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  

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. Despite the area covered by the habitat has decreased since the previous period (3R), FRA (5.13) is approximately equal to (≈) as a consequence of a better knowledge and/or more accurate data rather then to a genuine change ||
->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 na terenie Polski jedynie w Tatrach, gdzie było obserwowane od dawna.
Zmiany w powierzchni zasięgu są wypadkową dwóch elementów:
Aktualnie w rozmieszczeniu nie zaznaczono kwadratów, obejmujących skrawki powierzchni TPN przy granicy państwa, gdzie brak siedliska (poprzednio zaznaczone wszystkie kwadraty w Tatrach powyżej górnej granicy lasu).
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.
W wyniku obliczenia powierzchni zasięgu przy użyciu narzędzia, zasięg siedliska zwiększył z 213 do 300 km2 ||
->Coverage: Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie w 2013 roku została przeszacowana (2,5 km2); po inwentaryzacji w ramach przygotowywanego Planu ochrony TPN, łączna powierzchnia płatów siedliska została oszacowana na ok. 0,26 km2;
Trend powierzchni zajętej przez siedlisko jest stabilny. Nieznaczne zarastanie siedliska przez kosodrzewinę oraz inne drzewa i krzewy, zachodzi wolno, dotyczy niewielkiej części powierzchni w dolnych partiach piargówi i nie osiąga progu, który decydowałby o uznaniu trendu za ujemny. Ocena trendu jest potwierdzona przez wyniki PMŚ: w 2011 roku na 80% stanowisk oceniono Powierzchnię siedliska na FV, w 2017 na 100% uznano, że powierzchnia jest stabilna i oceniono ja na FV.
Powierzchnia referencyjna określona została na równą aktualnie, czyli równą rzeczywistej powierzchni siedliska w regionie (choć w porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu, biorąc pod uwagę liczby, jest ona mniejsza) ||
->HabCondition: Stan siedliska jest ogólnie dobry, silnie uzależniony od położenia stanowisk, głównie z wysokością nad poziom morza.
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: Piargi występują na terenach objętych ochroną obszarową jako obszar Natura 2000 a także park narodowy . Znajdują się głównie w strefach ochrony ścisłej.
Zasięg w regionie stabilny, choć niewielki, bo ograniczony do miejsc o odpowiednich warunkach abiotycznych.
Powierzchnia okresowo nieznacznie zmniejszająca się na pojedynczych, najniżej położonych stanowiskach, ale w wyniku działania naturalnych procesów - regeneruje się.
Struktura I funkcje na wiekszości areału ocenione dobrze. Brak istotnych zagrożeń.
Dlatego perspektywy dla tych parametrów oceniono jako dobre. ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie ocena stanu ochrony na podstawie monitoringu prowadzonego na 10 stanowiskach w jedynym rejonie występowania siedliska (w 1 obszarze Natura 2000).
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: Surface area of range of the habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Range area was used. ||
->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: The decrease in range is mainly due to the new range tool. ||
->Coverage: The area estimate is based on an automatic classification using the 50 meter height model from Lantmäteriet with a 'cut off' value of 23 degrees. Then information of bedrock is added to separate siliceous from calcareous.

Regarding area estimates of the habitats 8110, 8120, 8210 and 8220 the values from 2013 have been used. This is because a new height model, based on laser scanning, is in progress. If weather conditions are good, it will be complete during the summer of 2019. This will provide much better data on where and how much rocky screes and slopes there are. The plan is to do a complete overview of these habitats when the height model is complete. ||
->HabCondition: The short term trend of habitat in good condition is considered stable mainly based on information from NILS and the County Administrative Boards. The status of the entire area is not known. However, there are no indications of pressures/threats which could lead to any other conclusion than favourable (apart from the glaciers). The guidelines says that a favourable assessment requires at least 90 % of the area in ‘good’ condition and no more than 10 % ‘unknown’. Consequently, a pragmatic approach has been used, just performing a simple percentage exercise in order to meet these requirements. An effect of this is the production of what appears to be very exact numbers, though in reality just dividing them in 90 % and 10 % groups. ||
->Future: Future prospects of parameters range/area/structure and functions are heavily based on the assessment of ‘pressures and threats’, in particular the ‘threat’ part, since this is focusing on the future. Due to the absence of data indicating negative future prospects within the considered time period this habitat is assessed as having ‘good future prospects’ for all parameters. ||
->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: Habitat is threaten by climbers that reach their climbing routes hiking or climbing throught these stands.

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 the 8120 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS 2013a). There were no recorded losses of area at the sample sites covered by the NSUH during these two reporting periods. The short-term trend assessed over the period 2007-2017 is stable, and this is assumed to be the case also for the default trend period of 2007-2018. Similarly, the long-term range was assessed over the period 1994-2017 but the resulting stable trend is assumed to apply also to the default trend period of 1994-2018. It should be noted that one 8120 habitat site was surveyed through the NSUH within this reporting period compared with five sites in the last reporting period, therefore limiting the conclusions that can be made.
The number of 10km squares in the Range (28) is four squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS 2013a) due to 8120 habitat recorded in the Caha Mountains (Perrin et al. 2014b) (two squares) and Knocknarea, Sligo (Coillte Biodiversity Dataset) (two squares). The change in Range is due to improved knowledge within the current reporting period rather than due to genuine change.
Favourable Reference Range has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS 2013a) to reflect the improved level of knowledge. The Favourable Reference Range is the current range, reported in Section 4.1. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1975 when original survey work for the Habitat Assignment Project commenced and incorporates updates made by surveys between 2004 and 2017 that are listed in Section 3.2.
Area was calculated from the polygon shapefile and point shapefile used for distribution. For each point record not intersecting within a polygon that was yielding an area (28 points), 400 m2 of habitat was estimated. This was based on expert opinion applied in the previous reporting period and carried over to this reporting period in order to maintain consistency.
During the current reporting period three datasets with 8120 habitat recorded within them were utilised; Area was only fully assessed by the NSUH dataset (Perrin et al. 2014b). The NSUH site (Caha Mountains SAC (000093)) represents 0.14% of the total area of 8120 habitat recorded in Ireland, limiting the conclusions that can be made.
More detailed survey work of the 8120 habitat is needed, and it is expected that the area listed in Section 5.2 will be refined as more in-depth mapping of the 8120 habitat is completed. In particular, any area represented within the dataset by only a point needs to be surveyed in more detail. In addition to refining the areas of 8120 habitat currently known, there are probably still areas of unmapped 8120 habitat within the country. The area value entered is therefore a minimum.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be stable. At the sample of sites covered by the NSUH (from the current and previous reporting periods) there is no evidence of loss of habitat since 2005. The period over which the short-term trend was examined was 2005-2014 but the trend is assumed to be the same for the default trend period of 2007-2018.
Long-term trend in Area was also deemed to be stable, assessed over the period 1995–2014. This is assumed to be the case also for the default trend period 1994-2018. There were minor losses of area recorded at one NSUH site, Ben Bulben, Gleniff and Glenade Complex SAC (000623), pre-2005, due to tracks and activities associated with quarrying (Perrin et al. 2013a). However, there were also minor gains in 8120 habitat at the same site, post-2005, due to landslides. The overall nett loss of habitat area at this site was less than 1% per year. Scaled up to a national level, Area was assessed as Favourable in the last reporting period (NPWS 2013a), as the loss of habitat was so small it did not impact on the Favourable Reference Area (FRA). Although the loss is not considered to be significant at a national scale, small losses in area at the site level may be important and conservation measures should be implemented to counteract these losses.
FRA is deemed to be approximately equal to the current area. There is no information showing that an enlarged area is necessary for either typical species to reach favourable conservation status or for the necessary structures and functions to exist, therefore the surface area of the habitat when the Directive came into force in 1994 is taken to be the FRA. Whilst this figure is unknown it is deemed to be approximately equal to the current area as there is no evidence of significant declines since this time.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is due to the availability of more accurate knowledge of the area of habitat 8120, resulting in the refinement of some area estimates from the last reporting period. This refinement occurred in the Crockauns and Cope’s Mountain area in County Sligo where in the last reporting period Blanket Bog NHA mapping data (certainty 3) recorded an estimated 0.0158 km2 8120 habitat present, but Martin et al. (2018) (certainty 3) recorded and mapped 0.0257 km2 in this reporting period resulting in a nett gain of 0.0099 km2. Additional surveys in this reporting period resulted in an addition of 0.037 km2 8120 habitat which was previously unmapped. There has been no genuine change in area of 8120 habitat ((0.836+0.0099) + 0.037= 0.883 km2). ||
->HabCondition: The NSUH (Perrin et al. 2014a) assessed Structure and functions at a monitoring stop level, using criteria to assess vegetation composition (including typical species), vegetation structure and physical structure. Criteria were adapted from the UK’s Common Standards Monitoring (JNCC 2009) using expert judgement. The NSUH primarily assesses SACs and is currently incomplete. No monitoring stops were recorded within this reporting period; however the 8120 habitat located in the Caha Mountains SAC (000093) was assessed as Favourable for Structure and functions based on expert judgement (Perrin et al. 2014b).
As no monitoring stops were recorded within 8120 in this reporting period, and the area assessed as being in good condition based on expert judgement only represents 0.14% of the national area of 8120 habitat, data from the last reporting period were utilised. During the last reporting period 66.7% of the 8120 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS 2013a). This equates to 0.59km2 of the current area of 8120 habitat and this figure is used as both the minimum and maximum area in good condition. 33.3% of the 8120 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS 2013a). This equates to 0.29 km2 of the current area of 8120 habitat and this figure is used as both the minimum and maximum area that is in not-good condition.
The most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment in the last reporting period were ‘number of indicative ferns and Saxifraga species’, ‘number of positive indicator species’, ‘disturbed ground in the local vicinity’ and ‘proportion of vegetation composed of non-native species’ (NPWS 2013a).
The short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was taken to be stable as there is no evidence that status has actually declined since the last reporting period. The trend was examined over the period 2007-2014 but is assumed to be the same for the default trend period of 2007-2018. In fact, based on very limited data, conclusions could be made that the status has improved. As this conclusion would be solely related to one site representing 0.14% of the national 8120 habitat area, the trend was taken as stable rather than increasing based on expert opinion.
Typical indicator species for 8120 habitat are: Asplenium adiantum-nigrum, Asplenium ruta-muraria, Asplenium trichomanes, Asplenium viride, Carex pulicaris, Ceterach officinarum, Cystopteris fragilis, Dryas octopetala, Geranium lucidum, Geranium robertianum, Hieracium spp. (count as one), Koeleria macrantha, Oxalis acetosella, Phegopteris connectilis, Polystichum aculeatum, Polystichum lonchitis, Polystichum setiferum, Saxifraga aizoides, Saxifraga oppositifolia, Silene acaulis, Teucrium scorodonia, Thalictrum alpinum and Tortella tortuosa. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current range is equal to Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, as no change in Range is expected based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Stable.
Current area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Stable, as no change in Area is expected based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction is Stable for habitat that is in Good condition.
Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable as <90% of habitat is in “Good” condition. In fact, approximately 33.3% of 8120 habitat is in poor condition, which equates to Unfavourable-Bad Structure and functions. However, due to insufficient data from this reporting period this 33.3% was carried over from the last reporting period. It was decided during the previous reporting period (NPWS 2013a) that an Unfavourable-Inadequate assessment was more appropriate “on the basis of an imprecise understanding of the ecology and the requirement to review the assessment criteria” (NPWS 2013a). The assessment of Unfavourable-Inadequate was retained for this reporting period as the pressures and threats have been carried over from the previous reporting period, there has been no enhancement of the understanding of the ecology of the habitat, and no review of the assessment criteria has been undertaken.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as Negative, as the threat of A09 (overgrazing) is expected to have a negative influence on Structure and functions, irrespective of the conservation measure CA03, as this is not a targeted measure for the 8120 habitat, nor is it implemented across the national distribution of the habitat.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Poor. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range and Area are Favourable in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Inadequate in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate, as it was during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Inadequate during the current reporting period was due to <90% of the area of 8120 habitat being assessed as having Favourable Structure and functions.
Overall Trend in Conservation Status was assessed as stable in this reporting period, as it was during the last reporting period. ||
->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 Overall stable ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; and (ii) the current Area is approximately equal to 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 good; 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 are 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 increasing to stable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The slight decrease in range is due to the new range tool. ||
->Coverage: The area estimate is based on an automatic classification using the 50 meter height model from Lantmäteriet with a 'cut off' value of 23 degrees. Then information of bedrock is added to separate siliceous from calcareous.

Regarding area estimates of the habitats 8110, 8120, 8210 and 8220 the values from 2013 have been used. This is because a new height model, based on laser scanning, is in progress. If weather conditions are good, it will be complete during the summer of 2019. This will provide much better data on where and how much rocky screes and slopes there are. The plan is to do a complete overview of these habitats when the height model is complete. ||
->HabCondition: The short term trend of habitat in good condition is considered stable mainly based on information from NILS and the County Administrative Boards. The status of the entire area is not known. However, there are no indications of pressures/threats which could lead to any other conclusion than favourable (apart from the glaciers). The guidelines says that a favourable assessment requires at least 90 % of the area in ‘good’ condition and no more than 10 % ‘unknown’. Consequently, a pragmatic approach has been used, just performing a simple percentage exercise in order to meet these requirements. An effect of this is the production of what appears to be very exact numbers, though in reality just dividing them in 90 % and 10 % groups. ||
->Future: Future prospects of parameters range/area/structure and functions are heavily based on the assessment of ‘pressures and threats’, in particular the ‘threat’ part, since this is focusing on the future. Due to the absence of data indicating negative future prospects within the considered time period this habitat is assessed as having ‘good future prospects’ for all parameters. ||
->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: 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. Despite the area covered by the habitat has decreased since the previous period (3R), FRA (5.13) is approximately equal to (≈) as a consequence of a better knowledge and/or more accurate data rather then to a genuine change ||
->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: Surface area of Range of this habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Range area was used. ||
->Coverage: Area covered by habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Surface area was used. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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