Monitoring, research and data systems

Monitoring

Indicators based on the results of follow-up studies on biodiversity in Finland provide a range of insights into the changes in biodiversity in this country. However, there are gaps in such monitoring. Monitoring of the impacts of climate change on nature and of invasive alien species needs to be planned and implemented without delay. In addition, monitoring of inadequately monitored species (common species) and types of habitat (including Arctic fells, coastal areas, rocks and built environments), and of the most threatened species must be enhanced. Current monitoring of natural resources (such as the national forest inventory) must be developed so as to take account of the status of and changes in biodiversity. Monitoring of farmland biodiversity could be implemented based on a fully developed comprehensive approach in follow-up studies on the impacts of agri-environmental measures (Maatalouden ympäristötuen vaikuttavuuden seurantatutkimus MYTVAS). Indicators describing the status of and changes in ecosystem services must also be developed, alongside biodiversity indicators. With the help of such indicators, the usability of monitoring data could be promoted, for instance, in national, EU and global reporting.

Biodiversity monitoring projects that are coordinated and supported by the environmental administration must be prioritised on the basis of international and national monitoring obligations. Coordination of monitoring must also be developed through a cooperation network of research institutions within the Finnish Partnership for Research on Natural Resources and the Environment (LYNET), the prospective Luonnonvarakeskus (Natural Resources Institute Finland), the Finnish Museum of Natural History and other natural history museums in the country, universities, and Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services.

Development of monitoring will promote cooperation between various monitoring parties and enhance the usability of monitoring data. Shared databases open to all must be compiled based on monitoring projects, the parties executing them, and the related materials and reports. Simultaneously, more support will be provided for voluntary monitoring work, which plays a key role in Finland in the compiling of observations (up to 70% of labour input). Key issues include coordination and funding of monitoring, prioritisation of subjects, development of methods, motivation of voluntary contributors and securing the continuity of monitoring.

Research

Basic research into conservation ecology and other aspects of biodiversity is scientifically important, as well as being vital to the development of applications in the field. However, the practical application of basic research is challenging, due to fragmented research themes and the preliminary nature of the results. Knowledge of biodiversity in Finland and the factors affecting it must be further increased, while enhancing dialogue, cooperation and information exchange between researchers, authorities, practical actors and users of information. To resolve the comprehensive societal challenges we are facing, we need sociological and multi-disciplinary research into ecosystem services and biodiversity, and the more efficient communication of research data to decision-makers.

58

Data systems and shared use of data

Recent policy definitions require free access to information generated using public funds. We must ensure not only the high quality of data produced and maintained by various parties, but see to it that key data systems on nature and natural resources are given in a format that allows their joint use and access by everyone in need of information. Access to information should only be restricted insofar as is necessary to protect biodiversity (for instance, the precise locations of threatened species should be kept secret from outsiders, and made accessible only to authorities and the landowner in question). In order to achieve goals for enhancing the national

protection of species and cooperation between administrative sectors, the establishment of a virtual Finnish Biodiversity Information Centre is a matter of urgency. The Biodiversity Information Centre would enable integration of the species observation systems of expert amateur naturalist communities into professional systems. This in turn enables the use of species location data collected by amateur naturalists, for example, for purposes of planning the protection of threatened species. Alongside the launch of the Finnish Biodiversity Information Centre, the development of current data systems, such as the environmental administration’s TAXON database, is important since these will form part of the centre.

Sharing of biodiversity-related data already existing in Finland (natural history collections and observation data of research institutions, authorities and amateur naturalists’ organisations) through the international Global

Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) will be challenging. The available material covers only 25 per cent of digital data in Finland. Approximately 80 per cent of data shared by Finland originates in the databases of amateur naturalists. All natural history museums in Finland, and parties implementing ecological monitoring, should become GBIF data sources. They should also make available Finland’s 30 million or so data records already in digital format. On the other hand, GBIF activities are poorly organised at the national level and have no national funding allocations. The strategic objective of the Global Facility is to strengthen the activities of local biodiversity information facilities. Many member states (such as Australia, Spain, South Africa) have already achieved this, for example, by developing a national biodiversity information facility (BIF), because these countries find that data distributed through the Global Facility, which is available worldwide in English and which serves the international scientific community in particular, does not, in its current form, meet the needs of national administration and education, for instance. A Finnish Biodiversity Information Centre would enable enhanced participation by Finland in both the international GBIF system and a national BIF system. With such a centre, digital biodiversity data could be compiled and shared, in the Global Facility for international use and via a domestic portal for national use.

Information on biodiversity in Finland must be made easily accessible, regardless of where and by whom the data was collected. The Finnish Clearing-House Mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity (LUMONET) must be developed into a jointly used portal for the collection and transmission of ecological data, serving the needs of users extensively at home and abroad. This portal should be developed into a window on Finnish nature, through which different parties can access the required data on biodiversity and any related information on the traditional knowledge of the Saami people (Article 8(j)) (incl. Biodiversity.fi; Outdoors.fi; and the search portal of the planned Finnish Biodiversity Information Centre). Proposals for the development of the portal are included in the final report of the project group for the monitoring of biodiversity and data management (SETI) in the Nature

conservation productivity project (Luonnonsuojelun tuottavuushanke 2007–2009). The technical implementation of the portal, its location and contents, and its relationship to the corresponding EU system have been agreed upon in principle, but the financing remains unresolved.

Taxonomy

Finland’s biodiversity-related information is underused, due to administrative, financial and technical problems.

Most of the extensive material in the collections of natural history museums is difficult to use, because it is not fully saved in electronic data systems. A digitisation strategy for natural history museums and an action plan for 2010–2015 were completed in 2009. In 2009–2011, various materials in collections were digitised in a project covering several museums. This scheme was implemented using earmarked funding from the Ministry of

Education and Culture, with the support of the National Digital Library, and by means of international funding by foundations. The aim is to convert taxonomic samples into an easy-to-use format, while safeguarding Finland’s

59

taxonomy expertise and enhancing cooperation between parties participating in species knowledge and classification, and other species research. The Finnish Museum of Natural History is also compiling species checklists that contain information necessary, among other things, to assessing threatened species in Finland and their conservation status.

The connection between natural history collections and universities is important for the purposes of, among other things, education of researchers and the joint use of research facilities. In Finland, the lack of trained taxonomists and museum professionals specialised in processing species data complicates issues, such as the monitoring and assessment of changes in species. Taxonomic research of a number of invertebrates, algae and fungi has progressed slowly. On the other hand, knowledge of species in Finland has made significant progress, thanks to funding targeted at research into deficiently known and threatened forest species (PUTTE), carried out under the METSO programme (2003–2012) and constituting the largest appropriation allocated to taxonomic research in Finland (some 1.7 million euros, funding more than 50 studies).

A natural partner of the Finnish Museum of Natural History and other museums of natural history is the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE). The division of duties between institutions should be developed further, for example, with respect to joint research objectives and the exchange of data materials. In cooperation with various administrative sectors, the University of Helsinki is examining different ways of supporting the Finnish Museum of Natural History, so as to enable it to serve even information and infrastructure needs related to species protection.

Measures, responsible bodies and target schedules

39) Identify and assess the status of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Finland, in line with the EU biodiversity strategy.

• Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2013–2014)

40) Enhance the joint use of research and monitoring data between parties engaged in biodiversity research and monitoring (e.g. LYNET institutions, the planned Luonnonvarakeskus [Natural Resources Institute Finland]) and users of data (e.g. authorities, land use planners, landowners). Establish a virtual information system (Finnish Biodiversity Information Centre) for the collection of species data that is now dispersed between various organisations, in order to digitise and facilitate the joint use of such data. Update and implement development proposals concerning the LUMONET portal, in order to develop it into a national channel for collecting and transmitting biodiversity-related data to a broad base of users (incl. researchers, decision-makers, media, landowners, amateur naturalists), while taking into account the conditions laid down in the Personal Data Act (Henkilötietolaki).

• Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Ministry of Education and Culture, the Saami Parliament (2013–2020)

41) Initiate the research programme, included in the Government Programme, aimed at assessing the financial impact of biodiversity and ecosystem services, as part of the green economy research entity.

• Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Ministry of Education and Culture (2013–2015)

42) Clarify cooperation and the division of duties between the Finnish Museum of Natural History and the Finnish Environment Institute in basic taxonomic research, the production and storage of sample material and the monitoring of biodiversity, taking account of the development of state sectoral research institutions and of tasks performed under the regulations governing organisations.

• Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of the Environment (2013–2014)

60

43) Continue the digitisation of the Finnish Museum of Natural History’s taxonomic data and of key materials of regional museums and collections, and the production of checklists promoting the conservation of species.

Operators will agree between themselves on the updating of species checklists, resources and digital exchange.

Enhance the joint use of datasets on the Internet, by promoting the implementation of the objectives of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in Finland.

• Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of the Environment (2013–2020)

44) Continue the Research Programme of Deficiently Known and Threatened Forest Species (PUTTE). Compile identification guides on Finland’s key groups of species. Engage in cooperation related to species, knowledge of them and their classification with, among others, Sweden’s Svenska artprojektet project.

• Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Education and Culture (2013–2020)

2.2.5 Challenges and measures regarding habitats and natural resources