Approximately 530 hectares of Finnish forest were cleared across two data centre sites before Google completed environmental-impact assessments that regulators say were required. Finland’s Licensing and Supervisory Agency ordered preparatory work suspended. Google’s country manager apologised. A €13 billion investment programme has run into a serious environmental compliance dispute with echoes of Google’s Nebraska data centre scrutiny.
What the Regulator Ordered
Finland’s regulator suspended preparatory construction at both sites, citing the environmental significance of the work already carried out.
Ordered to halt activity at two locations, Google’s Finnish subsidiary Tuike Finland Oy now faces a suspension covering Muhos and Kajaani until the required environmental-impact assessment procedures are completed. The agency is known as LVV.
Approximately 330 hectares were cleared in Muhos. Just under 200 hectares were cleared in Kajaani, reflecting the kind of land use conflicts that have accompanied AI Data Centers expansion globally.
At both sites, the suspension covers tree removal, topsoil removal, excavation, quarrying, soil transport, ditching, and road and storage-area construction. Some low-impact planning and surveying activities were excluded from the order.
Because LVV determined the suspended activities could significantly alter the environment, identifying and assessing them became a central purpose of the environmental-impact-assessment process. The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation accused Google and Tuike Finland of proceeding without completing the required assessments before clearing began.
After public suspicions of illegal logging surfaced, LVV began examining Google’s activities and requested an explanation from Tuike Finland, according to Yle. The suspicion of illegal logging has not been established as a legal finding.
Google said it had “fallen short of our own high standards in this instance” and would comply with the suspension order.
Google’s Account and a Disputed Permit
Google’s country manager denied pressure on local officials, but the building inspector in Muhos gave a different account to Helsingin Sanomat.
Google Finland country manager Antti Järvinen apologised for the clearances. He said Google and Tuike Finland acted according to their best understanding of Finnish law and believed they had, in his words, “advanced the projects in cooperation with authorities and experts,” according to Yle.
Järvinen declined to identify which authorities had been consulted or to explain publicly how that understanding was formed.
On the question of the Muhos permit, the municipality’s building inspector told Helsingin Sanomat that Google’s lawyers pressured him to grant permission for preparatory work. Järvinen denied that account, saying no Google lawyers attended the meeting at which the permit was granted.
Neither account has been independently corroborated by the available reporting. Järvinen also rejected suggestions that the clearances resulted from negligence, insufficient expertise, or inexperience.
Scale of the Investment and What Remains Unresolved
The disputed sites are part of a €13 billion commitment that Google says includes significant community and environmental benefits.
The Muhos and Kajaani sites are part of a broader Finnish expansion. Google has operated in Hamina since converting a former paper mill into a data centre in 2009, and it has planned or developing activity in Vaala as well.
Google’s total commitment across Finnish data centres, digital infrastructure, and clean-energy projects stands at €13 billion over two years. The company has also pledged €31 million for local communities, covering education and economic development, with some funds directed toward biodiversity initiatives.
Plans include regenerating native forests and wetlands near its sites and developing amenities such as recreational trails, public saunas, and fishing piers.
Preparatory work at Muhos and Kajaani is suspended pending the required assessment procedures. Whether the sites can advance after those assessments conclude, and whether regulators will impose additional remediation conditions, remains unresolved.
