Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and others v. Finland

Finland’s Ambitious Climate Commitment

In 2022, Finland adopted one of the most ambitious net-zero emissions goals among industrial nations, committing to climate neutrality by 2035 (Sweden Herald, 2024). This target was backed by scientific recommendations from the Finnish Climate Change Panel following the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5°C report, championed by citizens, and secured broad political support across parties, as well as support from both Finnish businesses and trade unions (Confederation of Finnish Industries, 2021). Finland’s previous Climate Change Act, enacted in 2015, set an emissions reduction target to be achieved by 2050, making the new commitment a significant acceleration of climate action.

The 2022 reformed Climate Change Act of Finland represents an ambitious commitment to climate action, making Finland the first country to establish a legally binding carbon negativity pledge (Ecowatch, 2022). The aim is to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions of 60% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and 90% by 2050 as compared to the levels in 1990 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2035. By extending its scope to include emissions from land use, forestry, and agriculture, and emphasizing the strengthening of carbon sinks, the Act purports to ensure a comprehensive and enforceable climate strategy that spans multiple government terms (Finnish Government, 2022).

The Act establishes four national climate change policy plans—the Long-term Climate Plan, National Climate Change Adaptation Plan, Medium-term Climate Plan, and Climate Plan for the Land Use Sector—which serve as key instruments for implementing the objectives of the 2022 Climate Change Act. These plans are updated and adopted on a regular basis, ranging from every parliamentary term to every ten years, to align with the Act’s climate goals. As part of this process, the public is given the opportunity to review draft plans and provide input before they are finalized. The Act further mandates that the regular updating of these policy plans facilitates periodic governmental reviews, ensuring that climate change policy plans remain effective and responsive to evolving environmental and societal needs (Finnish Government, 2022). 

Beyond its environmental ambition, the Act takes a human rights-centered approach by formally incorporating the perspectives of the Indigenous Sámi people into national climate policy planning. The Act mandates that when climate policy plans are updated, an independent expert body, the Sámi Climate Change Council, is to provide input on policies affecting Sámi lands and ways of life. It further asserts that these updated climate change policies must respect the Sámi people’s right to maintain and develop their language and culture within the Sámi Homeland (Climate Change Act No. 423 of 2022).

Insufficient Climate Action

Under the current iterations of its climate change policy plans, Finland will not achieve the ambitious goals of the 2022 Climate Change Act or the European Union (EU) Carbon Sink Regulation (LULUCF), which is legally binding EU legislation. This is evident from the Annual Climate Reports for 2023 and 2024, prepared by the Ministry of the Environment. The 2024 Annual Climate Report indicates current emission reduction rates are insufficient to meet the 2022 Climate Change Act target (60% reduction by 2030), leaving a gap of 1.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (“Mt CO₂ eq”) (¶6). The 2024 Annual Climate Report also indicates that the land-use sector’s net sink development is lower than expected, therefore requiring 19 Mt CO₂ eq. of additional action across land use and other sectors to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035 (¶6). Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that the Finnish Government’s actual actions show that it has no intention to take appropriate decisions to achieve the objectives and obligations required by the law in a sufficiently short timeframe. This is also allegedly demonstrable by the Government’s cancellation of measures set out in the existing climate policy plan (¶10).

“Finland has an internationally renowned climate law that we can be proud of. Now, the law must be obeyed. The Government’s passivity, circumvention of legal obligations, following an outdated climate plan for land use and forestry, and cancellation of measures already agreed all violate the Climate Act. We want Finland to be a country that shows how challenges can be overcome and agreed climate targets successfully achieved,” says Kaisa Kosonen, Climate Expert at Greenpeace, one of the organizations involved in the litigation.

Appealability of decisions on additional measures under the Climate Change Act

A significant issue for the Court to assess was whether plaintiffs can appeal governmental decisions on climate policy plans under the Climate Change Act. The Supreme Administrative Court reaffirmed that while the government has primary responsibility for climate policymaking, judicial review may be warranted if inaction leads to violations of the Climate Act or international obligations (KHO 2023:62, ¶57). The Court also emphasized that fundamental rights and international obligations must be safeguarded, even in cases where no explicit appeal mechanism exists (¶61). Citing the European Court of Human Rights’s (ECtHR) KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland decision, the Supreme Administrative Court highlights that climate inaction could violate the right to a fair trial if individuals cannot challenge government failures in court (¶62). Here, the Court found that it is not yet possible to take a detailed position on whether these future “additional [climate policy plan] measures are sufficient to achieve the objectives of the Climate Act, as the preparation of the measures is still ongoing.” (¶74). However, the Court warned that prolonged inaction could render legal obligations unenforceable and thus unlawful (¶75–76).

Highlighting the Finnish Government’s obligation to uphold human rights and the Sámi Indigenous peoples’ rights

The plaintiffs used various legal mechanisms to demonstrate that the Government failed to fulfill the substantive objectives of the Climate Change Act and protect fundamental and human rights. They invoked the Constitution of Finland, the European Convention on Human Rights, Finland’s Administrative Procedure Act, Finland’s 2022 Climate Change Act, and the European Court of Human Rights Judgment on Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland to support the argument that the Government has an obligation to protect the environment, human rights, and Sami Indigenous peoples’ rights and thus, must take climate action to uphold these rights. 

Article 22 of the Finnish Constitution mandates that public authorities safeguard fundamental and human rights, while Article 20 establishes a duty to protect nature and biodiversity. The Climate Change Act (Section 2(3)) explicitly commits to safeguarding Sámi cultural rights, and Section 21 creates the Sámi Climate Council to ensure Indigenous participation in climate policy (¶12). Additionally, the Act requires the government to monitor (Section 16(1)) and amend policies if climate objectives are not met (Section 17(1)), and to assess climate policy effectiveness annually (Section 18(2)). The plaintiffs stated that the climate policy measures planned and initiated by the Government do not comply with the procedures required by the Climate Act, and therefore do not ensure the realization of the substantive objectives of the Act or safeguard fundamental and human rights (¶27). Responding to the plaintiffs assertion that the Government failed to comply, the Court referenced KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (ECtHR), emphasizing that States must take timely climate action to fulfill human rights obligations. This appeal is the first national case to be affected by that ruling.

Advocacy around human rights

While much of the case hinges on the technical process of appealability, the advocacy surrounding it has centered on human rights and protecting those most at risk. Elina Mikola of Amnesty International Finland warns that the government’s reluctance to act on climate change threatens human rights and disproportionately harms Indigenous peoples, children, and other vulnerable communities. 

The Sámi are particularly vulnerable to climate change because the Arctic region is warming at an alarming rate, threatening their traditional livelihoods and cultural survival (Science Museum UK, 2022). In Finland, global warming severely impacts Sámi ways of life, yet the government’s insufficient climate action and failure to consider the Sámi’s special status in land-use policy allegedly violate the rights guaranteed to them under the Finnish Constitution and the Climate Change Act. Lotta Hagelin, a Board Member of the Suomen Sámi youth organization of Finland, condemns the government’s reluctance and indifference to climate action, emphasizing its negative impact on Sámi youth and their ability to shape their future. Helmi Ljetoff, Deputy Board Member of the organization, stresses that “Sámi livelihoods are deeply tied to land and nature—not just as work, but as an identity and a foundation for cultural survival, demanding that existing legal protections for Sámi rights be upheld.”

The failure to take adequate climate action also endangers the rights of children and future generations, which are protected under the Finnish Constitution (Art. 6) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although Finland is a party to the Convention, the rights of children were minimally discussed in the Court’s decision. Riku Eskelinen of Finnish Nature Federation highlights the urgency of intergenerational justice, stating “adults make decisions about a future they will never experience. We want future generations to be able to sledge, skate on natural ice and live in a world where climate change is under control. That is why it is important that Finland does its part.” Matti Nummelin of Climate Grandparents calls on Finland to heed the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in the Swiss pensioners’ case, saying, “Decision-makers need intergenerational responsibility so that children’s environmental rights can be realised, as proposed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.” 

Leveraging a Precedential Case to Advocate for Human Rights

This court case builds on the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling by the ECtHR in 2024. According to the judgment, national climate law and its effective implementation are key ways in which states ensure compliance with human rights obligations in relation to climate change (¶14).

The plaintiffs here alleged that the government has not demonstrated that it is complying or intends to comply with the climate change mitigation objectives of the Act (¶10), thus neglecting its compliance with human rights obligations. Plaintiffs allege that government has not acted in a timely, appropriate, and coherent manner and that the State’s inaction jeopardizes not only the fundamental rights to life and to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, but also the rights of children and future generations, the Sámi people, and the elderly (¶15). By linking the government’s inaction to these broader human rights protections, the case leverages the KlimaSeniorinnen precedent to reinforce the argument that climate inaction constitutes a failure to safeguard essential rights.

Decision to Dismiss the Appeal

The Supreme Administrative Court of Finland dismissed the appeal, concluding that the government’s actions did not violate the Climate Change Act or international legal obligations, including the ECHR (Article 6(1)), the Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC, EU climate law, and Indigenous rights commitments under UNDRIP and ILO Convention No. 169. The Court found that while the government’s climate measures were insufficient to meet established targets, the government had nonetheless initiated steps to address these shortcomings through planned updates to climate policy. The Court emphasized that the Climate Change Act outlines a structured process for amending climate plans, and since the government’s decision on additional measures was still in progress, no legal violation had occurred. The Court also noted, citing separation of powers, that while climate inaction can breach human rights obligations, the threshold for judicial intervention is high. The Court concluded that because the government had acknowledged the need for further measures and initiated preparations for new climate actions, its conduct did not yet constitute unlawful neglect under the Climate Change Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that no actionable breach had yet taken place (¶75).

Focusing on youth and future generations

The case engages groups of distinct generational focus – including the youth generation and the elder generation. One of the plaintiffs in the coalition Suoma Sámi Nuorat (Suomen Sámi youth organization), whose mission it is to strengthen the Sámi youth identity, raise awareness and appreciation of Sámi culture, and promote the Sámi language.

Additionally, Finnish Grandparents for Climate is another member of this coalition challenging Finland. The group says that the KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland case illustrates why it is important for them as grandparents to be active in court cases, and unite across borders to defend current and future generations. They assert that Finland must take the Court’s decision seriously and take sufficient climate action, so that children’s environmental and human rights can be respected, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Finland is a party.

Centering rights

Drawing on both domestic and international legal mechanisms, the plaintiffs illustrated that climate inaction threatens rights guaranteed under the Finnish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and Finland’s Climate Change Act. The Finnish Constitution establishes key obligations, with Article 22 requiring public authorities to safeguard fundamental and human rights and Article 20 imposing a duty to protect nature and biodiversity—both reinforcing the state’s responsibility to address climate change. Article 21 guarantees individuals the right to have their cases heard properly and without delay, while Article 46(1) ensures government accountability by mandating annual reports to Parliament, including updates on climate policy. 

Finland’s Climate Change Act further strengthens these obligations by explicitly protecting Sámi cultural rights (Section 2(3)) and establishing the Sámi Climate Council (Section 21) to ensure Indigenous participation in climate policy. The Act also requires the government to monitor climate policy implementation (Section 16(1)), amend plans if objectives are unmet (Section 17(1)), and assess the adequacy of climate measures in an annual climate report (Section 18(2)). 

Complementing these domestic laws, international human rights instruments reinforce the need for timely climate action. Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees access to justice, while Article 8(1) protects the right to private and family life, which courts have linked to environmental harm from climate inaction. The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland affirmed that states must take prompt and effective climate action to uphold human rights, underscoring that courts play a vital role in assessing government accountability without overstepping democratic processes. Together, these legal provisions frame climate action as a human rights obligation, ensuring that government inaction or delay is subject to legal scrutiny.

Centering rights

Indigenous rights play a central role in this case, particularly through the recognition of the Sámi people’s cultural and environmental protections. Finland’s Climate Change Act explicitly safeguards Sámi cultural rights in Section 2(3), reinforcing the state’s obligation to protect their traditional ways of life, which are closely tied to the environment. The Act also establishes the Sámi Climate Council (Section 21), ensuring Indigenous participation in climate policy development and decision-making. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s failure to take timely climate action violates these rights, as environmental degradation directly threatens Sámi livelihoods, identity, and cultural survival. By invoking Article 22 of the Finnish Constitution, which requires public authorities to safeguard fundamental and human rights, the plaintiffs underscored that protecting Sámi rights is not only a cultural imperative but a legal obligation. This case illustrates that climate inaction disproportionately harms Indigenous communities and highlights the legal mechanisms in place to protect their rights.

1. Emphasis on Procedural Safeguards: The decision highlights that while courts may not dictate climate policy, they can assess whether the government has followed proper procedures, such as monitoring progress, adjusting plans when objectives are unmet, and ensuring accountability through transparent reporting. This procedural focus ensures governments remain answerable without courts directly shaping policy. (¶58).

2. Reinforcement of Indigenous Rights: The case underscores that climate action is closely linked to protecting Indigenous rights. The Court acknowledged that environmental degradation poses a direct threat to Sámi cultural survival, reinforcing the legal obligation to safeguard their rights under both the Finnish Constitution and Climate Change Act.

3. Recognition of Positive State Obligations: Drawing on the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen decision, the Court affirmed that states have a duty to take proactive and timely measures to reduce emissions and protect human rights. While this obligation does not require immediate judicial intervention in every instance, it strengthens the proposition that inaction can become legally significant if procedural duties are ignored or if states demonstrate no effort to remedy their inaction.

4. The Role of Climate Reporting in Legal Accountability: The Court recognized that annual climate reports serve not only as political tools but as key accountability mechanisms. If these reports highlight insufficient progress and the government fails to act, this inaction may eventually become grounds for legal challenge.

5. Balance Between Legal Oversight and Political Discretion: The ruling reflects the Court’s careful balancing act—ensuring the government meets its legal obligations without encroaching on political decision-making. By upholding the state’s duty to respond to climate risks yet deferring to the ongoing policy process, the Court affirmed that intervention requires clear evidence of unlawful neglect.