Data Zone
The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation in 2000 because it was regularly supporting significant populations of the species listed below, meeting IBA criteria.
Populations meeting IBA criteria ('key species') at the site:| Species | Red List | Season (year/s of estimate) | Size | IBA criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goosander Mergus merganser | LC | passage (1996) | 1,500–2,000 individuals | B1i, C3 |
| Common Reed-warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus | LC | breeding (1996) | 110–130 breeding pairs | B3 |
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2000. The most recent assessment (2010) is shown below.
| IBA conservation status | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
| 2010 | very unfavourable | high | low |
| Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
| yes | population | good | |
| State (condition of the key species' populations) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Actual vs Reference (units) | % remaining | Result | ||
| Goosander Mergus merganser | 400 / 1,500 (individuals) | 27 | very unfavourable | ||
| Common Reed-warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus | 80 / 110 (breeding pairs) | 73 | not assessed | ||
| Pressure (threats to the key species and/or their habitats) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
| Pollution | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | moderate deterioration (10–30% in 3 generations) | high |
| Invasive and other problematic species and genes | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | no deterioration (<1% over 3 generations) | low |
| Residential and commercial development | happening now | few individuals/small area (<10%) | no deterioration (<1% over 3 generations) | low |
| Response (conservation actions taken for the key species and/or their habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Designation | Planning | Action | Result |
| Some of site covered (10–49%) | A management plan exists, but it is out of date or not comprehensive | Substantive conservation measures are being implemented, but these are not comprehensive and are limited by resources and capacity | low |
| Year | Protected Area | Designation (management category) | % coverage of IBA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1959 | Viikin luonnonsuojelualue | State Nature Reserve (IV) | 3 |
| 1989 | Laajalahden luonnonsuojelualue | Valtion luonnonsuojelualue (IV) | 14 |
| Habitat | % of IBA | Habitat detail |
|---|---|---|
| Marine Coastal/Supratidal | 60 | |
| Artificial/Terrestrial | 30 | Arable land; Other urban and industrial areas |
| Forest | 10 |
| Land use | % of IBA |
|---|---|
| tourism/recreation | 50 |
| agriculture | 40 |
| nature conservation and research | 40 |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2025) Important Bird Area factsheet: Laajalahti bay, Vanhankaupunginlahti bay and Viikki (Finland). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/laajalahti-bay-vanhankaupunginlahti-bay-and-viikki-iba-finland on 06/01/2025.