported to have Favourable Structure and functions during the last reporting period. The pressures associated with agricultural intensification are the main reason for this decreasing trend.
All taxa included in the current list of typical species are as follows:
Alopecurus pratensis, Bromus racemosus, Centaurea nigra, Crepis capillaris, Daucus carota, Filipendula ulmaria, Heracleum sphondylium, Hordeum secalinum, Hypochaeris radicata, Knautia arvensis, Lathyrus pratensis, Leontodon autumnalis, Leontodon hispidus, Leucanthemum vulgare, Lotus corniculatus, Pimpinella major, Plantago lanceolata, Prunella vulgaris, Ranunculus acris, Rhinanthus minor, Sanguisorba officinalis, Tragopogon pratensis, Trifolium pratense, Trisetum flavescens, Vicia cracca.
Orchid species recorded within the 6510 habitat included the two more common species Dactylorhiza fuchsii and Dactylorhiza maculata and the less common Platanthera chlorantha. ||
->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 very 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 very negative.

Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Decreasing.
Current range is >10% smaller than the Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
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 Bad.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Decreasing.
Current area is >10% smaller than the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Bad with the magnitude of the known loss -4.1% per annum.
Future trend of Area is assessed as very negative, as 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 Decreasing (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 range being >10% less than the Favourable Reference Range, as well as a loss in area of -4.1% per annum, 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 large areas of the habitat had been lost due to impacts such as agricultural intensification. These impacts are expected to continue into the future. During the previous reporting period the overall trend had been assessed as stable, as there had been very little data available for assessing the area of the 6510 habitat that had been lost.
Range remains Unfavourable-Bad, as in the previous reporting period. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There is a change in definition (methodology) for this type, resulting in a strong increase in range compared to the reported value in 2013. However, after correction of the 2013-value with the new definition and new data it results in a range of 10300 km2 (for 2013), assuming a decrease of about 10% in 2019. The data needs further checks and the results are uncertain. Therefore we report a stable trend and no genuine change.
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. 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: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Functioning based on NDFF analysis = U2, TS = U1; high % area in unfavourable condition results in U2 overall. ||
->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 John Janssen (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 rate of decline identified in England. ||
->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 not more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - decreasing, and Structure and functions - stable.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Area trend has changed from stable to decreasing, the Structure and functions trend has changed from increasing to stable, and because of the removal of the Future prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall trend. ||
->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 6510 has been calculated taking into account the fact that 2/3 of the country has been inventoried and in one third of the state area ​​this habitat can be found additionally. The minimum area of ​​6510 is 4339.19 ha (currently mapped area), the maximum area is 5640 ha (mapped area plus teoretically available area in rest of country). The area of potential grasslands or grasslands that no longer meets the minimum habitat criteria, but can still be restored is 1262 ha or 29% of mapped habitat (i.e., these grasslands had loose their quality due to inappropriate management). The area reported in the previous report is 5300 ha, based on approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: Accordingly to habitat mapping results (project "Nature Census") and information from Rural Support Service, 30% of all grassland habitats are abandoned and continues to overgrow. More than half of grassland habitats in bad quality due to inappropriate management. Currently impossible to evaluate proportion of grasslands in good condition. In previous report similar amount of habitats were unmanaged. ||
->Future: For this habitat it is possible to increase quality and area faster as these grasslands are more attractive for management and use in agriculture (easier to manage and less problems with biomas). ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No precise data to make trend assessment is available. Conclusions in previous report were based mainly on results of 6510 monitoring in Natura 2000 sites. Currently information on state leven analysed, but even then it is incomplete. ||
->Other: As comprehensive mapping of 6510 in LV is not finished, the real surface area is not known and new localities are expected to be recorded.

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 TUVA databases with the addition of objects for which subsidies for mowing of lands with high biological values were disbursed from the Swedish board of agriculture. The geometries recorded in the databases have been imported into ArcGIS where overlaying polygons have been removed. Several objects in the resulting ArcGIS shapefile were assumed to not be habitat types 6510 or 6520 (based on visual interpretation of aerial photos) and were therefore removed from the shapefile (A. Jacobson, unpublished data). The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The area estimates are uncertain because the databases probably do not cover all possible occurrences and because the visual interpretation of aerial photos should be evaluated with field observations.

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 four M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and three threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution data are quite poor. There are certainly still more occurrences than displayed in the distribution map, but many of them are either very small or not very typical. ||
->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 mapping of nearly all grasslands inside the Natura 2000 has
been completed in the last 6 years. Outside the network a
important program of mapping all grassland in Wallonia has
been launched in 2012 and is still ongoing. This program has
allowed much better extrapolation of the real area outside the
network. Also nearly 287 grasslands that were mapped in 2012
outside the netword and177 grasslands mapped between 2005
and 2012 inside the network were monitored to assessed their
conservation degree. This allows statistically robust estimate of
the trend (area and Structure & Functions) of the habitat inside
and outside the network since the last reporting cycle. ||
->HabCondition: The mapping of nearly all grasslands inside the Natura 2000 has been completed
in the last 6 years. Outside the network a important program of mapping all
grassland in Wallonia has been launched in 2012 and is still ongoing. This
program has allowed much better extrapolation of the real area outside the
network. Also nearly 287 grasslands that were mapped in 2012 outside the netword and177 grasslands mapped between 2005 and 2012 inside the network
were monitored to assessed their conservation degree. This allows statistically
robust estimate of the trend (area and Structure & Functions) of the habitat
inside and outside the network since the last reporting cycle. The assessments
made indicate that the area in good condition inside the Network could have
been slightly decreasing, but slightly decreasing outside. Nevertheless in both
cases there have been major losses with previous grasslands that were already in
bad status and that can now not been considered 6510 anymore. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The assessment of the habitat’s area is based on mapping work inside the Natura
2000 sites that has begun in 2005. Regarding the habitat outside the Natura
2000 sites, information inferred from different other mapping work (‘convention
bords de route’, Agro-environmental Measures, PCDN, SGIB) has been used as
well as the results of an important field campaign (May and June 2012) aimed at
delivering a good assessment of the habitat’s area outside the Natura 2000 sites.
The method that has been used is based on the systematic detection of the
habitat (+ list of caracteristic species) in 98 randomly selected of 5x5 km grid cells
carried out by 18 people in the 5 ecological sub-regions of Wallonia. All this information has allowed to make good extrapolations of the area of the 6510
habitat in the walloon atlantic 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: 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: QA feedback : Confirmation que l'Aire de répartition est favorable (FV) - L'aire de répartition prend en compte une variabilité écologique importante permettant, potentiellement, une expression favorable de l'habitat ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Out of the indicated 165 km2, only some 29 km2 are of a structure and plant
composition deemed between favourable and inadequate; the
remainder are extrapolated from more vague data about meadows
and grazing in general and can be very poor structurally.
The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction is 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.
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, 2876,99 ha of this habitat type were mapped (only areas in good condition, the area in not good condition has been estimated based on former field work). 1% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a decrease of roughly 24% of this habitat type. Additional 0,64 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas while additional 10,83 ha were surveyed outside wooded areas, the latter result being not systematic.
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 plus the area discovered by chance. 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 plus the area discovered by chance. ||
->HabCondition: 17% of the originally surveyed area, 99% of the monitored area (only meadows in good condition during the initial survey were monitored) and 100% of 6510 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, 2876,99 ha of this habitat type were mapped (only areas in good condition - some 17%, the area in not good condition has been estimated based on former field works). 1% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a decrease of roughly 24% of this habitat type. Additional 0,64 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas while additional 10,83 ha were surveyed outside wooded areas, the latter result being not systematic.
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 plus the area discovered by chance. 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 plus the area discovered by chance. ||
->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 (88 200km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (108 142 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ znacznej zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. Wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 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: Data originate from the NNK and TUVA databases with the addition of objects for which subsidies for mowing of lands with high biological values were disbursed from the Swedish board of agriculture. The geometries recorded in the databases have been imported into ArcGIS where overlaying polygons have been removed. Several objects in the resulting ArcGIS shapefile were assumed to not be habitat types 6510 or 6520 (based on visual interpretation of aerial photos) and were therefore removed from the shapefile (A. Jacobson, unpublished data). The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The area estimates are uncertain because the databases probably do not cover all possible occurrences and because the visual interpretation of aerial photos should be evaluated with field observations. ||
->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 four M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and three threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: 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 ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; dynamique trophique de l'habitat ; dynamique de renouvellement de la végétation ; régime hydrologique ; structure de l'habitat (dont couverture du sol) ; diversité phytocénotique et biologique ||
->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: 90% of habitat area is estimated to be in good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: There has been abandonment of the traditional practices that maintained the habitat areas. ||
->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