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: 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: Destruction directe, dynamiques naturelles, réchauffement climatique justifient des perspectives médiocres. ||
->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 (6800km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (3044 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: Powierzchnie oszacowano na podstawie SDF obszarów Natura 2000. Powierzchnia siedliska jest stabilna i nie wykazuje zmian. ||
->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: Na parametr perspektywy ochrony największy wpływ wywarł negatywny trend parametru struktura i funkcja, który wskazuje na niekorzystne zmiany zachodzących przemian i zaawansowaniu procesów negatywnie oddziałujących na siedlisko, głównie poziomu wód gruntowych.
(www.siedliska.gios.gov.pl) ||
->Conclusion: Specyficzna struktura i funkcje na 2/3 stanowisk jest niezadowalająca. Na pogorszenie oceny tego parametru wpływ miały przede wszystkim wskaźniki odnoszące się do stopnia uwodnienia, ekspansji gatunków, struktury pionowej drzewostanu, naturalnego odnowienia.
Perspektywy ochrony są dość dobrze oceniane na stanowiskach jednak, niezadowalające oceny parametru struktura i funkcje budzą wątpliwości, czy rzeczywiście perspektywy te są tak dobre, jak oceniali to eksperci w terenie, opierając się głównie na oznakach antropopresji, a nie biorąc pod uwagę (brak danych) o tempie zachodzących przemian i zaawansowaniu procesów negatywnie oddziałujących na siedlisko, głównie poziomu wód gruntowych .
Ocena ogólna 67% stanowisk jest niezadowalająca. Jest to istotne pogorszenie od poprzedniego badania przeprowadzonego na tych samych stanowiskach, które wykazywało dominację ocen właściwych. Na poziom tej oceny wpływ miała głównie ocena parametru struktura i funkcja.
Przedstawione wyniki ekstrapolowano na podstawie danych z 12 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: Habitat 91D0's only recent location for the Belgian Atlantic Region was in the Mons bassin, but a new location has been discovered since last reporting. The habitat is extremely rare and occupies small areas in the Atlantic Region. New locations might be found in the future, but its historical range must have been bigger and the current range (2 locations very distant) cannot be considered favourable/functional. ||
->Coverage: A new location of the habitat has been discovered since last reporting. As the habitat is very rare and small, we cannot exclude that other locations still exist in private forests outside the Natura 2000 network, which explains that the maximum value is larger than the known surface. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->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: Der Gesamttrend wird abweichend von den Guidelines mit "sich verschlechternd" beurteilt, weil aufgrund dem negativen Kurzzeittrend bei der Fläche auch bei den Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen ein negativer Trend angenommen werden kann, wofür aktuell jedoch noch keine Daten vorliegen. ||
->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: Un seul habitat élementaire dans le domaine atlantique ||
->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: There is no evidence of loss of range since the Directive came into force.
Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of 91D0 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. The short-term trend is assessed as stable.
The number of 10 km squares in the range (90) is 33 squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). These changes are due to improved knowledge within the current reporting period. For example: Ten new 10 km squares were added in the vicinity of North Kildare/East Offaly during the current reporting period based on data from Foss & Crushell (2014) and Bord na Móna. Two 10 km squares that were in the range last reporting period (S28, S38) were not included in the range this reporting period as the 2017-2018 Woodland Monitoring Survey confirmed the habitat was absent from this area (Daly et al., in prep.).
Favourable Reference Range (FRR) has increased since the last reporting period to reflect the improved level of knowledge. The FRR is the current range reported in Section 4.1 ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 2003 following the commencement of the National Survey of Native Woodlands (NSNW; Perrin et al., 2008) and a survey to assess the impacts of turf cutting on designated raised bogs (Fernandez et al., 2006), and incorporates updates made by other surveys between 2004-2018 that are listed in Section 3.2. A subset of these sites was visited by the 2011-2012 Bog Woodland Monitoring Survey (Cross & Lynn, 2013) and the 2017-2018 Woodland Monitoring Survey (Daly et al., in prep.).
There are probably still areas of unmapped 91D0 habitat within the country, hence, the area value entered is a minimum.
During the previous reporting period, the current area was taken to be the Favourable Reference Area (FRA). Using this same approach, the FRA is the current surface area as reported in Section 5.2.
Fourteen 91D0 sites were surveyed during the 2017-2018 Woodland Monitoring Survey (Daly et al., in prep.), eleven of which had previously been surveyed by the 2011-2012 Bog Woodland Monitoring Survey (Cross & Lynn, 2013).
The fourteen monitoring sites assessed for Area during the current reporting period represent 0.67 km2 (31.4%) of the total area of 91D0 habitat recorded in Ireland. No area losses were recorded from the 2017-2018 Woodland Monitoring sites by Daly et al. (in prep.).
During the previous reporting period, no area losses were reported from the eleven sites surveyed by Cross & Lynn (2013) during the 2011-2012 Bog Woodland Monitoring Survey.
The recent availability of the DEFORMAP, a dataset which provides a deforestation map of Ireland covering the period 2000–2012 (Devaney et al., 2017), allows us to retrospectively assess area loss during the previous two reporting periods. Based on an intersect with the 91D0 distribution map, DEFORMAP data indicate 1.2 ha were lost from one site during the 2007-2012 reporting period due to road construction (0.2 ha) and woodland clearance (1.0 ha). This site was listed as “Habitat 91D0 confirmed” in Appendix III of Cross & Lynn (2013) (NSNW Site 1251 Corduff East, Co. Cavan). DEFORMAP did not detect loss of 91D0 area during the 2001-2006 reporting period.
Anthropogenic loss totalling 1.2 ha from 2007-2018 was reported by DEFORMAP. The magnitude of the known loss is -0.05% per annum, measured over a period of 12 years, 2007-2018. This was calculated by estimating the area lost and expressing this as a per-annum percentage loss of the known area of 91D0. It should be noted there are no DEFORMAP data available from 2012 onwards. Therefore, this area loss is taken to be the minimum, with other undocumented losses possible within the current reporting period (at sites outside the monitoring network), as well as undocumented losses occurring at unmapped sites. During the 2001-2006 reporting period, a severe fire event at All Saints Bog, Co. Offaly resulted in the loss of 0.76 ha of 91D0 habitat (Fernandez et al., 2014).
In relation to area, NPWS (2013) stated “field evidence suggests that the area of this habitat is declining on raised bogs due to on-going desiccation but expanding on abandoned cutaway”. It concluded that “there is likely to have been a slight increase in area” but conceded that it is difficult to quantify this increase. The previous Favourable assessment for Area was dependent on expert opinion concluding that there was an increase in area in 91D0. Since there are no data in the interim to the contrary, this assessment remains unchanged this reporting period. Research efforts should however be made to quantify these increases, as the Bord na Móna estate, which would include considerable areas of cutover bog, currently supports just three 91D0 sites (Mark McCorry, pers. comm.). Therefore, it may be that the contribution of woodland on cutover bog to gains in the 91D0 habitat area may be overestimated.
Since these habitat gains are unquantified, it is not possible to conclude that they exceed the losses reported above. Therefore, short-term trend is considered stable rather than increasing. ||
->HabCondition: During the current reporting period, fourteen sites were assessed for Structure and functions by Daly et al. (in prep.). This represents 0.67 km2 (31.4%) of the total area of 91D0 habitat recorded in Ireland.
Ten sites received a ‘Green’ (Favourable) Structure and functions assessment, four sites received an ‘Amber’ (Inadequate) assessment, with no sites receiving a ‘Red’ (Bad) assessment.
The approach used to determine the percentage of the 91D0 habitat in Favourable condition was as follows: At each monitoring site, equal weight was applied was to each of the individual-plot assessment results (n=4) and the four-plot level assessment result (n=1). At the individual-plot level, a Pass=20% and a Fail=0%. At the four-plot level, a Pass=20% and a Fail=0%. For example: A site with three passes and one fail at the individual-plot level (20 + 20 + 20 + 0 = 60) and a pass at the four-plot level (20) had 80% (60 + 20 = 80) of its habitat in good condition (Favourable).
During the current reporting period, 95.9% of the area was assessed as good condition (Favourable). When the proportion in good (95.9%) and in not-good condition (4.1%) was scaled up to the national estimate, 2.04 km2 was in good condition and 0.09 km2 was in not-good condition.
All eleven sites surveyed for the 2011-2012 Bog Woodland Monitoring Survey received a ‘Green’ Structure and functions assessment (Cross & Lynn, 2013). However, Structure and functions plots were only conducted at nine sites, with only a general survey conducted at the remaining two sites.
The above approach to determine the percentage of 91D0 habitat in Favourable condition could not be retrospectively applied to the previous reporting period due to differences in sub-sampling at both the site and plot level during the 2011-2012 Bog Woodland Monitoring Survey. Based on expert opinion, the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was considered stable.
During the current reporting period, the most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment were ‘target tree size class’ (42.9% of plots) and ‘old trees & dead wood ’ (28.6% of plots) (Daly et al., in prep.).
Taxa on the current list of typical species that are used in the typical species assessment by Daly et al. (in prep.) comprise Betula pubescens (target species), Salix aurita, Salix cinerea, Salix x multinervis, Dryopteris dilatata, Dryopteris carthusiana, Carex rostrata, Juncus effusus, Molinia caerulea, Calluna vulgaris, Vaccinium oxycoccos, Vaccinium myrtillus, Empetrum nigrum, Epilobium palustre, Potentilla erecta, Polytrichum commune, Sphagnum fimbriatum, Sphagnum fallax, Sphagnum palustre, Hylocomium splendens and Aulacomnium palustre. Other species not used in the assessment but considered typical comprise Pinus sylvestris, Erica tetralix, Eriophorum vaginatum, Sphagnum squarrosum, Sphagnum capillifolium, Sphagnum teres and Polytrichum strictum (NPWS, 2013). ||
->Future: Current range is equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as stable.
Future trend of Range overall is assessed as stable, as the range is not expected to contract over the next 12 years.
Future prospects of Range are therefore good.

Current area is equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as stable.
Future trend of Area overall is assessed as stable based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Area are therefore good.

Conservation status of Structure and functions is assessed as Favourable as >90% of the habitat is in Favourable condition.
Short-term trend direction is stable for habitat that is in good condition.
Future trend of Structure and functions overall is assessed as stable, as the structure and functions are not expected to decline based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore good. ||
->Conclusion: The assessments of Range, Area and Structure and functions were Favourable in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The overall assessment of Conservation Status was Favourable in this reporting period, as it was in the previous reporting period.
Trend in Overall assessment of Conservation Status was assessed as stable in this reporting period. There were no trends associated with Favourable assessments in 2013, the Overall trend is assumed to have been stable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 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: There is no reliable new data on area available, but a positive trend is possible as a result of abandonment of mowing in reed beds in fen areas, which leads to an increase of poor quality bog woodland. However, better data is needed for reporting such trends. ||
->HabCondition: No data on area with good S&F available. Trend is assessed to be unknown, but may be negative (expert knowledge). ||
->Future: Predicted future trends of range and area is negative because current habitat is small and scattered (isolated), prone to succession accelerated by several threats. New habitat is not foreseen in restoration projects (aimed at bog or grassland development). ||
->Conclusion: S&F assessment based on previous report (which was based on SDF analysis); no TS analysis. ||
->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 Negative - slight/moderate deterioration ||
->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 between c.5-25% 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 poor.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-inadequate and none are 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. If the negative future trend in Structure and functions is also taken into account, the Overall trend would be stable.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 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  

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: In the assessment of overall status of structure and functions higher threshold value (about 35 %) have been used, because habitat type is still widespread, common and heterogeneous in Finland. The Area is about 19 000 km2 according the National Forest Inventory (National Resources Institute Finland, 2013–2017). ||
->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: For disstribution actual data from EU habitat mapping used (2/3 of country area) and information about forest stands from State Forest Service (1/3 of country area). Changes mainly due to the clarification of habitat interpretation, as well as there is still impact from melioration several decades ago and open wetland areas continues to overgrow. During EU habitat mapping 2/3 of the country's territory has been inventoried and currently this habitat occupies at least 60 240 ha, but teoretically analyzing the data of the State Forest Register the habitat could be found maximum in the area of ​​120 000 ha. Over the past six years, in 1.47% of the previously known habitat area the young forest stands are registered. ||
->HabCondition: Analyzing the quality of the currently mapped areas, it can be concluded that 7% of the habitats are in excellent quality, but about 50% of the habitats are in medium quality, because these forest stands (mainly middle-aged forest stands) has been developing in overgrowing mire areas starting from the middle of last century. In these forest stands amount of structures has not yet developed enough. In 7.5% of habitat the quality is assessed as low due to the negative impact of changes in the hydrological regime. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Important habitat for rare hygrophytic vascular plant species : Betula nana, Corallorhiza trifida, Listera cordata, Dactylorhiza maculata, D. fuchsii, Salix myrtilloides, Erica terralix, Carex disperma, C. paupercula, Galium triflorum ; bryophytes Anastrophyllum hellerianum, Odontoschisma denudatum, Hylocomiastrum umbratum Sphagnum wulfianum, Bazzania trilobata, Lophozia ascendens ; lichens Cladonia parasitica, Evernia divaricata, Arthonia leucopellea, Lecanactis abietina, Menegazzia terebrata. Bog woodlands dominated by Pinus sylvestris are important for protected bird species Tetrao urogallus, which can be mentioned as umbrella species for this habitat as well as 9010.

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: Area is evaluated ‘good’, because a future prospect of increase is supposable induced through a succession of associated habitats (f.e. 7120). ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Mainly due to new distribution data coming from the detailed Natura 2000 sites mapping. ||
->Coverage: For previous reporting, surface area of habitat 91D0 in Continental Region was mainly estimated from the plots of the Walloon Forest Inventory. Since then, many restorations occured with Life and RDP-funded projects. On expert advice, the total restored surface where we can consider that the habitat is already present (but at very young stages probably not measured by the Forest Inventory) is about 250 ha, and there is no known destruction of the habitat, as nearly all its surface is included in the Natura 2000 network with strong legal conservation measures. ||
->HabCondition: For habitat 91D0, conservation status was previously considered bad, based on data available from the few plots of the Walloon Forest Inventory that intercept this rare habitat. Trends cannot be calculated with confidence as the amount of plots from the 2nd cycle (not yet completed) for this habitat is even lower. Therefore, and as an important share of the surface consists in recent forest stands that cannot yet contain large living and dead trees, the conservation status is still considered bad, and the trend is considered uncertain due to the long time needed for acquiring good structures and functions. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: This habitat has its conservation status clearly improving due to its high level of protection in the Natura 2000 network (most of its surface) and several wide-scale restoration projects. Even if the trends of its structures and functions are "uncertain" because they could not be assessed accurately, they are very likely to be stable or improving. This is why the trend of the conservation status is "improving", taking also into account the surface increase. ||
->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: úbytek rozlohy má důvod v reklasifikaci při aktualizacích

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Lücken im Nordosten 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: Effet probable du changement climatique à long terme sur l'aire de répartition de l'habitat (notamment à basse altitude), suite à multiplication d'épisodes de sécheresse par exemple. Il n'est pas certains que les effets se feront déjà ressentir avant 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: 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. ||
->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". ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The results of the nation wide survey within forest areas (67% completed so far) show a decrease of the area of this habitat type. Of the 0,037 km2 of 91D0 surveyed, 100% have been evaluated as being 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 (202700km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (211112 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. 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 wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. 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) i uzupełniono to o szacunek powierzchni siedliska na pozostałych gruntach. Obecnie Bank Danych o Lasach (zawiera zaktualizowane i częściowo zweryfikowane dane zawarte w Bazie Invent) podaje areał siedliska 91D0 na poziomie 473.5km2. Przyjmujac, że udział siedliska 91D0 na terenie innych własności jest taki sam jak na terenie zarządzanym przez PGL LP otrzymujemy w przybliżeniu 570km2. ||
->HabCondition: 15 lipca 2015 roku nastąpiła zmiana metodyki polegająca na usunięciu z niej wskaźnika: - Martwe drewno leżące lub stojące >3 m długości i >50 cm grubości oraz modyfikacji wskaźnika: - Uwodnienie: w opisie wskaźnika dodano tekst: „Fakultatywnie wskaźnik ten może być oceniany na podstawie dokładnych pomiarów, np. za pomocą mierników automatycznych (o ile jest dostępny odpowiedni sprzęt).” W związku z tym, że terenowe prace monitoringowe zostały zakończone w 2014 roku zmiana ta nie miała wpływu na raportowane w tym cyklu dane dotyczące stanu siedliska 91D0.
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

http://siedliska.gios.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/erraty-i-modyfikacje-metodyk-monitoringu ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Powierzchnia siedliska na poszczególnych stanowiskach pozostaje podobna jak w poprzednim badaniu, choć wystąpiły pojedyncze przypadki pogorszenia. Natomiast parametr ten oceniany dla całych obszarów Natura 2000 jest obecnie oceniany znacznie lepiej niż w poprzednim badaniu, co sugeruje, że na większości obszarów trend ubytku siedliska został obecnie zahamowany. Wciąż jednak eksperci podkreślają negatywne trendy w Górach Izerskich oraz na Pojezierzu Sejneńskim.
Na pogorszenie oceny parametru specyficzna struktura i funkcje wpływ miały przede wszystkim wskaźniki odnoszące się do niewystarczającego stopnia uwodnienia, ekspansji gatunków, struktury pionowej drzewostanu, i naturalnego odnowienia. W porównaniu z poprzednim badaniem z lat 2006-2008 ocena tego parametru, tak w skali stanowisk jak i w skali obszarów Natura 2000, wykazała znaczne pogorszenie.
Perspektywy ochrony tylko na 43% stanowisk są oceniane jako właściwe. Od poprzedniego badania perspektywy ochrony - oceniane dla poszczególnych stanowisk - pogorszyły się istotnie, co było wynikiem występowania różnego rodzaju zagrożeń mogących negatywnie płynąć na siedlisko, takich jak odwadnianie, wydobycie torfu, bliskość pól uprawnych, czy nasadzenia brzóz w okolicach bagien, mogące doprowadzić do ekspansji tego drzewa na teren siedliska. Ocenę złą, otrzymały płaty siedliska zagrożone przez wydobywanie torfu oraz zarastanie przez brzozy i jeżyny.
Ocena ogólna na zaledwie na 16% stanowisk jest właściwa. Oceny siedliska od czasu poprzedniego badania istotnie pogorszyły się, zarówno w skali stanowisk, jak i w skali całych obszarów Natura 2000. Na ocenę ogólną niższą niż FV, główny wpływ miały oceny parametru struktura i funkcje.
Przedstawione wyniki ekstrapolowano na podstawie danych z 184 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: There are a fragmentations of this habitat for pasture, in the last years, with a decrease of the area. The calculation of area is based on a 1x1km grid leaving to an underestimation of the real reduction of the area. ||
->JustificationThreshold: This habitat is suffering of the dairy pressure from increasing pastures area and grazing pressures. It also is suffering of fragmentations follow of change in the water balance that usually lead to dry out of the plant community and the destruction of the habitat. ||
->Other: This habitat has one extreme importance in the landscape and biodiversity of Azores islands, as controller of water balance and surface hydrology of the Azorean ecosystems. It control the balance of water income from rain and intercepted rain, (sometimes with catastrophic amount’s), and its distribution to the water lines and streams. It has also important contribution on the nutrients distribution at mountain ecosystems, as one of the highest altitude woodlands. The change in the pattern of distribution has immediate consequences for all the mountain protect habitats.

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: úbytek rozlohy má důvod v reklasifikaci při aktualizacích

Open Original Report