The Association of Finnish Cities and Municipalities (AFCM) considers the streamlining of environmental assessments to be, in principle, a commendable objective. However, it emphasises that the acceleration of procedures must not result in any diminution of the quality of assessments, the discretion of public authorities, or the planning autonomy of municipalities. Achieving local acceptability is essential, as a lack of such acceptability may delay progress of the projects. Local acceptability is built upon open dialogue, genuine opportunities for residents to participate, and the alignment of projects with other land uses, including housing, tourism, recreational use, and other local economic activities.
In Finland, the environmental assessment of plans and programmes is, essentially, integrated into other processes, in particular into land-use planning procedure. Accordingly, the regulatory framework must recognise the specific characteristics of the national system and allow for the flexible and well-timed coordination of assessments in accordance with the nature of the project or plan, its impacts, and the stage of preparation.
The proposed regulatory framework is acceptable only if it does not interfere with land-use planning or municipal decision-making and processes in a way that would effectively restrict the national spatial planning system. Legislation adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure can only be considered acceptable if it has no impact on land-use planning.
The AFCM is critical of regulatory models that attach wide procedural effects to so‑called “toolbox regulation” and activate them through separate legislation. This structure risks undermining predictability and increasing uncertainty. A more transparent legislative technique should be used, with substantive provisions set out directly in each instrument rather than via cross‑references. The extension of tacit consent, in particular, should be treated with caution, as it is ill‑suited to complex environmental and permitting procedures involving third-party rights and the public interest.
With regard to time limits, the accommodation of national time limits and sufficient flexibility must be safeguarded. The purpose of environmental impact assessment is to produce information to support planning and decision-making and to enhance access to information and opportunities for participation. Time limits imposed on assessments must not be so short as to prevent the proper identification, investigation and evaluation of significant environmental impacts.
The AFCM is critical of preclusion rules that restrict, on appeal, the consideration of issues based on an interested party’s conduct during the environmental assessment procedure. The EIA process is not intended for the definitive presentation of legally binding claims, but for gathering impact-related information and enabling participation. Excluding later studies or legally relevant considerations risks substantively incorrect decisions and may increase the burden on courts in assessing what information was available and how it should have been used.
As regards administrative fees, the fundamental principle must be that project-specific costs incurred by operators are not shifted onto municipalities, residents or taxpayers. If the charging or allocation of costs arising from administrative procedures, supervision or assessments is restricted, there is a high risk that the cost burden will be transferred to public, and in some cases municipal, finances. As a rule, the costs of assessing and supervising environmentally harmful activities should be borne by the operator in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle.
It is essential that any new EU obligations build upon existing national and municipal systems and do not lead to the creation of overlapping portals or information systems. Finland already has several environmental, permitting and geospatial data repositories and services, in which significant investments have been made. The effects of new digital obligations on municipal costs, system integrations and the functioning of authorities must be assessed before binding obligations are adopted. Thus the AFCM emphasises that EU requirements concerning centralised online portals most likely entail significant additional costs and that existing municipal digital services must be duly taken into account.
Pauliina Jalonen
Senior Adviser
