This chapter examines how Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions can build long-term resilience in the context of geopolitical change. It highlights key challenges such as the population decline, labour shortages, modest innovation capacity, and infrastructure gaps, and identifies opportunities in renewable energy, bioeconomy, and territorial investment. The chapter also reviews environmental pressures, security needs, and gaps in youth well-being and participation. It concludes by emphasising the need for stronger multi-level governance, better data, and targeted policies to support economic renewal, security preparedness, and inclusive regional development.
Transition Strategies for Finland’s Eastern and South‑Eastern Border Regions
Adapting to Geopolitical Change
Abstract
Attracting investment
The principal report guiding attractiveness policies is the Eastern Finland – A New Direction strategy (Ministry of Employment and the Economy, 2023), with the goal of establishing a common development vision for Eastern Finland through close collaboration with businesses, the state, and the regions. In terms of the pan-regional strategy, the first objective outlined in the Eastern Finland – A New Direction strategy is to make the region more attractive to investment, with particular focus on the potential of renewable energy and the bioeconomy. The six regions comprising Eastern Finland (South Karelia, South Savo, Kainuu, Kymenlaakso, North Karelia and North Savo) have called for increased capacity to attract and retain investments in these areas (Pohjois-Karjala Maakuntaliito, 2024[1]). When it comes to attracting large investment projects, Business Finland remains the utmost point of contact. Regional initiatives exist but lack consistency in terms of resources across regions and counties – this is reflected in the large variation in greenfield investments won by regions across the Eastern and Southeastern regions with North Ostrobothnia and Kymenlaakso capturing the largest share of investment (see Figure 7.1). Notably, regional authorities within the Northern Finland Programme have highlighted a lack of communication between regional and central governmental agencies regarding planning and attracting investments. This lack of co‑ordination partly explains why most regions in the area lag the national average in terms of the number of greenfield projects and invested amounts, which are predominantly concentrated in the Helsinki-Uusimaa nationally.
As the regions propose, ‘invest-in teams’ and a ‘Business Attraction Management framework’ adopted by the regions can help align and scale efforts to promote investment. Given the success of Business Finland in this regard nationally – and notwithstanding the large regional disparities in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) attraction – it would be useful to involve the body in, at the very least, the design stage of these tools (see also Box 7.1). This co‑ordination could also familiarise national bodies like Business Finland with the investment opportunities in the regions – including, for example, by building regional profiles.
FDI plays a critical role in shaping regional economic growth, but its distribution often gravitates toward metropolitan hubs. However, smaller regions with unique assets and strategic efforts have proven their ability to stand out on the global investment stage. This box highlights innovative approaches to territorializing investment promotion, drawing on success stories from Ireland and Canada.
A winning FDI Strategy for Ireland Southeast
Even in countries which stand out for their magnetism to international investment, not all regions are made equal. Infrastructure and talent endowments privilege metropolitan and capital cities – this is true for standout countries like Ireland. Yet even here, small regions have found innovative ways of marketing their mark on the global FDI scene. Ireland’s Southeast region launched a small team at the Ireland Southeast Development office to promote the region’s assets, namely the lower industrial costs to firms, land availability and the high levels of quality of life that make it a great place for global talent. The region won the fDi magazine’s best FDI strategy for European small regions and has attracted key investments across a range of key sectors from offshore wind to life sciences.
At the national level, these efforts are supported by a central national investment promotion agency – IDA Ireland – who co‑ordinate an all-island regional strategy based on regional specialisations and who set targets and support regional investment attraction including through infrastructure support.
Invest in Canada Regional Profiles
National investment promotion agencies – as the window to investment inside a country – can play an important role in marketing the assets of regions on the global stage. To illustrate these regional-sectoral advantages, Invest in Canada recently premiered a series of ‘Regional spotlights’, showcasing the specific assets, sectors and case study examples that make each province a great place to invest.
For example, the regional spotlight for Canada’s easternmost island province, Newfoundland & Labrador, highlights the clean energy potential of the province, the large share of STEM graduates and the large amount of public land available for investment projects, among other key indicators. As large MNEs look to navigate the investment playing field within a country, multi-level co‑ordination for investment promotion is essential to illustrate the advantages of less-dominant regions on the FDI scene.
Source: Ireland South East Development Office; Invest in Canada
The eastern border regions have experienced persistent population decline, driven primarily by outmigration of younger generations seeking better economic opportunities in urban centres. Between 2019 and 2024, the population in these regions declined by 2.6%, with the working-age demographic shrinking even faster. This has exacerbated labour shortages in essential sectors.
The ageing population further increases the demand for health and social care services, putting the wellbeing services counties under pressure. The workforce shortages in these sectors pose significant challenges, particularly if recruitment difficulties persist. Without targeted interventions, these demographic shifts will continue to weaken the broader economic base of border municipalities, making it increasingly difficult to sustain local industries and attract investment.
Workforce availability
The persistent demographic decline in the eastern and southeastern border regions has exacerbated workforce shortages. Outmigration of young professionals to urban centres in southern Finland has further reduced the local talent pool, while low birth rates continue to shrink the working-age population. This trend has led to labour market imbalances where demand for skilled workers exceeds supply, constraining business expansion and public service provision. Regions such as South Savo and Kainuu, which have high dependency ratios and ageing populations, face particularly acute pressures in maintaining a stable workforce.
Beyond demographic challenges, structural issues in the labour market further weaken regional competitiveness. Businesses in the border regions struggle to fill vacancies due to the limited local availability of workers with specialised skills. This mismatch between employer needs and workforce qualifications highlights the insufficient alignment between education systems and labour market demands. Additionally, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which form the backbone of many local economies, often lack the resources or networks to recruit skilled workers from outside the region.
Education, training, and innovation capacity
The ability of a region to develop and retain skilled workers is closely tied to the presence and quality of its educational institutions. In this regard, disparities exist across the eastern border regions. Some areas, such as Kymenlaakso, lack a dense network of higher education institutions, limiting opportunities for both local and international students to study and settle in the region. The absence of strong university-industry collaboration further weakens the link between education and employment, as businesses struggle to access graduates with relevant skills.
Furthermore, the regions analysed exhibit relatively modest innovation performance, as evidenced by low rates of patent applications (Figure 7.2). Innovation is a key driver of economic growth, yet eastern Finland’s weaker research and development ecosystem hinders the transition towards a more knowledge-based economy. Strengthening research, development, and innovation (RDI) activities requires deeper collaboration between universities, vocational schools, and businesses to ensure that education pathways align with the evolving needs of local industries.
Note: Graph includes all Finnish regions but only the border regions and Uusimaa are highlighted.
Source: Paptentti- ja rekisterihallitus https://www.prh.fi/fi/patentit/tilastoja/patenttihakemukset_maakunnittain.html
Attracting talent
Given the limited local labour supply, attracting international talent is a necessary strategy to sustain economic vitality in the eastern and southeastern border regions. However, structural barriers hinder the recruitment and retention of foreign workers. Finnish employers, especially in smaller businesses, often lack the skills or confidence to hire internationally. In addition, the administrative process for foreign workers to settle in Finland remains complex and time-consuming, discouraging potential talent from choosing regional locations. The issue is not just about recruitment but also about ensuring that foreign workers are effectively integrated into local communities and workplaces. Regions with fewer higher education institutions, such as Kymenlaakso, risk being particularly disadvantaged, as universities often act as gateways for international migration.
Efforts to enhance the integration of foreign workers have been insufficient, leading to high turnover rates among international employees. Many skilled workers leave the regions after a short period due to difficulties in adapting to local conditions, limited social networks, or a lack of long-term career prospects.
The second objective outlined in the Eastern Finland – A New Direction strategy is to ensure high migration potential by creating attractive cities and smaller settlements that appeal both talent and students. The approach emphasises the need for greater co‑operation between higher education institutions and the private sector to develop a pipeline for prospective talent to come and stay in Eastern Finland. Indeed, research shows that higher education institutions (HEIs) and international students are not only a lever for talent attraction but also play an important role in fostering international investment and visitor attraction (OECD, 2023[2])). Notably, among the regions in the East and South‑East, only South Karelia exceeds to Finnish and EU average for international student rates, with LUT University and LAB University of Applied Sciences having developed a strong international reputation (see Figure 7.3) – however this indicators should be monitored to determine the impact of the war on the international student attraction.
Developing targeted programmes to enhance student attraction and retention can be complex and costly, particularly when student populations are small, and resources are more limited compared to those available at larger or metropolitan campuses. Often, the programmes housed in regional universities are based on historical industrial specialisations given the path dependency associated with HEI programmes, while they should be constantly working in partnership with regional SMEs to stay on top of labour market trends and future directions (Kitagawa et al., 2021[3]). In the near term, increasing paid placements in regional firms can help create a positive feedback loop whereby students develop a career pathway in the host region and the HEI deepens its connection with, and understanding of, regional firms and entrepreneurs (Kitagawa et al., 2021[3]). Regional and local governments can help facilitate such partnerships and help tailor them to place-based challenges (e.g. low levels of innovation, retention of international students, etc.) by designing and funding specific programmes that meet industry needs. Conversely, the involvement of government in these partnerships can create a channel through which HEIs and firms can advocate for the improvement of the non-education and employment factors that are perceived to be working against entrepreneurship, innovation and talent attraction and retention.
Infrastructure and connectivity remain critical challenges for Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions. The shift in trade dynamics following the closure of the Russian border and economic sanctions has underlined the importance of securing strong connections to international markets, particularly through alternative land, rail, and maritime routes. The reliance on state and EU funding for major transport investments highlights the regions’ limited fiscal capacity to address these infrastructure needs independently. As a result, ensuring sufficient investment in key transport corridors, energy grids, and digital networks has become a shared concern across the eastern and northern regions of Finland.
Transport infrastructure and accessibility
The closure of the Saimaa Canal has had a profound impact on the Finnish railroad network, increasing pressure on existing rail connections. Previously, the canal provided an essential waterway for industrial and commercial logistics, but its loss has forced businesses to shift cargo to rail and road transport, intensifying congestion and wear on existing infrastructure. The capacity limitations of the current rail network, particularly in eastern Finland, pose a significant bottleneck for industries seeking alternative export routes. Freight transport, which previously relied on cross-border rail links to Russia, must now be redirected, requiring infrastructure upgrades that need considerable funding.
For the northern regions, the focus has shifted towards strengthening land connections with Sweden and Norway. These connections are essential for accessing European markets and reducing dependence on routes previously dominated by Russian trade. However, the current transport corridors face limitations in capacity and reliability, requiring significant investment in railway and road modernisation. Additionally, port accessibility remains a major concern for eastern Finland, as these regions depend on efficient links to maritime trade routes. Without targeted improvements in port infrastructure and connecting road networks, the long-term competitiveness of industries reliant on international shipping remains uncertain.
Air connectivity and emerging opportunities
A key challenge facing many regions is the lack of direct international air connections. While larger urban centres in southern Finland benefit from well-established flight networks, businesses and industries in eastern and northern regions remain largely dependent on Helsinki-Vantaa Airport for international reachability. However, the viability of regional air routes is often uncertain due to commercial constraints, with many flight connections proving financially unsustainable without public support. The need to secure reliable air transport links has been collectively raised by multiple regions, particularly those with export-driven industries and international business networks.
Despite these challenges, new opportunities are emerging in the aviation sector that could reshape regional air connectivity. Innovations in electric aviation, including logistics drones and low-emission air travel, hold potential for addressing some of the logistical constraints faced by more remote regions. Lapland and Kymenlaakso, in particular, have been identified as areas with development potential in this emerging field. However, the large-scale implementation of these technologies remains at an early stage, and further investments in research and infrastructure will be required to translate these innovations into viable transport solutions.
Road network and security of supply
The deteriorating condition of lower-level road networks represents a critical vulnerability for many regions (Figure 7.4). Poor road maintenance not only affects daily mobility and business operations but also poses a significant risk to security of supply, particularly in light of Finland’s shifting geopolitical landscape. Local supply networks for energy, food distribution, and emergency logistics depend heavily on the functionality of secondary and rural roads. The increasing importance of regional self-sufficiency has further underscored the need for maintaining and upgrading these networks to ensure resilience in the face of external shocks.
In addition to general maintenance issues, the shift towards sustainable transport is being slowed by infrastructure limitations. Many sparsely populated areas still lack comprehensive broadband coverage, limiting the expansion of digital services and remote working opportunities. The transition to electric vehicles is similarly constrained by the sparse distribution of charging stations, particularly in rural areas. Without significant investment in supporting infrastructure, the adoption of green mobility solutions remains limited, delaying progress towards broader sustainability goals.
Note: The map shows transportation infrastructure requiring maintenance, with blue lines representing local (lower level) roads in need of repair and red dots marking bridges requiring upgrade.
Source: Traficom (2025), Statistical data, https://tieto.traficom.fi/fi/tilastot/vahaliikenteinen-maantieverkko
Energy infrastructure and renewable energy potential
Energy infrastructure presents both a challenge and an opportunity for Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions. The integration of renewable energy sources into the national grid remains uneven, with grid capacity constraints limiting the large-scale deployment of wind and bioenergy projects in certain areas. Inadequate transmission networks create bottlenecks that prevent the efficient distribution of renewable energy, particularly in regions with high production potential but weak grid connectivity.
The lack of a robust national main grid in some parts of the eastern regions further hampers energy security and industrial development. Ensuring that renewable energy projects can be fully integrated into the electricity network will require strategic grid investments to enhance transmission capacity and stability. Additionally, cross-border energy co‑operation with Sweden and Norway could provide alternative solutions for energy security, enabling better energy sharing and infrastructure alignment between the Nordic countries.
Cross-border connectivity and strategic shifts
With Russia no longer serving as a viable trade partner, Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions are increasingly looking westward for connectivity and economic integration. Strengthening transport and energy links with Sweden and Norway has become a strategic priority to ensure that businesses and industries in eastern Finland remain competitive in European markets. Cross-border co‑operation initiatives are being explored to enhance trade logistics, harmonise infrastructure planning, and develop shared energy projects.
However, despite growing interest in deeper Nordic integration, many cross-border transport links remain underdeveloped. The Arctic railway project, which aims to improve freight connections between Finland and Norway’s ports, has been slow to progress due to funding challenges and environmental concerns. Additionally, expanding road and rail links to Sweden’s industrial hubs would require co‑ordinated investment efforts at the national and EU levels.
Environmental sustainability has become a key priority for Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions as they navigate the dual challenges of energy security and climate change mitigation and adaptation. The abrupt loss of Russian energy imports has accelerated the push for energy self-sufficiency, while regional governments are also striving to meet ambitious climate targets and mitigate environmental degradation. However, despite strong commitments to decarbonisation, disparities in energy production capacity, defence-related restrictions on wind power, and reputational concerns affecting investment flows pose significant obstacles to achieving long-term environmental and climate goals.
Energy self-sufficiency and regional disparities
The reliance on Russian energy imports in Finland fell from 34% to just 7% between 2021 and 2023, forcing a rapid transition towards domestic energy sources. Energy self-sufficiency is now a strategic objective across all regions, with a particular focus on expanding wind and solar energy, decentralised bioenergy production, and emerging innovations in hydrogen technology. Fingrid’s latest forecasts anticipate Finland reaching electricity self-sufficiency by 2025, although regional variations remain significant.
Among the border regions, only Lapland and North Ostrobothnia - and to a lesser extent, South Karelia and Kymenlaakso - are substantial electricity producers (Figure 7.5). This uneven distribution of renewable energy potential creates disparities in economic benefits and investment attractiveness. Compounding this challenge are defence-related radar restrictions, which prevent the development of wind energy projects in certain areas. Additionally, many projects that have already been approved by the Defence Forces have yet to materialise. Some municipalities are advocating for a compensation model to offset these structural disadvantages, ensuring that all regions can participate in and benefit from the country’s renewable energy transition.
Electricity production in the analysed border regions and rest of Finland in 2023 (in GWh)
Source: Finnish Energy (2025), internet pages, https://energia.fi/tilastot/sahkotilastot/sahkontuotanto-ja-kaytto/.
Climate change impacts and regional adaptation
Climate change is expected to have a profound effect on Finland’s northernmost regions. Recognising these risks, the border regions have implemented ambitious climate policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve climate resilience. Many municipalities are part of the "Hinku" initiative, committing to an 80% reduction in emissions by 2030. These goals reflect a broader effort to align regional sustainability strategies with national and EU climate policies.
Beyond emissions reductions, other key environmental objectives include preventing biodiversity loss, enhancing sustainable land use, and accelerating the transition towards clean energy production. However, the extent to which these goals can be achieved varies by region, with disparities in local capacity, funding availability, and infrastructure readiness playing a decisive role. In particular, smaller and more remote municipalities often lack the financial and technical resources necessary to implement large-scale sustainability projects.
Green investment challenges and opportunities
While environmental sustainability presents significant opportunities for economic development, the eastern border regions have struggled to attract large-scale green investments. Data from the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) indicates that planned green investments remain heavily concentrated in Southern and Western Finland, reflecting broader concerns about the perceived economic risks of investing in regions bordering Russia (Figure 7.6). The ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, combined with reputational concerns, has made it more difficult for these regions to secure private sector financing for sustainability projects.
Despite these investment challenges, environmental innovations in green technologies and the circular economy offer potential pathways for regional development. Bioenergy and hydrogen economy initiatives, in particular, present opportunities for economic diversification and energy security. However, realising these opportunities requires improved investor confidence, stronger policy support, and targeted funding mechanisms to ensure that the eastern and southeastern border regions are not left behind in Finland’s broader sustainability transition.
Environmental sustainability is a critical element of the long-term economic and social development of Finland’s and southeastern border regions. While significant progress has been made towards energy self-sufficiency and climate action, structural barriers such as regional disparities in renewable energy production, defence-related restrictions, and investment challenges must be addressed. Ensuring a just and balanced green transition will require sustained efforts to secure funding, support regional adaptation strategies, and strengthen the role of these regions in Finland’s evolving energy landscape. Without targeted interventions, the green transition risks deepening existing regional inequalities rather than alleviating them.
Source: Confederation of Finnish Industries (2025): Green investments in Finland, Data dashboard, (visited 20/01/2025), https://ek.fi/en/green-investments-in-finland/
Security and resilience have become a key priority for Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions in response to geopolitical shifts, economic restructuring, and emerging hybrid threats. The closure of the Russian border has not only disrupted trade and economic ties but also necessitated stronger security measures, crisis preparedness, and supply chain protection. Ensuring resilience requires a multidimensional approach, incorporating comprehensive security frameworks, cyber defences, emergency preparedness, and enhanced co‑operation at regional, national and international levels. The growing importance of dual-use infrastructure, which serves both civilian and defence needs, creates strategic investment opportunities. These investments strengthen security at regional, national, and EU levels while driving sustainable economic growth.
Comprehensive security measures and regional adaptation
The evolving security landscape has placed Finland’s border regions at the forefront of national defence and resilience efforts. Comprehensive security1 encompasses not only traditional military readiness but also social and economic stability, secure infrastructure, and the ability to withstand external shocks. Regional authorities have had to adapt quickly to new security dynamics, with municipalities and businesses increasingly integrating resilience considerations into their development strategies.
The decentralised nature of Finland’s security model means that local actors, including municipalities and businesses, play a significant role in national preparedness. Investments in infrastructure, critical supply chains, and regional defence capabilities must align with broader security frameworks to ensure long-term stability. However, challenges remain, particularly in securing adequate funding and ensuring co‑ordination between municipal, national, and EU-level security initiatives.
Border security, cyber security, and crisis preparedness
Border security has become a top priority following increased hybrid threats, including the instrumentalisation of migration and the potential for cyber or other hybrid attacks targeting critical infrastructure. The tightening of border controls, including physical barriers and enhanced surveillance technologies, reflects growing concerns over external threats. The eastern border, now Finland’s primary frontier with NATO’s external boundary, requires ongoing investment in monitoring systems, personnel, and infrastructure to maintain national and EU security.
Cybersecurity threats are also rising, with increased risks of cyber espionage, digital disruptions, and attacks on critical data systems. Businesses, public institutions, and essential service providers have had to enhance their cybersecurity capabilities to safeguard against potential cyberattacks. The need for regional cyber resilience has prompted initiatives to strengthen digital defences, train personnel, and improve information-sharing mechanisms across multiple levels of government.
Emergency preparedness and crisis management have also gained prominence, particularly in light of potential disruptions to supply chains and energy systems. The increasing frequency of extreme weather events, geopolitical instability, and hybrid threats has highlighted the necessity for regional authorities to develop comprehensive risk assessment frameworks and emergency response capabilities. Ensuring that municipalities have the resources and training to respond effectively to crises remains a key challenge.
Protection of supply chains and critical resources
Security of supply has emerged as a central concern, with disruptions to energy imports and trade routes underscoring vulnerabilities in critical supply chains. The loss of Russian imports has necessitated a shift towards alternative supply sources, reinforcing the importance of regional self-sufficiency in essential goods and energy production. Supply chain resilience is particularly crucial for industries reliant on imported raw materials, as well as for sectors such as food security and healthcare.
Ensuring access to essential resources requires investment in domestic production capacity, improved logistics infrastructure, and diversification of supply routes. In this regard, the strengthening of Finland’s transportation networks - particularly road and rail links to western trade corridors - plays a key role in securing reliable access to goods and services. Additionally, the decentralisation of energy production, including bioenergy and renewables, has become a strategic focus for reducing reliance on external suppliers and enhancing regional resilience.
International and regional co‑operation in security
The security challenges facing Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions cannot be addressed in isolation. Strengthening co‑operation with Nordic and EU partners has become essential for ensuring border security, intelligence-sharing, and co‑ordinated crisis response. Cross-border security collaboration with Sweden and Norway has been expanding, particularly in areas such as military mobility, infrastructure resilience, and energy security.
At the regional level, multi-municipal co‑operation has played a growing role in security planning. Joint initiatives among border municipalities focus on improving emergency preparedness, resource-sharing, and co‑ordinated responses to emerging threats. Enhancing regional security governance requires improved co‑ordination between local and national authorities, as well as the integration of municipal security strategies into broader national frameworks.
Attracting investment in dual-use goods and infrastructure
The evolving security landscape has created new opportunities for investment in dual-use goods - products and technologies that serve both civilian and defence applications. Industries focusing on cybersecurity, surveillance technology, energy security, and transport infrastructure are increasingly seen as strategic sectors for regional development.
However, attracting investment in dual-use industries requires policy support, funding incentives, and alignment with national security priorities. Strengthening local innovation ecosystems and fostering collaboration between businesses, research institutions, and security agencies could position Finland’s eastern regions as hubs for technological advancements in defence and resilience. Moreover, EU funding mechanisms can provide financial backing for infrastructure projects that enhance both economic and security resilience, ensuring that border regions remain well-equipped to manage evolving threats.
Conclusion
Security and resilience are now integral to the long-term sustainability of Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions. The need for comprehensive security measures, enhanced border and cyber defences, and improved crisis preparedness has never been greater. Protecting critical supply chains, fostering regional and international security co‑operation, and attracting investment in dual-use industries will be key to ensuring that these regions can adapt to the new geopolitical landscape. While challenges remain, strategic investments and co‑ordinated governance can help transform security challenges into opportunities for sustainable regional development.
The geopolitical shifts following Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine have profoundly impacted multi-level governance in Finland’s eastern border regions. The termination of cross-border co‑operation with Russia has disrupted long-established regional development frameworks, creating financial and strategic challenges. This shift has forced regional authorities to reorient governance structures, seek new international partnerships, and advocate for compensatory funding to replace the now-defunct EU-supported cross-border programmes. At the same time, security considerations have become increasingly integrated into regional development planning, further reshaping governance priorities. Finland’s NATO membership introduces additional layers to multi-level governance, offering both opportunities and new challenges in co‑ordinating regional and national security interests with international frameworks.
The loss of cross-border co‑operation and funding
For decades, Finland’s eastern border regions benefited from extensive co‑operation with Russia, supported by EU-funded Neighbourhood and Cross-Border Co‑operation (ENI CBC) programmes. The cancellation of these initiatives has resulted in a significant financial shortfall, with the loss of nearly EUR 185 million in national and EU funding from the 2014–2020 programming period alone. The impacted programmes included Karelia ENI CBC (EUR 43 million), Kolarctic ENI CBC (EUR 63.4 million), and South-East Finland–Russia ENI CBC (EUR 77.5 million). These programmes were instrumental in funding regional development projects, infrastructure improvements, and business collaborations that directly contributed to local economies.
The abrupt end of this financial support has left municipalities and regional authorities struggling to secure alternative sources of funding. Efforts have been made to lobby both the Finnish government and the EU for compensatory subsidies to mitigate the economic disruption. However, replacing these funds has proven difficult, as many of the affected projects were specifically designed to enhance cross-border integration with Russia. The loss of knowledge and institutional expertise from decades of collaboration further complicates the transition, as regional actors must now build new networks and develop alternative strategies for international co‑operation.
Reorientation towards European partnerships and national support
With Russia no longer a viable partner, Finnish border regions have increasingly sought to establish new collaborations with other European countries. This has involved strengthening ties with Nordic and Baltic partners, as well as deepening engagement in EU territorial co‑operation initiatives. Programmes such as Interreg Aurora and Interreg Europe have gained renewed importance as platforms for cross-border and transnational development co‑operation.
At the national level, Finnish authorities have been called upon to provide additional financial support to compensate for lost cross-border funding. Regional advocacy efforts have focused on securing targeted subsidies for affected municipalities, with a particular emphasis on maintaining regional vitality amidst economic uncertainty. The state’s role in ensuring a smooth transition has been critical, but ongoing discussions highlight the need for long-term structural adjustments to regional funding mechanisms.
Integration of security considerations into regional development
The war in Ukraine has underscored the necessity of integrating security considerations into regional governance frameworks. Previously, regional development planning primarily focused on economic growth, infrastructure, and social well-being. However, security concerns are now shaping investment priorities and governance strategies across multiple levels. This includes military mobility, comprehensive security of supply, cybersecurity, and emergency preparedness.
Regional actors have increasingly called on the central government to enhance the presence of security forces and emergency services in border areas. The roles of the Finnish Defence Forces, Border Guard, police, and fire departments have become even more vital in ensuring both national and regional stability. The protection of supply chains, particularly in energy, food, and logistics, has also become a key governance issue, requiring closer co‑ordination between municipalities, national agencies, and EU institutions.
Cybersecurity has emerged as another pressing concern, particularly given the heightened risk of cyber threats targeting critical infrastructure. Municipalities and regional institutions need to enhance their capacity and resources needed to effectively address these risks. This also calls for national support and co‑ordination between levels of government.
NATO membership and its implications for multi-level governance
Finland’s membership to NATO introduces a new dimension to regional governance, particularly in areas that will host a strong physical presence of the defensive alliance. South Savo, for example, is expected to benefit from the NATO sub-command in Mikkeli, while Lapland’s strategic Arctic location is increasingly attracting military exercises such as Nordic Response 24. These developments necessitate closer co‑ordination between municipal authorities, national defence institutions, and NATO partners to ensure effective governance and regional stability.
Beyond military considerations, NATO membership also presents economic opportunities. The expansion of Finland’s defence sector and dual-use technology markets could provide new avenues for investment and innovation. Companies operating in cybersecurity, surveillance technology, and energy security are poised to benefit from increased international co‑operation and funding opportunities linked to NATO integration. However, for these opportunities to materialise, regional governance structures must adapt to facilitate international partnerships and align investment policies with national and alliance-level strategic objectives.
Conclusion
Multi-level governance in Finland’s eastern border regions is undergoing a fundamental transformation in response to geopolitical and security challenges. The loss of cross-border co‑operation with Russia has forced regions to seek new European partnerships and advocate for alternative funding mechanisms. At the same time, security considerations have become deeply embedded in regional governance frameworks, reshaping investment priorities and institutional co‑ordination. Finland’s NATO membership further adds complexity, requiring closer alignment between regional, national, and international governance structures. While these challenges are significant, they also present opportunities to strengthen resilience, enhance economic security, and integrate border regions more deeply into European and transatlantic frameworks.
This chapter explores the opportunities and challenges for youth and youth stakeholders2 across the eight regions to shape regional planning and present policy recommendations to involve youth stakeholders in structured ways in shaping the forthcoming transition strategies and action plans. Following the introduction, the chapter provides a comparative analysis of youth outcomes across the regions and examines evidence on how the border closures have impacted young people. It then reviews the legal, policy, and institutional frameworks governing youth policy and participation at the national, regional, wellbeing services counties, and municipal levels. Finally, the chapter assesses current practices and challenges in evidence-based decision-making, youth consultation and engagement, and the capacity of regional councils to involve youth stakeholders effectively in regional planning.
Introduction
Young people in Finland have demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of multiple crises over the past years, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis and the implications of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Beyond these shocks, youth in Finland’s eight eastern and southeastern border regions3 are impacted by long-term trends such as population ageing, which raise important questions about how current and future well-being can be secured.
This is a matter of urgency as the 2023 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions demonstrates. Findings show that only 31.5% of 18-29-year-olds in Finland trust their government, compared to 36% of peers in the same age group on OECD average. They also point to a significant generational trust gap in Finland as 51.5% of people aged 50 and over express confidence, marking the fourth largest gap between young and old among 30 OECD countries covered (OECD, 2024[4]).
Having a say in government actions is a key driver of trust in national government (OECD, 2024[4]), which is recognised by the Government of Finland. Finland’s Open Government National Action Plan 2023-27 (2023[5]) and National Youth Work and Youth Policy Programme 2024-2027 (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2024[6]) each include a commitment to implement the OECD Recommendation on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People and increase young people’s participation and trust in government. While providing structured opportunities for young people to shape government actions is important across all levels of government, it is even more critical at the subnational level where young people and public authorities interact most frequently and they access important public services (e.g. education and training; mental health; social welfare; youth work; services for children, young people and families, etc.) (OECD, 2020[7]). Beyond trust, increasing regional attractiveness and wellbeing for young people will be essential to break the vicious cycle of limited economic and social opportunities available to adolescents and young adults, their outward migration towards large urban centres and more prosperous regions and hence further population ageing and shrinking.
Finland has embarked on an important journey to address the challenges faced by its eastern and southeast border regions and areas through the elaboration of a region-wide transition strategy and action plan and region-specific measures. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, which leads this process, has acknowledged that young people must be at the centre of building a more prosperous and secure future and more cohesive society (DG REFORM / OECD, 2024[8]).
Youth outcomes across Finland’s eastern and southeastern border regions
This section presents evidence on key youth outcomes and needs, based on available data used by Regional Councils (RCs), research studies as well as insights gathered from youth councils and youth organisations. The main dataset that allows for comparisons of well-being outcomes across Finland’s regions is provided by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), a research and development institute operating under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Through Sotkanet statistical information and the Sotekuva web service, the THL integrates 458 indicators and evidence from various data sources on people’s living conditions, social and health care, services for children, young people and families, social services and mental health services, among others. According to the RCs, the database is used to inform regional planning and used by the wellbeing services counties (WSCs) to prepare the statutory regional welfare reports.
Table 7.1 maps selected indicators from the THL database that allow for a comparison of youth outcomes across regions and the country as a whole. It is designed for experts and representatives of welfare counties who participate in the annual monitoring, guidance and evaluation of Finnish social welfare and health care system, not primarily for regional planning purposes. The next section includes a more detailed discussion on data availability and gaps for regional planning that systematically considers the needs and perspectives of young people.
THL data across regions focuses on young people’s employment, loneliness, mental health and health behaviour
Note: Evidence for this database is sourced from various stakeholders, such as Statistics Finland, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, Employment and Economic Development Offices, the School Health Promotion Study, and the Social Insurance Institution of Finland.
Source: https://sotekuva.fi/.
The comparison of youth wellbeing outcomes in 2023 reveals that, across a number of indicators, young people in the eight eastern and south-eastern border regions face more difficulties than their peers in the other parts of Finland. In all but one region (North Ostrobothnia), the measure of education level ranks below the country average. Educational outcomes are also hampered by geographical factors. According to a study conducted by the State Regional Administration in 2019, 84.5% of 15-year-olds nationwide live within 10 km from a general upper secondary school. In the eight eastern and south-eastern border regions, the situation is more complicated. For instance, in North Ostrobothnia, only 72.2% of 15-year-olds live within 10 km from a general upper secondary school; the share remains at 84% in Kymenlaakso. Access to Vocational Education Training (VET) is also particularly limited: the number of VET institutions in the eight eastern and south-eastern border regions has decreased from 53 to 21 between 2005 and 2023 (Statistics Finland, n.d.[9]). In Kainuu, less than 50% of 15-year-olds live within 10 km from VET institutions offering at least three different types of VET; the share increases to 70% for Lappi and South Savo and to 84.% for North Ostrobothnia. In turn, studies have shown that long distances and lack of public transport services affect young people’s educational choices at secondary level more than individual aspirations or competences (Armila, Käyhkö and Pöysä, 2018[10]).
Except for one region (Lapland), youth unemployment is also consistently higher than the national average of 11.5%, ranging between 12.2% in Kainuu to 16% in North Karelia. In all but one region (Kainuu), structural unemployment among 15-64 year-olds is slightly higher than the national average of 4.2%, ranging between 4.3% in North Ostrobothnia and 6.2% in North Karelia. In addition, low population density, the decline in the population and the closure of the eastern border have impacted employment opportunities and limit opportunities for young entrepreneurs. Youth stakeholders consulted by the OECD stressed that education and job opportunities in the eight regions were scarce, prompting young people to move to big urban centres in the South and West, with little prospects of returning to their home region later in life. They also warned that plans to further streamline university programmes would further reduce cultural, social and economic opportunities for youth and hence accelerate their outward migration to more prosperous regions.
Social exclusion and poverty are also widespread. The risk of social exclusion among young people is higher in these regions: 14.7% of young people are at risk of social exclusion on average in the whole country, while the share ranges between 15.2% in North Karelia and 19.1% in Kymenlaakso. Except for North Savo and Kainuu, children in the eight regions are also facing a slightly higher poverty risk compared to the national average of 11.7%, ranging between 11.9% in Lapland to 14.6% in North Karelia. At the same time, despite these higher risks, preventive social assistance remains more limited in these regions: the share of 18–24-year-olds living in households with a recipient of preventive social assistance ranges from 0.4% in Lapland, North Karelia and North Ostrobothnia to 1.3% in South Karelia, compared to 1.3% on average across the country. At the same time, significant differences emerge across the regions and with regard to national averages concerning sickness allowance for mental health reasons – North Savo represents an outlier with 41.3 in 1000 persons aged 18-24, significantly exceeding South Karelia with 19 on the other side of the spectrum and the national average of 27.9.
When considering health-related outcomes, in all but two regions, 8th and 9th graders are more likely to be overweight and to use a tobacco product or an e-cigarette every day than their peers across the whole country. At the same time, five out of the eight regions do slightly better than the national average in terms of the share of pupils in 8th and 9th year of comprehensive school with moderate and severe anxiety. However, differences between the best and worst performing regions (19.5% in South Karelia; 23.1% in Kainuu) and the national average (21.4%) are rather small. Only small differences also exist in terms of physical exercise among 8th and 9th graders, feeling lonely (13.9% in North Karelia; 17.7% in Kainuu, compared to 15% nation-wide), and the share of 18-34 year-olds receiving a disability pension due to mental and behavioural disorders (1.8% in South Karelia; 3% in Kymenlaakso, compared to 1.8% nation-wide). A more ambiguous result emerges in relation to the “very weak experience of social inclusion” among people aged 20+, where four regions do better and four do worse (7.5%-12%) compared to the national average of 9.6%.
Results from these indicators are in line with some of the issues raised by youth stakeholders consulted by the OECD in November 20244, notably in terms of limited education and employment opportunities, lack of a dynamic market for businesses and mental health issues. At the same time, the THL database does not cover a number of other important challenges that were raised as priority. These included high prices (especially for electricity and gas) and limited financial means, forcing young people to balance their time between studying and finding a paid job, and excluding young people with limited financial means from participating in leisure, cultural and other opportunities, feeding boredom. Moreover, public transportation in remote areas was seen as unreliable and less developed than in the past. Youth stakeholders also pointed to challenges in finding affordable housing, due to high rent and energy prices as well as lack of student housing, especially in regions that are frequented by many tourists.
Replies from the Regional Councils (RCs) to the OECD questionnaire suggest that closing the border in response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has impacted youth outcomes negatively, although quantifying its effect was difficult due to the occurrence of various overlapping crises (COVID-19 pandemic, inflation/cost-of-living). RCs and youth stakeholders agreed that the impact of the war differed significantly across regions, municipalities within the same region, as well as different segments depending on young people’s social and economic background and whether they were living in predominantly urban or rural contexts. However, mental health, exclusion and loneliness were recurring themes highlighted by both sides with the dominant perception stated that challenges preceding the border closure have deteriorated since.
Available studies, such as the Citizens' Pulse run by Statistics Finland, suggest that young people across the eight regions have shown remarkable resilience in the face of new threats to prosperity and security. In a survey run in October 2024, 67% of respondents aged 15-29 said they were worried or quite worried about “Russia’s recent actions”, compared to 82% of respondents aged 60-74 (Finnish Government, 2024[11]).
A study conducted by E2 Research on the thoughts of young people in Eastern Finland in February and April 2024 finds that only 17% of young people in Kainuu, North Karelia and South Karelia feel that the closure of the eastern border has negatively affected their daily lives. More than two-thirds of respondents report to be very or fairly satisfied with their lives, with 69% confirming they feel a sense of “home district love” for their place of residence. At the same time, 44% stress that the proximity to the border frightens them with important differences observed between young men (39%) and young women (49%). Moreover, 62% consider it likely that they will move away, primarily due to limited work or education opportunities. The study also points to significant gaps across gender in terms of concerns about coping and wellbeing (a concern to 60% of young women and 33% of young men), financial difficulties (55% of young women and 34% of young men) and finding a partner / loneliness (35% of young women and 51% of young men). The study underscores the importance of taking young people’s concerns seriously and the need to increase the sense of security in Eastern Finland, such as by providing more opportunities for discussion at home, in schools and where young people practice their hobbies (E2 Research, 2024[12]).
OECD consultations with youth stakeholders suggest that the impact of border closures on tourism differs significantly across the regions. Whereas tourism was considered booming in places like Rovaniemi and further North, which are heavily frequented by tourists from Europe and Asia, young people from Imatra (South Karelia) felt the loss of services in the commercial, consumer and health care sectors were tangible due to the drop in tourists from Russia. They also pointed out the impact of young people losing their jobs on their income and prospects to fund a family, further accelerating population ageing and decline, and the negative impact of reduced budgets at municipal level to support the operations of local youth councils. At the same time, Finland’s accession to NATO was seen by some as an important step to attract foreign students. Whereas some regional representatives pointed to the new job opportunities for young people Finland’s membership in NATO would create, some youth representatives consulted by the OECD stressed that young people might feel more concerned about safety in these regions and more anxious about joining the military service than before the escalation of the war.
Who does what in Finnish youth policy, service delivery and participation?
Strategic frameworks and planning at national level
The 2024-27 National Youth Work and Youth Policy Programme “Strengthening young people's wellbeing through multidisciplinary measures” (“the National Programme”) identifies the national objectives and measures for promoting young people’s growth and living conditions in Finland (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2024[6]). It defines youth policy objectives and measures to achieve them across relevant sectors, youth work priorities and Finland's national objectives for European and international activities in the youth sector, in coherence with the current Government's vision "A strong and committed Finland" (Finnish Government, 2023[13]). According to Finland’s Youth Act (1285/2016), the Ministry of Education and Culture is chiefly responsible to implement the National Programme in collaboration with various other ministries, such as Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and Ministry of the Environment (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2017[14]).
In line with Finland’s Youth Act and the Government Decree on Youth Work and Policy (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2017[15]), which provide the legal basis, the National Programme covers measures targeting all young people under the age of 29 while most focus on the 12-25 years cohort. Key to the current National Programme are the objectives to prevent social exclusion among young people, and to address the gaps in wellbeing and mental health problems. It also features “Inclusion and strengthening democracy” as a core theme in line with the draft of the National Programme for the Promotion of Democracy and Participation, led by the Ministry of Justice, which underscores the country’s objective to remain among the most democratic countries in the world (Ministry of Justice, 2023[16]).
For 2024, the estimated amount dedicated to support youth work in the state budget is around EUR 74 million. The biggest share of EUR 30 million is dedicated to youth workshops, outreach youth work and youth work in schools and educational institutions, followed by financial support of EUR 18 million in non-governmental youth organisations working at national level. EUR 5.6 million are foreseen to support the development, innovation and research, including youth work centres of expertise and international co‑operation and EUR 5.53 million are government transfers for local and regional youth work. The financial resources to support regional youth work are administered by the Regional State Administrative Agencies (AVI)5 (Ministry of Finance, 2024[17]). Compared to 2023, the state budget for youth work decreased by EUR 4 million. Reportedly, further cuts to fund civil society organisations are envisaged, prompting the Finnish National Youth Council Allianssi and the national students union to publish a statement, which called on the government to refrain from further budget cuts that would affect young people (Nuorisoala, 2024[18]).
Youth policy and service delivery in municipalities and regions
Municipalities in Finland rely on strong self-government based on local democracy and decision-making, and the right to levy taxes. Municipalities are responsible for providing certain statutory basic services to their residents, which are financed through municipal taxes, central government transfers and fees charged for certain services. These include education and training, early childhood education and care, youth work, and cultural and other types of activities for young people (Digital and Population Data Services Agency, 2024[19]). As per the Youth Act, to co‑ordinate local youth policies and services, municipalities are required by law to establish a counselling and service network.
In 2023, under the reform of the healthcare, social welfare and rescue services, 21 WSCs were established with the objective to promote equal services, reduce inequalities in health and wellbeing and cut the rise in expenditures. The WSCs are broadly organised along the same territorial lines as the regions. As the municipalities, WSCs are self-governing and rely on central government funding, however, they do not have the right to levy their own taxes. With their creation, WSCs have taken over responsibilities for organising health, social and emergency services from the municipalities. Duties of the WSCs also extend to services for children, young people and families, student welfare and social welfare, among others (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2024[20]). In turn, employment and economic development services are expected to be transferred from the state to the municipalities in 2025. The Child Welfare Act (417/2007) requires both municipalities and WSCs to draw up a plan to promote the welfare of children and young people (Finlex, 2007[21]).
The third subnational layer of government in Finland are its 19 regions. Regional Councils (RCs) act as statutory joint municipal authorities and promote the interests of their regions, in co‑ordination with central government authorities, central cities, municipalities, universities and other stakeholders involved in regional development. Key statutory tasks of the RCs include regional development and regional land use planning. Regional planning is advanced through a long-term regional plan (20-30 years) and four-year regional strategic programmes, which are prepared in co‑operation with other bodies. The current regional strategic programmes cover the 2022-25 period (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, 2024[22]). In addition to their statutory mandate, the RCs have a wide range of voluntary tasks determined by the specific characteristics of each region. The Regional Development Decision 2024-27, which sets out the Government's regional development priorities and objectives, underscores that special attention should be given to regional actions that strengthen the wellbeing of young people. It also points to other priorities impacting young people’s wellbeing, notably around creating attractive living environments, making regions accessible, and promoting employment, education and culture (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland, 2024[23]).
The Regional State Administrative Agencies (AVI) develop youth work and services offered for young people in co‑operation with local authorities, RCs and the third sector. In 2026, most of the tasks of AVI as well as those of the Environmental and Natural Resources division of Finland’s 15 Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centres6) and the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Valvira) will be re-organised into the Finnish Supervisory Agency (Regional State Administrative Agency, 2024[24]). This reform will bring together the central government's licensing, guidance and oversight functions. At the same time, new regional Economic Development Centres will be established.
The legal basis for youth participation in municipalities and regions
In Finland, the rights of all individuals “to participate in and influence the development of society and his or her living conditions” is anchored in the Constitution (Section 2). The Constitution also establishes that “public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activity and to influence the decisions that concern him or her” (Section 14) (Ministry of Justice, 1999[25]).
The Youth Act holds in Section 24 that “the local and central government authorities shall offer and organise opportunities for young people to be involved and exert an influence in the processing of issues related to local, regional and nationwide youth work and policies, or otherwise ensure that they are consulted in said contexts. Additionally, young people shall be consulted on matters that affect them” (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2017[14]). Moreover, according to the Local Government Act (410/2015) and the Act on Wellbeing Services (611/2021), all municipalities and WSCs must have a youth council (YC) or similar youth advocacy groups. The frameworks also hold that citizens have a wide range of opportunities for participation and influence other than the right to vote, such as:
Right to submit and vote in referendums
Organising discussions on the authority's service and financial planning: residents' panels
Election of service user representatives to local authority decision-making bodies
Support for independent planning by residents
Right of initiative
Councils for the elderly
Disability councils
Requirements for sufficient communication and information sharing by the authority.
Compared to the statutory provisions established for municipalities and WSCs, youth participatory practices in the RCs are less clearly defined in law. There is no explicit legal requirement to consult and engage young people in regional planning. However, the Land Use and Construction Act (132/1999) acknowledges that “[regional] plans must be prepared in interaction with such persons and bodies on whose circumstances or benefits the plan may have substantial impact” (Section 6). To achieve a safe, healthy, pleasant and socially functional living and working environment, it also underscores that “the needs of various population groups, such as children, the elderly and the handicapped” should be taken into account (Section 5) (Finlex, 1999[26]). Furthermore, in Chapter 3, the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) establishes the right to be heard in an administrative matter, which applies to central government authorities, municipal authorities, autonomous institutions governed by public law, the agencies operating under Parliament, and the Office of the President of the Republic (Ministry of Justice, 2003[27]). The operation of Regional Councils are also bound to the Act on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment (200/2005), which states in Section 8 that the “preparation of a plan or programme shall be organised so that the public have the opportunity to obtain information on the starting points, objectives and preparation of the plan or programme and the environmental report, and to state their opinion on the matter to the authority responsible for the plan or programme” (Ministry of the Environment, 2005[28]).
Promoting youth participation in regional planning – Current practice and challenges
Regional planning relies on a rather narrow set of youth-specific data
RCs replies to the OECD questionnaire suggest that data to inform regional planning and implementation through a lens of their specific needs and challenges is not always available. Table 7.1 above introduced indicators from the THL database that are primarily used by RCs to inform regional planning, mainly focused on young people’s employment, loneliness, and mental health outcomes and health behaviour.
For instance, available information suggests that more granular data on young people’s educational outcomes and data at the intersection of education and employment (e.g. the share of students combining work and studies) are not available at regional level. Moreover, while the THL database covers the share of 18-24 year-olds that are unemployed, it does not include data on the rate of temporary contracts nor the use of public employment services by young people.
In the field of social inclusion and health, data on the affordability of housing – a key concern to many young people in Finland – is absent. The database also does not include “proxy data”, for instance on the share of young people living with their parents, nor on the availability of social housing and the homeless population. While it presents the “At-risk-of-poverty-rate for children”, the database does not include the risk of poverty rate for young adults, which can significantly differ as previous OECD work has demonstrated (OECD, 2024[29]). While the database includes age-disaggregated data on the recipients of a disability pension due to mental and behavioural disorders (18-34 years), it does not provide region-specific data on the share of youth receiving out-of-work benefits, such as unemployment benefits.
Notably, region-specific data on the relationship between young people and subnational public authorities is absent, such as their trust in public institutions (e.g. elected officials, police, healthcare system, education system, courts). Moreover, the THL database does not cover any information about young people’s political party membership or participation in elections, nor on their public and political engagement through non-institutionalised channels (e.g. contact with an elected official, participation in demonstrations/social movements, signing petitions, posting opinions online, volunteering for third sector organisations or campaigning, etc.). While data on some of these dimensions is available at national level through the Youth Barometer, data disaggregated at the regional level is not available.
While the THL database is most frequently used to inform regional planning, it is not the only resource at hand of the RCs. Reportedly, some RCs analyse the results of the European Social Fund (ESF) Plus and other development projects and make use of available data on the uptake and use of public services. Some RCs also report to organise their own data collection processes. Among the most common challenges reported, RCs point out that most of the available data at regional level cannot be disaggregated by age, which comes with important limitations to take into account the specific needs of young people in regional planning and implementation. Furthermore, it was noted that the youth population in most of the eight regions is relatively small, shrinking and dispersed, which makes data collection through surveys and other means challenging and costly. Most of the regions also reported limited financial and human resources to collect and integrate data in-house.
To address these limitations, some RCs have funded or otherwise supported research-based development projects with a focus on young people. For instance, in North Karelia, the RC and WSC collaborated together with the police to run a survey and organise four regional meetings with young people to discuss issues around substance use, mental health, social and health services and safety in 2021. Young people’s inputs were used to inform the planning of youth services and the preparation of the regional programme. The project identified important evidence gaps on young people’s wellbeing and service needs, which resulted in a project with HUMAK University of Applied Sciences. Table 7.2 presents an overview of this project, along with further examples across regions to collect youth-specific data to inform regional planning.
Despite these notable initiatives, they remain linked to specific (short-term) projects and initiatives, lacking continuity. Moreover, data on young people’s services uptakes and needs does not appear to be collected systematically. Although a few indicators focus on young people in vulnerable circumstances, several of the indicators in Table 7.1 in beginning of the chapter gather data from 8th or 9th graders, raising questions on how the needs and perspectives of young people out of school or otherwise at high risk of social exclusion can be gathered more systematically. RC representatives also raised that it was difficult to integrate data from different sources and to integrate such evidence into their work.
Despite innovative practices in some regions, structured opportunities for youth stakeholders to shape regional priorities remain limited
Although there is no statutory obligation for RCs to consult or engage young people in their work, the eight regions involve youth stakeholders in regional planning to different extents. RCs’ replies to the OECD questionnaire suggest that the maturity of the existing participation mechanisms and practices vary significantly across the regions. The most common forms are listed below:
Youth councils (YCs) at the level of regions and/or WSCs
Public consultations targeting young people
Seats reserved for youth representatives in RC-run groups and bodies
Youth-led initiatives in thematic areas covered by the RCs
Youth participation in the collection of evidence to inform regional programmes
Young people as beneficiaries of regional programmes
With the creation of the WSCs in 2023 as a new structure at subnational level, each WSC and municipality is required by law to establish a youth council to give young people a say in regional and local decision-making. In practice, youth councils at the level of regions that pre-existed this reform have been re-purposed and now operate under the WSCs or both entities through special agreements (see below). In other WSCs, the creation of youth councils is only taking place now. For the same reason, the formalisation of the engagement between YCs and RCs differs significantly from one region to another.
According to replies to the OECD survey and interviews with RC representatives, in Kainuu, for instance, the YC action plan was approved by the WSC board in 2022. Moreover, in Kainuu, North Karelia and North Ostrobothnia, the involvement of the YC in the decision-making process of the RC and the WSC was formalised by an agreement between the two entities. In North Ostrobothnia, the right of the YC to present and speak at RC meetings through its chairperson and vice-chair are described in the RC's administrative regulation. In Kymenlaakso, the YCs were invited to respond to a survey to share their opinion on the success of the regional programme. In South Savo, a pilot project was implemented by the local authorities of Mäntyharju to involve YCs in economic planning (Vahti, 2021[32]). In South Savo and North Karelia, youth representatives are invited to shape regional planning through the RC co‑operation groups and in South Karelia, student organisations are represented in the provincial co‑operation group.
Despite these innovative examples, in general, there is limited evidence as regards the YCs’ impact on the work of the RCs. The replies from other regions also suggest that YCs in their geographic area are not always operational and that no systematic relationship and agreement have been established to determine their mandate in regional planning and development. Reportedly, the creation of the WSCs has created further uncertainty in some regions as regards the role of youth stakeholders in regional planning given that their mandate significantly differs from the role of RCs.
Youth representatives consulted by the OECD underlined the importance of structured and meaningful ways for young people to shape regional planning. Noting that "regional councils tend to be quite distant", they underscored that early participation and open access for youth to participate in local and regional planning and implementation (e.g. as volunteers) was crucial, as was the recognition of such efforts (e.g. through study points). Some also argued that participants in youth councils should receive the same financial compensation as adult councilors. Moreover, they underlined the important role played by student associations to raise local and national issues and identify solutions together with city authorities on issues affecting all segments in society, such as housing. Sustainable funding was raised as a prerequisite for effective and continuous youth participation.
As key challenges, they identified the small number of (active) young people in some municipalities, weakening the impact of local youth councils. They also stressed that engagement practices by local authorities differed depending on their personal commitment and knowledge of the YC's work and that more needed to be done to build skills and competencies among young people to feel sufficiently confident to participate. With a few exceptions (e.g. Imatra, South Karelia), scope for improvement was seen with regard to the RCs use of social media platforms to communicate with young people.
Regional Councils are yet to build administrative capacity for meaningful youth participation
When asked if and how youth stakeholders should be involved in the design and implementation of the new transition strategies and action plans, all RCs acknowledged that young people should have an active role. Table 7.3 sets out some of the key principles considered crucial by RCs across the different stages of the process, as well as certain evaluation criteria.
Note: Kainuu (KA), Kymenlaakso (KL), Lapland (LA),North Ostrobothnia (NO), North Savo (NS), South Karelia (SK), South Savo (SS)
Source: RC replies to the OECD questionnaire.
In practice, established mechanisms and administrative capacities within RCs to consult and engage YCs, civil society organisations and youth workers and to support them vary widely. Whereas some RCs report that an "established approach" exists, others point to a "lack of institutional mechanisms, interest, and capacity".
Key challenges raised are the lack of financial resources/instruments to support youth work and participatory practices. In most regions, RCs provide little or no financial, organizational or technical support to youth stakeholders. Notable exceptions include the practice of covering travel and the YC’s operational costs in some regions, where the population is spare and long-distance travel is required to mobilise young people. However, at least in some cases, mobilizing young people was considered difficult. Resources appear to be more readily available at municipal and county wellbeing level where YCs are mandatory by law.
In terms of human resources, effectively mapping young people’s needs and perspectives and involving them in planning and decision-making processes requires different professions and stakeholder to co‑operate effectively based on common purpose, adequate resources and long-term commitment. Beyond this, involving young people at the risk of exclusion requires specific support, time and resources to build trust and confidence in the ability to express themselves.
Current practices to mobilise such capacities within the RCs vary widely. Only a few have a designated person in charge of promoting the relationship with the YC. In other cases, municipal youth workers support YCs at both local and regional level. In North Karelia, meetings are organised for those in support roles, which are also attended by a representative of the State Regional Administration. To maintain contact across relevant stakeholders, the RC in North Karelia also co‑ordinates a welfare and health promotion network, including various types of groups and co-operative bodies dealing with youth issues. However, intra-regional platforms of co‑operation appear to be the exception rather than the norm.
Finally, the creation of WSCs raised new questions about the effective co‑ordination of (youth) services between municipalities, RCs and WSCs. RCs stressed that further clarification and streamlining was needed as well as structures to promote co‑operation – a task that was considered difficult due to the decline in available resources for this task.
Key findings
Addressing youth challenges in eastern Finland requires co‑ordinated policy action at the regional and national levels. The Finnish government recognises the importance of youth participation through its Open Government National Action Plan and National Youth Work and Youth Policy Programme. However, efforts to strengthen youth engagement, improve local economic opportunities, and enhance access to social services must be scaled up to ensure that young people remain in and contribute to the long-term development of these regions.
Youth participation in regional planning is uneven and often lacks institutional support. While all municipalities and Wellbeing Services Counties (WSCs) are required to establish youth councils, formal mechanisms for youth engagement at the regional level vary significantly. Some Regional Councils (RCs) actively involve youth stakeholders through advisory groups and consultations, while others lack clear frameworks for engagement. In regions where youth councils exist, their role in decision-making is often informal, with limited financial and technical support to ensure sustained participation.
Gaps in youth-specific data hinder effective regional planning and policy responses. Regional data on youth well-being primarily focuses on employment, loneliness, and mental health, but lacks insights into key factors such as temporary contracts, use of public employment services, housing affordability, and public transportation accessibility. While some regions have initiated projects to gather youth-specific evidence, these efforts are often short-term and not systematically integrated into regional planning processes.
Young people in Finland’s eastern border regions face significant challenges related to education, employment, and well-being. Educational attainment levels are lower than the national average in all but one region (North Ostrobothnia), with limited access to upper secondary schools and vocational education training. Youth unemployment exceeds the national average in seven out of eight regions, ranging from 12.2% in Kainuu to 16% in North Karelia. A lack of local economic opportunities, coupled with outward migration to urban centers, exacerbates these challenges, raising concerns about long-term regional sustainability.
The risk of social exclusion and poverty is higher among young people in the eastern and southeastern border regions compared to the rest of Finland. On average, 14.7% of young people across Finland are at risk of social exclusion, but this figure rises to 19.1% in Kymenlaakso and 15.2% in North Karelia. The at-risk-of-poverty rate for children also exceeds the national average in most regions, with North Karelia recording the highest rate at 14.6%. Preventive social assistance remains relatively limited, despite heightened economic vulnerability among youth in these regions.
Mental health challenges and social isolation are pressing concerns, with regional disparities in access to support services. The proportion of young people receiving sickness allowances for mental health reasons is significantly above the national average in North Savo (41.3 per 1 000 persons aged 18-24, compared to the national average of 27.9). Feelings of loneliness and anxiety are widespread, with 17.7% of 8th and 9th graders in Kainuu reporting high levels of loneliness. While mental health outcomes vary by region, gaps in access to mental health services and youth support networks remain a key challenge.
The closure of Finland’s eastern border has had mixed economic and social effects on young people. While many young people express resilience in the face of recent crises, 44% of youth in border regions report heightened concerns about security, with notable gender differences (39% among young men and 49% among young women). Tourism-dependent areas such as South Karelia have seen a decline in business activity due to reduced Russian tourism, impacting youth employment opportunities. At the same time, some regions view Finland’s NATO accession as a potential driver for attracting foreign students and professionals.
References
[10] Armila, P., M. Käyhkö and V. Pöysä (2018), On the Educational Edge of a Learning Society: The Finnish Hinterland as a Framework of Educational Choices for Young People, Journal of Youth Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1453128.
[8] DG REFORM / OECD (2024), 24FI01 - Transition Strategy for Eastern and South East Finland’s Border Regions and Areas.
[19] Digital and Population Data Services Agency (2024), Municipalities and local government, https://www.suomi.fi/citizen/rights-and-obligations/digital-support-and-administrative-services/guide/how-finlands-public-administration-works/municipalities-and-local-government.
[12] E2 Research (2024), Research Themes and Projects, https://www.e2.fi/en/research-themes-projects/projects/young-people-as-future-makers-in-eastern-finland/e2-research-studied-the-thoughts-of-young-people-in-eastern-finland-when-there-are-so-many-threats-of-war-and-nuclear-issues-in-the-air-it-feels-like-w.
[30] Eronen, E. and J. Simonen (2024), Prerequisites for a good life in Eastern Finland: Views of young people under the age of 30. Final report of the Youth as Makers of the Future of Eastern Finland project, https://www.e2.fi/julkaisut/julkaisut/hyvan-elaman-edellytykset-ita-suomessa-alle-30-vuotiaiden-nuorten-nakemyksia.html.
[21] Finlex (2007), Child Welfare Act, https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2007/en20070417_20131292.pdf.
[26] Finlex (1999), Land Use and Building Act (132/1999), https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990132.pdf.
[11] Finnish Government (2024), Summary of Citizens’ Pulse, https://valtioneuvosto.fi/kansalaispulssi/yhteenvedot.
[13] Finnish Government (2023), A strong and committed Finland: Programme of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s Government, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/165044/Programme-of-Prime-Minister-Petteri-Orpos-Government-20062023.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y.
[3] Kitagawa, F. et al. (2021), “Anchoring talent to regions: the role of universities in graduate retention through employment and entrepreneurship”, Regional Studies, Vol. 56/6, pp. 1001-1014, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1904136.
[23] Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland (2024), Evolving and Prosperous Regions. Government’s Regional Development Decision 2024–2027, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/165523/TEM_2024_12.pdf.
[22] Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland (2024), Regional development and regional councils, https://tem.fi/en/regional-councils.
[6] Ministry of Education and Culture (2024), Strengthening young people’s wellbeing through multidisciplinary measures, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/165628/OKM_2024_23.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y.
[15] Ministry of Education and Culture (2017), Government Decree on Youth Work and Policy, https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/4276311/Government+Decree+on+youth+work+and+policy+2017.pdf/465c3d48-b35e-4842-ac53-01d45626362e/Government+Decree+on+youth+work+and+policy+2017.pdf.
[14] Ministry of Education and Culture (2017), Youth Act, https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/4276311/Youth+Act+2017/c9416321-15d7-4a32-b29a-314ce961bf06/Youth+Act+2017.pdf?t=1503558225000.
[17] Ministry of Finance (2024), Government budget proposals, Draft budget 2024, 91 Youth work, https://budjetti.vm.fi/indox/sisalto.jsp?year=2024&lang=fi&maindoc=/2024/aky/aky.xml&id=/2024/aky/YksityiskohtaisetPerustelut/29/91/91.html.
[16] Ministry of Justice (2023), National Programme to Promote Democracy and Participation, https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/projects-and-legislation/project?tunnus=OM125:00/2023.
[27] Ministry of Justice (2003), Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003), https://www.finlex.fi/sv/laki/kaannokset/2003/en20030434.pdf.
[25] Ministry of Justice (1999), The Constitution of Finland, https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf.
[20] Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2024), Wellbeing services counties will be responsible for organising health, social and rescue services, https://stm.fi/en/wellbeing-services-counties.
[28] Ministry of the Environment (2005), Act on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment (200/2005), https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2005/en20050200_20230768.pdf.
[18] Nuorisoala (2024), Youth and student organisations: Young people have been cut too much, savings most now be sought elsewhere, https://nuorisoala.fi/nuorilta-on-leikattu-liikaa-saastoja-on-etsittava-nyt-muualta/.
[4] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[29] OECD (2024), Together for Children and Young People in Ireland: Towards a New Governance Framework, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/12f4dfb2-en.
[2] OECD (2023), Rethinking Regional Attractiveness in the New Global Environment, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9448db4-en.
[7] OECD (2020), Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice: Fit for All Generations?, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e5cb8a-en.
[5] Open Government Finland (2023), Open Government - Action Plan 2023-2027 Finland, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Finland_Action-Plan_2023-2027_December_EN.pdf.
[1] Pohjois-Karjala Maakuntaliito (2024), Proposals for measures for the Eastern Finland Programme from the Counties of Eastern Finland.
[24] Regional State Administrative Agency (2024), Regional State Administrative Agencies, https://avi.fi/en/regional-state-administrative-agencies.
[9] Statistics Finland (n.d.), 125k -- Comprehensive schools, upper seconday general schools, vocational institutions and folk high schools by size measured size of educational institution, 2005-2023, https://pxdata.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__kjarj/statfin_kjarj_pxt_125k.px/.
[31] Tormulainen, A. (2023), How are young people doing? A research report on the well-being of young people in North Karelia, https://www.humak.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/miten-nuorilla-menee-2023.pdf.
[32] Vahti, J. (2021), Hands-on work inspired young people to make a difference in Mäntyharju, https://www.sitra.fi/artikkelit/kaytannon-tekeminen-innosti-nuoret-vaikuttamaan-mantyharjulla/.
← 1. The concept of comprehensive security ensures that the vital functions of society are maintained through collaboration between authorities, the business community, organisations, and citizens in all circumstances and at all levels of society. The foundation of comprehensive security is established through arrangements and legislation implemented during normal times (Finnish Security Committee (2025), internet pages visited on 30/01/2025, https://turvallisuuskomitea.fi/en/comprehensive-security/).
← 2. For the purpose of the TSI project and this chapter, “youth stakeholders” cover non-organised youth as well as representatives from national, regional and municipal organisations working with and for young people, such as youth councils at regional / Wellbeing Services County / municipal level, student unions, the Union of Local Youth Councils, the Barents Regional Youth Council, the Guides and Scouts of Finland and organisations focused on specific topics (e.g. 4H, Nuorisoseurat).
← 3. The TSI project and this study cover the following regions: Lapland, Kainuu, Kymenlaakso, North Karelia, North Ostrobothnia, North Savo, South Karelia, South Savo.
← 4. Two sessions were held on 7th and 14th November.
← 5. Continental Finland has six Regional State Administrative Agencies (Southern Finland, Eastern Finland, Lapland, Southwestern Finland, Western and Inland Finland and Northern Finland). They act as the regional representatives of eight ministries to promote the realization of basic rights and legal protection, accessibility of health and social services, sustainable use of the environment, domestic safety and healthy and safe living and working environments. Regional State Administrative Agencies implement, direct and enforce laws in their respective areas (Regional State Administrative Agencies - Aluehallintovirasto).
← 6. Finland’s 15 ELY Centres are tasked with promoting regional competitiveness, well-being and sustainable development and addressing climate change. They are responsible for (i) business and industry, labour force, competence and cultural activities; (ii) Transport and infrastructure; and (iii) Environment and natural resources.