Article 17 web tool

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

Open Original Report  

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: Bien qu'une partie des surfaces de cet habitat soit incluse dans les zones gérées et/ou protégées, la pression agricole, d'urbanisation et les pollutions et atteintes diverses continuent sur le domaine alpin à se concentrer dans les fonds des grandes vallées, et sont donc susceptibles - ajoutées aux effets désormais vraisemblables du changement climatique - de continuer à dégrader l'aire de répartition, la surface et les structures et fonction de cet habitat sur ce domaine biogéographique dans la décennie à venir. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). Therefore, we use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat). ||
->HabCondition: "In Flanders Atlantic, this habitat is very rare. Condition indicators for this type were estimated in the field on the whole of the surface (except for the proportion 'unknown').
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: L'habitat générique n'est décliné qu'en un seul habitat élémentaire. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of 7210. 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 the range is unlikely to be affected by such losses/decreases in quality.
The number of 10km squares in the range (188) differs from the last monitoring period (172) 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 the understanding of the range of Cladium fen 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. comparisons 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 7210 habitat.
Points: Area = Median Area, which for 7210 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 7210 was calculated as 10,717 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.
Short-term trend direction was estimated as ‘stable’ based on both expert opinion and survey reports. There may have been some losses of habitat quality within the reporting period, but data on loss of habitat area are not available. 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 Cladium fens 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 Cladium fens 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.
Wetland Surveys Ireland, as part of the work on the Galway City Transport Plan in conjunction with BEC Consultants, developed criteria for assessing the conservation status of Cladium fens (Crushell and Foss, 2014a – presented as Appendix 1 in Barron et al., 2015). These focus on the presence or absence of positive indicator species and the presence or absence of certain negative indicators, as well as their percentage covers. Vegetation and physical structure is also assessed, with measures such as vegetation height, disturbed ground and drainage included.
In the Galway City Transport Project (Barron et al., 2015), 34 points from four sites were assessed, and 15% of these were considered to be in ‘not-good’ condition due to lack of positive indicator species, cover of woody species and presence of negative indicator species.
The County Wetland Surveys do not provide explicit information relating to condition assessment of Cladium fen sites.
The National Survey of Upland Habitats did not record this habitat type.
Some 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;
Drainage;
Drying out;
Dumping of spoil, garden waste, household and other waste;
Eutrophication – from fertiliser application nearby, from excessive access for stock;
Habitat change to wet grassland;
Low diversity of vegetation;
Scrub invasion;
Succession;
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 18% 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 nearly one-fifth of the national resource of Cladium fen (7210) 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 relatively 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 Cladium fen habitats in Ireland are assessed as poor. Currently Structure and functions for this habitat type are assessed as having Amber (Inadequate) status, with an uncertain trend. This, coupled with the fact that little has happened in the interim in terms of putting in place conservation measures (either broadscale or site-specific) to counteract pressures and threats, means that the Future prospects are poor.
Thus, overall, the Future prospects for Cladium fen in Ireland have been assessed as Inadequate 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 in the order of 20 to 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 relatively 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 are likely to 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. Information, though variable in nature, was gleaned from surveys carried out within the last reporting period which suggest that 18% of the habitat is in ‘not-good’ condition, resulting in an assessment of Inadequate.
Future prospects: Based on the Future prospects assessments in section 9 (Range = good; Area = poor; Structure and functions = poor), the overall assessment of Future prospects for Cladium fen is Inadequate.
Overall: Based on the results above, a combined overall Conservation Status of Inadequate applies.
Overall trend direction: Based on the fact that two of the assessment parameters have a trend of stable (Range and Area), with one uncertain (Structure and functions), 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: The 6 years ago reported range should be 4400, trend is stable. Distribution map is based on vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites and relevé data in- and outside Natura 2000-sites over a period of 12 years. Some vegetation maps still contain uncertainties and relevé data may have gaps, but we assume that total distribution is well covered for 90% or more. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available ||
->HabCondition: No data on area with good S&F available ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: S&F assessment based on previous report (which was based on SDF analysis); no TS analysis. ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data; a formula with 75%/25%-thresholds is used for conservation status of Structure & Function and Typical species. ||
->Other: Report by Bart de Knegt (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration ||
->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 increasing; and (ii) the current Area is more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are bad; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - increasing, 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: Cladietum seems to expand in Estonia. By now, the species is also present in N, NE and E Estonia but there it is not forming Cladietum communities yet ||
->Coverage: Favourable reference area is estimated with „<”, as Cladietum is a very species-poor community and tends to replace much more valuable 7230-habitats. ||
->HabCondition: Cladietum is a vital plant community in Estonia, overwhelmingly in good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Restoration of the mainland Finland site ||
->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: Quality evaluation is unknown as previously known largest sites with habitat has not been inventoried yet and there are no data available to compare situation during preparation of this report.
At the same time, some research of species shows that too dense stands of Cladum mariscus reduce the size of suitable habitats for other rare species associated with calcareous sites. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: As new information available and additional sites of habitat mapped, no possible to calculate tresholds ||
->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 pressures and threats are similar to the pressure and threats for rich fens (7230). However, the habitat and its structures and functions are assumed to be mainly unaffacted, and no indication that the situation should be otherwise. The habitat on the mainland seem to be different from the habitat on öland and Gotland, and this is currently investigated. The habitat is 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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: 10.3: Even though S&F are evaluated C in more than 35% of the surface area of the habitat, (and should therefore be evaluated U2 following the Matrix of ANNEX D of the current report format), S&F are here rated U1, based on expert opinion, reason is the inclusion of secondary habitats in the monitoring.
10.6: The overall trend in conservation status was downgraded from stable to deteriorating. Reason is the evaluation results of the monitoring 2017, specifying structure and functions of the habitat in the continental region. ||
->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: Lücken im Osten 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: 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: Siedlisko występuje głównie na terenie pojezierzy, na Lubelszczyźnie i pojedyncze stanowiska w Niecce Nidziańskiej.
Niewielka zmiana w powierzchni zasięgu z 5286 do 5800 km2 wynika głównie ze 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: Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie w 2013 roku została oszacowana na 10-12 km2 na podstawie danych własnych eksperta (z rejonu lubelskiego) i literatury; W 2018 roku, powierzchnię torfowisk określono na podstawie danych GDOŚ, uwzględniających częściowo dane pochodzące z PZO obszarów Natura 2000. Dane dla 53 obszarów Natura 2000 podają powierzchnię 18,32 km2, czyli większą niż podana w 2013 roku (10-12 km2). Założono, że poza obszarami Natura 2000 może znajdować się ok. 10-20% powierzchni siedliska w regionie, co oznacza, że w skali całego regionu powierzchnia ta, to maksymalnie ok. 20 km2
Trend powierzchni zajętej przez siedlisko określono jako stabilny, (poprzednio także jako stabilny). Na ponad 67% stanowisk PMŚ oceniono powierzchnię jako FV, czyli powierzchnia siedliska nie zmniejszyła się od poprzednich obserwacji (poprzednio było to 55%). Na 22% jako U1 (poprzednio 28%), a 9% stanowisk jako U2, co oznacza jej znaczne zmniejszenie (poprzednio 12%). Zarastanie siedliska przez drzewa i krzewy i przesuszenie, to główne przyczyny zmniejszania powierzchni, a nawet zaniku torfowiska.
Powierzchnia referencyjna określona została na równą aktualnej, czyli równą rzeczywistej powierzchni siedliska w regionie. W porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu – gdzie założono docelowo FRA ok. 16 km2, aktualna powierzchnia siedliska ok. 20 km2 jest faktycznie większa niż poprzednio wykazywana (10-12), choć wynika z polepszenia stanu wiedzy. ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring prowadzono na 58 stanowiskach. W 2018 roku na 24% z nich stan siedliska (struktura i funkcja) został oceniony na FV, na 28% na U1, na 47% na U2 i na 2% na XX.
W stosunku do poprzednich obserwacji 2014, zdecydowanie wzrosła liczba stanowisk ocenionych na U2: z 38% do 47% i ocenionych na U1 z 17% do 28%. Równocześnie zmniejszył się udział stanowisk ocenionych na FV z 43% na 24%.
Dlatego trend krótkotrwały siedliska w dobrym stanie określono jako spadkowy.
Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX ||
->Future: Zasięg w regionie stabilny.
Powierzchnia generalnie stabilna (na 67% stanowisk w PMŚ tak określona) choć na części stanowisk powoli zmniejsza się, głównie w wyniku przesuszenia, sukcesji krzewów i drzew, przy coraz mniejszym gospodarczym (rolniczym) użytkowaniu.
Perspektywy parametru Struktura i funkcje ocenione jako niezadowalające, ze względu na spadkowy trend w udziale dobrze zachowanych stanowisk. ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie ocena stanu ochrony na podstawie monitoringu prowadzonego na 58 stanowiskach w regionie, to stan zły U2 (na 47% stanowisk stan siedliska oceniono na U2 stan zły). Trend stanu ochrony określono jako pogarszający się. W stosunku do obserwacji 2013/14, zmniejszył się udział stanowisk ocenionych (ocean ogólna) na FV z 37 na 21%, U1: wzrósł z 20 na 31%, oraz zwiększył U2 z 42 na 47%.
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 the same (stable) 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 pressures and threats are similar to the pressure and threats for rich fens (7230). However, the habitat and its structures and functions are assumed to be mainly unaffacted, and no indication that the situation should be otherwise. The habitat on the mainland seem to be different from the habitat on öland and Gotland, and this is currently investigated. The habitat is 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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Critère pour évaluer ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; qualité physico-chimique des eaux ; fonctionnement hydrologique ; structuration de la litière (cf. Cahiers d'habitat) ; intégrité du cortège floristique ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des structures et fonctions U1. Nous ne sommes pas sûr que la fragmentation ait un grand impact sur l'habitat. En revanche la pression urbaine pesant sur le littoral entraîne des modifications du fonctionnement hydrologique du milieux ainsi de la qualité physico-chimique des eaux en plusieurs endroits. Aucune idée de la structuration de la litière. Problèmes avec le Baccharis en certains endroits.
QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation "En détérioration" de la tendance générale à dire d'expert (au moins une tendance à court terme négative) ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: 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: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report