Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The habitat 7120 would ideally all be converted and restored to the habitat 7110, therefor the FRR is "less" or even "much less" than the actual range. ||
->Coverage: The habitat 7120 would ideally all be converted and restored to the habitat 7110, therefor the FRA is "less" or even "much less" than the actual area. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: As the habitat 7120 is a degradation of the habitat 7110 it holds potentially the same range and area as 7110, at the same time an increase of range and area are not aspired. The habitat 7120 would ideally all be converted and restored to the habitat 7110. Therefor a decrease of 7120 can be positive due to successful renaturation in 7110, but also negative due to succession and irreversible loss of the habitat altogether.

Area and S&F are classified as 'bad', because the habitat originates from a degradation of the habitat 7110 and will therefore continue to degenerate as long as no countermeasures are taken. A positive decrease of Range (due to conversion of 7120 in 7110), will only occur if effective renaturation programs are implemented; the future prospects are therefor also labelled 'bad'. ||
->Conclusion: There is a need for further exploration, the data available is insufficient. ||
->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: Powierzchnia zasięgu zmieniła się z 782 na 1800 km2 głównie w wyniku zastosowania 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: Powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na podstawie danych z planów zadań ochronnych dla obszarów Natura 2000: Torfowiska Orawsko-Nowotarskie oraz Bieszczady (odpowiednio: 250 ha oraz 14,6 ha).
W poprzednim raporcie do KE powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na 2,2 km2. Różnica w stosunku do obecnego raportu wynika głównie z lepszej wiedzy, choć znaczenie ma również słaba regeneracja torfowisk. ||
->HabCondition: Od 2013 roku siedlisko jest monitorowane na 6 stanowiskach w Kotlinie Orawsko-Nowotarskiej i 1 stanowisku w Bieszczadach. W 2016 roku na żadnym z kontrolowanych stanowisk nie odnotowano zmian w ocenie specyficznej struktury i funkcji.
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: Area covered by habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Surface area was used. ||
->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 was changed based on monitoring data, area of monitoring plots is sumarized. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: L'Ericion tetralici n'est à l'heure actuelle non retenu sur le territoire d'agrément du CBNSA (Aquitaine + Poitou-Charentes). Les tourbières dégradées existent dans le sud du domaine atlantique mais recouverte par une lande humide paratourbeuse relevant du Scopario-Ericetum tetralici.
||
->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 7120.
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 (21,700 km2 (217 x 10 km cells)) differs from the figure of 26,100 km2 reported in 2013. This decrease is the result of the new interpretation of the habitat in the Irish context. The definition of DRB is now based on an eco-hydrological model. This new interpretation of the habitat is considered to more accurately define those high bog areas still capable of regeneration within a 30-year period if appropriate measures are put in place (i.e. no major impacting activities are present and any necessary restoration works are implemented), as defined by the Habitats Directive.
Current range does not include areas of “secondary degraded raised bog”. It is considered possible that there are areas of DRB within “intact” high bog sites which may have been misclassified as secondary degraded raised bog.
There have been no recorded habitat losses resulting in a loss of range within the current reporting period (2013-2018). Range was deemed to have remained stable in the last two reporting periods (Fernandez et al., 2005, 2014). As a result, Range is also given a stable trend in the long (1994-2018) and short (2007-2018) terms. ||
->Coverage: NPWS (2013) reported a DRB area of approximately 480 km2. This corresponded with the difference between “intact” high bog (ca. 500 km2) and the extent of ARB (19.55 km2). Subsequently, NPWS (2017) estimated that the 2013 extent of DRB within the current SAC/ Natural Heritage Areas (NHA) network and those non-designated sites deemed of potential national conservation value was, in fact, only 21.24 km2 based on the new interpretation of DRB. A recent assessment of high-resolution aerial photographs by Fernandez (in prep.) identified the presence of ARB within an additional 72 bogs. In Ireland since DRB is present in all sites supporting ARB (NPWS, 2017) it is assumed to be found within these additional sites also but it was not possible to assess the extent of this DRB. In addition, DRB is also considered to be present within other non-designated bogs. This indicates that the extent of DRB calculated by NPWS (2017) should be taken as a minimum. Further investigations are needed to accurately calculate the extent of DRB within these additional sites. In the meantime, based on this more recent data, it seems reasonable to estimate that the current DRB national area value is approximately 25 km2.
The current habitat area (25 km2) is significantly above the FRA (0.0 km2). For DRB a habitat area that is more than 15% above the FRA is considered to be Unfavourable-Bad.
According to NPWS (2017) 3,747 ha of ARB can be achieved within the new proposed 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 figure corresponds with: 1,534 ha of ARB; 1,765 ha of DRB and 448 ha 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 proposed new network would therefore include 64 SACs.
The previous two assessments (Fernandez et al., 2005, 2014) provided an accurate assessment of overall changes in habitat extent, (defined as those areas with non-active ecotope types) within the respective reporting periods. Due to the new definition an accurate assessment of changes in habitat extent within the current reporting period would have required a comparison of modelled data from two discrete dates within the reporting period for a representative selection of sites but such a figure cannot be provided due to the absence of comparative data. Nonetheless, the condition assessments undertaken in the current reporting period indicate an overall decreasing trend at 22 of the 28 sites assessed. This trend is associated with negatively impacting activities that result in irreversible losses in habitat extent or losses in ARB which increases the extent of DRB which represents a negative trend.
A review of major impacting activities affecting designated raised bogs (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 SAC 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;
restoration works undertaken within a limited number of designated sites. A slightly more positive trend has been noted within non-designated sites, mostly corresponding with works undertaken by Bord na Móna (BnM).
An overall decreasing trend has been given in the current reporting period. Similar decreasing trends are given for the long term (1994-2018) and short term (2007-2018), based on 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, Racomitrium lanuginosum, Cladonia spp. (C. ciliata and C. portentosa), Leucobryum glaucum, Pleurozia purpurea, Sphagnum denticulatum, S. capillifolium, S. cuspidatum, S. fuscum, S. beothuk, S. austinii, S. magellanicum, S. papillosum, S. pulchrum and S. subnitens.
The habitat’s conservation condition assessments (site level) undertaken within the current reporting period have been based directly on the results of ARB assessment. This is due to the absence of topographical data (LiDAR), and thus modelled output, within two discrete dates in the reporting period as well as more specific data (e.g. relevés), which did not enable accurate assessments of DRB Area / Structure and functions changes. The condition of DRB is very often related to the condition of ARB. Site-specific conservation objectives (SSCOs) developed by NPWS for all original raised bog SACs (https://www.npws.ie/protected-sites) recognise this interdependency between the three main raised bog habitats (7110, 7120 and 7150): “Based on the close ecological relationship between these three habitat types, it is not necessary to set conservation objectives for all three habitats individually. It is considered that, should favourable conservation condition for ARB be achieved, then favourable conservation condition for the other two habitats will also be achieved” (NPWS, 2017). 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. Based on the above and due to the absence of modelled DRB figures within two separate dates in the reporting period, the DRB Structure and functions conservation condition assessment has been based on the results of ARB Structure and functions condition assessments per site, despite the recognition that this method does not cover all scenarios. The individual site assessments undertaken have indicated an overall Unfavourable-Bad assessment for the habitat’s quality (i.e. Structure and functions).
The previous two conservation status assessments (Fernandez et al., 2005, 2014) based this condition assessment on the overall results of individual site assessments. The assessments took into account changes in the extent of marginal and face bank as well as high bog losses in the reporting period. The new interpretation of the habitat based on the eco-hydrological model has shown that there is no consistent, direct relationship between non-active ecotopes and the areas identified as DRB by the model (that is, marginal or sub-marginal ecotope areas may or may not correspond with DRB). Nevertheless, an increase or decrease in marginal ecotope within the modelled area would indicate a decline or an improvement in habitat quality (Structure and functions), respectively, in the reporting period. Further refinement of monitoring methodologies is required. As a result, the national extent of DRB in good condition is unknown. However, based on the actual definition of the habitat (i.e. capable of being restored to ARB), it is assumed that DRB Structure and functions are not in good condition at any of the sites, as the main objective is to restore the habitat to ARB. Therefore, all 25 km² of estimated DRB Area are deemed to be in not-good condition.
An overall Unfavourable-Inadequate/declining assessment was given in 2014 by Fernandez et al. (2014). The current reporting period has shown slightly more negative results within the sites assessed. In addition, negatively impacting activities continue to outweigh the positive influence of restoration works on the habitat. Thus, it seems reasonable to provide a declining trend assessment for the habitat’s Structure and functions in 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. A total of 20 sites have been given an Unfavourable-Bad/declining assessment, two sites Unfavourable-Bad/stable and six sites Unfavourable-Bad/improving.
Due to the relatively limited number of sites assessed in this reporting period, the DRB 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) 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 twelve years.
Significant resources have been committed by the DCHG to reduce the negative impacts of the main impacting activities (Peat extraction (C05), Drainage (K02), Forestry (B01) and Burning (A11)). Measures include the CTCCS, the turf cutting relocation programme, Article 6(3) investigations, the 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, appreciable 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). Increasing concerns about the potential negative impacts on raised bog habitats from air pollution (nitrogen deposition) and climate change are yet to be fully quantified. Climate change is a potential major threat to the survival of remaining DRB sites currently in poor condition since their degraded status means they inherently lack ecosystem resilience.
The full implementation of the measures outlined in the National Raised Bog SAC Management Plan will significantly improve the Future prospects of DRB. However, based on the balance between 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: The proposed reconfiguration of the network of designated sites (62 SACs – includes 2 new SACs; and 61 NHAs – includes 25 new NHAs; NPWS (2014, 2017)) is deemed to better protect the habitat’s geographical Range. The designation of the proposed 2 new SACs and 25 new NHAs has not progressed and thus these sites are not afforded statutory protection, and so there is an absence of measures being implemented to halt negative impacts. In summary, taking into account the balance between negative and positive actions described above, Range is given Poor Future prospects. NPWS (2013) already gave a Favourable/decreasing Future prospects to DRB Range.
Area and Structure and functions: both have been given an Unfavourable-Bad assessment and decreasing and declining trends in the short and long Term. Both are given Bad Future prospects, taking into consideration the balance between negative and positive actions within the reported period and level of uncertainty as regards threatening activities’ future trends.
Future prospects: Overall DRB is given Bad Future prospects. 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: The new Range assessment (Unfavourable-Bad) differs from the previous assessment (Favourable). The new range is based on the new area national target, which is based on converting all DRB in the country to ARB; as a result the FRR target is 0.0 km2, which implies an Unfavourable-Bad Range assessment.
Structure and functions have also been given a different assessment in this reporting period than the previous reporting period. Site condition assessments undertaken in the reporting period have indicated an Unfavourable-Bad/declining trend in the habitat’s quality (Structure and functions) versus an Unfavourable-Inadequate/declining assessment given in 2013 (NPWS, 2013) (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: 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 ||
->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, typical higher plants and fauna have not benefitted. ||
->Conclusion: Functioning based on NDFF analysis = U2, TS = U2. The NDFF-analysis showed a strong negative trend (from U1 to U2). ||
->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: Note that the aim is to restore this habitat back to H7110 Active raised bog, which means that the Favourable Reference Range is much less than the current range and the range area should be decreasing. ||
->Coverage: Note that the aim is to restore this habitat back to H7110 Active raised bog, which means that the FRA is much less than the current area and the area should be decreasing - for further details see the 2013 Article 17 UK Approach document. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Positive - decreasing <=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 greater than 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 greater than 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 bad; (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. ||
->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: Part of 7120-sites will be restored into 7110, part of them extracted for peat, part of them drained to forests with totally decomposed peat, and part of them left aside and remaining secondary peatlands. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: As Estonia is relatively rich in 7110-sites (including the valuable ones), the habitat type 7120 has not been paid much attention to.

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: The reporting on range, distribution and surface area is based on the Natura 2000 database. There are plenty of drained or partially drained raised bogs in Finland. Many of them are still active (habitat 7110) in spite of partial ditching and only some of them can be classified as habitat type 7120. In Finland only those occurrences of habitat type 7120 that are found in the Natura 2000 network are identified, and there are no collected data on occurrences and surface area outside the Natura 2000 network. The conservation status of this habitat is reported as 'unknown' because the assessment method is unsuitable for this habitat type – the objective is to restore habitat 7120 to 7110 (Active raised bog). Raised bogs, both type 7110 and type 7120, are restored in the Natura 2000 areas. Outside the Natura 2000 network, conservation activities focus on improving the state of partially drained but still active raised bogs (7110).

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: Changes in areas are mainly related to clarifying the interpretation of habitats ||
->HabCondition: the habitat quality is not specially evaluated, but in 90% of cases, the habitat is affected by the ditch network and needs investment for restoration. Therefore 10% evaluated in good condition as in these areas habitat might restore naturally. ||
->Future: The decrease of this habitat area is foreseen due to different restoration activities ongoing and foreseen. ||
->Conclusion: The habitat quality is not specially evaluated, as the conservation goal is to improve this habitat quality and to develop it towards other EU priority habitat types. In overall 90% of the habitat area is affected by the ditch network and needs investment for restoration. Only 10% of habitat has been evaluated in good condition as in these areas habitat in shorter period of time might develop naturally to other EU priority habitats. ||
->JustificationThreshold: There has not been before country-wide mire inventory in Latvia and currently is ongoing habitat mapping and new information from different projects available. Consequently, there is no precise data to compare. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: In the previous reporting, range of habitat type 7120 was reported for outside Natura2000. The estimated for 2019 is based on distribution within Natura 2000. The range for the reporting in 2007 was based on habitat type within the Natura 2000-network. FRV is set as 0 km2 as the habitat type is supposed to be restored as habitat type 7110. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: The habitat is degenerated and should be restored to the habitat type 7110. ||
->Future: Restoration of 7120 to 7110 is desirable. ||
->Conclusion: Restoration of 7120 to 7110 is desirable.
The habitat is supposed to be restored to habitat 7110. All of the area of the habitat should be restored and reach 0 km2. As long the habitat is current it will be defined as in bad conservation status. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The habitat 7120 would ideally all be converted and restored to the habitat 7110, therefor the FRR is "less" or even "much less" than the actual range. ||
->Coverage: The habitat 7120 would ideally all be converted and restored to the habitat 7110, therefor the FRA is "less" or even "much less" than the actual area. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: As the habitat 7120 is a degradation of the habitat 7110 it holds potentially the same range and area as 7110, at the same time an increase of range and area are not aspired. The habitat 7120 would ideally all be converted and restored to the habitat 7110, therefor a decrease can be positive due to successful renaturation in 7110, but also negative due to succession and irreversible loss of the habitat altogether.

Area and S&F are classified as 'bad', because the habitat originates from a degradation of the habitat 7110 and will therefore continue to degenerate as long as no countermeasures are taken. A positive decrease of Range (due to conversion of 7120 in 7110), will only occur if effective renaturation programs are implemented; the future prospects are therefor also labelled 'bad'. ||
->Conclusion: There is a need for further exploration and enhancement of the data available. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Important peatbog restoration works were realized in the frame of 6 LIFE Nature projects, and new restoration works are still realized with PDR funds, but restoration of 7110 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, in a better conservation status then before the works, from very degraded 7120 habitats. Large new 7120 habitats were also created in deforested peaty areas. We expect that a part of these areas evolve into 7110 habitat in the long term. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Large restoration measures have been taken in the frame of LIFE projects for 7120 habitat or are still taken in the frame of the PDR fund. These restoration measures concerned both improvement of structure and functions of the habitat and an increase of the habitat area. But areas concerned by restoration are still too small regarding the total area covered by the habitat (in bad conservation status) to change at present future prospects. ||
->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: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation Favorable (FV) des Perspectives futures - Amélioration des l'état de conservation grâce aux mesures mises en oeuvre. Régression de la surface au profit d'autres habitats (7110 notamment), mais qui ne doit pas être interprétée négativement, l'objectif étant de restaurer l'habitat 7110 ou d'autres habitats tourbeux (7140, 7150, 91D0...) associés ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Powierzchnia zasięgu zmieniła się z 69 968 na 60500 km2 głównie w wyniku innego sposobu jej obliczania.
W poprzednim raporcie na mapie nie ujęto torfowisk sudeckich z Gór Stołowych (Wielkie Torfowisko Batorowskie), Izerskich i Bystrzyckich (Torfowisko pod Zieleńcem), przez co zasięg siedliska w bioregionie był niedoszacowany.
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: Powierzchnia referencyjna siedliska 7120 powinna być <40 km2 (powierzchni aktualnej) i zmniejszać się na korzyść siedliska 7110.
Minimalną powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na podstawie danych z Baza danych obszarów Natura 2000 Generalnej Dyrekcji Ochrony Środowiska. Ustalając powierzchnię maksymalną założono, że większość torfowisk wysokich jest objęta siecią Natura 2000. Przyjęto, że poza siecią pozostaje mniej niż połowa torfowisk, na których udział siedliska 7120 jest taki sam jak na torfowiskach w sieci, czyli wynosi ok. 20 km2.
Poprzednio powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na ok. 50 km2, powierzchnię referencyjną na 45 km2 i był to szacunek oparty na ekstrapolacji częściowych danych i/lub modelowaniu. Nie podano jednak sposobu oszacowania tych wartości, nie można się więc do niego odnieść.
Krótkoterminowy trend zmian ekstrapolowano na podstawie wyników PMŚ prowadzonego na 45 stanowiskach w dwóch cyklach w okresie 2013-2018. W ostatnim cyklu w porównaniu do 2013 roku udział stanowisk z oceną parametru FV zmalał z 69% do 42%, wzrósł natomiast udział stanowisk z oceną U1 (z 20% do 40%) oraz U2 (z 11% do 18%). Z tego względu przyjęto, że trend jest spadkowy; w poprzednim raporcie był nieznany. ||
->HabCondition: Szacując stan siedliska w dobrym i niedobrym stanie ochrony przyjęto, że na terenach poza siecią Natura 2000 ta proporcja jest nieznana. Do oceny stanu siedliska na obszarach Natura 2000 wykorzystano wyniki PMŚ z okresu 2013-2016.
Trend krótkoterminowy ekstrapolowano na podstawie wyników monitoringu 45 stanowisk. W 2016 roku ocenę FV uzyskało 11% stanowisk, U1 – 49% i U2 40%. W 2013 roku jakość struktury i funkcji siedliska była nieco lepsza (odpowiednio: 11%, 58% i 31%), stąd przyjęto trend spadkowy. W poprzednim raporcie trend oceniono jako stabilny.
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 siedliska jest stabilny. Pogorszone perspektywy dla parametrów Powierzchnia oraz Struktura i funkcje wynikają głównie z wydobycia torfu, które prowadzi do niszczenia siedliska 7110 i powstania siedliska 7120. ||
->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: In the previous reporting, range of habitat type 7120 was reported for outside Natura2000. The estimated for 2019 is based on distribution within Natura 2000. The range for the reporting in 2007 was based on habitat type within the Natura 2000-network. FRV is set as 0 km2 as the habitat type is supposed to be restored as habitat type 7110. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: The habitat is degenerated and should be restored to the habitat type 7110. ||
->Future: Restoration of 7120 to 7110 is desirable.
The habitat is supposed to be restored to habitat 7110. All of the area of the habitat should be restored and reach 0 km2. As long the habitat is current it will be defined as in bad conservation status. ||
->Conclusion: Restoration of 7120 to 7110 is desirable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Recent methods were, for the first time applied, with remote sensing that allow to detected a more accurate distribution, using Sentinel 1 and 2. The distribution area methodology include classical survey evaluation and UAV's mapping, extrapolated to all the islands by remote sensing modelling. This new approach leads to more accurate data and the increment on the area data report. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report