By Anni Kärkkäinen, PhD researcher

This blog post is based on a doctoral thesis article that examines the role of environmental impact assessment in sustainability transformation. The article explores the legal aspects of environmental impact follow-up of EIA projects and was published in ‘Ympäristöpolitiikan ja -oikeuden vuosikirja’ in 2024. It highlights that, in Finland, follow-up regulation for EIA projects is limited and does not fully serve the intended purpose of follow-up.
The follow-up phase enables the ongoing assessment of environmental impacts throughout the project’s lifecycle
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) process occurs prior to project approval and the commencement of project activities. Follow-up is considered as the final stage of the impact assessment, beginning after the project has been approved. This phase ensures that the environmental assessment continues even once project activities have started. The importance of follow-up should be underscored in the context of the green transition, which seeks to streamline and accelerate ex-ante assessments.
The purpose of follow-up can be summarized in three key functions: controlling, democratic, and learning. First, follow-up serves to track the evolution of impacts, ensure compliance, and assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The democratic function is fulfilled by providing opportunities for public participation during the follow-up phase. The learning function is achieved through adaptive management, where project activities are reassessed and adjusted based on potential needs for change. Learning is further enhanced by a holistic approach to monitoring and the coordination of various monitoring processes.
Improvement needed in follow-up regulation
Currently, the follow-up of projects with likely significant impacts is primarily governed by permit legislation, which only covers certain impacts within its scope. Public authorities also bear responsibility for organizing environmental monitoring, which can help fill gaps in the permit regulation, particularly when project-specific and authority-led monitoring are well-coordinated. However, at present, the follow-up regulation is rather fragmented.
Improvements are also needed to promote comprehensive planning for follow-up in existing legislation. Such planning can help identify uncertainties related to impacts and their development, allowing for the anticipation of any necessary changes. However, current legislation allows only limited modifications to permits, restricting the ability to reassess or adjust projects as necessary. Additionally, follow-up regulation lacks provisions for public participation in project-specific follow-up. I argue that strengthening the provisions on public participation would enhance transparency and more effectively fulfill the democratic function of follow-up.
Anni Kärkkäinen
PhD researcher
University of Eastern Finland
anni.karkkainen@uef.fi
This blog has been written as part of the project “Resilience of complex legal systems in sustainability transformation” funded by Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (358392).
References
- This blog post is based on an article called ‘Ympäristövaikutusten seurannan funktiot ja asema YVA- ja lupalainsäädännössä’, Ympäristöpolitiikan ja -oikeuden vuosikirja XVII 2024, pp. 58-144.