Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The apparent decline in range is due to revised method (range-tool, interpretation) and improved knowledge. ||
->Coverage: The apparent decline in range is partly due to revised method (adapted interpretation) and improved knowledge, but there is also a clear genuine decline in the area covered by habitat, indicated through an anthropogenic inducted degeneration of structure and functions resulting in an decrease of surface area. ||
->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: Abweichend von der Empfehlung in den Guidelines bei einer FV-Bewertung der Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen einen Schwellenwert von 90 % Flächenanteil in gutem Zustand anzuwenden, wurde in Deutschland im Regelfall der Schwellenwert von 80 % beibehalten, um unter anderem die Kontinuität zu den vorherigen Bewertungen zu wahren. ||
->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: Rozmieszczenie siedliska w regionie ALP jest ograniczone do rejonów: Kotliny Orawsko-Nowotarskiej, Tatr i Bieszczad. Niewielkie powierzchnie torfowisk wysokich odnotowano także w Gorcach, Beskidzie Żywieckim (Hale: Lipowska, Miziowa, Cebulowa oraz Pilsko, a także (poprzednio nie wykazane) na W zboczach Grojca – Użytek ekologiczny Stawek na Kosarach pod Hyśkowcem) i Beskidzie Małym (stoki południowe miedzy Pośrednim Groniem a Czarną Górą (miejscowość Las).
Podawane w SFD obszaru Łopień torfowisko wysokie jest w istocie torfowiskiem przejściowym 7140.
Powierzchnia zasięgu siedliska zwiększyła się z 1048 do 1600 km2 ze względu na nowe dane ale i odmienny sposób obliczania powierzchni.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Siedlisko w regionie ALP występuje w: Tatrach (1,63 ha), Bieszczadach – w BdPN i w obszarze N2000 Bieszczady (łącznie 27,97 ha) oraz w Kotlinie Orawsko-Nowotarskiej 366,41 ha. W Gorcach 0,04 ha (Plan ochrony) do 0,06 ha (dane GPN); w Beskidzie Żywieckim to łącznie ok. 0,47 ha (wg. PZO, natomiast w bazie danych GDOŚ wartość znacznie przeszacowana – 10,58 ha) i jeszcze mniejsza powierzchnia w Beskidzie Małym (w bazie danych GDOŚ 0,72 ha) . Łącznie ok. 3,96 km2
Powierzchnia siedliska została podana na podstawie zsumowania powierzchni siedliska w parkach narodowych (wg planów ochrony)oraz w obszarze Bieszczady poza parkiem i obszarze Natura 2000 Torfowiska Orawsko-Nowotarskie (wg Planu ochrony).
Wg. Danych z bazy danych GDOŚ: Bieszczady 22,3, TON 366,41 – w obu przypadkach ta sama wartość, natomiast w Tatrach 0,66 (mniej o 1 ha niż w planie ochrony)
Właściwy areał referencyjny określony jako równy aktualnemu (tak jak w poprzednim raporcie) i rzeczywistej powierzchni zajmowanej w 2013 roku, choć liczbowo jest to wartość mniejsza, niż podana w 2013 roku: ok. 4,8 km2. Jest to wartość pozwalająca na przetrwanie siedliska w dłuższej perspektywie czasowej, a zwiększenie powierzchni jest niepewne (możliwe jedynie wskutek regeneracji siedliska 7120).
Powierzchnia siedliska ulega prawdopodobnie na części stanowisk stopniowemu zmniejszeniu, w wyniku przesuszenia i zarastania przez drzewa i krzewy. Nieoszacowano jednak precyzyjnie tempa tego zarastania; brak danych porównawczych, choć prawdopodobnie nie osiaga granicznej wartości ok. 1% rocznie, tym bardziej że na części terenów wdrożono zabiegi ochrony czynnej. Dlatego trend określono jako stabilny.
Nastąpiła zmiana wartości powierzchni siedliska w stosunku do poprzednich raportów (2007 i 2013), ze względu na wykorzystanie danych z projektów planu ochrony parków narodowych i obszarów Natura 2000.

Źródła informacji:
Plan ochrony dla obszaru N2000 Torfowiska Orawsko-Nowotarskie:
http://krakow.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/68734/TON_PLH_szablon.pdf
TPN – plan ochrony
http://krokus.tpn.pl/du/krameko/pliki/15042015/pliki/TEKST_SYNTEZY.pdf
Bieszczady – plan ochrony
http://rzeszow.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/61220/Operat_syntetyczny_Planu_Ochrony_Bieszczady-PLC180001_icon.pdf
Beskid Żywiecki PZO:
http://katowice.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/25613/dokumantacja_plh240006.pdf ||
->HabCondition: Stan siedliska w Tatrach w planie ochrony został oceniony jako U1 (brak tu stanowisk monitoringowych PMŚ) natomiast w pozostałych obszarach w PMŚ (na 12 stanowiskach): W Bieszczadach na U2; na TON na U1 (największa powierzchnia). W Beskidzie Żywieckim i Beskidzie Małym – brak danych o stanie siedliska. Ponieważ zajmuje ono tu minimalne powierzchnie, nie zostały uwzględnione w ogólnym oszacowaniu powierzchni o dobrym lub nie, stanie ochrony.
Biorąc pod uwagę jedynie wyniki PMŚ – parameter Struktura i funkcja: 25% stanowisk oceniono na FV, 50% na U1 i 25% na U2.
Oszacowanie powierzchni siedliska w stanie dobrym i niedobrym przeprowadzono w odniesieniu do całkowitej powierzchni w regionie 3,96 km2, proporcjonalnie wg. wyników PMŚ w zakresie parametru Struktura i funkcja.
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: Zasięg nie zmniejsza się i nie zmieni się w najbliższym czasie.
Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie jest aktualnie stabilna, na części (po 50%) stanowisk w PMŚ oceniona na FV lub U1. W obszarach N200 generalnie na FV, co pozwala na określenie perspektyw na Dobre.
Struktura i funkcje zostały na U1, ze względu na taką ocenę większości zasobów (ok. 50% i po 25% na FV i U2) i nie poprawia się w istotny sposób (70% stanowisk ocenionych w 2007/8 na U1, a po 15% na FV i U2). Struktura i funkcja w poprzednim raporcie także oceniona na U1.
Zagrożeniem jest powolny, postępujący proces sukcesji przyspieszany przez spływ wody z torfowisk prowadzący do ich osuszania. Na części areału brak czyszczenia rowów pozwala na ich zarośnięcie i spowolnienie spływu.
Perspektywy ochrony poprawia fakt wdrożenia działań ochrony czynnej na wybranych torfowiskach i sporządzenie planów ochrony, które będą obowiązywać w kolejnych latach.
Źródłem informacji są plany ochrony parku narodowego i PZO obszaru Natura 2000 oraz PMŚ ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie raport został wykonany na podstawie danych z planów ochrony parków narodowych i obszaru Natura 2000 oraz wyników PMŚ.
Ogólny trend ochrony określono aktualnie jako stabilny (gdyż taki stwierdzono w największych częściach zasobów siedliska).
Zasięg, mimo że niewielki, oceniono jako FV, gdyż siedlisko jest wykształcone w miejscach, których właściwości abiotyczne pozwalają na jego rozwój i jest stabilny – jak poprzednio.
Lepsze oceny Powierzchni siedliska (z U1 na FV), na co wskazują dane z planów ochrony oraz w części (50% stanowisk) z PMŚ. Perspektywy ochrony – ocena bez zmian: U1, o czym decydują perspektywy dla Struktury I funkcji.
Oceny ogólne PMŚ na badanych stanowiskach: 16,7% stanowisk oceniono na FV, 58,3% na U1 i 25% na U2. Poprzednio (2007/8): 70% U1 i po 15% FV oraz U2.
Głównym zagrożeniem jest proces osuszania wspierany przez zmiany pogodowe oraz związana z nimi sukcesja.
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.
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: 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, …). Therefore, we use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat). ||
->HabCondition: "In Flanders Atlantic, this habitat is very rare. Therefore the condition indicators were estimated in the field on the whole of the area.
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: overall trend unknown because one parameter with unknown trend which could be stable, increasing but also decreasing… ||
->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: Range was calculated using the range tool IT Tool version 3/06/2013 generated by European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity and is based on the current known distribution of 7110.
The range is separated into two major units: a larger one throughout the midlands and the smaller elongated configuration within counties Clare and Kerry. The range map also illustrates a gap between these two main areas, which corresponds to areas not suitable for the development of raised bogs (Hammond, 1979). Isolated records of DRB are present in counties Carlow, Cork, Louth and Wicklow. These are remnants of a previous more extensive habitat distribution along the southern and eastern margins of the country where raised bog development was confined to relatively small basins. These smaller raised bogs were drained and cutaway in the past as described by NPWS (2007).
The current range value (173 x 10 km cells or 17,300 km2) differs from the one reported in 2013, which was 13,700 km2. This increase is the result of better knowledge of the habitat’s distribution within the current reporting period.
FRR which corresponds to the range of DRB has decreased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013a) to reflect the improved level of knowledge. The current habitat range is 20.28% below the FRR.
There have been no recorded habitat losses resulting in a loss of range within the current reporting period (2013-18). Range was deemed to have remained stable in the last two reporting periods (Fernandez et al., 2005, 2014). As a result, Range of 7110 is also given a stable trend in the long (1994-2018) and short (2007-2018) terms. ||
->Coverage: ARB area has been calculated based on a combination of: a) detailed habitat survey records to ecotope level (1994-2018), which account for 89.81% of the national resource; b) 2013-18 records from site visits for which detailed ecotope data are not available; and c) additional records based on desktop visual assessment of aerial images for the 2013-16 period (10.19% of national resource).
The previous area value (19.55 km2) reported in 2013 did not consider habitat losses for those sites surveyed prior to 2011. A subsequent critical assessment in 2014 determined that such losses should be attributed to pre-existing and ongoing negatively impacting activities, especially turf-cutting. Based on this consideration, NPWS (2017) reviewed the 2013 area figure and concluded that the ARB national resource in 2013 should be decreased to 16.39 km2. Several habitat surveys have been undertaken since this 2014 review (e.g. NPWS, Bord na Móna (BnM)), and a visual assessment of the potential occurrence of ARB within non-designated sites was carried out by Fernandez (in prep.). This information provided an update of the extent of the habitat within some sites and additional new habitat records. As a result, current ARB area has been adjusted to 16.59 km2.
The new ARB Favourable Reference Area (FRA) (41.59 km2) is derived by summing the areas of ARB (16.59 km2) and DRB (25 km2) in the country. Current area value (16.59 km2) is 60.11% below FRA. The previous Article 17 ARB conservation assessment established an FRA of 216.8 km2 (Fernandez et al., 2014) which corresponded with the area of both ARB and DRB within designated sites. The new figure (41.59 km2) differs from the 2013 figure (216.8 km2) for three main reasons: a) new interpretation of DRB; b) the new FRR target considers that all DRB in the country should be restored to ARB, based on its definition, rather than only the DRB within the network of designated sites; and c) some actual DRB losses in the reporting period.
NPWS (2017) assessed the ARB FRA within the network of designated sites. The value is 36 km2 and corresponds with the extent of ARB and DRB within the current SAC (53) and Natural Heritage Areas (NHA) (75) network when the Habitats Directive came into force in 1994. The achievement of this target is considered necessary to restore the favourable conservation status of ARB within the network of designated sites and, as a result, help achieve the FRA of 41.59 km2.
According to NPWS (2017), 3,747 ha of ARB can be achieved within the proposed new network of designated raised bogs (55 SACs and 61 NHAs) in the long term, with restoration measures implemented in the short to medium term. This target corresponded with the following area figures within the designated raised bog network: 1,534 ha of ARB; 1,765 ha of DRB; and 448 ha of peat-forming habitats on cutover areas. Nine new SACs, all included within current NHAs, were designated in late 2016 after the publication of NPWS (2017). This brings the number of current SACs to 62. The new proposed network would therefore include 64 SACs.
The previous two ARB conservation status assessments (Fernandez et al., 2005, 2014) undertook condition assessments for a relatively large number of raised bogs (48 bogs (2005) and 44 bogs (2014)) which represented a wide range of scenarios (geographical variation and included both positive and negatively impacting activities affecting the sites). Fewer assessments have been carried out within the current reporting period. A large proportion of these were based on the assessment of habitat Area and Structure and functions changes over a longer period of time (early 2000s to 2018) than the actual current reporting period (2013-2018). As a result it is not possible to accurately ascertain area changes in the current reporting period within these particular sites. Nevertheless, an overall Unfavourable-Bad (decreasing) condition assessment was reported.
Unlike the two previous assessments (Fernandez et al., 2005, 2014) where an accurate estimate of overall changes in habitat area were provided (c.35% and 1.5% decrease, respectively), there is not enough information within a sufficiently broad spectrum of sites to generate such a statistic in the current reporting period.
A review of major impacting activities affecting designated raised bogs for this reporting period (Fernandez., in prep.) has indicated ongoing negatively impacting activities outweighing positive measures in the reporting period:
Turf-cutting: slight decreasing trend within the current network of SACs (62) and retained NHAs (36), but still active at many sites: 22 SACs and 6 NHAs. Turf-cutting taking place at many of the proposed new SACs and NHAs.
Drainage: slight decreasing trend within the high bog but an increasing trend for drainage adjacent to the high bog both within and close to designated sites.
Forestry on the high bog and cutover: decreasing trend.
Limited restoration works were undertaken within designated sites within the reporting period. A slightly more positive trend has been noted within non-designated sites, mostly corresponding with works undertaken by BnM.
An overall decreasing trend has been given in the current reporting period. Similar decreasing trends are given for the long (1994-2018) and short (2007-2018) terms, taking into account the previous assessment trends (Fernandez et al., 2005, 2014). ||
->HabCondition: The list of typical species has changed since the last report (NPWS, 2013). The only change has been that Sphagnum fuscum is now deemed to correspond with two separate species in Ireland: S. fuscum and S. beothuk.
Typical species:
Vascular plants: Andromeda polifolia, Drosera anglica, D. intermedia, D. rotundifolia, Eriophorum angustifolium, E. vaginatum, Menyanthes trifoliata, Narthecium ossifragum, Rhynchospora alba, Utricularia minor and Vaccinium oxycoccos.
Mosses, liverworts and lichens: Aulacomnium palustre, Campylopus atrovirens, Cladonia spp. (C. ciliata and C. portentosa), Leucobryum glaucum, Pleurozia purpurea, Racomitrium lanuginosum, Sphagnum denticulatum, S. capillifolium, S. cuspidatum, S. fuscum, S. beothuk, S. austinii, S. magellanicum, S. papillosum, S. pulchrum and S. subnitens.
Site-specific conservation objectives (SSCOs) have been developed by NPWS for all original 53 SACs (https://www.npws.ie/protected-sites). In addition, SSCOs are currently being developed for the 9 new SACs, as part of the objectives being prepared for designated NHAs which encompass the smaller SAC sites. The target for the attribute vegetation quality (which relates directly to the Structure and functions) has been set as: “to maintain/restore sufficient high quality bog vegetation (i.e. central ecotope and/or flushes/soaks). At least 50% of ARB habitat should be central ecotope and/or flush/soaks.” Bog woodland is also regarded as a desirable variant of ARB as it adds species and structural diversity to the habitat and therefore, where relevant, also contributes to the 50% target at site level. On the basis of this 50% threshold ARB is considered to be in good condition at only three SACs. The overall ARB extent within these three SACs is 1.47 km2 and this represents 8.86% of the national extent (16.59 km2). Thus, the extent of ARB in good condition is 1.47 km2 and the extent of ARB not in good condition is 15.12 km2 (based on site level conditions).
ARB Structure and functions conservation status and condition assessments are based on the variation on the extent of the best quality vegetation types within the reporting period as described by NPWS (2013). At national level the ARB Structure and functions target is for 50% (20.79 km2) of the national area target (41.59 km2) to correspond with the best quality vegetation. The current extent of this vegetation type is 4.179 km2 and thus it is 79.98% below the target. As this figure is more than 25% below the national target, ARB Structure and functions are given an Unfavourable-Bad assessment. The same assessment was given in 2013 (NPWS, 2013).
A limited number of site-specific condition assessments have been undertaken within the current reporting period. In addition, most of the individual site assessments covered a longer reporting period (2000s-2018) than the current reporting period (2013-18). As a result, there is insufficient information to provide an accurate estimate of the actual changes in the extent of the best quality habitat types within the reporting period at national level. However, the individual site assessments undertaken have indicated an overall declining trend in habitat quality (i.e. Structure and functions).
A stable trend assessment was given in 2014 by Fernandez et al. This was based on the very small percentage of losses (0.23%) within central and active flush/soak in the 2004/05-2011/13 period at the 44 bogs assessed. A different set of designated sites were assessed in 2013-18 and higher losses in the best quality vegetation type have been reported. In addition, negatively impacting activities continue to outweigh the positive influence of restoration works on the habitat. Thus, a declining assessment to the habitat’s Structure and functions has been given to the current reporting period. Similar declining trends are given for the long term (1994-2018) and short term (2007-2018). ||
->Future: Future prospects have been assessed at 28 raised bogs in the reporting period, and a total of 20 sites have been given an Unfavourable-Bad/declining assessment, 2 sites were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad/stable and 6 sites as Unfavourable-Bad/ improving.
Due to the relatively limited number of sites assessed in this reporting period, the ARB Future prospects national assessment is based not only on the reported influence on the habitat of both negative (e.g. turf cutting, drainage maintenance) and positive activities (e.g. restoration plans and drainage management plans) within the reporting period, but also on their reported trends (section 7.3) and how these are likely to vary at national level in the following two reporting periods. The assessment also takes into consideration the level of implementation of conservation measures in the current reporting period and how these are likely to positively affect the habitat in the next 12 years.
Significant resources have been committed by the DCHG to reduce the negative impacts of the main impacting activities (i.e. Peat extraction (C05), Drainage (K02), Forestry (B01) and Burning (A11)). These include CTCCS, turf cutting relocation programme, Article 6(3) investigations, development of site-specific restoration plans and the implementation of restoration works. More recently, there has been the development of Drainage Management Plans (see section 8.6 for further detail). In addition, further restoration actions have been undertaken by BnM and Coillte. BnM have significantly increased restoration efforts since 2013. As a result, decreasing trends in negative activities and increasing trends in conservation actions are expected within the network of designated sites in the next two reporting periods (see section 7.3). On the other hand, there are increasing concerns about the potential negative impacts on raised bog habitats from air pollution (nitrogen deposition) and climate change. Climate change is a potential major threat to the survival of remaining ARB sites currently in poor condition since they lack ecosystem resilience.
The full implementation of the measures outlined in the National Raised Bog SAC Management Plan will significantly improve the FPs of Active Raised Bog. However, based on the level of implementation of management actions within the reporting period and the persistence of negatively impacting activities, each of the main attributes have been assessed as follows:
Range: an Unfavourable-Bad assessment has been given in each reporting period since 1994 and short- and long-term trends have been assessed as stable. The proposed reconfiguration of the network of designated sites (55 SACs – includes 2 new SACs; 61 NHAs – includes 25 new NHAs; see NPWS, 2014, 2017) is deemed to better protect the habitat’s geographical range. To date, designation of the proposed new SACs and NHAs has not taken place. Therefore, presently, the proposed new sites have no statutory protection to halt negatively impacting activities. As a result, taking into account the balance between negative and positive actions described above, the Future prospects of Range are assessed as poor.
Area and Structure and functions: both have been given an Unfavourable-Bad assessment and decreasing and declining trends in the short and long term. The Future prospects of both are assessed as bad, taking into consideration the balance between negative and positive actions within the reported period and level of uncertainty as regards threatening activities future trends.
Overall Future prospects of ARB are assessed as Unfavourable-Bad. This is likely to significantly change in the next conservation status assessment report provided the actions proposed in the SAC Management Plan are implemented in the next reporting period. ||
->Conclusion: All attributes except Structure and functions have been given similar assessments in this reporting period as they were in the previous period. Site condition assessments undertaken in the reporting period have indicated a declining trend in the habitat’s quality (Structure and functions) (see section 6.8).
Overall, although it can be expected that there will be a decrease in negatively and an increase in positively impacting activities, this will mostly depend on the implementation of the National Raised Bog SAC Management Plan. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The 6 years ago reported range should be 5600, trend is stable. 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, but many restoration projects (including LIFE projects) resulted in reactivation of degraded bogs, which makes a minor increase in area likely. ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS; typical butterfly species like Plebejus optilete, Boloria aquilonaris and Coenonympha tullia are all three in sharp decline. This is in accordance with the overall conclusions of S&F. No trend available for typical dragonfly species. ||
->Future: Although many restoration projects (eg. LIFE projects) have successfully lead to activating raised bogs and increase of Sphagnum-cover, typical higher plants and fauna have not benefitted. ||
->Conclusion: Functioning based on NDFF analysis = U2, TS = U2; overall trend is the balance between increasing area and negative trends in fauna. ||
->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 Bart de Knegt (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: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Overall stable.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; and (ii) the current Area is more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - stable, and Structure and functions - increasing.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Area trend has changed from decreasing to stable, the Structure and functions trend has changed from decreasing to increasing, 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  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Low percentage of areas in not-good condition is explained by the fact that bogs affected by drainage have soon be covered by trees and rather correspond to habitat type 7120. ||
->Future: It is probable that some bogs outside the Natura 2000 network will lose their features to correspond to the habitat type 7110. Together with the restoration work within Natura 2000 sites we should keep the balance on the present level ||
->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: Accordingly to Environmental Impact Assessment reports, in period from 2013 to 2018 several procedures of EIA started to evaluate expansion of peat extraction fields or new peat extraction. Currently 5 EIA developed (in one case untached hight quality 7110* outside N2000 network), but EIA assesments are finished for 8 locations with total peat extraction field increase by 2209 ha (if local municipality will accept). In most cases by developing peat extraction fields areas with habitats 7110*, 7120, 91D0 will be lost. ||
->HabCondition: Data accordingly to EU habitat mapping shows that 90% of habitat is in good and medium quality, but in thoses areas still detected impact of melioration; 5% - low quality, 5% - excelent quality. 90% of mapped habitats need some management activities, therefore as area in good condition detected to be ~10% of habitat area, in bad quality 5%, but the rest is unknown as habbitat mapping is still ongoing and detailed data analysis is necessary to identify where it is necessary and possible to improve habitat quality by changing hydrological regime and where is necessary better to conserve habitat 91D0. The projects implemented for habitat so far have been aimed at improving the quality of mire habitats or restoring degradated areas, mainly in N2000 sites, but taking into account the total area of ​​the habitat in the country, the need for measures to improve the quality of the mires outside Natura 2000 sites, too, and that significant improvements can be detected in the long term, future perspectives are still unfavourable-inadequate. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No precise and good quality data to make trend assessment are available, as country wide EU habitat mapping process is still ongoing. Conclusions in previous reports were based on soviet time drainage influence in general and ad hoc study. After EU habitat mapping it will be possible to detect changes. ||
->Other: The process of mire overgrowing due to continuous drainage influence in raised bogs continues. There is need for management measures for 90% of raised bogs.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: FRV is set based on calculation based on distribution data using range tool. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: The structures and functions of the habitat are affected, there are current pressures and threats, and an expert judgement by the compiler of the reporting, supported by data from the national wetlands survey (VMI) on pressures, is that no more than 75% of the habitat is considered to reach FCS. Only 10% of investigated raised bogs in VMI was unaffected by pressures. Thus, only 75% of the CV is considered to be in good conditon. However, this is a quite uncertain estimate. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Structure and functions are considered as unfavourable due to that open mires are overgrowing due to increased N deposition and altered hydrological functioning. Clearing of ditches maintain the drainage and induce drier conditions. Overgrowth of trees and shrubs is an evident threat which will persist and measures taken today do not counteract the negative effects. The area is also below favourable reference area because of the habitat 7120 should be restored to 7110. The habitat is in unfavourable conservation status. ||
->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 apparent decline in range is partly due to revised method (adapted interpretation) and improved knowledge, but indicated through an anthropogenic inducted degeneration of structure and functions there is also a genuine decline in the area covered by habitat. ||
->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: Differences between the 2 last reporting periods are explained by more accurate
data collected during the monitoring of 7110 structure and functions in 2018.
Some areas located at the margin of exploitation faces, initially regarded as 7110,
are in fact 7120 habitat according to the methodology adopted in 2018 for the
structure and functions reporting. Some other areas declared as 7110 were
complex of different peaty habitats (7110, 7120, 7140, acidic fens) in which 7110
was poorly represented. ||
->HabCondition: The monitoring of 7110 structure and functions realized in 2018, according to
the methology developed in 2017, has allowed to better estimate areas in good
or bad condition for all the large subintact peatbogs. ||
->Future: Most peatbog restoration works occur in degraded bog areas (7120). Very few or
no measures are taken into subintact peatbogs, so no better prospects for
structure and functions are suspected for the future in these habitats. And for
restored areas, restoration of typical bog structure and functions is a very long
term process. ||
->Conclusion: Important peatbog restoration measures were realized in the frame of 6 LIFE
Nature projects, and new restoration works are still realized with PDR funds, but
restoration of this habitat is a very long term process. At present these works
have restored pionner bog habitats (3160, 7140, acidic fens) or habitats that
must still be considered as 7120 (but a part of these areas should or might evolve
into 7110 in the long term). Long-term future prospects are thus better, but this cannot be reflected in the trend of the conservation status, which must be considered stable due to aggregation rules of the guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Bogs and peaty soils have been restored with the help of LIFE projects.
Restoration and of bogs is a long time process when soil diaspore bank has been
depleted. Water condition and quality are crucial for the future.

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: Trotz umfangreicher Moorschutzbemühungen sind die Zukunftsaussichten durch Stickstoffeintrag und Klimaveränderungen U1. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: les perspectives futures médiocres à mauvaises sont essentiellement dues au changement climatique en cours, qui limitera très certainement l'aire de répartition de l'habitat (augmentation des températures défavorable au bilan hydrique, effet négatif de l’occurrence plus grande de sécheresses ...) ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation Favorable (FV) des Structures et fonctions - L'habitat 7110 et les sites tourbeux sont emblématiques des milieux naturels de montagne et font l'objet de multiples actions de restauration, dans le cadre de Natura 2000 et en dehors. Il est très probable dès lors que l'état de conservation de l'habitat s'améliore, au moins sur les principaux sites. Néanmoins, le recours systématique au pâturage pour contrecarrer la dynamique naturelle (boisement) peut poser problème, au moins localement (dégradation de la couverture de sphaigne et destructuration des buttes), en termes de composition floristique (recouvrement des sphaignes) comme de fonctionnement (la régression des sphaignes occasionne une moindre turfigénèse, phénomène qui contrôle naturellement la dynamique ligneuse). Il n'est pas possible de statuer avec certitude sur l'intensité de l'une et l'autre de ces tendances antagonistes, mais une tendance fortement positive comme fortement négative sont probablement exclues, et une tendance légèrement positive est la plus probable ||
->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: Rozmieszczenie siedliska w regionie CON jest nierównomierne. Główne zasoby znajdują się w północnej Polsce, na Polesiu, znacznie rzadsze są w Sudetach i środkowej Polsce.
Powierzchnia zasięgu zmniejszyła się z 72 653 do 58 100 km2, głównie w wyniku odmiennego sposobu obliczania powierzchni.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Siedlisko w regionie CON występuje w rozproszeniu. Podanie dokładnych danych jest więc trudne. Zwarty zasięg siedliska obejmuje wyłącznie Polskę północną. Obszarem większej koncentracji torfowisk wysokich jest również Polesie i Sudety. W pozostałej części kraju - kilkanaście do kilkudziesięciu obiektów, z reguły zajmujących niewielki obszar (do kilku ha).
Powierzchnia minimalna (15 km2), zgodna z wartościami podanymi w 2007 i 2013 roku dokonana była na podstawie rozmieszczenia wybranych gatunków z rodzaju Sphagnum (Melosik I.), obserwacji własnych ekspertów, materiałów publikowanych i niepublikowanych Klubu Przyrodników w Świebodzinie oraz danych literaturowych i prowadzonego monitoringu siedliska. Dane dotyczące Pomorza Zachodniopomorskiego, Pomorskiego, Ziemi Lubuskiej, Borów Dolnośląskich i Wielkopolski pochodzą z lat 1995-2006. Dane dotyczące pozostałej części kraju (za wyjątkiem obszarów objętych Monitoringiem siedlisk) pochodzą z ostatnich 30 lat. W trakcie prowadzonych przez M. Herbichową, P. Pawlaczyka I R. Stańko (2007) prac terenowych skontrolowano w części zachodniej kraju kilkadziesiąt torfowisk wysokich, dla których dokonano oceny stanu. Na podstawie tych obserwacji przyjęto, że ok. 3% spośród wszystkich torfowisk wysokich można aktualnie zaklasyfikować jako siedlisko 7110.
Powierzchnia maksymalna (39 km2) została podana na podstawie danych z bazy danych GDOŚ)i jest zdecydowanie przeszacowana, choć nie da się aktualnie określić w jakim stopniu.
Właściwy areał referencyjny określono jako wiekszy niż aktualny i rzeczywistej powierzchni zajmowanej w 2013 roku; liczbowo jest to wartość większa, niż podana w 2013 roku (ok. 15 km2). Wówczas Powierzchnia referencyjna została określona na znacznie większą od aktualnej (lub ok.60 km2). W przypadku tego typu siedliska uzyskanie jej jest możliwe jedynie na drodze regeneracji siedliska 7120 i prawdopodobnie zakładano, że całość siedliska 7120 przekształci się w 7110. Nie jest to jednak możliwe, gdyż zmiany na wielu torfowiskach są już nieodwracalne, a przy aktualnych trendach zmian klimatycznych problem będzie się pogłębiał. Dlatego powierzchnię referencyjna określono na większą niż aktualnie.
Powierzchnia siedliska na części stanowisk ulega prawdopodobnie stopniowemu zmniejszeniu, w wyniku zarastania przez drzewa i krzewy. Nieoszacowano jednak precyzyjnie tempa tego zarastania; brak danych porównawczych; równocześnie na niewielkiej części terenów wdrożono zabiegi ochrony czynnej. Dlatego trend określono jako niepewny (poprzednio jako spadkowy). ||
->HabCondition: Do wyliczeń przyjęto całkowita powierzchnię równą 27 km2.
Biorąc pod uwagę wyniki PMŚ, spośród 120 monitorowanych stanowisk, stan siedliska (struktura i funkcje) na 24,2% stanowisk oceniono na FV, 50% na U1 i 25,8% na U2.
W pierwszym okresie obserwacji 2007-2008, oceny były nieco gorsze: na 77 stanowisk badanych: 39% oceniono na FV, 35% na U1, i 24% na U2. Wskazuje to na spadkowy trend stanu siedliska w dobrym stanie.
Brak jednak precyzyjnych danych o tempie zarasatnia torfowisk, część rowów melioracyjnych zamula się i zarasta spowalniając spływ wody. Na Pomorzu realizowano projekt Life poświęcony rewitalizacji torfowisk wysokich. Także w poszczególnych województwach w innych częściach kraju były podejmowane próby ochrony czynnej torfowisk. Bilans tych procesów jest nieznany.

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: Głównym zagrożeniem jest postępujący proces sukcesji przyspieszany przez spływ wody z torfowisk prowadzący do ich osuszania. Na części areału brak czyszczenia rowów pozwala na ich zarośnięcie i spowolnienie spływu.
Perspektywy ochrony poprawia fakt wdrożenia działań ochrony czynnej na wybranych torfowiskach i sporządzenie planów ochrony, które będą w przyszłości obowiązywać.
Źródłem informacji jest PMŚ. ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie raport został wykonany na podstawie danych bazy danych GDOŚ obszarów Natura 2000 oraz wyników PMŚ.
Ogólny trend ochrony określono aktualnie jako nieznany, (poprzednio stabilny).
Zasięg oceniono jako FV, gdyż siedlisko jest wykształcone w miejscach, których właściwości abiotyczne pozwalaja na jego rozwój i jest stabilny, choć poprzednio określono jako niezadowalający i pogarszający się.
Takie same oceny uzyskały pozostałe parametry: Powierzchnia siedliska oraz Struktura I funkcje (U1).
Perspektywy ochrony – ocena bez zmian: U1, o czym decydują perspektywy dla parametru Struktura i funkcje.
Głównym zagrożeniem jest proces osuszania wspierany przez zmiany pogodowe oraz związana z nimi sukcesja.
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: FRV is set based on calculation based on distribution data using range tool. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: The structures and functions of the habitat are affected, there are current pressures and threats, and an expert judgement by the compiler of the reporting, supported by data from the national wetlands survey (VMI), is that no more than 75 % of the habitat is considered to reach FCS. Only 10% of investigated raised bogs in VMI was unaffected by pressures. Thus, only 75 % of the CV is considered to be in good conditon.In Natura 2000 in the CON region (County Skåne), approximately 10% of the habitat is in FCS. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The structures and functions of the habitat are affected, there are current pressures and threats, and an expert judgement by the compiler of the reporting, supported by data from the national wetlands survey (VMI), is that no more than 75 % of the habitat is considered to reach FCS. Only 10% of investigated raised bogs in VMI was unaffected by pressures. In Natura 2000 in the CON region (County Skåne), approximately 10% of the habitat is in FCS. Thus, an expert judgement is that no more than 2/3 of the habitat reach good condition. ||
->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: Castilla y León informed that, in their region, it is difficult to make difference between 7110 and 6230, 4020, 7140, 7150, 3160. More sampling is needed. Although there are not enough data, this region reported that the trend seems to be deteriorating and the conservation status is U1.

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 ; fonctionnement hydrologique ; qualité physico-chimique des eaux ||
->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