Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, the data available is limited. ||
->Coverage: There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, the data available is insufficient. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, the data available is limited. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: 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 5 142 na 5300, głównie ze względu na dodatkowe dane.
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 zajmuje największe powierzchnie w Kotlinie Orawsko-Nowotarskiej, Bieszczadach i Tatrach. W innych pasmach górskich zajmuje bardzo małe powierzchnie, a stanowiska są rozproszone, co powoduje trudności w oszacowaniu ich powierzchni. Siedlisko rozwija się w rowach rozpadlinowych w obrębie osuwisk, w izolowanych zagłębieniach zasilanych wodami ze spływów powierzchniowych oraz na okrajkach i w sąsiedztwie torfowisk wysokich.
W stosunku do poprzednich raportów (2007 i 2013) podana powierzchnia jest mniejsza, niż powierzchnia podana w 2013 roku – ok. 8 km2, gdy była szacowana w poszczególnych obszarach Natura 2000 (SFD – udział procentowy) regionu (przeszacowane powierzchnie, np.. Bieszczady podana pow. 557 ha, po weryfikacji ok. 10 ha);
Powierzchnia siedliska aktualnie została podana na podstawie zsumowania powierzchni siedliska w obszarach o największych zasobach; planach ochrony parków narodowych i PZO obszarów Natura 2000 (dla 9 obszarów: Beskid Mały, Beskid Żywiecki, Bieszczady, Ostoja Babiogórska Ostoja Gorczańska, Ostoja Jaśliska, Polana Biały Potok, Tatry, Torfowiska Orawsko-Nowotarskie – łącznie 3,75 km2) oraz oszacowaniu powierzchni stanowisk rozproszonych w regionie.
Właściwy areał referencyjny równy aktualnej powierzchni, choć w istocie jest to mniejsza liczba niż podana w poprzednim raporcie.
Powierzchnia siedliska ulega miejscami prawdopodobnie stopniowemu zmniejszeniu, w wyniku zarastania torfowisk przez drzewa i krzewy. Nieoszacowano jednak precyzyjnie tempa tego zarastania, brak danych porównawczych, prawdopodobnie nie osiaga granicznej wartości ok. 1% rocznie. Równocześnie wskutek zmian w użytkowanu terenu i działań ochrony czynnej powierzchnia na pojedynczych stanowiskach powierzchnia zwiększa się. Dlatego trend powierzchni określono jako stabilny.
Brak określonej rzeczywistej zmiany powierzchni w ostatnim okresie, ze względu na brak całościowej inwentaryzacji; powierzchnia ta została określona na podstawie wykonanych w ostatnich latach PZO.
Źródła informacji:
Plan ochrony TPN oraz BPN a także PZO obszarów:
http://krokus.tpn.pl/du/krameko/pliki/15042015/pliki/TEKST_SYNTEZY.pdf
http://rzeszow.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/61220/Operat-syntetyczny-Planu-Ochrony-Bieszczady-PLC180001_icon.pdf
http://krakow.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/68734/TON_PLH_szablon.pdf
http://katowice.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/25613/dokumantacja_plh240006.pdf
http://www.gorczanskipark.pl/UserFiles/File/poprawki_krzysiek/PROJEKT_do_opiniowania%20_rozp_%20Ministra_Srodowiska_w_sp_%20planu_ochrony_GPN%20_wer_23_11_2015.pdf
http://www.iop.krakow.pl/karpaty/public/userfiles/Image/strategie%20pdfy%202/Strategia_zarzadzania_obszarem_Beskid_Maly.pdf ||
->HabCondition: Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX.

Ocenę Struktury i funkcji dokonano biorąc pod uwagę listę wskaźników struktury i funkcji – siedlisko zarastane jest przez drzewa i krzewy, ulega przesuszeniu, odnotowuje sie ekspansję gatunków takich, jak np. Trzcina pospolita czy trzęślica modra.
Trend stanu dobrego siedliska określono jako spadkowy, gdyż w 2 okresach: 2010/11 i 2016 zmalał procent stanowisk ocenianych na FV (z 39 do 32%), oraz U1 z 44 do 41% a wzrósł tych ocenionych na U2 z 17% do 27%.
Źródło informacji: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska ||
->Future: Zasięg i Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie jest aktualnie stabilna i oceniona na FV (poprzednio oceniono Powierzchnię na U1) – stąd perspektywy dla tych parametrów oceniono jako dobre;
Struktura i funkcje ocenione zostały na U1 jednak perspektywy parametru poprawia fakt wdrożenia działań ochrony czynnej.
Źródło informacji: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. Http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska ||
->Conclusion: W 2013 roku wszystkie parametry z wyjątkiem Zasięgu (FV) zostały ocenione jako U1. Aktualnie także Powierzchnia siedliska została oceniona na FV, a także Perspektywy ochrony, jedynie parametr Specyficzna Struktura i funkcje oceniono na U1, jak poprzednio. Trend zmian jest także pogarszający się, jak poprzednio.
Zmniejszył się udział stanowisk ocenionych (ocena ogólna) na FV (z 30 do 22%) i U1 (z 52 do 45%), a zwiększył się udział stanowisk ocenionych na U2 (z 17 do 31%).
Źródło informacji: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska
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: FRV is set based on calculation based on distribution data using range tool. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: The habitat is considered to be in FCS. Expert judgement by the compiler of the reporting, communicated with an reference group. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The threats in this region are mostly diffuse and considered low. There is a low threat to the habitat type in this region and the habitat is considered to be in favourable 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: 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: "For the Flanders part of ATL the areas given in field 6.1. are based on a representative monitoring network. Indicators for habitat structure, vegetation development and environmental disturbances are taken into account. The ‘Best single value’ of the area (field 5.2) is multiplied with the % amount of the sample plots in good and not-good condition.
Information on typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat is determined directly on the regional level. As a consequence, this information cannot be integrated in the areas given in field 6.1, but it is used to assess the conclusions on specific structures and functions (field 10.3)." ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: La structure et la fonctionnalité écologique de cet habitat sont bien souvent altérées du fait, notamment, des perturbations du fonctionnement hydrologique ou hydrogéologique et de la dégradation importante de la qualité des eaux d'alimentation des marais tourbeux qui les hébergent. Ainsi, l’atterrissement lié à l'assèchement ou à l'évolution naturelle suite à ces dysfonctionnements favorise le passage à d'autres végétations turficoles des SCHEUCHZERIO PALUSTRIS - CARICETEA FUSCAE (7230 par exemple) ou à des cariçaies et des roselières méso-eutrophiles des PHRAGMITO AUSTRALIS - MAGNOCARICETEA ELATAE. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de la tendance générale "En détérioration" : Le vieillissement et l'atterrissement des tremblants, l'assèchement plus général des marais tourbeux lié à la baisse des nappes phréatiques superficielles ou plus profondes et l'absence de dynamique régressive pour ce type d'habitat font que les tendances générales ne pourront guère s'améliorer dans le contexte actuel des changements climatiques. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of 7140. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend direction was estimated as ‘stable’ based on expert opinion – while there may have been some losses of both habitat area and habitat quality within the reporting period, these are unlikely to be large, and as this is an uncommon but widespread habitat, the range is unlikely to be affected by such losses/decreases in quality.
The number of 10km squares in the range (351) differs from the last monitoring period (236) due to the integration of new information. A suite of new datasets were assessed and integrated as appropriate as part of this work, meaning that our understanding of the range of transition mire habitat in Ireland has been improved.
The Favourable Reference Range (FRR) has been set as approximately equal to the current range as it is based on more complete data being available on the distribution of fens across Ireland (though still incomplete) than was available in the last monitoring round. The FRR is considered to encompass all ecological and geographical variation of the habitat and is likely to be sufficiently large to allow the long-term viability of the habitat.
Further notes on range (e.g. comparisions with previous assessments) are available in the accompanying backing document (Long et al., 2018). ||
->Coverage: The areas generated for points and polygons for the 2013 submission were used in the first instance (Kimberley, 2013). Additional data sources listed above were treated as follows:
Polygon datasets listed as including this habitat: Area Habitat = Total Polygon Area.
Polygons which represented habitat mosaics, and proportions given: Area Habitat = Area Polygon x Proportion 7140 habitat.
Points: Area = Median Area, which for 7140 was calculated as the median area across all high-quality habitat polygons (Habitat Confidence A, B1 and B2 as defined by Kimberley, 2013). This median value for 7140 was calculated as 1,234 m2, and was applied to all new points (since 2013), as well as any points from the 2013 submission where a default median value had been provided. See Long et al. (2018) for a fuller discussion on median areas.
A thorough assessment of all resulting points and polygons was undertaken to ensure no duplication of areas from points and polygons representing the same habitat location.
The total area was then calculated as the sum of the areas. The maximum area was based as the total area across all points and polygons of Habitat Confidence A, B1, B2 and C1. Points and polygons classified as C2 and D were excluded from the area calculations and from the maps, as per Kimberley (2013).
Specific data on loss of habitat area are not available. However, when discussing reclamation as a high-level pressure and threat on all three fen habitat types, Kimberley (2013) notes: “Land reclamation for agricultural and forestry purposes has resulted in significant loss of wetland habitat in Ireland.” Other pressures are also likely to be causing some habitat loss.
Conversely, some small gains in habitat area may be occurring, e.g. at Tullaher Lough (Wetland Surveys Ireland Ltd., 2017), Nahinch Lough (C. Peppiatt, pers. comm.) and Derrylahan and Loughanboy Lough (Fernandez Valverde, 2018). Each of these reports describes 7140 habitat created by historical terrestrialisation of shallow open water.
Short-term trend direction was estimated as ‘stable’. The trend estimate is largely based on expert interpretation of the data sources available since there are no field-validated baseline data with which to compare the present area.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is due to the inclusion of new information relating to sites that were submitted as part of the 2013 report (particularly pertaining to area), together with the integration of new datasets. Further information, including figures and findings from the previous two reporting periods, can be found in Long et al. (2018).
The FRA is set as greater than the current area. It is unlikely that >10% of the resource has been lost since 1994. An additional 1-10% of the current area is considered adequate to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat.
Overall, the extent (and condition) of transition mires within most counties remains unmapped and poorly known. A national fen survey could lead to a reduction or increase in the stated area of the habitat. ||
->HabCondition: Due to the lack of a comprehensive, targeted survey of transition mires in Ireland, detailed information on what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘not-good’ condition is not available. Lack of data meant that it was not possible to define ‘good’ and ‘not-good’ condition during this project. However, during the detailed review of all existing sources of information, some information relating to habitat condition was available.
BEC Consultants, as part of the National Survey of Upland Habitats (NSUH), developed criteria for assessing the conservation status of upland examples of transition mires (Perrin et al., 2014a; p. 85). These focus on the presence or absence of positive indicator species for a suite of vegetation types, as well as the presence or absence of certain negative indicators. Vegetation and physical structure is also assessed, with measures such as vegetation height, disturbed ground and drainage included. While these are useful, they were designed primarily for upland habitats, and so further survey of lowland transition mires is needed to develop more broadly applicable criteria.
Assessments were carried out at three transition mires sites as part of the NSUH during the current reporting period (Perrin et al., 2014b, c). All three were reported to be in good condition (though one failed initially, but was later passed based on expert opinion).
In the Galway City Transport Project (Barron et al., 2015), 11 points from five sites were assessed, and two of these points were considered to be in ‘not-good’ condition due to lack of positive indicator species and excessive bare ground/disturbance.
Both the Louth and the Waterford County Wetland Surveys reported that two out of three transition mire sites were in ‘not-good’ condition, and listed a number of related pressures and threats (which have been reviewed and factored into section 7 below). These include issues relating to pollution, fertilisation, reclamation, forestry, drainage and grazing.
The Kildare County Wetland Survey reported on two out of two transition mire sites which were in ‘not-good’ condition, and lists issues relating to drainage, pollution and grazing as being the main pressures at these sites.
Many of the other data sources reviewed provided information on condition, and issues affecting condition, while not explicitly assessing these. In particular, a four-year study on Vertigo snails assessed habitats with respect to suitability for the molluscs, and this information has been informative in terms of fen condition and issues affecting it (Long and Brophy, in prep.). Based on this dataset, some of the main issues influencing fen condition are (in alphabetical order):
Climate change – where drainage or hydrological regime are already compromised at a site, the problems are likely to be exacerbated;
Drain clearance;
Dumping of spoil, garden waste, household and other waste;
Eutrophication – from fertiliser application nearby, from excessive access for stock;
Forestry – and sometimes from self-seeding of conifers;
Grazing issues – sometimes relating to undergrazing, sometimes to overgrazing/trampling;
Invasive species, e.g. Rhododendron ponticum;
Low diversity of vegetation;
Problematic native species – e.g. expansion of Myrica gale, Ulex europaeus, Pteridium aquilinum;
Succession;
Vegetation >50 cm in height;
Vegetation dominated by tall sedges or rushes;
Water table lower than 5 cm below ground level.
On review of all datasets available for the reporting period, with particular reference to those which contained information on habitat condition, it is estimated that 36% of sites/points were deemed to be in ‘not-good’ condition. As the data are both limited and variable, it is difficult to extrapolate this result to the national level. However, it can be stated with moderate confidence that the structure and functions of over one-quarter, and perhaps one-third, of the national resource of transition mires (7140) are impaired. These estimations are used to derive the figures in 6.1. ||
->Future: The Future prospects for the Range of the habitat have been assessed as good. A number of pressures and threats have been identified, and there is a lack of conservation measures in place to counteract these. However, given the wide range for this habitat, based on multiple sites, it is likely to be more than 12 years before these pressures and threats might start taking a toll on the range of the habitat.
The Future prospects for Area of the habitat are assessed as poor. This is based on the fact that we assume that losses have occurred since the Directive came into force and there are no measures currently in place to restore these areas. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be further losses in the next 12 years. The future projection of the conservation status of Area remains poor because of its current status.
The Future prospects for the Structure and functions of transition mire habitats in Ireland are assessed as bad. This is based on the assessment result in 2013, and the fact that little has happened in the interim in terms of putting in place conservation measures (either broad scale or site-specific) to counteract pressures and threats that have been identified as acting on the habitat.
Thus, overall, the Future prospects for transition mire in Ireland have been assessed as Bad given that a significant proportion of the habitat is damaged (deemed to be >25% in a review in 2013, and based on expert judgement and a review of interim studies, deemed still to be >25%), coupled with the fact that there are few to no conservation measures in place. ||
->Conclusion: Range: While there may have been some losses of both habitat area and habitat quality within the reporting period, these are unlikely to be large, and as this is an uncommon but widespread habitat, the range is unlikely to have been affected by such losses/decreases in quality since the Directive came into force. Thus Range was assessed as Favourable.
Area: There are no field-validated data currently available to accurately quantify area or changes in area. Short-term trend was assessed as stable because changes are thought to be mostly related to habitat quality rather than area. However, there have been some losses of habitat area since the Directive came into force, and there is a lack of effective conservation measures; therefore, overall, Area was assessed as Inadequate.
Structure and functions: This parameter was assessed as Bad in the 2013 reporting period, and while there is still a lack of concrete data from, for example, a national fen survey, expert knowledge suggests that this is still the case. Information, though variable in nature, was gleaned from surveys carried out within the last reporting period which support this view, and thus this parameter was again assessed as Bad.
Future prospects: Based on the Future prospects assessments in section 9 (Range = good; Area = poor; Structure and functions = bad), the overall assessment of Future prospects for transition mire is Bad.
Overall: Based on the results above, a combined overall Conservation Status of Bad applies.
Overall trend direction: Based on the fact that two of the assessment parameters (Range and Area) have a trend of stable, with one (Structure and functions) uncertain, the overall trend for the habitat is stable.
Expert judgement and experience have been used to inform the decisions made on the above at all stages, and available data, while often piecemeal and collected for a variety of purposes (i.e. not with fen conservation assessments as a focus), have been used at every opportunity to inform decision-making. ||
->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. Favourable Reference Values are based on Bijlsma et al. (2014), WOt report 125. 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) showed a stable trend. However, the more species rich subtype A is still declining. The development of new transition mires and quaking bogs after digging out former peat ponds is stagnating, even in places with good water quality (Lamers et al. 2010; Weijs & Van Tooren 2014). ||
->Future: The development of new transition mires and quaking bogs after digging out former peat ponds is stagnating in all of the Netherlands (Lamers et al. 2010). Even in places with good water quality this is the case (Weijs & Van Tooren, 2014). ||
->Conclusion: Functioning based on NDFF analysis = U1, TS = U2; the most important subtype (A; from a biodiversity perspective) is assessed to be in bad condition; therefore overall score = U2. NDFF analysis indicates a negative trend. ||
->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: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; and (ii) the Favourable Reference Area is unknown.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are unknown; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - stable, and Structure and functions - stable.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Structure and functions trend has changed from decreasing to stable, and because of the removal of the Future prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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: Currently 2/3 of state are has been inventoried. The minimum area of habitat is currently fixed habitat area in state, the maximum area - teoretically available after completing EU habitat inventory. ||
->HabCondition: At national level the habitat is divided into two sub-variants to better describe its diversity. On average, 85% of habitats are of good quality (mostly found on the shores of lakes, there is less risk of overgrowth, respectively, favorable future prospects). ~ 15% of the habitat is in low quality (where the habitat is connected to the mineral soil, in these situations habitat is significantly influenced by changes in the hydrological regime and overgrowth). As part of the historically known habitat area has decreased (some area has been lost as a result of overgrowing), the occupied area and quality assessment as well as future perspectives for the entire habitat are inadequate. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No precise data to make trend assessment is available, as currently EU habitat mapping process is ongoing. ||
->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) on pressures, is that no more than 75% of the habitat is considered to reach FCS. Thus, only 75% of the CV is considered to be in good conditon. However, this is an highly uncertain estimate. For several of the structures, no difference in structures and functions could easily be found using NILS data, and trend direction of trend is estimated as in 2013. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Nitrogen deposition induce growth of shrubs and trees and negatively affect the open mires. Clearing of ditches maintain the drainage and induce drier conditions. Increased nutrient levels and/or drier conditions have negative effects on the typical species. There is a threat to the habitat type in this region with the forestation and overgrowing of the habitat. The habitat is considered to be in unfavourable conservation status with decreasing trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, the data available is insufficient. ||
->Coverage: There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, the data available is limited. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, 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: The important peatbog restoration measures realized in the frame of 6 LIFE
Nature projects, and more recently with PDR funds, have restored pionner bog
habitats, 7140 in particular. These new 7140 areas should or might evolve into
7110 in the long term. ||
->HabCondition: The monitoring of 7140 structure and functions has begun in 2018 for the
oligotrophic types of this habitat, according to the methology developed in 2017.
It will allow to better estimate areas in good or bad condition in the near future. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Even if the important peatbog restoration measures realized in the frame of 6
LIFE Nature projects, and more recently with PDR funds, have restored
oligotrophic 7140 habitats, results are still too pionner to modify the
assessement of conservation status and the future prospects. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Ponds have been restored or created with help of LIFE projects on peaty soils.
Colonisation of new ponds by Sphagnum cuspidatum and Carex rostrata
(transient habitat between 3160 and 7140) is promising in the vicinity of bogs and mires.

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Lücken im Nordosten des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Il existe un déficit de données bryosociologiques liées à cet habitat. Cette strate pourrait apporter des informations utiles pour évaluer la structure et fonctionnalité de l'habitat, les bryophytes réagissant plus finement aux atteintes à la fonctionnalité du site que les plantes vasculaires (niveau trophique notamment)
Des données issues de suivis à moyen ou long terme manquent. ||
->Future: effet du changement climatique et de la dégradation des eaux de surface consécutive à l’intensification des pratiques agricoles, y compris en montagne ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat U1 pour les Structures et fonction - tendance négative observée dans le Massif central sur de nombreux sites (voir remarque) ||
->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: Data is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 56% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far). ||
->Coverage: The indicated difference in surface area since the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: finalisation of the national inventory of biotopes outside woodlands, monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018) and genuine change.
The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction is based on a monitoring program (random sample) outside woodlands (data from 2016 - 2018, ongoing).
During the initial survey, 0,4865 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 56% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018. Because of the nature of this habitat type, we consider the increase within the monitored sample as more accurate data rather then a real gain. In comparison to the last reporting period, a decrease of the area of this habitat type is apparent.
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original, not monitored area, the area within the 67% of surveyed forests, area discovered by chance and the monitored area. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the positive trend determined within the random sample plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100% plus the area discovered by chance. ||
->HabCondition: Data concerning habitat condition is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 56% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
97% of the originally surveyed area and 24% of the monitored area were in good condition.
The total area in good condition is estimated at between 0,0015 and 0,003 km2.
Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: During the initial survey, 0,4865 ha of this habitat type were mapped, 97% of which were in good condition. 56% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018. Because of the nature of this habitat type, we consider the increase within the monitored sample as more accurate data rather then a real gain. Only 24% of the monitored area was evaluated as being in good condition. ||
->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 83 536 na 80400 km2 głównie ze względu na użycie innego sposobu jej obliczenia.
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 zajmuje największe powierzchnie w północnej i zachodniej części kraju.
Poprzednio (2013) powierzchnia siedliska – 200 km2 została podana na podstawie oszacowania powierzchni siedliska w terenach o największych zasobach oraz eksperckim oszacowaniu powierzchni stanowisk rozproszonych w regionie.
Aktualnie wykorzystano dane z 295 SFD (i w części z PZO) obszarów Natura 2000 (ok. 170 km2). Oszacowano, że powierzchnia siedliska w pozostałych obszarach Natura 2000 (łącznie jest ich ok. 550) i poza nimi może wynosić drugie tyle, co łącznie daje ok. 350 km2
Właściwy areał referencyjny równy aktualnej powierzchni,
Powierzchnia siedliska ulega miejscami prawdopodobnie stopniowemu zmniejszeniu, w wyniku zarastania torfowisk przez drzewa i krzewy, przyspieszonemu przez osuszanie terenu. Nieoszacowano jednak precyzyjnie tempa tego zarastania, brak danych porównawczych, prawdopodobnie nie osiaga granicznej wartości ok. 1% rocznie. Równocześnie wskutek zmian w użytkowanu terenu i działań ochrony czynnej powierzchnia na pojedynczych stanowiskach zwiększa się. Dlatego trend określono jako stabilny.
Brak określonej rzeczywistej zmiany powierzchni w ostatnim okresie –brak danych o chrakterze inwentaryzacyjnym, w skali ogólnopolskiej, co powoduje, trudno określić zmiany że w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu (2013). Podana powierzchnia maksymalna 350 km2 jest jedynie bardzo dużym przybliżeniem.
Źródła informacji:
Dane GDOŚ dla 295 obszarów Natura 2000. ||
->HabCondition: Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX
Obliczenia wykonano przy założeniu, powierzchnia siedliska w regionie wynosi ok. 260 km2
Ocenę Struktury i funkcji (U2) dokonano biorąc pod uwagę listę wskaźników struktury i funkcji – siedlisko zarastane jest przez drzewa i krzewy, ulega przesuszeniu, odnotowuje sie ekspansję gatunków takich, jak np. trzęślica modra, trzcina pospolita czy gatunek obcy tawuła kutnerowata.
Stan siedliska jest nieznany na stanowiskach, na których nie dało się przeprowadzić oceny w monitoringu, i stanowią one ok. 1,6 %. Na pozostałych zostało ocenione w monitoringu GIOŚ w latach 2016 i 2017 (ok. FV- 28%, U1 – 35%, U2- 36%, XX – 1,6%).
Trend powierzchni w dobrym stanie określono jako spadkowy, gdyż wg wyników PMŚ w stosunku do obserwacji z lat 2010/11, aktualnie zmalał udział stanowisk ocenianych na U1 z 45 do 35%, a wzrósł tych ocenianych na U2 z 27 do 36%
Źródło informacji: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska ||
->Future: Zasięg i Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie aktualnienie zmniejsza się i oceniona została na FV i perspektywy dla tych parametrów są odpowiednio do nich ocenione;
ale Struktura i funkcje ocenione zostały w 2013 roku na U1, aktualnie na U2. Perspektywy dla tego parametru są także niezadowalające, ze względu na pogorszenie się stanu siedliska, głównie w wyniku powolnego, postępującego procesu sukcesji i osuszania terenów torfowisk .
Perspektywy poprawia nieco fakt wdrożenia działań ochrony czynnej na części stanowisk.
Źródło informacji: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. Http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska ||
->Conclusion: Trend zmian jest pogarszający się, wynikający z pogorszenia się stanu siedliska (struktury i funkcji).
Zmniejszył się udział stanowisk ocenionych na U1 (z 44,4 do 34,7%), a zwiększył się udział stanowisk ocenionych na U2 (z 30,2 do 38%), przy 141 monitorowanych stanowiskach.
Źródło informacji: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska
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: 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, is that no more than 75% of the habitat is considered to reach FCS, supported by data from the national wetlands survey (VMI) on pressures,. Thus, only 75% of the CV is considered to be in good conditon. However, this is an highly uncertain estimate. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Nitrogen deposition induce growth of shrubs and trees and negatively affect the open mires, especially in southern boreal region.
Clearing of ditches maintain the drainage and induce drier conditions. Increased nutrient levels and/or drier conditions have negative effects on the typical species. There is a threat to the habitat type in this region with the forestation and overgrowing of the habitat. The habitat is considered to be in unfavourable conservation status with decreasing 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: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: 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 surface area of the habitat (5.2) is equal to the area of the habitat within the Natura 2000 network (pSCIs, SCIs and SACs) (11.1), as reported for the previous reporting period (2007-2013). ||
->HabCondition: Assumption: 90% of habitat area is estimated to be in good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The change to the conservation status [from U1(=) to FV] is based on more field data (collected assessment protocols) available.

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report