Litigation aimed at pushing politicians and governments to do more on climate change has become increasingly common in Europe in recent years, and the practice is beginning to gain traction in Finland too.
Environmental NGOs Greenpeace and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation sued the Finnish government last autumn for what they argued were insufficient measures to address the collapse of Finland's carbon sinks. The case marked Finland's first-ever climate trial.
In Finland, forests and soil have long been considered key carbon sinks, ecosystems that have the capability to take up more carbon from the atmosphere than they release.
The country's net carbon sink in the land use sector has significantly decreased, especially due to the slowdown in forest growth and the effects of increased logging, and Finland needs to do more in order to meet its EU obligations, according to environmentalists as well as a report by the Ministry of the Environment published in July.
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) dismissed the environmentalists' lawsuit in June, although the court noted at the time that a similar appeal could succeed in the future.
Yle spoke with three experts, Hanna Aho of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, environmental lawyer Matti Kattainen and professor of international environmental law Kati Kulovesi, about the case's significance in the future.
Aho and Kattainen were part of the team that drafted the climate appeal submitted to the SAC last year.
"The Supreme Administrative Court's decision was the best possible losing outcome for us and will serve as a stern warning for the government. In the future, the government must be able to demonstrate that its proposed means are sufficient to achieve the objectives enshrined in the Climate Act. Until now, there has been some room for manoeuvring on climate action, but now that window is shrinking," Kattainen said.
Professor Kulovesi echoed this sentiment, adding that the Finnish legal system is based on the principle that an appeal can be submitted wherever a decision has been made by a public authority.
This time the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the government had not made an appealable decision on the matter, but Kulovesi said that if inaction continues, the court was more likely to accept a similar case in the future.
This means that the more urgent the situation, the more likely a lawsuit would succeed, which is why a trial is more of a slow means of influencing as well as a last resort, rather than a primary course of action, conservation expert Hanna Aho told Yle.
Recent amendments to the Climate Act, which took place while the NGOs' appeal was still being processed by the SAC, may however speed up similar processes in the future, Kulovesi noted.
Environmental lawyer Kattainen said that the loss of biodiversity is also an issue where litigation could be considered in the future.
"In my opinion, the Supreme Administrative Court's line that politicians have a duty to act to slow down changes that threaten people's fundamental rights could also apply to the decline of biodiversity," Kattainen noted.