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: 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: Area covered by habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Surface area was used. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: 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: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation FV des Structures et fonctions - 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: 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: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The area was estimated from a biogeographical monitoring program conducted 2015-2017 (Glimskär et al. 2018). The estimate is much lower than the total area reported in the NNK and TUVA databases. However, several of the recorded objects in the databases are incorrect (Glimskär et al. 2018) and the area estimates given from the monitoring program should be relatively certain.
In accordance with previous assessments, it is assumed that this habitat does not occur north of Limes norrlandicus. This assumption is based on the notion that many of the characteristic and typical species associated with the habitat are absent or relatively uncommon in the north.

The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

The assessment of a negative trend is for most grassland habitat types supported by data that indicate a continuous abandonment of semi-natural grasslands over the last few decades (e.g. Eriksson & Cousins 2014, Borgegård 2015, Cousins et al. 2015, Wallander & Karlsson 2015, Hägglund et al. 2017, Oja 2018, Spörndly & Glimskär 2018, Tyler et al. 2018, Waldén 2018, Anna Nordberg, unpublished data, Hans Gardfjell, unpublished data). ||
->HabCondition: The areas in good and not-good condition for 8230 was estimated from data on structures and functions, and the presence of plant species, in a biogeographical monitoring programme running 2015-2018 Glimskär et al. 2018, Glimskär et al. unpublished data).

One H-ranked and one M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution) support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->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  

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: aktualizace není schopna postihnout rychlé změny: habitat je značně dynamický v závislosti na chodu počasí

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Lücken in Teilen des Verbreitungsgebiets (z. B. RP, TH) bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->Coverage: regional teilweise Verluste ||
->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: peu ou pas de suivis sur les espèces typiques et peu de données sur les cortèges de bryophytes et de lichens ||
->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 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).
Additionnally, part of the area of the habitat type was extrapolated from a mixed habitat type used in the country-wide survey grouping a mosaic of siliceous rock with pioneer vegetation of the Sedo-Scleranthion or of the Sedo albi-Veronicion dillenii (8230) with acid nutrient poor grasslands (nationally
protected). During the monitoring from 2016 to 2018, the proportion of the different habitat types within the mixed habitat type was estimated. This estimation was now used to calculate the total area of the different habitat types based on the complete inventory of the mixed habitat type as surveyed from 2007 to 2012.
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: During the initial survey, 5,6189 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 18% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 (not considering biotope complexes). Additional 0,3307 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas while additional 0,0109 ha were surveyed outside wooded areas, the latter result being not systematic. Within concerned biotope complexes, 0,31% were considered as corresponding to 8230.
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original, not monitored area, the area within the 67% of surveyed forests, area discovered by chance and the monitored area. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the positive trend determined within the random sample plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100% plus the area discovered by chance. ||
->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 18% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
92% of the originally surveyed area, 86% of the monitored area, 100% found within wooded areas and 90% of the monitored area of biotope complexes were in good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: During the initial survey, 5,6 ha of this habitat type were mapped, 92% of which were in good condition. 18% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 (not considering biotope complexes). 86% of the monitored sample were in good condition.
Additional 0,3 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas (100% in good condition) while additional 0,01 ha were surveyed outside wooded areas, the latter result being not systematic.
Within concerned biotope complexes, 0,31% were considered as corresponding to 8230, 90% in good condition. ||
->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 1765 na 2000 km2 głównie w wyniku zastosowania innej metody jej obliczania.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Siedlisko w regionie CON występuje na terenie Sudetów i ich Pogórzy na ok. 15 stanowiskach (głównie w Górach Kaczawskich – ok.10 stanowisk, na Górze Chojnik (Karkonosze), Wawóz Pełcznicy koło Książa i Góra Witosza (Wzgórza Łomnickie) oraz w Górach Sowich). Tworzy niewielkie, rozproszone płaty, co utrudnia ich inwentaryzację.
Brak kompleksowej inwentaryzacji płatów siedliska po 2013 roku. Możliwe zmiany klasyfikacji poszczególnych płatów w wyniku zmiany podejścia I zaliczenia ich do innych siedlisk naskalnych, zwłaszcza 6110 lub 6190, ze względu na nietypowe wykształcenie (granice zasięgu) i podobne gatunki diagnostyczne.
Powierzchnia siedliska była określona w roku 2012 na znanych 11 stanowiskach siedliska i wynosi łącznie 0,02 km2. Wartość 0,6 km2 wynika z Inwentaryzacji siedlisk Administracji Lasów Państwowych (2007), gdzie taką wielkość łączną siedliska w obrębie gruntów ALP podano w materiałach zbiorczych. Bardzo możliwe jest stopniowe odnajdywanie dalszych stanowisk.
Wg danych GDOŚ powierzchnia w 4 obszarach N200 (Masyw Chełmca, Karkonosze, Przełomy Pełcznicy pod Książem I Rudawy Janowickie) to 0,02 km2 , w tym największa powierzchnia w Karkonoszach: 1,82 ha (0,0182 km2), choć wg. Planu ochrony z 2016 roku jedynie 0,2 ha.
Wg danych z PZO kilku obszarów N2000 (Masyw Chełmca, Rudawy Janowickie, Przełomy Pełcznicy pod Książem, i planu ochrony Karkonosze) powierzchnie siedliska zostały określone w nich odpowiednio: 0,18 ha, 0,2 ha, 0,02, 0,2 ha. Łącznie 0,42 ha (0,0042 km2).
Właściwy areał referencyjny równy aktualnemu (tak jak poprzednio).
Powierzchnia siedliska może ulegać stopniowemu zmniejszeniu, w wyniku zarastania muraw przez drzewa i krzewy lub wydeptywaniu muraw. Nieoszacowano jednak precyzyjnie tempa tego zarastania, brak danych porównawczych, prawdopodobnie nie osiaga granicznej wartości ok. 1% rocznie. Dlatego trend określono jako stabilny (poprzednio też określony jako stabilny).
Źródła informacji: dane własne K. Świerkosz i monitoring GIOŚ oraz
PZO Masyw Chełmca
http://wroclaw.rdos.gov.pl/projekt-planu-zadan-ochronnych-34
PZO Rudawy Janowickie
http://wroclaw.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/19801/DOKUMENTACJA-PLANU_LAST_v19.09.2014-1_icon.pdf
PZO Przełomy Pełcznicy pod Książem
http://wroclaw.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/19823/przelomy-pelcznicy-pod-ksiazem-plh020020-dokumentacja-planu-_icon.pdf
Plan ochrony Karkonoskiego PN
https://bip.kpnmab.pl/public/get_file_contents.php?id=172768 ||
->HabCondition: Badane w monitoringu były 3 stanowiska, spośród ok. 15 znanych. Dlatego trend siedliska w dobrym stanie określono jako niepewny.
Wyniki monitoringu wskazują na stabilny, a przynajmniej nie pogarszający się stan siedliska; w 2009 roku stan na obu stanowiskach oceniono na U2, a w 2017 po 1 ocenie (po 33%) FV, U1, U2.
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 i oceniona na FV (perspektywy dla tych parametrów są więc dobre), zwłaszcza że następuje regeneracja muraw na stanowisku objętych działaniami ochrony czynnej. Brak istotnych, trudnych do zapobieżenia, innych zagrożeń dla siedliska. Głównym, stwierdzonym zagrożeniem dla siedliska jest wydeptywanie w efekcie ruchu turystycznego, oraz procesy naturalne – sukcesja, które jednak zachodzą stosunkowo powoli.
Struktura i funkcja zastała oceniona gorzej niż FV na stanowiskach, gdzie nie prowadzi się odpowiednich działań mogących doprowadzić do poprawy stanu i nie wiadomo, czy działania takie zostaną wdrożone, a ruch turystyczny jest i będzie prawdopodobnie się nasilał – stąd perspektywy dla tego parametru oceniono na U1.
Źródło informacji: Monitoring gatunków i siedlisk przyrodniczych. Państwowy Monitoring Środowiska. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska
oraz dane własne K. Świerkosz. ||
->Conclusion: Z 3 stanowisk ujętych w monitoringu GIOŚ otrzymały oceny ogólne: U2, U1, FV.
Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Area covered by habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Surface area was used. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The area was estimated from a biogeographical monitoring program conducted 2015-2017 (Glimskär et al. 2018). The estimate is much lower than the total area reported in the NNK and TUVA databases. However, several of the recorded objects in the databases are incorrect (Glimskär et al. 2018) and the area estimates given from the monitoring program should be relatively certain.
In accordance with previous assessments, it is assumed that this habitat does not occur north of Limes norrlandicus. This assumption is based on the notion that many of the characteristic and typical species associated with the habitat are absent or relatively uncommon in the north.

The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

The assessment of a negative trend is for most grassland habitat types supported by data that indicate a continuous abandonment of semi-natural grasslands over the last few decades (e.g. Eriksson & Cousins 2014, Borgegård 2015, Cousins et al. 2015, Wallander & Karlsson 2015, Hägglund et al. 2017, Oja 2018, Spörndly & Glimskär 2018, Tyler et al. 2018, Waldén 2018, Anna Nordberg, unpublished data, Hans Gardfjell, unpublished data). ||
->HabCondition: The areas in good and not-good condition for 8230 was estimated from data on structures and functions, and the presence of plant species, in a biogeographical monitoring programme running 2015-2018 Glimskär et al. 2018, Glimskär et al. unpublished data).

One H-ranked and one M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution) support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. 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: aktualizace není schopna postihnout rychlé změny: habitat je značně dynamický v závislosti na chodu počasí

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: 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