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  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: En fonction du contexte physique l'habitat présente de nombreux faciès et abrite plusieurs types de végétation:
- au niveau des tables de lapiés: des formes pionnières des pelouses calcicoles orophiles peu évoluées, des lithosols et des végétations humides lorsque les lapiés forment des vasques;
- au niveau des fissures: une végétation chasmophytique avec notamment des fougères et des plantes associées aux milieux forestiers;
- dans les zones d'accumulation de sol ou de blocs, une végétation plus mésophile de type éboulis à gros blocs riches en fougères ou des landes, des fourrés et des arbres isolés. ||
->Future: L'extension altitudinale des domaines skiables constitue potentiellement une menace pour les pavements calcaires, dans la mesure où le concassage et le profilage du sol font désormais partie des aménagements courants. Il convient d'être vigilant sur ce type d'aménagement fortement lié à l'état de conservation de l'habitat, et ce particulièrement à l'horizon 2030. ||
->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: 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 was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 8240 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). None of the area losses recorded during these two reporting periods led to a contraction in the range. Trend was assessed as stable over the period 2007-2017 but is assumed to be stable also over the default period of 2007-2018.
The Favourable Reference Range (FRR) was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 8240 habitat and the recorded losses since the last reporting period. The FRR was calculated to be the same as the one reported during the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013). ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 2007 and incorporates updates made during the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) and surveys that have taken place during the current reporting period: O’Neill and Martin (2015), O’Neill and Martin (2017), Galway County Council (2017), and Martin et al. (2018).
There are probably still areas of unmapped 8240 habitat within the country, hence the area value entered is a minimum.
Favourable Reference Area was not determined exactly. However, it is deemed to be greater than, but <10% greater than, the current area, given that anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force.
As part of this report 73% of the 321.85 km2 of 8240 habitat mapped during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) was reviewed, mostly using 2017 remote sensing imagery, but also using survey information collected during the current reporting period (listed above). This review added areas of 8240 to the distribution that had not previously been mapped as 8240. Of the area reviewed, 2.45 km2, representing 1% of the reviewed area, had been lost. The conversion of Limestone pavement into agricultural land was the main reason for the loss of 8240 habitat, accounting for 78% of the lost area.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing because the national area of 8240 had been reduced by 2.45 km2 due to anthropogenic factors. Calculating the magnitude of the known loss was complicated by the fact that the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) relied on remote sensing imagery from 2005, as the 2011 imagery was not available until after the NPWS 2013 data had been collected. Therefore during the current reporting period both the 2011 and 2017 remote sensing imagery was examined. Of the losses reported during the current reporting period, 81% occurred between 2005 and 2011, 14% occurred between 2011 and 2017, and the remaining 5% either occurred during 2017 (Sharon Parr, pers. comm.) or took place before 2005 but were not recorded by NPWS (2013). The magnitude of the known 1% loss is approximately -0.1% per annum, measured over a weighted average period of 8.3 years. ||
->HabCondition: The area of 8240 habitat in good condition was estimated based on three sites surveyed during the current reporting period. The main site that was surveyed was a 74.50 ha area of 8240 habitat associated with Lough Corrib SAC (site code 000297) where 83 monitoring stops were recorded (Galway County Council, 2017). Data were also collected from two smaller sites in Clare and Galway (O’Neill and Martin, 2017) and these data were used to assess 8240 areas of 8.36 ha and 5.60 ha respectively, with one monitoring stop recorded within each area.
The approximate area of each site with Favourable Structure and functions was calculated based on the percentage of monitoring stops that were assessed to have Favourable Structure and functions. For the large area within the Lough Corrib SAC, 75.9% of the monitoring stops were recorded as having Favourable Structure and functions and therefore 75.9% of the area was assigned as being in good condition. For the two smaller sites, both stops passed the Structure and functions assessment and therefore 100% of both areas were assigned as being in good condition. Overall 79.7% of the surveyed 8240 area was assigned as having Favourable Structure and functions. As the three sites only represent 0.3% (88.46 ha) of the national area of 8240 the subsample is very small, however it appears to be representative of the national resource, with a similar overall result to the previous reporting period which was also in the range >75% to <100% Favourable Structure and functions.
The main reason that exposed 8240 limestone pavement failed the Structure and functions assessment was high cover of scrub or negative indicator species such as Rubus fruticosus agg.
The Burren Programme reported that the conservation measures they have applied have improved the Structure and functions of Annex I habitats, including Limestone pavement, within the areas covered by the scheme (Sharon Parr, pers. comm.). ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current range is equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, as the range is expected to stay the same 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 Decreasing.
Current area is <10% smaller than the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate with the magnitude of the known loss -0.1% per annum.
Future trend of Area is assessed as negative, as the area is expected to decrease based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Poor.

Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate as >75% but <90% of the habitat is in “Favourable” condition.
Short-term trend direction is Increasing (for habitat that is in Good condition).
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Poor. ||
->Conclusion: The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate, as it had been during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Inadequate during the current reporting period was due to a loss in area of -0.1% per annum and the fact that 79.7% of the surveyed area had Structure and functions in good condition.
Overall trend in Conservation Status was assessed as Stable during the current reporting period. This is due to the fact that although areas of the 8240 habitat have been lost during the current reporting period the rate of loss is relatively low, at -0.1% per annum, and is counteracted by the increasing trend in Structure and functions. During the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013) the overall trend had been assessed as Stable, as there had been very little data available for assessing the area of the 8240 habitat that had been lost. ||
->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 Positive - slight/moderate improvement ||
->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 poor.
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.
||
->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: 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 estimates for 6110 and 8240 are the same as reported 2013. They were calculated by a combination of the areas reported inside Natura 2000 in the Standard Data Form for the County of Västra Götaland, and the total areas for the whole landscape reported 2007 by the County Administrative Boards of Gotland, Kalmar and Örebro (Västra Götaland did not report any total area estimates 2007). The total area estimates for the Natura 2000 habitats were delivered by the County Administrative Boards on commission by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency prior to the article 17 reporting 2007. These estimates are uncertain but are assumed to be the most accurate available for 6110 and 8240 in the BOR region.


The trend is assumed to be stable as habitat degeneration is a relatively slow process in this open, rocky, and relatively stable habitat. ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of two H-ranked and two M-ranked pressures and three H-ranked threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The condition for 8240 has previously been reported as being good in the BOR region. However, recent reports indicate a growing problem with invasive species. In particular, several Cotoneaster species may become problematic in this habitats. Information from biogeographical monitoring of these habitats also suggests that their condition may be less favourable than previously assumed (Glimskär et al. 2018, Glimskär et al. unpublished data). This monitoring is in an early phase and the data is still quite uncertain.

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.

The assessment has changed from the reporting in 2013 as the presence of two high-ranked Pressures suggests that the Structures and Functions parameter of this habitat should be assessed as U2. The assessment is supported by data from a biogeographical monitoring program (Glimskär et al. 2018). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Les mentions récentes en Hautes-Marne ont été invalidées sur la base des informations recueillies auprès de référents locaux (Gael Causse & Emilie Weber CBNBP). Les deux mailles correspondantes ont ainsi été supprimées ||
->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 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: In the Continental region, this habitat type only occur on the Baltic island Öland and most localities are within the Natura 2000 sites Stora Alvaret and Ottenby. Estimates of habitat areas were taken from information in the conservation plans for the two Natura 2000 sites (Länsstyrelsen Kalmar län 2016a, 2016b). The estimate is relatively definite given that the information in the conservation plans is correct. ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of one H-ranked and one M-ranked threat (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), support the assessment as Inadequate-poor.

The condition for habitat types 6110, 6280, and 8240 has previously been reported as being good in the CON region. However, recent reports indicate a growing problem with invasive species. In particular, several Cotoneaster species may become problematic in these habitats. This problem is most severe at thicker soils in 6280 and in the fissures of 8240. Information from biogeographical monitoring of these habitats also suggests that their condition may be less favourable than previously assumed (Glimskär et al. 2018, Glimskär et al. unpublished data). This monitoring is in an early phase and the data is still quite uncertain.

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 'poor' 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.

The assessment has changed from the reporting in 2013. In recent years, several species of Cotoneaster, especially C. divaricatus, have started to spread rapidly in limestone habitats on Öland and Gotland. It is suggested that the Pressure I02 – Other invasive alien species is ranked as Medium and that it may become a large threat (High ranked) in the future. The assessment as Inadequate-bad is supported by data from a biogeographical monitoring program (Glimskär et al. 2018). ||
->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 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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report