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.

The technical harvesting potential of small-diameter trees can be defined as the maximum potential procurement volume of small-diameter trees available from the Finnish forests based on the prevailing guidelines for harvesting of energy wood. The potentials of small-diameter trees from early thinnings have been calculated for fifteen NUTS3-based Finnish regions covering the whole country (Koljonen et al. 2017). To begin with the estimation of the region-level potentials, 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). Simulated management actions for the small-tree fraction consisted of thinnings that fulfilled the following stand criteria: • mean diameter at breast height ≥ 8 cm • number of stems ≥ 1500 ha-1 • mean height < 10.5 m (in Lapland) or mean height < 12.5 m (elsewhere). Energy wood was harvested as delimbed (i.e. including the stem only) in spruce-dominated stands and peatlands and as whole trees (i.e. including stem and branches) elsewhere. When harvested as whole trees, a total of 30% of the original crown biomass was left onsite (Koistinen et al. 2016). Energy wood thinnings could be integrated with roundwood logging or carried out independently. Second, the technical energy wood potential of small trees was operationalized in MELA by maximizing the removal of thinnings in the first period. In this way, it was possible to pick out all small tree fellings simulated in the first period despite, for example, the profitability of the operation. However, a single logging event was rejected if the energy wood removal was lower than 25 m³ha-1 or the industrial roundwood removal of pine, spruce, or birch exceeded 45 m³ha-1. The potential calculated in this way contained also timber suitable for industrial roundwood. Therefore, two estimates are given: • potential of trees below 10.5 cm in breast-height diameter • potential of trees below 14.5 cm in breast-height diameter. Subsequently, the region-level potentials were spread 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. In this study, 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) and areas protected by the State Forest Enterprise. In addition, some areas in northernmost Lapland restricted by separate agreements between the State Forest Enterprise and stakeholders were left out from the final data. Furthermore, for small trees, FAWS was further constrained by the stand criteria presented above to represent similar stand conditions for small-tree harvesting as in MELA. Finally, the region-level potentials were distributed to the grid cells by weighting with MS-NFI stem wood biomasses. 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. 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.

The raw materials of forest chips in Biomass Atlas are small-diameter trees from first thinning fellings and logging residues and stumps from final fellings. The harvesting potential consists of biomass that would be available after technical and economic constraints. Such constraints include, e.g., minimum removal of energywood per hectare, site fertility and recovery rate. Note that the techno-economic potential is usually higher than the actual availability, which depends on forest owners’ willingness to sell and competitive situation. The harvesting potentials were estimated using the sample plots of the 11th and 12th national forest inventory (NFI11 and NFI12) measured in the years 2013–2017. 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; Hirvelä et al. 2017). 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). Future potentials were assumed to materialize when the industrial roundwood fellings followed the level of maximum sustainable removals (80.7 mill. m3 in this calculation). 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 potential for energywood from first thinnings was calculated separately for all the wood from first thinnings (Small-diameter trees from first thinnings) and for material that does not fulfill the size-requirements for pulpwood (Small-diameter trees from first thinnings, smaller than pulpwood). The minimum top diameter of pulpwood in the calculation was 6.3 cm for pine (Pinus sylvestris) and 6.5 cm for spruce (Picea abies) and broadleaved species (mainly Betula pendula, B. pubescens, Populus tremula, Alnus incana, A. glutinosa and Salix spp.). The minimum length of a pulpwood log was assumed at 2.0 m. The potentials do not include branches. The potentials for logging residues and stumps were calculated as follows: The biomass removals of clear fellings were obtained from MELA. According to harvesting guidelines for energywood (Koistinen et al. 2016) mineral soils classified as sub-xeric (or weaker) and peatlands with corresponding low nutrient levels were left out from the potentials. Finally, technical recovery rates were applied (70% for logging residues and 82-84% for stumps) (Koistinen et al. 2016; Muinonen et al. 2013) The techno-economical harvesting potentials were first calculated for nineteen Finnish regions and then distributed on a raster grid at 1 km × 1 km resolution by weighting with Multi-Source NFI biomasses as described by Anttila et al. (2018). The potentials represent time period 2025-2034 and are presented as average annual potentials in solid cubic metres over bark. References Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P. 2014. Metsänhoidon suositukset. [Guidelines for sustainable forest management]. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisuja. Anttila P., Nivala V., Salminen O., Hurskainen M., Kärki J., Lindroos T.J. & Asikainen A. 2018. Regional balance of forest chip supply and demand in Finland in 2030. Silva Fennica vol. 52 no. 2 article id 9902. 20 s. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.9902 Hirvelä, H., Härkönen, K., Lempinen, R., Salminen, O. 2017. MELA2016 Reference Manual. Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). 547 p. 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]. Tapion julkaisuja. 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 Fennica 47(4) article 1022. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1022. Siitonen M, Härkönen K, Hirvelä H, Jämsä J, Kilpeläinen H, Salminen O et al. 1996. MELA Handbook. 622. 951-40-1543-6.

The raw materials of forest chips are small-diameter trees from thinning fellings and logging residues and stumps from final fellings. The harvesting potential consists of biomass that would be available after technical and economic constraints. Such constraints include, e.g., minimum removal of energywood per hectare, site fertility and recovery rate. Note that the techno-economic potential is usually higher than the actual availability, which depends on forest owners’ willingness to sell and competitive situation. The harvesting potentials were estimated using the sample plots of the 12th national forest inventory (NFI12) measured in the years 2014–2018. 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; Hirvelä et al. 2017; http://mela2.metla.fi/mela/tupa/index-en.php). 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). Future potentials were assumed to materialize when the industrial roundwood fellings followed the level of maximum sustained yield (79 mill. m3 in this calculation). The maximum sustained yield was 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 potential for energywood from thinnings was calculated separately for all the energywood from thinnings (Stemwood for energy from thinnings) and for material that does not fulfill the size-requirements for pulpwood (Stemwood for energy from thinnings (smaller than pulpwood-sized trees)). Note that the decision whether pulpwood-sized thinning wood is directed to energy or industrial use, is based on the optimisation by MELA. The minimum top diameter of pulpwood in the calculation was 6.3 cm for pine (Pinus sylvestris) and 6.5 cm for spruce (Picea abies) and broadleaved species (mainly Betula pendula, B. pubescens, Populus tremula, Alnus incana, A. glutinosa and Salix spp.). The minimum length of a pulpwood log was assumed at 2.0 m. Energywood could be harvested as whole trees or as delimbed. The dry-matter loss in the supply chain was assumed at 5%. The potentials for logging residues and stumps were calculated as follows: The crown biomass removals of clear fellings were obtained from MELA. According to harvesting guidelines for energywood (Koistinen et al. 2016) mineral soils classified as sub-xeric (or weaker) and peatlands with corresponding low nutrient levels were left out from the potentials. Next, technical recovery rates were applied (70% for logging residues and 82-84% for stumps) (Koistinen et al. 2016; Muinonen et al. 2013). Finally, a dry-matter loss of 20% and 5% was assumed for residues and stumps, respectively. The techno-economical harvesting potentials were first calculated for nineteen Finnish regions and then distributed on a raster grid at 1 km × 1 km resolution by weighting with Multi-Source NFI biomasses as described by Anttila et al. (2018). The potentials represent time period 2026-2035 and are presented as average annual potentials in solid cubic metres over bark. References Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P. 2014. Metsänhoidon suositukset. [Guidelines for sustainable forest management]. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisuja. Anttila P., Nivala V., Salminen O., Hurskainen M., Kärki J., Lindroos T.J. & Asikainen A. 2018. Regional balance of forest chip supply and demand in Finland in 2030. Silva Fennica vol. 52 no. 2 article id 9902. 20 s. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.9902 Hirvelä, H., Härkönen, K., Lempinen, R., Salminen, O. 2017. MELA2016 Reference Manual. Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). 547 p. 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]. Tapion julkaisuja. 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 Fennica 47(4) article 1022. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1022. Siitonen M, Härkönen K, Hirvelä H, Jämsä J, Kilpeläinen H, Salminen O et al. 1996. MELA Handbook. 622. 951-40-1543-6.

A maritime spatial plan is a strategic development document illustrated by a map. Map markings are used to show the values of marine areas and existing activities and potential future sites for new activities and their alternative placement in all of Finland’s marine areas. The plan covers the territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone. The plan is not legally binding, but an assessment of its indirect and direct impacts and effectiveness forms part of the planning process. The administrative authorities of coastal regional councils approved the plan, prepared according to the Land Use and Building Act, between November and December 2020. The councils of coastal regions have prepared the maritime spatial plan in three different parts: Gulf of Finland (Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council and Regional Council of Kymenlaakso), Archipelago Sea and Southern Bothnian Sea (Regional Council of Southwest Finland and Regional Council of Satakunta), and Northern Bothnian Sea, Quark and Bothnian Bay (Regional Council of Ostrobothnia, Regional Council of Central Ostrobothnia, Council of Oulu Region and Regional Council of Lapland). The data is suitable for a general-level examination of Finnish marine areas. More information on maritime spatial plan: https://www.merialuesuunnitelma.fi.

This dataset represents the Integrated biodiversity status assessment for pelagic habitats using the BEAT tool. Status is shown in five categories based on the integrated assessment scores obtained in the tool. Biological Quality Ratios (BQR) above 0.6 correspond to good status. Open sea areas were assessed based on the core indicators ‘Zooplankton mean size and total stock’ and ‘Chlorophyll-a’, as well as the pre-core indicator ‘Cyanobacterial bloom index’ . Coastal areas were assessed by national indicators. This dataset displays the result of the integrated biodiversity status in HELCOM Assessment unit Scale 4 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins and further division into coastal and off-shore areas and division of the coastal areas by WFD water types or water bodies). Attribute information: "BQR" = Biological Quality Ratio "Confidence" = Confidence of the assessment "HELCOM_ID" = Code of the HELCOM assessment unit "Country" = Country of coastal assessment unit/ open sea "Level2" = HELCOM sub-basins (name of the scale 2 assessment unit) "Name" = Name of the HELCOM scale 4 assessment unit "Area_km2" = Area of assessment unit "AULEVEL" = scale of the assessment unit "HID" = assessment unit ID by country "SAUID" = ID number for the spatial assessment unit "EcosystemC" = Ecosystem component assessed "Confiden_1" = Confidence of the assessment (0-1, higher values mean higher confidence) "Total_numb" = Number of indicators used in assessment "STATUS" = Integrated status category (0-0.2 = not good (lowest score), 0.2-0.4 = not good (lower score), 0.4-0.6 = not good (low score), 0.6-0.8 = good (high score, 0.8-1.0 = good (highest score))

This dataset represents the Integrated biodiversity status assessment for fish used in State of the Baltic Sea – Second HELCOM holistic assessment 2011-2016. Status is shown in five categories based on the integrated assessment scores obtained in the BEAT tool. Biological Quality ratios (BQR) above 0.6 correspond to good status. The assessment is based on core indicators of coastal fish in coastal areas, and on internationally assessed commercial fish in the open sea. The open sea assessment includes fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass as an average over 2011–2016. Open sea results are given by ICES subdivisions, and are not shown where they overlap with coastal areas. Coastal areas results are given in HELCOM Assessment unit Scale 3 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins and further division into coastal and off-shore areas) Attribute information: "COUNTRY" = name of the country / opensea "Name" = Name of the coastal assessment unit, scale 3 (empty for ICES open sea units) "HELCOM_ID" = ID of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit (empty for ICES open sea units) "EcoystemC" = Ecosystem component analyzed "BQR" = Biological Quality Ratio "Conf" = Confidence (0-1, higher values mean higher confidence) "Total_indi" = Number of HELCOM core indicators included (coastal assessment units) "F__of_area = % of area assessed "D1C2" = MSFD descriptor 1 criteria 2 "Number_of" = Number of open sea species included "Confidence" = Confidence of the assessment "BQR_Demer" = Demersal Biological Quality Ratio "F_spec_Deme" = Number of demersal species included "Conf_Demer" = Confidence for demersal species "BQR_Pelagi" = Pelagic Biological Quality Ratio "F_specPela" = Number of pelagic species included "Conf_Pelag" = Confidence for pelagic species "ICES_SD" = ICES Subdivision number "STATUS" = Integrated status category (0-0.2 = not good (lowest score), 0.2-0.4 = not good (lower score), 0.4-0.6 = not good (low score), 0.6-0.8 = good (high score, 0.8-1.0 = good (highest score))

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)