Conditionality refers to the basic requirements that farmers' payments are conditional upon. Conditionality requirements are the baseline level for which you do not receive a separate payment. Aid is only granted for activities that go beyond the conditionality requirements. Conditionality consists of GAEC, statutory management requirements and social conditionality. Statutory management requirements relate to environmental issues, public health, i.e. food and feed safety, plant health and animal health and welfare. All conditionality requirements are described in this guide. When you apply for farmer payments, you agree to comply with the conditionality requirements. A landscape feature can be a tree, group of trees, transplanted block or other similar natural feature that is protected for its beauty, rarity, landscape significance, scientific value or other similar reason. Qualifying landscape features are sites protected under Article 95 of the Nature Conservation Act (9/2023) and located within a base parcel, on the periphery of a base parcel or in the area between adjacent base parcels. Protected sites must always be preserved and must not be damaged or removed. If a protected landscape feature is located on an area of 0,2 ha or less, it may be included in the area of the base parcel. If you wish to include a protected site in the eligible area, please declare the sites on the Food Agency's form 442 when applying for arable aid. The area of a landscape feature will only become part of the eligible area of the base parcel in the year following the submission of the declaration. Who makes conservation decisions on sites? If the site to be protected is located on private land, the decision to protect the site is taken by the municipality's environmental protection authority. The municipality is also responsible for marking the site on the land. On private land, protection is only granted on application or with the consent of the landowner. On application by the owner or on a proposal from the ELY Centre, the municipality may terminate the protection of a landscape feature if there are no longer grounds for protecting it or if the protection prevents the implementation of a project or plan of public interest. The application must be accompanied by the opinion of the ELY Centre. If the matter has been initiated on the basis of a proposal from the ELY Centre, the owner of the site must be given the opportunity to be heard. For more information: https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/tuet/maatalous/perusehdot/ehdollisuus/ehdollisuuden-opas/ehdollisuuden-opas-2025/

Field parcel register The field parcel register is an annual file containing the reference parcels covered by the annual aid application. A reference parcel is a geographically homogeneous area of land cultivated and owned or managed by an individual applicant (excluding commonly used land) and bounded by a municipal boundary, a property boundary, a subsidy or contract area boundary, a watercourse, a district or river, a road, a forest or other similar boundary. A homogeneous area in terms of geography, eligibility and type of land use owned by an aid applicant is a single reference parcel, even if it is made up of several separate registered parcels owned by the applicant. The aim of the definition of valuable data (EU) 2023/138 has been to ensure that the most socially potential public data are re-available. The Food Authority is concerned with the theme of spatial data: reference parcels and agricultural parcels From 2023 onwards, the Food Authority will add attributes to the published data as follows: Field parcel register - Organic production - Slope, ha (Sloping areas in base parcels with a slope of more than 15% in mainland Finland and more than 10% in Åland). - Groundwater area, ha - Natura area, ha - Buffer stripping requirement (metres), m The following new fields are included in the data: LUOMUVILJELY = Organic production: 1=absent or 0=no KALTEVA_ALA = SLOPE_AREA: Sloping areas in the base parcel. Slope in mainland Finland over 15 % and in Åland over 10 %, ha POHJAVESI_ALA = SHOREWATER_AREA: ha NATURA_ALA = NATURA_AREA: ha SUOJAKAISTA_M: Bufferstrip requirement (on parcel) , m. More information at: https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/tuet/maatalous/oppaat/hakuoppaat/peltotukiopas/peltotukien-hakuopas-2024.pdf

NLS-FI INSPIRE View Service for Geographical Names Theme is an INSPIRE compliant Web Map Service. It contains the following harmonized INSPIRE map layers: NamedPlace. The service is based on the Geographic Names Register of the National Land Survey of Finland. The dataset is administrated by the National Land Survey of Finland.

The Finnish Food Authority - INSPIRE WMS is a WMS interface service that provides access to land cover and land use map layers. The service is based on data from the Integrated Aid Control and Management System (IACS) and the Land Parcel Information System (LPIS). The data are managed by the Food Authority. The service is free of charge and does not require authentication.

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 technical harvesting potential of small-diameter trees can be defined as the maximum potential procurement volume of small-diameter trees available from the Finnish forests based on the prevailing guidelines for harvesting of energy wood. The potentials of small-diameter trees from early thinnings have been calculated for fifteen NUTS3-based Finnish regions covering the whole country (Koljonen et al. 2017). To begin with the estimation of the region-level potentials, 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). Simulated management actions for the small-tree fraction consisted of thinnings that fulfilled the following stand criteria: • mean diameter at breast height ≥ 8 cm • number of stems ≥ 1500 ha-1 • mean height < 10.5 m (in Lapland) or mean height < 12.5 m (elsewhere). Energy wood was harvested as delimbed (i.e. including the stem only) in spruce-dominated stands and peatlands and as whole trees (i.e. including stem and branches) elsewhere. When harvested as whole trees, a total of 30% of the original crown biomass was left onsite (Koistinen et al. 2016). Energy wood thinnings could be integrated with roundwood logging or carried out independently. Second, the technical energy wood potential of small trees was operationalized in MELA by maximizing the removal of thinnings in the first period. In this way, it was possible to pick out all small tree fellings simulated in the first period despite, for example, the profitability of the operation. However, a single logging event was rejected if the energy wood removal was lower than 25 m³ha-1 or the industrial roundwood removal of pine, spruce, or birch exceeded 45 m³ha-1. The potential calculated in this way contained also timber suitable for industrial roundwood. Therefore, two estimates are given: • potential of trees below 10.5 cm in breast-height diameter • potential of trees below 14.5 cm in breast-height diameter. Subsequently, the region-level potentials were spread 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. In this study, 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) and areas protected by the State Forest Enterprise. In addition, some areas in northernmost Lapland restricted by separate agreements between the State Forest Enterprise and stakeholders were left out from the final data. Furthermore, for small trees, FAWS was further constrained by the stand criteria presented above to represent similar stand conditions for small-tree harvesting as in MELA. Finally, the region-level potentials were distributed to the grid cells by weighting with MS-NFI stem wood biomasses. 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. 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.

NLS-FI INSPIRE View Service for Cadastral Parcels Theme is an INSPIRE compliant Web Map Service. It contains the following harmonized INSPIRE map layers: CadastralParcel, CadastralBoundary. The service is based on the NLS-FI INSPIRE Cadastral Parcels dataset. The dataset is administrated by the National Land Survey of Finland.

NLS-FI INSPIRE View Service for Hydrography Theme is an INSPIRE compliant Web Map Service. It contains the following harmonized INSPIRE map layers: Land-water Boundary, Waterbodies, Man-made Objects, Hydro Point of Interest. The service is based on the NLS-FI INSPIRE Hydrography Physical Waters dataset. The dataset is administrated by the National Land Survey of Finland.

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