eea flag

1.  POLICY SETTING

Finland has no dedicated legislation or policy for GI.

Relevant legislative framework: The Finnish regulatory system relevant for protection and management of green infrastructure consists of a set of sector specific and integrative instruments (Borgström and Similä 2014). The key mechanisms to protect and manage green infrastructure include protecting areas and habitats, directing the placement and regulating the operation of activities relevant for green infrastructure. These mechanisms are implemented through a number of legislative instruments. The key instruments for the protection of biodiversity, including the Natura 2000 network and habitat protection, can be found in the Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996, latest amended in 2016). The sector specific instruments (e.g. permits and notification systems) include regulations for agriculture, forestry, mining, land extraction and utilization of water resources. The key integrative instrument covering all sectors and activities are the planning law and its implementation mechanism (Land use and Building Act 132/1999) and the environmental impact assessment act (Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure252/2017, Act on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment 200/2005). Also national laws (Act on management of water and marine resources 2004/1299) implementing the EU water framework directive (2000/60/EC) and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) are relevant integrative, ecosystem based instruments contributing to the protection of green infrastructure.

Land Use and Building Act and the National Land Use Guidelines include several objectives relevant to GI (Kettunen 2010). Promoting nature conservation and biodiversity is one of the statutory objectives of the Land Use and Building Act. Based on the Act’s requirements, consideration of these aspects should also be included in regional and local land-use plans. The general objective of national land use planning is to create the basis for high quality living environments and to promote ecologically, economically, socially and culturally sustainable developments. This includes, for example, taking environmental factors into consideration in land use planning (e.g. mitigating risks of flooding and storms, and supporting adaptation to climate change). In general, national land use planning is foreseen to support sustainable use of natural resources, taking into consideration the needs of future generations. For example, the following GI related aspects are mentioned (Chapters 3 of the national Guidelines):

  • national land use objectives are decided upon by the Council of State, which may concern 1) international or more extensive than regional bearing on local structure, land use, or the transport or power network; 2) a significant impact on national cultural or natural heritage; or 3) nationally significant impact on ecological sustainability, the economy of the local structure, or avoidance of environmental hazards;
  • (Chapters 4.4 and 4.6 of the national Guidelines) maintaining ecological connectivity between protected areas and/or between protected areas and the broader landscape; preventing fragmentation of uniform and ecologically/recreationally important areas; promoting recreation and tourism (e.g. maintaining the quality of coastal and lake shore areas); ensuring the protection of areas with cultural significance and natural beauty; maintaining the quality of water resources (e.g. in the light of climate change); considering the impacts of peat extraction at the level of the entire watershed, especially impacts on biodiversity; and
  • (Chapters 9) development and continuity of urban green areas:  A national urban park may be established to protect and maintain the beauty of the cultural or natural landscape, historical characteristics or related values concerning the townscaping, social, recreational or other special values of an area in an urban environment. Areas designated in a plan referred to in this Act as parks, recreation or conservation areas, or areas of outstanding landscape value, or marked out for some other use appropriate for the purpose of national urban parks, may be designated to form a part of a national urban park. Areas designated as parks shall primarily be owned by the State, local authority or other public body. Other areas may be so designated with the owner's consent. There are eight established National Urban Parks (NUP) in Finland.

Relevant policy framework: The Finnish Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2020 provides the basis for the GI policy in Finland stating that “ … detrimental impacts on biodiversity due to the fragmentation of natural areas must be prevented or reduced, by developing so-called green and blue infrastructure.”  The foreseen measures include a study of what is meant by green and blue infrastructure (ecological network) under Finnish conditions, incorporating the formation of an ecological network into land use planning objectives, in order to prevent the fragmentation of unbroken natural areas (Measure 14), promoting the conservation of biodiversity in the planning of land and marine areas and in environmental impact assessments (Measure 15), and applying the voluntary guidelines to land use planning and guidance on planning in the Sámi Homeland (Measure 16). Further to the above, GI is also seen as a key part of the sustainable development of urban areas.

A national strategy for the sustainable and responsible use of mires and peatlands was adopted in 2012 directing the use of peatlands to non-pristine areas (e.g. peatlands previously drained for forestry purposes). As part of the implementation of the strategy, a proposal for additional conservation of 117,000 ha of mires was put forward in 2015 (Alanen and Aapala 2015).  Furthermore, the recently updated legislation for nature conservation stipulates that peat extraction cannot result in a loss of area with significant biodiversity value (Environmental Conservation Act 527/2014).

In the context of forestry and landscape planning, the concepts of Ecosystem-based Natural Resources Planning (ENRP) and Landscape Ecological Planning (LEP) (alue-ekologinen luonnonvarasuunnittelu) are planning concepts relevant to GI (Kettunen 2010). ENRP / LEP are established processes used in land use planning on state-owned land - mainly forests, but also a number of water bodies - throughout Finland. The ENRP / LEP plans are developed at a regional level and implemented / updated as part of ongoing forest management practises. The goal of ENRP is to reconcile differing land uses in a sustainable manner, including nature conservation, forestry, recreation, ecotourism, real estate development and the sale of soil resources. The key aim of the process is to ensure the sustainable, multiple use of land by harmonising ecological, economical and socio-cultural objectives of forest management. LEP is the ‘ecological component’ of the ENRP process that aims to assure the survival of the area’s native species as viable populations, conservation of existing valuable habitats and enhancing connectivity of the protected area network in surrounding production forests. ENRP / LEP process includes a range of elements integral to the GI concept, including key biotopes and areas with threatened species (e.g. protected areas), areas important for ecological connectivity, areas in need of restoration and/or enhancement of biodiversity, game reserves, areas important for their scenic or cultural value and special areas for traditional livelihoods. Naturally, all these need to be considered in the context of areas managed for forestry purposes.

In future, habitat banking in Finland may help to protect biodiversity and offset losses, and therefore indirect GI, as the ‘Habitat Bank of Finland’ project (2016-2017) is analysing, developing and piloting the principles of ecological compensation. The project aims to develop a new market-based mechanism for biodiversity conservation, to complement the existing policy instrument mix. The Habitat Bank will function as an intermediary between actors requiring and supplying ecological compensations. In addition to taking this broker role, the Habitat Bank will develop the methodology and metrics to measure biodiversity loss and compensations, and ensure the quality of compensation actions.

The Ministry of the Environment guides and monitors nature conservation in Finland; prepares and monitors legislation to maintain biodiversity; prepares nature conservation programmes and establishes nature reserves under these programmes. Furthermore, it approves the management and use plans of major nature reserves.

Metsähallitus / Natural Heritage Services (NHS) is a state-owned enterprise that manages Finland's national parks and nature reserves, wilderness areas, recreational areas and other protected areas. It is responsible for the management, use and public services of the areas and the nationwide protection and monitoring of many endangered species, natural habitats and cultural heritage. Consequently, NHS is the body responsible for managing the network of core areas for GI in Finland.

Status of achieving EU Target 2: Finland’s report on progress to the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy in 2015 listed the following status for Target 2 / green infrastructure:

  • The 2013 ecological assessment of surface waters accords a good or high status to 85% of the surface area of Finnish lakes, and 65% of rivers. Only a quarter of coastal waters achieved the same status. Overall inputs of nutrients have decreased since the inception of the Action Plan, by 9% for nitrogen (N) and 10% for phosphorus (P) comparing to the BSAP baseline years (1997–2003). In the longer time perspective, since 1994, the reductions have been even larger – inputs of N and P to the Baltic Sea have been cut by 18% and 16%, respectively.
  • Metsähallitus has under the METSO programme restored forests and mires. The restored area covers approximately 0.1% of Finland’s surface area (see also below).
  • Finland has established a national restoration prioritization working group, and it has published its report in October 2015[1].
  • Finland together with the other Nordic countries and the Nordic Council of Ministers have launched a project to produce specific inputs on how the countries can formulate strategies for management and political authorities to approach the restoration target.
  • The Finnish Environment Institute had a Green infrastructure - the dependence of ecosystem services and biodiversity on the green infrastructure - project and a follow up project (see below).
  • Finland has invested in the development of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems assessment method.
  • Finnish Board on Ecological restoration (FBER)[2]. This working group for ecological restoration and management in Finland is a nationwide cooperation body established by Metsähallitus.

 

2.  IMPLEMENTATION OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Examples of GI related actions and projects include:

  • Under the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme (Unesco) there are two Biosphere Reserves in Finland one in North-Karelia established in 1992 and second in Archipelago established in 1994 for model areas of sustainable development. 
  • Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (METSO). This has restored forests and mires in protected areas - nearly 17,400 ha between 2008 and 2015, and more than 26,000 ha before 2008.
  • Boreal Peatland Life: Restoring the Natura 2000 network of Boreal Peatland Ecosystems (01/2010 -12/2014). This aimed to enhance the habitat quality of 54 Natura 2000 sites in the unique Finnish peatland network. Its results have also made a significant contribution to implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, especially the target of restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. 
  • NATNET - Increasing the ecological connections and coherence of the Natura 2000 network in South-west Lapland (01/2012 – 12/2017). This aims to increase ecological connectivity and establish a green infrastructure that will improve the vitality and coherence of the Natura 2000 network in south-western Lapland and raise the biodiversity of the forests in the project area.
  • LIFE Urban Oases: Shaping a Sustainable Future through Environmentally Functional Landscape Features (2012-2017). The Urban Oases project aims to demonstrate how innovatively designed and built landscapes can restore and/or introduce water environment protecting elements and ecosystem services in urban areas. The built landscapes are monitored to demonstrate benefits that they provide. Monitored and demonstrated impacts of the prototype landscapes include water quantity (flood control), water quality, greenhouse gases (sink or source), and biodiversity (vegetation, amphibians, birds and invertebrates). The prototype wetlands and swales are also examined for their design and environmental impact relationship.
  • SustainBaltic project (2016 – 2018). This focuses on developing integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) Plans for sustaining coastal and marine human-ecological networks in the Baltic region. The project targets four ICZM case plans from Estonia and Finland, which are produced based on the current spatial data on ecological, land use and human activities. The novelty approach of SustainBaltic is on the close co-working in order to define the most crucial ICZM planning criteria to be utilised and implemented further in Central Baltic Programme area.
  • Green Belt of Fennoscandia (GBF). This initiative is a network of existing and planned protected areas near the borders of three countries: Finland, Russia and Norway. The aim of the cooperation is to develop the Green Belt into a widely acknowledged transboundary model area and increase awareness on the area and its values in the participating countries as well internationally. The Green Belt of Fennoscandia is the northern part of the European Green Belt. In Finland the Green Belt is developed and promoted by large network of national and regional stakeholders as well as National Working Group appointed the Ministry the of  the Environment.
  • EU OpenNESS case study: Ecosystem Services in Urban Land Use Planning: Case Sibbesborg in southern Finland. Sibbesborg is a large-scale urban development project whose purpose is to develop Söderkulla and the Sipoonlahti area into a new town of 70,000-100,000 inhabitants. The project responds to the population growth pressures of the Helsinki metropolitan area. The aim of this case is to explore the ways in which ecosystem services can be taken explicitly into account in the Sibbesborg planning process. OpenNESS researchers will work together with the Sibbesborg planning team, consisting of architects, consultants and representatives of Sipoo municipality, and support the planners in identifying, measuring, mapping and valuating ecosystem services and the green infrastructure. The aim is also to assess how to benefit from ecosystem services in social and economic terms. A special focus is on green infrastructure and new tools to manage open green space as part of urban realm. Distinct themes of the Sibbesborg plan approved by the municipality are local food production and green care, which refers to social, health and educational services relying on natural and agricultural environments.
  • Tampere participates in the Horizon 2020 project Urban Nature Labs (UNaLab) which aims to develop a robust evidence base and European framework of innovative, replicable, and locally-attuned nature-based solutions (NBS) to enhance the climate and water resilience of cities. UNaLab focuses on urban ecological water management, accompanied with greening measures and innovative and inclusive urban design.

 

3.  MAINSTREAMING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Nature

The EU Natura 2000 network is at the core of the EU's Green Infrastructure. As of early 2016, 12.7% of the Finnish national territory was covered by Natura 2000 (EU average 18.1%), with Birds Directive SPAs covering 7.9% (EU average 12.3%) and Habitats Directive SCIs covering 12.5% (EU average 13.8%). There are altogether 1,865 Natura 2000 sites in Finland (European Commission, 2017).

Forest Biodiversity Programme METSO for Southern Finland aims to halt the ongoing decline in the biodiversity of forest habitats and species, and establish stable favourable trends especially in Southern Finland’s forest ecosystems on the voluntary basis. The work for METSO includes also the Ecological shopping list made by Zonation, conservation planning framework and software[3].

 

Agriculture

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aims to develop agricultural production in the Community in a balanced way, taking into account environmental well-being and animal welfare and promoting the viability of rural areas. The CAP has undergone several reforms. The most recent reform entered into force at the beginning of 2015. The reform has addressed current challenges, such as growing food demand and climate change. The priorities of the reformed CAP include more eco-friendly farming techniques, innovation, research and awareness raising, a fairer support system and strengthening the position of farmers in the food chain.

Rural policy: From 2015 onwards, agri-environmental measures are complemented with greening payments funded directly by the EU. The payments require crop diversification and maintaining an ecological focus area and permanent grassland. Rural development programmes have a long tradition of supporting agri-environmental efforts. The new measures introduced in 2015 include many ways to further enhance environmental measures within agriculture.

 

Forestry

See the concept of Ecosystem-based Natural Resources Planning (ENRP) and Landscape Ecological Planning (LEP) in section 1 above.

The management of commercial forests plays a key role in fostering biodiversity, as some 90% of Finland's forests are available for wood production.  Maintenance and enhancement of biological diversity of forests is an integral element of the Finnish forest policy, legislation and practices. In Finland certification systems (PEFC, FSC) drawn up in participatory processes which are independent of any public authorities are widely used on a voluntary basis to ensure the sustainability of forest management. There is also the Act on the Financing of Sustainable Forestry to support the management of Biodiversity of forests.

 

Urban policy

EnRoute project / Helsinki is one of the cities interested to join in the EnRoute project about urban green infrastructure by Mapping and Assessing Ecosystems and their Services (MAES), which runs from 2017 until 2018. The project aims to introduce the MAES approach into the local policy arena, connecting the governance levels horizontally and vertically, with a view to contribute to the further deployment of GI in cities and in urban contexts. In the “city labs”, the URBAN-MAES framework will be implemented using local data and involving in the process the local stakeholders and focusing on specific issues (Maes et al. 2017).

 

Spatial planning

National Land Use Guidelines and land use planning system and hierarchy is under updating process at the moment.  

See the concept of Ecosystem-based Natural Resources Planning (ENRP) and Landscape Ecological Planning (LEP) in section 1 above.

 

Water management

There are adaptation policies for water management.

 

Disaster risk reduction

There are adaptation policies for disaster risk reduction.

 

Marine and coastal policy

See the SustainBaltic project (2016 – 2018) in section 2 above, which focuses on developing ICZM plans.

 

Health

Nature is a diverse source of health and well-being. State owned forests and waters offer great experiences for all ages throughout the country. Metsähallitus together with its partners promote the wellness effects of outdoor activities by offering hikers services such as trails, campfire sites, signposts, maps and information on Finland’s most beautiful nature destinations. It has been scientifically proven that nature improves our health and well-being in at least three ways: 1) physical activity increases outdoors - without even noticing it, we tend to move more briskly outdoors than indoors even though the exercise feels lighter; 2) nature revives and helps recover from stress, it improves our concentration, and can also reduce our pulse rate and blood pressure; and 3) outdoor activities promote our social well-being and sense of community: we look at others in a more positive way, and our mood is quickly improved[4].

Nature based solutions in health care:

  • Case Sipoo Municipality Public-private partnerships in developing nature based health products (MoAF)
  • Green Care Finland Association, established in 2010, works to coordinate, develop and promote the use of nature and animal assisted methods in combination with wellbeing and health services in Finland. In Finland, two distinct domains are distinguished, Green Care and Green Empowerment. The clients of Green Care (in Finnish, Luontohoiva) typically include vulnerable groups such as the elderly, immigrants, mentally and/or physically disabled. These services are given within the prevailing legislation of health care and social services. The services of Green Empowerment (in Finnish, Luontovoima) include activities supporting the overall mental and physical wellbeing of all people. The activities can be considered as preventive measures: they are typically conducted by organizations concerned with wellbeing or nature tourism.
  • Nordic experiences and examples on Nature based integration of immigrants – project, financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers.

 

4.  FINANCING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Funding for GI comes from the overall framework for financing biodiversity conservation in Finland, including dedicated funding for nature conservation and funding under different sectors (agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc.). As in all EU countries, the funding is a blend of EU (e.g. CAP Rural Development Programme measures) and national sources.

European Neighbourhood Instrument Cross-Border Cooperation (ENI CBC): Cross-border cooperation supports social and economic development along the EU’s external borders, provides a response to joint challenges in areas such as the environment, health and crime and boosts the movement of people, goods and capital. By promoting the sharing of experiences and dissemination of best practices, cross-border cooperation helps to strengthen competitiveness in the border areas, the creation of international networks and economic growth. Three ENI CBC programmes are currently under way on the border between Finland and Russia: Kolarctic, Karelia and South-East Finland - Russia. The programmes, which will cover the period 2014 - 2020, are a continuation of the programmes implemented between 2007 and 2013. Even though each ENI CBC programme has its own themes there are also joint priorities: business development, environmental protection, border management and border security. The regions involved are responsible for the content and implementation of the programmes. More information about ENI CBC programmes can be found at structuralfunds.fi and the websites of the individual programmes.

See Forest Biodiversity Programme METSO for Southern Finland.

No dedicated estimates are available for funding requirements for GI. However, it has been estimated that there is a funding gap for financing the required measures under the national Biodiversity Action Plan (Ministry of the Environment, 2016). The network of experts estimates that the financial gap relating to the implementation of the Action Plan totals about EUR 232 million for the whole five-year period 2016–2020, which means that the annual gap is about EUR 46 million. In particular, there is a considerable financial gap relating to measures under conservation of biodiversity in the Action Plan. An estimated EUR 13 million a year of additional financing on top of the appropriation for biodiversity conservation in the decision on spending limits is needed for implementing these measures. The funds allocated for the acquisition of protected areas and the related compensations, in particular, are much smaller than needed for the purposes of the Action Plan. Under this heading there is also a financial gap with regard to the protection of species and habitat types. A rough estimate for the financial gap in actions concerning inland waters is EUR 9 million a year. The Action Plan aims for the implementation of the regional river basin management plans and programmes of measures and the national river basin management programme, where the financial gap is about EUR 9 million a year. There is a significant financial gap also in measures under the heading forests, where the annual funds are an estimated EUR 10 million smaller than needed for the purposes of the Action Plan.

 

5.  CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR GI DEVELOPMENT

5.1  Best practice/points of excellence

Finland has established a national restoration prioritization working group and has a prioritization plan since 2015: "Improving the status of habitats in Finland – report of the ELITE working group on a prioritisation plan for improving the status of habitats and estimated total costs of the plan".

In practice, Metsähallitus has under the METSO programme restored forests and mires. The restored area covers approximately 0.1% of Finland’s surface area[5].

Metsähallitus is also developing considerable experience in systematically promoting the health benefits of nature as part of their operations (see section 4 above) and they can therefore provide a good practice example to other Member States as to how to foster and mainstream health benefits of GI.

 

5.2  Challenges/gaps/needs

The main challenge involves building political ownership and strengthening policy coherence for developing GI policy in Finland.  In Finland, unlike in certain other EU Member States, green infrastructure as a concept has not yet been incorporated into the national policy instruments. In practice, however, there are numerous regulatory tools for nature protection, land use and utilization of natural resources that are relevant in terms of green infrastructure. On one hand, green infrastructure policy could be implemented by making more efficient and systematic use of the available instruments, such as land use planning. However, this requires increased exchange of information and dialogue between authorities, strengthening the knowledge base, and development of the monitoring systems.

On the other hand, at the moment there are no policy tools in Finland that would enable systematic and comprehensive action to preserve and enhance green infrastructure. The regulation that is relevant in terms of the maintenance, protection and creation of green infrastructure is composed of a broad spectrum of individual, sector-specific regulatory instruments.

Therefore, it could be useful to start developing a new kind of planning model that would enable the implementation of a systematic and comprehensive green infrastructure policy. This planning model could first be experimented on a voluntary basis, followed by an assessment of the need to create a legislative framework for this. The purpose of the experimenting phase would be to find a model suitable for Finland that would serve as the basis for regional planning on green infrastructure.

In the end, legislative changes would be needed to ensure the efficient implementation of the plans. The financial instruments should also be developed because the current instruments have proven insufficient for activities such as restoration projects. This could be done by steering the current funding in new ways or by creating new financial instruments.

Also there are challenging urban-rural linkages: intensifying urbanisation and immigration and simultaneous deprivation of rural areas.

 

5.3  Opportunities

Nature-based solutions in health care could provide opportunities for developing GI especially in urban areas and in the national parks.

Connectivity across state borders and GI in the border areas provide basis for transboundary nature conservation cooperation.

 

5.4  Benefits

For Ecosystem-based Natural Resources Planning (ENRP) and Landscape Ecological Planning (LEP), the national level data dates back to 1996 – 2000 when a total of 112 LEP-plans covered around 6.5 million ha of state managed land across Finland (Wallenius et al. 2016).

LIFE Urban Oases project (above) has been monitoring benefits provided by ecosystem services and how these benefits can be successfully integrated into urban planning and management processes. Monitoring of the Nummela Gateway wetland park, where GI developed as a part of the project, over a period of three years has shown that constructed wetlands rapidly self-establish, resulting in an increase in biodiversity and the establishment of several ecosystem services (e.g. erosion and flood control, and reduction of pollutants in runoff water) (Salminen et al. 2013). The constructed wetland also provides a range of other benefits including opportunities for recreation and education. 

The Nature for Health and Well-Being in Finland project (below) concluded that ecosystem services and related biodiversity can have many positive effects in promotion of health and well-being and also in disease prevention in Finland (Jappinen et al. 2015). Possible savings on health-care costs can be obtained if the health benefits stemming from natural environment are taken into account better in promoting public health, as well as in prevention of both physical and mental illnesses.

Economic impact of the national parks were 178.9 M€ in 2016[6].

 

6.  KNOWLEDGE BASE

Examples of methods, tools, maps and databases that have been developed and successfully used for GI development include:

  • EKLIPSE (2016-2020): EKLIPSE mechanisms aim to bring scientist, policy makers and social actors to ensure that decisions that affect environment are made the best available knowledge (www.eklipse-mechanism.eu)
  • Oppla – is a knowledge market place for sharing, obtaining and creating knowledge regarding ecosystem services and nature based solutions.  (www.oppla.eu)
  • National biodiversity and ecosystem services indicators; Finland has more than 110 indicators reflecting the state and development of various components of biological diversity as well as factors driving changes in Finland's nature. The framework is financed by the Ministry of Environment and it has been developed in close cooperation by Finnish environmental research organisations and non-governmental organisations.
  • Argumenta - Nature for Health and Well-Being in Finland project (2013–2014) was developed to stimulate dialogue among researchers, experts, and decision-makers and to discuss the links between ecosystem services and human health. For the main outcome, the project team proposes implementation of a 10-year national development programme: Nature for Health and Well-Being in Finland (2015–2025), to comprise a national action plan and a multidisciplinary, five year research programme. In connection with this, the project proposes also that the Finnish Government prepares a decision in principle to enhance national policy toward this goal.
  • OpenNESS project (2012 - 2017) is an EU FP7 project led by the Finnish Environment Institute that aims to translate the concepts of natural capital (NC) and ecosystem services (ES) into operational frameworks that provide tested, practical and tailored solutions for integrating ES into land, water and urban management and decision-making. It examines how the concepts link to, and support, wider EU economic, social and environmental policy initiatives and scrutinizes the potential and limitations of the concepts of ES and NC.
  • EU LIFE Freshabit project (2016 onwards) focuses on fresh- and groundwater dependent habitats, coastal and estuarine habitats and species depending on water in several Natura 2000 network sites across Finland. The project aims to develop new methodology and indicators for assessing the conservation status of freshwater habitats. It further aims to improve the ecological status, management, and sustainable use of these habitats, by developing networks and operational models, and testing them in selected catchments. 
  • 'Green infra' project (2013-2014) explored the dependence of ecosystem services and biodiversity on the green infrastructure. Green infra had objectives to assess how national policies, including legislation, can be developed to protect and enhance green infrastructure and also to develop a new GIS-based tool to guide decision making on land use and green infrastructure. The GIS-based tool aims to identify the key areas for GI.
  • The Economics of Ecosystem Services for Finland (TEEB Finland) (2014-2015) provided an overview of the most relevant ecosystem services and the main drivers and future trends affecting their provision; suggestions for developing indicators on the value of ecosystem services; a spatial case study (including a view on GI); policy and governance issues; a scoping assessment on natural capital accounting; and a review on the relationship of ecosystem services and green economy.

 

7.  FURTHER RESOURCES AND PUBLICATIONS

VirMa / Aalto University research group

See also previous chapters and chapter 8. List of consulted references.

 

8.  LIST OF CONSULTED REFERENCES

Alanen, A. and Aapala, K. (2015) Soidensuojelutyöryhmän ehdotus soidensuojelun täydentämiseksi / Proposal for supplementing the national strategy for the protection of peatlands, Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 26, https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/158285, accessed 11 November 2016 

BISE (2015) Finland - Contribution to the mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 based on the 5th national report to CBD, http://biodiversity.europa.eu/mtr/countries/finland/#action6, accessed 13 April 2017

Borgström, S. and Similä, J. (2014) Assessing Governance Structures for Green Infrastructure, Nordic Environmental Law Journal 3: 7-21, http://nordiskmiljoratt.se/onewebmedia/NMT,%2032014,%20Borgstrom,%20Simila.pdf, accessed 13 April 2017

EU FP7 OpenNESS project: http://www.openness-project.eu/, accessed 13 April 2017

EU LIFE Freshhabit project: http://www.metsa.fi/ and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=5437, accessed 13 April 2017

European Commission (2013). Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM(2013) 249 final.

European Commission (2017). The EU Environmental Implementation Review Country Report – Finland: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_fi_en.pdf

Factsheet on Finland developed by the EC financed project “Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure”.

Finnish biodiversity action plan 2013-2020: file:///C:/Users/Marianne/Downloads/National_action_plan2013_SavingNatureforPeople%20(1).pdf, accessed 13 April 2017

Finnish national biodiversity and ecosystem services indicators: https://www.biodiversity.fi/en/home, accessed 13 April 2017

Finnish TEEB, www-site and publication: http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Research__Development/Research_and_development_projects/Projects/National_Assessment_of_the_Economics_of_Ecosystem_Services_in_Finland_TEEB_Finland

Green Belt of Fennoscandia (GBF) initiative: http://www.ym.fi/greenbelt, accessed 13 April 2017

Green infra project: http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Research__Development/Research_and_development_projects/Projects/Green_infra__The_dependence_of_ecosystem_services_and_biodiversity_on_the_green_infrastructure/Green_infra__The_dependence_of_ecosystem(10023), accessed 13 April 2017

Habitat Back of Finland project: http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Research__Development/Research_and_development_projects/Projects/Habitat_Bank/The_Habitat_Bank_of_Finland(39809), accessed 13 April 2017

http://www.ym.fi/en-US/Nature/Biodiversity

http://www.ymparisto.fi/en-US/Finlands_environmental_administration(24294)

Jäppinen, J.-P., Tyrväinen,L., Reinikainen, M. and Ojala, A. (eds) (2014) Luonto lähelle ja terveydeksi Ekosysteemipalvelut ja ihmisen terveys, Argumenta-hankkeen (2013–2014) tulokset ja toimenpidesuositukset, Suomen Ymparistokeskuksen Raportteja, 35. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/153461, accessed 13 April 2017 

Kettunen, M. (2010) Green infrastructure country file for Finland, internal project document prepared in the context of the project “Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency” (ENV.B.2./SER/2010/0059)

Ed. Janne S. Kotiaho, Saija Kuusela, Eini Nieminen and Jussi Päivinen (2015). Improving the status of habitats in Finland – report of the ELITE working group on a prioritisation plan for improving the status of habitats and estimated total costs of the plan. The Finnish Environment 8/2015. Available at in Finnish https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/156982/SY_8_2015.pdf?sequence=1

Janne S. Kotiaho, Saija Kuusela, Eini Nieminen, Jussi Päivinen and Atte Moilanen (2016). Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation – Report of the Finnish restoration prioritization working group on the options and costs of meeting the Aichi biodiversity target of restoring at least 15 percent of degraded ecosystems in Finland. Reports Of The Ministry Of The Environment 15/2016. Available at in English: http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/74862/YMre_15en_2016.pdf?sequence=1

LIFE Project Database (n.d.)." Boreal Peatland Life: Restoring the Natura 2000 network of Boreal Peatland Ecosystems" Accessed 06.12.2016: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3557

LIFE Project Database (n.d.)."NATNET Increasing the ecological connections and coherence of the Natura 2000 network in South-west Lapland " Accessed 06.12.2016: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4071

LIFE Urban Oasis: http://www.helsinki.fi/urbanoases/, accessed 13 April 2017

Maes, J., Zulian, G. and Thijssen, M. (2017). Inception report: EnROUTE. Final draft version (10 February 2017)

Ministry of the Environment (2016) Report on the resources required for the Biodiversity Action Plan of Finland, file:///C:/Users/Marianne/Downloads/Report%20on%20the%20resources%20required%20for%20the%20Biodiversity%20Action%20Plan%20of%20Finland%202016%20(1).pdf, accessed 13 April 2017

Salminen, O., Ahponen, H., Valkama, P., Vessman, T., Rantakokko, K., Vaahtera, E., Taylor, A., Vasander, H. and Eero Nikinmaa (2013) TEEB Nordic case: Benefits of green infrastructure - socio-economic importance of constructed wetlands (Nummela, Finland). In Kettunen et al. Socio-economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic Countries - Scoping assessment in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Available also at: www.TEEBweb.org.

Salomaa, A., Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Cent, Kettunen, M. & Kotiaho, J. (2017) Can green infrastructure help to conserve biodiversity? Environment and Planning : Government and Policy, Environment and Planning, 35(2): 265–288

Jukka Similä, Suvi Borgström, Leena Kopperoinen, Pekka Itkonen, Ari-Pekka Auvinen, Miska Koivulehto (2017): Dependence of ecosystem services and biodiversity on green infrastructure and changes needed in the regulation. Reports of the Ministry of the Environment 17/2017. Available at: http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/79988/YMra_17_2017_Ekosysteemipalveluiden_ja_luonnon%20moinimuotoisuuden.pdf?sequence=3 (English abstract).

SustainBaltic project: http://www.utu.fi/en/sites/SustainBaltic/Pages/home.aspx,  accessed 13 April 2017

Wallenius, T., Karvonen, L., Paalamo, P., Ahola, T., Kaukonen, M., Holappa, A. and Kammonen, A. (2016) Itä-Lapin alue-ekologinen tarkastelu 2015, Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 74, https://julkaisut.metsa.fi/julkaisut/show/2003, accessed 13 April 2017

[1] https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/156982/SY_8_2015.pdf

[2] http://www.metsa.fi/web/en/finnishboardonecologicalrestoration

[3] http://nc.yha.cloudnc.fi/Syke/en-US/Research__Development/Ecosystem_services/Specialist_work/METSO_Programme/Zonation_supporting_METSO/Zonation_supporting_the_implementation_o(9969)

[4] http://www.metsa.fi/web/en/healthbenefitsfromnature#sthash.w8xmTguF.dpuf

[5] http://www.metsa.fi/web/en/habitatrestoration

[6] http://www.metsa.fi/web/en/economicbenefitsfromnature