Analysis: Did the municipalities and supervisory authority sleep while Google cleared forests and moved earth in Finland?

Google began forest clearing on land it owned in Muhos and Kajaani in March. The company described the work as forestry activity carried out in good faith under the Forest Act. The clearing happened while both projects’ environmental impact assessment procedures were still unfinished.

The work later expanded beyond tree removal. The Permit and Supervisory Agency identified topsoil removal, construction of work roads and storage areas, and stormwater arrangements as large-scale preparations that changed the environment. These actions were carried out under the municipalities’ interpretation of measures allowed before construction under section 109 of the Building Act.

In October, the agency stopped the work in both locations. It said the preparations were extensive and environmentally significant. Google has not explained publicly whether it interpreted section 109 incorrectly. The projects now face further official review, while the company’s legal justification for the clearing remains under scrutiny.

The article does not give a separate hectare figure for Muhos or Kajaani. It describes the combined forest clearing as covering hundreds of hectares. Satellite images from Muhos showed that the clearing progressed quickly after Google announced the work in March.

The affected land underwent several changes. Trees were removed, and the agency later listed topsoil stripping, work roads, storage areas, and stormwater arrangements. Together, these operations transformed the sites well beyond ordinary forest harvesting and prepared them for possible data-center construction.

The scale matters because both projects were still undergoing environmental impact assessment. The Permit and Supervisory Agency said in October that the preparations were extensive and changed the environment. The article does not state the final area affected, the exact split between municipalities, or what restoration would ultimately be required.

An environmental impact assessment, or YVA, examines how a proposed project could affect its surroundings before the project advances. It helps authorities and the public understand possible impacts and use that information in later decisions. The article states that both data-center assessments began in 2025 and remained unfinished.

That timing was central to the dispute. Google cleared forests in Muhos and Kajaani from March onward, then carried out wider preparation work. The Permit and Supervisory Agency later said large-scale, environment-changing measures had been performed while the assessments were still underway. A professor of environmental law judged that this breached the law governing the YVA procedure.

The unfinished assessments therefore became more than paperwork. They were linked to whether work could proceed at all. The agency stopped the preparation in October, and Google’s interpretation of the relevant rules remains to be examined.

Forest clearing, road building, soil removal, and drainage can reshape a site before officials have finished examining its environmental effects. That matters because later assessment may reveal impacts that cannot easily be reversed. The article links these restrictions to unfinished YVA procedures and missing building permits.

Google argued that its forest clearing was lawful forestry under the Forest Act. The agency responded that such clearing carries a restoration obligation, while Google planned to build a data center instead. It also said Google should not have cleared such large areas while the assessments were incomplete. The municipalities nevertheless allowed section 109 pre-construction measures in May and June.

In October, the Permit and Supervisory Agency stopped the work. It classified the operations as extensive preparations that significantly changed the environment. The case now raises questions about how section 109 was interpreted and whether municipalities and the supervising authority acted as they should have.

Google owned the land, announced forest clearing in March, and carried it out in both Muhos and Kajaani. After the clearing, it approached the local building-control authorities to request permission for pre-construction measures under section 109 of the Building Act. The company has so far commented only briefly.

Muhos and Kajaani building-control authorities effectively allowed the requested measures in May and June. The article lists tree removal, soil stripping, work roads, storage areas, and stormwater arrangements among the work undertaken. In October, the Permit and Supervisory Agency ordered the activity stopped, saying the preparations were extensive and changed the environment.

The agency had noticed in August that work in Muhos should not have been done, according to a Yle report, but did not begin its investigation then. Its formal review started one day after the clearings became news. The episode has prompted scrutiny of Google, both municipalities, and official supervision.

If authorities conclude that the work breached environmental or building rules, the projects cannot simply proceed as though nothing happened. The article establishes that the agency already stopped the preparation work in Muhos and Kajaani. It also says Google had no building permits for the data centers and that both environmental assessments remained incomplete.

The legal dispute includes the forest clearing and the later site preparation. The agency said forestry clearing under the Forest Act normally carries an obligation to restore the area by planting new trees. Google did not plan restoration in that sense, because it intended to build data centers. A professor also assessed that Google had violated the law governing the environmental assessment procedure.

The article does not state what final orders, fines, restoration duties, or project cancellations will follow. It says Google must explain its actions, while authorities continue examining what happened. The projects therefore face uncertainty until the reviews and permit questions are resolved.

Environmental assessments and building permits create a decision process before major infrastructure changes the landscape. An assessment examines environmental effects, while a building permit determines whether construction may proceed under the applicable rules. For large projects, this sequence allows authorities to consider the whole development before irreversible preparation begins.

The article illustrates the issue through Google’s planned data centers. The company cleared forests in Muhos and Kajaani, then undertook soil removal, road and storage-area construction, and stormwater arrangements. Yet neither project had completed its YVA procedure, and Google had no building permits for the data centers. The agency later stopped the preparation work.

The safeguards also clarify responsibilities. Google must justify its actions, municipalities must interpret pre-construction rules, and the Permit and Supervisory Agency must supervise compliance. The dispute now raises a broader question about whether the rules were followed and whether official oversight worked as intended.