Download pdf - Natura 2000 Seminars - European Commission€¦ · 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

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

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/events/events-upcoming/260_second_boreal_natura_2000_seminar_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/events/events-upcoming/260_second_boreal_natura_2000_seminar_en.htm



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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&region=BOR

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&subject=9010&region=BOR




9050 Fennoscandian herb‐rich forests with Picea abies



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.




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).


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



17 report.


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.









Conservation

status FV

Favourabl

e U1

Unfavourable -

inadequate U2

Unfavourable -

bad XX

Unknow

n



Nature of

change





Target 1

contributio

n



became unknown.


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.


A08 Fertilisation H

B02 Forest and Plantation management & use H H H

B02.02 forestry clearance H


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


Note:


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





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






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







9060 Coniferous forests on, or connected to, glaciofluvial eskers


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.




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


Latvia 8.0 57.1 12

Sweden 18.0 38.3 83

BOR Region 261.9-441.9 3.7-6.2 286



17 report.




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.







Conservation

status FV Favourable U1

Unfavourable -

inadequate U2

Unfavourable -

bad XX 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 -


became unknown.


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



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.


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


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:


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


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.


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.




requirements of the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for the period 2001-2006. It is based on three





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







9080 Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods



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.




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).


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


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.


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.









Conservation

status FV

Favourabl

e U1

Unfavourable -

inadequate U2

Unfavourable -

bad XX

Unknow

n



Nature of

change





Target 1

contributio

n



became unknown.




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.


B02 Forest and Plantation management & use M H M

B02.02 forestry clearance 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



K04.05 damage by herbivores (including game species) M

Note:


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



6.3 Legal protection of habitats and species M L



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.


requirements of the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for period 2001-2006. It is based on three








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







91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior



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.




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


Latvia 23.0 33.3 63

Sweden 19.0 13.0 131

BOR Region 110.6-118.6 25.7-27.6 334


the habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013

Article 17 report.


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.









Conservation

status FV

Favourabl

e U1

Unfavourable -

inadequate U2

Unfavourable -

bad XX

Unknow

n



Nature of

change





Target 1

contributio

n



became unknown.


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.




B02 Forest and Plantation management & use M H M

B02.02 forestry clearance H


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



Note:


3.1 Restoring/improving forest habitats H M

3.2 Adapt forest management L H L



6.3 Legal protection of habitats and species L



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.


requirements of the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for the period 2001-2006. It is based on three






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



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


ject=91E0&region=BOR

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&subject=91E0&region=BOR

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&subject=91E0&region=BOR



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.




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 ?



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.


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.







Conservation

status FV

Favourabl

e U1

Unfavourable -

inadequate U2

Unfavourable -

bad XX

Unknow

n



Nature of

change





Target 1

contribution



became unknown.


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.



Finland proposed measures related to legal protection: establishing of protected areas and

wilderness areas allowing succession.


A04.01 intensive grazing M

Note:


6.1 Establish protected areas/sites H




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.


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







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.




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 habitat area in the whole biogeographic region (“coverage“) as reported by MS in the 2013

Article 17 report.




The overall conservation status is unfavourable-bad and declining due to assessment of area in

Lithuania.







Conservation

status FV Favourable U1

Unfavourable -

inadequate U2

Unfavourable -

bad XX Unknown



Nature of

change





Target 1

contribution



became unknown.


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.




B02 Forest and Plantation management & use

H

G01.03 motorised vehicles

M

G05.01 Trampling, overuse

M

K02 Biocenotic evolution, succession

H

Note:


3.2 Adapt forest management

H



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.


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


ject=91T0&region=BOR

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&subject=91T0&region=BOR

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/habitat/summary/?period=3&group=Forests&subject=91T0&region=BOR