WATER GOVERNANCE FOR

WATER SECURITY: ANALYSING

INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHS
AND CHALLENGES IN FINLAND
NADHA SABILLA S
INTRODUCTION
Water security is an increasingly dominant concept in water resources management, focusing
on the dynamic relationship between humans and water (Cook & Bakker, 2012; Zeitoun et al.,
2016). Understood as the sustainable access to safe quality water while protecting against
water-related hazards for people, the economy and environment alike, water security can even
be seen as the ultimate societal aim of water governance (Sadoff et al., 2020). Conversely, as
global water crises and a related lack of water security have long been cited to stem from
inappropriate water governance (Biswas & Tortajada, 2010), a closer look at the two concepts –
water security and water governance – as well as their relations, associated frameworks and
practical applications, is merited.
In this article, we critically reflect on prevailing international water governance approaches,
notably the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) water
governance approach (OECD, 2015), and propose and apply a revised list of principles and
criteria to analyse the current water governance system in Finland
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
We ground our analytical framework in the OECD’s water governance approach, which we
consider to be among the most comprehensive approaches guiding water governance (OECD,
2018, 2015) (Figure 1). The OECD’s approach includes a water governance policy cycle with
associated principles (Figure 1(a)), implementation indicators (Figure 1(b)) and a governance
gap analysis (Figure 1(c)). The application of the OECD’s approach on the ground remains
limited, but has been used as an evaluation frame in country case studies in Europe, Asia–
Pacific, Africa and South America (e.g., Neto et al., 2018; OECD, 2019).
While the OECD’s approach builds on country consultations and multistakeholder engagement
(Gurría, 2020), it has also received criticism for its limitations. Taylor et al. (2019) question the
justification of the proposed governance processes and ask: Who sets them and their concrete
targets in the first place, and who defines what ‘good governance’ is? We also note that the
OECD’s principles entail a risk of emphasizing efficiency and effectiveness over aspects of
procedural and distributional equity and justice, and the OECD’s approach may thus potentially
neglect two fundamental aspects of ensuring water security for all (Zeitoun et al., 2016).
Figure 1.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development’s (OECD) water governance
approach as it relates to the water governance
policy cycle and related components (a–c) for
different phases of the cycle (adapted from
OECD, 2015): (a) the OECD’s Principles of
Water Governance lay the foundation for good
water governance (OECD, 2015); (b) the
OECD’s Water Governance Indicator
Framework is a tool to assess the status of
water governance (OECD, 2018); and (c)
governance gaps analysis is a framework used
to identify and overcome main water
governance challenges (OECD, 2010).
METHODS
Our analysis of water governance for water security in the context of Finland makes use of a
multiple-embedded case study design (Yin, 2013). The design includes critical and
representative case studies of three water-related sectors: bioeconomy (agriculture, forestry
and aquaculture), mining, and water infrastructure (water supply, waste water treatment,
hydropower and other water structures). These three sectors are particularly topical, as they
have recently witnessed a number of water-related management and governance challenges in
Finland related to, for example, mining spills and diffuse pollution from agriculture and forestry
(Marttunen et al., 2019; Putkuri et al., 2014; RIL, 2021; Safety Investigation Authority, 2014).
While having distinct characteristics, the three sectors have also close linkages to water security
objectives as defined by UN-Water (2013) and Sadoff et al. (2020), allowing complementarity
and comparison in the analysis. Each case comprises multiple units of analysis, including their
general governance context (see Case study descriptions in the supplemental data online), as
well as the four water governance principles and associated criteria included in the analytical
framework (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Analytical framework for studying
water governance for water
security, with revised principles
and criteria building on the
Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development’s
(OECD) water governance
approach and additional water
security aims and objectives.
Study context: water governance in Finland
There are three main levels of public sector governance in Finland: central government
(ministries), regional government and local government (cities and municipalities). At the level
of central government, the responsibility of water issues is divided across several ministries,
notably the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (water resources management and water
supply infrastructure) and the Ministry of Environment (water protection). The ministries are
supported by research organizations as well as regional and municipal permit and supervisory
authorities.
Other societal sectors also play an important role in Finnish water governance. Companies hold
environmental permits and water use rights, and provide expert services. Civil society
organizations also have expert and implementation roles in water governance. In addition,
citizens and local communities have various roles in stakeholder engagement processes related,
for example, to environmental impact assessment (EIA) and other participative mechanisms
such as water management planning, water vision processes and citizens’ initiatives (Koskimaa
& Rapeli, 2020; Vesa & Kantola, 2016).
Study context: water governance in Finland
In law, the most comprehensive and dominant long-term instrument in the water sector is the
EU WFD. It sets binding environmental objectives for European waters that are implemented
through river basin management plans, permits and other instruments. At the national level,
three statutes are particularly relevant: the Water Act (587/2011), the Environmental Protection
Act (527/2014) and the Water Services Act (119/2001). The Water Act and the Environmental
Protection Act set a requirement to obtain respective permits for different activities affecting
water quantity or quality, but exclude diffuse sources. In addition to law, a variety of
government strategies and policies address, guide and affect water security in Finland (see Case
study descriptions in the supplemental data online).
Findings
In this section, we investigate the strengths and challenges of the Finnish water governance
system and its associated institutional frameworks in relation to water security objectives,
focusing on the three case study sectors of bioeconomy, mining and water infrastructure. The
general contexts of the three case study sectors are presented in case study descriptions in the
supplemental data online. The key findings from our case studies are presented in Table 1,
following the principles and criteria presented in Figure 2. While paying special attention to
common themes across the cases, we also recognize sector-specific issues. More detailed
findings are presented below.
Capacity of governance actors and organizations
We evaluated the capacity of governance actors and organizations against two main criteria: their expertise
and resources (Figure 2). The expertise of Finnish public sector authorities and organizations and their access
to knowledge is generally high. However, bioeconomy and mining were identified by our interviewees as
areas where serious gaps exist in the understanding of the impacts of increased production, land-use change,
climate change and new technologies. Availability of information on the diffuse impacts of bioeconomy
activities that lay outside environmental permits was deemed to be especially limited. In recent research,
envisioned land-use changes have been projected to lead to increased loading to waters and to be further
modified by climate change (Marttila et al., 2020).
Our document analysis and interviewees’ views both indicated that severe pointsource pollution incidents
from mining came as a surprise to authorities and companies, leading to conflicts with local stakeholders and
the questioning of the level of expertise of both the authorities and companies. The most severe incident
occurred at Talvivaara mine in 2012, when a gypsum pond leaked altogether 1.2 million m3 of
environmentally hazardous water, with 240,000 m3 flowing outside the mine area. The Environmental
Protection Act contained the necessary legal mechanisms for enforcing pollution prevention, but the
government and municipal enforcement authorities did not act quickly enough to mitigate the risks before,
during and after the incident (Safety Investigation Authority, 2014). The incident was cited by several
informants to have awoken authorities, companies and research institutes alike to the need for more
thorough pre-assessments and monitoring.
Adequacy of institutional and regulatory frameworks
We evaluated the adequacy of institutional and regulatory frameworks against criteria of
institutional and regulatory fit, alignment and coordination, and adaptivity across different
temporal, spatial and sectoral scales (Figure 2). In the bioeconomy sector, the regulation of point
source pollution is relatively effective at EU and national levels. The permitting process has become
tighter particularly after the 2015 Weser-ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU,
C-461/13), related to the legally binding nature of the environmental objectives in the EU WFD. The
most prominent national example of these tighter permitting demands is the 2019 decision of the
Supreme Administrative Court of Finland not to grant permission for a €1.4 billion bioeconomy
investment called Finnpulp due to its potential negative impact to the ecological status of Lake
Kallavesi (Soininen & Belinskij, 2020).
In contrast, curbing diffuse pollution poses a major challenge to the Finnish regulatory system.
Diffuse sources are subject to a complex policy mix, including the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy,
the EU’s Nitrates Directive, the national Water Act, and various national decrees and forest
management recommendations (Halonen, 2016; Paloniitty, 2018). The EU WFD covers diffuse
pollution but lacks concrete legal tools to regulate it efficiently. As a result, diffuse pollution from
agriculture and forestry remain largely exempt from clear environmental requirements.
Quality of governance processes
We analysed the quality of governance processes against the criteria of efficiency, equal participation,
accountability and transparency (Figure 2). The interviews indicated that the quality of governance
processes in Finland is high and the processes are clearly dictated by law. All four criteria were mainly
met in the governance processes of our three case studies, although interviewees also highlighted
areas in need of improvement.
Efficiency of permitting processes was seen to have improved in recent years, partly due to shorter
public hearing times and less complex procedures introduced by the government. However, some
challenges persisted from the perspective of both permit applicants and other stakeholders. First, the
terms for obtaining a permit were considered to change too often and sometimes unpredictably,
largely due to unclear priorities between different regulatory instruments and the overlapping and
conflicting mandates of different administrative agencies. Second, the interviewed permit applicants
stated that appeals caused delays in the process. Appeals by local communities and NGOs were often
considered justified, however, and they provided the most effective mechanism for engagement. The
possibility for appeals was seen especially important to the indigenous Samí people. The Samí oppose
most planned mining, bioeconomy and hydropower projects due to the negative impacts on their
traditional lands and livelihoods, and the perspective that their views are not properly taken into
account in project planning (Saami Council, 2020).
Outcome of governance processes
We analysed outcomes of the governance processes via two main criteria: effectiveness (following an
output–outcome–impact typology after Beisheim & Campe, 2012), and distributional equity and
justice (Figure 2). The results from both our interviews and document analysis indicate that the
governance processes in Finland are mainly effective, though the public sector can be seen as seeking
to maximize sectoral effectiveness over overall effectiveness. Key governance outputs such as
provision of legislation, guidelines and services were generally deemed to be of high quality in Finland.
At the same time, the effectiveness of implementation processes to reach desired outcomes (e.g.,
changes in stakeholder behaviour and practices) and impact (e.g., solving water security challenges
and enhancing sustainability) were seen to be more varied and partly unclear.
As noted, though point-source pollution has effectively been curbed and water quality of Finnish rivers
and lakes has improved significantly since the 1960s, diffuse pollution from agriculture and forestry is a
persistent problem. This has resulted in a failure to reach good ecological status in all waters, as
defined by the EU WFD. Water protection in the forestry sector is an area of heated debate, with the
interviewees’ views also ranging from a need for stronger legislation to updating good forestry
management practices and voluntary certification. Nevertheless, several interviewees saw that the
current information guidance and economic guidance were too weak from an environmental
protection perspective.
Discussion
In this section, we discuss the implications of our findings from two viewpoints: first, in relation to
developing water governance and the associated institutional frameworks for water security in Finland
and similar contexts; and second, in relation to the broader theoretical and conceptual discussions on
both water governance and water security.
Developing water governance for water security
Our findings related to water governance in the three case study sectors in Finland reveal strengths but
also both persistent and novel challenges vis-à-vis reaching water security objectives. Water governance
in Finland functions generally well and the governance system contributes to water security, including
both water-related well-being and protection from major hazards. Yet, three key issues emerge: (1)
reaching good ecological status of waters is a persistent challenge; (2) existing and projected threats on
ecosystems, traditional livelihoods and recreation emerge as an increasingly important governance
theme; and, at a more general level, (3) a growing civil society opposition to mining and forestry
practices with detrimental environmental and social impacts. While these issues have been partly
identified in earlier sector-specific analyses (e.g., European Commission, 2021; Koskimaa et al., 2021;
Marttila et al., 2020; Marttunen et al., 2019), our findings across the three sectors emphasize that these
challenges cannot be overcome with merely water-focused measures. Instead, successful promotion of
water security requires highlighting the importance of water in the Finnish economy, strengthened
cross-sectoral collaboration, as well as fit-for-purpose and adaptive legislation.
Water governance and water security – a mutually
complementary match
Our findings confirm the close linkage between well-functioning water governance and
relatively high levels of water security. Our analytical framework building on the OECD water
governance approach with revised principles derived from the legitimacy literature enabled us
to view the studied governance system from a novel angle, providing insights on its strengths
and weaknesses. The findings illustrate that water security cannot only be viewed as a
governance outcome, but that it necessitates also critical considerations of governance
capacity and procedures. For example, while the existing water governance system in Finland
generally addresses both water security objectives (i.e., securing water for human and
ecosystem well-being and protection against disasters), our findings indicate that the emerging
challenges related to the impacts of the growing bioeconomy and mining activities as well as
the structural problems in water infrastructure are not comprehensively taken into account in
the current governance arrangements.
Conclusions
In this article, we studied how prevailing international water governance approaches and
current national arrangements support water security in Finland. We analysed the water
governance system and associated institutional frameworks in Finland through three case
studies of bioeconomy, mining, and water infrastructure, evaluating them against principles
and criteria derived from the OECD’s water governance framework and literature on legitimate
environmental governance. Compared with previous analyses applying the OECD’s framework
and aggregated water security indicators, a stronger emphasis placed on capacity, equity and
justice aspects allowed us to examine water security not only as a governance outcome, but
from more detailed procedural and distributive perspectives.
THANK YOU