This dataset contains integrated eutrophication status assessment 2011-2016. The assessment is done using the HEAT 3.0 by combining assessment unit-specific results from various indicators by three MSFD criteria groups (C1: Nutrient levels, C2: Direct effect, C3: Indirect effect). The assessment is done on HELCOM Assessment Unit level 4: HELCOM Subbasins with coastal WFD water type or water bodies. The HEAT 3.0 has been applied for open sea assessment units using HELCOM core indicators and for coastal areas using national WFD indicators. In case of Denmark, the WFD results were used directly, displaying different classification as obtained from HEAT. For more information about the methodology, see the State of the Baltic Sea report and HELCOM Eutrophication assessment manual. Attribute information: "HELCOM_ID": ID of the HELCOM Level 4 Assessment unit "Country": Country/ Opensea "level_2": Name of the HELCOM Level 2 Assessment unit "Name": Name of the HELCOM Level 4 Assessment unit "Area_km2": Area of assessment unit "C1_N": MSFD criteria 1, number of indicators used for calculating Eutrophication Ratio (ER) "C1_ER": MSFD Criteria 1, ER "C1_SCORE": MSFD Criteria 1, Confidence of ER "C2_N": MSFD Criteria 2, number of indicators used for calculating ER "C2_ER": MSFD Criteria 2, ER "C2_SCORE": MSFD Criteria 2, Confidence of ER "C3_N": MSFD Criteria 3, number of indicators used for calculating ER "C3_ER": MSFD Criteria 3, ER "C3_SCORE": Criteria 3, Confidence of ER "N": Number of criteria used for calculating overall ER "ER": Overall ER "SCORE": Status confidence "STATUS": Status classification (Good (classes 0-0.5 & 0.5-1.0), Not Good (classes 1.0-1.5, 1.5-2.0 & >2.0), Not assessed) "CONFIDENCE": Final confidence class (< 50% = low, 50-74 % = Moderate, = 75 % = High) "AULEVEL": Level of assessment units

This dataset represents the Integrated biodiversity status assessment for fish used in State of the Baltic Sea – Second HELCOM holistic assessment 2011-2016. Status is shown in five categories based on the integrated assessment scores obtained in the BEAT tool. Biological Quality ratios (BQR) above 0.6 correspond to good status. The assessment is based on core indicators of coastal fish in coastal areas, and on internationally assessed commercial fish in the open sea. The open sea assessment includes fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass as an average over 2011–2016. Open sea results are given by ICES subdivisions, and are not shown where they overlap with coastal areas. Coastal areas results are given in HELCOM Assessment unit Scale 3 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins and further division into coastal and off-shore areas) Attribute information: "COUNTRY" = name of the country / opensea "Name" = Name of the coastal assessment unit, scale 3 (empty for ICES open sea units) "HELCOM_ID" = ID of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit (empty for ICES open sea units) "EcoystemC" = Ecosystem component analyzed "BQR" = Biological Quality Ratio "Conf" = Confidence (0-1, higher values mean higher confidence) "Total_indi" = Number of HELCOM core indicators included (coastal assessment units) "F__of_area = % of area assessed "D1C2" = MSFD descriptor 1 criteria 2 "Number_of" = Number of open sea species included "Confidence" = Confidence of the assessment "BQR_Demer" = Demersal Biological Quality Ratio "F_spec_Deme" = Number of demersal species included "Conf_Demer" = Confidence for demersal species "BQR_Pelagi" = Pelagic Biological Quality Ratio "F_specPela" = Number of pelagic species included "Conf_Pelag" = Confidence for pelagic species "ICES_SD" = ICES Subdivision number "STATUS" = Integrated status category (0-0.2 = not good (lowest score), 0.2-0.4 = not good (lower score), 0.4-0.6 = not good (low score), 0.6-0.8 = good (high score, 0.8-1.0 = good (highest score))

The map compiles seabed samples since 1985 onwards. The data includes geographic data and metadata related to each sample, mainly based on the data produced by the Geological Survey of Finland

The technical harvesting potential of logging residues and stumps from final fellings can be defined as the maximum potential procurement volume of these available from the Finnish forests based on the prevailing guidelines for harvesting of energy wood. The potentials of logging residues and stumps have been calculated for fifteen NUTS3-based Finnish regions covering the whole country (Koljonen et al. 2017). The technical harvesting potentials were estimated using the sample plots of the eleventh national forest inventory (NFI11) measured in the years 2009–2013. First, a large number of sound and sustainable management schedules for five consecutive ten-year periods were simulated for each sample plot using a large-scale Finnish forest planning system known as MELA (Siitonen et al. 1996; Redsven et al. 2013). MELA simulations consisted of natural processes and human actions. The ingrowth, growth, and mortality of trees were predicted based on a set of distance-independent tree-level statistical models (e.g. Hynynen et al. 2002) included in MELA and the simulation of the stand (sample plot)-level management actions was based on the current Finnish silvicultural guidelines (Äijälä et al. 2014) and the guidelines for harvesting of energy wood (Koistinen et al. 2016). Final fellings consisted of clear cutting, seed tree cutting, and shelter-wood cutting, but only the clear-cutting areas were utilized for energy wood harvesting. As both logging residues and stumps are byproducts of roundwood removals, the technical potentials of chips have to be linked with removals of industrial roundwood. Future potentials were assumed to materialize when the industrial roundwood fellings followed the level of maximum sustainable removals. The maximum sustainable removals were defined such that the net present value calculated with a 4% discount rate was maximized subject to non-declining periodic industrial roundwood and energy wood removals and net incomes, and subject to the saw log removal remaining at least at the level of the first period. There were no constraints concerning tree species selection, cutting methods, age classes, or the growth/drain ratio in order to efficiently utilize the dynamics of forest structure. The felling behaviour of the forest owners was not taken into account either. For the present situation in 2015, the removal of industrial roundwood was assumed to be the same as the average level in 2008–2012. Fourth, the technical harvesting potentials were derived by retention of 30% of the logging residues onsite (Koistinen et al. 2016) and respectively by retention of 16–18% of stump biomass (Muinonen et al. 2013). Next, the regional potentials were allocated to municipalities proportionally to their share of mature forests (MetINFO 2014). Subsequently, the municipality-level potentials were spread evenly on a raster grid at 1 km × 1 km resolution. Only grid cells on Forests Available for Wood Supply (FAWS) were considered in this operation. Here, FAWS was defined as follows: First, forest land was extracted from the Finnish Multi-Source National Forest Inventory (MS-NFI) 2013 data (Mäkisara et al. 2016). Second, restricted areas were excluded from forest land. The restricted areas consisted of nationally protected areas (e.g. nature parks, national parks, protection programme areas). References Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P (2014) Metsänhoidon suositukset [Guidelines for sustainable forest management]. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisuja. Hynynen J, Ojansuu R, Hökkä H, Salminen H, Siipilehto J, Haapala P (2002) Models for predicting the stand development – description of biological processes in MELA system. The Finnish Forest Research Institute Research Papers 835. Koistinen A, Luiro J, Vanhatalo K (2016) Metsänhoidon suositukset energiapuun korjuuseen, työopas [Guidelines for sustainable harvesting of energy wood]. Metsäkustannus Oy, Helsinki. Koljonen T, Soimakallio S, Asikainen A, Lanki T, Anttila P, Hildén M, Honkatukia J, Karvosenoja N, Lehtilä A, Lehtonen H, Lindroos TJ, Regina K, Salminen O, Savolahti M, Siljander R (2017) Energia ja ilmastostrategian vaikutusarviot: Yhteenvetoraportti. [Impact assessments of the Energy and Climate strategy: The summary report.] Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 21/2017. Mäkisara K, Katila M, Peräsaari J, Tomppo E (2016) The Multi-Source National Forest Inventory of Finland – methods and results 2013. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 10/2016. Muinonen E, Anttila P, Heinonen J, Mustonen J (2013) Estimating the bioenergy potential of forest chips from final fellings in Central Finland based on biomass maps and spatially explicit constraints. Silva Fenn 47. Redsven V, Hirvelä H, Härkönen K, Salminen O, Siitonen M (2013) MELA2012 Reference Manual. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Siitonen M, Härkönen K, Hirvelä H, Jämsä J, Kilpeläinen H, Salminen O, Teuri M (1996) MELA Handbook. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 622. ISBN 951-40-1543-6.

This dataset contains points of information describing the location and size of spills of mineral oil observed during aerial surveillance flights by HELCOM Contracting Parties during 1998-2023. The data covers detections from fixed-wing aircraft only. Since 2014 Contracting Parties have also reported spills of other substances and unknown substances. The purpose of the regional aerial surveillance is to detect spills of oil and other harmful substances and thus prevent violations of the existing regulations on prevention of pollution from ships. Such illegal spills are a form of pollution which threatens the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area. Further information on detected spills in the Baltic Sea area and HELCOM aerial surveillance activities can be found at http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/maritime/illegal-spills/ and https://helcom.fi/action-areas/response-to-spills/aerial-surveillance/ The dataset contains the following information: Country Year Spill_ID = A unique code which will enable each individual spill to be individually identified FlightType = The type of flight the detection was made during: National = "N", CEPCO = "C", Super CEPCO = "SC", Tour d’Horizon = “TDH” Date = The date of the detection (dd.mm.yyyy) Time_UTC = The time of the detection in UTC (hh:mm) Wind_speed = The wind speed at the time of the detection (m/s) Wind_direc = The wind direction in degrees at the time of the detection (degrees) Latitude = The latitude of the detection (decimal degrees, WGS84) Longitude = The longitude of the detection (decimal degrees, WGS84) Length__km = The length of the detection (km) Width__km = The width of the detection (km) Area__km2_ = The area of the detection (km2) Spill_cat = Spill/pollution category: Mineral Oil = “Oil", Other Substance = "Other substance" , "Unknown substance" = “Unknown” EstimVol_m = If Spill_cat="Oil", then estimated min. volume of oil spill. Volume of the detection confirmed/observed as mineral oil as calculated using the Bonn Agreement Oil Appearance Code using the lower figure (BAOAC minimum) in m3. Vol_Category = Category of the detection: <0,1m3 = “1”, <0,1-1m3 = “2”, 1-10 m3 = “3”, 10-100 m3 = “4”, >100 m3 = “5” Type_substance = If Spill_cat="Other substance" or "Unknown. Product name or type of OS or GAR substances that could be identified (in case of known polluter, or via visual identification - cf. BAOAC Atlas). - Examples for OS: vegetable oils (palm oil sun flower oil, soya oil etc.), fish oil, molasses, various chemicals (methanol, biodiesels/FAME, toluene, paraffines etc.); Examples of GAR: solid cargo residues (e.g. coal residues), plastics, fish nets, … OR "Unknown" (in case the type of substance could not be identified) Polluter = Type of polluter source: Offshore Installation = “Rig”, Vessel = “Ship”, Other Polluter or source (e.g. land based source) = “Other”, Unknown = “Unknwon” (in case of an “orphan” spill that cannot be linked to a polluter) Remarks = Any additional information to inform on particular situations Description of marine litter sightings

Maatalousmaa vuonna 2021 aineisto kuvaa mahdollisimman kattavasti maankäytöltään maatalouteen kuuluvia alueita vuonna 2021, sisältäen sekä maataloustukia saavat alueet, että tukien ulkopuoliset alueet. Aineisto on koostettu käyttäen Ruokaviraston tuottamia perus- ja kasvulohkoaineistoja sekä Maanmittauslaitoksen tuottamaa maastotietokantaa. Peruslohkoaineisto on komission asetuksen 796/2004 ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 1782/2003 20 artiklassa tarkoitettu viljelylohkojen tunnistusjärjestelmä. Järjestelmää käytetään EU:n pinta-alaperusteisen maataloustuen hallinnoinnissa. Aineisto käsittää vuoden 2021 peruslohkojen tilanteen 31.12.2021. Kasvulohkolla tarkoitetaan yhteen peruslohkoon kuuluvaa yhtenäistä aluetta, jossa kasvatat yhtä kasvilajia, useamman kasvilajin seosta tai jota kesannoidaan tai joka on erityiskäytössä. Yhdellä peruslohkolla voi olla yksi tai useampia kasvulohkoja. Kasvulohko voi kuulua vain yhteen peruslohkoon. Kasvulohkojen rajat ja samalla niiden pinta-alat voivat vaihdella peruslohkon sisällä vuosittain. Peltolohkorekisteristä on aineistoon otettu mukaan ne lohkot joihin yhdistyy kasvulohkoista tieto viljellystä kasvista. Aineistosta on tiputettu pois ei-maatalousaluetta olevat lohkot, esimerkiksi metsäiset alueet. Maanmittauslaitoksen Maastotietokanta on koko Suomen kattava maastoa kuvaava aineisto ja se koostuu erilaisista kohderyhmistä. Maastotietokannan Maatalousmaa -aineisto sisältää Maastotietokannan pellot, ja puutarhat. Niityt ovat erillinen kohdeluokka. Mammuttiprojektia varten MTK kohdeluokat Maatalousmaa (pellot ja puutarhat) ja Niitty yhdistettiin yhdeksi aineistoksi. Kohdeluokat on poimittu vuoden 2021 Maastotietokannasta. Kohdeluokat ja niiden kuvaukset löytyvät: https://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/sites/maanmittauslaitos.fi/files/attachments/2018/03/Maastotietokohteet_0.pdf Peruslohkoaineistosta ja maastotietokannasta poimitut kohteet on yhdistetty siten, että maatalousmaa muodostetaan ensisijaisesti käyttämällä peruslohkoaineistosta poimittuja peruslohkoja. Tämän joukon ulkopuolelle jäävä maatalousmaa tulee maastotietokannasta. Aineistojen yhdistäminen on kuvattu tarkemmin tuotantokuvauksessa. https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/maatalousmaa2021.pdf https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/Metatietokuvaus_peltolohkorekisteri.pdf Aineisto kuuluu SYKEn avoimiin aineistoihin (CC BY 4.0).

Maanmittauslaitoksen KM2-korkeusmallin kanssa yhteensopiva korkeusmalli, jossa alkuperäisiä korkeusarvoja on alennettu erityisesti virtavesikohteiden (viivamaiset sekä aluemaiset) ja tieverkoston risteyskohdissa. Alennetut korkeusarvot pyrkivät kuvaamaan virtausreittejä, kuten tierumpuja ja putkia, joita alkuperäisessä KM2:ssa ei ole. Aineisto on tuotettu yhdistämällä useita eri valtakunnan kattavia lähtöaineistoja, joita ovat - korkeusmalli KM2 (Maanmittauslaitos) - Siltojen kansien korkeudet (Syke) - Maastotietokanta (Maanmittauslaitos) - DIGIROAD-tieverkosto (Väylävirasto) - Rumpurekisteri (Väylävirasto) Lisäksi jotkin kunnat ja kaupungit ovat digitoineet Maastotietokannasta puuttuvia virtausreittejä. Korkeusarvot ovat ilmoitettu N2000-korkeusjärjestelmässä. Aineisto on avoin (lisenssi CC BY 4.0). Käyttötarkoitus: Korvaamalla KM2:n korkeusarvot uomakorjausaineiston arvoilla saadaan korkeusmalli, joka soveltuu mm. pintaveden virtauksen mallinnukseen alkuperäistä korkeusmallia paremmin. Tämä mahdollistaa esim. hulevesitulvariskien luotettavamman arvioinnin. Aineisto kuuluu SYKEn avoimiin aineistoihin (CC BY 4.0). Lähde: Syke, Maanmittauslaitos (perustuu Syken, MML:n ja Väyläviraston aineistoihin).