Published: 2 October 2025. Written by: Vellamo Jutila
Recent research examines Finland’s position-making and legal argumentation during the preparation of two recent EU environmental policy legislative acts, the Social Climate Fund and the Restoration Regulation, and assesses the effectiveness of advocacy. The research demonstrates that arguments defending national competences rarely succeed in the legal debate within the EU institutions.
The European Union (EU) has broad competences in the field of climate and environmental policy, and the EU implements commitments agreed in international climate negotiations through EU legislation. Recently, the ambitious climate and environment policy targets set by the Union have been met with resistance due to the costs involved and the disparities between the Member States.
In Finland, the Social Climate Fund and Restoration Regulation were strongly politicised in public discourse and Finland exceptionally voted against both acts in the Council. The central role of arguments based on competence and principle of subsidiarity in Finland’s position-making leads to focus on legal issues during EU negotiations. In their recent research, Pielpa Ollikainen and Päivi Leino-Sandberg examine Finland’s legal arguments during EU negotiations and assess the effectiveness of Finland’s approach that reflects the legalistic heritage.
Social Climate Fund – Finland’s position-making and EU advocacy
The Social Climate Fund (SCF) is part of the EU Fit for 55 package, a set of laws aiming to achieve the Union’s climate neutrality target. The purpose of the SCF is to support households, micro-enterprises and transport users, which are vulnerable and particularly affected by the extension of emissions trading to buildings and road transport. The objective of the SCF is to contribute to a socially fair transition towards climate neutrality. Set for the period of 2026–2032, a maximum amount of 65 billion will be made available for the implementation of the SFC. Member States will draft and submit their national plans to the Commission which then assess the plans and disburse payments. While social security issues have traditionally been considered to fall within national competence, the SFC represents a significant shift in financing direct income support from the EU budget and illustrates the sociopolitical aim of the act.
In general, the Finnish government welcomed the aim of the proposed legislation to ensure the social and regional just transition but questioned the proposed means through funding. The Grand Committee, which is responsible for the parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislative proposals, expressed stronger objection and emphasised the need to retain social policy within national competences. The Grand Committee opined that issues relating to sufficient legal basis as well as principles of subsidiarity and proportionality were to be examined thoroughly prior decision-making.
The connection of the proposed legislation to the climate goals of Marin’s government, the (mis)understanding of the applicable legislative procedure, and the timing of the SFC negotiations restrained Finland’s advocacy strategy. In practice, Finland’s participation during SFC negotiations was marginal. In addition, like-minded Member States did not share with Finland the legal concerns relating to the competence but rather focused issues such as reducing the fund and setting limits for the direct income.
Member States’ activity in drafting text proposals is major in having one’s own views and special national interests heard. Due to its stark opposition, Finland barely benefitted of such an advocacy. Eventually, Finland was the only Member State to vote against the SFC in the Council.
Restoration Regulation and competence-based arguments
The objectives of the Restoration Regulation are the prevention of biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems as well as recovery of biodiverse and resilient ecosystems through the restoration. The restoration targets are both quantitative and temporal: the measures should cover all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. In comparison to the SFC financed from the EU-budget, the restoration costs are covered mainly through national funding. The Member States set out restoration measures in national plans which are submitted to the Commission for assessment.
The Commission’s proposal was widely criticised in Finland. Relying on the competence-argument the Government stressed the absence of legal basis for common EU forest policy in the Treaties. The Government heeded the anticipated extensive costs of the regulation and their uneven sharing between the Member States. The cost-related issue was framed as a constitutional affair concerning budgetary powers of the Parliament.
Publicly available material illustrates that Finland was only Member States which framed their objection in terms of competence. As the Restoration Regulation aims to meet the Union’s international commitments, the research questions the sustainability of legal argument that presupposes detachment of forest policies from EU environmental action.
Despite the negotiation results Finland voted against the proposal. The research proposes that the objection of EU forest policy competence is connected to the costs for the forest industry and to the threat of diminished role of the forest sector in future EU decision-making. The desired high conservation status through regulation, however, received less attention in the public discourse.
The research highlights alternative advocacy strategies. Finland could have proposed alternative environmental policy legal basis instead of raising the competence argument. The cost-issue, on the other hand, could have been framed as a question of subsidiarity principle. In addition, Finland could have advocated the impacts of the proposal to the fundamental rights, which could have supported the connection between the anticipated costs of the proposal and its impacts on numerous land and forest owners.
The Limits of Legal Discourse and the Future of EU Funding
The research concludes that legal arguments presented by Finland did not result in profound discussions of legal issues of the proposals within the Council. In Finland, the public discourse of EU affairs often concentrates in legal argumentation which, however, has not proven effective in the context of EU decision-making. The question of political accountability rarely turns into a question of legality traditionally discussed in Finland.
The research emphasises the broader legal implications and legacy of both SCF and Restoration Regulation. The SCF establishes precedent on regulating and funding of social security in the EU; Restoration Regulation represents an exemplar of cost obligations related to EU membership. The EU’s developing redistributive policies result in EU funding measures that belong to national competences and have previously been covered by national budgets. Since the Commission’s plans for the future EU financial framework include a similar premise, the research emphasises the importance of critical debate on the direction of EU funding.
This blog post is based on a recently published article: Ollikainen, P & Leino-Sandberg, P (2025). EU-oikeuden kielestä legalismiin – Suomen oikeudelliset argumentit ennallistamisasetuksen ja sosiaalisen ilmastorahaston käsittelyssä. Lakimies, 123/5, 679–708