This dataset contains the ship accidents in the Baltic Sea during the period 1989 to end of 2023. It is constructed from the annual data collected by HELCOM Contracting Parties on ship accidents in the Baltic Sea and starting from 2019 from EMSA EMCIP Database extraction (for those Contracting Parties that are member of the EU). The accident data has been compiled by the HELCOM Secretariat and EMSA. According to the decision of the HELCOM SEA 2/2001 shipping accident data compilation will include only so-called conventional ships according to the Regulation 5, Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 - any oil tanker of 150 GT and above and any other ships of 400 GT and above which are engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to the Convention. According to the agreed procedure all accidents (including but not limited to grounding, collision with other vessel or contact with fixed structures (offshore installations, wrecks, etc.), disabled vessel (e.g. machinery and/or structure failure), fire, explosions, etc.), which took place in territorial seas or EEZ of the Contracting Party irrespectively if there was pollution or not, are reported. The dataset contains the following information: Unique_ID = An unique identifier consisting of 4 digit running number and the year of the accident Country Year Date = Date (dd/mm/yyyy) Time = Time of the accident (hh:mm) Location = Location of the accident (open sea / port / port approach, from 2019 -> open sea / port) Acc_Type = Type of accident Colli_Type = Type of collision / contact (with vessel / object) Acc_Detail = More information on the accident CauseDetai = Details on the accident cause Assistance = Assistance after the accident Offence = Offence against Rule Damage = Damage to the ship HumanEleme = Occurrence / Reason of human error IceCondit = Ice conditions CrewIceTra = Crew trained for ice conditions Pollution = Pollution (Yes/No) Pollu_m3 = Pollution in m3 Pollu_t = Pollution in tonnes Pollu_Type = Type of pollution RespAction = Response actions after the accident Cargo_Type = Type of cargo Ship1_Name = Ship 1 identification (Not published after 2018) Sh1_Categ = Ship 1 type (according to AIS category) Sh1_Type = Ship 1 more detail ship type category Sh1_Hull = Ship 1 hull construction Sh1Size_gt = Ship 1 GT Sh1Sizedwt = Ship 1 DWT Sh1Draug_m = Ship 1 draught in meters / category Cause_Sh1 = Cause of accidents from ship 1 Pilot_Sh1 = Presence of pilot on ship 1 Ship2_Name = Ship 2 identification (Not published after 2018) Sh2_Categ = Ship 2 type (according to AIS category) Sh2_Type = Ship 2 more detail ship type category Sh2_Hull = Ship 2 hull construction Sh2Size_gt = Ship 2 GT Sh2Sizedwt = Ship 2 DWT Sh2Draug_m = Ship 2 draught in meters / category Cause_Sh2 = Cause of accidents from ship 2 Pilot_Sh2 = Presence of pilot on ship 2 Add_Info = Additional information Latitude = Latitude (decimal degrees) Longitude = Longitude (decimal degrees) For more information about shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea, see the HELCOM annual reports: https://helcom.fi/helcom-at-work/publications/ https://helcom.fi/media/publications/HELCOM-report-on-Shipping-accidents-in-the-Baltic-Sea-2019-211207-FINAL.pdf

The technical harvesting potential of logging residues and stumps from final fellings can be defined as the maximum potential procurement volume of these available from the Finnish forests based on the prevailing guidelines for harvesting of energy wood. The potentials of logging residues and stumps have been calculated for fifteen NUTS3-based Finnish regions covering the whole country (Koljonen et al. 2017). The technical harvesting potentials were estimated using the sample plots of the eleventh national forest inventory (NFI11) measured in the years 2009–2013. First, a large number of sound and sustainable management schedules for five consecutive ten-year periods were simulated for each sample plot using a large-scale Finnish forest planning system known as MELA (Siitonen et al. 1996; Redsven et al. 2013). MELA simulations consisted of natural processes and human actions. The ingrowth, growth, and mortality of trees were predicted based on a set of distance-independent tree-level statistical models (e.g. Hynynen et al. 2002) included in MELA and the simulation of the stand (sample plot)-level management actions was based on the current Finnish silvicultural guidelines (Äijälä et al. 2014) and the guidelines for harvesting of energy wood (Koistinen et al. 2016). Final fellings consisted of clear cutting, seed tree cutting, and shelter-wood cutting, but only the clear-cutting areas were utilized for energy wood harvesting. As both logging residues and stumps are byproducts of roundwood removals, the technical potentials of chips have to be linked with removals of industrial roundwood. Future potentials were assumed to materialize when the industrial roundwood fellings followed the level of maximum sustainable removals. The maximum sustainable removals were defined such that the net present value calculated with a 4% discount rate was maximized subject to non-declining periodic industrial roundwood and energy wood removals and net incomes, and subject to the saw log removal remaining at least at the level of the first period. There were no constraints concerning tree species selection, cutting methods, age classes, or the growth/drain ratio in order to efficiently utilize the dynamics of forest structure. The felling behaviour of the forest owners was not taken into account either. For the present situation in 2015, the removal of industrial roundwood was assumed to be the same as the average level in 2008–2012. Fourth, the technical harvesting potentials were derived by retention of 30% of the logging residues onsite (Koistinen et al. 2016) and respectively by retention of 16–18% of stump biomass (Muinonen et al. 2013). Next, the regional potentials were allocated to municipalities proportionally to their share of mature forests (MetINFO 2014). Subsequently, the municipality-level potentials were spread evenly on a raster grid at 1 km × 1 km resolution. Only grid cells on Forests Available for Wood Supply (FAWS) were considered in this operation. Here, FAWS was defined as follows: First, forest land was extracted from the Finnish Multi-Source National Forest Inventory (MS-NFI) 2013 data (Mäkisara et al. 2016). Second, restricted areas were excluded from forest land. The restricted areas consisted of nationally protected areas (e.g. nature parks, national parks, protection programme areas). References Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P (2014) Metsänhoidon suositukset [Guidelines for sustainable forest management]. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisuja. Hynynen J, Ojansuu R, Hökkä H, Salminen H, Siipilehto J, Haapala P (2002) Models for predicting the stand development – description of biological processes in MELA system. The Finnish Forest Research Institute Research Papers 835. Koistinen A, Luiro J, Vanhatalo K (2016) Metsänhoidon suositukset energiapuun korjuuseen, työopas [Guidelines for sustainable harvesting of energy wood]. Metsäkustannus Oy, Helsinki. Koljonen T, Soimakallio S, Asikainen A, Lanki T, Anttila P, Hildén M, Honkatukia J, Karvosenoja N, Lehtilä A, Lehtonen H, Lindroos TJ, Regina K, Salminen O, Savolahti M, Siljander R (2017) Energia ja ilmastostrategian vaikutusarviot: Yhteenvetoraportti. [Impact assessments of the Energy and Climate strategy: The summary report.] Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 21/2017. Mäkisara K, Katila M, Peräsaari J, Tomppo E (2016) The Multi-Source National Forest Inventory of Finland – methods and results 2013. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 10/2016. Muinonen E, Anttila P, Heinonen J, Mustonen J (2013) Estimating the bioenergy potential of forest chips from final fellings in Central Finland based on biomass maps and spatially explicit constraints. Silva Fenn 47. Redsven V, Hirvelä H, Härkönen K, Salminen O, Siitonen M (2013) MELA2012 Reference Manual. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Siitonen M, Härkönen K, Hirvelä H, Jämsä J, Kilpeläinen H, Salminen O, Teuri M (1996) MELA Handbook. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 622. ISBN 951-40-1543-6.

KUVAUS: Tampereen rakennusten 2D-seinälinjat aluemuotoisena geometriana korkeudeltaan nollattuna. Rakennusten ominaisuustiedot tulevat masterdatasta i_pyraknron perusteella. Jos tunnusvastaavuutta ei löydy, geometria ei tule mukaan näkymään. Virkistys aamuisin klo 6.15. KATTAVUUS: Tampereen kaupunkiseutu PÄIVITYS: Aineistoa päivitetään jatkuvasti uusien rakennusten valmistuessa. YLLÄPITOSOVELLUS: StellaMap (DGN-tiedostot) ja FME KOORDINAATTIJÄRJESTELMÄ: Aineisto tallennetaan ETRS-GK24FIN (EPSG:3878) tasokoordinaattijärjestelmässä. GEOMETRIA: vektori (alue) SAATAVUUS: Aineisto on saatavilla WFS-rajapinnalta. Aineiston primäärilähde on Oracle-tietokanta. JULKISUUS: Aineisto on katsottavissa Oskari-karttapalvelussa. KENTÄT: -PYSYVA_RAKENNUSTUNNUS: Tulee rakennuksen i_pyraknro perusteella Factasta. -SIJAINTIKIINTEISTO: Rakennuksen kiinteistötunnus -VALMISTUMISPVM -KERROSALA: Kerrosalaan luetaan kerrosten pinta-alat ja se ullakon tai kellarikerrosten ala, jossa on asuin- tai työhuoneita tai muita rakennuksen pääasiallisen käyttötarkoituksen mukaisia tiloja. Kerrosala on vaakasuora pinta-ala, jota rajoittavat kerrosten seinien ulkopinnat tai niiden ajateltu jatke ulkoseinien pinnassa olevien aukkojen ja koristeosien osalta (Tilastokeskus 2024). -KERROSTEN_LKM -HISSI -RAKENNUSTILAVUUS -POLTTOAINE -LAMMITYSTAPA: Vesikeskuslämmitys, Ilmakeskuslämmitys, Suora sähkölämmitys, Uunilämmitys, Ei kiinteää lämmityslaitetta, tuntematon. -PYSYVA_RAK_NRO_FACTA: Rakennelman pysyvä rakennusnumero Factasta. AINEISTOSTA VASTAAVA TAHO: Tampereen kaupunki, Paikkatietoyksikkö, paikkatieto_tuki@tampere.fi

FIN Aineiston tarkoituksena on: -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy uhanalaisia ja silmälläpidettäviä lajeja -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy hyviä elinvoimaisia niittyindikaattorilajeja (hyönteisten mesi- ja ravintokasveja) -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy suojelualueita -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy komealupiinia tai kurtturuusua -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy komealupiinia tai kurtturuusua uhanalaisten lajien lisäksi -> Löytää herkät alueet ja paikallistaa vieraslajien uhka Tieto esitetään 1 kilometrin ruuduissa. Aineistosta on julkaistu kaksi erillistä versiota. -VaylanvarsienVieraslajitJaArvokkaatElinymparistot_avoin: Avoin versio, jonka lajitietoa on karkeistettu mahdollisista herkistä lajeista johtuen. Aineisto kuuluu SYKEn avoimiin aineistoihin (CC BY 4.0) ja sitä saa käyttää lisenssiehtojen mukaisesti -VaylanvarsienVieraslajitJaArvokkaatElinymparistot_kayttorajoitettu: Alkuperäinen karkeistamaton versio. Tämä versio on vain viranomaiskäyttöön eikä kyseistä aineistoa saa jakaa Aineistosta on tehty tarkempi menetelmäkuvaus https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/VierasVayla_Menetelmakuvaus.pdf sekä muuttujaseloste https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/VierasVayla_VariableDescription.xlsx ENG The purpose of the material is to: -Identify road and rail areas that have nearby observations of endangered and near threatened species -Identify road and rail areas with good meadow indicator plant species -Identify road and rail areas along which there are protected areas -Identify the road and rail areas along which there are observations of Lupinus polyphyllus or Rosa rugosa observations -Identify the road and rail areas along which there are Lupinus polyphyllus or Rosa rugosa observations in addition to sensitive species -> Finds sensitive areas and identify the overall threat of alien species The data is presented in 1-kilometer square grid cells. There are two separate versions of the data. -VaylanvarsienVieraslajitJaArvokkaatElinymparistot_avoin: Open access version, in which its species-related parts have been simplified due to data restriction issues. The material belongs to Syke's open materials (CC BY 4.0) and may be used in accordance with the license terms. -VaylanvarsienVieraslajitJaArvokkaatElinymparistot_kayttorajoitettu: Original version. This version is only for official use and the material in question may not be shared. A more precise description about the data procedures can be found from (In Finnish) https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/VierasVayla_Menetelmakuvaus.pdf Furthermore, all the variables in the data are explained in this bilingual variable description https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/VierasVayla_VariableDescription.xlsx This dataset was updated with the newest species observations on 10/2023 and 11/2024 Process code for this can be found from https://github.com/PossibleSolutions/VierasVayla_SpeciesUpdate

Conditionality refers to the basic requirements that farmers' payments are conditional upon. Conditionality requirements are the baseline level for which you do not receive a separate payment. Aid is only granted for activities that go beyond the conditionality requirements. Conditionality consists of GAEC, statutory management requirements and social conditionality. Statutory management requirements relate to environmental issues, public health, i.e. food and feed safety, plant health and animal health and welfare. All conditionality requirements are described in this guide. When you apply for farmer payments, you agree to comply with the conditionality requirements. A landscape feature can be a tree, group of trees, transplanted block or other similar natural feature that is protected for its beauty, rarity, landscape significance, scientific value or other similar reason. Qualifying landscape features are sites protected under Article 95 of the Nature Conservation Act (9/2023) and located within a base parcel, on the periphery of a base parcel or in the area between adjacent base parcels. Protected sites must always be preserved and must not be damaged or removed. If a protected landscape feature is located on an area of 0,2 ha or less, it may be included in the area of the base parcel. If you wish to include a protected site in the eligible area, please declare the sites on the Food Agency's form 442 when applying for arable aid. The area of a landscape feature will only become part of the eligible area of the base parcel in the year following the submission of the declaration. Who makes conservation decisions on sites? If the site to be protected is located on private land, the decision to protect the site is taken by the municipality's environmental protection authority. The municipality is also responsible for marking the site on the land. On private land, protection is only granted on application or with the consent of the landowner. On application by the owner or on a proposal from the ELY Centre, the municipality may terminate the protection of a landscape feature if there are no longer grounds for protecting it or if the protection prevents the implementation of a project or plan of public interest. The application must be accompanied by the opinion of the ELY Centre. If the matter has been initiated on the basis of a proposal from the ELY Centre, the owner of the site must be given the opportunity to be heard. For more information: https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/tuet/maatalous/perusehdot/ehdollisuus/ehdollisuuden-opas/ehdollisuuden-opas-2025/

This dataset represents the integrated assessment of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea in 2011-2016, assessed using the CHASE tool (https://github.com/helcomsecretariat/CHASE-integration-tool). The integration is based on hazardous substances core indicators covering concentrations of hazardous substances. This dataset displays the result of the assessment in HELCOM Assessment unit Level 3 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins and further division into coastal and offshore areas). Attribute information: "HELCOM_ID" = ID of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit "country" = Country/ opensea "level_3" = Name of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit "area_km2 = Area of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit "AULEVEL" = Scale of the assessment units "coastal" = Code of scale 3 HELCOM assessment unit "Input" = Contamination ratio of the assessment unit (Higher score indicates higher contamination) "Confidence" = Confidence of the assessment (Low/ Moderate/ High/ Not assessed) "Status" = Status value for the assessment (= 1.0: Low contamination score, > 1.0: High contaminantion score)

NLS-FI INSPIRE Download Service (WFS) for Buildings/Polygon is an INSPIRE compliant direct access Web Feature Service. It contains the following INSPIRE feature types: Building The service is based on the NLS-FI INSPIRE Buildings Theme Dataset. The dataset is administrated by the National Land Survey of Finland. The service contains all features from the dataset that are modelled as polygons.