Threatened habitat types in

(1)

Threatened habitat types in Finland 2018

Aira Kokko

Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE

Meeting of the Finnish-Russian working group on nature conservation 14.5.2019

Korpoström, Parainen

(2)

Red List of Habitats 2018

Over 1 000 pages information

Threatened habitat types in Finland 2018 The Finnish Environment 5/2018

• Part I: Results and basis for assessment

• Part II: Descriptions of habitat types

● Both available as online publications

● Part I also printed

● Website of the assessment:

https://www.ymparisto.fi/en-

US/Nature/Natural_habitats/Assessment_of_threatened_h abitat_types_in_Finland/Assessment_of_threatened_habit at_types_in_Finland_2018

2

16.5.2019ESITYKSEN PITÄJÄ, SYKE

(3)

• Baltic Sea

• Coastal habitats

• Inland waters and shores

• Mires

• Forests

• Rocky habitats

• Seminatural grasslands and grazed woodlands

• Fell habitats

Expert team for each of the main habitat type groups

• Number of habitat types in the second assessment 388

Photo: Riku Lumiaro

(4)

Scientists/experts from organizations that

provided significant data sets for the assessment

Over 120 experts involved

• Research organizations: Finnish Environment Institute, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Geological Survey of Finland

4

• Universities: University of Helsinki, Natural History Museum, University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, University of Eastern Finland, University of Jyväskylä, University of Oulu, University of Lapland

• Environment administration: Several Centres for Economic Development,

Transport and the Environment, Metsähallitus Parks & Wildlife Finland, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Government of Åland

• Assessment carried out 2016─2018

• Coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute and financed by the Ministry of the Environment

(5)

Adoption of the IUCN RLE method instead of former national assessment method

• IUCN adopted the method 2014

• Most RLE assessments have focused on single

ecosystems/habitat types instead of comprehensive assessments

• In Europe Finland, Norway, and France have used the IUCN RLE method

https://iucnrle.org/resources/key-documents/

IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

─ Finland as a pioneer

5

(6)

Red List of Ecosystems criteria

● A = Declining distribution

● B = Restricted distribution

● C = Degradation of abiotic environment

● D = Altered biotic interactions

● E = Quantitative risk analysis

● 50 years in the past

● 50 years in the future

● 50 years with both past and the future

● Historical change (c. 1750─)

6

Threat category is assigned on the basis of the criterion that gives the highest estimate on the risk of collapse

(7)

Red List categories

7

(8)

Division of habitat types into Red List Categories

● Whole Finland 48%

● Southern Finland 59%

● Northern Finland 32%

8

Proportion of threatened habitat types

(VU, EN and CR):

(9)

Division of habitat types into Red List Categories by habitat type group

● Highest proportions in

seminatural grasslands (100%) and forests (76%)

● Lowest proportions in inland waters and shores (20%), the Baltic Sea (24%) and rocky habitats (25%)

● Mires 57 %

Proportion of threatened

habitat types (VU, EN and

CR):

(10)

10

Clearing of agricultural land Forestry

Drainage for forestry

Construction

Eutrophication of waters Water engineering

Reasons for the habitat types

becoming threatened

(11)

Threat factors in the future

Greatest differences compared to the reasons in the past

Climate change

Invasive species

Clearing of agricultural land

(12)

that would improve the state of threatened habitat types, related to…

70 action proposals

1. Land use, use of natural resources & state of the environment

2. Protection, management & restoration

3. Research, monitoring, information systems, education & communication

• Need to enhance significantly the on-going actions

• New innovations also required

¹²

(13)

Results of the assessment have been/will be used

13

● The concept of threatened habitat type and the results of the assessment have been adopted in many national strategies/action plans concerning biodiversity

● The results have been used / will be used in the development of legislation (e.g. Forest Act, Nature Conservation Act)

● Results of the assessment have been widely used in land use planning, as well as in prioritizing conservation, management and restoration actions

• E.g. in the revision of best practice guidelines for forest management, the preparation of the supplementary programme for mire conservation

● Background information for international reporting

• E.g. convention of Biological diversity (CBD), EU’s Habitats Directive

(14)

Threatened mire

habitats 2018

(15)

Mire Habitat types

● Mire expert group defined mires as peat

forming habitats and assessed both open and forested mires.

● The threat assessment was made on two hierarchical levels:

A) Habitat level:

• Mire site types/ type groups

• Spruce mires, spruce-birch fens, rich spruce- birch fens, pine mires and bogs, pine fens, rich pine fens, fens, rich fens, swamps

• 50 habitat types were assessed.

15 Seppo Tuominen

Hannu Nousiainen

Seppo Tuominen Hannu Nousiainen

Hannu Nousiainen

Rauno Ruuhijärvi Olli Autio

(16)

Mire habitat complexes

B) Habitat complex level

• Mire complex (massif) types (climatic mire complexes - e.g. aapa mires, raised bogs, palsamires - local mire complexes, fell mires, costal mires)

• Mire succession series of the land uplift coast

• 19 mire habitat complex types were assessed

16 Hannu Nousiainen

Markku Mikkola-Roos Pekka Salminen

Jari Ilmonen

Rauno Ruuhijärvi

(17)

Results of the mire assessment

A) Habitat level – mire site types/type groups

17

54 %

83 % 26 %

● Of the total number of mire site types assessed 54 % are threatened (VU, EN, CR) in the whole country

● The proportion of

threatened habitat types is

much higher in southern

Finland (83 %) than in

northern Finland (26 %)

(18)

Results of the mire assessment, habitat level

18

● Most treatened:

Rich fens, spruce mires

Whole country:

Photo. Hanna Kondelin Photo: Seppo Tuominen

(19)

Results of the mire assessment

B) Habitat complex level – Mire complexes/massifs

19

● Of the total number of mire site types assessed 63 % are

threatened (VU, EN, CR) in the whole country

● The proportion of threatened habitat types is 100 % in

southern Finland and 11 % (only 1 complex type,

palsamires) in northern Finland.

● Most threatened e.g.:

Mire succession series of land uplift coast, southern fen complexes, middle boreal aapa mires

(20)

20

Ingressi

Main preassures and threats

•

Drainage for forestry, (incl. effects of old ditches, ditch maintenance)

•

Logging & soil preparation of forested mires

•

Agricultural use

•

Peat extraction

•

Construction (incl. road network)

Many reasons for the mire habitat types becoming threatened , e.g.:

Now the decline in the area of undrained mires has slowed down, but the decline of quality continues:

•

Changes in natural hydrology caused by long-distance effects of drainage and other land use activities in catchment areas (minerotrophic mires!)

•

Logging & soil preparation of forested mires

•

Habitat fragmentation and increasing isolation of the remaining populations of mire species Negative development in the status of mire species (Hyvärinen et al. 2019)

•

Climate change

Drained, % Drained, %

(21)

21

Degradation of palsas

Palsa mires

Palsa in Perumämmärinjänkä, Inari in 1958.

Photo: Rauno Ruuhijärvi

The sama palsa in 2018.

Photo: Rauno Ruuhijärvi

Photo: Rauno Ruuhijärvi Photo: Rauno Ruuhijärvi

(22)

22

● Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A., Kemppainen, E., Uddström, A. & Liukko, U.-M. (eds.) 2019. The 2019 Red List of Finnish Species. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus. Helsinki.

704 p.

https://www.ymparisto.fi/en-US/Nature/Species/Threatened_species/The_2019_Red_List_of_Finnish_species

● Kontula, T. & Raunio, A. (eds.). 2018. Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus 2018.

Luontotyyppien punainen kirja – Osa 1: Tulokset ja arvioinnin perusteet. (Threatened habitat types in Finland 2018. Red List of Habitats – Part I: Results and basis for assessment).

Suomen ympäristökeskus ja ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki. Suomen ympäristö 5/2018. 388 p.

http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161233

•

Kontula, T. & Raunio, A. (eds.). 2018. Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus 2018.

Luontotyyppien punainen kirja – Osa 2: luontotyyppien kuvaukset. (Threatened habitat types in Finland 2018. Red List of Habitats – Part II: Descriptions of habitat types). Suomen

ympäristökeskus ja ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki. Suomen ympäristö 5/2018. 925 p.

http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161234

References

(23)

Ryhmän-tekstisivu

Väliotsikko tai lyhyt teksti: Arial Black, 16 pt

Luettelo tai leipäteksti Arial, 16 pt, musta. Ryhmäsivuille tulisi palkki, jossa kyseisen ryhmän pallo näkyvänä, muuta

haaleina.

Kuva: Seppo Tuominen

Thank you !

Photo: Hannu Nousiainen