natura 2000 seminars - european commission€¦ · estonia 586.6 83.8 267 finland 8,900.0-9,000.0...
TRANSCRIPT
Natura 2000 Seminars
An initiative of the
Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process
Second Boreal Seminar Vilnius - Lithuania, 5 – 7 October 2016
Annex 6 – habitat group factsheets – forest habitats
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 2
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Prepared by: ILE SAS
Authors: Luboš Halada (ILE SAS), in consultation with the ETC-BD, in particular Mora Aronsson
and Doug Evans
Editing: Neil McIntosh, Frank Gorissen, Jinthe Roelofs (ECNC)
Copyright: © European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Funding: European Commission as part of contract number 07.0307/2012/60517/SER/B.3.
Disclaimer: The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
European Commission, nor is the European Commission responsible for any use that
might be made of information appearing herein.
Event: For more information on this seminar, see the Natura 2000 Communication
Platform:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/events/events-
upcoming/260_second_boreal_natura_2000_seminar_en.htm
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 3
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Table of Contents
9010 Western Taiga ...................................................................................................................... 4
9050 Fennoscandian herb‐rich forests with Picea abies ................................................................. 9
9060 Coniferous forests on, or connected to, glaciofluvial eskers ................................................. 13
9080 Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods ............................................................................ 18
91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior ................................................. 23
9040 Nordic subalpine/subarctic forests with Betula pubescens ssp. Czerepanovii ....................... 28
91T0 Central European lichen Scots pine forests .......................................................................... 32
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 4
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
9010 Western Taiga
x Selected for first round of Biogeographical Seminar
Selected using “Low hanging fruit” approach
Habitat summary
The overall conservation status in the Boreal region is unfavourable-bad due to decreasing area and
bad structure & functions and future prospects in all countries except Finland that reported
unfavourable-inadequate status. Habitat 9010 is widespread in the Boreal biogeographic region,
occurring widely in all countries, with a high proportion (49.4 %) in Sweden, followed by Finland
(44.5%). Improving the conservation status of the habitat requires maintenance of large areas of
habitat, diversification of the forest stand by forestry practices, leaving dead wood, and removal of
non-native species (including tree species). The controlled burning is effective and a good
maintenance and restoration measure, but it needs to be carefully planned and implemented.
Habitat description
Natural old forests or young forests, naturally developing after fire, representing climax or late
succession stages with slight or without any human impact. Present natural old forests are only
minor remnants of those originally occurring in Fennoscandia. Some present old natural forests are
influenced by humans, but they maintain many characteristics of the natural forests, i.e. the
considerable amount of dead and rotten wood, the great variation in tree age and height and species
composition, and trees from previous generations. They are habitats with many threatened species,
especially bryophytes, lichens, fungi, and invertebrates (mostly beetles).The role of fire is extremely
important for this habitat. The burned forest areas have been present naturally in the Boreal region,
now they are extremely rare because of efficient fire protection and forestry. The character of the
forests varies with the different boreal zones and different site types. The following sub-types are
distinguished: natural old spruce forests, natural old pine forests, natural old mixed forests, natural
old deciduous forests, recently burnt areas, and younger forests naturally developed after fire.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 5
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Distribution in the Boreal region and coverage by Natura 2000 network
The western taiga is widespread, occurring widely in all
countries in the Boreal region. The largest areas are in
Sweden (13,300 km2) and Finland (12,000 km2).
From ca. 26,940 km2 of this habitat in the Boreal region,
about 51% is included in Natura 2000 sites. The largest
proportion of the national habitat area in the Natura 2000
sites is in Estonia (83.8%) and Finland (74-75%).
Natura 2000 sites
Country Area
/km2/
Coverage
/%/
Number of
sites
Estonia 586.6 83.8 267
Finland 8,900.0-9,000.0 74.2-75.0 972
Lithuania 109.0 18.2 67
Latvia 133.0 39.3 178
Sweden 4,069.0 30.6 1,671
BOR Region 13,797.6-13,897.6 51.2-51.6 3,155
The table above shows size of the habitat area in Natura 2000 sites and its proportion compared to
habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013 Article
17 report.
Biogeographical conservation status assessment
The overall assessment is unfavourable-bad due to a decreasing area and bad structure & functions
and future prospects in all countries except Finland, that reported an unfavourable-inadequate
status. The range is favourable in all countries, the habitat area is favourable in Estonia. Experts and
organisations (the Forest Research Institute and a University) indicated all parameters as favourable
for Latvia. The eventual correction of the Latvian assessment will not change the overall assessment
for the Boreal Biogeographical region that remains unfavourable-bad.
While the habitat area in Estonia and Lithuania corresponds approximately to the reference value,
reference values in other countries are larger than the actual ones. The highest difference is in
Sweden (actual area: 13,300 km2, reference 35,000 km2) and Latvia (actually 338 km2, reference value
2,285 km2). This indicates a need for habitat restoration measures in these countries.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 6
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Legend: MS – Member State; Overall asses- Overall assessment; % MS – percentage of the surface
area in the respective Member State compared to whole Biogeographical Region; Ref. – reference
value; Struct & func. - structure and functions; Future prosp. – future prospect; Curr. CS – current
conservation status; Prev. CS – previous conservation status; Nat. of ch. – nature of change; EU27:
assessment on the level of all EU Member Countries; Concl. – conclusion; Target 1: - target 1 of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
Conservation
status FV
Favourabl
e U1
Unfavourable -
inadequate U2
Unfavourable -
bad XX
Unknow
n
Trend 0 = stable; + = increase; - = decrease; x = unknown
Qualifier = stable; + positive; - negative; x unknown
Nature of
change
a – genuine change; b – change due to better data or improved knowledge; b2 – due to
taxonomic review; c1 – due to different methods to measure or evaluate; c2 - due to
different thresholds use; d - no information about nature of change; e - due to less
accurate or absent data; nc - no change
Target 1
contributio
n
A - favourable assessments; B - improved assess.; C - deteriorated assessments; D -
unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change; E - assessments that
became unknown.
Pressures, threats and proposed measures
The main pressures are related to the forestry management. With intensive forestry, which is carried
out throughout this region, the main features of natural old forests disappear. Habitat
fragmentation, air pollution, fertilisation, succession, modification of hydrological conditions, a lack
of fires, and damage by herbivores are also reported as pressures.
Adaptation of forest management, restoration of forests, establishment of protected areas and
wilderness areas are the main measures proposed.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 7
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Code Pressure name EE FI LT LV SE
A08 Fertilisation H
B02 Forest and Plantation management & use H H H
B02.01.01 forest replanting (native trees) H
B02.02 forestry clearance M H
B02.04 removal of dead and dying trees M H
B02.06 thinning of tree layer M
B07 Forestry activities not referred to above H
H04 Air pollution, air-borne pollutants H
J01.03 lack of fires M M H
J02.05 Modification of hydrographic functioning, general H
J03.01 reduction or loss of specific habitat features M
J03.02 anthropogenic reduction of habitat connectivity M H H
K02 Biocenotic evolution, succession H
K02.01 species composition change (succession) H
K04.05 damage by herbivores (including game species) M H
Note:
Code Measure name EE FI LT LV SE
3.1 Restoring/improving forest habitats H L H H M
3.2 Adapt forest management H L H L
4.2 Restoring/improving the hydrological regime M
6.1 Establish protected areas/sites H H H M
6.2 Establishing wilderness areas/ allowing succession H H
6.3 Legal protection of habitats and species L L
Legend: L Low intensity M Medium intensity H High intensity
Reason of selection for the first Boreal seminar
The habitat type was selected for the first Boreal seminar because of its high value in the Priority
index. Habitat 9010 reached score 55 especially because of its unfavourable-bad overall conservation
status in Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden and unfavourable-inadequate status in Finland. Decreasing
habitat area in Finland, Lithuania and Sweden as well as a negative qualifier for structure and
function in Sweden contributed to the high index value as well.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 8
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
The Priority Index was calculated using information from the reports of the Member States, based on
requirements of Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for period 2001-2006. It is based on three
parameters: A) Number of Member States where habitat type is present; B) Unfavourable
conservation status of the habitat type (U2 – 2 points; U1 & XX – 1 point each), and C) Trend
information: number of negative trends for parameters “area of the habitat type” and qualifiers for
“structure & functions”. The index is then calculated using formula: A*(B+C).
Priority conservation measures
Improvement of the structure and Function is needed in all countries. Maintaining large areas of
habitat is essential to ensure long-term functionality of the Western taiga. Their structure and
functions could be supported by leaving dead wood in the habitat, diversification of the tree
structure by selective cutting of individual trees or group of trees, removal of non-native species.
Controlled burning can also be a good measure, however, it needs to be carefully planned and sites
where it would provide the highest benefit need to be determined. The burning season is from May
to mid-September, it should be applied in suitable weather and wind conditions, and by trained staff.
After burning, the site should be left for natural regeneration. Generally, taking away dead wood and
burning in forests should be forbidden.
The controlled burning followed by leaving the stand for natural regeneration is one of the most
effective restoration methods of Western taiga habitats. Other suitable measures include diversifying
of stand structure by creating small gaps (up to 15 m in diameter) and leaving laying wood on a large
scale, and mineralization of the surface to promote natural regeneration in site types with a dense
grass or moss layer.
Links
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&sub
ject=9010®ion=BOR
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 9
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
9050 Fennoscandian herb‐rich forests with Picea abies
x Selected for first round of Biogeographical Seminar
Selected using “Low hanging fruit” approach
Habitat summary
The overall conservation status in the Boreal region is unfavourable-bad due to the assessment of
Sweden with an unfavourable-bad area and future prospect. Habitat 9050 is distributed in almost the
entire Boreal biogeographic region with non-continuous distribution in northern parts of Sweden and
Finland and absence in Latvia; with a high proportion being in Finland (75.6 %). Improving the
conservation status of the habitat requires enlargement of the habitat area in Sweden and
improvement of the structure and function in all countries. The stand structure can be diversified by
cutting small gaps or removal of “hanging” trees, but leaving the dead wood in the site.
Habitat description
This habitat type occurs in areas of brown forest soils with mull, often in low-laying areas, ravines
and slopes with fine sediment and a favourable water regime. The succession of this vegetation type
normally leads to the dominance of spruce in the tree layer, although the broad-leaved trees often
comprise a significant element. Tall herbs and ferns dominate, but the species composition varies
greatly between northern, southern and western Fennoscandia. The forests are characterized by
distinct layers of vegetation. The bottom layer is covered unevenly by bryophytes, the field layer is
dominated by herbs and grasses, the bush and tree layers are well developed including a variety of
species. Several vegetation types have been described, the main groups being dry, mesic and moist
grass-herb forests. Sometimes ground water is flowing near the ground surface, which gives rise to a
specific species rich ”wet-forest” flora and invertebrate fauna.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 10
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Distribution in the Boreal region and coverage by Natura 2000 network
The habitat is distributed in almost the entire Boreal
biogeographic region with non-continuous distribution in
northern parts of Sweden and Finland. The absence in
Latvia is probably related to a different habitat
interpretation. The largest area is in Finland (4,200 km2).
From ca. 5,560 km2 of this habitat in the Boreal region,
about 5-6% is included in Natura 2000 sites. The Natura
2000 sites host the largest proportion of the national
habitat area in Estonia (81.6 %).
Natura 2000 sites
Country Area
/km2/
Coverage
/%/
Number
of sites
Estonia 81.6 81.6 151
Finland 100.0-140.0 2.4-3.3 483
Lithuania 26.0 5.1 55
Sweden 71.0 9.5 439
BOR Region 278.6-318.6 5.0-5.7 1128
The table above shows size of the habitat area in Natura 2000 sites and its proportion compared to
habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013 Article
17 report.
Biogeographical conservation status assessment
The overall conservation status is unfavourable-bad due to the situation in Sweden with an
unfavourable-bad area and future prospect. Other countries concluded unfavourable-inadequate.
Estonia reported a genuine change in the overall qualifier from stable to negative.
While the habitat area in Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania corresponds approximately to the reference
value, the reference value in Sweden is much larger (3,000 km2) than the actual one (746 km2). This
indicates a need for habitat restoration measures.
Legend: MS – Member State; Overall asses- Overall assessment; % MS – percentage of the surface
area in the respective Member State compared to whole Biogeographical Region; Ref. – reference
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 11
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
value; Struct & func. - structure and functions; Future prosp. – future prospect; Curr. CS – current
conservation status; Prev. CS – previous conservation status; Nat. of ch. – nature of change; EU27:
assessment on the level of all EU Member Countries; Concl. – conclusion; Target 1: - target 1 of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
Conservation
status FV
Favourabl
e U1
Unfavourable -
inadequate U2
Unfavourable -
bad XX
Unknow
n
Trend 0 = stable; + = increase; - = decrease; x = unknown
Qualifier = stable; + positive; - negative; x unknown
Nature of
change
a – genuine change; b – change due to better data or improved knowledge; b2 – due to
taxonomic review; c1 – due to different methods to measure or evaluate; c2 - due to
different thresholds use; d - no information about nature of change; e - due to less
accurate or absent data; nc - no change
Target 1
contributio
n
A - favourable assessments; B - improved assess.; C - deteriorated assessments; D -
unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change; E - assessments that
became unknown.
Pressures, threats and proposed measures
Main pressures are related to unsuitable forestry management, but modification of water regime is
considered important as well. Other reported pressures are fertilisation, air pollution, invasive alien
species, succession and fragmentation. Adaptation of the forest management, habitat restoration
and establishing of protected/wilderness areas are the proposed management measures.
Code Pressure name EE FI LT LV SE
A08 Fertilisation H
B02 Forest and Plantation management & use H H H
B02.02 forestry clearance H
B02.06 thinning of tree layer M
H04 Air pollution, air-borne pollutants M
I01 invasive non-native species M
J02 human induced changes in hydraulic conditions H
J02.03 Canalisation & water deviation H
J02.05 Modification of hydrographic functioning, general H
J03.02 anthropogenic reduction of habitat connectivity H
K02 Biocenotic evolution, succession H
Note:
Code Measure name EE FI LT LV SE
3.1 Restoring/improving forest habitats H M H M
3.2 Adapt forest management L H L
6.1 Establish protected areas/sites H H M
6.2 Establishing wilderness areas/ allowing succession H
6.3 Legal protection of habitats and species M L
Legend: L Low intensity M Medium intensity H High intensity
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 12
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Reason of selection for the first Boreal seminar
This habitat type was selected for the first Boreal seminar because of quite a high value on its Priority
index. The habitat 9050 reached score 32 especially because of its unfavourable-bad overall
conservation status in Sweden and unfavourable-inadequate status in three countries (Estonia,
Finland, and Lithuania). Decreasing habitat area in Estonia and Sweden as well as a negative qualifier
for structure and function in Sweden contributed to the high index value.
The Priority Index was calculated using information from the reports of Member States based on
requirements of the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for period 2001-2006. It is based on three
parameters: A) Number of Member States where habitat type is present; B) Unfavourable
conservation status of the habitat type (U2 – 2 points; U1 & XX – 1 point each), and C) Trend
information: number of negative trends for parameters “area of the habitat type” and qualifiers for
“structure & functions”. The index is then calculated using formula: A*(B+C).
Priority conservation measures
The habitat type 9050 is mostly a human-influenced semi-natural forest that needs frequent
management activities in order to maintain the habitat in good condition. For improvement of the
conservations status of the habitat type in the Boreal biogeographic region, it is necessary to enlarge
the habitat area in Sweden and improve the structure and function in all countries. The stand
structure can be diversified by creating small gaps (up to 15 m of diameter) and leaving large scale
laying wood in the stand. The elimination of “hanging” trees, but leaving them in the site as dead
wood is also a suitable measure.
Links
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&sub
ject=9050®ion=BOR
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 13
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
9060 Coniferous forests on, or connected to, glaciofluvial eskers
x Selected for first round of Biogeographical Seminar
x Selected using “Low hanging fruit” approach
Habitat summary
The overall conservation status in the Boreal region is unfavourable-bad and decreasing due to
structure & functions and future prospects in Finland, Latvia and Sweden. Habitat 9060 is present in
all Member States in the Boreal biogeographic region, with a highly dominant occurrence in Finland
(98.4 % of the habitat area). Improving the conservation status of the habitat requires improvement
of the trend in structure & function from negative to stable in Finland. However, the main pressures
are mostly natural processes and it is possible to agree with the conclusion of Finland that it will be
difficult to tackle factors affecting the structure and function of this habitat type sufficiently and
probably the declining trend will continue in the future. Based on this conclusion, this habitat is
probably not a “low hanging fruit”.
Habitat description
This type includes Fennoscandian conifer forests found on or close to eskers. The top of an esker is
often characterized by Pinus sylvestris and the slopes sometimes by Picea abies, although deciduous
species may occur. Eskers are glaciofluvial gravel and sand formations which consist of relatively well
sorted sediments, often forming ridges of over 20 meters high. In terms of ecological factors they are
more variable than the surrounding forests on a more flat surface. In particular the microclimate
differs notably between shaded and sunny slopes. As a result, vegetation on sunny esker slopes is
often relatively rich in species, containing many leguminous plants and some eastern steppe plant
species.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 14
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Distribution in the Boreal region and coverage by Natura 2000 network
The habitat type occurs only in the Boreal region, where it is
occurring in all countries. The centre of distribution lies in
Finland where the habitat type has an almost continuous
distribution in the whole country except the areas in the far
north. In other countries the distribution is scattered, in
Sweden restricted to southern part. The dominance in
Finland is even more visible if the habitat area is taking into
account – 98.4 % of the habitat area lies in Finland.
The habitat type is protected in 286 Natura 2000 sites (148
sites in Finland). In Estonia, 94 % of the national habitat area
is located in Natura 2000 sites, in Latvia, more than half of
the national habitat area is in Natura 2000 sites.
Natura 2000 sites
Country Area
/km2/
Coverage
/%/
Number of
sites
Estonia 32.0 94.1 35
Finland 200.0-380.0 2.9-5.4 148
Lithuania 3.9 20.5 8
Latvia 8.0 57.1 12
Sweden 18.0 38.3 83
BOR Region 261.9-441.9 3.7-6.2 286
The table above shows size of the habitat area in Natura 2000 sites and its proportion compared to
habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013 Article
17 report.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 15
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Biogeographical conservation status assessment
The overall conservation status is unfavourable-bad and decreasing due to structure & functions and
future prospects in Finland, Latvia and Sweden. Estonia and Lithuania assessed these parameters as
unfavourable-inadequate. Range and area are favourable, except the area in Sweden (unfavourable-
bad). Lithuania is the only country that changed the assessment of the conservation status in its
territory (from unfavourable-inadequate to unfavourable-bad) and this change is genuine.
Legend: MS – Member State; Overall asses- Overall assessment; % MS – percentage of the surface
area in the respective Member State compared to whole Biogeographical Region; Ref. – reference
value; Struct & func. - structure and functions; Future prosp. – future prospect; Curr. CS – current
conservation status; Prev. CS – previous conservation status; Nat. of ch. – nature of change; EU27:
assessment on the level of all EU Member Countries; Concl. – conclusion; Target 1: - target 1 of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
Conservation
status FV Favourable U1
Unfavourable -
inadequate U2
Unfavourable -
bad XX Unknown
Trend 0 = stable; + = increase; - = decrease; x = unknown
Qualifier = stable; + positive; - negative; x unknown
Nature of
change
a – genuine change; b – change due to more accurate data or improving knowledge; b2
– change due to taxonomic review; c1 – due to different methods to measure or
evaluate; c2 - due to the use of different thresholds; d- no information about nature of
change; e - due to less accurate or absent data; nc - no change
Target 1
contribution
A - favourable assessments; B - improved assessments; C - deteriorated assessments; D -
unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change; E - assessments that
became unknown.
Pressures, threats and proposed measures
Finland reported a lack of forest fires, a thickening litter layer and gradual eutrophication as the most
important negative factors affecting structure and function of the habitat, and this negative impact is
operating in protected areas as well. Forest management can have effects on structure and
composition of the vegetation through closing canopy layer and decline in the amount of deadwood.
Factors affecting the structure and function will be difficult to tackle sufficiently. Most probably, this
declining trend will continue in the future. Sweden reported similar pressures: the lack of fires, the
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 16
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
reduced regeneration of deciduous trees plus the lack of habitat connectivity and thereby a reduced
colonization rate of typical species. Sand and gravel extraction, forest management and succession
are other pressures of high intensity.
The establishment of protected areas is the main measure proposed by the Member Countries. The
restoring of the forest habitats and adaptation of the forest management are considered highly
important as well.
Code Pressure name EE FI LT LV SE
A04.03 abandonment of pastoral systems, lack of grazing M
B02 Forest and Plantation management & use M H H
B02.02 forestry clearance M
C01.01 Sand and gravel extraction H H
H04.02 Nitrogen-input H
J01.03 lack of fires H M H
J03.02 anthropogenic reduction of habitat connectivity H
K02 Biocenotic evolution, succession M
K02.01 species composition change (succession) M H M
K02.02 accumulation of organic material H
K02.03 eutrophication (natural) H
Note:
Code Measure name EE FI LT LV SE
3.1 Restoring/improving forest habitats
H
H
3.2 Adapt forest management
H
6.1 Establish protected areas/sites H M H H
6.2 Establishing wilderness areas/ allowing succession M
9.1 Regulating/Management exploitation of natural resources on land M
Legend: L Low intensity M Medium intensity H High intensity
Reason for selection as “Low Hanging Fruit“ (LHF) habitat in the Boreal region
Applying the methodology to identify LHF habitats in the Boreal region, habitat 9060 reached the LHF
score 25.24. This habitat type was classified as LHF especially because in order to reach
improvement, the change from a negative to a stable trend within the category U2 (unfavourable-
bad) is sufficient. It is usually much easier to improve a trend than to reach another category. The
habitat type was included to LHF also because of the fact that the improvement of only one
parameter (structure & functions) in one country (Finland) is needed to reach the overall
improvement.
Reason of selection for the first Boreal seminar
The habitat type was selected for the first Boreal seminar because of its high value of the Priority
index. The habitat 9060 reached score 55 especially because of its unfavourable-bad conservation
status, decreasing habitat area and a negative qualifier for structure and function in both Finland and
Sweden.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 17
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
The Priority Index was calculated using information from the reports of Member States based on
requirements of the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for the period 2001-2006. It is based on three
parameters: A) Number of Member States where habitat type is present; B) Unfavourable
conservation status of the habitat type (U2 – 2 points; U1 & XX – 1 point each), and C) Trend
information: number of negative trends for parameters “area of the habitat type” and qualifiers for
“structure & functions”. The index is then calculated using formula: A*(B+C).
Priority conservation measures needed
Improvement of the overall trend from negative to stable is necessary; this is related to the
parameter structure & function. The main pressures are mostly natural processes and controlled
burning, which seems to be probably the only measure that could improve the situation significantly.
However, it is questionable if this measure could be implemented safely on relative large areas and if
the side effects are acceptable. Mechanical removal of the litter layer is probably too labour-
intensive and thus expensive, it can also not be easily applied on a larger scale. Partial improvement
of the current situation could be achieved by forest management measures. It is also possible to take
measures for improving connectivity and to establish new protected sites. However, the habitat
decline continues also in current protected areas. It is possible to agree with the conclusion of
Finland that it will be difficult to tackle sufficiently factors affecting the structure and function of this
habitat type and probably the declining trend will continue in the future. Based on this conclusion,
this habitat is probably not a “low hanging fruit”.
Links
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&sub
ject=9060®ion=BOR
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 18
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
9080 Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods
x Selected for first round of Biogeographical Seminar
Selected using “Low hanging fruit” approach
Habitat summary
The overall conservation status in the Boreal region is unfavourable-bad in all countries except for
Lithuania. Habitat 9080 is distributed continuously in the southern part of the Boreal biogeographic
region while scattered in its northern parts, with a high proportion (44.2 %) being in Lithuania
(however, Finland did not specify the habitat area). Improving the conservation status of the habitat
requires improvement of structure and function in Estonia, Finland and Latvia as well as enlarging the
habitat area by habitat restoration in Latvia and Sweden. The main measures include restoration of
the hydrologic regime, modification of some forestry measures and establishment of protected sites.
Habitat description
Deciduous swamps are under permanent influence of surface water and usually flooded annually.
They are moist or wet, wooded wetland with some peat formation, but the peat layer is usually very
thin. Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) in the hemi-boreal zone and black alder (Alnus glutinosa) reaching the
middle boreal zone are typical tree species. Gray alder (Alnus incana), silver birch (Betula pubescens)
and willows (Salix spp.) are also common. A mosaic of patches with different water level and
vegetation is typical for the type. Around the tree stems are small hummocks, but flooded surfaces
are dominant.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 19
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Distribution in the Boreal region and coverage by Natura 2000 network
The habitat type is distributed continuously in the
southern part of the Boreal biogeographic region while
the habitat is scattered in the northern parts of Sweden
and Finland. The largest habitat area is in Finland (4,200
km2) and there is significant occurrence in Sweden (746
km2), and Lithuania (513 km2).
From ca. 5,5000 km2 of this habitat in the Boreal region,
about 39 % are included in Natura 2000 sites. The Natura
2000 sites cover the largest proportion of the national
habitat area in Estonia (90 %).
Natura 2000 sites
Country Area
/km2/
Coverage
/%/
Number
of sites
Estonia 360.0 90.0 218
Finland 13.0-20.0 132
Lithuania 90.0 13.7 82
Latvia 77.2 34.3 139
Sweden 31.0 15.0 521
BOR Region 578.2 38.3-38.8 1092
The table above shows the size of the habitat area in Natura 2000 sites and its proportion compared
to habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013 Article
17 report.
Biogeographical conservation status assessment
Both the overall conservation assessment and national assessments are unfavourable-bad in all
countries except for Lithuania (favourable).The habitat area in Sweden is declining and far below
reference area. Several Latvian experts and two forestry institutions consider the conservation status
and all parameters favourable. An eventual change of the conclusion for Latvia will not influence the
overall conclusion.
While the habitat area in Lithuania corresponds approximately to the reference value, reference
values in other countries are larger than the actual ones and unknown in Estonia. This indicates need
for the habitat restoration measures in the Biogeographic Region. There is no information about the
habitat area in Finland.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 20
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Legend: MS – Member State; Overall asses- Overall assessment; % MS – percentage of the surface
area in the respective Member State compared to whole Biogeographical Region; Ref. – reference
value; Struct & func. - structure and functions; Future prosp. – future prospect; Curr. CS – current
conservation status; Prev. CS – previous conservation status; Nat. of ch. – nature of change; EU27:
assessment on the level of all EU Member Countries; Concl. – conclusion; Target 1: - target 1 of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
Conservation
status FV
Favourabl
e U1
Unfavourable -
inadequate U2
Unfavourable -
bad XX
Unknow
n
Trend 0 = stable; + = increase; - = decrease; x = unknown
Qualifier = stable; + positive; - negative; x unknown
Nature of
change
a – genuine change; b – change due to better data or improved knowledge; b2 – due to
taxonomic review; c1 – due to different methods to measure or evaluate; c2 - due to
different thresholds use; d - no information about nature of change; e - due to less
accurate or absent data; nc - no change
Target 1
contributio
n
A - favourable assessments; B - improved assess.; C - deteriorated assessments; D -
unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change; E - assessments that
became unknown.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 21
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Pressures, threats and proposed measures
Forest drainage influencing natural functions of these forests and the forestry management are main
reported pressures. The habitat fragmentation, vegetation succession and the damage by herbivores
are other reported pressures.
The establishment of protected/wilderness areas and adaptation of the forest management
represent the main measures proposed.
Code Pressure name EE FI LT LV SE
B02 Forest and Plantation management & use M H M
B02.02 forestry clearance M
B02.06 thinning of tree layer M
B07 Forestry activities not referred to above H H
J02 human induced changes in hydraulic conditions H H M
J02.03 Canalisation & water deviation H
J02.04.0
2 lack of flooding M H
J02.05 Modification of hydrographic functioning, general H M H
J03.02 anthropogenic reduction of habitat connectivity H
K02 Biocenotic evolution, succession H
K04.05 damage by herbivores (including game species) M
Note:
Code Measure name EE FI LT LV SE
3.1 Restoring/improving forest habitats M M
3.2 Adapt forest management M H L
4.2 Restoring/improving the hydrological regime M L
6.1 Establish protected areas/sites H H H M
6.2 Establishing wilderness areas/ allowing succession H
6.3 Legal protection of habitats and species M L
Legend: L Low intensity M Medium intensity H High intensity
Reason of selection for the first Boreal seminar
The habitat type was selected for the first Boreal seminar because of quite a high value of its Priority
index. The habitat 9080 reached score 30 especially because of its unfavourable-bad overall
conservation status in Estonia and Finland. In addition, both countries reported also decreasing
habitat area.
The Priority Index was calculated using information from the reports of Member States based on
requirements of the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for period 2001-2006. It is based on three
parameters: A) Number of Member States where habitat type is present; B) Unfavourable
conservation status of the habitat type (U2 – 2 points; U1 & XX – 1 point each), and C) Trend
information: number of negative trends for parameters “area of the habitat type” and qualifiers for
“structure & functions”. The index is then calculated using formula: A*(B+C).
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 22
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Priority conservation measures
To improve the overall conservation status, the improvement of structure and function in Estonia,
Finland and Latvia as well as enlarging the habitat area by habitat restoration in Latvia and Sweden is
needed. The basic requirement is to restore the hydrological regime of this habitat which means that
functioning of the drainage ditches and effect of other activities modifying the natural water regime
in and around sites and (if relevant) in the broader catchment area should be eliminated. Also
regulation of beaver populations should be part of that. Further measures should ensure forestry
management that supports the maintenance and protection of the habitat type. A considerable area
should be left without management. In managed forest, clear-cuts should be restricted only on the
largest and less valuable sites, in other sites small scale selective cutting to secure continuous forest
cover is preferred. A large amount of trees from previous generations should be left in the sites.
Another measure is to thin up to 20% of the growing stock in dense and uniform stands – such
cutting should be done in small groups. The declaration of protected sites is for this habitat type very
relevant as it could help implementing maintenance and restoration measures and prevent further
pressures.
Links
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&sub
ject=9080®ion=BOR
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 23
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior
x Selected for first round of Biogeographical Seminar
Selected using “Low hanging fruit” approach
Habitat summary
The overall conservation status in the Boreal region is unfavourable-bad in the Boreal region due to
the assessments of Finland and Latvia (all parameters except range assessed as unfavourable-bad).
Habitat 91E0 is distributed especially in the southern part of the Boreal biogeographic region with
continuous distribution in Latvia and Lithuania and scattered occurrence in the northern part of the
region, a high proportion (41.9 %) is situated in Lithuania. Improving the conservation status of the
habitat requires improvement of structure and functions and habitat area in Finland and Latvia.
Concrete measures include stopping drainage systems and regulating beaver populations. The
measures for diversifying of the forest stand structure are formulated as well.
Habitat description
Alluvial forests (91E0) include three types of vegetation occurring along river banks and
watercourses. Riparian forests dominated by alder (Alnus glutionosa) and riparian ash (Fraxinus
excelsior) and willow gallery forests of willow (Salix alba, Salix fragilis) with poplar (Populus nigra)
can be found at lowlands and hills. Riparian woods with grey alder (Alnus incana) occupies sub-
montane to sub-alpine rivers. All types prefer heavy soils (generally rich in alluvial deposits)
periodically inundated by the annual rise of the river (or brook) level, but otherwise well-drained and
aerated during low-water. The herbaceous layer invariably includes many large species (Filipendula
ulmaria, Angelica sylvestris, Rumex sanguineus, Carex spp., Cirsium oleraceum) and various vernal
geophytes such as Ranunculus ficaria, Anemone nemorosa, A. ranunculoides, Corydalis solida.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 24
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Distribution in the Boreal region and coverage by Natura 2000 network
The habitat type is distributed especially in the southern part
of the Boreal biogeographic region with a continuous
distribution in Latvia and Lithuania and scattered occurrence
in the northern part of the Region. The largest area is
reported by Lithuania (180 km2) and Sweden (146 km2).
Finland did not report about the area.
From ca. 430 km2 of this habitat in the Boreal region, about
26 - 28 % is included in Natura 2000 sites. The largest
proportion of the national habitat area is located in Natura
2000 sites in Estonia (91.4 %).
Natura 2000 sites
Country Area
/km2/
Coverage
/%/
Number of
sites
Estonia 32.0 91.4 22
Finland 6.6-14.6 73
Lithuania 30.0 16.7 45
Latvia 23.0 33.3 63
Sweden 19.0 13.0 131
BOR Region 110.6-118.6 25.7-27.6 334
The table above shows size of the habitat area in Natura 2000 sites and its proportion compared to
the habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013
Article 17 report.
Biogeographical conservation status assessment
The overall conservation status is unfavourable-bad in the Boreal region due to the assessments of
Finland and Latvia (all parameters except range assessed as unfavourable-bad). Estonia, Lithuania
and Sweden concluded the conservation status as unfavourable-inadequate. The overall trend is
negative. The Latvian experts consider the habitat area favourable, while structure and function and
the overall assessment are unfavourable-inadequate.
The habitat area corresponds approximately to the reference value in Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden
and it is smaller than the reference value in Latvia. Finland did not report the habitat area.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 25
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Legend: MS – Member State; Overall asses- Overall assessment; % MS – percentage of the surface
area in the respective Member State compared to whole Biogeographical Region; Ref. – reference
value; Struct & func. - structure and functions; Future prosp. – future prospect; Curr. CS – current
conservation status; Prev. CS – previous conservation status; Nat. of ch. – nature of change; EU27:
assessment on the level of all EU Member Countries; Concl. – conclusion; Target 1: - target 1 of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
Conservation
status FV
Favourabl
e U1
Unfavourable -
inadequate U2
Unfavourable -
bad XX
Unknow
n
Trend 0 = stable; + = increase; - = decrease; x = unknown
Qualifier = stable; + positive; - negative; x unknown
Nature of
change
a – genuine change; b – change due to better data or improved knowledge; b2 – due to
taxonomic review; c1 – due to different methods to measure or evaluate; c2 - due to
different thresholds use; d - no information about nature of change; e - due to less
accurate or absent data; nc - no change
Target 1
contributio
n
A - favourable assessments; B - improved assess.; C - deteriorated assessments; D -
unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change; E - assessments that
became unknown.
Pressures, threats and proposed measures
Human–induced modifications of the water regime and the forestry management practises are the
main reported pressures. The habitat fragmentation and vegetation succession were reported as
well.
The establishment of protected/wilderness areas, forest restoration, and modification of forest
management are the main proposed measures.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 26
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Code Pressure name EE FI LT LV SE
B02 Forest and Plantation management & use M H M
B02.02 forestry clearance H
B02.06 thinning of tree layer M
J02 human induced changes in hydraulic conditions H H
J02.04.0
2 lack of flooding H
J02.05 Modification of hydrographic functioning, general M H
J02.05.0
2 modifying structures of inland water courses M M
J03.02 anthropogenic reduction of habitat connectivity H
K02 Biocenotic evolution, succession H
Note:
Code Measure name EE FI LT LV SE
3.1 Restoring/improving forest habitats H M
3.2 Adapt forest management L H L
6.1 Establish protected areas/sites H H H M
6.2 Establishing wilderness areas/ allowing succession H
6.3 Legal protection of habitats and species L
Legend: L Low intensity M Medium intensity H High intensity
Reason of selection for the first Boreal seminar
The habitat type was selected for the first Boreal seminar because of quite a high value of its Priority
index. The habitat 91E0 reached score 45 especially because of its unfavourable-bad overall
conservation status in Finland and unfavourable-inadequate status in all other countries (Estponia,
Lithuania, Latvia and Sweden). A decreasing habitat area in Finland and Latvia as well as a negative
qualifier for structure and function in Latvia contributed to the high index value as well.
The Priority Index was calculated using information from the reports of Member States based on
requirements of the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for the period 2001-2006. It is based on three
parameters: A) Number of Member States where habitat type is present; B) Unfavourable
conservation status of the habitat type (U2 – 2 points; U1 & XX – 1 point each), and C) Trend
information: number of negative trends for parameters “area of the habitat type” and qualifiers for
“structure & functions”. The index is then calculated using formula: A*(B+C).
Priority conservation measures
The improvement of the conservation status requires improvement of structure and functions and
habitat area in Finland and Latvia. The suitable hydrological regime is crucial for this habitat type;
therefore measures for its maintenance or restoration are the priority measures. They include
stopping of drainage systems directly in the habitat place and/or in the larger fluvial system, in some
places regulation of beaver populations in the drainage system is necessary. Forestry measures are
also important, they should contribute to diversifying of stand structure by cutting out spruce and
dominating birch and aspen, but leaving laying wood; small-scale selective, gap or shelterwood
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 27
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
cutting securing continuous forest cover can be applied in stands with a density over 0.7. The
establishment of protected sites can be also useful for both 91E0 maintenance and restoration.
Links
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&sub
ject=91E0®ion=BOR
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 28
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
9040 Nordic subalpine/subarctic forests with Betula pubescens ssp. Czerepanovii
Selected for first round of Biogeographical Seminar
x Selected using “Low hanging fruit” approach
Habitat summary
The overall conservation status in the Boreal region is unfavourable-inadequate due to assessment of
parameters structure & function and future prospect as unfavourable-inadequate in Finland. Habitat
9040 is reported in the Boreal biogeographic region by Finland only; the occurrence in Sweden
should be clarified. Improving the conservation status of the habitat requires control of intensive
grazing and if feasible control of moths pests to the birch. The proposed declaration of protected
sites and wilderness areas in addition to already a high representation of the habitat in Natura 2000
sites could be beneficial for the habitat protection.
Habitat description
Forests dominated by Betula pubescens ssp. czerepanovii (mountain birch) occurring and often
dominating the subalpine belt of the Scandinavian mountain chain (the Fjällen). Occur also in isolated
northern Fennoscandian fells and in gently sloping or flat subarctic (hemi arctic) uplands, particularly
in northern Finland. Due to different ecological characteristics, vegetation varies from lichen poor
and dwarf shrub dominated types to those rich-in-tall-herbs.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 29
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Distribution in the Boreal region and coverage by Natura 2000 network
The habitat mostly occurs in the Alpine region of
Sweden and Finland (93%, mostly Sweden). In the
Boreal biogeographic region, this habitat type is
reported only in northern Finland. Despite quite a large
habitat area (1,200 km2), a high proportion of the
habitat area (84.5 %) is located in 16 Natura 2000 sites.
Sweden did not report this habitat in the Article 17
report, but presence is indicated in the Natura 2000
database from three sites located in the Boreal
biogeographical region and from several additional
transboundary sites within the Alpine region. The
reference list indicates for this habitat the Scientific
Reserve. The occurrence of the habitat in SE/BOR
should be clarified.
Natura 2000 sites
Country Area
/km2/
Coverage
/%/
Number
of sites
Estonia
Finland 1,200 84.5 16
Lithuania Latvia Sweden
3 ?
BOR Region 1,200 84.5 19 ?
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 30
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
The table above shows the size of the habitat area in Natura 2000 sites and its proportion compared
to the habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013
Article 17 report.
Biogeographical conservation status assessment
The overall conservation status is unfavourable-inadequate due to assessment of the parameters
structure & function and future prospect. Two other parameters, range and area, are favourable.
Legend: MS – Member State; Overall asses- Overall assessment; % MS – percentage of the surface
area in the respective Member State compared to whole Biogeographical Region; Ref. – reference
value; Struct & func. - structure and functions; Future prosp. – future prospect; Curr. CS – current
conservation status; Prev. CS – previous conservation status; Nat. of ch. – nature of change; EU27:
assessment on the level of all EU Member Countries; Concl. – conclusion; Target 1: - target 1 of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
Conservation
status FV
Favourabl
e U1
Unfavourable -
inadequate U2
Unfavourable -
bad XX
Unknow
n
Trend 0 = stable; + = increase; - = decrease; x = unknown
Qualifier = stable; + positive; - negative; x unknown
Nature of
change
a – genuine change; b – change due to more accurate data or improving knowledge; b2
– change due to taxonomic review; c1 – due to different methods to measure or
evaluate; c2 - due to the use of different thresholds; d- no information about nature of
change; e - due to less accurate or absent data; nc - no change
Target 1
contribution
A - favourable assessments; B - improved assessments; C - deteriorated assessments; D -
unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change; E - assessments that
became unknown.
Pressures, threats and proposed measures
Finland reported only one pressures of medium intensity: intensive grazing, mostly by reindeer. Main
threats are rising temperatures, damage by moths and intensive reindeer grazing. The crucial factor
is the combined effect of these three threats. Rising temperature increases the risk of moth invasions
and after that, intensive grazing prevents regeneration of birches and the habitat turns into
heathland. All these factors affect also mountain birch forests in protected areas. However,
the risk of moth invasion and the intensity of grazing are lower in boreal area than in alpine area.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 31
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Finland proposed measures related to legal protection: establishing of protected areas and
wilderness areas allowing succession.
Code Pressure name EE FI LT LV SE
A04.01 intensive grazing M
Note:
Code Measure name EE FI LT LV SE
6.1 Establish protected areas/sites H
6.2 Establishing wilderness areas/ allowing succession H
Legend: L Low intensity M Medium intensity H High intensity
Reason for selection as “Low Hanging Fruit“ (LHF) habitat in the Boreal region
Applying the methodology to identify LHF habitats in the Boreal region, habitat 9040 reached the LHF
score 1.18. This habitat type was classified as LHF especially because for improvement, the change
from a stable to a positive trend within the category U1 (unfavourable-inadequate) is sufficient. It is
normally much easier to improve a trend than to reach another category. The habitat type was
included to LHF also because of its high representation of the habitat in Natura 2000 sites (85%) and
the fact that the improvement of a trend of only one parameter (structure & functions) in one
country (Finland) is needed to reach the overall improvement. No severe threats were reported for
this habitat type.
Priority conservation measures needed
For the improvement of the trend from stable to positive, improvement of the parameter structure &
function is necessary. The main measure is control of grazing, i.e. exclusion of (intensive) grazing
from the habitat sites. Possibly also measures for moths control could be implemented. It is not
possible to address in the level of the Biogeographic Seminar to address the third mentioned threat:
climate change. The proposed establishing of protected sites and wilderness areas could improve the
ability to control the grazing and it could be beneficial despite an already high proportion of the
habitat area in Natura 2000 sites.
Links
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&sub
ject=9040®ion=BOR
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 32
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
91T0 Central European lichen Scots pine forests
Selected for first round of Biogeographical Seminar
X Selected using “Low hanging fruit” approach
Habitat summary
The overall conservation status in the Boreal region is unfavourable-bad and declining due to
assessment of area in Lithuania. The habitat 91T0 is distributed in the Boreal region marginally, it
occurs in the south and eastern parts of Lithuania only. Improving the conservation status of the
habitat requires stopping of the habitat area decrease. It is necessary to adapt forestry management
in the habitat sites in order to maintain the habitat structure. Declaration of protected areas could
help significantly, especially because a small proportion of the habitat is now represented in the
Natura 2000 sites. The disturbed and damaged sites should be restored.
Habitat description
Natural lichen-rich acidophilous Pinus sylvestris forests belonging to the alliance Dicrano-Pinion,
occurring on inland nutrient poor sands of the north-eastern plains and hills of Central Europe and of
the nemoral belt of the middle and southern Sarmatic region. The trees are low growing as the soils
are nutrient deficient and subject to drought stress. Lichens are represented by species Cladonia
furcata, Cladonia gracilis and Cladonia sylvatica.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 33
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Distribution in the Boreal region and coverage by Natura 2000 network
The habitat type occurs mainly in the in northern part of
the Continental region – in the Boreal region it has a
marginal position within its distribution range in Europe.
Despite this marginal position, the habitat area in Boreal
bioregion is quite large, representing about 37 % of the EU
extent of this habitat (possibly overestimated). It occurs
only in Lithuania, mainly in southern and eastern part of
the country, in the transition from Continental to Boreal
(hemi boreal). The overall habitat area in Lithuania is ca.
130 km2. In three Natura 2000 sites is protected very low
proportion of the national habitat area (3.9 %).
Note: Pine woods rich in Cladonia spp occur elsewhere in
the Boreal region, but they are mostly considered part of
the habitat type 9010 Western taiga.
Natura 2000 sites
Country Area
/km2/
Coverage
/%/
Number
of sites
Estonia
Finland
Lithuania 5.0 3.9 3
Latvia Sweden BOR Region 5.0 3.9 3
The table above shows size of the habitat area in Natura 2000 sites and its proportion compared to
the habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013
Article 17 report.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 34
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Biogeographical conservation status assessment
The overall conservation status is unfavourable-bad and declining due to assessment of area in
Lithuania.
Legend: MS – Member State; Overall asses- Overall assessment; % MS – percentage of the surface
area in the respective Member State compared to whole Biogeographical Region; Ref. – reference
value; Struct & func. - structure and functions; Future prosp. – future prospect; Curr. CS – current
conservation status; Prev. CS – previous conservation status; Nat. of ch. – nature of change; EU27:
assessment on the level of all EU Member Countries; Concl. – conclusion; Target 1: - target 1 of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
Conservation
status FV Favourable U1
Unfavourable -
inadequate U2
Unfavourable -
bad XX Unknown
Trend 0 = stable; + = increase; - = decrease; x = unknown
Qualifier = stable; + positive; - negative; x unknown
Nature of
change
a – genuine change; b – change due to more accurate data or improving knowledge; b2
– change due to taxonomic review; c1 – due to different methods to measure or
evaluate; c2 - due to the use of different thresholds; d- no information about nature of
change; e - due to less accurate or absent data; nc - no change
Target 1
contribution
A - favourable assessments; B - improved assessments; C - deteriorated assessments; D -
unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change; E - assessments that
became unknown.
Pressures, threats and proposed measures
To the most important threats belong forest and plantation management & use and biocenotic
evolution. The pressures related to sport and recreation (motorised vehicles and trampling, overuse)
were reported as pressures of medium-intensity.
Lithuania considers adaptation of forest management highly needed, this is the only measure
proposed.
Natura 2000 Seminars – Boreal 35
ECNC, CEEweb, Eurosite, Europarc, ELO, ILE SAS
Code Pressure name EE FI LT LV SE
B02 Forest and Plantation management & use
H
G01.03 motorised vehicles
M
G05.01 Trampling, overuse
M
K02 Biocenotic evolution, succession
H
Note:
Code Measure name EE FI LT LV SE
3.2 Adapt forest management
H
Legend: L Low intensity M Medium intensity H High intensity
Reason for selection as “Low Hanging Fruit“ (LHF) habitat in the Boreal region
Applying the methodology to identify LHF habitats in the Boreal region, habitat 91T0 reached the LHF
score 78.00. This habitat type was classified as LHF especially because to reach improvement,
changing from a negative to a stable trend within the category U2 (unfavourable-bad) is sufficient. It
is normally much easier to improve a trend than to change to another category. The habitat type was
included to LHF also because the improvement in the trend of only one parameter (area) in one
country (Lithuania) is needed to reach the overall improvement.
Priority conservation measures needed
For the improvement of the conservation status, stopping of the habitat decrease in Lithuania is
needed. To achieve this aim, the adaptation of forest management practices are needed, especially
important is to avoid planting of other tree species, not typical for this habitat type. The declaration
of protected areas could be very useful for protection of this habitat, especially when taking into
account the current small representation of the habitat type in Natura 2000 sites. The actual habitat
area approximately corresponds to the reference value and thus habitat restoration is not crucial,
but it should be applied in case of the habitat type damage or disturbance.
Links
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&sub
ject=91T0®ion=BOR