Updating the environmental impact assessment list

Key points of the debate

The debate addressed updating the list of projects requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and the threshold values for projects. Reforming the project list was generally considered necessary, but the opposition proposed several tightenings and additions to it. Disagreements were caused in particular by the inclusion of wind power plants, fish farming, peat production, and large cattle farms within the scope of the procedure.

• –Should EIA thresholds be lowered, for example, in fish farming, peat production, and cattle farms?
• –Should stricter limits be set for EIA obligations due to the health and noise impacts of wind power plants?
• –Should declaring assessors' affiliations be made mandatory and the interval for updating the project list shortened?

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party considered the proposed update of the project list to be a successful and balanced package. The group took the view that authorities should be left with case-by-case discretion on the necessity of the assessment procedure without overly burdensome automatic regulation.

  ”Tässähän nyt mielestäni on hyvinkin oikeasuuntaisesti tarkasteltu näitä toimintoja ikään kuin muistaen se näkökohta, että ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyssä on tarkoitus ottaa laajasti huomioon”

• Finns PartyIn favour with reservations

  The Finns Party called, citing the precautionary principle, for stricter EIA limits for wind power plants due to potential infrasound and adverse health effects.

  ”Perussuomalaiset haluavat kuitenkin tuoda esiin sen tosiasian, että Suomessa tuulivoimasta ympäristöön leviävä signaali on varsin uusi ilmiö, jota ei ole aiemmin toimintaympäristössämme ollut.”

• Social DemocratsIn favour with reservations

  The Social Democrats considered updating the list necessary as such, but believed the proposal overlooked important elements, such as large cattle farms and the cumulative impacts on catchment areas. The group also proposed halving the threshold for fish farming and reviewing the assessment list every three years.

  ”tämä ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyn vaativien hankkeiden luettelon päivittäminen on tarpeen ja sen tavoitteet ovat kannatettavia, mutta tästä puuttuu sellaisia olennaisia asioita”

• GreensIn favour with reservations

  The Greens considered the proposal to be a largely commendable step forward, but wished for stricter size limits and better consideration of cumulative impacts. The group also supported more frequent reviews of the assessment list and examining the life-cycle impacts of projects.

  ”Päivitys vaikuttaa onnistuneen oikein hyvin. Tämä on lähtökohtaisesti aivan kannatettava lakiesitys.”

• Left AllianceIn favour with reservations

  The Left Alliance supported the direction of the reform, but called for stricter limits and better consideration of impacts on waterways and the climate. In addition, the group tabled statements on ensuring independence through declarations of affiliations and on updating the list every three years.

  ”Eduskunta edellyttää, että yva-hankeluetteloa tulee arvioida ja tarvittaessa päivittää kolmen vuoden välein.”

This digest was generated by AI from 17 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.