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: 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 (15200km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (10008 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: Minimalną powierzchnie siedliska określono na podstawie danych z projektu "Optymalizacja wykorzystania zasobów sieci Natura 2000 dla zrównoważonego rozwoju w Karpatach" natomiast powierzchnie maksymalną na podstawie danych z SDF obszarów Natura 2000 (44km2), Banku Danych o Lasach (12km2) przy czym nieznana jest część wspólna z dwóch ostatnich źródeł danych. ||
->HabCondition: Wprowadzono modyfikację metodyki prac monitoringowych prowadzonych na zlecenie GIOŚ. Data Wprowadzenia zmiany 2015-07-17. Modyfikacje nie wpłynęły na wyniki prac monitoringowych raportowanych w aktualnym cyklu raportowania.
Modyfikacja wskaźników: - Martwe drewno leżące lub stojące >3 m długości i >50 cm grubości: w opisie wskaźnika doda zapis: „Na stanowiskach zidentyfikowanych jako podtypy 91E0-6 i 91E0-7 wskaźnik ten ma charakter pomocniczy , tzn. powinien by badany, ale nie powinien by brany pod uwag w ocenie parametru „specyficzna struktura i funkcje”.
- Martwe drewno (łączne zasoby): w opisie wskaźnika doda zapis: „Na stanowiskach zidentyfikowanych jako podtypy 91E0-6 i 91E0-7 wskaźnik ten ma charakter pomocniczy , tzn. powinien by badany, ale nie powinien być brany pod uwagę w ocenie parametru „specyficzna struktura i funkcje”.
- Wiek drzewostanu: w opisie wskaźnika dodano zapis: „Na stanowiskach zidentyfikowanych jako podtypy 91E0-6 i 91E0-7 wskaźnik ten ma charakter pomocniczy , tzn. powinien by badany, ale nie powinien by brany pod uwagę w ocenie parametru „specyficzna struktura i funkcje”.
(www.siedliska.gios.gov.pl)

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 41% stanowisk jest właściwa. Stanowiska te posiadają stabilny areał siedliska, który w najbliższych latach nie powinien ulegać pomniejszeniu.
Specyficzna struktura i funkcje na 18% stanowisk otrzymało ocenę właściwą. Ocena ta wynika z wysoko ocenionych wskaźników na tych stanowiskach. 57% stanowisk oceniono na U1, a 25% stanowisk otrzymało ocenę złą. Na stanowiskach z obniżoną oceną wskazywano przede wszystkim na zubożony skład gatunków charakterystycznych, udział gatunków inwazyjnych, brak naturalnych procesów zalewania i niewłaściwy reżim wodny. W porównaniu do poprzednich badań, prowadzonych w latach 2006-2008 rozkład ocen pod względem tego parametru jest podobny.
Perspektywy ochrony na 52% stanowisk są właściwe. Zachowanie siedliska na tych stanowiskach w perspektywie najbliższych 10-20 lat jest właściwie pewne. 32% stanowisk ma perspektywy ochrony niezadowalające, natomiast 16 % stanowisk – perspektywy złe. Złe perspektywy gorzej ocenionych obszarów wynikają przede wszystkim z silnego przekształcenia roślinności łęgowej w pobliżu zabudowań i miejsc o silniejszej antropopresji. Przekształcenie struktury roślinności wpływa na inwazję gatunków obcych, a także inne przekształcenia flory łęgów. W porównaniu do poprzednich badań terenowych rozkład ocen jest podobny z lekkim zwiększeniem liczby ocen FV – co oznacza, że pomimo ogólnie złego stanu ochrony tego siedliska w regionie alpejskim istnieją możliwości utrzymanie, a nawet poprawy tego stanu.
Ocena ogólna. Zaledwie 18% stanowisk oceniono na FV. Większość - 52 % stanowisk - otrzymało gorsze oceny, co wynika z ocen wszystkich 3 pozostałych parametrów. Najgorzej oceniono 30 % stanowisk. Ocena ogólna jest silnie powiązana z oceną parametru specyficzna struktura i funkcje, chociaż inne parametry również nie były zbyt dobrze oceniane. Rozkład ocen jest zbliżony do wyników poprzednich badań.
Przedstawione wyniki ekstrapolowano na podstawie danych z 44 stanowisk badawczych monitorowanych w latach 2013-2014.
(www.siedlska.gios.gov.pl)
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: Surface area of the range in previous report (2013) was 21200, but should have been 22000 (encoding error), which is the value coming from the 2013 range map. There is thus no change. ||
->Coverage: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). Therefore, we use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat).

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

In Wallonia, structures & functions of forests are assessed through information coming from the Walloon Forest Inventory. Assessment of surfaces in good condition is not relevant, as some parameters can only be calculated at Walloon biogeographical scale and make no sense in individual plots, due to the size of plots (~ 0,1 ha). These parameters include average number of large dead and living trees, diversity of structures, and evolution of old growth forests surfaces... Estimating local condition of plots excluding these regional parameters would provide a very bad image of real condition of forests, which may not be consistent with the final status. Thus, the final status of structures and functions and its real trends are only assessed at biogeographical level, and all the Walloon share of the surface is mentioned as "unknown status" in field 6.1 ||
->Future: Flanders: area poor: we expect an insufficiently large increase because the development time for this habitat is very slow; structure and functions poor: in recent years poplars have been cut down and removed in many 91E0 forests; this causes lack of thick trees and potentials for dead wood disappear. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Commentaires structure / fonction de l'habitat du 91E0 :
- étant riverain, la qualité du cours d'eau (structure, qualité de l'eau...) a un impact sur la sienne.
- en tant qu'habitat linéaire, il s'agit d'un corridor (favorable aux espèces patrimoniales, autant qu'aux espèces néfastes pour l'habitat, comme certains taxons exotiques envahissants et maladies impactant les espèces indigènes).

Observation sur l'évolution de l'état :
- habitat devenant fragmentaire concernant la plupart des habitats déclinés ;
- auprès des sources et rivières : composition et structure dépendant l'utilisation du territoire (modification du fonctionnement hydrographique, plantation, pollution chimiques diverses...). Les cortèges d'espèces les plus sensibles sont ceux des têtes de bassin versant. La structure verticale dépend de l'âge du boisement notamment, variables (non étudié finement) et horizontale (surface faible et formations fragmentées) ;
- au abords des fleuves : les saulaies blanches pionnières (91E0-1) qui sont les plus dépendantes des conditions hydrodynamiques sont les plus fortement touchées et ont déjà disparu de certaines régions. Elles se portent bien au niveau de la Loire. Les végétations à Populus nigra (91E0-3) deviennent relictuelles (stade vieillissant dont le renouvellement est menacé par diverses espèces exotiques, notamment Acer negundo et activité du Castor). ||
->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 for the current reporting period was calculated in two steps. Firstly, the range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of 91E0. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used when running the range tool. This range output (383 grid cells) was then merged with the NPWS (2013) range (605 grid cells). The NPWS (2013) range was generated using a predictive model that estimated the full range of this habitat in Ireland by identifying native woodland stands that occur on alluvial soils. The range based on the current distribution added five grid cells to the NPWS (2013) range to give a total of 610 grid cells. Range for the current reporting period is reported in section 4.1.
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 (610) is five squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). These changes are due to improved knowledge within the current reporting period.
Favourable Reference Range is approximately equal to the current range reported in section 4.1. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1993 following a localised survey by Browne (1998), and incorporates updates made by surveys between 1995 and 2018 that are listed in Section 3.2. Most of the data were initially collated during the National Survey of Native Woodlands 2003-2007 (NSNW; Perrin et al., 2008); a subset of these sites was then revisited by the 2011-2012 Woodland Monitoring Survey (O’Neill & Barron, 2013) and the 2017-2018 Woodland Monitoring Survey (Daly et al., in prep.).
To allow point files to contribute to the total area of 91E0 calculated for the current reporting period, a review of the datasets was carried out using remote imagery, and following this review a mean value of 2.5 ha was assigned to each point.
There are probably still areas of unmapped 91E0 habitat within the country, hence the area value entered is a minimum.
During the last two reporting periods, the Favourable Reference Area (FRA) was set at 0.25% of the Favourable Reference Range based on the area of alluvial soil within the country (NPWS, 2007, 2013). The FRA for the previous reporting period was 151.25 km2 (NPWS, 2013). The current surface area (19.64 km2) is only 12.9% of the FRA.
Habitat 91E0 is highly fragmented. Fragmented woodlands may be too small to support woodland specialists due to edge effects, or they may cease to persist because of problems related to genetic diversity exacerbated by excessive distances between woodland parcels (NPWS, 2013).
Forty 91E0 sites were surveyed during 2017-2018 Woodland Monitoring Survey (Daly et al., in prep.), 38 of which had previously been surveyed by the 2011-2012 Woodland Monitoring Survey (O’Neill & Barron, 2013). Two new sites were added to the monitoring programme in 2017-2018 as replacements for sites rejected after the 2011-2012 Woodland Monitoring. The two new monitoring sites had previously been mapped by O’Neill et al. (2010).
The 40 monitoring sites assessed for Area during the current reporting period represent 2.2 km2 (11.3%) of the total area of 91E0 habitat recorded in Ireland. At two of the sites, areas of 91E0 totalling 1.3 ha were lost to woodland clearance.
Area loss of 0.15 ha was recorded during the last reporting period at one of the 40 sites surveyed by the 2011-2012 Woodland Monitoring Survey (O’Neill & Barron, 2013)
An anthropogenic area loss of approximately 0.28 ha, which occurred in 2015, was recorded from one 91E0 site outside of the monitoring network (after Ross, 2017). Bank clearance works were undertaken in association with the Bandon River (Dunmanway) Drainage Scheme. Replanting was undertaken in 2018, using native tree species, and saplings have become well established (Crushell, 2018).
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 losses during the last two reporting periods. Based on an intersect with the 91E0 distribution map, DEFORMAP data indicate that 2.2 ha of 91E0 were lost during the 2007-2012 reporting period due to anthropogenic activities comprising building and agricultural grassland conversion. DEFORMAP data indicate 0.9 ha was lost during the 2001-2006 reporting period to anthropogenic activities comprising building and agricultural grassland conversion. The deforestation figure for the 2001-2006 reporting period should be taken as a minimum since the NSNW (Perrin et al., 2008) only commenced in 2003, therefore any areas already deforested would not have been mapped.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be decreasing due to anthropogenic loss totalling 3.93 ha (1.3 + 0.15 + 0.28 + 2.2) from 2007-2018 as reported by the Woodland Monitoring Surveys of 2011-2012 and 2017-2018, Ross (2017) and DEFORMAP. The magnitude of the known loss is -0.02% per annum, measured over a period of 12 years from 2007-2018. This was calculated by estimating the area lost and expressing this as a per-annum percentage loss of the known area of 91E0. 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 likely within the current reporting period (at sites outside the monitoring network), as well as undocumented losses occurring at unmapped sites.
With regard to area gains, the Native Woodland Scheme (NWS) has contributed to the establishment of new wet woodlands in Ireland. Coillte also manage areas of 91E0 on their estate for biodiversity and have restored 91E0 as part of the Coillte LIFE Project entitled ‘Restoring Priority Woodland Habitats in Ireland’ (2006-2009). In December 2012, Fraxinus excelsior (91E0 target species) was removed from the approved list of species to plant under the afforestation grant scheme due to the presence of Ash Dieback disease in Ireland. Coillte also made a policy decision not to replant with Fraxinus excelsior (DAFM, 2018b). This has the potential to impact future gains in 91E0 habitat. Research on the disease is on-going both in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe to develop trees with a strong resistance to the disease (DAFM, 2018b).
The latest available figures from the Forest Service (K. Duff, pers. comm.) put the total area of NWS Establishment for 2013-2018 at 1,211.43 ha, and the total area for 2000-2018 at 2,281.49 ha. Under the Native Woodland Conservation Scheme, the total area for NWS Conservation for 2013-2018 (approved and grant-aided) is 103.87 ha. A number of applications are still going through the approval process, or have been approved but the work is not yet completed, which will bring an additional ca. 100 ha into the system; however, these were deemed to be applicable to the next reporting period rather than the current one. The figure for NWS Conservation for 2000-2018 is 2,721.35 ha. ||
->HabCondition: During the current reporting period, 40 sites were assessed for Structure and functions by Daly et al. (in prep.). This represents 2.2 km2 (11.3%) of the total area of 91E0 habitat recorded in Ireland.
Nineteen sites received a ‘Green’ (Favourable) Structure and functions assessment, fourteen sites received an ‘Amber’ (Unfavourable-Inadequate) assessment, with seven sites receiving a ‘Red’ (Unfavourable-Bad) assessment (Daly et al., in prep.).
The approach used to determine the percentage of the 91E0 habitat in Favourable condition was as follows: At each monitoring site, equal weight was applied 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, 84.8% of the area was assessed as good condition (Favourable). When the proportion in good (84.8%) and in not-good condition (15.2%) was scaled up to the national estimate, 16.66 km2 was in good condition and 2.98 km2 was in not-good condition.
During the previous reporting period, twenty-four sites received a ‘Green’ Structure and Functions assessment, seven sites received an ‘Amber’ assessment, and nine sites received a ‘Red’ assessment (O’Neill & Barron, 2013).
When the above approach was retrospectively applied to the previous reporting period, 86.2% of the area assessed was in good condition (Favourable) and 13.8% was in not-good condition. When this was scaled up to the national estimate, 16.93 km2 was in good condition and 2.71 km2 was in not-good condition.
Since there is a decrease in the area of habitat in good condition between the current reporting period (16.66 km2) and the previous (16.93 km2), the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was considered to be decreasing.
During the current reporting period, the most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment were ‘negative species regeneration’ (65.6% of plots) and ‘negative species cover’ (30.6% of plots) (Daly et al., in prep.).
During the previous reporting period, the most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment were ‘negative species regeneration’ (58% of plots) and ‘negative species cover’ (22.5% of plots) (NPWS, 2013).
Taxa included on the current list of typical species are as follows: Alnus glutinosa (target species), Fraxinus excelsior (target species), Salix cinerea (target species), Salix spp. (target species), Betula pubescens, Crataegus monogyna, Solanum dulcamara, Viburnum opulus, Agrostis stolonifera, Angelica sylvestris, Carex remota, Filipendula ulmaria, Galium palustre, Iris pseudacorus, Lycopus europaeus, Mentha aquatica, Phalaris arundinacea, Ranunculus repens, Rumex sanguineus, Urtica dioica, Calliergonella cuspidata, Climacium dendroides and Thamnobryum alopecurum. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as stable.
Similar to NPWS (2013) the current range and the Favourable Reference Range are considered approximately equal.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as stable, as the range is not expected to contract within the next 12 years.
Future prospects of Range are therefore good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as decreasing.
Current area is more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Bad.
Future trend of Area is assessed as negative based on anthropogenic losses of 91E0 over the last two reporting periods. The removal of the 91E0 target species, Fraxinus excelsior, from the approved list of species under the afforestation grant scheme in 2012 (due to Ash Dieback) will likely impact future gains. It is currently unknown whether the threat of I05 will drive anthropogenic loss of 91E0 within the next 12 years (e.g. woodlands may be at greater risk of clearance if they lose a large proportion of trees).
Future prospects of Area are therefore bad.

Short-term trend direction is decreasing for habitat that is in good condition.
Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate as 84.8% of habitat is in good condition.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as negative, as the pressures/threats of I02, I04 and I05 are expected to have a negative influence on Structure and functions, irrespective of the conservation measures currently in place. The threat I05 will likely impact the integrity of 91E0 habitat, as it has the potential to drive substantial change in the canopy and ground flora composition of ash-dominated woodlands (Mitchell et al., 2016; Lawrence & Cheffings, 2014). I05 has the potential to create conditions that will exacerbate the existing pressures of I02 and I04. This would negatively impact the Structure and functions of ash-dominated 91E0 habitat within the next 12 years.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore bad. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range is Favourable in this reporting period, as it was in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Area and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Bad in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and Functions are Unfavourable-Inadequate this reporting period, but were reported as Unfavourable-Bad in the previous reporting period. This increase does not reflect a genuine improvement in Structure and Functions this reporting period, instead it reflects data inaccuracies in NPWS (2013). NPWS (2013) incorrectly states 37.5% (15 sites) of 2011-2012 Woodland Monitoring sites received a bad assessment; however, the figure as reported in O’Neill & Barron (2013) is 22.5% (9 sites). Structure and functions should have received an Unfavourable-Inadequate assessment in the previous reporting period.
The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, as it was during the previous reporting period.
Overall trend Conservation Status was assessed as deteriorating in this reporting period, but as improving in the previous reporting period. This change in trend is primarily due to the availability of more accurate data, e.g. DEFORMAP to detect anthropogenic area loss, the availability of baseline monitoring data from the previous reporting period for comparison, and emergence of disease that impacts one of the 91E0 target species. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The following is an extract from Khela & Oldfield (2018) that lists Fraxinus excelsior (91E0 target species) as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018.
Ash Dieback is an infectious disease that has caused severe dieback of Common Ash throughout much of its range. This is the most serious threat to the species, with recorded incidence in 24 countries and a high risk of spread to areas where it has not yet been observed. F. excelsior is considered to be seriously threatened in Hungary where there is a high incidence of infection, and is threatened or Near Threatened in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, as well as in regions of Spain. As Ash Dieback disease is spread by wind, it is extremely difficult to reduce or prevent spread of the disease and the entire population is at risk of further disease outbreaks. The overall population decline has not been quantified and little data is available to precisely estimate future decline rates, but given the dramatic declines seen in some parts of the species range, a future decline of at least 20-30% across Europe is possible. The entire natural range including Russia and south-west Asia is currently threatened by Ash Dieback. This species is therefore precautionarily listed as Near Threatened approaching criterion A3e. More information is needed on how much the population has declined from fungal infection, through mortality or felling for preventative measures, and there is a need for population monitoring, including for signs of disease. Management of infected stands for preventative spread of the disease should be attempted, though the best hope for control of the outbreak is that natural resistance will develop. Populations should be monitored for signs of resistance to the disease, in the hopes that resistant stands may be found. It is strongly recommended to collect detailed population information and decline rates from each country and to re-assess the species when all the data is available. It might warrant listing in a more threatened category in the future.

The following is an extract from Lawrence & Cheffings (2014) regarding the predicted impact of Ash Dieback on UK woodlands.
The response of woodland communities following the loss of ash was assessed, assuming natural regeneration: For woodlands where ash currently occupies less than 10% of the canopy, the other tree species currently forming the main canopy cover are expected to grow and fill the spaces left by any dead ash, resulting in little new recruitment of trees or expansion of the shrub layer. Shade-tolerant shrubs already present in the understory may grow to fill gaps in woodlands containing 10 to 20% ash in the canopy. This response is anticipated in three quarters or more of the current ash-containing woods in Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland. For woodlands where there is a greater component (>20%) of ash in the canopy, canopy gaps are anticipated to be larger and/or more frequent. Under these conditions, existing shrubs and particularly saplings are expected to fill the spaces in the canopy in addition to some expansion by other existing canopy tree species. Over a longer time-period, established saplings will replace shrubs and fill the canopy gaps. Sycamore is predicted to become particularly dominant in many of the sub-regions in this regard. Beech and small-leaved lime may form larger components in ‘former’ ash woodlands in southern England. Thus, in UK woodlands the canopy gaps left by ash dieback are not expected to be long-lived or permanent. Where ash is fairly common (>20%), and large gaps are created, they will be filled by other tree species that are currently in the woodland or surrounding area. Where gaps are smaller, created by the loss of only one or two trees, the canopies of existing trees will expand to fill the gaps.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The 6 years ago reported range should be 16000, 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, but a negative trend is indicated because of ongoing removal of forest in river beds (for water safety reasons). ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS. Trend assessed as unknown because of the very low areas A+B with good quality in the periods compared (NDFF assessed U2 with positive trend for subtype C). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: S&F score U2 given %area in not good condition but due to uncertainties with the newly developed method applied to subtypes (A, B and C) and considering the analysis of typical species, a conservative overall score of U1 is reported. ||
->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: 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 Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; Future trend of Area is Positive - increasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; 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 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 - unknown. ||
->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: Alluvial forests are associated with certain places where they can be formed. For disstribution actual data from EU habitat mapping used (2/3 of country area) and information about forest stands from State Forest Service (teoretically possible area for 1/3 of country area)> Currently mapped are 8731 ha of habitat, but the potential area of ​​habitat in the country could be 12 189,20 ha.
Changes in the area are due to the clarification of the habitat description and interpretation of the habitat, too. ||
->HabCondition: Analysis avainable data from EU habitat mapping, it is concluded that 23% of the habitats are of low quality due to affected hydrological regime, watercourse conversion, drainage. The quality of rest of habitats is good and medium. ||
->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 a newly known location close to the Eastern national border. ||
->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 positiver. 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 91E0, several parameters are stable, while other ones have a slight increase or dicrease, and the overall estimate of structures and functions can be considered stable. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Positive trends for surfaces are responsible for the positive overall trend of the conservation status. ||
->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: Lücken im Nordosten des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten bzw. Datenlücken 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: Calcul reposant sur des observations réelles rapportées en mailles de présence, et non plus sur la potentialité. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Le travail de l'IGN met en évidence la présence d'espèces allochtones sur un grand nombre de placettes de suivi de l'habitat, indiquant un degré de naturalité médiocre de l'habitat. Par ailleurs le volume de TGB est faible avec un diamètre seuil des 5% des tiges les plus grosses de seulement 38 cm indiquant des cycles d'exploitation courts ne permettant pas l'accroissement et le vieillissement des arbres.
Outre ces éléments dendrométriques, les structures et fonctions de l'habitat sont à évaluer au regard de sa fonctionnalité écosystémique.

Celle-ci est tributaire :
- de l'intégrité de structure (verticale et horizontale) de l'habitat, qui apparaît mauvaise au regard d'une fragmentation croissante et de surface d'habitat (déconnectées) de plus en plus réduites ; l'architecture verticale, en lien avec l'âge du peuplement, est également impactée par des cycles d'exploitation soutenus, et la régression des forêts anciennes ou à haut degré de naturalité ;
- de la fonctionnalité hydrologique (dynamique alluviale, connectivité hydraulique, qualité de l'eau...), laquelle est altérée dans de nombreux tronçons hydrographiques ;
- de l'intégrité écologique, altérée par la fragmentation (flux de gène limités), l'introduction volontaire ou non d'espèces allochtones (Populus spp., Acer negundo...), des pressions de l'exploitation sylvicole productiviste (destruction des sols et de la strate herbacée par les engins d'exploitation), ou des pressions agropastorales (pâturage systématique sous les ripisylves longeant les cours d'eau, destruction des forêts-galeries pour gagner en surface exploitable), l'eutrophisation généralisée des paysages en contexte agricole (forte représentation des espèces nitrophiles en strate herbacée).

Sans être quantifiables, ces dégradations constatées largement révèlent le mauvais état de conservation de l'habitat, en lien direct avec le niveau de pression anthropique (plus faible au sein de grands massifs forestiers et dans les secteurs de tête de bassin, plus forte en plaine agricole). ||
->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: 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".
93,9% 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 3,36 km2 of habitat type 91E0 surveyed, 93,9% 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 (316600km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (302345 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: Nie nastąpiła faktyczna zmiana powierzchni siedliska, a jedynie przeszacowanie powierzchni zasobów raportowanych uprzednio. 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 91E0 na poziomie 853km2. Przyjmujac, że udział siedliska 91E0 na terenie innych własności jest taki sam jak na terenie zarządzanym przez PGL LP otrzymujemy w przybliżeniu 1025km2. ||
->HabCondition: Wprowadzono modyfikację metodyki prac monitoringowych prowadzonych na zlecenie GIOŚ. Data Wprowadzenia zmiany 2015-07-17. Modyfikacje nie wpłynęły na wyniki prac monitoringowych raportowanych w aktualnym cyklu raportowania.
Modyfikacja wskaźników: - Martwe drewno leżące lub stojące >3 m długości i >50 cm grubości: w opisie wskaźnika doda zapis: „Na stanowiskach zidentyfikowanych jako podtypy 91E0-6 i 91E0-7 wskaźnik ten ma charakter pomocniczy , tzn. powinien by badany, ale nie powinien by brany pod uwag w ocenie parametru „specyficzna struktura i funkcje”.
- Martwe drewno (łączne zasoby): w opisie wskaźnika doda zapis: „Na stanowiskach zidentyfikowanych jako podtypy 91E0-6 i 91E0-7 wskaźnik ten ma charakter pomocniczy , tzn. powinien by badany, ale nie powinien być brany pod uwagę w ocenie parametru „specyficzna struktura i funkcje”.
- Wiek drzewostanu: w opisie wskaźnika dodano zapis: „Na stanowiskach zidentyfikowanych jako podtypy 91E0-6 i 91E0-7 wskaźnik ten ma charakter pomocniczy , tzn. powinien być badany, ale nie powinien być brany pod uwagę w ocenie parametru „specyficzna struktura i funkcje”.
(www.siedliska.gios.gov.pl)
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 68% stanowisk jest właściwa. Stanowiska te posiadają stabilny areał siedliska, który w najbliższych latach nie powinien ulegać pomniejszeniu. 27% stanowisk otrzymało ocenę U1, natomiast 5% stanowisk ocenę U2, ze względu na niewielkie płaty i kadłubowe wykształcenie tego siedliska. W porównaniu do poprzednich badań parametr ten nie uległ pogorszeniu, a nawet był oceniany nieco lepiej. Przyczyną tego może być częściowo naturalny proces odtwarzania się łęgów na obszarach objętych ochroną w sieci Natura 2000.
Specyficzna struktura i funkcje na 16% stanowisk została oceniona na FV. Ocena ta wynika z wysoko ocenionych wskaźników na tych stanowiskach. Na 50% stanowisk dokonano oceny U1, natomiast 34 % stanowisk oceniono na U2. Na niską ocenę wpłynęły przede wszystkim wskaźniki: Naturalność koryta rzecznego (brak regulacji), Pionowa struktura roślinności, Gatunki dominujące, Martwe drewno, Martwe drewno leżące lub stojące >3 m długości i >50 cm, Inwazyjne gatunki obce w podszycie i runie, Wiek drzewostanu. W porównaniu do badań prowadzonych w latach 2006-2008 zwiększyła się liczba ocen U2 i zmniejszyła się liczba ocen FV. Wskazuje to na postępującą degradację tego siedliska przyrodniczego (nawet pomimo ekspansji lasów i zarośli łęgowych w niektórych obszarach) – wiąże się to w dużej mierze z postępującą inwazją obcych gatunków inwazyjnych, ale również pogarszania się struktury pionowej i wiekowej na badanych stanowiskach.
Perspektywy ochrony na 58% stanowisk są właściwe. Zachowanie siedliska na tych stanowiskach w perspektywie najbliższych 10-20 lat jest właściwie pewne. 28% stanowisk ma perspektywy ochrony niezadowalające, natomiast 9% oceny złe. Porównując obecne badania z wynikami poprzednich badań obserwuje się poprawę ocen tego parametru – jest to dowód, że zdaniem ekspertów pomimo postępujących negatywnych procesów, zniekształcających specyficzną strukturę i funkcje tego siedliska obecnie mamy większe możliwości zatrzymania procesu np.. Poprzez prace renaturyzacyjne, usuwanie obcych gatunków inwazyjnych i inne prace z zakresu czynnej ochrony siedlisk przyrodniczych, a także poprzez lepsze narzędzia biernej ochrony tego siedliska przed zniszczeniem.
Ocena ogólna 12% stanowisk jest właściwa (FV), z kolei 54% stanowisk oceniono na U1, a 35% stanowisk na U2. Ocena jest głównie wynikiem nisko ocenionego parametru specyficzna struktura i funkcje. Pomimo nieco lepiej ocenianych w obecnym badaniu monitoringowym parametrów powierzchnia, a przede wszystkim perspektywy ochrony, stan parametru specyficzna struktura i funkcje się pogarsza na badanych stanowiskach. Ogólnie w porównaniu do poprzedniego badania istotnie zmniejszyła się liczba stanowisk ocenianych na FV. Wskazuje to na postępującą degradację tego siedliska przyrodniczego (nawet pomimo ekspansji lasów i zarośli łęgowych w niektórych obszarach) – wiąże się to w dużej mierze z postępującą inwazją obcych gatunków inwazyjnych, ale również pogarszania się struktury pionowej i wiekowej na badanych stanowiskach.
Przedstawione wyniki ekstrapolowano na podstawie danych z 153 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: Continuité, fragmentation, connectivité hydraulique, fonctionnalité de la dynamique hydraulique (libre expression du cours d'eau), sont les principaux paramètres envisagés pour cet habitat ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des structures et fonctions U1. Habitat très fragmenté et en limite de son aire de répartition dans le domaine méditerranéen où il reste assez anecdotique, généralement au contact de formations plus méditerranéennes du 92A0.
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: Fraxinus angustifolia s.l. ||
->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  

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