Now came a strong recommendation – alongside the Climate Act, a radical nature law for Finland

In Finland, the preparation of a new nature law should be started, the Finnish Nature Panel points out.

Binding mid- and long-term goals that exceed government terms should be stipulated in the Nature Act. According to the panel, a nature law similar to the Climate Act, guiding all administrative branches, would strengthen the predictability and consistency of nature policy.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Nature (IPBES) has published an assessment report on the connections between biodiversity and business. At the same time, the Nature Panel publishes a report on the key aspects of the report in Finland.

Currently, the control of nature loss is not controlled as a whole in Finland, and the fragmented nature of the legislation causes gaps and contradictions in the regulation, the Nature Panel believes.

“The Nature Act would have a binding effect on the application of planning, the use of natural resources and other nature-related legislation. It would obligate compliance with the mitigation hierarchy, i.e. the avoidance of harm to nature, mitigation and compensation for unavoidable harm. The Nature Act would support the realization of the fundamental right to the environment, and combined with the exception permit and compensation system, it would not conflict with the protection of property, despite the restrictions in individual cases,” says the chairman of the Nature Panel Janne Kotiaho in the bulletin.

According to the panel, Finland should build an “ecosystem accounting system based on natural value hectares” and a planning system based on it, which would guide land use and the approval of projects.

Nature damage fees are proposed for Finland

In addition, as part of the nature law in Finland, the “causer pays principle” should be widely adopted, which could be implemented, for example, with a nature damage fee, a land use change fee or mandatory ecological compensation that would concern construction and other land use.

In this way, costs would be transferred to actors who benefit from and are responsible for the deterioration of the state of nature. According to the panel, the obligation to overcompensate for damages would speed up the emergence of a natural value market and help the state to achieve the obligations of the EU restoration regulation.

“Without intervention in the creation of continuous natural harms, even significant protection and restoration measures are not enough to turn the state of Finland’s nature into a recovery. The cause-pays principle encourages looking for solutions that cause the least harm”, says Kotiaho.

Accounting obligation and nature damage tax

In the state’s public projects, project budgets should already include a 3–5 percent reserve for the implementation of ecological compensation at the beginning of planning and decision-making, the Nature Panel says.

In addition, according to the panel, companies should be required by law to keep records of their natural footprint. Based on that, the nature damage tax could be adjusted and tax information made public, the panel believes.

“Publicity of tax data would enable a quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental actions made by companies and would make the assessment of the relevance of sustainability claims reliable and transparent. Keeping silent about environmental actions and achievements weakens the spread of best practices. Keeping silent about actions also involves the risk that some actors may use it as an excuse to hide their own inaction, in which case it could be a new kind of greenwashing,” the Nature Panel writes in their recommendations.

The panel also reminds that, as part of the resolution of the UN Nature Conference, Finland has committed to mapping the subsidies that are harmful to nature and to remove or reallocate them to support the state of nature by 2030.

“Instead of actions that are harmful to the environment, actions that improve the state of the environment should be supported. The strengthening of biodiversity should be included more directly than at present, for example, in the conditions for receiving subsidies for agriculture and forestry,” says Kotiaho.