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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Souvent établies en contexte fortement humanisé, en particulier à proximité d’agglomérations, les parois rocheuses peuvent subir des pressions anthropiques importantes.
Ouverture de carrières, activités d’escalade et de varappe ou sécurisation par des grillages de protection menacent leur intégrité et font disparaitre les espèces les plus fragiles ou les plus sensibles au dérangement. Plus insidieusement, les aérosols de polluants contribuent, au moins localement, à modifier les communautés bryo-lichéniques des parois. ||
->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 921 na 1100 km2, głównie ze względu na inny 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: Siedlisko w regionie ALP występuje w: Tatrach (2 ha), Pieninach (2 ha), Małych Pieninach (0,02 ha) i Pienińskim Pasie Skałkowym (oszacowane na ok. 0,02 ha).
Powierzchnia siedliska została podana na podstawie zsumowania powierzchni siedliska w parkach narodowych (wg planów ochrony) i obszarze Natura 2000 Małe Pieniny (wg PZO) i oszacowania w Pienińskim Pasie Skałkowym.
Właściwy areał referencyjny określony jako równy aktualnemu i rzeczywistej powierzchni zajmowanej w 2013 roku, choć liczbowo jest to wartość znacznie mniejsza, niż podana w 2013 roku (4,5 km).
Powierzchnia siedliska ulega prawdopodobnie stopniowemu zmniejszeniu, w wyniku zarastania ścian skalnych przez drzewa i krzewy. Nieoszacowano jednak precyzyjnie tempa tego zarastania, brak danych porównawczych, prawdopodobnie nie osiaga granicznej wartości ok. 1% rocznie. Dlatego trend krótkoterminowy określono jako stabilny (tak, jak poprzednio; długoterminowy jako nieznany, aktualnie nie określono go, ze względu na brak precyzyjnych danych).
Nastąpiła zmiana wartości powierzchni siedliska w stosunku do poprzednich raportów (2007 i 2013), ze względu na wykorzystanie najnowszych danych z projektów planów ochrony parków narodowych i obszarów Natura 2000.
Poprzednio oszacowano powierzchnię na ok. 4,5 km2, opierając się na oszacowaniu powierzchni dostępnych siedlisk (powierzchni potencjalnej): powierzchnia ścian skalnych w Tatrach wg. Corine land cover: 13 % pow. obszaru. Ponad połowa (ok. 60-70%) z tego, to skały granitowe. Z pozostałych założono, że najwyżej 1/3 spełnia warunki właściwego podłoża dla siedliska (wysokośc npm), czyli max. 2%, co daje maksymalną pow. ok. 4 km2 w Tatrach; w Pieninach i Pienińskim Pasie Skałkowym podobna metoda oceniana powierzchni daje wartość poniżej 0,5 km2. W tym powierzchnia dla podtypu 8210-1 wysokogórskich zbiorowisk szczelinowych, zależna od powierzchni zajętej przez zespół Drabo-Artemisietum, oceniony na ok. 2 km.

Źródła informacji:
Tatry: http://krokus.tpn.pl/du/krameko/pliki/15042015/pliki/TEKST_SYNTEZY.pdf
Pieniny: http://www.pieninypn.pl/files/img/fck/8910195/pieninskipn/File/Plan%20ochrony/Projekt_rozporzadzenia_planu_ochrony_PPN.pdf
Małe Pieniny: http://krakow.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/22632/pieniny_szablon.pdf ||
->HabCondition: W poprzednim raporcie (2013) nie korzystano z danych monitoringu GIOŚ, gdyż nie był prowadzony na stanowiskach w regionie alpejskim. Struktura i funkcja została oceniona na podstawie obserwacji eksperckich, biorąc pod uwagę listę wskaźników struktury i funkcji.
Aktualnie w dalszym ciągu nie prowadzono monitoringu GIOŚ na stanowiskach w regionie alpejskim .
Stan zachowania został oceniony w ramach prac nad projektami planów ochronnych parków i obszaru Natura 2000. Jako nieznay został okeślony stan siedliska w Pienińskim Pasie Skałkowym i w drobnej części powierzchni pozostałych obszarów.
Trend uznany za stabilny na podstawie doświadczenia eksperckiego ||
->Future: Zasięg i Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie jest aktualnie stabilna , choć niewielka, ale uzależniona od obecności odpowiedniego podłoża i oceniona na FV, także Struktura i funkcje oraz Perspektywy ochrony ocenione zostały na FV, tak jak poprzednio. Zagrożeniem jest powolny, postępujący proces sukcesji.
Perspektywy poprawia fakt wdrożenia działań ochrony czynnej.

Źródłem informacji są plany ochrony parków narodowych i PZO obszaru Natura 2000. ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie wszystkie parametry zostały ocenione jako FV, tak jak w 2013 roku.
Brak zmian w stosunku do poprzedniego raportu, choć poprzednio był on wykonany na podstawie danych eksperckich, a aktualnie na podstawie danych z planów ochrony parków narodowych i PZO obszaru Natura 2000. ||
->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 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 due to the change of 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: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Detailed mapping of Natura 2000 sites allowed to find new locations of the habitat very close to the Continental Region. Nevertheless, as the habitat may occur in active quarries (outside the Natura 2000 network), whose access is difficult, the range might be corrected and enlarged in the future if new localities are found. ||
->Coverage: Surfaces of habitat 8210 are really difficult to estimate accurately as most of habitat patches have a very complex spatial tri-dimensional extension. Furthermore, some sites are in private properties (including quarries) outside Natura 2000 sites and their access is complicated, so exhaustive mapping is not yet done, even if surfaces of calcareous cliffs that can be considered habitat 8210 are very limited in the Walloon Atlantic region (low representativeness). The current estimation of known sites is ~ 1.9 ha, but a maximal value of 3 ha is provided taking into account the possibility to discover new disseminated sites outside the Natura 2000 network. ||
->HabCondition: Due to the very low individual surfaces, the lack of connectivity between patches, and the lack of management, habitat 8210 cannot be considered in good condition in the Atlantic Region. Trends cannot be assessed as no dedicated monitoring has been set in place yet for this very marginal habitat in the Atlantic Region. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: overall trend unknown because one parameter with unknown trend which could be stable, increasing but also decreasing… ||
->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: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 8210 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated over the period 2007-2016, 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 trend is assumed to be the same over the default period of 2007-2018. A similar assumption was made for the long-term trend, which was assessed over the period 1994-2016. The short-term and long-term trends are stable. It should be noted that the NSUH surveyed two 8210 habitat sites within this reporting period compared with 10 sites in the last reporting period, therefore limiting the conclusions that can be made.
The number of 10km squares in the Range (124) is 14 squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013a) due to 8210 habitat recorded in the Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185) (five squares) and Caha Mountains SAC (000093) (six squares) by Perrin et al. (2014b, 2014c) and in The Devil’s Glen, Wicklow (from Coillte Biodiversity Dataset) (three 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 2016 that are listed in Section 3.2. Points representing hectad species records (dating from 1959 onwards) did not contribute to area.
Area was calculated from the polygon shapefile and point shapefile used for distribution. For each point not intersecting within a polygon that was yielding an area, and located outside of a designated area, 100 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. For points representing 8210 habitat within a designated site, a habitat percentage of 0.01% was used (in the case of multiple points within the one SAC, only one point was assigned area); this estimate is based on the mean percentage coverage for 8210 habitat for the NSUH sites where it is recorded from predominantly siliceous bedrock areas. For more details refer to NPWS (2013a).
During the current reporting period 11 datasets with 8210 habitat recorded within them were utilised; Area was only fully assessed by the NSUH datasets (Perrin et al., 2014b, 2014c). The two NSUH sites (Caha Mountains SAC (000093) and Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185)) represent 2.3% of the total area of 8210 habitat recorded in Ireland, limiting the conclusions that can be made.
More detailed survey work of the 8210 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 8210 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 8210 habitat currently known, there are probably still areas of unmapped 8210 habitat within the country. The area value entered is therefore a minimum.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be stable over the period 2005-2014. At the sample of sites covered by the NSUH there is no evidence of loss of habitat since 2005.This trend is assumed to be valid also for the default trend period of 2007-2018. A similar assumption was made for the long-term trend, which was assessed as stable over the period 1995-2014.
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) is deemed to be approximately equal to the current area. There is no information showing that an enlarged area is necessary either for typical species to reach favourable conservation status or for the necessary structure 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 data of the area of habitat 8210, resulting in a refinement of some area estimates from the last reporting period. This refinement occurred at Knocknarea, County Sligo and Crockauns, County Leitrim. Collectively there was a nett increase in reported 8210 habitat of 0.0814 km2 between the previous reporting period and this reporting period due to the availability of more accurate data. A calculation error in the previous reporting period was detected in this reporting period, and resulted in a reduction of the previously reported area by 0.0008 km2. An addition of 0.1722 km2 of previously unmapped 8210 habitat added to the reported surface area in the previous reporting period. There is no evidence of genuine change in area of 8210 habitat during the current reporting period ((2.846 – 0.0008) + 0.0814 + 0.1722 = 3.10 km2). ||
->HabCondition: The NSUH (Perrin et al., 2014a) assesses 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. A total of seven monitoring stops were recorded across the two NSUH sites surveyed within this reporting period. Two of the seven stops (28.6% of stops) failed the criteria assessing the number of positive indicator species present and / or the proportion of vegetation composed of non-native species. For full details see the NSUH site reports (Perrin et al., 2014b, 2014c).
Of the sites assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period (measuring an area of 0.07 km2), 71.4% of the area was assessed as being in good condition (Favourable). Equal weighting was given to each of the stops as each one assesses a comparable area of habitat. The proportion in good and not-good condition was scaled up to the national estimate (2.21 km2 in good condition and 0.89 km2 in not-good condition), however as the area assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period only represents 2.3% of the national area of habitat 8210, data from the last reporting period were also utilised.
During the last reporting period 64% of the 8210 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013a). This equates to 1.98 km2 of the current area of 8210 habitat and this figure is used as the minimum area in good condition. 36% of the 8210 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS, 2013a). This equates to 1.12 km2 of the current area of 8210 habitat and this figure is used as the 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 the ‘proportion of vegetation composed of non-native species’ and ‘number of indicative ferns and Saxifraga species’ (NPWS, 2013a).
The short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was taken to be stable as, based on the data recorded during this reporting period, there is no evidence that status has actually declined since the last reporting period. In fact, based on limited data, conclusions could be made that the status has improved; however, as this is based mainly on data from one part of the country (southwest Ireland: Cork and Kerry), the trend was taken as stable based on expert opinion. The trend was assessed over the period 2007-2014 but is assumed to be valid also for the default period of 2007-2018.
Typical indicator species for 8210 habitat are: Alchemilla alpina, Asplenium adiantum-nigrum, Asplenium ruta-muraria, Asplenium trichomanes, Asplenium viride, Carex pulicaris, Ceterach officinarum, Cystopteris fragilis, Draba incana, Dryas octopetala, Hieracium spp. (count as one), Koeleria macrantha, Neckera crispa, Orthothecium rufescens, Persicaria vivipara, Phegopteris connectilis, Phyllitis scolopendrium, Polystichum aculeatum, Polystichum lonchitis, Polystichum setiferum, Preissia quadrata, Saxifraga aizoides, Saxifraga hypnoides, Saxifraga oppositifolia, Selaginella selaginoides, Silene acaulis, 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 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. It is estimated based on data from the current and previous reporting periods that somewhere between 28.6% and 36% of 8210 habitat is in poor condition, which equates to Unfavourable-Bad Structure and functions. During the previous reporting period it was decided that an Unfavourable-Inadequate assessment was more appropriate due to a lack of information on the severity of the threat posed by Epilobium brunnescens, the presence of which was one of the main reasons for stops failing in both this reporting period and the last. As the pressures and threats recorded within the previous reporting period were carried over to this reporting period, the assessment of Unfavourable-Inadequate was retained for this reporting period.
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 8210 habitat, nor is it implemented across the national distribution of the habitat. In addition to this threat, there is no current conservation measure in place to control the spread of Epilobium brunnescens within the 8210 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 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 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 is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - stable, and Structure and functions - increasing. If the negative future trend in Structure and functions is also taken into account, the Overall trend would be stable. ||
->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: Changes due to more precise data and improvement on habitat area mapping ||
->HabCondition: During EU habitat mapping all plant species descibed. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No data to compare and justify any treshold for trends ||
->Other: Located in places with comparatively small impact; existing economic interests and also traditions provide habitat conservation. Serious erosion damages have not been found. Large area with a great diversity of micro relief. There is large number of moss and lichen species, many of them are rare and relevant only to this habitat. Area of anthropogenic damages (scratches) decreases; this can be explained with public education activities taking place.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The 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  

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: Inventory of major existing sites thanks to Life BNIP and detailed mapping of Natura 2000 sites allowed to find new locations of the habitat ||
->Coverage: Surfaces of habitat 8210 are really difficult to estimate accurately as most of habitat patches have a very complex spatial tri-dimensional extension. Furthermore, some sites are in private properties (including quarries) outside Natura 2000 sites and their access is complicated, so exhaustive mapping is not yet done. Surfaces estimated in 2013 were mainly estimated through extrapolation from information coming from Natura 2000 sites mapping (horizontal projections). There has been no methodological improvement for the assessment of the habitat surfaces, and no major creations or losses, so the surface is considered stable. Nevertheless, through a partial monitoring that has started thanks to Life BNIP, it seems that the share of habitat inside the Natura 2000 network is more important than expected, so the surface area of habitat inside the network has been re-evaluated. ||
->HabCondition: A first inventory of rocky habitats and their structures and functions has started during the 2013-2018 reporting period thanks to the Life BNIP. It is not yet complete, but extrapolation has been made from the observations of the most important parameters on this sample of calcareous rocky sites. Before 2013, there is no sufficient representative information at biogeographical level to allow an estimate of trends. Some restoration actions took place on a limited amount of sites, while other sites have been let to their natural evolution (including development of shrubs and trees) or undergone human impact (securing roads, railways, climbing activities), and it is not yet possible to know how those different effects balance, and which is the general trend for habitat 8210 at biogeographical level. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: As no dedicated monitoring of the habitats structures and functions was set in the previous reporting period, we prefer to consider that trend for this parameter and thus for the conservation status is unknown ||
->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 in Teilen des Verbreitungsgebiets (z. B. RP und TH) bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Aufgrund der hohen regionalen Variabilität des Lebensraumtyps, sind die Flächenanteile der Zustände nur schwer einschätzbar. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass der relativ hohe unbekannt-Anteil eine ähnliche Verteilung von guten und schlechten Zuständen aufweist wie der bekannte Anteil und somit die angenommene Schwelle von 75 % der Flächen in gutem Zustand überschritten wird. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Abweichend von der Empfehlung in den Guidelines bei einer FV-Bewertung der Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen einen Schwellenwert von 90 % Flächenanteil in gutem Zustand anzuwenden, wurde in Deutschland im Regelfall der Schwellenwert von 80 % beibehalten, um unter anderem die Kontinuität zu den vorherigen Bewertungen zu wahren. ||
->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: Because of the nature of this habitat type and the increased knowledge mainly due to the mapping in forest areas, we do not consider the grown range in comparison with last reporting period as real gain but rather as more accurate data. ||
->Coverage: Because of the habitat type and the increased knowledge mainly due to the mapping in forest areas, we do not consider the grown area in comparison with last reporting period as real gain but rather as more accurate data.
Data is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 53% of this all habitat type (2016-2018), the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far) and additional areas outside wooded areas (not systematic).
The area of the habitat type was partly extrapolated from a mixed habitat type used in the country-wide survey grouping habitat types 8160 and 8210 with nationally protected biotopes. During the monitoring from 2016 to 2018, the proportion of the different habitat types within the mixed habitat type was estimated. This estimation was used to estimate the total area of the different habitat types based on the complete inventory of the mixed habitat type as surveyed from 2007 to 2012.
During the initial survey, 4,5033 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 53% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 (not considering biotope complexes). Depending on the biotope complexe, 9% to 62% were considered as corresponding to 8210. Additionnally, 21,3651 ha were mapped during the country wide survey of forest areas (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far) and 0,1265 ha were new observations outside forest areas (not systematic).
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original, not monitored area multiplied by the negative trend determined within the random sample, the area within the 67% of surveyed forests, the area discovered by chance and the monitored area (biotope complexes and other). The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original, not monitored area, plus the area within biotope complexes calculated proportionally to the total area of the biotope complexes plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100% plus the monitored area plus the area discovered by chance. ||
->HabCondition: 68% of the originally surveyed area and 53% of the monitored area were in good condition. Over 82% of the area of this habitat type was found within forest areas with over 94% in good condition. Monitoring outside forest areas showed a slight decrease of the area under good condition (minus 5% within the monitoring sample). Because of this somehow contradictory information, we report the short trend (6.4.) as "uncertain". ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: During the initial survey, 4,5033 ha of this habitat type were mapped outside biotope complexes, 68% in good condition. 53% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 (not considering biotope complexes). Depending on the biotope complexe, 9% to 62% were considered as corresponding to 8210 (96 resp. 98% in good condition).
Additionnally, 21,3651 ha were mapped during the country wide survey of forest areas and 0,1265 ha were new observations outside forest areas (not systematic). ||
->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 7097 na 6600 km2 głównie ze względu na weryfikację rozmieszczenia siedliska.
. W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Siedlisko słabo zinwentaryzowane w Polsce, znane główne obszary występowania, jednak brak szczegółowych danych o rozmieszczeniu i zajmowanej powierzchni.
Siedlisko w regionie CON występuje w: na Kielecczyźnie, na Jurze Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej, na Wyż. Śląskiej, w Górach Kaczawskich, na Ziemi Kłodzkiej.
Powierzchnia siedliska została podana na podstawie zsumowania oszacowanych powierzchni siedliska w wybranych 24 obszarach Natura 2000 (Dane GDOŚ, w tym część PZO), którą uznano za minimalna powierzchnię siedliska (4,2 km2). Maksymalna to ok. 5 km, obejmująca także oszacowaną powierzchnię w pozostałych obszarach N2000 i tereny poza nimi. Poprzednio (2013) powierzchnia całkowita była oszacowana na ok. 3-4 km2 I był to w pełni szacunek ekspercki.
Istnieje możliwość, że w pojedynczych obszarach powierzchnia została aktualnie przeszacowana, np. W Ostoi Szaniecko-Soleckiej (ok. 81 ha), w Ostoi Stawiany (ok. 12 ha), niemniej całkowita powierzchnia powinna zawierać się w przedziale 4-5 km2.
Właściwy areał referencyjny równy aktualnemu i rzeczywistej powierzchni zajmowanej w 2013 roku.
Trend określono jako stabilny, zgodnie z wynikami PMŚ: w latach 2010/11 oceny FV otrzymało 75% stanowisk monitorowanych, U1 – 14% a U2- 11%. W roku 2017: FV- 89%, a U2- 11%.

Źródła informacji:
Dane GDOŚ dla 24 obszarów Natura 2000, w tym część PZO.
http://wroclaw.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/19814/PLH020019-PROJEKT_PZO_16_06_15-poprawiony_icon.pdf ||
->HabCondition: W monitoring GIOŚ struktura i funkcja na 53 % stanowisk zostało ocenionych na FV, 25% na U1 i 22% na U2.
Trend utrzymania siedliska w dobrym stanie określono jako stabilny, ze względu na wzrost udziału stanowisk w monitoring, dla których Strukturę i funkcje oceniono na FV, równocześnie spadł procent tych, ocenionych na U1.
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 i Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie jest aktualnie stabilna , choć niewielka, ale uzależniona od obecności odpowiedniego podłoża i oceniona na FV, co oznacza dobre perspektywy dla tych parametrów. Struktura i funkcje oraz Perspektywy ochrony ocenione zostały na U1, tak jak poprzednio. Zagrożeniem jest powolny, postępujący proces sukcesji oraz wpływ ruchu turystycznego, w tym wspinaczki.
Perspektywy poprawia fakt wdrożenia działań ochrony czynnej na pojedynczych stanowiskach.
Źródłem informacji są plany ochrony parków narodowych i PZO obszaru Natura 2000, oraz monitoring GIOŚ: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska ||
->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


Źródło informacji: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska ||
->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 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: 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: Range of the habitat type was calculated on the basis of its mapped distribution and a gap distance equal to 2 km. ||
->Coverage: The area covered by the habitat type is reported on the basis of the area of polygons including pure or mixed occurrences of the habitat type. For the polygons with mixed occurrence of the habitat type, the area of the other habitat types within the polygons has been excluded. ||
->HabCondition: The estimation of the habitat type’s area in good or not-good condition has been based on the results of sampling concerning the assessment of the conservation status of structure and functions per habitat type. ||
->Future: Future prospects for the range and area were estimated by best expert judgment, while for structure and function on the basis of the pressures and threats recorded in a limited number of sampling plots (18) and the algorithm cited in Tsiripidis et al. (2018). ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status has been changed to inadequate because according to the sampling conducted during this reporting period in a significant percentage of the plots the habitat type was found with non-favourable conservation status of structure and functions as well as with threats and pressures of high importance, indicating non-favourable prospects of structure and functions ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The surface area of the habitat (5.2) is reported as equal to the area of the habitat within the Natura 2000 network (pSCIs, SCIs and SACs) (11.1), because no recent data are available regarding its distribution outside the network. ||
->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: 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: N/A ||
->Coverage: A decline in the area covered by the habitat is observed between the last and the current reporting cycles due to misinterpretation of the habitat in the last reporting cycle. ||
->HabCondition: The cliff community found in the Maltese Islands is endemic and the species fall under the Dianthion rupicolae alliance, which in turns falls under the Asplenietea trichomanis class. Such community is classified under the 8210 – Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation habitat due to such phytoassociation. The cliffs are characterised by endemic flora including the shrubby Atriplex lanfrancoi (= Cremnophyton lanfrancoi), Cheirolophus crassifolius (= Palaeocyanus crassifolius), Salsola melitensis (= Darniella melitensis), and Helichrysum melitense; sub-endemic taxa such as Jacobaea maritima subsp. sicula, Crucianella rupestris, Senecio leucanthemifolius and Daucus rupestris; and also other species such as Hypericum aegypticum, Coronilla valentina, Phagnalon spp. and Limbarda crithmoides.

Further studies on these communities will be carried out in the near future in order to understand the different zonations and habitats. As such, in the future the Maltese Cliff communities may be classified under another habitat other than 8210. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The change in the overall conservation status is primarily due to change in the methodology used for assessing the ‘Structure and Functions’ parameter of the habitat. Taking into consideration the recommended use of an indicative value of 90% of the habitat type area in ‘good’ condition as a threshold to assess the parameter as ‘Favourable’, lead to an ‘Unfavourable’ assessment of both the parameter per se and the overall assessment. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The data in this report has been mostly updated through habitat surveys carried out by the Environment and Resources Authority in 2017 and 2018. This exercise has enabled the assessment of the distribution and habitat condition with considerable accuracy. Field surveys were also complemented with desk studies, focussing on orthophoto analysis, and additional ground truthing, where possible. In this regard, the Authority has acquired drones with the aim to facilitate and assist future monitoring and surveying of all Annex I habitats.

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: Some important areas of cliff habitat lie close to urbanisation or proposed developments. These could be the subject of cliff stabilisation works in the future, and as such are under threat.

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