Finnish environmental and human rights organisations and Finnish Sámi Youth are taking Finland to court for its lack of adequate climate action. The organisations argue that the government’s inaction violates Finland’s national Climate Act, internationally acknowledged for its relatively strong targets, and fails to meet the state’s legal obligations to protect human rights. The case builds on a previous court ruling in Finland, as well as on the recent groundbreaking ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland.

Finland has adopted one of the strongest net zero climate targets among industrialised nations, committing to become climate neutral by 2035 and reach net negative emissions thereafter. These and other science-based targets – supported by Finland’s businesses and trade unions alike – are set in Finland’s revised Climate Act, adopted with a broad majority by the Parliament in 2022.

However, Finland is not on track to meet its targets. This is primarily due to too high levels of wood harvest and lack of sufficient action to curb agricultural and transport emissions. Consequently, Finland is also failing to meet some of its obligations under EU climate legislation. According to the Climate Act, this constitutes a situation where the government should decide on additional climate measures and revise its climate action plans accordingly. Yet, this has not taken place.

In their appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, the claimant NGOs demand that the government swiftly takes sufficient additional measures to meet its climate targets and other obligations laid out in the Climate Act, the Constitution of Finland and the European Convention on Human Rights.

”Finland has an internationally renowned Climate Act, with a target of becoming climate neutral by 2035. And we have all the means to get there. But now our government is failing to enact solutions, cancelling agreed actions and refusing to revise Finland’s outdated climate plan for land use and forestry. This constitutes a violation of the Climate Act, so it’s our duty as NGOs to take legal action”, says Greenpeace Senior Policy Advisor Kaisa Kosonen.

Finland’s Climate Act requires Finland to steadily cut its emissions, pursuing -95 % cuts by 2050, while also strengthening carbon removals and meeting its obligations under the EU regulation, including on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry ( LULUCF). While Finland is well on track to achieve needed emission cuts in energy and industry emissions, it is not on track to meet its targets on transport, agriculture and forestry. This is all apparent in the government’s annual climate report submitted to the Parliament in June 2024.

”Finland’s policies have enabled too high levels of logging and harmful land-use practices. This has led to the collapse of our forest carbon sink, just as scientists had warned. For over two years we’ve been waiting for corrective action, receiving many reports and further evidence of the problem and its solutions, but no actual decisions have been made. The measures planned by Prime Minister Orpo’s government do not even remotely meet the obligations under the Climate Act,” says Hanna Aho, climate policy officer at The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.

On human rights, the case builds on the recent landmark ruling by the ECtHR   

States have an obligation to ensure the realisation of human rights with adequate and timely climate measures. Building on the recent ground-breaking ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland in which this was affirmed, the claimant NGOs argue that Finland, as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, must follow suit.

“Governments’ inaction on climate change endangers the realisation of many human rights, such as the rights to life and health and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The rights of indigenous peoples, children, older people and other vulnerable  groups are especially at risk. To protect these rights, every country must do their fair share. As a country that often claims leadership on these matters, Finland must walk the talk and live up to its commitments and international human rights obligations,” says Elina Mikola, climate and environment advisor at Amnesty Finland.

According to the ECtHR ruling, even if a state’s emissions were only a small contributing cause to climate change, “a drop in the ocean”, this does not absolve States of their responsibility to protect human rights by doing their part in adequate climate action. A single State’s actions contribute substantially to creating the mutual trust necessary for other States to act.

”The historic victory of Swiss senior citizens in the ECtHR illustrates why it is important for us grandparents to be active too, and unite across borders to defend current and future generations. Finland must now take the court’s decision seriously, and take sufficient climate action, so that children’s environmental and human rights can be respected, as established by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,” says Matti Nummelin, secretary of Grandparents for Climate.

”Adults are making decisions about a future that they will never live in. We want future generations to be able to go snow sledding, ice 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,” says Riku Eskelinen, Executive Director of The Finnish Nature League, an environmental NGO for children and the youth. 

Another important element in Finland’s Climate Act is that it recognises the special rights and vulnerabilities of the only designated indigenous people in the European Union, the Sámi, in the face of a warming climate. In the Arctic region, the homelands of the Sámi, the climate is warming much faster than in other parts of the world. The revised Climate Act establishes a Sámi Climate Council, which is a unique national body in the global context. The purpose of the Council is to promote the rights of indigenous peoples in the implementation of the Climate Act. By violating its own climate law, Finland is also violating the rights of the Sámi.

”The government’s reluctance and outright indifference to climate action has a negative impact on the lives of Sámi youth and hinders the opportunity to influence our future”, says Lotta Hagelin, board member of the Finnish Sámi Youth. 

”Sámi livelihoods are based on the land and nature. Our livelihoods are not just jobs but a way of life, part of our identity and a prerequisite for the continuation of our culture. We demand that the laws protecting the rights of the Sámi people are respected,” says Helmi Ljetoff, deputy member of the board of the Finnish Sámi Youth. 

The appeal has been filed by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto), Greenpeace Norden, Amnesty International Finland, Grandparents for Climate (Ilmastoisovanhemmat), the Finnish Nature League (Luontoliitto) and the Finnish Sámi Youth (Suoma Sámi Nuorat).

The lawsuit is part of a wider movement of climate litigation, including a pending case by Greenpeace Nordic Norway and Nature and Youth and young people currently advancing at the ECtHR. Globally, climate litigation has significantly advanced in recent years, forcing states and corporations to take faster and more ambitious climate action to uphold human rights.

Contacts

Kaisa Kosonen, Senior Policy Advisor, Greenpeace Norden, tel: +358 50 368 8488, [email protected]

Hanna Aho, Climate Policy Officer, Finnish Association of Nature Conservation,  tel. +358 40 628 9495, [email protected]

Elina Mikola, Advisor, Climate and Environment, Amnesty International Finnish Section, tel. +358 44 493 8334, [email protected]

 
Notes to Editor 

  • The 2022 revised Climate Act includes Finland’s climate targets as well as obligations regarding climate policy planning and monitoring. The Climate Act requires Finland to become climate neutral by 2035 at the latest and climate negative thereafter, meaning that removals by sinks exceed emissions. The Act also includes numerical emission reduction targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050. The targets were set based on recommendations by the Finnish Climate Change Panel, and are to be monitored for adequacy in light of latest scientific knowledge. They do not cover embedded emissions.
  • Legal obligation to take corrective measures. According to the Climate Act, if current policies and plans are not sufficient for targets of the Act to be achieved, the Government must take a decision on additional measures and revise its mandated climate policy plans accordingly (§ 16.1 and § 17 of the Climate Act). 
  • Finland is failing both on national and EU regulation. With current and planned measures, Finland will not meet its net zero 2035 target and 2030 emission reduction target under the Climate Act, nor its obligations under EU’s Effort Sharing Regulation and LULUCF Regulation (on carbon sinks). This is evident from the 2023 and 2024 Annual Climate Reports. Furthermore, there are no plans to update the most important climate policy tool needed to fix the carbon sink collapse, the Land Use Sector Climate Plan, even though it is underfunded and profoundly outdated.
  • The case builds on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court. Finnish case law has generally not allowed complaints on decision makers’ lack of action. However, the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) established in its June 2023 ruling on a previous climate complaint by NGOs (Greenpeace Norden and FANC) that a complaint against the government’s inaction on climate could be examined by the court under the following criteria: government’s failure to make a decision at this stage would lead to an outcome contrary to the Climate Act, or that the government’s actual actions would demonstrate that it does not intend to take adequate decisions to achieve the objectives and obligations required by the Climate Act in due time. The claimant organisations consider both these thresholds to now have been clearly crossed.
  • The groundbreaking ECtHR ruling on states’ positive obligation on climate. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) gave a landmark ruling in the case KlimaSeniorinnen vs. Switzerland, stating that adequate climate change mitigation is a part of the State’s duty to protect human rights. For States that are signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including Finland, this implies a positive obligation to provide the necessary regulation and to take adequate and timely action to mitigate climate change to safeguard the human rights guaranteed by Convention. The ECtHR ruling also highlighted the role of environmental organisations in monitoring climate change mitigation and the need to promote fair burden sharing between generations.

For more information, please contact:

Kaisa Kosonen, senior policy advisor
[email protected]

Juuso Janhunen, press officer
[email protected]