Finnish deputy parliamentary ombudsman probes independence of Lapland’s migratory fish working group

The deputy parliamentary ombudsman has launched an investigation into whether Lapland Regional Council’s migratory fish working group operates independently, Finnish public broadcaster Yle reports. The group’s activities are funded by hydropower companies that oppose legal obligations to restore fish migration routes.

The council maintains that the working group’s efforts are voluntary and unrelated to the statutory duties of power firms. Its tasks include securing spawning conditions for salmon and other migratory fish in both undeveloped and regulated waterways, as well as promoting the reopening of migration routes from the sea to upstream spawning grounds.

Funding for the Kemi-Ounajoki migratory fish working group’s coordination comes from Kemijoki Oy and PVO-Vesivoima Oy—companies that have appealed administrative rulings requiring them to modify fish passage obligations on the Kemijoki river system. The regional environmental authority, Pohjois-Suomen AVI, has mandated that these firms ensure self-sustaining salmon populations through natural reproduction, effectively requiring the restoration of migration routes.

In its May response to the ombudsman, Lapland Regional Council emphasized that the working group’s measures are voluntary and explicitly exclude legally binding fish management obligations under its agreement with the power companies. The council acknowledged that without this funding, the group could not function in its current form but noted that the companies hold only a single vote on the working group, equal to other members.

Critics have previously accused the group of excluding civil society organizations, such as the Lapland Fishing Tourism Association, from membership. The council stated in its reply that the composition and representation of participating organizations are reassessed periodically.

The ombudsman is also examining other aspects of the regional council’s decision-making, including a 2024 case where a clause prohibiting appeals was incorrectly left in the minutes of a decision to update the working group’s funding agreement. The council attributed this to “human error” during document preparation.