A landmark judgment for defending nature in Finland was handed by the Helsinki District Court last Friday. The court sided with a group of citizen activists, who were engaged in civil disobedience to stop the felling of trees in Laajasalo, Helsinki's largest island, during the fall of 2023.
The activists felt that ongoing public works, approved by the city, were illegal as the trees were close to an ephemeral streamlet*, a biotope specifically protected by law.
Finnish police had charged the environmental activists with “Insubordination", a specific article in Finnish law that requires citizens to obey police officers. One of the officers reportedly belittled the activists' actions during the arrest.
The usual punishment for “Insubordination to the police” is a fine, but the activists refused to accept the fine and took it to court. The Helsinki court gave a judgment that the activists’ actions were legal, and, going further, the prosecutor decided to press charges against six city officials and project managers for environmental offenses (news source here in Finnish).
This judgment is considered a huge victory for nature conservation and citizen activism, especially as it’s worded very clearly – “It has been a necessity** to defend a common interest protected by law,” the court stated in its ruling. “Therefore, the act has been necessary, defensible and justified.”
Before we go deeper into the ruling and its ramifications, it’s important to step back and look at the history of citizen activism for nature conservation in Finland.
In the 1980s, a group of activists chained themselves to equipment near Lake Koijärvi in Forssa, southern Finland. Their aim was to prevent the draining of a lake that was an important bird habitat. Eventually, the lake was not drained, while charges brought against the activists were argued all the way to the Supreme Court. In a landmark case at the time, the Court ruled that civil disobedience of this type was against the law.
However, the Koijärvi movement contributed to the founding of Finland's official Environmental Administration in 1983 (now called the Ministry for the Environment). Some of the activists, such as Ville Komsi and Osmo Soininvaara, were involved in the founding of the Green League. The same year, Komsi was elected as one of the two first members of the parliament for the Greens. The Koijärvi lake itself was later included in the Natura 2000 network, and the chains that the activists used are displayed in the Finnish Forest Museum Lusto.
During the intervening years many things have changed. The law governing nature conservation (luonnonsuojelulaki) has been amended to include more strictly conserved biotopes. Importantly, an awareness of the necessity of conserving nature has increased. Eco-activism and civil disobedience have also increased in recent years, with Extinction Rebellion being the most visible example.
The continuing public works in Laajasalo are for building new housing, and the site has been contested from the start. The Helsinki city council is divided on the topic, balancing between the need of a growing city and nature conservation. For some reason, they did not apply to the environmental authorities for an exception, but rather decided to start the works on a protected biotope. This oversight contributed to the positive judgment for civil disobedience.
The activists were supported by a recently established law firm and a foundation specializing in nature conservation cases. The case was seen as a strategic opportunity to create new case law related to nature conservation. The law firm has also received funding from the Kone foundation, “an independent and unaffiliated organisation that awards grants to promote academic research, culture and the arts”.
Time will tell if this ruling will be appealed to the higher courts. “This will open a lot of doors if it lasts until the end”, commented Ari Ekroos, Professor of Economic Law at Aalto University. "At first glance, this seems like a historical precedent if the district court's ruling becomes legally binding. In any case, the decision reflects the growing importance of such environmental litigation", commented Ismo Pölönen, Professor of Environmental Law (Bioeconomy and Natural Resources Law) at the UEF Law School.
The threat of logging and other works done in nature on vulnerable biotopes is clear. A stark example was seen in the summer of 2024, when a forestry machine operator drove over the protected Hukkajoki river multiple times, killing approximately 3000 endangered freshwater pearl mussels. There are multiple suspects under investigation for aggravated nature conservation crime.
Finland has over 100,000 springs, small creeks, and rivers. Almost half of them are protected biotopes. In forestry operations, land owners are required to take these and other limitations into consideration when trees are being harvested. However, oversight is sparse and there have been practically no judgments handed out on operating on or near protected biotopes. In addition, protected species, such as flying squirrels, should be taken into consideration when planning activities, but in reality this is not always the case.
Forestry and expanding cities are essential for the Finnish economy. Land owners, cities, and forestry companies have wide-ranging interests that the case will be appealed, hoping it will be overturned in higher courts. It will be very interesting to see if the case is appealed, and if so, what is the final outcome.
Many things contributed to the ruling: city oversight, tightened legislation, civil disobedience, and increased awareness and funding for environmental litigation. If the ruling stands, defending protected biotopes from imminent danger with civil disobedience will remain a necessity.
* A streamlet means a channel smaller than a brook whose catchment area is less than ten square kilometers, where water does not flow continuously and the passage of fish is not possible to any significant extent. Water Act (587/2011)
** An act necessary to ward off an immediate, compelling and imminent danger to a legally protected interest … Criminal Code (39/1889; amendments up to 433/2021 included)
