Threatened habitat types in Finland 2018: the Baltic Sea. Red List of habitats. Part 2: Descriptions of habitat types
Kotilainen, Aarno; Kiviluoto, Suvi; Kurvinen, Lasse; Sahla, Matti; Ehrnsten, Eva; Laine, Ari; Hans-Göran, Lax; Kontula, Tytti; Blankett, Penina; Ekebom, Jan; Hällfors, Heidi; Karvinen, Ville; Kuosa, Harri; Laaksonen, Rami; Lappalainen, Meri; Lehtinen, Sirpa; Lehtiniemi, Maiju; Leinikki, Jouni; Leskinen, Elina; Riihimäki, Anu; Ruuskanen, Ari; Vahteri, Petri (2020-10-19)
ympäristöministeriö Ministry of the Environment
19.10.2020
Julkaisusarja:
Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2020:23
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-256-3Julkaisun muut kieliversiot:
SuomeksiTiivistelmä
This report is a partial translation of the final report in Finnish on threatened habitat types (Threatened habitat types in Finland 2018, Part II: Descriptions of habitat types, The Finnish Environment 5/2018) that presents a total of 420 habitat types. This report includes all the evaluated habitat types of the Baltic Sea, as well as six new marine habitat types, which were described but not yet evaluated (NE). Also included are habitat types regarded as of least concern (LC) and those with deficient data (DD).
For each habitat type a description, distribution map, photo, and the reasoning behind the assessment result are presented. The descriptions of the habitat types include their characteristics, geographical variation, connectivity to other habitat types, occurrence in Finland, reasons for being threatened and future threats, trend in the state of the habitat type, correspondence of the habitats type with habitat types covered by statutory protection, and whether the habitat type is one for which Finland has an international responsibility.
Part I of the final report (in Finnish Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus 2018, SY 5/2018 and in English Threatened Habitat Types in Finland 2018, FE 2/2019) presents the assessment method for threatened habitat types, results and reasoning of the assessment, and proposals for measures prepared by the experts groups. In the whole country 186 habitats types were assessed as threatened (48% of the number of habitats types). The share of threatened habitat types is much larger in southern Finland (59%) than in northern Finland (32%). The assessment was conducted by broadly-based expert groups in 2016–2018.
This was the second assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland. This assessment was conducted using the international IUCN Red List of Ecosystems method. Because of the new assessment method, the results of the first and second assessment of threatened habitat types are not directly comparable with each other. The conclusion that can be made, however, is that the decline and degradation of habitats has not diminished.
For each habitat type a description, distribution map, photo, and the reasoning behind the assessment result are presented. The descriptions of the habitat types include their characteristics, geographical variation, connectivity to other habitat types, occurrence in Finland, reasons for being threatened and future threats, trend in the state of the habitat type, correspondence of the habitats type with habitat types covered by statutory protection, and whether the habitat type is one for which Finland has an international responsibility.
Part I of the final report (in Finnish Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus 2018, SY 5/2018 and in English Threatened Habitat Types in Finland 2018, FE 2/2019) presents the assessment method for threatened habitat types, results and reasoning of the assessment, and proposals for measures prepared by the experts groups. In the whole country 186 habitats types were assessed as threatened (48% of the number of habitats types). The share of threatened habitat types is much larger in southern Finland (59%) than in northern Finland (32%). The assessment was conducted by broadly-based expert groups in 2016–2018.
This was the second assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland. This assessment was conducted using the international IUCN Red List of Ecosystems method. Because of the new assessment method, the results of the first and second assessment of threatened habitat types are not directly comparable with each other. The conclusion that can be made, however, is that the decline and degradation of habitats has not diminished.