Article 17 web tool

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 (but with a limited amount of plots for this habitat in Atlantic Region). ||
->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 good: by converting coniferous wood to deciduous wood, habitat can grow relatively quickly, especially on sites with long-lasting historic forest soils. ||
->Conclusion: overall trend unknown because one parameter with unknown trend which could be stable, increasing but also decreasing… ||
->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: Ce sont principalement les observations de terrain qui ont permis de produire cette carte de répartition dans le domaine atlantique.
Les mailles où cet habitat du 9190 est potentiel en 2012 et non validé par une observation de terrain ne figurent plus sur la carte de distribution de 2018. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: L'évaluation de ce paramètre aboutit à un état inadéquat du fait de la faible surface exprimée en bon état. ||
->Future: Conclusions de 2018 (actualisation par rapport à celles de 2012, reprises à l'identique de celles de 2007) :
Notation réalisée manquant encore d'arguments assez concrets et précis pour attester de la stabilité supposée de l'habitat.

Remarque 1 : Aire de répartition et surface
Le changement climatique (diminution globale des précipitations et / ou accidents d'années particulièrement sèches) pourrait être néfaste à certaines chênaies pédonculées (du 9190 comme du 9160), en particulier celles parmi les chênaies du 9190. A une échéance de 6 ans en 2007, aucune évolution significative n'avait été escomptée dans le cas d'habitats forestiers. Des études pourraient être menées pour évaluer cette hypothèse sur les chênaies du 9190 (ou sur celles du 9160) ;
Les facteurs [aire de répartition, surface d'habitat et structures et fonctions] devraient rester stables. Mais ceci ne doit pas occulter les menaces certaines qui rendent peut-être très problématique le maintien d'un bon état de conservation à plus long terme.

Remarque 2 : Surface
Dans le domaine ATL, le 9190 a probablement davantage souffert de transformations résineuses que dans le domaine CONT, du fait à la fois de surfaces originellement moins anecdotiques de l'habitat (ayant donc pu davantage inciter à s'atteler à sa "valorisation" économique) et de l'existence à disposition de deux essences importantes que sont le Pin maritime et l'Epicéa de Sitka. Il est très difficile d'apprécier ce qu'il reste comme tendance actuelle et à plus ou moins long terme de cette forme de détérioration :
- d'un côté, on peut penser que la directive habitats a eu une incidence positive et le CRPF sylvicole propose une description précise et une gestion durable de cet habitat ;
- d'un autre côté, les modifications du milieu (locales notamment par drainage, ou générale par le changement climatique) peuvent mener à une exploitation forestière de cet habitat, parfois destructrice de celui-ci (drainage et plantation de Pin). ||
->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 6 years ago reported range should be 8400, trend is stable. Distribution map is based on vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites and relevé data in- and outside Natura 2000-sites over a period of 12 years. Some vegetation maps still contain uncertainties and relevé data may have gaps, but we assume that total distribution is well covered for 90% or more. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in cooperation with CBS. Secondary source: Analysis of average dead wood volume per ha based on plot data from the Fifth (2001-2005) and Sixth (2012-2013) Dutch Forest Inventory (DFI). DFI-score U1 with postive trend. NDFF-score U2 with negative trend. This is the most nutrient poor woodland type, highly susceptible to ongoing N-deposition. ||
->Future: Predicted future trends for both range and area are negative because of 1) oak decline, 2) poor oak regeneration, 3) ongoing acidification and N-deposition and 4) scattered occurrences. ||
->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 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 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: 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: 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: 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 it may also be partly due to some newly known locations. ||
->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 and statistically significant, and the trend is thus considered positive. Furthermore, the habitat in some plots has been better identified since last reporting, which is also responsible for the positive difference of the surface area estimates between the 2 reporting cycles. ||
->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 9190, several parameters have a negative trend, which may also be due to the increase of surface (new habitats with structures and functions that cannot yet be in good condition). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Positive trends for surfaces are responsible for the positive overall trend of the conservation status. Structures and functions seem to deteriorate, but it may be partly due to the creation of new surfaces of the habitat (with poor structures and functions in early stages) ||
->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: Lücken im Osten des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->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. ||
->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 (171800km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (166339 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ 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 - ok 80% powierzchni leśnej Polski). Obecnie Bank Danych o Lasach (zawiera zaktualizowane i częściowo zweryfikowane dane zawarte w Bazie Invent) podaje areał siedliska 9190 na poziomie 556km2. Przyjmujac, że udział siedliska 9190 na terenie innych własności jest taki sam jak na terenie zarządzanym przez PGL LP otrzymujemy w przybliżeniu 660km2. Powierzchnia zajmowana przez siedlisko zmniejszyła się z 880 km2 do 660 km2. Powodem zmiany jest lepszy stan wiedzy na temat siedliska przyrodniczego 9190 i dokładniejsze dane na temat rozmieszczenia siedliska w terenie. W aktualnym raporcie za właściwą powierzchnie referencyjną uznano powierzchnie zbliżoną do aktualnej. W poprzednim raporcie podano, że jest ona znacznie większa. Do zmiany decyzji skłania fakt, że siedlisko zachowuje swój areał na tym samym poziomie. Stan siedliska został oceniony na U2. Nie jest to jednak efekt regresu siedliska, a jego regeneracji i uznawania za siedlisko 9190 płatów lasu będących jedynie potencjalnie tym siedliskiem i rosnących niejednokrotnie na gruntach porolnych jako pierwsze pokolenie lasu. Ponieważ oszacowany areał obejmuje również płaty będące jedynie potencjalnie tym siedliskiem, należy uznać, że powierzchnia referencyjna jest zbliżona do aktualnej. ||
->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: Ocena stanu ochrony została wystawiona w oparciu o dane zebrane z 100 stanowisk monitoringowych.
Zdecydowano się podnieść ocenę parametru powierzchnia od poprzedniego raportu ponieważ powierzchnia siedliska nie ulega zmianom. Co prawda większość płatów jest pokryta nasadzonymi drzewostanami obcych ekologicznie gatunków niewłaściwych dla siedliska to szacowana powierzchnia obejmuje całość płatów i odnosi się do siedliska potencjalnego - czyli również do nasadzeń gatunków obcych ekologicznie. Ma to odzwierciedlenie w parametrze struktura i funkcje ocenionym przez to na U2. Ponieważ parametr struktura i funkcje odnosi się również do siedliska potencjalnego 9190 to nie można traktować nasadzeń obcych ekologicznie gatunków jako fragmentacji. W przeciwnym razie należało by ocenę parametru struktura i funkcję wykonać tylko dla płatów siedliska aktualnego 9190. Ponadto należy pamiętać, że duża część drzewostanów ocenionych na U2 jest pierwszym pokoleniem lasu na gruntach porolnych.
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: 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