Sixth National Report
Section I. Information on the targets being pursued at the national level
1. Finnish people have at least a basic knowledge of biodiversity and are aware of its significance and their own opportunities to contribute to its conservation and sustainable use. (Target for 2020.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 1.
2. Biodiversity values have been integrated. Alternative measures to GNP have been adopted to measure how well sustainable development objectives have been realised. The goal of conserving biodiversity has also been integrated into decision-making on plans, programmes and projects. (Target for 2020.) ()
Similar to Aichi target 2. Alternative measures to GNP is included specifically since this issue is topical and is mentioned in the Finnish NBSAP 2012-2020 (action 41 for research on green economy ).
3. Incentives and subsidies harmful to biodiversity have been identified and reformed, and economic controls related to biodiversity have been enhanced, taking into account national socioeconomic and cultural conditions. (Target for 2020.) ()
Identical to Aichi target 3. An important issue in Finland with 18 different government incentives (mainly tax subsidies) being identified as indirectly harmful to biodiversity
4. Administration, business, civil society and stakeholders at all levels promote and implement plans for sustainable production and consumption, and keep the impacts of natural resource use within safe ecological limits. (Target for 2020.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 4.
5. The loss of all natural habitats has been halted, and the degradation and fragmentation of natural habitats have been significantly reduced. (Target for 2020.) ()
Similar to Aichi target 5, but more ambitious – halted. The loss of natural habitats is not such an urgent issue in Finland, but the qualitative degradation of habitats continues to be a serious threat.
6. All aquatic biotic resources are managed and utilised sustainably, applying an ecosystem-based approach. The concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is applied in fisheries. Living natural resources are utilised within safe ecological limits. Fish stock management plans are drafted for all threatened fish populations and where necessary for commercially fished populations and groups of populations. Fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species or vulnerable ecosystems. Fish migration routes and spawning areas are safeguarded in waters of importance to migratory fish and commercially fished species. Depleted fish stocks are strengthened and native fish populations restored with the help of introductions. (Target for 2020.) ()
Similar to global Aichi target 6. Overfishing is rarely an issue in Finland. This target is more specifically drafted emphasising management plans, restoration needs, fish migration routes and safe ecological limits. The aim is that fisheries practices should not have any significant impact on threatened fish species or vulnerable ecosystems.
7. Areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed and utilised sustainably, ensuring the conservation of biodiversity. (Target for 2020.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 7.
8. Environmental pollutants and their harmful emissions, including the excess nutrients that cause eutrophication, have been reduced to levels that are not detrimental to biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems. (Target for 2020.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 8.
9. Invasive alien species and their pathways have been identified and prioritised, with the most harmful species brought under control. Pathways are monitored to prevent the introduction and establishment of invasive alien species in Finland. (Target for 2020.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 9.
10. The multiple anthropogenic pressures on threatened ecosystems impacted by climate change have been reduced so as to maintain their integrity and functioning. (Target for 2015.) ()
Identical with Aichi target 10, but omits questions related to oceans as being outside of Finland’s jurisdiction.
11. Finland’s network of protected areas and the measures applied to conserve biodiversity in the use of other areas together cover at least 17 per cent of the terrestrial environments and inland waters of the country, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas. The functionality and coverage of the network have particularly been improved in Southern Finland. Protected areas are suitably managed and ecologically and regionally representative. They are well connected, and green infrastructure also connects them to wider landscape entities, with regard to the special features of heritage landscapes. Biodiversity also continues to be safeguarded in commercially managed forests. (Target for 2020.) ()
Similar to Aichi target 11, but with more specific measures that take into account national circumstances. In Finland the areas qualifying for the 17 and 10 percent targets include also areas outside the protected area network with measures to conserve biodiversity. The functionality and connectivity of the network of protected areas is particularly important for Finland. Southern Finland is highlighted because of the need for further protection and increasing of regional representativeness. The safeguarding of biodiversity in commercially managed forests is also mentioned as a priority measure for reaching this target.
12. The extinction of threatened species has been prevented in Finland and the conservation statuses of those most threatened have been improved, with declining trends halted. (Target for 2020.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 12.
13. The genetic biodiversity of Finland’s cultivated plants and their wild relatives, forest trees, fish stocks, and farmed and domesticated animals has been preserved and safeguarded. (Target for 2020.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 13. The national preservation measures of the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and their wild relatives, forest trees, fish stocks, and farmed and domesticated animals have been integrated into the Finnish NBSAP 2012-2020 (actions 86 to 90) as well as into the work related to FAO.
14. Ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account socioeconomic and cultural considerations, notably the needs of the indigenous Sámi community. (Target for 2020.) ()
Similar to Aichi target 14. The Sámi community is mentioned as it is the only indigenous community in the EU and therefore of special interest in Finland. Gender and poverty issues are covered by socioeconomic and cultural considerations. They are not pressing issues in relation to biodiversity in Finland.
15. Ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks have been enhanced through conservation and restoration. Finland participates in global efforts to restore at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification. The impacts of the increased use of bioenergy on biodiversity and the nutrient and carbon cycles of forests have been assessed, and guidelines have been set to safeguard biodiversity. Urban biodiversity is enhanced through conservation measures, management measures and the provision of structures that promote biodiversity. (Target for 2020.) ()
Similar to Aichi target 15, but with notable differences. Finland strongly advocates the global responsibility for restoration measures that aim to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The increased use of bioenergy is specifically mentioned in the national target because it is an emerging issue with partly unforeseen impacts on biodiversity.
16. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation has been enforced and integrated into national legislation and administrative practices. (Target for 2015.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 16.
17. The implementation and impacts of the National Strategy and Action Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland have been monitored for the purposes of an interim report produced in 2015. The strategy will be implemented and evaluated cost-effectively in collaboration with various businesses and other stakeholders. (Target for 2015.) ()
Practical identical with Aichi target 17, but more specific in identifying different important stakeholders (e.g. private sector). Finland has had a well-functioning biodiversity NBSAP since 1997. The current NBSAP sets an obligation to make a mid-term review and to report thereon to the government.
18. The traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of the indigenous Sámi community relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, restored and conserved, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, by developing legislation and administrative procedures related to the protection of this traditional knowledge. Finland’s implementation of the CBD allows for the full and effective participation of the Sámi community at all relevant levels in line with decisions set out in the CBD and by COPs. (Target for 2020.) ()
Practically identical with Aichi target 18. The Samí community is the only indigenous community in Finland and in the EU.
19. Knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends have been improved, and are widely utilised, applied and transferred to those needing such knowledge and technology. The impact assessment processes for plans and projects are open, participatory, and based on professionally conducted inventories whose quality is assured. (Target for 2020.) ()
Identical with Aichi target 19, but goes further by mentioning the impact assessment processes for plans and projects including professionally conducted inventories as the base of knowledge.
20. Finland assesses opportunities to increase the availability of financial, human and technical resources to facilitate the effective implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 as drawn up at CBD COP 10 and in line with decisions made at COP 11. Finland strives to obtain resources from all appropriate sources in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process defined in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization. National implementation depends on the availability of resources within spending limits set out in central government budget frameworks. This work will be steered in line with the needs assessments that are developed and reported by all Parties to the CBD. (Targer for 2020.) ()
Largely similar to Aichi target 20. The national target mentions also additional to financial resources and the availability of human and technical resources. The needs assessments are highlighted as well as the overall budgeting practice of the Finnish government.
Section II. Implementation measures, their effectiveness, and associated obstacles and scientific and technical needs to achieve national targets
Communication and education (4 actions)
Finland’s Biodiversity Action Plan comprises four actions for communication and education (actions 1-4). By the end of 2018, three of these actions were considered to have been completed or they had already become established practice. One action, however, needs boosting due to cutbacks in funding.
Since 2011, Finland has had a working group responsible for the communication of biodiversity-related issues. The working group was reinstated for the period 2017–2021, and at the same time it was complemented with experts on environmental education and environmental health. The worki