The Strengths and Weaknesses of Water Governance for Water Security in Finland

In a recent publication in the International Journal of Water Resources Development, researchers have presented the results of their studies into the current water governance system in Finland. While Finland has featured regularly at the top of international water and governance rankings, the country nevertheless faces growing water security challenges. The first of these is the disruption of the hydrological cycle as a result of climate change, resulting in increased risks of droughts and hazards. The second is related to the difficulties in achieving the good ecological and chemical status of freshwater ecosystems as set out in the EU’s Water Framework Directive.

Rather than looking purely at the outcomes of Finland’s current water governance system in terms of the reduction of climate related risks or the status of the country’s water resources, the study focused on the institutional strengths and weaknesses and the capacity of the various actors to achieve the desired outcomes. To do this, the researchers started with the twelve  principles for water governance which were developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2015 after an extensive international consultative process. However, the researchers argued that the OECD principles are focused primarily on concerns of effectiveness and efficiency in water governance, and less concerned with issues of recognitive and distributional justice,, or of cultural or environmental sustainability, and therefore the analytic framework for the research was somewhat broadened to include these aspects. The key questions that the research addressed were related to the expertise and resources of individuals and institutions in Finland, the adequacy of the institutional frameworks, the efficiency, degree of participation, accountability and transparency of water management process, and the outcome of water management interventions.

The researchers looked at three case studies within the country: the ‘bioeconomy’ sector, which encompasses agriculture, forestry and aquaculture, the mining sector, and the country’s existing water infrastructure (water supply, wastewater treatment, hydropower and other infrastructure)

In the first area that researchers looked into – that of expertise and resources – it was found that there were shortcomings in the expertise in the bioeconomy and mining sector of the impacts on water resources of factors such as increased production, land use changes, and climate change. There have been incidents of sever pollution which appears to have taken actors by surprise, even if provision was already made in national laws for the mitigation of environmental risks.  In addition, it was found that there had been deep cuts to the human and financial resources of the public water sector, resulting in reduced capacity to protect public interests and a relative increase in the influence of the private sector in water governance.      

The second area which the researchers looked into is the adequacy of Finland’s institutional and regulatory frameworks. Here, for the ‘bioeconomy’, they found that the regulation of point source pollution (i.e. contamination that enters the environment from an easily identified and confined place) was quite well regulated in Finland, as it is across Europe and has in fact become stricter over time. By contrast, however, curbing diffuse pollution proves to be more challenging for the Finnish regulatory system. There is a mix of policy tools to guide decisions on diffuse pollution, but a lack of legal tools to regulate it effectively. Similarly, for the mining sector it was found that there is insufficient legislation to effectively limit effects on water bodies even if there is currently a renewed Mining Act which is due to come into force. The researchers found two critical weaknesses in the protection of water bodies: firstly, the water related permits are quite inflexible and are difficult to adjust to changing circumstance. And secondly, the shrinking of the public sector was seen to negatively affect long term monitoring of and control over water use.

The third area addressed by the researchers was efficiency, equal participation, accountability and transparency. The researchers found that in general the quality of these governance processes is high in Finland, even if there is still room for improvement. The efficiency of permitting has improved over time, but both applicants for a permit and those appealing the application had issues with the complexity and changing nature of the permit system even if the system is the most effective mechanism for setting (or challenging) norms.  In terms of participation, there are provisions in law for public comment on environmental impact assessments, although logging and forestry activities for example do not require a permit. In general, the researchers found that Finnish governance systems are accountable, and Finland also ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world: most companies have gone beyond the requirements of legislation in order to facilitate transparency and trust building.

The researchers also investigated the outcomes of water governance processes, looking predominantly at its effectiveness on the one hand and its ability to provide equity and justice on the other hand. It was found that in general, key governance processes are indeed seen to be effective, even if the final result in terms of achieving water security outcomes is a bit more mixed: point source pollution has been effectively curbed but diffuse pollution is a persistent problem. In terms of equity and justice, 100% of the population has access to safely managed water services and 99% has access to at least basic levels of sanitation. However, the utilities are currently struggling with high  operation and maintenance costs.

Therefore, the researchers conclude that water governance in Finland functions relatively well in general. Nevertheless, it remains challenging to maintain a good ecological status of water bodies, there remain existing and potential threats to both ecosystems and traditional livelihoods, and there is growing opposition from civil society to mining and forestry activities which have detrimental environmental and social impacts.   

.