KUVAUS: Osana Tampereen kaupungin luonnon monimuotoisuusohjelman päivitystä toteutettiin loka-marraskuussa 2024 kysely paikallisille luonto- ja ympäristöjärjestöille sekä lumo-asiantuntijoille. Kysely oli avoinna 31.10.-1.12.2024 ja se toteutettiin Fiilis-karttakyselytyökalulla. Kysymykset valmisteltiin Tampereen kaupungin ilmasto- ja ympäristöpolitiikan yksikössä. Kysely lähetettiin 18 yhdistykselle, joista 6 yhdistystä vastasi kyselyyn: Tampereen hyönteistutkijain seura ry, Tampereen 4H-yhdistys, Luontoliiton Hämeen piiri (Tampereen metsäryhmä), Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto Pirkanmaan piiri ry, Pirkanmaan lintutieteellinen yhdistys, 1 muu, jonka nimi puuttui (johtui kyselyohjelman teknisestä häiriöstä). Kysely lähetettiin myös 25 paikalliselle asiantuntijalle, kuten tutkijoille, viheralan yrittäjille, naapurikuntien ympäristönsuojelun asiantuntijoille sekä muille kuin Tampereen kaupungin viranomaisille, joiden työ liittyy luonnon monimuotoisuuteen. 10 asiantuntijatahoa vastasi kyselyyn. KATTAVUUS: Tampere YLLÄPITO: Kyseessä on poikkileikkausaineisto (Aineisto ei päivity). KOORDINAATTIJÄRJESTELMÄ: Aineisto tallennetaan ETRS-GK24 (EPSG:3878) tasokoordinaattijärjestelmässä. GEOMETRIA: vektori (pisteitä ja alueita) SAATAVUUS: Aineisto on katsottavissa kirjautuneille käyttäjille Oskari-karttapalvelussa. AINEISTOSTA VASTAAVA TAHO: Tampereen kaupunki, Ilmasto- ja ympäristöpolitiikan yksikkö

This dataset represents the Integrated biodiversity status assessment for seals (grey seal, harbour seal and ringed seal). Status is shown in five categories based on the integrated assessment scores obtained in the tool. Biological quality ratios (BQR) above 0.6 correspond to good status. The status of the seals was assessed using four core indicators: population trends and abundance of seals, distribution of Baltic seals, nutritional status of seals, and reproductive status of seals. In the latter two only grey seals are considered for the 2018 State of the Baltic Sea report. The assessment is based on the one-out-all-out approach, i.e. the species reflecting the worst status in each assessment unit. This dataset displays the result of the integrated biodiversity status in HELCOM Assessment unit Scale 2 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins). Attribute information: "HELCOM_ID" = ID of the HELCOM scale 2 assessment unit "level_2" = Name of the HELCOM scale 2 assessment unit "EcosystemC" = Ecosystem component analyzed "BQR" = Biological Quality Ratio "Conf" = Confidence of the assessment "Total_indi" = Number of indicators used "% of area assessed" = Share of the total assessed area "D1CX" = MSFD descriptor 1 criteria X "conf_D1CX" = Confidence for MSFD descriptor criteria X "Confidence" = Conifdence of the assessment ("high"/ "moderate"/ "low") "STATUS" = Status of the assessment (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))

This dataset contains borders of the HELCOM MPAs (former Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs). The dataset has been compiled from data submitted by HELCOM Contracting Parties. It includes the borders of designated HELCOM MPAs stored in the http://mpas.helcom.fi. The designation is based on the HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 (1994). The dataset displays all designated or managed MPAs as officially reported to HELCOM by the respective Contracting Party. The latest related HELCOM publication based on MPA related data is http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP148.pdf The dataset contains the following information: MPA_ID: Unique ID of the MPA as used in HELCOM Marine Protected Areas database Name: Name of the MPA Country: Country where MPA is located Site_link: Direct link to site's fact sheet in the http://mpas.helcom.fi where additional information is available MPA_status: Management status of the MPA Date_est: Establishment date of the MPA Year_est: Establishment year of the MPA

KUVAUS: Aineisto sisältää raitiotien katusuunnitelmien reitit Tampereen alueelta sekä linkkejä suunnitelmapiirustuksiin. KATTAVUUS: Kaikille käyttäjille Oskari-karttapalvelussa. PÄIVITYS: Aineistoa päivitetään tarpeen mukaan (ylläpito jatkuvaa). YLLÄPITOSOVELLUS: PostgreSQL-tietokanta ja QGIS-ohjelmisto. KOORDINAATTIJÄRJESTELMÄ: Aineisto tallennetaan ETRS-GK24FIN (EPSG:3878) tasokoordinaattijärjestelmässä. GEOMETRIA: vektori (viiva) SAATAVUUS: Aineisto on saatavilla WFS-rajapinnalta Tampereen kaupungin sisäiseen käyttöön. JULKISUUS: Kaikille käyttäjille Oskari-karttapalvelussa. AINEISTOSTA VASTAAVA TAHO: Tampereen kaupunki, Kuntatekniikan suunnittelu

The Baltic Sea Pressure Index is a calculation of quantity and spatial distribution of potential cumulative impacts on the Baltic Sea. The BSII is based on georeferenced datasets of human activities (36 datasets), pressures (18 datasets) and ecosystem components (36 datasets), and on sensitivity estimates of ecosystem components (so-called sensitivity scores) that combine the pressure and ecosystem component layers, created in <a href="http://www.helcom.fi/helcom-at-work/projects/holas-ii" target="_blank">HOLAS II</a> project. The assessment can be applied with a focus on pressures only by using the Baltic Sea Pressure Index (BSPI) which shows the anthropogenic pressures/human activities in the defined assessment units without including ecosystem components. The BSPI however includes a weighting component in order to grade the effect of the pressures on the ecosystem in a generalized perspective. Cumulative impacts are calculated for each assessment unit (1 km2 grid cells) by summing all impacts occurring in the unit. All datasets and methodologies used in the index calculations are approved by all HELCOM Contracting Parties in review and acceptance processes. This dataset covers the time period 2011-2016. Please scroll down to "Lineage" and visit <a href="http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/cumulative-impacts/" target="_blank">State of the Baltic Sea website</a> for more info.

This dataset contains the ship accidents in the Baltic Sea during the period 1989 to end of 2023. It is constructed from the annual data collected by HELCOM Contracting Parties on ship accidents in the Baltic Sea and starting from 2019 from EMSA EMCIP Database extraction (for those Contracting Parties that are member of the EU). The accident data has been compiled by the HELCOM Secretariat and EMSA. According to the decision of the HELCOM SEA 2/2001 shipping accident data compilation will include only so-called conventional ships according to the Regulation 5, Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 - any oil tanker of 150 GT and above and any other ships of 400 GT and above which are engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to the Convention. According to the agreed procedure all accidents (including but not limited to grounding, collision with other vessel or contact with fixed structures (offshore installations, wrecks, etc.), disabled vessel (e.g. machinery and/or structure failure), fire, explosions, etc.), which took place in territorial seas or EEZ of the Contracting Party irrespectively if there was pollution or not, are reported. The dataset contains the following information: Unique_ID = An unique identifier consisting of 4 digit running number and the year of the accident Country Year Date = Date (dd/mm/yyyy) Time = Time of the accident (hh:mm) Location = Location of the accident (open sea / port / port approach, from 2019 -> open sea / port) Acc_Type = Type of accident Colli_Type = Type of collision / contact (with vessel / object) Acc_Detail = More information on the accident CauseDetai = Details on the accident cause Assistance = Assistance after the accident Offence = Offence against Rule Damage = Damage to the ship HumanEleme = Occurrence / Reason of human error IceCondit = Ice conditions CrewIceTra = Crew trained for ice conditions Pollution = Pollution (Yes/No) Pollu_m3 = Pollution in m3 Pollu_t = Pollution in tonnes Pollu_Type = Type of pollution RespAction = Response actions after the accident Cargo_Type = Type of cargo Ship1_Name = Ship 1 identification (Not published after 2018) Sh1_Categ = Ship 1 type (according to AIS category) Sh1_Type = Ship 1 more detail ship type category Sh1_Hull = Ship 1 hull construction Sh1Size_gt = Ship 1 GT Sh1Sizedwt = Ship 1 DWT Sh1Draug_m = Ship 1 draught in meters / category Cause_Sh1 = Cause of accidents from ship 1 Pilot_Sh1 = Presence of pilot on ship 1 Ship2_Name = Ship 2 identification (Not published after 2018) Sh2_Categ = Ship 2 type (according to AIS category) Sh2_Type = Ship 2 more detail ship type category Sh2_Hull = Ship 2 hull construction Sh2Size_gt = Ship 2 GT Sh2Sizedwt = Ship 2 DWT Sh2Draug_m = Ship 2 draught in meters / category Cause_Sh2 = Cause of accidents from ship 2 Pilot_Sh2 = Presence of pilot on ship 2 Add_Info = Additional information Latitude = Latitude (decimal degrees) Longitude = Longitude (decimal degrees) For more information about shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea, see the HELCOM annual reports: https://helcom.fi/helcom-at-work/publications/ https://helcom.fi/media/publications/HELCOM-report-on-Shipping-accidents-in-the-Baltic-Sea-2019-211207-FINAL.pdf

The raw materials of forest chips are small-diameter trees from thinning fellings and logging residues and stumps from final fellings. The harvesting potential consists of biomass that would be available after technical and economic constraints. Such constraints include, e.g., minimum removal of energywood per hectare, site fertility and recovery rate. Note that the techno-economic potential is usually higher than the actual availability, which depends on forest owners’ willingness to sell and competitive situation. The harvesting potentials were estimated using the sample plots of the 12th national forest inventory (NFI12) measured in the years 2014–2018. 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; Hirvelä et al. 2017; http://mela2.metla.fi/mela/tupa/index-en.php). 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). Future potentials were assumed to materialize when the industrial roundwood fellings followed the level of maximum sustained yield (79 mill. m3 in this calculation). The maximum sustained yield was 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 potential for energywood from thinnings was calculated separately for all the energywood from thinnings (Stemwood for energy from thinnings) and for material that does not fulfill the size-requirements for pulpwood (Stemwood for energy from thinnings (smaller than pulpwood-sized trees)). Note that the decision whether pulpwood-sized thinning wood is directed to energy or industrial use, is based on the optimisation by MELA. The minimum top diameter of pulpwood in the calculation was 6.3 cm for pine (Pinus sylvestris) and 6.5 cm for spruce (Picea abies) and broadleaved species (mainly Betula pendula, B. pubescens, Populus tremula, Alnus incana, A. glutinosa and Salix spp.). The minimum length of a pulpwood log was assumed at 2.0 m. Energywood could be harvested as whole trees or as delimbed. The dry-matter loss in the supply chain was assumed at 5%. The potentials for logging residues and stumps were calculated as follows: The crown biomass removals of clear fellings were obtained from MELA. According to harvesting guidelines for energywood (Koistinen et al. 2016) mineral soils classified as sub-xeric (or weaker) and peatlands with corresponding low nutrient levels were left out from the potentials. Next, technical recovery rates were applied (70% for logging residues and 82-84% for stumps) (Koistinen et al. 2016; Muinonen et al. 2013). Finally, a dry-matter loss of 20% and 5% was assumed for residues and stumps, respectively. The techno-economical harvesting potentials were first calculated for nineteen Finnish regions and then distributed on a raster grid at 1 km × 1 km resolution by weighting with Multi-Source NFI biomasses as described by Anttila et al. (2018). The potentials represent time period 2026-2035 and are presented as average annual potentials in solid cubic metres over bark. References Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P. 2014. Metsänhoidon suositukset. [Guidelines for sustainable forest management]. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisuja. Anttila P., Nivala V., Salminen O., Hurskainen M., Kärki J., Lindroos T.J. & Asikainen A. 2018. Regional balance of forest chip supply and demand in Finland in 2030. Silva Fennica vol. 52 no. 2 article id 9902. 20 s. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.9902 Hirvelä, H., Härkönen, K., Lempinen, R., Salminen, O. 2017. MELA2016 Reference Manual. Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). 547 p. 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]. Tapion julkaisuja. 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 Fennica 47(4) article 1022. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1022. Siitonen M, Härkönen K, Hirvelä H, Jämsä J, Kilpeläinen H, Salminen O et al. 1996. MELA Handbook. 622. 951-40-1543-6.

The EMODnet (European Marine Observation and Data network) Geology project collects and harmonizes marine geological data from the European sea areas to support decision making and sustainable marine spatial planning. The partnership includes 39 marine organizations from 30 countries. The partners, mainly from the marine departments of the geological surveys of Europe (through the Association of European Geological Surveys-EuroGeoSurveys), have assembled marine geological information at various scales from all European sea areas (e.g. the White Sea, Baltic Sea, Barents Sea, the Iberian Coast, and the Mediterranean Sea within EU waters). This dataset includes EMODnet seabed substrate maps at a scale of 1:70 000 from the European marine areas. Traditionally, European countries have conducted their marine geological surveys according to their own national standards and classified substrates on the grounds of their national classification schemes. These national classifications are harmonised into a shared EMODnet schema using Folk's sediment triangle with a hierarchy of 16, 7 and 5 substrate classes. The data describes the seabed substrate from the uppermost 30 cm of the sediment column. Further information about the EMODnet Geology project is available on the portal (http://www.emodnet-geology.eu/).