Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Due to data gaps the range is smaller than it might be in reality. There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, the data available is incomplete and will be partially outdated next reporting period. ||
->Coverage: There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, the data available is limited and will be partially outdated next reporting period. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Les perspectives sont globalement bonnes dans les massifs de haute montagne et plus incertaines en périphérie. ||
->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 zwiększyła się z 7 751 do 9300 km2, głównie ze względu na odmienny sposób 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 (także tych na wstępnym etapie: projektów, strategii) oraz planów ochrony parków narodowych. Korzystano z informacji dostępnych w internecie, by zweryfikować dane z bazy GDOŚ, które pochodzą głównie z SDF-ów i w niektórych przypadkach (Ostoja Magurska, Ostoja Popradzka, Bieszczady, Beskid Żywiecki) są mocno zawyżone. W ten sposób powierzchnię siedliska na obszarach Natura 2000 w regionie alpejskim oszacowano na 152 ha. Siedlisko występuje także poza siecią N 2000, dlatego przyjęto powierzchnię minimalną 2 km2, a maksymalną 4 km2. Dokładna wartość nie jest znana.
W poprzednim raporcie do KE powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na 6 km2, z czego w sieci N2000: 4-5 km2. Różnica w stosunku do obecnego raportu wynika zarówno z lepszej wiedzy na temat areału siedliska, jak i ze spadku powierzchni. Ponieważ wyniki PMŚ nie wskazują na ubytek powierzchni siedliska, ważniejsza jest prawdopodobnie pierwsza przyczyna. Spadek powierzchni oszacowano na podstawie obserwacji własnych. ||
->HabCondition: Siedlisko jest monitorowane w ramach PMŚ na 26 stanowiskach i 7 obszarach Natura 2000. 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: 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 pressure and threat is low in this region and structures and functions are assumed to be quite unaffected. 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: 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, the habitat is very rare. Therefore all locations of the habitat are monitored with respect to their habitat structure, vegetation development and environmental disturbances. The areas given in field 6.1 are based on the data of this monitoring.
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: Divers paramètres sont par ailleurs à considérer pour l'évaluation du bon état de conservation de cet habitat :
- surface d'un seul tenant occupé par cet habitat,
- dynamique trophique
- structure spatiale
- diversité et représentativité phytocénotique
- diversité spécifique et typicité floristique
- équilibre entre les différentes phases temporelles de l'habitat
- dynamique naturelle de la végétation
- processus morphodynamiques... ||
->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 7230. 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 (488) differs from the last monitoring period (329) 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 alkaline 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 7230 habitat.
Points: Area = Median Area, which for 7230 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 7230 was calculated as 165 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, and in particular, why the median area for 7230 is quite low.
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 (2018).
Specific data on loss of habitat area are, for the most part, 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. Both the Louth and the Waterford County Wetland Surveys report that sites supporting 7230 have been lost - two in Louth and one in Waterford.
Short-term trend direction was estimated as ‘decreasing’. 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).
Although losses of habitat area are considered to have occurred since the Directive came into force, and during the current reporting period, the magnitude of the decline is unknown. 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 alkaline fen 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 alkaline 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.
BEC Consultants, as part of the National Survey of Upland Habitats (NSUH), developed criteria for assessing the conservation status of upland examples of alkaline fen (Perrin et al., 2014a; p. 87). These focus on the presence or absence of positive indicator species for a suite of vegetation types, as well as the presence of the so-called ‘brown mosses’. Also considered is the presence or absence of certain negative indicators, non-native species and trees/scrub. 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 alkaline fen is needed to develop more broadly applicable criteria.
Assessments were carried out at two alkaline fen sites as part of the NSUH during the current reporting period (Perrin et al., 2014b, c). Both were reported to be in good condition.
In the Galway City Transport Project (Barron et al., 2015), nine points from five sites were assessed, and 78% of these were considered to be in ‘not-good’ condition due to lack of positive indicator species, high cover of negative indicator species and the presence of non-native species.
Both the Louth and the Waterford County Wetland Surveys report that sites supporting 7230 have been lost - two in Louth, one in Waterford, the latter due to forestry (details not available for other sites).
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.). There were 27 alkaline fen sites in this dataset, of which 17 were considered to be in ‘not-good’ condition. The main issues influencing fen condition were deemed to be (only those affecting two or more sites are given here):
Succession (11 sites);
Drying out (8 sites);
Overgrazing by cattle (5 sites);
Drainage (4 sites);
Scrub clearance (3 sites);
Groundwater abstraction (2 sites);
Dumping (2 sites);
Over grazing (2 sites);
Fertilisation (2 sites).
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 75% 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 perhaps up to three-quarters of the national resource of alkaline fen (7230) 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 alkaline fen 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 broadscale or site-specific) to counteract pressures and threats that have been identified as acting on the habitat.
Thus, overall, the Future prospects for alkaline fen 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, it is thought to have increased), 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 a 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 have been some losses of habitat area within the reporting period, and these are likely to continue, particularly in light of a lack of effective conservation measures. Thus the area of the habitat will probably continue to decrease, even if losses are relatively small, but there are no field-validated baseline data currently available to quantify this. 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 produced 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 alkaline fen is Bad.
Overall: Based on the results above, a combined overall Conservation Status of Bad applies.
Overall trend direction: Based on the fact that one assessment parameter has a trend of stable (Range), one uncertain (Structure and functions), and one decreasing (Area), the overall trend for the habitat, if strictly following the guidance, should be ‘unknown’. However, it is felt that, based on both the data available and expert judgement, the losses of both area and quality that are likely to have occurred, as well as the pressures and threats faced, are sufficient for an assessment of deteriorating to be applied.
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. 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; NDFF analysis showed a stable trend. However, NEM-data indicates positive trends; as the habitat is represented relatively well in the NEM network of permanent plots, and these show positive trends, we report a positive trend in S&F. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Functioning=U2; 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 Joop Schaminée (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The short term trend direction is considered to be decreasing by 1%/yr or less, based on the rate of decline identified in England and Wales. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; Future trend of Area is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; 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 decreasing by 1% per year or less; 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 poor; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are bad; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - decreasing, and Structure and functions - increasing. If negative future trends for Range, Area and Structure and functions are also taken into account, the Overall trend would be deteriorating.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 the Area trend has changed from stable to decreasing, the Structure and functions trend has changed from stable to increasing, and because of the removal of the Future prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Favourable reference range is marked with x since there is still confusion concerning interpretation of this habitat type in Estonia. ||
->Coverage: Favourable reference area is marked with x since there is still confusion concerning interpretation of this habitat type in Estonia ||
->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: According to the data of the project "Nature census", 2/3 of state area has been inventoried and totally 2195.65 ha of habitat has been mapped, but it is still possible to identify additional habitat areas. Prevoiusly it was estimated that there are 900 ha of this habitat in the country, but country wide habitat inventory indicates that area is larger. Therefore no correct data to compare information ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No precise data to make trend assessment is available. ||
->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 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.Expert judgement by the compiler of the reporting, communicated with an reference group. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Structure and functions and typical species are still decrasing even though measures are taken. The habitat is negatively affected by overgrowth, hydrological alterations, clearing of ditches, reduced pasture and N deposition. Clearing of ditches maintain the drainage and induce drier conditions.The habitat needs management (i.e., mowing and/or grazing), often in combination with clearance of higher vegetation and hydrological restoration. The rate and extent of measures are still to low. The pressure and threats are many. Structure and functions and typical species are still decreasing. There is a program for measures (ÅGP). However, management, restoration and conservation is slow. The
pressure and need for conservation/restoration is high and FRV is much higher than actual value.The habitat is considered to be in unfavorable 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: Because of the lack of up-to-date data, there is no change in surface area identifiable. There is a strong need of further exploration of the habitat. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: There is only very limited data available, but based on expert opinion future prospects of the parameters Area as well as S&F are continously degenerating. ||
->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: The comparison of the botanical surveys before and after 1980 for 12 major sites
shows that 10 of them were in a favourable conservation status before 1980 and
only three after. Sites assessed as in a favourale conservation status are:
Fouches, Vance and Landbruch. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The continuity of the recurring management of the sites, by mowing or grazing,
is the key issue to conserve and restore alkaline fens. This requires two
elements: a source of financing and specific machinery / animals able to move on
peaty soils. Currently the agro-environmental scheme finances the recurring
management, but this source of financing is not secure and not always sufficient.
A tractor adapted to the mowing of alkaline fen has been purchased thanks to
the Life Herbages, which has allowed a substantial increase of the surfaces
managed, but, as the surface continue to increase, one single tractor will not be
sufficient. On a total surface of +/- 1.000 ha of peaty soils with a theoretical
potential of alkaline fen, 212 ha are still not legally protected. Populations of
typical species are still very fragmented and the current surfaces of alkaline fens
insufficient to host viable populations. To tackle these threats substantial efforts
have been initiated, even if the results can not be guaranteed. The hydrology of
alkline fens is dependent of the infiltration of rain water into neighouring
calcareous sands areas. Sand extraction could be a major threat for some sites
(sampont). Salt used on roads during the winter also seems to have a negative
impact on water quality. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Typical species which have already disappeared from the habitat:
Anagallis tenella, Blysmus compressus, Carex davalliana, Carex dioica, Cicuta
virosa, Cladium mariscus, Eleocharis quinqueflora, Equisetum variegatum, Liparis
loeselii, Peucedanum palustre, Sagina nodosa, Schoenus nigricans. Critically
endangered typical species: Carex appropinquata, Carex lepidocarpa,
Dactylorhiza incarnata, Epipactis palustris, Eriophorum gracile, Eriophorum
latifolium, Juncus subnodulosus, Parnassia palustris, Pedicularis palustris,
Ranunculus lingua, Triglochin palustre Endangered typical species: Carex
hostiana, Carex pulicaris Vulnerable typical species: Carex flava, Dactylorhiza
fistulosa On a total of 28 typical species, 27 are red-listed. Due to the high
fragmentation of the habitat, the critical conservation status of most of the
typical species, the cost of the recurring management, the lack of scientific
monitoring of the habitat, and the absence of sufficient restoration measures,
the long-term viability of the habitat is not insured even if most of alkaline fens
are now legally protected. However only the existing patches are protected, not
the areas with a restoration potential currently occupied by other habitats.
Considering the mean size of the patches (0,6 ha) an extinction debt is plausible.
11/16 of the remaining typical species have their conservation status assessed as
critically endangered. Current conservation actions are sufficient to conserve the
existing alkaline fens, not to assure their long-term conservation.

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 und Süden des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen zu einem Teil auch auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Situation im Norden des Verbreitungsgebietes bereits U2. ||
->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 64 084 na 49900 km2, głównie ze względu na użycie innej metody 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: Brak pełnych danych do określenia powierzchni siedliska w bioregionie kontynentalnym. Oszacowano ją posiłkując się danymi z bazy GDOŚ dla 174 obszarów Natura 2000 (170 km2). Przyjęto, że większość zasobów siedliska (2/3) jest objęta siecią N2000, 1/3 pozostaje poza siecią. W ten sposób uzyskano wartość 250 km2.
Także w poprzednim raporcie do KE powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na 250 km2. ||
->HabCondition: Siedlisko jest monitorowane w ramach PMŚ na 91 stanowiskach i 32 obszarach Natura 2000.
Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX ||
->Future: Perspektywy dla parametrów oceniono na podstawie wyników PMŚ oraz danych GDOŚ dotyczacych działań ochronnych ||
->Conclusion: Prowadzony od 2009 roku monitoring siedliska wskazuje na pogorszenie się jego struktury i funkcji. Stąd gorsze niż poprzednio perspektywy ochrony oraz stan ochrony. W dalszym ciągu trend w stanie ochrony siedliska pogarsza się.
Źródlem informacji są wyniki PMŚ dla 91 stanowisk, które ekstrapolowano na cały bioregion.
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 is that no more than 50% of the habitat is considered to reach FCS. Thus, only 50% of the CV is considered to be in good conditon. However, this is an highly uncertain estimate. This also corresponds to the FRV that is set 50% above CV. Expert judgement by the compiler of the reporting, communicated with an reference group. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Structure and functions and typical species are still decrasing even though measures are taken. The habitat is negatively affected by overgrowth, hydrological alterations, clearing of ditches, reduced pasture and N deposition. Clearing of ditches maintain the drainage and induce drier conditions. The habitat needs management (i.e., mowing and/or grazing), often in combination with clearance of higher vegetation and hydrological restoration. The rate and extent of measures are still to low. The pressure and threats are many. Structure and functions and typical species are still decreasing. There is a program for measures (ÅGP). However, management, restoration and conservation is slow. The
pressure and need for conservation/restoration is high and FRV is much higher than actual value.The habitat is considered to be in bad 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: Critères pour évaluer ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; qualité physico-chimique des eaux ; fonctionnement hydrologique ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation "En détérioration" de la tendance générale à dire d'expert (au moins une tendance à court terme négative) ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

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