Article 17 web tool

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 estimate of surface area was based on data from several different sources. 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.

For 9070, data originate from the RT, MOTH, and NILS programmes (i.e. national inventories with a random sampling design). The total area estimate is based on analyses conducted by Hans Gardfjell at the Department of forest resource management at SLU Umeå (https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). This estimate has a large standard error and it was not possible to identify significant changes in surface area over the past twelve years. It was therefore assumed that the total estimated surface area reported in 2013 was relevant also for the present calculations (these estimates did also have large standard errors), but the total area was rounded to 750 km2. The reason for the assumption that data from 2013 is better than more recent data is that it was based on larger samples, including RT, MOTH and NILS. There is no data from MOTH after the program was ended in 2013. Total habitat area (i.e. 750 km2) was then split and allocated to each region based on the relative biogeographical distribution of habitat area recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases. Given the large standard error and assumptions of the biogeographical distribution, the area estimates are uncertain.

Thanks to a major LIFE-projects and other restoration programmes, the trend is assessed as stable for this 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 threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and two threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

Thanks to a major LIFE projects and other restoration programmes, the trend is assessed as stable for this habitat. ||
->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.

Large restoration programmes may stabilize a negave trend. It is suggested that this is the case in 9070 (several LIFE-projects and other restoration programs). ||
->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: So far the habitat has not been mapped and specific quality crireria has not been set, therefore the habitat area and quality will be known after completing EU habitat mapping on state level. 9070 areas have been calculated taking into account the fact that 2/3 of the country's area has been inventored and it is still possible to find additional areas with this habitat. Currently information is available about 175.23 ha of habitat, theoretically additional areas might be found therefore maximum area predicted to be 228 ha. ||
->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 estimate of surface area was based on data from several different sources. 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.

For 9070, data originate from the RT, MOTH, and NILS programmes (i.e. national inventories with a random sampling design). The total area estimate is based on analyses conducted by Hans Gardfjell at the Department of forest resource management at SLU Umeå (https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). This estimate has a large standard error and it was not possible to identify significant changes in surface area over the past twelve years. It was therefore assumed that the total estimated surface area reported in 2013 was relevant also for the present calculations (these estimates did also have large standard errors), but the total area was rounded to 750 km2. The reason for the assumption that data from 2013 is better than more recent data is that it was based on larger samples, including RT, MOTH and NILS. There is no data from MOTH after the program was ended in 2013. Total habitat area (i.e. 750 km2) was then split and allocated to each region based on the relative biogeographical distribution of habitat area recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases. Given the large standard error and assumptions of the biogeographical distribution, the area estimates are uncertain.

Thanks to a major LIFE-projects and other restoration programmes, the trend is assessed as stable for this habitat (e.g. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland, 2012, Länsstyrelsen Skåne 2013, Länsstyrelsen Östergötland 2015). ||
->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 three H-ranked and four M-ranked pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and twelve threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

Thanks to a major LIFE projects and other restoration programmes, the trend is assessed as stable for this habitat (e.g. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland, 2012, Länsstyrelsen Skåne 2013, Länsstyrelsen Östergötland 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.

Large restoration programmes may stabilize a negave trend. It is suggested that this is the case in 9070 (several LIFE-projects and other restoration programs, e.g. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland, 2012, Länsstyrelsen Skåne 2013, Länsstyrelsen Östergötland 2015). ||
->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 estimate of surface area was based on data from several different sources. 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.

For 9070, data originate from the RT, MOTH, and NILS programmes (i.e. national inventories with a random sampling design). The total area estimate is based on analyses conducted by Hans Gardfjell at the Department of forest resource management at SLU Umeå (https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). This estimate has a large standard error and it was not possible to identify significant changes in surface area over the past twelve years. It was therefore assumed that the total estimated surface area reported in 2013 was relevant also for the present calculations (these estimates did also have large standard errors), but the total area was rounded to 750 km2. The reason for the assumption that data from 2013 is better than more recent data is that it was based on larger samples, including RT, MOTH and NILS. There is no data from MOTH after the program was ended in 2013. Total habitat area (i.e. 750 km2) was then split and allocated to each region based on the relative biogeographical distribution of habitat area recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases. Given the large standard error and assumptions of the biogeographical distribution, the area estimates are uncertain.

Thanks to a major LIFE-projects and other restoration programmes, the trend is assessed as increasing for this habitat (e.g. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland, 2012, Länsstyrelsen Skåne 2013, Länsstyrelsen Östergötland 2015). ||
->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 three H-ranked and four M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and twelve threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

Thanks to a major LIFE projects and other restoration programmes, the trend is assessed as increasing for this habitat (e.g. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland, 2012, Länsstyrelsen Skåne 2013, Länsstyrelsen Östergötland 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.

Large restoration programmes may stabilize a negav trend or even turn into positive. It is suggested that this is the case in 9070 (several LIFE-projects and other restoration programs, e.g. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland, 2012, Länsstyrelsen Skåne 2013, Länsstyrelsen Östergötland 2015). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report