Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Navarra, gathering 80% of the habitat surface in the Alpine region, qualifies as Unknown the Conservation status of Structure and functions because an indicator-based assessment is seen necessary to have a conclusion reliable enough.

Data to quantify the area in Good Condition comes partially from the the 2nd and 3rd National forest Inventory of Spain. The methodology includes variables like: richness of tree species, basimetric area, horitzontal and vertical structure and regeneration. Its combination lets to assess the conservation state of each parcell, and this provides an approachment about the area in good or not good condition. This methodology comes from the project LIFE RED BOSQUE (http://www.redbosques.eu/). ||
->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: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). Therefore, we use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat).

In Wallonia, surface is mainly estimated through the information of the Walloon Forest Inventory ||
->HabCondition: For the Flanders part of ATL the areas given in field 6.1. are based on a representative monitoring network. Indicators for habitat structure, vegetation development and environmental disturbances are taken into account. The ‘Best single value’ of the area (field 5.2) is multiplied with the % amount of the sample plots in good and not-good condition.
Information on typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat is determined directly on the regional level. As a consequence, this information cannot be integrated in the areas given in field 6.1, but it is used to assess the conclusions on specific structures and functions (field 10.3).

In Wallonia, structures & functions of forests are assessed through information coming from the Walloon Forest Inventory. Assessment of surfaces in good condition is not relevant, as some parameters can only be calculated at Walloon biogeographical scale and make no sense in individual plots, due to the size of plots (~ 0,1 ha). These parameters include average number of large dead and living trees, diversity of structures, and evolution of old growth forests surfaces... Estimating local condition of plots excluding these regional parameters would provide a very bad image of real condition of forests, which may not be consistent with the final status. Thus, the final status of structures and functions and its real trends are only assessed at biogeographical level, and all the Walloon share of the surface is mentioned as "unknown status" in field 6.1 ||
->Future: Flanders: area poor: we expect an insufficiently large increase because the development time for this habitat is very slow ||
->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: Il faudrait pouvoir retravailler la liste d'espèces typiques en prenant en compte tous les compartiments de la biocénose forestière. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation U1 pour les Structures et fonction - Pas de réel changement par rapport à 2012. Chiffres de l'IFN à consolider et vérifier. Les surfaces occupées par l'habitat, ses nombreuses races régionales et la diversité des conditions écologiques représentées permettent l'expression de la plupart des phases dynamiques à l'exception de la phase de senescence sous représentée à l'échelle de la région biogéographique. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: All 10x10 km-grids of the 2013-range without records in the 2007-2018 period have been evaluated regarding 1) presence of ancient woodland with current stands of oak or beech and 2) soil requirements, using aerial photographs and maps in GIS. The 2013-range was recalculated to be 13700 km2. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: The 2013-data have been re-evaluated regarding the adjusted FRA (> CV) according to Bijlsma et al. (2018) ||
->HabCondition: Primary source: NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS; Secondary source: Analysis of average dead wood volume per ha based on a large sample of plot data from the Fifth (2001-2005) and Sixth (2012-2013) Dutch Forest Inventory. Both indicate a positive trend. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data; a formula with 75%/25%-thresholds is used for conservation status of Structure & Function and Typical species. ||
->Other: Report by Rienk-Jan Bijlsma (WEnR)

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 Very negative - important deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->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 not more than 10% below 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 poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - stable, and Structure and functions - stable. If the very negative future trend in Structure and functions is also taken into account, the Overall trend would be deteriorating. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Wallonia: surface and its trends are estimated through the information coming from the Walloon Forest Inventory. The estimated difference between the 1st cycle and the (not yet finalized) 2nd cycle of Walloon Forest Inventory is close to zero, and the trend is considered stable. The habitat in some plots has been better identified since last reporting, which explains the difference of surface area. ||
->HabCondition: In Wallonia, structures & functions of forests are assessed through information coming from the Walloon Forest Inventory. Assessment of surfaces in good condition is not relevant, as some parameters can only be calculated at Walloon biogeographical scale and make no sense in individual plots, due to the size of plots (~ 0,1 ha). These parameters include average number of large dead and living trees, diversity of structures, and evolution of old growth forests surfaces... Estimating local condition of plots excluding these regional parameters would provide a very bad image of real condition of forests, which may not be consistent with the final status. Thus, the final status of structures and functions and its real trends are only assessed at biogeographical level, and all the Walloon share of the surface is mentioned as "unknown status" in field 6.1. The real trend of structures and functions at biogeographical is indicated in field 6.5. For habitat 9120, most constitutive parameters of S&F are stable, except large dead woods ( increasing - positive trend), while the trend is not clear in soil compaction (increasing slightly but with a better collection of data at 2nd cycle of Forest Inventory). The balance between trends leads to the conclusion that the overall trend is positive. ||
->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: Il faudrait pouvoir retravailler la liste d'espèces typiques en prenant en compte tous les compartiments de la biocénose forestière. ||
->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. ||
->HabCondition: Fagus sylvatica,
Taxus baccata,
Ilex aquifolium ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report