Finland’s Supervisory Agency (LVV) has told the company behind Google’s planned data centres in Muhos and Kajaani to suspend work that would “significantly alter the environment” by 23 October, after more than 300 hectares of forest were cleared, at one site without the mandatory environmental impact assessment. The developer has until 14 October to explain itself, or face enforcement proceedings.
The sites are part of the €13bn investment Google announced less than a month ago, its largest single investment in Europe, and Google says it “fell short” of its own standards and will follow the agency’s guidance. Interesting test of how far Nordic countries will bend environmental rules to win the AI data-centre race.
If they’re literally forced to replant those trees and care for them until they’re back at the same size (so, for around 30 years), that would totally upend such calculations.
Personally I’m eagerly awaiting to see if Finnish Justice is a joke and just gives then the expected “cost of doing business” fine or if it actually forces them to undo the damage (i.e. replant the trees and care for them) thus reversing any and all gains they might have had from their unlawful actions.
I would wager the Finnish planning department doesn’t have the appropriate tools to control this kind of project.
The only other entity historically building anything on this scale is the Finnish government itself.
The reality is this landscape is probably not of significant environmental value considering it was rezoned for industrial use, so replanting the same forest that blankets the entirety of northern Finland is not going to really be worthwhile.
It’s not about the forest, it’s about breaking Law in Finland not being treated as the cost of doing business.
Either it has to be so costly that it’s not worth it (replanting the trees, losing those licenses or something similar with entirely undoes the benefit of the unlawful actions), the corporate veil that protects them has to be pulled back and the people who ordered this have to spend time in jail or, ideally, both.
If there’s no deterrence from a Law, then it’s functionally the same as that Law not existing, and a nation like that isn’t really one with Rule Of Law.
You would never be jailed in Finland for removing farmed forest. I think you’re going to be very disappointed with the penalty. The EIA will be written explaining the land is a farmed forest and the expected works. In the eyes of the bureaucracy this is going to be a procedural error and the project will likely continue, as there is no grounds to reject it.