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: 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: Brak zmian w rozmieszczeniu siedliska w porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu. Trend wydaje się stabilny. Powierzchnia zasięgu zmieniła się z 7925 do 9900 km2 w wyniku innego sposobu jej obliczania.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Wg bazy GDOŚ na obszarach Natura 2000 siedlisko zajmuje ok. 4460 ha. Ponieważ obszary Natura 2000 skupiają większość zasobów siedliska w regionie, jego powierzchnię oszacowano na około 50 km2.
Według poprzedniego raportu powierzchnia siedliska wynosiła 300 km2 (był to szacunek ekspercki), a krótkoterminowy trend zmian określono jako spadkowy. Stopniowy, nieduży spadek powierzchni siedliska potwierdzają obecnie wyniki PMŚ, prowadzonego na 71 stanowiskach. ||
->HabCondition: Krótkoterminowy trend zmian określono w oparciu o wyniki PMŚ prowadzonego w latach 2009-2010 oraz 2017-2018 na 71 stanowiskach, rozmieszczonych we wszystkich pasmach polskiej części Karpat. Udział stanowisk, na których strukturę i funkcje siedliska oceniono jako właściwe zmniejszył się z 43% do 30%, wzrósł udział stanowisk z oceną złą – z 7% do 25%. Z tego względu przyjęto trend spadkowy.
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: Perspektywy dla parametrów oceniono na podstawie wyników PMŚ: na niemal połowie 71 stanowisk objętych PMŚ siedlisko ma dobre perspektywy. Jednak areał siedliska zmniejsza się i pogarsza się struktura i funkcja, stąd przyszłe perspektywy ochrony określono jako niezadowalające (podobnie jak w poprzednim raporcie). ||
->Conclusion: Stan ochrony siedliska nie zmienił się w porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu. Także trend zmian taki sam jak poprzednio.
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 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 one M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and two threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The short term trend direction is considered to be decreasing by more than 1%/yr, based on the rates of decline identified in England and Scotland. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Unknown; Future trend of Area is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Very negative - important deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is decreasing by more than 1% per year; and (ii) the current Area is more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are unknown; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are bad; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - decreasing, and Structure and functions - decreasing.
||
->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 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 two M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and two threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: In the framework of the BNIP project new areas are being checked outside the N2000 network in order to have a complete mapping of the habitat in Wallonia. Doing this we are improving each year the distribution of the habitat. ||
->Coverage: The definition of the 6520 habitat in Belgium has been sligthly revised during the last reporting cycle on the basis of important botanical and statistical analysis. The 6520 habitat is now better defined and better know. A publication on the topic is foreseen in the next months. ||
->HabCondition: The habitat is well surveyed by the walloon grassland program. The pourcentage of 6520 grasslands in good conditions is 20.6% inside the network and 21.8% outside the network. ||
->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 a seriess of randomly selected of 5x5 km grid cells distributed in the Ardenne region. All this information has allowed to make some extrapolations of the area of the 6520 habitat in the walloon region but further surveys are needed to improve the knowledge of the distribution of the habitat.

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: La carte de distribution est le résultat du croisement de données issues d'observations ponctuelles (relevés phytosociologiques interprétés), d'inventaires cartographiques (réseau des sites Natura 2000, cartographies territoriales, cartographies sitologiques, etc.) ainsi que d'affectation de mailles 10 x 10 km à dire d'expert. Il faut considérer cette carte de distribution comme vraisemblablement incomplète. La superficie retenue est celle de l'aire de distribution
effective. L'aire de répartition calculée, du fait de la distance de discontinuité choisie, établie une continuité entre les différents massifs du Massif central alors que cet habitat ne se développe qu'à l'étage montagnard. De fait la surface proposée dans le calcul de l'aire de répartition (38000 km2) surestime la réalité. ||
->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: Brak zmian w rozmieszczeniu siedliska w porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu. Powierzchnia zwiększyła się z 5075 do 7200 km2 w wyniku innego sposobu jej obliczania.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Wg bazy GDOŚ na obszarach Natura 2000 siedlisko zajmuje 4785 ha. Po zweryfikowaniu niemal połowy tych danych (dla obszarów, które mają opracowane PZO dostępne w internecie) wartość ta zmniejszyła się do 3579 ha. Ponieważ większość zasobów siedliska leży w sieci Natura 2000 przyjęto, że powierzchnia siedliska zawiera się w przedziale 35-40 km2.
W poprzednim raporcie, przy znacznie gorszym stanie wiedzy, powierzchnię oszacowano na 1100 km2 (z pewnością była przeszacowana), a krótkoterminowy trend jej zmian uznano za nieznany. ||
->HabCondition: Udział powierzchni siedliska w dobrym i złym stanie zachowania określono w odniesieniu do powierzchni 37,5 km2, bazując na wynikach monitoringu prowadzonego w Sudetach na 47 stanowiskach (PMŚ). Także krótkoterminowy trend zmian określono na podstawie wyników PMŚ: udział stanowisk o właściwej strukturze i funkcji nieco się zwiększył (z 29% w 2009-2010 do 36% w 2017-2018). Trend zmian uznano za stabilny, wychodząc z założenia, że monitorowane stanowiska reprezentują zazwyczaj rozległe i dobrze zachowane płaty siedliska, zatem mogą ‘poprawiać’ rzeczywisty obraz siedliska.
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: Perspektywy dla parametrów oceniono na podstawie wyników PMŚ: na ponad połowie 47 stanowisk objętych PMŚ siedlisko ma dobre perspektywy. Areał siedliska nie zmniejsza się (lub zmniejsza bardzo nieznacznie), struktura i funkcja lekko się poprawia, stąd przyszłe perspektywy ochrony określono jako dobre. ||
->Conclusion: W porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu poprawiły się perspektywy ochrony siedliska oraz trend stanu ochrony (z pogarszającego się na stabilny). Lepsze oceny wynikają przede wszystkim z lepszej, dzięki PMŚ, wiedzy o siedlisku.
Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Critères pour évaluer ce paramètres : fragmentation, connectivité ; structure de l'habitat ; dynamique trophique de l'habitat ; 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: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report