COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT The EU Environmental Implementation Review Country Report - FINLAND Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The EU Environmental Implementation Review: Common Challenges and how to combine efforts to deliver better results
Date: 2017-02-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU initiative, Finland, application of EU law, environmental law, environmental protection, pollution control measures

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.2.2017  SWD(2017) 43 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT The EU Environmental Implementation Review Country Report - FINLAND   Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The EU Environmental Implementation Review: Common Challenges and how to combine efforts to deliver better results   {COM(2017) 63 final} {SWD(2017) 33 - 42 final} {SWD(2017) 44 - 60 final}  
 
 
Finland  2 

This  report  has  been  written  by  the  staff  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Environment,  European 
Commission. Any comments are welcome to the following e-mail address: ENV-EIR@ec.europa.eu  

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). 

Photographs: p.9 – ©LIFE04 ENV/FIN/000299, p.12 – ©anzeletti/iStock, p.18 – ©Oleksiy Mark/iStock, 
p.23 – ©Arpad Benedek/iStock 

For reproduction or use of these photos, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder. 

©European Union, 2017 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finland  3 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 4 

PART I: THEMATIC AREAS ............................................................................................................................... 5 

1. 

TURNING  THE  EU  INTO  A  CIRCULAR,  RESOURCE-EFFICIENT,  GREEN  AND  COMPETITIVE  LOW-
CARBON ECONOMY ............................................................................................................................... 5 

Developing a circular economy and improving resource efficiency ..................................................... 5 
Waste management .............................................................................................................................. 8 

2. 

PROTECTING, CONSERVING AND ENHANCING NATURAL CAPITAL ..................................................... 10 

Nature and Biodiversity ....................................................................................................................... 10 
Estimating natural capital ................................................................................................................... 12 
Green Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 12 
Soil protection ..................................................................................................................................... 13 
Marine protection ............................................................................................................................... 13 

3. 

ENSURING CITIZENS' HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE .......................................................................... 15 

Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 15 
 ................................................................................................................................................. 16 
Noise 
Water quality and management ......................................................................................................... 16 
Enhancing the sustainability of cities .................................................................................................. 18 
International agreements ................................................................................................................... 19 

PART II: ENABLING FRAMEWORK: IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS ..................................................................... 20 

4.  MARKET BASED INSTRUMENTS AND INVESTMENT ............................................................................ 20 

Green taxation and environmentally harmful subsidies ..................................................................... 20 
Green Public Procurement .................................................................................................................. 20 
Investments: the contribution of EU funds ......................................................................................... 21 

5. 

EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE AND KNOWLEDGE ...................................................................................... 22 

Effective governance within central, regional and local government ................................................. 22 
Compliance assurance ......................................................................................................................... 23 
Public participation and access to justice ........................................................................................... 25 
Access to information, knowledge and evidence ................................................................................ 25 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
 
Executive summary 

Finland  4 

area.  Since  Finland  has  based  its  industrial  economy  on 
abundant  forest  resources,  sustainable  management  of 
these resources is crucial for its economic development. 
The responsibility for environmental issues in Finland lies 
both  with 
including 
municipalities;  hence,  effective  co-ordination  is  needed 
within a system of multi-level governance. 

the  state  and 

regions, 

the 

Main Challenges 

The two main challenges with regard to implementation 
of EU environmental policy and law in Finland are: 

  Improve air quality (NO2) around Helsinki. 
  Reduce  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  causing 

deteriorated water quality. 

Main Opportunities 

Finland  has  opportunities  to  perform  better  in  areas 
where there is already a good knowledge base and good 
practices. This applies in particular to: 

  Activities  on  the  circular  economy  which  could 

  A  reduction 

increase Finland's resource productivity. 
in  high 
favouring recycling of municipal waste. 

levels  of 

incineration  by 

Points of Excellence 

Finland 

Where 
leader  on  environmental 
implementation,  innovative  approaches  could  be  shared 
more widely with other countries. Good examples are: 

is  a 

  The  recently  started  large  scale  LIFE  Integrated 
Project  "FRESHABIT"  is  an  important  demonstration 
project  on  how  to  engage  different  sectors  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive 
and  the  Nature  Directives;  the  results  of  this  study 
could be widely applied in future. 

  Finland is especially advanced in the process for the 
designation of protected Natura 2000 sites as Special 
Areas  of  Conservation  (SACs),  which  sets  the  basis 
for a successful management of such sites. 

About the Environmental Implementation Review 

launched 

reports  describing 

the 
the  Commission 
In  May  2016, 
Environmental  Implementation  Review  (EIR),  a  two-year 
cycle  of  analysis,  dialogue  and  collaboration  to  improve 
the  implementation  of  existing  EU  environmental  policy 
and  legislation1.  As  a  first  step,  the  Commission  drafted 
28 
the  main  challenges  and 
opportunities on environmental implementation for each 
Member  State.  These  reports  are  meant  to  stimulate  a 
positive debate both on shared environmental challenges 
for  the  EU,  as  well  as  on  the  most  effective  ways  to 
address the key implementation gaps. The reports rely on 
the detailed sectoral implementation reports collected or 
issued  by  the  Commission  under  specific  environmental 
legislation  as  well  as  the  2015  State  of  the  Environment 
Report  and  other  reports  by  the  European  Environment 
Agency.  These  reports  will  not  replace  the  specific 
instruments  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  EU  legal 
obligations.  

The  reports  will  broadly  follow  the  outline  of  the  7th 
Environmental Action Programme2 and refer to the 2030 
related 
for  Sustainable  development  and 
Agenda 
Sustainable Development  Goals  (SDGs)3  to  the  extent  to 
which  they  reflect  the  existing  obligations  and  policy 
objectives of EU environmental law4.  

The  main  challenges  have  been  selected  by  taking  into 
account factors such as the importance or the gravity of 
the  environmental  implementation  issue  in  the  light  of 
the  impact  on  the  quality  of  life  of  the  citizens,  the 
distance to target, and financial implications. 

The  reports  accompany  the  Communication  "The  EU 
Environmental  Implementation  Review  2016:  Common 
challenges  and  how  to  combine  efforts  to  deliver  better 
results", which identifies challenges that are common to 
several Member States, provides preliminary conclusions 
on  possible  root  causes  of  implementation  gaps  and 
proposes  joint  actions  to  deliver  better  results.  It  also 
groups in its Annex the actions proposed in each country 
report to improve implementation at national level. 

General profile 

Finland  is  rich  in  surface  waters  with  many  lakes,  ponds 
and  rivers,  making  their  protection  from  impacts  of 
agriculture key. Forests cover about 78% of Finland's land 

1 Communication "Delivering the benefits of EU environmental policies 

through a regular Environmental Implementation Review" 
(COM/2016/ 316 final). 

2 Decision No. 1386/2013/EU of 20 November 2013 on a General Union 
Environmental Action Programme to 2020 "Living well, within the 
limits of our planet". 

3 United Nations, 2015. The Sustainable Development Goals  
4 This EIR report does not cover climate change, chemicals and energy. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
 
Finland  5 

Part I: Thematic Areas 

1. Turning the EU into a circular, resource-efficient, green and 

competitive low-carbon economy 

Figure 1: Resource productivity 2003-157 

Developing a circular economy and improving 
resource efficiency 

The 2015 Circular Economy Package emphasizes the need 
to  move  towards  a  lifecycle-driven  ‘circular’  economy, 
with a cascading use of resources and residual waste that 
is  close  to  zero.  This  can  be  facilitated  by  the 
development  of,  and  access  to,  innovative  financial 
instruments and funding for eco-innovation. 

SDG  8  invites  countries  to  promote  sustained, 
inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and 
productive  employment  and  decent  work  for  all. 
SDG  9  highlights  the  need  to  build  resilient 
infrastructure,  promote  inclusive  and  sustainable 
innovation.  SDG  12 
industrialization  and  foster 
encourages  countries  to  achieve  the  sustainable 
management and efficient use of natural resources 
by 2030. 

Measures towards a circular economy  

Transforming our economies from linear to circular offers 
an  opportunity  to  reinvent  them  and  make  them  more 
stimulate 
sustainable  and  competitive.  This  will 
investments and bring both short and long-term benefits 
for the economy, environment and citizens alike5. 

In the longer term, the themes of cleantech, bioeconomy 
and  digitalisation  can  help  improve  Finland's  resource 
productivity6  and  progress  towards  a  more  circular 
economy  and  better  resource  efficiency,  which  will 
stimulate  investments  and  have  short-term  and  long-
term  benefits  for  the  economy,  environment  and 
employment.  

Finland  had  a  resource  productivity  (how  efficiently  the 
economy  uses  material  resources  to  produce  wealth)  of 
1.12  EUR/kg  below  EU  average,  which  is  2)  in  2015.  As 
shown in Figure 1, Finland's resource productivity has not 
significantly increased since 2003.  

The  bioeconomy  and  clean  solutions  have  been 
established  as  key  high-level  policy  priorities  in  the 
Strategic  Programme  of  the  Finnish  Government  from 
2016  onwards8,  and  related  national  and  regional 
initiatives  are  manifold.  Both  start-ups  and  established 
companies generate technologies, products and services 
in  several  sectors  relevant  to  eco-innovations  and  the 
circular economy.  

One  of  the  most  important  high-level  steps  towards  a 
circular economy in the country has been the inclusion of 
circular  economy  as  a  key  policy  priority 
in  the 
abovementioned  Strategic  Programme.  The  Finnish 
Government has allocated EUR 300 million extra funding 
investments  on 
to 
bioeconomy,  circular  economy  and  cleantech  for  the 
years  2016-2018.  In  addition  to  public  funding,  this 
choice  signals  broad  political  support  for  making  the 
economy and industry more circular in the longer term.  

strategic  development 

and 

The  Finnish  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the  Economy 
also  published  the  Strategy  to  Promote  Cleantech 
Business  in  Finland  in  2014,  which  continues  to  guide 
initiatives.  Additional 
policymaking  and  business 
strategies  and  programmes  relevant  to  eco-innovations 
and 
the  Finnish 
Bioeconomy  Strategy 
(2014),  the  Finnish  Material 
Efficiency  Programme  (2014),  the  national  Roadmap  for 
Circular  Economy  (2016)  and  the  new  Circular  Economy 
focus area (2016) in Sitra, the Finnish Innovation Fund. 

circular  economy 

include 

the 

5 European Commission, 2015. Proposed Circular Economy Package 
6 Resource productivity is defined as the ratio between gross domestic 

product (GDP) and domestic material consumption (DMC). 

7 Eurostat, Resource productivity, accessed October 2016 
8 Strategic Programme of the Finnish Government from 2016  

Besides  Finland's  own  activities  and  initiatives,  as  a  key 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
  
                                                            
priority, a strong platform for green growth has emerged 
between the Nordic countries through the Nordic Council 
and the Nordic Council of Ministers – Green Growth the 
Nordic Way.   

Cleantech  remains  one  of  Finland’s  fastest  growing 
business  sectors.  It  employs  around  50,000  people,  and 
40,000 new jobs are expected by 2020. The government 
also  aims  to  raise  the  turnover  of  Finnish  cleantech 
companies to EUR 50 billion by 2020. Importantly, Finnish 
cleantech  start-ups  received  around  EUR  50  million  or 
20%  of  all  foreign  and  domestic  equity  investments  in 
Finnish start-ups in 2015. 

Environmental  taxation  is  one  of  the  more  important 
parts  of  the  related  policy  landscape.  In  2014,  Finland’s 
revenue  from  environmental  taxation,  2.9%  of  gross 
domestic  product,  was  above  the  EU  average  of  2.5%. 
The  share  of  environmental  taxes  in  tax  revenues  has 
also  gradually  increased,  while  the  composition  has 
changed:  taxes  on  carbon  dioxide  from  heating,  power 
plants  and  machinery  as  well  as  the  waste  tax  have  all 
been gradually increased. 

Finland has set up a Smart Procurement programme for 
2013–2016  with  the  focus  on  creating  smart  demand, 
which  will  provide  the  prerequisites  for  new  market 
creation and growth. 

Ministries together with Motiva Ltd (state-owned expert 
company 
in  energy  and  material  efficiency)  have 
launched  several  initiatives  to  boost  resource  efficiency 
and circular economy.  

For  example,  Motiva  Ltd  provides  material  efficiency 
auditing  services  for  companies.  The  Government  funds 
the  auditing  programme  and  companies  may  receive 
economic incentives for audits.  

At  national  level,  Motiva  Ltd  coordinates  the  Finnish 
Industrial Symbiosis System (FISS) network, which aims at 
collecting information on resources, matchmaking actors 
and driving forward resource synergies. FISS for example 
runs  a  database  to  identify  possible  synergies  between 
collects 
industries 
information  on  the  impact  of  industrial  collaboration  on 
environment and economy. 

resource  use,  and 

regarding 

There  are  also  two  platforms  (Fisu  and  Hinku),  which 
both  aim  at  creating  solutions  that  have  economic  and 
social benefits as well as environmental advantages. Both 
networks  bring  around  40  municipalities,  businesses, 
citizens  and  experts  together  to  create  and  carry  out 
solutions  to  improve  resource-efficiency  and  reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions.   

SMEs and resource efficiency 

In  the  Flash  426  Eurobarometer  "SMEs,  resource 
efficiency  and  green  markets"  it  is  shown  that  61%  of 
Finland's  SMEs  have  invested    up  to  5%  of  their  annual 

Finland  6 

in  their  resource  efficiency  actions  (EU28 
turnover 
average  50%),  36%  of  them  are  currently  offering  green 
products  and  services  (EU28  average  26%),  63%  took 
measures  to  save  energy  (EU28  average  59%),  64%  to 
minimise waste (EU28 average 60%), 36% to save water 
(EU28  average  44%),  and  71%  to  save  materials  (EU28 
average 54%). From a circular economy perspective, 35% 
took  measures  to  recycle  by  reusing  material  or  waste 
within  the company (EU28 average  40%),  30% to  design 
products  that  are  easier  to  maintain,  repair  or  reuse 
(EU28 average 22%) and 25% were able to sell their scrap 
material to another company (EU28 average 25%).   

According to the Flash 426 Eurobarometer, the resource 
efficiency  actions  undertaken  allowed  the  reduction  of 
production  costs  in  a  54%  of  the  Finland's  SMEs  (EU28 
average 45%). 

The  number  of  SMEs  in  the  non-financial  business 
economy  is  in  line  with  the  EU  average.  Nearly  all 
businesses are SMEs, providing two out of three jobs and 
60% of total value added. SME productivity, measured as 
value added per head, is well above the EU average. 

The Flash 426 Eurobarometer "SMEs, resource efficiency 
and  green  markets"  shows  that  50%  of  the  SMEs  in 
Finland have one or more full time employee working in 
a  green  job  at  least  some  of  the  time  (EU28  average 
35%).  Finland  has  an  average  number  of  1.7  full  time 
green  employees  per  SME,  the  same  as  the  EU28 
average)9. 

Eco-innovation 

Finland  continues  to  demonstrate  high  performance  in 
terms  of  eco-innovation.  As  in  2013,  Finland  is  again 
ranked second in the EU28 Eco-innovation Index in 2015, 
with an overall score that exceeds the EU average by 40% 
as shown in Figure 2.  

In  2014,  Finland  was  fourth  in  the  ranking.  National 
experts  agree  with  the  depiction 
index  of 
particularly  high  eco-innovation  performance.  Similarly, 
as in the overall score, Finland’s track record in terms of 
different  Eco-IS  components  has  been  largely  consistent 
since 2011, with particular strengths and weaknesses.  

in  the 

The  2014  Research  and  Innovation  Country  Report  for 
Finland  by  the  European  Commission  provides  insights 
into the general barriers and drivers to eco-innovation in 
the  country.  As  mentioned,  one  of  the  key  challenges 
relates to the economic environment. The recession and 
the  problems  in  the  ICT  sector  have  led  among  other 

9 European Commission, 2015. The Flash 426 Eurobarometer "SMEs, 

resource efficiency and green markets" defines "green job" as a job 
that directly deals with information, technologies, or materials that 
preserves or restores environmental quality. This requires specialised 
skills, knowledge, training, or experience (e.g. verifying compliance 
with environmental legislation, monitoring resource efficiency within 
the company, promoting and selling green products and services). 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
things  to  a  steep  decline  in  both  public  and  private 
research  and  development  investments.  Government 
R&D  funding  decreased  by  13%  in  real  terms  between 
2010 and 2014, and gross domestic expenditures for R&D 
declined  sharply.  Another  high-level  challenge  for  the 
Finnish 
level  of 
internationalisation,  as  well  as  a  relatively  fragmented 
university system. 
Figure 2: Eco-Innovation Index 2015 (EU=100)10 

innovation 

system 

low 

its 

is 

Finland  7 

face  problems 

According  to  a  report  from  the  Finnish  Environmental 
Institute11,  while  there  is  substantial  and  increasing 
demand  for  eco-innovations,  it  is  often  difficult  for 
Finnish  companies  to  access  international  markets.  In 
in 
particular,  start-ups  and  SMEs 
commercialising 
their  new  products  and  services 
internationally.  Networks  are  missing  or  limited,  and 
financing  might  not  always  readily  available.  As  for  the 
customers,  the  long-term  benefits  from  eco-friendly 
products  may  be  difficult  to  recognise,  meaning  that 
customers  are  not  committed  to  pay  an  additional 
margin for environmentally friendly products. In general, 
the  payback  period  for  eco-innovations  is  long,  and 
returns on investment uncertain. 
The  Finnish  Innovation  Fund  (Sitra)  2015  report12  ‘The 
opportunities of a circular economy for Finland’ discusses 
the  economic  potential  of  the  circular  economy  for  the 
country, 
business 
opportunities.  Sitra  estimates  that  circular  economy 
represents  an  opportunity  worth  around  EUR  1.5-2.5 
billion for Finland. Some companies will benefit indirectly 
from  efficient  use  of  material  flows  while  others  will  be 
able to sell products and services based on new business 
models that take advantage of the circular economy. The 
key  sector-specific  opportunities  discussed  in  the  Sitra 
report  concern  paper 
the 
opportunities in the food industry to reduce loss of value; 
business  potential  of  private 
consumption;  and 
in  construction  and  manufacture  of 
opportunities 
machinery. 

industry  side  streams; 

also  mapping 

tangible 

out 

investments 

Despite the problems, Finland still outperforms its peers 
when  it  comes  to  highly  skilled  human  resources, public 
and  business 
in  R&D  and  patent 
applications. The main high-level driver of eco-innovation 
stems  from  the  fact  that  Finland  still  ranks  among  the 
world’s best in R&D intensity, and performs well in terms 
of scientific and technological excellence: the Information 
Technology  and  Innovation  Foundation  (ITIF)  ranked 
Finland  first  in  how  its  policies  contribute  to  global 
innovation system.  

More  specifically  to  eco-innovation,  Finland  has  several 
hot-spot clusters in technological areas such as materials, 
energy,  and  agriculture.  Finland  also  ranked  second  in 
the  2014  Cleantech  Innovation  ranking  by  WWF,  which 
compared  countries  based  on  their  conditions  for 
establishing  clean  technology  start-ups  and  facilitating 
technologies. 
the  development  of  environmental 

The  forestry-wood  value  chain  in  Finland  has  two  key 
areas  of  interest  for  the  circular  economy:  recovery  of 
paper fibre for reuse accounts for a major share of total 
material  flow,  and  most  wood  waste  in  Finland  ends  up 
as  an  energy  source.  From  the  circular  economy 
perspective,  the  best  opportunities  lie  in  improving  the 
circulation of paper fibres and the use of side streams.  

The  food  value  chain,  from  agriculture  to  retail  and 
restaurant  services,  also  includes  two  factors  crucial  to 
circular  economy:  how  well  the  original  raw  material  is 
used,  and  the  way  in  which  nutrients  are  reintroduced 
into  the  nutrient  cycle.  Potential  high-level  actions 
include  the  minimisation  of  food  waste  generated  by 
households and hospitality services, as well as capturing 
the  maximal  value  of  inedible  food  waste  instead  of 
incinerating  it.  Finland’s  food  chain  is  indeed  ideally 
placed to foster the circular economy at the local level. 

Sitra  also  discusses  three  dimensions  of  household 
consumption that are of interest from the perspective of 
the  circular  economy:  the  opportunities  stemming  from 

11 Antikainen, R., 2015, Ekoinnovaatioille nostetta monipuolisista 

verkostoista, Tekes blog. Available at http://www.tekes.fi/nyt/blogit-
2015/ekoinnovaatioille-nostetta-monipuolisistaverkostoista/ 

12http://www.sitra.fi/en/julkaisu/2015/opportunities-circular-economy-

10 Eco-innovation Observatory: Eco-Innovation scoreboard 2015 

finland-0  

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
                                                            
the  sharing  economy,  second-hand  markets  and  the 
recycling  of  household  waste.  As  for  the  latter,  a  major 
part of material flows in Finland and elsewhere is due to 
private  consumption,  and  post-consumer  waste 
is 
generally  sent  to  landfills  unsorted.  According  to  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment,  recycling  in  Finland  could 
be increased, especially in packaging waste and biowaste. 
Additional  EU  measures  would  also  help  to  speed  up 
progress at the national level. 

Juha 

Sipilä’s  2015 

In  addition  to  Sitra’s  detailed  report,  the  circular 
economy was also selected as one of the key projects of 
Prime  Minister 
government 
programme, with a planned public investment of EUR 40 
million.  Related 
initiatives,  also  supported  by  Sitra, 
include trial projects that aim to facilitate the building of 
concrete  business  models  as  well  as  the  sharing  of  best 
practices  in  the  country.  The  functioning  and  feasibility 
tests of different business models are currently underway 
in  the  textile 
industry,  nutrient  cycling,  cities,  and 
technology and export companies.  

Together  with  new  actions  from  the  EU,  the  funding 
environment  and  the  government’s  preparedness  to 
support  circular  economy 
indeed  seem 
promising.  

in  Finland 

As  implied  earlier,  resource  efficiency  in  general  is 
another challenge for Finland, especially due to the high 
number of resource-intensive industries in the economy. 
Several  measures  to  improve  resource  efficiency  have 
been  outlined  at  the  national  level,  for  instance  in  the 
working group proposal for a National material efficiency 
program,  prepared  in  collaboration  with  the  Ministry  of 
Employment  and  Economy  and  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  

Finland  has  four  EMAS  registered  organisations,  which 
can  be  compared  with  EU  total  registrations of  4,034.  It 
has not seen any changes since October 2015. However, 
the  coverage  of  these  registrations  is  broad,  as  they 
include  UPM  Kymmene  Corporation  with  its  19  sites  in 
Europe,  China  and  Uruguay.   Organizations  operating 
outside  Europe  can  be  registered  to  EMAS  in  Finland 
since 2012.  

Concerning  the  EU  Ecolabel,  Finland  has  14  licenses, 
compared  to  the  1,875  total  number  of  licenses  in  the 
EU. 

Waste management  

Turning waste into a resource requires: 
 

implementation  of  Union  waste 

Full 
legislation, 
which  includes  the  waste  hierarchy;  the  need  to 
ensure  separate  collection  of  waste;  the  landfill 
diversion targets etc. 

  Reducing  per  capita  waste  generation  and  waste 

generation in absolute terms. 

Finland  8 

 

Limiting energy recovery to non-recyclable materials 
and  phasing  out 
recyclable  or 
recoverable waste. 

landfilling  of 

SDG  12  invites  countries  to  substantially  reduce  waste 
generation  through  prevention,  reduction,  recycling  and 
reuse, by 2030. 

includes 

targets  and 

landfilling  and 

The EU's approach to waste management is based on the 
"waste  hierarchy"  which  sets  out  an  order  of  priority 
when  shaping  waste  policy  and  managing  waste  at  the 
operational 
for  reuse, 
level:  prevention,  preparing 
recycling,  recovery  and,  as  the  least  preferred  option, 
disposal  (which 
incineration 
without energy recovery). The progress towards reaching 
recycling 
the  adoption  of  adequate 
WMP/WPP13  should  be  the  key  items  to  measure  the 
performance  of  Member  States.  This  section  focuses  on 
management  of  municipal  waste  for  which  EU  law  sets 
mandatory recycling targets. 
The  amount  of  municipal  waste14  generated  in  Finland 
remains  above  the  EU  average  (475  kg/y/inhabitant  in 
2014)  but  it  has  decreased  from  493  kg/y/inhabitant  in 
2013 to 482 kg/y/inhabitant in 201415.  

Figure  3  depicts  the  municipal  waste  by  treatment  in 
Finland  in  terms  of  kg  per  capita,  which  shows  an 
increase of incineration and a decrease in landfilling. 

Figure 3: Municipal waste by treatment in Finland 2007-
1416 

13 Waste Management Plans/Waste Prevention Programmes 
14 Municipal waste is defined as household waste or waste comparable 

in its nature to household waste generated by administration, 
services, businesses, and industrial activities, and it consists of waste 
collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities, or directly by the 
private sector (business or private non-profit institutions) not on 
behalf of municipalities.  

15Eurostat, Municipal waste and treatment, by type of treatment 

method, accessed October 2016 

16 Eurostat, Municipal waste and treatment, by type of treatment 

method, accessed October 2016 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
Landfilling  is  relatively  low  (17%)  and  below  the  EU 
average (28%). Finland has complied with both the 2006 
and  the  2009  landfill  diversion  targets.  Finland  also 
already fulfilled the 35% requirement for the year 2016 in 
2014. 

Recycling  of  municipal  waste  accounts 
for  33% 
(composting  accounts  for  15%),  below  the  EU  average 
(44%) as shown in Figure 4.  
Figure 4: Recycling rate of municipal waste 2007-1417 

The  recycling  rate  decreased  after  2011  and  remained 
stable between 2013 and 2014, below the targets set out 
in the EU Waste Framework Directive for the recycling of 
municipal waste of 50% by 202018 (see Figure 4). Like in 
the  previous  couple  of  years,  incineration  remains  the 
main  waste  management  method  and 
its  share 
continued to increase (42% in 2013, 50% in 2014).  

Finland  9 

the  last  time  in  2014,  the  studies  have  not  resulted  in 
such  a  tax.  However,  issues  such  as  taking  into  account 
the need to treat equally incineration and co-incineration 
of  waste,  the  relationship  to  the  EU  Emissions  Trading 
System  (ETS)  and  the  impacts  on  exports  of  municipal 
waste for incineration to neighbouring EU countries have 
not been covered.  

The  national  waste  management  plan,  including  the 
Waste  Prevention  Programme,  sets  a  30%  recycling 
target,  6%  composting  at  source,  14%  composting  an 
anaerobic  digestion,  30%  energy  recovery  and  20% 
landfilling  by  2016.  The  National  Waste  Management 
Plan  2008-2016  is  currently  being  reviewed.  A  new 
landfill ban on placing organic waste at landfills came into 
force in 2016.  

According  to  a  recent  study,  full  implementation  of  the 
existing  legislation  could  create  more  than  4,800  jobs  in 
Finland  and  increase  the  annual  turnover  of  the  waste 
sector  by  over  EUR  514  million.  Moving  towards  the 
targets  of  the  Roadmap  on  resource  efficiency  which 
outlines how we can transform Europe's economy into a 
sustainable  one  by  2050  could  create  over  6,500 
additional  jobs  and  increase  the  annual  turnover  of  the 
waste sector by over EUR 690 million19. 

Suggested action 

  Introduce 

new 

policies, 

economic 
instruments  or  producer  responsibility  schemes,  to 
promote  prevention,  make  reuse  and  recycling  more 
economically attractive.  

including 

  Shift  reusable  and  recyclable  waste  away 

from 

incineration, e.g. by introducing an incineration tax. 

imposing  a  tax  on  waste 
While  the  possibility  of 
incineration  has  been  studied  several  times  in  Finland, 

17 Eurostat, Recycling rate of municipal waste, accessed October 2016 
18 Member States may choose a different method than the one used by 
ESTAT (and referred to in this report) to calculate their recycling rates 
and track compliance with the 2020 target of 50% recycling of 
municipal waste. Finland uses method 2, which means that Finland 
includes all municipal waste streams in the calculations. 

19 Bio Intelligence service, 2011. Implementing EU Waste legislation for 
Green Growth, study for European Commission. The breakdown per 
country on job creation was made by the consultant on Commission 
demand but was not included in the published document.   

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
                                                            
2. Protecting, conserving and enhancing natural capital 

Finland  10 

Nature and Biodiversity  

The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  aims  to  halt  the  loss  of 
biodiversity  in  the  EU  by  2020,  restore  ecosystems  and 
their services in so far as feasible, and step up efforts to 
avert  global  biodiversity  loss.  The  EU  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives  aim  at  achieving  favourable  conservation 
status of protected species and habitats.  

SDG  14  requires  countries  to  conserve  and  sustainably 
use the oceans, seas and marine resources, while SDG 15 
requires  countries  to  protect,  restore  and  promote  the 
sustainable  use  of  terrestrial  ecosystems,  sustainably 
manage  forests,  combat  desertification,  and  halt  and 
reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. 

The  1992  EU  Habitats  Directive  and  the  1979  Birds 
Directive are the cornerstone of the European legislation 
aimed  at  the  conservation  of  the  EU's  wildlife.  Natura 
2000, the largest coordinated network of protected areas 
in  the  world,  is  the  key  instrument  to  achieve  and 
implement the Directives' objectives to ensure the  long-
term  protection,  conservation  and  survival  of  Europe's 
most  valuable  and  threatened  species  and  habitats  and 
the ecosystems they underpin. 

The  adequate  designation  of  protected  sites  as  Special 
Ares  of  Conservation  (SAC)  under  the  Habitats  Directive 
and  as  Special  Protection  Areas  (SPA)  under  the  Birds 
Directive 
is  a  key  milestone  towards  meeting  the 
objectives  of  the  Directives.  The  results  of  Habitats 
Directive Article 17 and Birds Directive Article 12 reports 
and  the  progress  towards  adequate  Sites  of  Community 
Importance (SCI)-SPA and SAC designation20 both in land 
and  at  sea,  should  be  the  key  items  to  measure  the 
performance of Member States. 

As of early 2016, 12.7% of the Finnish national territory is 
covered  by  Natura  2000  (EU  average  18.1%),  with  Birds 
Directive  SPAs  covering  7.9%  (EU  average  12.3%)  and 
Habitats  Directive  SCIs  covering  12.5%  (EU  average 
13.8%).  There  are  altogether  1,865  Natura  2000  sites  in 
Finland. 

Based  on  an  assessment  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  SCI 
network21  for  Annex  II  species  and  Annex  I  habitats 

20 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) are designated pursuant to the 
Habitats Directive whereas Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) are 
designated pursuant to the Birds Directive; figures of coverage do 
not add up due to the fact that some SCIs and SPAs overlap. Special 
Areas of Conservation (SACs) means a SCI designated by the Member 
States. 

21 For each Member State, the Commission assesses whether the 
species and habitat types on Annexes I and II of the Habitats 
Directive are sufficiently represented by the sites designated to date. 
This is expressed as a percentage of species and habitats for which 
further areas need to be designated in order to complete the 
network in that country. The current data, which were assessed in 

occurring in Finland, the Natura 2000 network in Finland 
is  considered  complete  in  the  Alpine  region  and  almost 
complete 
in  the  Boreal  and  Marine  Baltic  region. 
However, there are insufficiencies in designation for the 
marine  components  of  the  SCIs  network,  as  shown  in 
Figure 522. 

Figure  5:  Sufficiency  assessment  of  SCI  networks  in 
Finland  based  on  the  situation  until  December  2013 
(%)23  

The  process  for  the  designation  of  the  sites  as  special 
areas of conservation (SAC) is almost complete. 

Finland  has  developed  a  new  planning  and  monitoring 
system  for  its  protected  areas  which  includes  a  specific 
periodic  assessment  of  the  status  of  the  habitats  and 
species of the Natura 2000 sites. Management plans are 
linked  to  this  system.  Most  of  Natura  2000  sites  are 
managed 
organisation, 
state 
Metsähallitus,  which  develops  the  use  of  state-owned 
land and waters. 

owned 

one 

by 

and 
The  number  of  nature-related 
in  Finland.  Most 
infringements 
is  not  very  high 
the 
complaints  and 
derogations  under  Article  9  (Birds  Directive)  and  16 
(Habitats Directive). Management of the wolf population 

infringement  cases  relate 

complaints 

to 

2014-2015, reflect the situation up until December 2013. 

22 The percentages in Figure 5 refer to percentages of the total number 
of assessments (one assessment covering 1 species or 1 habitat in a 
given biographical region with the Member State); if a habitat type or 
a species occurs in more than 1 Biogeographic region within a given 
Member State, there will be as many individual assessments as there 
are Biogeographic regions with an occurrence of that species or 
habitat in this Member State. 

23 European Commission internal assessment. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
 
                                                                                                 
Finland  11 

Directive28 show that short-term trends of breeding birds 
are  improving  for  29%  of  the  species  and  stable  and 
decreasing  for  27%  of  species,  as  depicted  in  Figure  7. 
The  same  categories  for  long-term  trends  are  38%,  16% 
and  34%.  Since  the  1950s,  Europe’s  farmland  bird 
populations  have  decreased  by  one  half.  This  has  also 
happened in Finland. 
Figure  7:  Short-term  population  trend  of  breeding  and 
wintering bird species in Finland in 2012 (%)29 

is the main topic in complaints.  
The  Finnish  report  under  Article  17  Habitats  Directive24 
shows 
indicate 
that  34%  of  habitat  assessments 
favourable  status25  (for  comparison,  16%  at  EU27-level) 
and 39% are considered to be Unfavourable –Inadequate 
(EU27:  47%)  and  26%  are  Unfavourable  –  Bad  (EU27  is 
30%)  as  depicted  in  Figure 626.  Agricultural activities  are 
most  frequently  reported  pressures  of  high  importance 
for habitat types. Concerning species assessments (other 
than  birds)  46%  are  at  favourable  status  (EU27:  23%), 
35%  at  unfavourable-inadequate  (EU27:  42%  and  11% 
unfavourable-bad status (EU27: 18%).   

Figure 6: Conservation status of habitats and species in 
Finland in 2007/2013 (%)27 

There is a good knowledge of species present on Finnish 
territory.  Of  the  45,000  species  living  in  Finland,  it  has 
been  possible  to  evaluate  the  threat  status  for  over 
21,000  species.  The  conclusion  is  that  one  in  ten  of  all 
evaluated species in Finland is endangered.  
The latest Red List of Birds (2015)30 indicates that out of 
245  bird  species,  36%  are  Threatened,  9%  are  Nearly 
Threatened  and  55%  are  Least  Concern.  Targeted 
conservation  actions  are  bringing  results,  as  shown  by 
increasing populations of Golden Eagle, White-tailed Sea 
Eagle,  White-backed  Woodpecker  and  Peregrine  Falcon. 
On  the  other  hand,  concerns  have  been  raised  recently 
on  the  decline  of  common  forest  birds  in  managed 
forests  in  Southern  Finland.  Red  list  assessment  of 
mammals  (2015)  shows  that  Arctic  fox 
is  critically 
endangered and the Saimaa ringed seal, Wolverine, Wolf 
and  Natterer's  Bat  are  Endangered.  However,  the 
Mountain hare  and Otter are  no  longer  Threatened. For 
birds the most important threats are changes in breeding 
areas, along migration routes and in wintering areas. For 
mammals  the  main  threats  are  hunting  (including  illegal 
killing),  climate  change  and  random  factors  linked  to 
small populations. 

Finland  is  implementing  a  large  scale  LIFE  Integrated 
Project "FRESHABIT" (20 million Euro) aiming to develop 

28 Article 12 of the Birds Directive requires Member States to report 
about the progress made with the implementation of the Birds 
Directive 

29 Article 12 of the Birds Directive reporting - national summary of 

Finland 

30 IUCN, Red List  

The  results  from  the  Article  12  report  under  Birds 

24 Article 17 requires a report to be sent to the European Commission 

every 6 years following an agreed format. The core of the ‘Article 17’ 
report is assessment of conservation status of the habitats and 
species targeted by the Habitats Directive. 

25 Conservation status is assessed using a standard methodology as 

being either ‘favourable’, ‘unfavourable-inadequate’ and 
‘unfavourable-bad’, based on four parameters as defined in Article 1 
of the Habitats Directive. 

26 Please note that a direct comparison between 2007 and 2013 data is 
complicated by the fact that Bulgaria and Romania were not covered 
by the 2007 reporting cycle, that the ‘unknown’ assessments have 
strongly diminished particularly for species, and that some reported 
changes are not genuine as they result from improved data / 
monitoring methods. 

27 These figures show the percentage of biogeographical assessments in 
each category of conservation status for habitats and species (one 
assessment covering 1 species or 1 habitat in a given biographical 
region with the Member State), respectively. The information is 
based on Article 17 of the Habitats Directive reporting - national 
summary of Finland 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
                                                            
indicators  for  assessing  the 
new  methodology  and 
conservation  status  of  freshwater  habitats,  to  improve 
the  ecological  status,  management  and  sustainable  use 
of freshwater Natura 2000 sites, by tackling the problems 
the  sites  face  at  water  catchment  level.  This  is  an 
important  demonstration  project  on  how  to  engage 
different  sectors  in  the  implementation  of  the  Water 
Framework Directive and the Nature Directives. 

Some  78%  of  Finland's  surface  is  forest  land.  However, 
only about 9% of the forest area is strictly protected from 
any  forestry  measures  and  most  of  the  protected  areas 
are  in  northern  Finland.  The  country  has  currently  an 
ambitious  bioeconomy  target  which 
foresees  also 
increasing use of timber. 

Suggested action 

sites  and  ensure 

  Complete  the  Natura  2000  designation  process  for 
marine 
the  necessary 
conservation  measures  for  the  sites  maintain/restore 
species  and  habitats  of  community 
interest  to  a 
favourable  conservation  status  across  their  natural 
range. 

that 

Estimating natural capital 

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 calls on the Member 
States  to  map  and  asses  the  state  of  ecosystems  and 
their  services  in  their  national  territory  by  2014,  assess 
the  economic  value  of  such  services,  and  promote  the 
integration of these values into accounting and reporting 
systems at EU and national level by 2020. 

In Finland some work has been carried out on indicators 
consistent  with  the  framework  developed  by  the  MAES 
(Mapping  and  Assessment  of  Ecosystems  and  their 
Services)  initiative.  The  focus  is  mainly  on  biophysical 
accounts.  The  2015  Study  on  The  Economics  of 
Ecosystem  Services  for  Finland  (TEEB  Finland)  provided 
an  overview  of  the  most  relevant  ecosystem  services31 
and  the  main  drivers  and  future  trends  affecting  their 
provision;  suggestions  for  developing  indicators  on  the 

Finland  12 

value  of  ecosystem  services;  a  spatial  case  study 
(including  a  view  on  Green  infrastructure);  policy  and 
governance  issues  and  other  guiding  tools;  a  scoping 
assessment  on  natural  capital  accounting;  and  a  review 
on  the  relationship  of  ecosystem  services  and  green 
economy. 

Suggested action 

  Continue  support  for  the  mapping  and  assessment  of 
ecosystems and their services, and valuation work and 
develop natural capital accounting systems. 

Green Infrastructure  

The  EU  strategy  on  green  infrastructure32  promotes  the 
incorporation  of  green  infrastructure  into  related  plans 
and  programmes  to  help  overcome  fragmentation  of 
habitats  and  preserve  or  restore  ecological  connectivity, 
enhance  ecosystem  resilience  and  thereby  ensure  the 
continued provision of ecosystem services. 

Green  Infrastructure  provides  ecological,  economic  and 
social  benefits  through  natural  solutions.  It  helps  to 
understand the value of the benefits that nature provides 
to human society and to mobilise investments to sustain 
and enhance them. 

Under  the  Forest  Biodiversity  Programme  for  Southern 
Finland (METSO),  Metsähallitus has  restored  forests  and 
in  protected  areas  -  nearly  17,400  hectares 
mires 
between 2008 and 2015 and more than 26,000 hectares 
before  2008.  The  restored  area  covers  approximately 
0.1% of Finland’s surface area. 

Metsähallitus  has  a  special  legal  obligation  to  protect 
biological  diversity  on  state  lands.  Besides  wood  supply, 
ecological  values  in  commercially  managed  forests  are 
secured  with  environmental  management  standards. 
Valuable habitats are excluded from commercial forestry 
and  are  linked  by  ecological  corridors  and  stepping 
stones.  The  ecological  network  includes  various  buffer 
zones  such  as  environmentally  valuable  forests  and 
biodiversity  enhancement  areas.  Recreational  and 
landscape sites also support the green infrastructure. 

The  Finnish  Environment  Institute  ran  a  project  called 
'Green  infra'33,  exploring  the  dependence  of  ecosystem 
services  and  biodiversity  on  the  green  infrastructure. 
infra  had  objectives  to  assess  how  national 
Green 
policies, 
legislation,  can  be  developed  to 
protect  and  enhance  green  infrastructure  and  also  to 
develop  a  new  GIS-based  tool  to  guide  decision  making 
on land use and green infrastructure.  The GIS-based tool 
aims to identify the key areas for Green Infrastructure by 

including 

32 European Union, Green Infrastructure — Enhancing Europe’s Natural 

Capital, COM/2013/0249 

31 Ecosystem services are benefits provided by nature such as food, 
clean water and pollination on which human society depends. 

33 Finish Environment Institute, Green infra - The dependence of 

ecosystem services and biodiversity on the green infrastructure   

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
                                                            
comprehensively assessing the prerequisites for provision 
of a multitude of ecosystem services. 

TEEB  Finland  is  building  on  the  TEEB  Nordic  scoping 
assessment  and  it  will  be  implemented  in  close  co-
operation  with  a  number  of  on-going  national  projects, 
e.g.  developing  national  ecosystem  service  indicators 
(FESSI) and Green Infrastructure. 

Soil protection  

further  soil  degradation  and 

The  EU  Soil  Thematic  Strategy  highlights  the  need  to 
ensure  a  sustainable  use  of  soils.  This  requires  the 
prevention  of 
the 
preservation of its functions, as well as the restoration of 
degraded  soils.  The  2011  Road  Map  for  Resource-
Efficient  Europe,  part  of  Europe  2020  Strategy  provides 
that  by  2020,  EU  policies  take  into  account  their  direct 
and  indirect  impact  on  land  use  in  the  EU  and  globally, 
and  the  rate  of  land  take  is  on  track  with  an  aim  to 
achieve no net land take by 2050. 

SDG  15  requires  countries  to  combat  desertification, 
restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by 
desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve 
a land-degradation-neutral world by 2030. 

Soil is an important resource for life and the economy. It 
provides  key  ecosystem  services  including  the  provision 
of food, fibre and biomass for renewable energy, carbon 
sequestration,  water  purification  and  flood  regulation, 
the provision of raw and building material. Soil is a finite 
and  extremely  fragile  resource.  Land  taken  by  urban 
development  and  infrastructure  is  highly  unlikely  to  be 
it  consumes  mostly 
reverted  to 
agricultural land and increases fragmentation of habitats. 
Soil  protection  is  not  subject  to  a  comprehensive  and 
coherent  set  of  rules  in  the  EU.  Existing  EU  policies  in 
areas  such  as  agriculture,  water,  waste,  chemicals,  and 
prevention  of  industrial  pollution  however  contribute  to 
the protection of soils but the continuous degradation of 
soil suggests that it is insufficiently protected. 

its  natural  state; 

Artificial  land  cover  is  used  for  settlements,  production 
systems and infrastructure. It may itself be split between 
built-up areas (buildings) and non-built-up areas (such as 
linear transport networks and associated areas). 

The  annual  land  take  rate  (growth  of  artificial  areas)  as 
provided  by  CORINE  Land  Cover  was  0.41%  in  Finland 
over  the  period  2006-12,  equal  to  the  EU  average 
(0.41%). It represented 1851 hectares per year34 and was 
mainly driven by housing, services and recreation. 

The annual land take rate (growth of artificial areas) was 
1.96%  over  the  period  2000-06,  below  the  EU  average 

34 European Environment Agency Draft results of CORINE Land Cover 

(CLC) inventory 2012; mean annual land take 2006-12 as a % of 2006 
artificial land. 

Finland  13 

(2.90%). It represented 1,544 hectares per year and was 
mainly  driven  by  housing,  services  and  recreation  .The 
percentage  of  built  up  land  in  2009  was  0.59%,  well 
below the EU average (3.23%)35.  

In  Finland,  the  soil  water  erosion  rate  in  2010  was  0.06 
tonnes  per  ha  per  year,  well  below  EU28  average  (2.46 
tonnes)36. 

There  are  still  not  EU-wide  datasets  enabling  the 
provision of benchmark indicators for soil organic matter 
decline, contaminated sites, pressures on soil biology and 
diffuse pollution. 

An  updated  inventory  and  assessment  of  soil  protection 
policy  instruments  in  Finland  and  other  EU  Member 
States is being performed by the EU Expert Group on Soil 
Protection. 

Figure 8  shows  the  different  land  cover  types  in  Finland 
in 2012. 
Figure 8: Land Cover types in Finland 201237 

35 European Environment Agency, 2016. Imperviousness and 

imperviousness change 

36 Eurostat, Soil water erosion rate, Figure 2, accessed November 2016 
37 European Environment Agency, Land cover 2012 and changes country 

analysis [publication forthcoming] 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
 
 
 
                                                            
Marine protection 

Suggested action 

Finland  14 

The EU Coastal and Marine Policy and legislation require 
that by 2020 the impact of pressures on marine waters is 
reduced  to  achieve  or  maintain  good  environmental 
status and coastal zones are managed sustainably. 

SDG  14  requires  countries  to  conserve  and  sustainably 
use  the  oceans,  seas  and  marine  resources 
for 
sustainable development. 
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)38 aims 
to  achieve  Good  Environmental  Status  (GES)  of  the  EU's 
marine  waters  by  2020  by  providing  an  ecosystem 
approach  to  the  management  of  human  activities  with 
impact  on  the  marine  environment.  The  Directive 
requires  Member  States  to  develop  and  implement  a 
marine  strategy  for  their  marine  waters,  and  cooperate 
with  Member  States  sharing  the  same  marine  region  or 
subregion. 

As part of their marine strategies, Member States had to 
make  an  initial  assessment  of  their  marine  waters, 
determine  GES39  and  establish  environmental  targets  by 
July  2012.  They  also  had  to  establish  monitoring 
programmes for the on-going assessment of their marine 
waters  by  July  2014.  The  next  element  of  their  marine 
strategy is to establish a Programme of Measures (2016).  

Finnish  marine  protected  areas  covered  8,153.3  square 
kilometers of its marine water in the Baltic Sea40.  

In its implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive, Finland addresses GES for all descriptors. It has 
generally  used  existing  EU  requirements  and  standards 
and  places  a  strong  emphasis  on  standards  and 
assessments developed in the region though the Regional 
Sea  Convention  for  the  Baltic  Sea,  HELCOM.  However, 
the  GES  definition  is  generally  qualitative  and  therefore 
not yet defined in a way which is measurable41.  

It  is  therefore  too  early  to  say  whether  Finnish  marine 
waters  are  in  good  status  as  there  were  weaknesses  in 
identifying what GES is in the first place. 

its 
Finland  established  a  monitoring  programme  of 
marine  waters  in  2014.  The  monitoring  programme  is 
well-developed and adequate in many areas42. 

38 European Union, Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC 
39 The MSFD defines Good Environmental Status (GES) in Article 3 as: 
“The environmental status of marine waters where these provide 
ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, 
healthy and productive” 

40 2012 Data provided by the European Environmental Agency to the 

European Commission – Not published 

41 Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Commission 
Report on "The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European Commission's 
assessment and guidance" (SWD(21014) 049 final and 
COM(2014)097 final) 

42 . Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the 
Commission Report assessing Member States' monitoring 

  Continue  work  to  improve  the  definitions  of  GES  in 
particular 
including 
for  biodiversity  descriptors, 
through regional cooperation by using the work of the 
relevant Regional Sea Convention. 
  Identify and address knowledge gaps. 
  Continue to integrate existing monitoring programmes 
required  under  other  EU  legislation  and  to  implement 
at 
joint  monitoring 
(sub)regional level, for instance by HELCOM. 

programmes 

developed 

  Continue to enhance comparability and consistency of 
monitoring  methods  within  the  country's  marine 
region. 

  Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme 
appropriate to monitor progress towards GES. 

is 

fully 

programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
(COM(2017)3 and SWD(2017)1 final) 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
 
                                                                                                 
3. Ensuring citizens' health and quality of life 

Finland  15 

Air quality  

The  EU  Clean  Air  Policy  and  legislation  require  that  air 
quality  in  the  Union  is  significantly  improved,  moving 
closer  to  the  WHO  recommended  levels.  Air  pollution 
and its impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity should be 
further reduced with the long-term aim of not exceeding 
critical  loads  and  levels.  This  requires  strengthening 
efforts  to  reach  full  compliance  with  Union  air  quality 
legislation  and  defining  strategic  targets  and  actions 
beyond 2020. 

The  EU  has  developed  a  comprehensive  suite  of  air 
legislation43,  which  establishes  health-based 
quality 
standards  and  objectives  for  a  number  of  air  pollutants. 

ammonia  only  modest  emission  reductions  have  been 
recorded  (-2%),  and  emissions  for  this  pollutant  are  still 
15% above current ceilings. 

At the same time, air quality in Finland continues to give 
cause  for  concern.  For  the  year  2013,  the  European 
Environment  Agency46  estimated  that  about  1  730 
premature  deaths  were  attributable  to  fine  particulate 
matter 
ozone 
concentrations48.  Although  concentrations  above  EU  air 
quality  standards  such  as  shown  in  Figure  949  are  rare, 
significant health risks still exist. 

concentrations47, 

and 

80 

to 

For 2014, exceedances above the EU air quality standards 
to  annual  mean 
have  been 

registered 

related 

Figure 9: Attainment situation for PM10, NO2 and O3 in 2014 in Finland 

that  up-to-date 

As  part  of  this,  Member  States  are  also  required  to 
ensure 
information  on  ambient 
concentrations  of  different  air  pollutants  is  routinely 
made  available  to  the  public.  In  addition,  the  National 
Emission  Ceilings  Directive  provides 
for  emission 
reductions  at  national  level  that  should  be  achieved  for 
main pollutants.  

The  emission  of  several  air  pollutants  has  decreased 
significantly  in  Finland44.  Reductions  between  1990  and 
2014 for sulphur oxides (-83%), nitrogen oxides (-52%), as 
well  as  volatile  organic  compounds  (-70%)  ensure  air 
emissions  for  these  pollutants  are  within  the  currently 
applicable  national  emission  ceilings45.  Conversely,  for 

43 European Commission, 2016. Air Quality Standards 
44 See EIONET Central Data Repository and Air pollutant emissions data 

viewer (NEC Directive) 

45 The current national emission ceilings apply since 2010 (Directive 

concentration  of  nitrogen  dioxide  (NO2)50  in  one  air 

2001/81/EC); revised ceilings for 2020 and 2030 have been set by 
Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of 
certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and 
repealing Directive 2001/81/EC. 

46 European Environment Agency, 2016. Air Quality in Europe – 2016 
Report (Table 10.2, please see details in this report as regards the 
underpinning   methodology) 

47 Particulate matter (PM) is a mixture of aerosol particles (solid and 
liquid) covering a wide range of sizes and chemical compositions. 
PM10 (PM2.5) refers to particles with a diameter of 10 (2.5) 
micrometres or less. PM is emitted from many anthropogenic 
sources, including combustion. 

48 Low level ozone is produced by photochemical action and it is also a 

greenhouse gas. 

49 Based on European Environment Agency, 2016. Air Quality in Europe 

– 2016 Report (Figures 4.1, 5.1 and 6.1) 

50 NOx is emitted during fuel combustion e.g. from industrial facilities 
and the road transport sector. NOx is a group of gases comprising 
nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
                                                                                                 
 
quality  zone  (Helsinki51,  which  was  covered  by  a  time 
extension  and  will  only  need  to  show  compliance  from 
2015  onwards).  Furthermore,  target  values  for  annual 
mean  concentrations  have  been  exceeded  for  arsenic 
and for benzo(a)pyrene in at least one air quality zone52. 
Exceedances  on  target  values  for  cadmium  and  nickel 
may also occur in some years. 

including  assessing  the  exposure  to 
requirements, 
environmental  noise  through  noise  mapping,  ensuring 
that information on environmental noise and its effects is 
made  available  to  the  public,  and  adopting  action  plans 
with  a  view  to  preventing  and  reducing  environmental 
noise  where  necessary  and  to  preserving  the  acoustic 
environment quality where it is good. 

Finland  16 

It is estimated that the health-related external costs from 
air  pollution  in  Finland  are  above  EUR  2  billion/year 
(income  adjusted,  2010),  which  include  not  only  the 
intrinsic  value  of  living  a  full  health  life  but  also  direct 
costs to the economy. These direct economic costs relate 
to 542 thousand workdays lost each year due to sickness 
related  to  air  pollution,  with  associated  costs  for 
employers  of  EUR  74  million/year  (income  adjusted, 
2010),  for  healthcare  of  above  EUR  8  million/year 
(income adjusted, 2010), and for agriculture (crop losses) 
of EUR 29 million/year (2010)53. 

Suggested action 

  Maintain  downward  emissions  trends  of  air  pollutants 
in  order  to  achieve  full  compliance  with  currently 
applicable  national  emission  ceilings  and  air  quality 
limit values - and reduce adverse air pollution impacts 
on health, environment and economy.  

  Reduce  ammonia  (NH3)  emissions  to  comply  with 
currently  applicable  national  emission  ceilings54,  for 
example  by  introducing  or  expanding  the  use  of  low-
emission agricultural techniques. 

reduce  nitrogen  dioxide 

  Reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions to comply with 
currently applicable national emission ceilings55 and/or 
to 
(and  ozone 
(NO2) 
inter  alia,  by  reducing  transport 
concentrations), 
related  emissions  - 
in  urban  areas, 
especially Helsinki. 

in  particular 

Noise 

The  Environmental  Noise  Directive  provides  for  a 
common  approach  for  the  avoidance,  prevention  and 
reduction  of  harmful  effects  due  to  exposure  to 
environmental noise. 

Finnish authorities have fulfilled all their obligations with 
regards  to  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive57  for  the 
current reporting period. 

Water quality and management 

(including  surface  and  ground  waters) 

The  EU  water  policy  and  legislation  require  that  the 
impact  of  pressures  on  transitional,  coastal  and  fresh 
is 
waters 
significantly  reduced  to  achieve,  maintain  or  enhance 
good  status  of  water  bodies,  as  defined  by  the  Water 
Framework Directive; that citizens throughout the Union 
benefit from high standards for safe drinking and bathing 
water;  and  that  the  nutrient  cycle  (nitrogen  and 
phosphorus)  is  managed  in  a  more  sustainable  and 
resource-efficient way. 

SDG  6  encourages  countries  to  ensure  availability  and 
sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. 

The  main  overall  objective  of  EU  water  policy  and 
legislation  is  to  ensure  access  to  good  quality  water  in 
sufficient  quantity  for  all  Europeans.  The  EU  water 
acquis58  seeks  to  ensure  good  status  of  all  water  bodies 
across Europe by addressing pollution sources (from e.g. 
agriculture, urban areas and industrial activities), physical 
and  hydrological modifications  to  water  bodies)  and  the 
management of risks of flooding.  

River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMPs)  are  a 
requirement  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  a 
means  of  achieving  the  protection,  improvement  and 
sustainable use of the water environment across Europe. 
This includes surface freshwaters such as lakes and rivers, 
groundwater,  estuaries  and  coastal  waters  up  to  one 
nautical mile. 

Excessive  noise  is  one  of  the  main  causes  of  health 
issues56.  To alleviate  this,  the  EU  acquis  sets  out  several 

Finland  has  provided  information  to  the  Commission 
from  its  second  generation  of  RBMPs.  However,  as  the 

51 Pääkaupunkiseutu (HSY-alue*) 
52 See The EEA/Eionet Air Quality Portal and the related Central Data 

Repository 

53 These figures are based on the Impact Assessment for the European 

Commission Integrated Clean Air Package (2013) 

54 Under the provisions of the revised National Emission Ceilings 

Directive, Member States now may apply for emission inventory 
adjustments. Pending evaluation of any adjustment application, 
Member States should keep emissions under close control with a 
view to further reductions. 

55 Ibid. 
56 WHO/JRC, 2011, Burden of disease from environmental noise, 

Fritschi, L., Brown, A.L., Kim, R., Schwela, D., Kephalopoulos, S. (eds), 

World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 
Denmark 

57 The Noise Directive requires Member States to prepare and publish, 
every 5 years, noise maps and noise management action plans for 
agglomerations with more than 100,000 inhabitants, and for major 
roads, railways and airports.  

58 This includes the Bathing Waters Directive (2006/7/EC); the Urban 

Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) concerning 
discharges of municipal and some industrial waste waters; the 
Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) concerning potable water 
quality; the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) concerning 
water resources management; the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) 
and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
                                                                                                 
Commission  has  not  yet  been  able  to  validate  this 
information  for  all  Member  States,  it  is  not  reported 
here. 

In  its  first  generation  of  RBMPs  Finland  reported  the 
status of 1,602 rivers, 4,275 lakes, 276 coastal and 3,804 
groundwater  bodies.  The  areal  coverage  of  the  water 
bodies is 85% of all Finnish lakes, about 90% of rivers and 
100%  of  coastal  waters.  30%  of  natural  surface  water 
bodies achieve a good or high ecological status ecological 
status59 (while the status of 53% is unknown) and 35% of 
heavily  modified  or  artificial  water  bodies60  achieve  a 
good  or  high  ecological  potential.  63%  of  surface  water 
bodies  (37%  unknown),  90%  of  heavily  modified  and 
artificial  water  bodies  and  92%  of  groundwater  bodies 
achieve  good  chemical  status61.  98%  of  groundwater 
bodies are in good quantitative status62. 
The main pressure on Finnish waters is diffuse pollution63 
that affects 20% of surface water bodies. Point sources of 
pollution  and  water  flow  regulation  or  morphological 
alteration affect smaller proportion of water bodies – 5% 
and  3%  respectively.  There  are  significant  regional 
differences,  e.g.  in  the  Kokemäenjoki  river  basin  district 
in the South West of the country 48% of water bodies are 
affected  by  diffuse  sources  of  pollution,  18%  by  point 
sources and 8% by hydromorphological changes.  

There  are  deficiencies 
in  the  Finnish  River  Basin 
Management  Plans  related  to  the  unknown  status  of 
large portions of water bodies. Programmes of Measures 
are  expected  to  result  in  improved  ecological  status  of 
natural  surface  water  bodies  by  6%  and  ecological 
potential of artificial or heavily modified water bodies by 
9%, and almost no improvement in the chemical status of 
water  bodies.  A  high  number  of  exemptions  have  been 
applied. 

its  action  programme 
Finland  has  recently  revised 
the  Nitrates  Directive.  The  action 
implementing 
programme  is  applying  to  the  whole  national  territory. 
Data  concerning  the  2008-2011  period  showed  that 
nitrate  concentrations 
in  groundwater  and  surface 
waters did not raise particular concern. However Finland 
is one of the countries bordering the Baltic Sea, which is 
heavily  affected  by  nutrients  pollution.  HELCOM 

59 Good ecological status is defined in the Water Framework Directive, 
in terms of the quality of the biological community, the hydrological 
characteristics and the chemical characteristics. 

60 Many European river basins and waters have been altered by human 
activities, such as land drainage, flood protection and building of 
dams to create reservoirs. 

61 Good chemical status is defined in the Water Framework Directive in 
terms of compliance with all the quality standards established for 
chemical substances at European level. 

62 For groundwater, a precautionary approach has been taken that 

comprises a prohibition on direct discharges to groundwater, and (to 
cover indirect discharges) a requirement to monitor groundwater 
bodies. 

63 Diffuse pollution comes from widespread activities with no one 

discrete source. 

Finland  17 

estimation  of  normalized  inputs  of  nitrogen  shows,  for 
instance, that Finland increased its nitrogen inputs to the 
Bothnian  Bay64.  There  are  also  some  concerns  on  the 
fertilization in forest ecosystems, which might contribute 
to nutrient leaching in the Baltic Sea. 

As  regards  drinking  water,  Finland  reaches  very  high 
compliance 
for  microbiological, 
chemical  and  indicator  parameters  laid  down  in  the 
Drinking Water Directive65. 

rates  of  99-100% 

As  shown  in  Figure  10,  there  has  been  a  modest 
improvement  since  2014 
in  bathing  water  quality, 
reaching  almost  EU  average.  In  2015,  in  Finland  out  of 
301  bathing  waters,  83.1%  were  of  excellent  quality, 
9.3%  of  good  quality,  and  2.0%  of  sufficient  quality.  2 
bathing  waters  were  of  poor  quality  or  non-compliant 
while  it  was  not  possible  to  assess  the  remaining  15 
bathing waters66. 
Figure 10: Bathing water quality 2012 – 201567 

Finland  demonstrates  excellent  compliance  rates  with 
the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive.  The 
estimated  investment  needs  for  urban  waste  water 
treatment  (reported  by  Finland  under  Article  17  of  the 
Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive)  are  of  EUR  47 
million68. 

64 Helcom, (How much is left to reach the HELCOM nutrient reduction 

targets set for a clean Baltic Sea?)  

65 Commission's Synthesis Report on the Quality of Drinking Water in 
the Union examining Member States' reports for the 2011-2013 
period, foreseen under Article 13(5) of Directive 98/83/EC; 
COM(2016)666. 

66 European Environment Agency, 2016. European bathing water quality 

in 2015, p. 26 

67 European Environment Agency, State of bathing water, 2016 
68 European Commission, Eighth Report on the Implementation Status 
and the Programmes for Implementation of the Urban Waste Water 
Directive (COM (2016)105 final) and Commission Staff Working 
Document accompanying the report (SWD(2016)45 final). 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
 
                                                            
Suggested action 

  Improve  the  monitoring  system  and  methods  for 
assessment of status to resolve uncertainties about the 
status of many water bodies. 

fertilizers, 

  Review  the  implementation  of    the  Nitrates  Directive 
provisions (e.g. measures concerning both organic and 
mineral 
application 
techniques,  buffer  strips  and  fertilization  on  sloping 
grounds provisions, appropriate fertilization standards, 
appropriate safeguards for storage on field) , especially 
in order to reduce nutrient losses to the Baltic Sea. 

closed  periods, 

  Take  effective  basic  and  supplementary  measures  to 
address  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture,  mainly 
phosphates  (e.g.  measures  to  prevent  soil  runoff  and 
sedimentation,  proper  disposal  of  manure,  integrated 
pest management). 

  Review  and 

improve  measures  (e.g.  removal  of 
redundant  flow  barriers  and  the  installation  of  fish 
passes) to reduce hydromorphological pressure in river 
basins. 

Enhancing the sustainability of cities  

The  EU  Policy  on  the  urban  environment  encourages 
implement  policies  for  sustainable  urban 
cities  to 
planning and design, including innovative approaches for 
urban  public 
sustainable 
buildings,  energy  efficiency  and  urban  biodiversity 
conservation.  

transport  and  mobility, 

SDG11  aims  at  making  cities  and  human  settlements 
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. 

Europe is a Union of cities and towns; around 75% of the 
EU  population  are  living  in  urban  areas69.  The  urban 
environment  poses  particular  challenges 
the 
environment  and  human  health,  whilst  also  providing 
opportunities and efficiency gains in the use of resources.  

for 

The  Member  States,  European  institutions,  cities  and 
stakeholders have prepared a new Urban Agenda for the 
EU  (incorporating  the  Smart  Cities  initiative)  to  tackle 
these  issues  in  a  comprehensive  way,  including  their 
connections with social and economic challenges. At the 
heart  of  this  Urban  Agenda  will  be  the  development  of 
twelve  partnerships  on  the  identified  urban  challenges, 
including air quality and housing70.  

The  European  Commission  will 
benchmark system in 201771. 

launch  a  new  EU 

The  EU  stimulates  green  cities  through  awards  and 

69 European Environment Agency, Urban environment 
70 http://urbanagendaforthe.eu/ 
71 The Commission is developing an Urban Benchmarking and 

Monitoring ('UBaM') tool to be launched in 2017. Best practices 
emerge and these will be better disseminated via the app featuring 
the UBaM tool, and increasingly via e.g. EUROCITIES, ICLEI, CEMR, 
Committee of the Regions, Covenant of Mayors and others. 

Finland  18 

funding,  such  as  the  EU  Green  Capital  Award  aimed  at 
cities  with  more  than  100,000  inhabitants  and  the  EU 
Green  Leaf  initiative  aimed  at  cities  and  towns,  with 
between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants.  

Of  all  the  applicant  cities  for  the  2017  Green  Capital 
Award72,  Lahti  has 
the  most  cycle  paths  with 
3.8m/inhabitant.  Lahti has  also  pioneered a  peer  review 
tool  for  developing  their  own  environmental  work 
activities  and  sustainable  development  goals;  the  town 
has  also  assisted  a  number  of  European  cities  in  their 
mutual  environment  and  sustainable  development  peer 
reviews73.  

Tampere  has  included  environmental  and  sustainable 
development  criteria 
in  their  public  procurement. 
Furthermore,  Tampere  has  an  environmental  target  for 
organic  and  fair-trade  products;  to  date  155  Tampere 
kitchens  have  joined  the  "Stairs  Create"  and  other 
programmes  committed  to  use  organic  products  on  a 
regular basis74. 

The EcoSairila project aims to create a new growth centre 
for green industry in Mikkeli. The EcoSairila coordination 
project  2015‐16  is  funded  by  the  ERDF.  The  project  will 
provide a unique environment to develop and pilot new 
techniques  and  concepts  for  the  circular  economy  and 
eco‐efficient  treatment  solutions.  The  planned  land  use 
in  the  project  will  allow  for  more  than  100  hectares  of 
new 
industrial  area  alongside  the  waste  treatment 
centre75.  Nearby,  the  Green  Energy  Showroom  is  a 
network  of  green  energy  organisations  operating  in 
Lappeenranta, with the aim to provide an opportunity for 
local enterprises to develop and market innovative high‐
tech  solutions  in  the  fields  of  energy,  environmental 
technology and sustainable development76. 

72 European Commission, Urban Environment Good Practice & 

Benchmarking Report European Green Capital Award 2017, p.11 

73 European Commission, Urban Environment Good Practice & 

Benchmarking Report European Green Capital Award 2017, p.57 
74 European Commission, European Green Capital Good Practice Report 

2014, p.29 

75 European Commission , European Green Leaf 2015, Good Practice 

Report, p.36 

76 European Commission , European Green Leaf 2015, Good Practice 

Report, p.15 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
                                                            
Finland  19 

In  June  2016  the  Finnish  Innovation  Fund  Sitra,  the 
metropolitan  region  cities,  and  Ministries  founded  the 
Helsinki  Metropolitan  Smart  &  Clean  Foundation.  Its 
purpose is to turn the Helsinki Metropolitan Area into an 
internationally  important  reference  area  for  ecological 
and  smart  solutions.  The  main  fields  of  action  include 
traffic  and  movement,  construction,  energy,  waste  and 
water, as well as consumer cleantech. 

International agreements  

The  EU  Treaties  require  that  the  Union  policy  on  the 
environment  promotes  measures  at  the  international 
level  to  deal  with  regional  or  worldwide  environmental 
problems. 

Most  environmental  problems  have  a  transboundary 
nature  and  often  a  global  scope  and  they  can  only  be 
addressed effectively through international co-operation. 
International  environmental  agreements  concluded  by 
the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union 
and  on  its Member  States. This  requires  the  EU and the 
Member  States  to  sign,  ratify  and  effectively  implement 
all  relevant  multilateral  environmental  agreements 
(MEAs) in a timely manner. This will also be an important 
contribution  towards  the  achievement  of  the  SDGs, 
which Member States committed to in 2015 and include 
many  commitments  contained  already  in  legally  binding 
agreements. 

The  fact  that  some  Member  States  did  not  sign  and/or 
ratify  a  number  of  MEAs  compromises  environmental 
implementation,  including  within  the  Union,  as  well  as 
the  Union’s  credibility 
in  related  negotiations  and 
the 
international  meetings  where 
participation of third countries to such agreements is an 
established  EU  policy  objective.  In  agreements  where 
voting takes place it has a direct impact on the number of 
votes to be cast by the EU. 

supporting 

Finland has signed and ratified almost all MEAs.  

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
Part II: Enabling Framework: Implementation Tools 

4. Market based instruments and investment 

Finland  20 

on  electricity, resulting  in  electricity  prices  twice  as high 
for  private  consumers  as  for  business  users  (0.15 
EUR/kWh versus 0.07 EUR/kWh).  

Figure  11:  Environmental  tax  revenues  as  a  share  of 
total  revenues  from  taxes  and  social  contributions  
(excluding imputed social contributions) in 2014 

Green taxation and environmentally harmful 
subsidies 

The Circular Economy Action Plan encourages the use of 
financial  incentives  and  economic  instruments,  such  as 
taxation  to  ensure  that  product  prices  better  reflect 
environmental costs. The phasing out of environmentally 
harmful  subsidies  is  monitored  in  the  context  of  the 
European  Semester  and  in  national  reform  programmes 
submitted by Member States. 

Taxing pollution and resource use can generate increased 
revenue  and  bring  important  social  and  environmental 
benefits. 

In  2014,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  GDP,  Finland’s 
revenue from environmental taxation (2.88%) was above 
the EU28 average of 2.46%. As shown in Figure 11, in the 
same  year  environmental  tax  revenues  accounted  for 
6.57%  of  total  revenues  from  taxes  and  social-security 
contributions (EU28 average: 6.35%).  
A  2016  study77  shows  significant  potential  for  shifting 
taxes  from  labour  to  environmental  taxes  in  Finland, 
when compared to rates in other similar countries. Under 
a good practice scenario78, these taxes could generate an 
additional  EUR  1.08  billion  in  2018,  rising  to  EUR  2.23 
billion 
is 
equivalent to an increase by 0.51% and 0.93% of GDP in 
2018 and 2030, respectively.  

in  real  2015  terms).  This 

in  2030  (both 

According  to  this  study,  the  largest  additional  source  of 
revenue would come from a waste abstraction tax which 
could generate EUR 0.64 billion of revenue generated in 
2030 (real 2015 terms), equivalent to 0.27% of GDP. The 
next  largest  contribution  to  revenue  could  come  from 
taxes on transport fuels. This would account for EUR 0.62 
billion in 2030 (real 2015 terms), equivalent to 0.26% of 
GDP.  

Regarding  environmentally  harmful  subsidies  (EHS),  the 
petrol/diesel  tax  differential  in  Finland  has  diminished 
over time and is compensated by a fixed tax imposed on 
diesel  vehicles.  Another  key  EHS  relates  to  energy  taxes 

77 Eunomia Research and Consulting, IEEP, Aarhus University, ENT, 

2016. Study on Assessing the Environmental Fiscal Reform Potential 
for the EU28. N.B. National governments are responsible for setting 
tax rates within the EU Single Market rules and this report is not 
suggesting concrete changes as to the level of environmental 
taxation. It merely presents the findings of the 2016 study by 
Eunomia et al on the potential benefits various environmental taxes 
could bring. It is then for the national authorities to assess this study 
and their concrete impacts in the national context. A first step in this 
respect, already done by a number of Member States, is to set up 
expert groups to assess these and make specific proposals. 
78 The good practice scenario means benchmarking to a successful 

taxation practice in another Member State. 

Green Public Procurement  

The  EU  green  public  procurement  policies  encourage 
Member States to take further steps to reach the target 
of applying green procurement criteria to at least 50% of 
public tenders. 
Green  Public  Procurement  (GPP)  is  a  process  whereby 
public  authorities  seek  to  procure  goods,  services  and 
works  with  a  reduced  environmental  impact  throughout 
their  life-cycle  when  compared  to  goods,  services  and 
works  with  the  same  primary  function  that  would 
otherwise be procured.  

The  purchasing  power  of  public  procurement  equals  to 
approximately  14%  of  GDP79.  A  substantial  part  of  this 
money  is  spent  on  sectors  with  high  environmental 

79 European Commission, 2015. Public Procurement 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
 
                                                            
impact such as construction or transport, so GPP can help 
to  significantly  lower  the  impact  of  public  spending  and 
foster 
The 
innovative 
Commission has proposed EU GPP criteria80. 

businesses. 

sustainable 

A  national  strategy  on  Green  Public  Procurement  is 
included  in  the  Government  Decision  on  the  Promotion 
of  Sustainable  Environmental  and  Energy  solutions 
(cleantech solutions) in Public Procurement of 201381. In 
a 
all 
comprehensive  solution,  which  promotes  energy  and 
environmental  goals  and  utilises  cleantech  solutions  in 
the most economically advantageous way. 

government  procurements, 

goal 

the 

is 

More  detailed  targets  exist  for  different  product  areas: 
food and catering, vehicles and transports, construction, 
energy, services, energy related products82. 

GPP criteria are developed at the national level and there 
is  guidance83  and  criteria  for  16  procurement  areas 
including  food  and  catering,  vehicles  and  transport, 
construction,  energy  services,  energy  related  products, 
and  textiles  (workwear).  GPP  criteria  are  furthermore 
under  development  for  furniture,  cleaning  services, 
professional kitchen appliances, and printing services84. 

According  to  a  2010  study,  between  20%  and  30%  of 
Finnish  local  authorities  included  GPP  requirements  in 
between 50% and 100% of their contracts85. 

According  to  a  2011  survey,  Finnish  authorities  included 
at  least  one  of  the  EU  core  green  criteria  in  41%  of  the 
GPP-relevant  contracts,  and  15%  of  the  contracts 
included all the relevant EU core green criteria86. 

Investments: the contribution of EU funds  

European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  Regulations 
provide  that  Member  States  promote  environment  and 
funding  strategies  and 
climate  objectives 
programmes 
territorial 
cohesion,  rural  development  and  maritime  policy,  and 
reinforce the capacity of implementing bodies to deliver 

in  their 
for  economic, 

social  and 

Finland  21 

cost-effective and sustainable investments in these areas. 

Making  good  use  of  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds  (ESIF)87  is  a  powerful  tool  to  achieve 
the  environmental  goals  and  integrate  these  into  other 
policy areas. Other instruments such as the Horizon 2020, 
the  LIFE  programme  and  the  EFSI88  may  also  support 
implementation and spread of best practice. 

Figure 12: EU Structural & Investment Funds 2014-2020: 
Budget Finland by theme, EUR billion89 

The  total  ESIF  funding  for  Finland  for  the  2014-2020 
period  is  represented  in  the  figure  above,  of  which  the 
funding 
total  ERDF 
is  EUR  789.1  million.  ERDF 
investments 
in  R&I  are  100%  targeted  to  smart 
specialisation  of  the  regions.  The  selected  smart 
specialisation  areas  include  among  others:  cleantech, 
bioeconomy, energy efficiency and material efficiency.  

It is too early to draw conclusions as regards the use and 
results of ESIF for the period 2014-2020, as the relevant 
programmes  are  still 
in  an  early  stage  of  their 
implementation.  

80 In the Communication “Public procurement for a better environment” 
(COM /2008/400) the Commission recommended the creation of a 
process for setting common GPP criteria. The basic concept of GPP 
relies on having clear, verifiable, justifiable and ambitious 
environmental criteria for products and services, based on a life-cycle 
approach and scientific evidence base. 

81See link at Ministry of Environment, Programme to Promote 

Sustainable Consumption and Production    

82 European Commission, 2015. Documentation on National GPP Action 

Plans 

83Motiva – Focal Point for Sustainable and Innovative Public 

Procurement   

84 European Commission, 2015. Documentation on National GPP Action 

Plans 

85 Adelphi et al. 2011. Strategic Use of Public Procurement in Europe, 

87 ESIF comprises five funds – the European Regional Development 
Funds (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Social Fund 
(ESF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD), and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The 
ERDF, the CF and the ESF together form the Cohesion Policy funds. 

88 European Investment Bank, 2016 European Fund for Strategic 

Study for the European Commission 

Investments 

86 CEPS, 2012. Monitoring the Uptake of GPP in the EU, Study for the 

89 European Commission, European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Commission 

Data By Country 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
 
                                                            
5. Effective governance and knowledge 

Finland  22 

SDG  16  aims  at  providing  access  to  justice  and  building 
effective,  accountable  and  inclusive  institutions  at  all 
levels. SDG 17 aims at better implementation, improving 
policy  coordination  and  policy  coherence,  stimulating 
science, 
innovation,  establishing 
partnerships and developing measurements of progress. 

technology 

and 

Effective governance of EU environmental legislation and 
policies  requires  having  an  appropriate 
institutional 
framework,  policy  coherence  and  coordination,  applying 
legal  and  non-legal  instruments,  engaging  with  non-
governmental  stakeholders,  and  having  adequate  levels 
of  knowledge  and  skills90.  Successful  implementation 
depends, to a large extent, on central, regional and local 
government  fulfilling  key  legislative  and  administrative 
tasks,  notably  adoption  of 
implementing 
legislation,  co-ordinated  action  to  meet  environmental 
objectives  and  correct  decision-making  on  matters  such 
as  industrial  permits.  Beyond  fulfilment  of  these  tasks, 
government  must 
to  ensure  day-to-day 
compliance  by  economic  operators,  utilities  and 
individuals  ("compliance  assurance").  Civil  society  also 
has  a  role  to  play,  including  through  legal  action.  To 
underpin the roles of all actors, it is crucial to collect and 
share  knowledge  and  evidence  on  the  state  of  the 
environment  and  on  environmental  pressures,  drivers 
and impacts. 

intervene 

sound 

implemented  when 

Equally,  effective  governance  of  EU  environmental 
legislation  and  policies  benefits  from  a  dialogue  within 
Member  States  and  between  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  on  whether  the  current  EU  environmental 
legislation  is  fit  for  purpose.  Legislation  can  only  be 
properly 
into  account 
experiences  at  Member  State  level  with  putting  EU 
commitments  into  effect.  The  Make  it  Work  initiative,  a 
Member  State  driven  project,  established 
in  2014, 
organizes a discussion on how the clarity, coherence and 
legislation  can  be 
structure  of  EU  environmental 
protection 
existing 
improved,  without 
standards. 

lowering 

it  takes 

Effective governance within central, regional 
and local government 

Those  involved  in  implementing  environment  legislation 
at  Union,  national,  regional  and  local  levels  need  to  be 
equipped  with  the  knowledge,  tools  and  capacity  to 
improve  the  delivery  of  benefits  from  that  legislation, 
and the governance of the enforcement process. 

90 The Commission has work ongoing to improve the country-specific 
knowledge about quality and functioning of the administrative 
systems of Member States. 

Capacity to implement rules 

is 

that 

crucial 

regional  and 

It 
local 
federal, 
administrations  have  the  necessary  capacities  and  skills 
and training to carry out their own tasks and co-operate 
and  co-ordinate  effectively  with  each  other,  within  a 
system of multi-level governance. 

In  Finland,  the  Ministry  for  the  Environment  is  mainly 
responsible  for  formulating  environmental  policy.  The 
Acts  are  complemented  by  Decrees  adopted  by  the 
Government or the Ministry. The Ministry for Agriculture 
and  Forestry 
is  responsible  for  the  use  of  natural 
resources,  such  as  hunting,  fishing  and  water  use.    The 
current  Government  has  joined  these  tasks  under  one 
Minister. 

The  Regional  State  Administrative  Agencies 
(AVI) 
authorise environmental activities based on permits. The 
Centres  for  Economic  Development,  Transport  and  the 
Environment  (ELY  Centres)  are  responsible  for  the 
regional  implementation  and  development  tasks  of  the 
central government, including environmental monitoring 
and  supervision.  Municipalities  serve  both  as  permitting 
and  supervising  authorities  on 
local  environmental 
issues. 

Currently,  based  on  the  Strategic  Programme  of  the 
Finnish  Government,  there  is  a  major  reform  ongoing, 
the  purpose  of  which  is  to  harmonise  the  state  regional 
administration  with  county  government  administration 
and  to  rationalise  the  organisation  of  public-sector 
administration at state, regional and municipal levels.  

The  Åland  Province  is  autonomous  and  has  its  own 
competence 
including 
legislation and implementation. 

in  environmental  matters, 

The  National  Environmental  Policy  Programme  2005, 
prepared  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  in  1995, 
comprehensive  environmental 
was  Finland’s 
planning effort. Since then, several sectoral programmes 
for 
instance  on  energy  and  climate,  and  Finland’s 
Strategy for the Arctic Region, have been adopted. 

first 

The Ministry of the Environment's administrative branch 
includes the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and the 
Housing  Finance  and  Development  Centre  of  Finland 
(ARA). SYKE serves as a research institute and a centre for 
environmental  expertise.  SYKE's  research  focuses  on 
changes  in  the  environment,  and  seeks  ways  to  control 
these changes. SYKE acts also as competent authority for 
several  fields  (e.g.  EMAS,  CITES,  Basel).  Furthermore,  it 
has duties under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 
mainly concerning water management.  

The  Ministry  also  guides  and  funds  Parks  &  Wildlife 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
Finland  within  Metsähallitus, 
administering state-owned land and water areas.  

the  state  enterprise 

lay  the  basis  for  the  systems  Member  States  need  to 
have 
secure  compliance  with  EU 
to 
environmental rules. 

in  place 

Finland  23 

Public  authorities  help  ensure  accountability  of  duty-
holders by monitoring and promoting compliance and by 
taking credible follow-up action (i.e. enforcement) when 
breaches occur or liabilities arise. Compliance monitoring 
can  be  done  both  on  the 
initiative  of  authorities 
themselves  and  in  response to  citizen complaints. It  can 
involve  using  various  kinds  of  checks, 
including 
inspections  for  permitted  activities,  surveillance  for 
possible  illegal  activities,  investigations  for  crimes  and 
audits for systemic weaknesses. Similarly, there is a range 
of  means  to  promote  compliance,  including  awareness-
raising  campaigns  and  use  of  guidance  documents  and 
online  information  tools.  Follow-up  to  breaches  and 
(e.g. 
liabilities  can 
withdrawal of a permit), use of criminal law95 and action 
law  (e.g.  required  remediation  after 
under 
damage  from  an  accident  using 
liability  rules)  and 
contractual  law  (e.g.  measures  to  require  compliance 
with  nature  conservation  contracts).  Taken  together,  all 
of these interventions represent "compliance assurance" 
as shown in Figure 13. 

include  administrative  action 

liability 

Figure 13: Environmental compliance assurance 

The  2013  European  Quality  of  Government  Index  puts 
Finland in second place out of the 28 Member States with 
Åland in first place amongst all European Regions91. 

Compliance  with  EU  legislation  is  generally  ensured  in 
Finland.  Infringements  and  complaints  are  often  related 
to  different  aspects  of  nature  protection  which 
sometimes  attract  attention 
from  society.  Finnish 
authorities cooperate well with the Commission in order 
to  solve  issues  taken  up  by  the  Commission.  Finland's 
record for timely transposing legislation is good although 
the Åland Province occasionally transposes later than the 
Finnish mainland. 

Coordination and integration 

Impact  assessments  are 
important  tools  to  ensure 
environmental  integration  in  all  government  policies92. 
The  Commission  issued  a  guidance  document  in  201693 
regarding  the  setting  up  of  coordinated  and/or  joint 
procedures 
to 
assessments  under  the  EIA  Directive,  Habitats  Directive, 
Water Framework Directive, and the Industrial Emissions 
Directive94. 

simultaneously 

that  are 

subject 

Compliance assurance 

EU  law  generally  and  specific  provisions  on  inspections, 
other  checks,  penalties  and  environmental  liability  help 

91 Charron N., 2013. European Quality of Government Index (EQI) 
92 Article 11 of the TFEU provides that "Environmental protection 

requirements must be integrated into the definition and 
implementation of the Union's policies and activities, in particular 
with a view to promoting sustainable development." 

93 European Commission, 2016. Commission notice — Commission 
guidance document on streamlining environmental assessments 
conducted under Article 2(3) of the Environmental Impact 
Assessment Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU). 

94 European Commission, 2016. Commission notice — Commission 
guidance document on streamlining environmental assessments 
conducted under Article 2(3) of the Environmental Impact 
Assessment Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU). 

Best  practice  has  moved  towards  a  risk-based  approach 
at strategic and operational levels in which the best mix 
of compliance monitoring, promotion and enforcement is 
directed at the most serious problems. Best practice also 
recognises  the  need  for  coordination  and  cooperation 
between  different  authorities  to  ensure  consistency, 
avoid  duplication  of  work  and  reduce  administrative 
burden. Active participation in established pan-European 
networks  of  inspectors,  police,  prosecutors  and  judges, 
such as IMPEL96, EUFJE97, ENPE98 and EnviCrimeNet99, is a 

95European Union, Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC 
96 European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of 

Environmental Law. 

97 European Union Forum of judges for the environment. 
98 The European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment. 
99 EnviCrimeNet. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
 
                                                            
 
                                                            
Comment: Regarding the last indent, the Ministry of the Environment has 

published a guide for compliance supervision in the field of the 

environmental protection legislation (OH 9/2014) and guidance for 

compliance supervision (OH 2/2016). They are intended for government 

administration but municipal bodies may utilize them as well.  

Finland  24 

programs  for  environmental  inspectors  and  police 
officers are in place107. 

Up-to-date  information  is  lacking  in  relation  to  the 
following: 

 

  data-collection  arrangements  to  track  the  use  and 
effectiveness  of  different  compliance  assurance 
interventions108; 
the extent to which risk-based methods are used to 
direct  compliance  assurance  at  the  strategic  level 
in  relation  to  critical  activities  outside  of 
and 
industrial 
in  specific 
problem-areas highlighted elsewhere in this Country 
Report,  i.e.  the  threats  to  protected  habitat  types 
and  species,  air  pollution  and  nutrient  losses  to  the 
Baltic; 

in  particular 

installations, 

  how  the  Finnish  authorities  ensure  a  targeted  and 
proportionate  response  to  different  types  of  non-
compliant behaviour109.  

Finland is active within IMPEL and hosted an IMPEL IRI in 
2013.  

For the period between 2007 and 2013, Finland reported 
two cases of environmental damage dealt with under the 
Environmental  Liability  Directive  (ELD).  The  country  also 
suffered  a  major  accident  (i.e.  severe  negative  impact 
with high costs of restoration) after the reporting period 
involving 
leaks  of  toxic  metal-contaminated  tailings 
(Talvivaara).  Finland  has  developed  a  national  guidance 
document  on  environmental  liability.  It  did  not  set  up  a 
mandatory  financial  security  system  for  liabilities  under 
the  Directive.  A  general  environmental  damage  fund110, 
which has been in existence for nearly two decades, may 
provide financial support in case of higher losses, but the 
fund  is  not  directly  applicable  to  environmental  damage 
under  the  ELD  (just  applicable  to  bodily  injury,  property 
damage 
caused  by 
environmental damage).    

and  pure 

economic 

loss 

Suggested action 

  Improve 

transparency  on 

the  organisation  and 
functioning  of  compliance  assurance  and  on  how 
significant risks are addressed, as outlined above. 

valuable tool for sharing experience and good practices. 

Currently, there exist a number of sectoral obligations on 
inspections  and  the  EU  Directive  on  Environmental 
Liability  (ELD)100  provides  a  means  of  ensuring  that  the 
is  applied  when  there  are 
"polluter-pays  principle" 
accidents  and  incidents  that  harm  the  environment. 
There 
information  giving 
insights  into  existing  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  each 
Member State. 

is  also  publically  available 

For  each  Member  State,  the  following  were  therefore 
reviewed:  use  of  risk-based  compliance  assurance; 
coordination  and  co-operation  between  authorities  and 
participation in pan-European networks; and key aspects 
of implementation of the ELD based on the Commission's 
recently  published  implementation  report  and  REFIT 
evaluation101.  

Finland  has  adopted  a  range  of  measures  to  underpin 
compliance assurance, for example: 

 

 

 

 

the 

with 

associations 

a  comprehensive  set  of  compliance  promotion 
including  technical  assistance,  regular 
measures, 
dialogue  with 
community, 
regulated 
dissemination  of  guides  on  best  practices  and  co-
financing 
of 
business 
environmental management studies102; 
the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  has  published  a 
guide  for  compliance  monitoring  in  the  field  of 
environment  protection  legislation103  and  guidance 
for compliance monitoring104; 
a  compliance  monitoring  data  system  (VAHTI)  has 
been  established  which 
is  assessable  by  all 
inspectorates  and  includes,  inter  alia,  permitting 
documentation  of  industrial  facilities  and  relevant 
inspection  reports105.  Basic  tools  for  digitalized 
environmental  permitting  will be  put  into operation 
in turn of the year 2016-2017; 
there  is  a  high  degree  of  specialisation  along  the 
compliance assurance chain, including police officers 
combating 
and 
environmental 
specialised 
administrative  court  in  Vaasa106.  Advanced  training 

specialised 
and 

prosecutors 

crime 

in 
a 

100European Union, Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/CE. 
101 COM(2016)204 final and COM(2016)121 final of 14.4.2016. This 

highlighted the need for better evidence on how the directive is used 
in practice; for tools to support its implementation, such as guidance, 
training and ELD registers; and for financial security to be available in 
case events or incidents generate remediation costs. 

102 Outcomes of dialogues with duty-holders are recorded in a 

dedicated compliance monitoring system (VAHTI). National-level 
negotiations with representatives of specific industrial sectors are 
also organised on a regular basis. See OECD, 'Ensuring Environmental 
Compliance: Trends and Good Practices', 2009, p. 105-106.  

103 OH 9/2014 
104 OH 2/2016 
105 Finland has indicated that basic tools for digitalized environmental 
permitting will be put into operation in turn of the year 2016-2017. 
106 OECD, 2009. Environmental Performance Reviews - Finland. p. 161, 

192.  

  Encourage 
authorities 
EnviCrimeNet. 

greater  participation  of 
competent 
in  the  activities  of  ENPE,  EUFJE  and 

107 OECD, 2009. Ensuring Environmental Compliance: Trends and Good 

Practices, p. 111; IMPEL IRI Finland 2013, p. 4.  

108 Evidence indicates that relevant data collection covers mainly input 
and output parameters, with scope to improve how performance is 
measured and reported, see IMPEL IRI Finland 2013, p. 6, 29 and 48; 
OECD, 2009. Ensuring Environmental Compliance: Trends and Good 
Practices, p. 110-111.  

109 OECD, 2009. Environmental Performance Reviews - Finland, p. 162; 

IMPEL IRI Finland 2013, p. 6, 39 and 48.  

110 Environmental Damage Insurance Act (81/1998, “mandatory 

insurance scheme” 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
                                                            
  Step  up  efforts 

in  the 

implementation  of  the 
Environmental  Liability  Directive  (ELD)  with  proactive 
initiatives, in particular by setting up a national register 
of ELD incidents (this may be linked to the compliance 
monitoring  data  system  of  the  state  supervision 
authority,  if  feasible).  It  should  moreover  take  further 
steps to ensure an effective system of financial security 
for environmental liabilities. 

Public participation and access to justice 

The  Aarhus  Convention,  related  EU  legislation  on  public 
participation and environmental impact assessment, and 
the case-law of the Court of Justice require that citizens 
and  their  associations  should  be  able  to  participate  in 
decision-making  on  projects  and  plans  and  should  enjoy 
effective environmental access to justice. 

Citizens  can  more  effectively  protect  the  environment  if 
they can rely on the three "pillars" of the Convention on 
Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-
making  and  Access  to  Justice  in  Environmental  Matters 
("the  Aarhus  Convention").  Public  participation  in  the 
administrative  decision  making  process  is  an  important 
element to ensure that the authority takes its decision on 
the  best  possible  basis.  The  Commission  intends  to 
examine compliance with mandatory public participation 
requirements more systematically at a later stage. 

Access  to  justice  in  environmental  matters  is  a  set  of 
guarantees  that  allows  citizens  and  their  associations  to 
challenge  acts  or  omissions  of  the  public  administration 
before  a  court. 
for  decentralised 
It 
implementation of EU environmental law. 

is  a 

tool 

For  each  Member  State,  two  crucial  elements  for 
effective  access  to  justice  have  been  systematically 
reviewed:  the  legal  standing  for  the  public,  including 
NGOs and the extent to which prohibitive costs represent 
a barrier. 

Finnish law has established an effective access to justice 
framework  in  environmental  matters.  This  legislative 
framework consists of several legislative acts in the field 
of  the  environment 
including  provisions  on  public 
participation in decision-making, on the right to institute 
proceedings, and on the right to appeal. These provisions 
encompass the legal standing of environmental NGOs as 
well.  

Access to information, knowledge and 
evidence 

The  Aarhus  Convention  and  related  EU  legislation  on 
access  to  information  and  the  sharing  of  spatial  data 
require that the public has access to clear information on 
the environment, including on how Union environmental 
law is being implemented. 

Finland  25 

authorities 

public 
the  public, 

and 
increasingly 

It is of crucial importance to public authorities, the public 
and business that environmental information is shared in 
an  efficient  and  effective  way.  This  covers  reporting  by 
active 
and 
businesses 
through 
to 
dissemination 
electronic means. 
The  Aarhus  Convention111,  the  Access  to  Environmental 
Information  Directive112  and  the  INSPIRE  Directive113 
together  create  a  legal  foundation  for  the  sharing  of 
environmental  information  between  public  authorities 
and with the public. They also represent the green part of 
the  ongoing  EU  e-Government  Action  Plan114.  The  first 
to  provide 
two 
information  to  the  public,  both  on  request  and  actively. 
The  INSPIRE  Directive  is  a  pioneering  instrument  for 
electronic  data-sharing  of  spatial  information  between 
public  authorities  who  can  vary  in  their  data-sharing 
policies,  e.g.  on  whether  access  to  data  is  for  free.  The 
INSPIRE  Directive  sets  up  an  European  geoportal  which 
indicates the level of shared spatial data in each Member 
State  –  i.e.  data  related  to  specific  locations,  such  as  air 
quality  monitoring  data.  Amongst  other  benefits  its 
objective  is  to  facilitate  the  public  authorities'  reporting 
obligations.  

create  obligations 

instruments 

accessibility  of 
State, 
For  each  Member 
environmental data (based on what the INSPIRE Directive 
envisages)  as  well  as  data-sharing  policies  ('open  data') 
have been systematically reviewed.  

the 

Finland's  performance  on  the  implementation  of  the 
INSPIRE  Directive  as  enabling  framework  to  actively 
disseminate  environmental  information  to  the  public 
leaves  room  for  improvement,  as  in  most  Member 
States.  Finland  has  indicated  in  the  3-yearly  INSPIRE 
implementation report115 that the necessary data-sharing 
policies  allowing  access  and  use  of  spatial  data  by 
national 
States' 
administrations,  other  Member 
administrations  and  EU  institutions  without  procedural 
obstacles  are  available  and  implemented.  Driven  by  the 
Open  Programme  for  making  public  databases  available 
to  all  interested  parties,  spatial  data  is  largely  being 
published as open data. 
Assessments  of  monitoring  reports116  issued  by  Finland 
and the spatial information that Finland has published on 
the  INSPIRE  geoportal117  indicate  that  not  all  spatial 

111 UNECE, 1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public 
Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in 
Environmental Matters 

112 European Union, Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to 

environmental information 

113 European Union, INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC  
114 European Union, EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 - 

Accelerating the digital transformation of government COM(2016) 
179 final 

115 European Commission, INSPIRE reports 
116 Inspire indicator trends 
117 Inspire Resources Summary Report 

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland 

 
                                                            
Finland  26 

the 

needed 

evaluation 

and 
for 
information 
implementation of EU environmental law has been made 
available  or  is  accessible.  The  larger  part  of  this  missing 
spatial  information  consists  of  the  environmental  data 
required  to  be  made  available  under  the  existing 
reporting 
EU 
environmental law. 

and  monitoring 

regulations 

of 

Suggested action 

  Identify and document all spatial data sets required for 
the  implementation  of  environmental  law,  and  make 
the  data  and  documentation  (metadata)  at 
least 
accessible  'as  is'  to  other  public  authorities  and  the 
public  through  the  digital  services  foreseen  in  the 
INSPIRE Directive.  

Environmental Implementation Report – Finland