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: Pressions/menaces très différentes entre les parties basses de vallées alpines et les zones d'altitude. ||
->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 increased 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: Powierzchnia zasięgu zmieniła się z 313 na 2400 km2, głównie w wyniku innego sposobu jej obliczania.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Stan rozpoznania zasobów siedliska jest lepszy niż w poprzednim cyklu raportowania, lecz w dalszym ciągu niepełny.
W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na 1-2 km2. Był to szacunek ekspercki. W obecnym raporcie wartość ta jest znacznie niższa i wynosi co najmniej 4 ha (Beskid Śląski 2,64 ha, B. Mały 0,72 ha, Gorce 0,26 ha, Bieszczady 0,26 ha, Tatry 0,08 ha, Ostoja Popradzka - nieznana). Została ustalona na podstawie danych z bazy GDOŚ, które zweryfikowano porównując z PZO i planami ochrony parków narodowych. Nie potwierdzono występowania siedliska w Beskidzie Żywieckim (PZO dla Beskidu Żywieckiego), natomiast powierzchnia w Gorcach i Bieszczadach jest mniejsza niż wykazana w bazie GDOŚ i wynosi po 0,26 ha (plany ochrony GPN i BdPN).
Trend krótkoterminowy został określony na podstawie wyników PMŚ , prowadzonego na zaledwie 3 stanowiskach (2 w Beskidzie Śląskim, 1 w Ostoi Popradzkiej). ||
->HabCondition: Przy ocenie stanu siedliska korzystano głównie z danych Monitoringu Siedlisk GIOŚ, który obejmuje zaledwie 3 stanowiska: 2 w Beskidzie Śląskim i 1 w Ostoi Popradzkiej.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ||
->Coverage: Surfaces of habitat 8220 are really difficult to estimate accurately as most of habitat patches have a very complex spatial tri-dimensional extension. All known surfaces of the habitat in the Atlantic Region are included in the Natura 2000 network, but the habitat might also occur in quarries outside Natura 2000 sites, even if we cannot expect big and representative surfaces of habitat 8220 in quarries of the Atlantic Region. The current estimation of known sites is ~ 1.23 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 taken 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: kein Audit-Trail, da erstmalig bewertet ||
->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: L'intégration des communautés situées sur le littoral fait l'objet de divergences d'interprétation, les récents travaux sur l'interprétation des habitats d'intérêt communautaire animés par le MNHN tendent à une intégration de ces communautés à l'habitat UE 1230 "falaises littorales". Ce changement d'interprétation n'aura probablement pas d'impact notable sur la surface d'habitat à l'échelle de la région biogéographique atlantique. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation FV des Structures et fonction - Au sein des sites Natura 2000 qui représentent un échantillon représentatif de l'habitat, l'état est majoritairement jugé favorable ||
->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 8220 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km 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 2007-2016 is stable and it is assumed that this is valid also over the default trend period of 2007-2018. Similarly, long-term trend was assessed as stable over the period 1994-2016 and this is assumed to be valid over the default long-term period of 1994-2018. It should be noted that the NSUH surveyed two 8220 habitat sites within this reporting period compared with 13 sites in the last reporting period, therefore limiting the conclusions that can be made.
The number of 10km squares in the range (181) is 23 squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS 2013a) due to 8220 habitat recorded at Horn Head, Donegal (Hodd 2016) (five squares), Nowen Hill, Cork (Hodd 2015b) (one square), Slieve Mish Mountains (Perrin et al. 2014b) (three squares), Tibradden Mountain and Barnaslingan, Wicklow (three squares), the Vale of Avoca, The Devil’s Glen, Carrick Mountain and Ballinastraw, Wicklow (three squares), Crownarad, Donegal (one square) and Doomore, Slieve Daeane and Carran Hill, Sligo (seven squares) (Coillte Biodiversity Dataset). 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 2006 and 2016 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, 2000 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. Points intersecting within site boundaries of surveys carried out within the current reporting period, but not within 8220 habitat polygons, were examined individually, with all excluded for area.
During the current reporting period 22 datasets with 8220 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 5.5% of the total area of 8220 habitat recorded in Ireland, limiting the conclusions that can be made.
More detailed survey work of the 8220 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 8220 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 8220 habitat currently known, there are probably still areas of unmapped 8220 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 and this is assumed to be valid also over the default trend period of 2007-2018. At the sample of sites covered by the NSUH there is no evidence of loss of habitat since 2005. Similarly, long-term trend in Area was assessed as stable over the period 1995-2014 and is assumed to be stable over the default long-term trend period of 1994-2018.
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 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 8220, resulting in the refinement of some large area estimates from the last reporting period. The majority of this refinement occurred in the Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185) and Caha Mountains SAC (000093) in Counties Cork and Kerry, with smaller refinements made to habitat 8220 area estimates in the Ox Mountains in County Sligo and Djouce Mountain in County Wicklow. Collectively there was a nett decrease of 1.536 km2 in the reported area of 8220 habitat between the previous reporting period and this reporting period due to the availability of more accurate information. Additional surveys in this reporting period resulted in an addition of 0.820 km2 8220 habitat which was previously unmapped. There has been no genuine change in area of 8220 habitat ((16.135-1.536) + 0.820 = 15.42 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. A total of eight monitoring stops were recorded across both NSUH sites surveyed within this reporting period. There were no failures of any criteria. For full details see the NSUH site reports (Perrin et al. 2014b, 2014c). One relevé located in Co. Kerry, recorded in 8220 habitat as part of the Clubmoss Monitoring Survey (O’Neill et al., in prep.), was also utilised to assess the Structure and functions. This relevé lacks details pertaining to criteria which assess vegetation composition and structure, and physical structure, within the local vicinity of stops, and therefore represents a “best case” situation in this area for Structure and functions of 8220 habitat. There were no failures of any criteria assessed using the data from the Clubmoss Monitoring Survey (O’Neill et al., in prep.).
Of the sites assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period (covering an area of approximately 0.85 km2), 100% 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. For the relevé from the Rare Plant Species Monitoring Survey, only the actual footprint of the relevé (1 m2) could be used as no data from the local vicinity were recorded. The proportion in good condition (100%) and not-good condition (0%) was scaled up to the national estimate (15.42 km2 in good condition and 0 km2 in not-good condition); however as the area assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period only represents 5.5% of the national area of habitat 8220, data from the last reporting period were also utilised.
During the last reporting period 86.05% of the 8220 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS 2013a). This equates to 13.27 km2 of the current area of 8220 habitat and this figure is used as the minimum area in good condition. 13.95% of the 8220 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS 2013a). This equates to 2.15 km2 of the current area of 8220 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 ‘proportion of vegetation composed of non-native species’ and ‘number of positive indicator species present’ (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 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) with a poor national sample size, the trend was taken as stable based on expert opinion. The period over which the trend was examined was 2007-2016, and the assessment of stable is assumed to be valid also for the default trend period of 2007-2018.
Typical indicator species for the 8220 habitat are: Asplenium adiantum-nigrum, Athyrium filix-femina, Blechnum spicant, Dryopteris spp. (count separately), Hymenophyllum tunbridgense, Hymenophyllum wilsonii, Saxifraga spathularis and Sedum rosea. ||
->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. A maximum estimate of 14% of 8220 habitat is in poor condition which equates to Unfavourable-Inadequate Structure and functions. As there are no high-importance pressures or threats recorded within 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 I02 is expected to have a negative influence on Structure and functions. There is only a small niche for plant species representative of 8220 habitat, so even if a small area within the 8220 habitat is taken up by an invasive species, the native indicator species are displaced. This pressure will only become more significant when combined with the effects of climate change on the 8220 habitat. There is no current conservation measure in place to control the spread of Epilobium brunnescens within the 8220 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 8220 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: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration ||
->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 between c.5-25% 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 poor.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-inadequate and none 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  

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: 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. The latest inventory shows problems with garbages and pollution

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The increase in range is mainly due to the new range toool. ||
->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 8220 are 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 methodlogical improvement for the assessment of the habitat surfaces, and no major creations or losses, so the surface is considered stable. Nevertheless, the information coming from a partial monitoring that has started thanks to Life BNIP seems to show the share of habitat surface located 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 siliceous rocky sites. Before 2013, there is no sufficient representative information at biogeographical level to allow an estimate of trends. There has been very little management of habitat 8220, and most of its surface has been let to its natural evolution, as it has been for decades, so the trend cannot be calculated. Anyway, the analysis of data collected in 2018 show that a majority of sites are in a not-good conditon, mainly due to tree development. The share of habitat in not-good condition is clearly higher than 25 % of the total surface area of the habitat. ||
->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. TH) bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber nur teilweise tatsächliche Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->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: Différenciation très marquée de l'état de l'habitat entre les grands massifs siliceux (Vosges, Massif central) et le reste du domaine où l'habitat est beaucoup plus rare (Morvan, affleurements siliceux ponctuels) et très souvent en situation secondaire ma ||
->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: The indicated difference in range area compared to the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: finalisation of the national inventory of biotopes outside woodlands, monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018).
Because of this improved knowledge, we do not consider the reduced range compared to the last reporting period as a real loss but rather as more accurate data. ||
->Coverage: The indicated difference in surface area since the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018) and genuine change. Most surfaces of this habitat type were found inside forest areas (some 96% after 2/3 of forest areas have been investigated). 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 area in comparison with last reporting period as real gain but rather as more accurate data.
During the initial survey, 11,13 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 30% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 showing a slight decrease (some 3%) of this habitat type. Additional 269,6675 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas while additional 0,9607ha were surveyed outside wooded areas, the latter result being not systematic. ||
->HabCondition: Data concerning habitat condition is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 30% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
77% of the originally surveyed area and 89% of the monitored area.Over 96% of the area of this habitat type was found within forest areas with over 90% in good condition. On the other hand, monitoring outside forest areas showed a slight decrease of the area under good condition (minus 2% within the monitoring sample). Because of these somehow contradictory information, we report the short trend (6.4.) as "uncertain". ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: During the initial survey, 11,1 ha of this habitat type were mapped, 77% of which were in good condition. 30% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018. 89% of the monitored sample were in good condition.
Additional 269,7 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas (91% in good condition) while additional 1 ha was surveyed outside wooded areas, the latter result being not systematic. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zasięg siedliska w regionie prawdopodobnie będzie większy niż w poprzednim raporcie dzięki stanowiskom odnalezionym w Rybotyczach i Huwnikach w Ostoi Przemyskiej.
Powierzchnia zasięgu zwiększyła się z 9 355 do 10800 km2
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: W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na 2,5 km2, a na sieć Natura 2000 przypadało 1-2 km2. Aktualne dane są zgodne z tym szacunkiem. Wg danych GDOŚ powierzchnia siedliska w obszarach N2000 wynosi ok. 200 ha. Areał, lokalizację i stan ochrony siedliska w Ostoi Przemyskiej określono za PZO tego obszaru (powierzchnia 3 stanowisk wynosi 0,24 ha). Można przyjąć, że w regionie siedlisko zajmuje ok. 250 ha.
Trend krótkoterminowy został określony na podstawie wyników PMŚ , prowadzonego na 56 stanowiskach, reprezentujących głównie Sudety i ich pogórze. Wskazują one na generalnie stabilną powierzchnię siedliska. W Ostoi Przemyskiej i Świętokrzyskim PN kondycja siedliska jest dobra, powierzchnia stabilna. Brak bardziej szczegółowych informacji o stanie ochrony i trendach zmian kondycji siedliska w innych częściach Gór Świętokrzyskich. ||
->HabCondition: Przy ocenie stanu siedliska korzystano z danych PMŚ, który obejmuje 56 stanowisk zlokalizowanych w Sudetach i na ich przedgórzu. W Ostoi Przemyskiej (PZO) i Świętokrzyskim PN (plan ochrony) kondycja siedliska jest dobra, powierzchnia stabilna.
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: Ogólny trend stanu ochrony określono na podstawie wyników PMŚ.
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 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: 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: 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 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 (25) and the algorithm cited in Tsiripidis et al. (2018). ||
->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: Progression des atteintes multiples en relation avec l'accroissement des pressions anthropiques. ||
->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: 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. 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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report