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: 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: Types hygrosciaphiles plus sensibles à l'ouverture, mais à dynamique végétale plus élevée et plus favorables pour la production de nécromasse nécessaire aux organismes saproxyliques.
Types xérophiles souvent à déficit de maturation et faible nécromasse. ||
->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: 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: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (12900km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (9693km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ znacznej zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. 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 podstwie Bazy Invent (obejmującą tereny zarządzane przez PGL LP) i uzupełniono to o szacunek powierzchni siedliska na pozostałych gruntach przez co otrzymano areał 7,77km2. Obecnie Bank Danych o Lasach (zawiera zaktualizowane i częściowo zweryfikowane dane zawarte w Bazie Invent) podaje areał siedliska 9180 na poziomie 2.43km2. Natomiast powierzchnia siedliska określona na podstawie danych zawartych w SDF obszarów Natura 2000 wynosi 7.1km2 i taka wartosć należy przyjąć za minimum. Wartosć maksymalna nie powinna przekraczać wartosci podanej w poprzednim raporcie ze względu na dużą stabilność siedliska i miejsca jego występowania. ||
->HabCondition: 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: Powierzchnia siedliska na większości stanowisk jest właściwa. Stanowiska te posiadają stabilny areał siedliska, który w najbliższych latach nie powinien ulegać pomniejszeniu. Kilka stanowisk otrzymało oceny U1 i U2 ze względu na małe, fragmentarycznie wykształcone płaty.
Specyficzna struktura i funkcje na 82% stanowisk otrzymało ocenę właściwą. Ocena ta wynika z wysoko ocenionych wskaźników na tych stanowiskach. Na 12% stanowisk ocena została obniżona do U1. Tylko 3 stanowiska (5%) otrzymały złą ocenę tego parametru, głównie ze względu na niska ocenę wskaźników: pionowa struktura drzewostanu i gatunki charakterystyczne.
Najistotniejsze stanowiska tego siedliska znajdują się w parkach narodowych lub też ich dotychczasowa ochrony jest wystarczająca, gorsze oceny są raczej związane z gorszym wykształcenie siedliska na niektórych stanowiskach.
Uogólniając, oceniane stanowiska w latach 2013-2014 roku zarówno pod względem parametrów oraz Oceny ogólnej są bardzo dobrze zachowane, a ich stan ochrony jest w zdecydowanej większości przypadków właściwy. Na tej podstawie można stwierdzić, że zachowanie siedliska w stanie właściwy jest właściwie nie zagrożone w regionie alpejskim.
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: 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: Change is due to the use of the map produced by the range tool without exclusion of grid squares as the range is overall consistent ||
->Coverage: There has been no dedicated monitoring for this habitat with very limited surface in the Atlantic Region, which is mainly constituted of extensions of the Continental Habitat from the Meuse valley. Estimate is the same as for the previous reporting cycle, based on expert opinion supported by mapping of Natura 2000 sites. As most forest habitats have stable surfaces in Wallonia, and no major destructions or restorations are known for habitat 9180 in the Atlantic Region, trends are estimated stable. ||
->HabCondition: For habitat 9180 in Atlantic Region, there is no data coming from the Walloon Forest Inventory, due to the very limited surface (anecdotic). But the habitat is mainly close to the Continental Region and in continuity with Continental 9180, where the structures and functions can be estimated with more accuracy, so structures and functions assessment for the Atlantic Region are the same as for the Continental Region. Trend is considered unknown. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: As the structures and functions are considered the same as for the (much more extended) Continental surfaces of habitat 9180, and as these have been assessed as bad and stable (and should have already been considered bad previously - cf. 9180 Cont report), there is no genuine change but the use of a different method (correction). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Habitat type new for the region ||
->Coverage: Habitat type new for the region ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Habitat type new for the region ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Since it is the first time this habitat is reported in the Atlantic region, improved knowledge/more accurate data has been selected in reasons for change (in range, area and conclusions)

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 Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; 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.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Structure and functions trend has changed from decreasing to stable, and because of the removal of the Future prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall trend. ||
->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: During EU habitat mapping 2/3 of the territory of the country has been inventoried, currently this habitat has been found in the area of ​​5 605 ha, while teoretically after complete habitat mapping the area could reach at least 6500 ha. Over the past six years, in 1.4% of previously known habitat areas have been registered young forest stands. ||
->HabCondition: 8% of habitats are of low quality - little small amount of structures characteristic to natural forests, because some of them have been forming due to overgrowing of historical agricultural land, historically managed as wooded pastures. Accordingly to EU habitat mapping results, dominates medium quality habitats. ||
->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: Maps and CVs are calculated with the standard GIS range tool (DG Environment 2017). Short-term trends are evaluated by visually comparing the new maps with those produced in the previous reporting round. No major differences are found between maps. It is generally expected that the range of forest habitat types has remained stable in the past and is not predicted to change due to current pressures or future threats. Thus, it is generally expected that FRR = CV. ||
->Coverage: The CVs and trends are estimated mainly on data collected by the National Forest Inventory during two consecutive five-year periods (2008-2012 and 2013-2017; Berglund 2019). The FRAs are set equal to at least the CVs in 1995, the year of entry into force of the Habitats Directive, or to an estimated long-term area need, corrensponding to 20% of the pre-industrial/original area (Berglund 2019). ||
->HabCondition: The proportions of the area in good, not good and unknown condition within the Natura-2000 sites are used as indicators of the respective proportions in the region concerned. Thus, the results obtained based on the data from the Natura-2000 sites are extrapolated to the whole forest landscape in the region while assuming that the conditions in sites outside the Natura-2000 network are no better than within (Berglund 2019). ||
->Future: The current status and the trends of the range and the area as well as the structures and functions are expected to remain the same as in the current reporting period 2013-2018. Hence, the future prospects are expected to be equal to the overall results for the current reporting period obtained when summing the results of the three other factors; i.e. the range, the area, and the structures and functions. ||
->Conclusion: The overall status and the trend in status are evaluated according to the guidelines (DG Environment 2017). ||
->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: Change is mainly due to the use of the map produced by the range tool without exclusion of grid squares as the range is overall consistent, but also due to one location recently found at the edge of the distribution. ||
->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 positive but statistically not significant, 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 compared to previous estimate. ||
->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 9180, most constitutive parameters of S&F are stable. The main reason for bad structures and functions is the lack of large living and dead trees. Despite the use of the Walloon Forest Inventory data and because of the quite limited amount of plots in this habitat (~ 30 for the 2nd cycle at its current progress), the method is considered "extrapolation from a limited amount of data". ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Trends are considered stable. Compared to 2013 reporting, there has previously been an error in the assessment (wrong threshold for large living wood) and the structures and functions should have already been assessed "bad". ||
->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: Veränderungen v.a. im Nordosten und Westen des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten und veränderte Interpretationen des LRT zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen 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: Il est peu probable que l'habitat fasse l'objet dans un future proche de menaces importantes. Vu la difficulté d'exploitation, surtout dans un contexte de mécanisation de la récolte de bois, il est peu probable que les surfaces importantes fasse l'objet d'exploitation non contrôlée. La menace relative au changement climatique se fera probablement sentir sur la période après 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: 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: Tilia cordata,
Tilia platyphyllos,
Ulmus glabra,
Fraxinus excelsior,
Acer platanoides,
Acer pseudoplatanus,
Acer cappadocicum subsp. lobelii (locally)
Taxus baccata,
Acer opalus subsp. obtusatum ||
->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 evaluation for the last reporting period was based on a nation wide inventory of forests realised from 1992 to 2002 the results of which had to be interpreted for the annex I habitat type report. For the reporting periode 2013 - 2018, results of a new inventory of forest habitats and other habitats within forest areas are available. From 2014 to 2018, 67% of all forest areas have been inventorised with special focus on the information needed for the present reporting. Information for the remaining third was based on the initial inventory. The country-wide survey will be finalised by 2020.
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 evaluation for the last reporting period was based on a nation wide inventory of forests realised from 1992 to 2002 the results of which had to be interpreted for the annex I habitat type report. For the reporting periode 2013 - 2018, results of a new inventory of forest habitats and other habitats within forest areas are available. From 2014 to 2018, 67% of all forest areas have been inventorised with special focus on the information needed for the present reporting. Information for the remaining third was based on the initial inventory. The country-wide survey will be finalised by 2020. ||
->HabCondition: For forest habitat types, estimations for area under good respectively under not good condition were based on the recent survey of 67% of all wooded areas. The value indicated for area under good respectively under not good condition for a given habitat type is the result of the survey within forest areas. The area of this habitat type where only data from former inventories are available is indicated in the fields "area where condition is not known".
99,89% of the surveyed area (2014 - 2018) was considered in good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: From 2014 to 2018, 67% of all forest areas have been inventorised with special focus on the information needed for the present reporting. Of the 1,49 km2 of habitat type 9180 surveyed, 99,9% were in good condition. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (21000km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (19255 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ znacznej zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. 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: Powierzchnie siedliska oszacowano na podstawie danych z SDF obszarów Natura 2000. W poprzednim raporcie powierzchnię siedliska oszacowano na podstwie Bazy Invent (obejmującą tereny zarządzane przez PGL LP) - 13km2 i uzupełniono to o szacunek powierzchni siedliska na pozostałych gruntach przez co uzyskano wynik 14km2. Obecnie Bank Danych o Lasach (zawiera zaktualizowane i częściowo zweryfikowane dane zawarte w Bazie Invent) podaje areał siedliska 9180 na poziomie 3.74km2. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Powierzchnia siedliska na 78% stanowisk jest właściwa. Stanowiska te posiadają stabilny areał siedliska, który w najbliższych latach nie powinien ulegać pomniejszeniu. 14% stanowisk otrzymało ocenę U1, 7% ocenę U2, ze względu na niewielkie płaty i kadłubowe wykształcenie tego siedliska.
Specyficzna struktura i funkcje na 54% stanowisk została oceniona na FV. Ocena ta wynika z wysoko ocenionych wskaźników na tych stanowiskach. Na 41% stanowisk ocena została obniżona do U1. 5% stanowisk otrzymało złą ocenę tego parametru. Na gorsze oceny wpłynęły przede wszystkim wskaźniki: gatunki dominujące, obce gatunki inwazyjne i pionowa struktura roślinności.
Perspektywy ochrony na 64% stanowisk są właściwe. Zachowanie siedliska na tych stanowiskach w perspektywie najbliższych 10-20 lat jest właściwie pewne. 13% stanowisk ma perspektywy ochrony niezadowalające, z 7% oceny złe - ze względu m. in. na występowanie obcych gatunków inwazyjnych, źle zachowanej struktury drzewostanu i izolowanej powierzchni.
Ocena ogólna 36% stanowisk jest niezadowalająca, a 12% stanowiska – zła. Ocena jest wynikiem nisko ocenionych parametrów specyficzna struktura i funkcje oraz perspektywy ochrony. Pozostałe stanowiska mają ocenę właściwą. Ocena ogólna w latach 2013-2014 w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem pogorszyła się dla 17 stanowisk, natomiast dla 15 uległa poprawie.
Przedstawione wyniki ekstrapolowano na podstawie danych z 76 stanowisk badawczych monitorowanych w latach 2013-2014.
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: 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: Maps and CVs are calculated with the standard GIS range tool (DG Environment 2017). Short-term trends are evaluated by visually comparing the new maps with those produced in the previous reporting round. No major differences are found between maps. It is generally expected that the range of forest habitat types has remained stable in the past and is not predicted to change due to current pressures or future threats. Thus, it is generally expected that FRR = CV. ||
->Coverage: The CVs and trends are estimated mainly on data collected by the National Forest Inventory during two consecutive five-year periods (2008-2012 and 2013-2017; Berglund 2019). The FRAs are set equal to at least the CVs in 1995, the year of entry into force of the Habitats Directive, or to an estimated long-term area need, corrensponding to 20% of the pre-industrial/original area (Berglund 2019). ||
->HabCondition: The proportions of the area in good, not good and unknown condition within the Natura-2000 sites are used as indicators of the respective proportions in the region concerned. Thus, the results obtained based on the data from the Natura-2000 sites are extrapolated to the whole forest landscape in the region while assuming that the conditions in sites outside the Natura-2000 network are no better than within (Berglund 2019). ||
->Future: The current status and the trends of the range and the area as well as the structures and functions are expected to remain the same as in the current reporting period 2013-2018. Hence, the future prospects are expected to be equal to the overall results for the current reporting period obtained when summing the results of the three other factors; i.e. the range, the area, and the structures and functions. ||
->Conclusion: The overall status and the trend in status are evaluated according to the guidelines (DG Environment 2017). ||
->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 "En détérioration" de la tendance générale à dire d'expert (au moins une tendance à court terme négative) ||
->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. ||
->HabCondition: Tilia cordata,
Tilia platyphyllos,
Ulmus glabra,
Fraxinus excelsior,
Acer platanoides,
Acer pseudoplatanus,
Acer cappadocicum subsp. lobelii (locally)
Taxus baccata,
Acer opalus subsp. obtusatum ||
->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