THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 2 | 2019 Threatened Habitat Types in Finland 2018 Red List of Habitats Results and Basis for Assessment Tytti Kontula and Anne Raunio (eds.) Finnish Environment Institute and Ministry of the Environment THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 2 | 2019 Threatened Habitat Types in Finland 2018 Red List of Habitats Results and Basis for Assessment Tytti Kontula and Anne Raunio (eds.) Helsinki 2019 Finnish Environment Institute and Ministry of the Environment Citation: Kontula, T. & Raunio, A. (eds). 2019. Threatened Habitat Types in Finland 2018. Red List of Habitats – Results and Basis for Assessment. Finnish Environment Institute and Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki. The Finnish Environment 2/2019. 254 p. Citation for an individual section: Reinikainen, M., Ryttäri, T., Kanerva, T., Kekäläinen, H., Koskela, K., Kunttu, P., Mussaari, M., Numers, M. von, Rinkineva-Kantola, L., Sievänen, M. & Syrjänen, K. 2018. Baltic Sea coast. In: Kontula, T. & Raunio, A. (eds). Threatened Habitat Types in Finland 2018. Red List of Habitats – Results and Basis for Assessment. Finnish Environment Institute and Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki. The Finnish Environment 2/2019. pp. 61–71 Finnish Environment Institute and Ministry of the Environment ISBN 978-952-11-5110-1 (PDF) ISSN 1796-1637 (online) Cover photo: Juha Jantunen Graphic design: Satu Turtiainen, Finnish Environment Institute Layout: Faktor Oy Translations: Käännös-Aazet Oy / Anu Pöllänen and Michele Alppi Helsinki 2019 FOREWORD The climate, natural environment and society around us are changing at an accelerating pace. Under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the EU biodiversity strategy and Finland’s Biodiversity Action Plan, we have made a commitment to halting biodiversity loss by 2020. Assessments of the threat status of species and habitat types are the most important indicators used to monitor the state of biodiversity, and their results are continuously alarming. The second assessment of the threat status of Finnish habitat types is a very extensive examination of 388 habitat types and several habitat type groups conducted on the basis of voluminous data by more than 120 experts in eight expert groups. The work was coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute and participated in by all key national actors, such as Metsähallitus Parks & Wildlife Finland, the Natural Resources Institute Finland, the Geological Survey of Finland, several universities, the Finnish Museum of Natural History, the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, the Government of Åland, the Finnish Forest Centre and the Reindeer Herders’ Association. The work was steered and co-funded by the Ministry of the Environment, and there was a steering group appointed by the Ministry which included the key organisations producing habitat type data. Compared with the first national assessment of threatened habitat types completed in 2008, the knowledge base concerning habitat types has increased considerably, especially regarding Baltic Sea underwater habitats, inland waters and their shores as well as mires. The classification of habitat types has otherwise undergone moderate amendments, but it is now substantially more specific with regard to the classification of Baltic Sea habitat types and, on the other hand, more combinatory in the classification of forests. The biggest changes have, however, taken place in assessment methodology. The national method used previously has been replaced by the peer-reviewed Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) methodology developed through broad international cooperation by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Assessment work using the new method is quite labour-intensive and requires both calculations based on data and interpretations by experts. Following the various changes, the assessment is now more comprehensive, quantitative, reliable, transparent and internationally comparable. Comparisons with the previous national results are, however, rather difficult and require, at a minimum, the identification of changes arising from differences in methodology. In-depth assessments employing consistent methods conducted by Finland’s best experts in the state of the habitat types, as well as proposals for action to improve the state of habitat types, are highly important and welcome so that we can identify and target Finland’s key protection needs for the future. The data was utilised immediately in Finland’s Habitats Directive reporting in spring 2019 and will be employed when updating national action plans for enhancing biodiversity. Among the threats faced by habitat types, climate change has become more and more significant, especially in the contexts of fell habitat types and water bodies. This calls for novel, more efficient actions to safeguard habitat types. The Finnish Environment 2 | 2019 3 All in all, the threat status assessment of habitat types is an excellent demonstration of the competencies, commitment and cooperation of Finnish experts as well as of the new innovations and applications brought about by the shared use of data. In the future the results will serve various administrative branches and research thanks to, for example, new geospatial datasets. Being a forerunner in the large-scale introduction of the new RLE methodology of the IUCN also provides Finland with opportunities for international influence in the development of the method as well as in global nature conservation solutions of the future. The Ministry of the Environment is grateful for the work that has been done and supports the continuation of the habitat types cooperation network. As a further step, the Ministry has launched preparations on the basis of the assessment results for increasing the efficiency of measures to safeguard habitat types and to improve the state of declined habitat types. Aulikki Alanen Senior Ministerial Adviser, Ministry of the Environment 4 The Finnish Environment 2 | 2019 CONTENTS Foreword ..............................................................................................................................3 Contents .............................................................................................................................. 5 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Project background ...................................................................................................... 9 1.2 The work process .......................................................................................................10 1.3 Experts and cooperation partners ........................................................................10 2 Threat status assessment method ......................................................................13 2.1 IUCN Red List of Ecosystems assessment method ..........................................13 2.2 Introduction of the method in Finland and differences from the previous assessment ..................................................................................................14 2.3 Categories of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems ................................................14 2.4 Key principles of the assessment method .............................................................15 2.4.1 Time frames ........................................................................................................15 2.4.2 Defining ecosystem collapse ..........................................................................16 2.4.3 Use of criteria and assignment of overall Red List category ...................17 2.5 Criteria and thresholds ............................................................................................. 17 2.5.1 Criterion A. Reduction in geographic distribution ...................................17 2.5.2 Criterion B. Restricted geographic distribution ........................................18 2.5.3 Criterion C. Environmental degradation .....................................................21 2.5.4 Criterion D. Disruption of biotic processes and interactions ..............25 2.5.5 National examples of the use of criteria C and D and their combination CD ......................................................................................26 2.5.6 Criterion E. Quantitative risk analysis ........................................................34 2.5.7 Decline thresholds ............................................................................................34 2.5.8 Conceptual model .............................................................................................35 2.6 Reasons for becoming threatened and threat factors of habitat types ........37 2.7 Trends ...........................................................................................................................37 2.8 Division of Finland into subregions .......................................................................38 2.9 Reasons for uplistings and downlistings .................................................................38 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................39 The Finnish Environment 2 | 2019 5 3 Datasets ............................................................................................................................41 3.1 Most commonly used data ......................................................................................41