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  

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: N/A ||
->Coverage: Area was changed based on monitoring data, area of monitoring plots is sumarized. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps
(remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several
vegetation types not exactly known, …). Therefore, we use minimum (=
minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of
uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat). ||
->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 Li 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). ||
->Future: range and area are poor; we expect an insufficiently large increase because the development time for this habitat is very slow ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Nombreuses cartographies de sites à actualiser. Ce qui permettrait aussi d'appliquer les méthodes d'évaluation de l'état de conservation au moins sur l'ensemble des habitats admettant une méthode nationale proposée par le SPN.

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: No reliable new data on area available ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS. Functioning (NDFF)=U1 is overruled by U2, because of the very small sites (and NDFF-sample) and an indicated negative trend in area in good condition (from NDFF analysis); overall there is no strong evidence for changing the 2013 score of U2. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data; a formula with 75%/25%-thresholds is used for conservation status of Structure & Function and Typical species. ||
->Other: Report by Rienk-Jan Bijlsma (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

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: 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).
After 2/3 of the country's territory inventory, 477 ha of habitat has been found. Teoretically the maximum area occupied by the habitat could be up to 600 ha in the country. ||
->HabCondition: Accordingly to EU habitat mapping data 30% of habitat quality assessment is good or excellent, low quality - 20%, rest of habitats are medium quality. ||
->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: Wallonia: a complete inventory of the habitat has been done in 2012 for previous reporting. The identified areas have been checked with aerial photographs of 2018, and one habitat patch (0.8 ha) located outside the Natura 2000 network has been deforested. Furthermore, border change with the Netherlands is responsible for a decrease of ~ 1 ha of the Belgian Continental habitat surface (wihtout genuine change). ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring of habitat 91F0 is quite difficult as most of the largest patches of this habitat are located on large river islands. Nevertheless, we can consider that most of those patches are in bad conservation status for several reason: very artificial banks, important control of the natural flooding regime (nearly absent), development of invasive alien species, presence of exotic trees... This habitat is probably the most degraded forest habitat of Wallonia due to the very artifical aspect of the alluvial areas of the Meuse valley. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The main reason for dicreasing trend is based on the loss of at least one big habitat patch. ||
->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: La superficie calculée est issue de la modélisation des données AFB/SCTCBN après correction (20 852 km²) à laquelle a été retiré manuellement la surface de 6 mailles de présence 10x10km (600 km²) douteuse, et ajouté une maille (100 km²) de présence avérée. ||
->Coverage: L'habitat a beaucoup régressé le siècle dernier, et s'est morcelé le long des corridors fluviaux. Lorsque son extension est surfacique (massifs constitués), l'abaissement des nappes phréatiques et le jugulement des crues le font dériver vers d'autres types forestiers plus secs, ou il est progressivement remplacé par des plantations ou des boisements artificiels. Il constitue toujours cependant des ensembles forestiers exceptionnels par leur surface au niveau national et européen, le plus remarquable étant celui associé à la vallée du Rhin. ||
->HabCondition: Si une partie des espèces structurantes du cortège est en état de conservation favorable, Ulmus laevis et surtout Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris sont menacés à très menacés dans le domaine continental. Cet habitat est particulièrement riche en grandes lianes "épiphytes". Selon les secteurs, l'habitat est présent sous forme relictuelle et/ou dégradée (Seine et affluents), ou à l'inverse dans un état de conservation majoritairement favorable (Rhin, Saône, Allier, Rhône, Loire dans une moindre mesure).
Cet habitat, lorsqu'il est isolé (par le mitage) ne permet plus d'assurer les conditions optimales au maintien et à la conservation des espèces animales et végétales qu'il accueille. L'intégrité de la composition dendrologique des boisements alluviaux est souvent altérée pour les besoins de la sylviculture : les essences allogènes y sont fréquemment introduites (sylvofaciès) : Populus spp.(cultivars), Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Juglans nigra, Picea abies, Robinia pseudoacacia, ainsi que les essences indigènes inadaptées au contexte alluvial : Pinus sylvestris, Fagus sylvatica (cf. Bœuf & Schnitzler 2004, Bœuf 2014). Les peupleraies occupent parfois de grandes surfaces de l'habitat potentiel (ex. du val de Seine).

La dynamique de renouvellement est freinée par l'endiguement des fleuves qui limite les épisodes de crues catastrophiques. Elle s'observe au sein des gros massifs, tant que la fonctionnalité alluviale est maintenue (dynamique fluviale et inondabilité), ce qui n'est pas le cas pour les ripisylves linéraires et les petits boisements enclavés dans une matrice paysagère anthropisée. Plusieurs stades forestiers ont été identifiés dans la dynamique de le l'habitat, depuis une phase post-pionnière à bois mixtes jusqu'à la phase terminale de bois durs, mature, pluri-stratifiée (jusqu'à 7 strates!), portant la plus grande valeur écologique. Le stade mature est dominant dans les massifs constitués, tandis que le stade post-pionnier est le plus représenté dans les boisements linéaires (exemple de la Saône). Une étude sur la Bassée auboise a démontré la grande régression et le morcellement des forêts alluviales depuis 1830 (comparaison avec les cartes d’État Major) et la perte de 80% des surfaces de forêts dites "anciennes" (CRPF, 2010-2015). La connectivité déprend du cours d'eau considéré : bonne dans l'ensemble pour le Rhin (état boisé quasi-continu sauf dans le secteur du Ried Centre-Alsace), le Rhône et la Loire dans une moindre mesure. Le val de Saône dispose encore de gros massifs alluviaux-réservoirs à intervalles réguliers excepté sur la partie aval où l'habitat est relictuel. L'habitat est disséminé et cantonné à des massifs de petite taille ou linéaires sur le val de Seine.

Les 3 habitats élémentaires 91F0-1, 91F0-2 et 91F0-3 sont tous les trois représentés dans le domaine continental. Ils développent des variantes mésophiles à hygrophiles selon leur position géomorphologique, la durée d'inondation des terrasses qu'ils occupent en lien avec leur âge et le degré de "domestication" de la dynamique fluviale.

Concernant la structure dendrologique des forêts, l'analyse montre que :
- niveau de naturalité mauvais, le peuplement est transformé, avec au plus de la moitié de la surface possédant au moins 1 essence allochtone. Celles-ci étant généralement introduites volontairement (plantation).
- la proportion de bois mort au sol est globalement faible
- la proportion de TGB (très gros bois : diamètre >= 65 cm) est variable, de 0% (forêt jeune) à 14 % (forêt équilibrée)
- l'intégrité dendrologique mesurée par la surface tarière est bonne (20m3/ha en moyenne ; amplitude de 11 à 29m3/ha)

D'une manière générale, le rédacteur du rapport IGN-IFN 2018 souligne que les forêts alluviales à bois dur sont plus dégradées que celles à bois tendre, et dans un état réellement mauvais.
||
->Future: Habitat relictuel dans bien des vallées du domaine continental, toujours menacé ou détruit, et dont le niveau de naturalité sur les sites existants encore fonctionnels ne cesse de décroître. En l'absence de politique forte en faveur de sa conservation, nécessitant des mesures globales (notamment pour le maintien de la fonctionnalité hydrologique et d'une politique nationale garante de l'intégrité écosystémique des forêts) et locales (protection intégrale des boisements les mieux constitués), la survie de l'habitat (fonctionnel = hors plantations) est compromise à moyen terme. ||
->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 (220500km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (223411 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). Obecnie Bank Danych o Lasach (zawiera zaktualizowane i częściowo zweryfikowane dane zawarte w Bazie Invent) podaje areał siedliska 91F0 na poziomie 261km2. Przyjmujac, że udział siedliska 91F0 na terenie innych własności jest taki sam jak na terenie zarządzanym przez PGL LP otrzymujemy w przybliżeniu 300km2. Siedlisko zajmuje większe kompleksy gruntów głównie w dolinach Odry i Warty. Na pozostałych terenach występuje w większym rozproszeniu. Siedlisko co prawda nie zmniejsza swojego areału, ale pogarsza się jego stan w wyniku zmian procesów naturalnych warunkujących istnienie tego siedliska. Chodzi mianowicie o zaburzenie rytmu zalewów lub ich ustąpienie w ogóle. Wynika to z przekształceń dolin rzecznych wykonanych dawniej przez człowieka w celu ochrony przed powodziami oraz niekorzystnego w ostatnich latach bilansu wodnego. Powierzchnia siedliska przyrodniczego była określana jako niewłaściwa lub zła często ze względu na fragmentacje płatów przez ścieżki i drogi gruntowe. ||
->HabCondition: Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Ocena stanu ochrony została wystawiona w oparciu o dane zebrane z 92 stanowisk monitoringowych.
Ogólna ocena stanu ochrony oraz ogólny trend w stanie ochrony nie podlegają zmianom. Jednak należy wspomnieć, że w obecnym okresie sprawozdawczym lepiej oceniono parametr powierzchnia siedliska oraz perspektywy ochrony. Obserwowane są negatywne zmiany parametru struktura i funkcje, ale powierzchnia siedliska ogółem nie podlega zmianom. Ponieważ stan ochrony obecnie występujących płatów siedliska 91F0 zależy głównie od rytmu zalewów, który w ostatnich latach został zaburzony z przyczyn naturalnych ale może powrócić do normy należało by perspektywy ochrony ocenić nie jako złe ale jako niezadawalające.
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: Critères pour évaluer le paramètre structure et fonctions : intégrité de la composition dendrologique ; espèces envahissantes ; fragmentation, connectivité ; fonctionnement de l'hydrosystème ||
->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: Assumption: 20% of habitat area is estimated to be in not-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: 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: Quercus robur,
Quercus robur subsp. brutia,
Ulmus sp. pl.,
Fraxinus angustifolia,
Fraxinus excelsior,
Alnus glutinosa,
Alnus cordata,
Populus nigra,
Populus canescens ||
->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  

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 habitat cover in this region is very spread. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report