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: Range of the habitat type was calculated on the basis of its mapped distribution and a gap distance equal to 40 km. From the range, the grid cells with altitude above 700 m have been excluded, because the habitat type cannot be developed above this altitude. ||
->Coverage: The area covered by the habitat type is reported on the basis of the area of polygons including pure or mixed occurrences of the habitat type. For the polygons with mixed occurrence of the habitat type, the area of the other habitat types within the polygons has been excluded. ||
->HabCondition: The estimation of the habitat type’s area in good or not-good condition has been based on the results of sampling concerning the assessment of the conservation status of structure and functions per habitat type. ||
->Future: Future prospects for the range and area were estimated by best expert judgment, while for structure and function on the basis of the pressures and threats recorded in 39 sampling plots and the algorithm cited in Tsiripidis et al. (2018). ||
->Conclusion: The difference in the Conservation status of the habitat type from the previous reporting period is due to the following facts:
a) the structure and functions were revealed in bad conservation status on the basis of the sampling conducted during the period 2013-2018 and the more strict criteria that are mentioned in the reporting guidelines (i.e. if more than 25% of the area of the habitat type is in not-good condition then the conservation status is considered as bad)
b) the prospects of structure and functions were found as bad on the basis of the pressures and threats recorded in the plots sampled during the period 2013-2018 and the more strict criteria that are mentioned in the reporting guidelines (i.e. if more than 25% of the area of the habitat type has bad prospects then the prospects of the habitat types are considered as bad) ||
->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 is not enough information about the main reason of change. However, it is also important to mention that different methods have been used in this reporting period. ||
->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 structures et fonction : structure verticale / nombre de strate ; intégrité de la composition dendrologique ; fragmentation, connectivité ||
->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 surface area of the habitat (5.2) is equal to the area of the habitat within the Natura 2000 network (pSCIs, SCIs and SACs) (11.1), as reported for the previous reporting period (2007-2013). ||
->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: 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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: ‘Olea and Ceratonia forests’, along with other maquis habitats, typically occurs in sheltered environments such as the lower reaches of valley slopes, boulder screes at the foot of escarpments and along impenetrable valley sides. However, very few maquis sites in the Maltese Islands would qualify under this habitat, as most carobs are found isolated at the margins of fields, both in Malta and Gozo. Moreover, Gozo is relatively tree-less, it being predominantly agricultural and intensively cultivated. In Comino, this habitat is very rare; however, trees forming such habitat types have been planted in the area in the past.
This type of maquis is on the increase in the Maltese Islands, particularly due to abandonment of agriculture - this is hence a positive pressure in this case. In fact, a number of constituent species, like Rhamnus alaternus, which were considered very rare, are also increasing, probably due to the same reason, as well as the reduction of grazing by sheep and goats. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The data in this report has been mostly updated through habitat surveys carried out by the Environment and Resources Authority in 2017 and 2018. This exercise has enabled the assessment of the distribution and habitat condition with considerable accuracy. Field surveys were also complemented with desk studies, focussing on orthophoto analysis, and additional ground truthing, where possible. In this regard, the Authority has acquired drones with the aim to facilitate and assist future monitoring and surveying of all Annex I 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: 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: Bensusan, K.J. (2007) The ecology of migrant and resident passerines around the Strait of Gibraltar. PhD. Thesis, University of Leeds. Linares, L., Harper, A. & Cortes, J. (1996) The Flowers of Gibraltar . Gibraltar: Wildlife (Gibraltar) Limited.

Open Original Report