Changing Winters and Adaptive Water Governance: A Case Study on the Kemi River Basin, Finland

Abstract

This paper studies adaptive water governance in the context of hydropower and flood-risk management. The Kemi River basin acts as an empirical setting to study the environmental change and the capacity of the management system to respond to it. Hydropower and reservoir development has been a source of a decade-long environmental conflict in the river basin. This study aims to find out how governance structures are adapting to the environmental change brought on by climate change. The study is based on case study research, and it combines long-term monitoring data, semi-structured interviews conducted in December 2020 and January 2021, and Finnish administrative court rulings. The results reveal that the water governance in the Kemi River basin is based on a technology driven aquatic regime, which has been a source of persistent environmental conflict between technology and nature. The flood-risk management is based on adaptive planning cycles and is implemented in a participatory manner, although it is strengthening the conflict in the area, as some stakeholders suggests reservoirs as a solution, which neglects the potential of integrative river basin management.

1. Introduction

Climate change causes extreme weather events across the globe, and the Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions have experienced rapid temperature rise. An approximately two-times higher rise than the global average is expected in the European North [1,2,3]. The socio-ecological system in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic, its habitats, ecosystems, local communities, and culture need to adapt to the changing conditions caused by climate change [4,5,6]. The effects of climate change are felt at several hydrological, geographical, and institutional scales, and these effects cause uncertainty in the management of aquatic ecosystems [7,8]. In addition to climate change, hydropower and river regulation cause transformations of aquatic regimes locally and globally [8,9]. Therefore, it is relevant to study environmental change and its management in aquatic ecosystems.

Adaptive water governance has been promoted through the EU water policy because of its potential to assist transition to sustainability and facilitate learning [10,11]. In 2007, the European Commission introduced the Floods Directive, FD (Directive 2007/60/EC), on the assessment and management of flood risks. The directive aims to establish a common framework to manage flood risks and droughts and reduce flood hazards in Europe [12,13]. It requires member states to prepare flood-risk management plans, which include measures to prevent floods, prepare for possible damage, and conduct flood-risk assessment. The assessment should include mapping of flood extent and assessment of human risk at all water courses and coast lines. Member states should also take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce flood risk, and to reinforce public access to information and participation in the planning process [14]. Similar to the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the FD takes a cyclical approach of updating the management plans every six years, which promotes continuous learning and ecosystem-based management (EBM) [15]. The cyclical approach to river basin management is well suited to adaptively responding to climate change, which is expected to lead to major changes in water flow, risk of flooding and erosion, water quality, aquatic ecosystem, and species distribution.

This paper refers to the concept of adaptive water governance as a process that aims at achieving a balance between the human benefits and ecosystem pressures in aquatic ecosystems and encourages learning and experimentation to increase the resilience of the socio-ecological system [16,17,18]. Adaptive governance has been defined as a process that contains interactions between actors, networks, and institutions that aim at increased capacity of complex socio-ecologic systems to respond to changing circumstances, such as environmental change caused by climate change [18,19,20,21]. This approach takes scale and socio-ecological complexity into account and motivates experimentation, learning, and capacity building to reduce uncertainty. Less attention has been paid on the cultural dimension of adaptive capacity, which recognizes the historical and geographical aspects that set the precondition for the responses from the socio-ecological system [22]. This study aims to fill this gap by providing an analysis of changing winters in the Kemi River basin that compares long-term ecological data on ice thickness to qualitative interview data.

Hydropower in the Kemi River basin has been of interest to many studies from sociological and historical disciplines, although none have focused on climate change adaptation from the perspective of changing ice cover. To the best of my knowledge, no previous studies exist in this river basin that combine long-term ecological data to qualitative empirical data. Järvikoski [23] found that local inhabitants had limited opportunities to express their opinion when the Lokka and Porttipahka reservoirs were built because of uneven power structures. Suopajärvi [24] revealed how the conflict over building the Vuotos and Ounas reservoirs was framed as a necessity because of economic and modern prosperity and as a threat to nature values and local communities. A study by Mustonen et al. [25] shows how building of those reservoirs led to cultural erosion of the indigenous Sámi groups. Autti [26] found that damming the Kemi River caused cultural trauma in the local communities, which required several adaptation strategies. Alaniska (2013) [27] found that building of hydropower, which led to the extinction of migratory fish in Kemi River, was a high political priority during the reconstruction period after WWII, which is why regional development and electricity production were supported by the alliance of industry and politicians. Räsänen [28] studied the flood-risk management in Kemi River basin through adaptive cycles approach.

The Kemi River basin acts as an empirical setting to study the environmental change and the capacity of the management system to respond to it, as the hydropower and reservoir development has been source of decade long environmental conflict. In this paper, I will present a case study on the Kemi River basin, focusing on environmental change, flood-risk management and hydropower. This paper examines the adaptive water governance system in the Kemi River basin, and its ways to respond to the change caused by climate change. The main research question is “how are governance structures adapting to the environmental change brought on by climate change?”

2. Theoretical Framework

This paper applies the concept of adaptive water governance to examine societal decision-making related to flood-risk management and hydropower development in Kemi River basin. Adaptive governance refers to the societal context within which the adaptive management takes place [19]. Governance highlights the interactions within the network of public and private actors and institutions that interact with each other in order to solve complex societal, socio-political, or socio-legal problems [28,29]. Complex environmental problems require problem solving that combines knowledge, policy instruments, and resources of a network of actors as opposed to single actors.

Resilience refers to the ability of a socio-ecological system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change [30]. The concept originates from environmental sciences, wherein resilience is about the capacity of ecosystems or species to cope with changing environmental circumstances and to maintain the same function, structure, identity, and feedback [12,31,32]. Within the literature pertaining to adapting to climate change, resilience has been studied as getting accustomed to the inevitable. Short-term management strategies and technological solutions, such as monocultures, create homogenous landscapes that are more vulnerable to disturbances that a “less-managed” landscape would previously have absorbed [32,33,34]. On the contrary, the resilience of socio-ecological systems can be nurtured through diversity of landscapes, nature types, native species, and ecosystem-based management, which supports local-level decision making, diversity of institutions, economic opportunities, and livelihoods [35,36]. Governance and management practices that aim at efficiency in delivering ecosystem goods and services lead to increased vulnerability of the managed water system to unexpected change [37,38,39].

Adaptability refers to the capacity of actors in a system to build resilience [40] and, compared to resilience, focuses on human agency and governance capacity. The notion focuses on the capacity of the socio-ecological system to learn and make use of expertise and knowledge, respond to external stresses and vulnerabilities, and maintain the stability of the system or continuously develop [41]. Collaboration of sets of actors from multiple spatial, temporal, and administrative scales can potentially improve the adaptability and preparedness of the socio-ecological system to vulnerabilities [42,43]. The cultural dimension of adaptive capacity recognizes the historical and geographical aspects that set the precondition for the responses from the socio-ecological system [44].

Several concepts have been outlined in the broad pool of adaptive water governance literature to increase the adaptive capacity. Recently, nature-based solutions [45,46], ecosystem-based management [47,48,49], and learning [10] have been suggested as a way forward. Ecosystem-based management aims at responding to the vulnerabilities in the most suitable administrative and geographical contexts, such as river basins [47]. Learning is understood as a necessity in responding to environmental challenges for governance institutions and networks. The main challenges are related to existing knowledge and building capacity for learning that allow transformation of the socio-ecological system [50]. Less attention has been paid on the cultural dimension of adaptive capacity, which recognizes the historical and geographical aspects that set the precondition for the responses from the socio-ecological system [44].

3. Materials and Methods

The Kemi River is the largest river system in Finland in length (522 km) and the second largest river basin in area (54,831 km²) [26,51] (see Figure 1). It flows through Kemijärvi and Rovaniemi to Bothnian Bay. The river basin is in the northernmost region of Finland, Lapland, bordering the Arctic and Sub-Arctic climatic zones. The Kemi River is the most regulated river in Finland with a total of 21 power plants, which produce one third of the country’s hydroelectricity [8]. The building of hydroelectric power started in 1944, with the Isohaara hydroelectric power station, owned by Pohjolan Voima Oy [27]. Kemijoki Oy, which was founded in 1954 and has 16 hydropower plants, plans to build a new hydropower plant in Sierilä. Hydropower has been a source of persistent conflict and has caused the loss of one of the most significant salmon rivers in Northern Europe [24,26]. It was also key to modernization in Northern Europe, where it gained political support despite damage to the ecosystems, local communities, indigenous Sámi culture and livelihoods [27].

This study uses the case study approach [52], which as a qualitative research approach is suitable for combining various data and methods through triangulation [53]. Primarily, the research data in this study stems from semi-structured interviews, conducted in 2019–2020 (10 in total), targeted at the water governance actors of Kemi River basin (see

Table 1. Semi-structured interviews with regional authorities, riverside residents and second-home owners conducted in 2019–2020.

Residents	NGO’s	Regional Administration
4	3	3

). To achieve data triangulation, the case-study data was supplemented with long-term ecological monitoring data and environmental licensing material, such as decisions from the Vaasa Administrative Court [54] and the Supreme Administrative court [55,56,57].

The interviewees were contacted based on their academic and professional expertise. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. First, regionally significant flood-risk management stakeholders were identified from national legislation implementing the EU floods directive (620/2010, Act on flood-risk management). Second, actors that have been active in the societal debate about the future of the Kemi River were identified from news material and the internet. Snowballing, wherein participants were asked to suggest further interviewees and name 1–5 potential further contacts, was applied as a method to screen for further potential participants for the study [2]. The number of the interviewees might seem small, but in Lapland, which is a Northern peripheral area, with decade long conflict over the use of water resources, what is defined as expertise takes decades to evolve and who is allowed to speak on behalf of the river is narrowly defined. Of this number of interviewees, many hold an academic degree or had an academic background and had been influential in the Finnish environmental administration, politics, and environmental movement. Here, I draw on the geography of small numbers to demonstrate that when not aiming for statistically representative samples, small sample might draw a diverse picture of environmental conflict. Small numbers might have a significant influence in areas where the number of residents is low: “when numbers are small, they draw a picture of people in their own landscape” [58].

The second set of data consists of long-term monitoring data of ice thickness. In the Kemi River basin, the Regional Centre for Economic Development, Transport and Environment of Lapland is responsible for the collection of monitoring data on water level and ice cover. These measurements are not conducted for scientific purposes only but are also necessary to evaluate the risk of ice dams. As demonstrated in Figure 2, the impacts of climate change on river ice formation are more visible in free-flowing streams and less visible in a stream regulated by a hydropower plant.

The third set of data consists of Finnish Administrative Court resolutions on reservoir development. According to the Finnish water act (587/2011), activities that are altering the status of the waters, such as hydropower and reservoir construction requires an environmental permit. Granting of these permits is based on interests balancing of “benefits should override the damage”, which was incorporated into the Water Act already in 1961 (264/1961). During the early years of the permit procedure in place, the permits were granted almost without an exception. In the past 20 years, environmental values have gained increasing importance in the interest balancing [59]. A preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice Weser ruling C-461/13 (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland vs. Germany) outlined that the Water Framework directive is applicable to individual projects. The Finnish permit system is based on a narrow balancing between benefits and damage, and economic value of hydroelectric power counts and, therefore, the arguments for biodiversity are not given equal consideration. In the times of energy crisis, hydropower is extremely profitable, as it functions as a flexible source of energy, balancing the peak consuming hours.

Analysis of the case study data was conducted in two phases. First, the interview material was sorted through qualitative coding according to the themes of changing winters, flood control, and hydropower development. Second, the interview data was cross-checked with other data sources—the long-term ecological data and administrative court rulings. Based on these preliminary phases and inductive reasoning, themes of environmental change, hydropower development, and flood-risk management in the Kemi River basin were recognized.

4. Results

4.1. Environmental Change in the Kemi River Basin

Ice dams blocked the Kemi River and water was rising in Rovaniemi to flood heights in November 2020. The local newspaper “Lapin Kansa” described this event as historic because ice dams had never formed the same way in autumn, and they were causing problems throughout the winter [60]. When asked about how common the ice jams are in autumn, some interviewees stated that ice jams are common during spring floods but unusual in November:

“Well, there is nothing unusual about the ice run. What is unusual is, when it happens, so as when we are in winter, normally in Lapland snow falls in the end of October and stays”.

(Interview 2)

As the temperature rises, hydrological changes are witnessed in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions, such as changing snow conditions, thinner ice layer, more rainfall, and changes in water quality. In Finland, the average temperature has been rising by about 2 degrees Celsius from 1847 to 2013, with an accelerated speed in the latter half of the 20th century [61]. The most significant changes in the river basin occur during the winter and spring as rivers ice-cover is thinner and stays for a shorter period. The changes in snow and ice-cover are causing accelerated change. The thermal winter is shortening, and the snow and ice cover melt in between, leading to the winter arriving several times. Extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts, are also expected in the arctic and sub-arctic regions as they are witnessed across the globe. These changes, along with human activities in the river basin, such as forest and peatland drainage [62,63] increase the pressure on the socio-ecological system. One of the interviewees stated:

“There will be more water in the future, and the first thing that follows is that the run-off is increasing, as if you happen to know Finland has most forest drainage in the world and those ditches lead the discharge to the sea”.

(Interview 1)

In Lapland, the socio-ecological system is vulnerable to changes brought on by climate change, as many arctic species depend on the snow layer. Northern livelihoods are also vulnerable, as they are often dependent on steady winter conditions. Tourism in Lapland is dependent on good winter conditions for snow mobile and husky safaris, ice fishing, and skiing [4]. Uncertain winter conditions cause difficulties for traditional livelihoods, such as reindeer herding. The indigenous Sami livelihoods, winter fishing, and reindeer herding are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change [64]. Shorter ice seasons with thinner ice layers and longer open water seasons limit traditional on-ice activities and are therefore a threat to traditional knowledge. One interviewee stressed the necessity of climate adaptation:

“When this process (climate change) has started, it will not stop immediately and it basically means massive adaptation for the northern livelihoods, fisheries, reindeer herding and other activities dependent on nature, such as tourism”.

(Interview 4)

In the cold regions, frozen lakes and rivers have been part of people’s everyday life, as frozen waterways have allowed for travel and transportation, shortening the distances during wintertime [65]. Moreover, residents and second homeowners witness the change in ice conditions that impact recreational use of the river:

“When we as children, we visited quite often, stayed for holidays and weekends, then one could go on the ice perfectly well. We were even driving to the town with the skidoo. But for the last 10 or 5 years, the ice situation has changed...last time when my brother was spending a weekend there, it was not possible to go on the ice with the skidoo. The ice conditions are more unpredictable”.

(Interview 10)

Despite the inevitable need to build resilience within local communities and livelihoods, the strategies and plans for climate change adaptation are lacking (Interview 4). Only the regional land-use plan considers climate change adaptation in its background materials e.g., impacts for salmon fishing and reindeer herding (Interview 5). This is especially relevant for the indigenous Sami people and their traditional livelihoods that are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

4.2. Impacts on Hydropower

In the Kemi River basin, the changing ice condition cause challenges to the hydropower production. Steady ice cover allows the hydropower company to run water according to the electricity demand, whereby the shallow ice requires a steady run, which causes trouble in the operation of hydropower plants. Ice dams and loose ice covers cause challenges to hydropower production. One interviewee commented on this matter:

“For the hydropower producer, it is a good thing that there is more raw material, but it is not unproblematic, because according to the predictions precipitation will increase during wintertime and partly as rainfall”.

(Interview 7)

Climate mitigation targets might increase the pressure for building more hydropower, as moving away from fossil fuels and transition to a climate neutral society require regulatory power for the functioning energy systems. In the Kemi River basin, long-lasting environmental conflicts exist on hydropower and reservoir development. The conflict over the Sierilä hydropower project started when the Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted in 1999 and the project entered the regional land-use plan in 2001. Kemijoki Oy applied for the water permit required by the water act in 2005 from the Regional State Administrative Agency of Lapland. According to the permit resolution, habitats of 11 endangered species of vascular plants would be damaged, of which the Lapland buttercup (Ranunculus lapponicus) and the bluntleaf sandwort (Moehringia lateriflora) are habitats directive Annex IV species. Habitats directive Annex IV species enjoy strict protection across the EU. The construction of the dam would also impact the European otter (Lutra lutra) habitats and bird populations in the area, such as sand martin/bank swallow (Riparia riparia), which nest in the sand banks of the area. The riverbanks are the only habitat of moth (Capricornia boisduvaliana) [66], which would become extinct in Finland because of the project.

The permit was granted in 2011, as hydropower plants are treated as a standard procedure, where balancing benefits and damage is central [55]. The benefits of hydroelectricity production outweighed the major impacts on the ecological values and living conditions in the area. Several appeals were made by the local stakeholders and Finnish Nature conservation Association to the Vaasa Administrative Court. As a result, the permit conditions were tightened. Kemijoki Oy appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which in its resolution returned the issue to the Vaasa Administrative Court to reconsider whether the permit for making an exemption to the nature conservation should have been retrieved from the Regional Centre for Economic Development, Transport, and Environment, Lapland before the permit resolution or not.

The latest environmental permit resolution in 2017 granted a permit allowing 44 Megawatt [55]. The benefits of hydroelectricity production outweighed the major impacts on the ecological values and living conditions in the area. The Supreme Administrative Courts reasoned that the ruling required consideration of the water management plan for 2016 to 2021 in the Kemi River basin. A preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice, Weser ruling C-461/13 (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland vs. Germany), outlined that the Water Framework Directive directive was applicable to individual projects. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the project did not risk the best achievable ecological condition, as the lower parts of Kemi River were already classified as satisfactory and ecological connectivity had been lost.

Besides an environmental permit, construction of the Sierilä hydropower plant required a construction permit and exemption of the municipal land-use plan. The FANC, among others, made further appeals against Kemijoki Oy’s construction permit and claimed that the company had failed to fulfil the permit conditions (Interview 9). Movement to prohibit the building of the Sierilä hydropower plant attracted wide attention from residents and holiday-house owners to a small number of Finnish political and academic elite. To show discontent with the hydroelectric dam project, a row was organized by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation from 2017–2019. One of the interviewees commented:

“Kind of the problem is there, that the damage that is related is difficult to transfer to euro, compared to the benefits that can be calculated in kilowatt hours and others. It is a difficult comparison. And the nature conservation scenery values are not in the comparison”.

(Interview 10)

4.3. Flood-Risk Management

In the Kemi River basin, major floods have occurred about every twenty years—in 1973, 1993, and 2005 (Interview 2). In 2020 spring and winter floods occurred, which is exceptional for the region. During the spring flood building temporary flood walls was necessary to keep the town of Rovaniemi safe. In the same year, an autumn flood had almost record high levels. Climate change is increasing the flood frequency and risk of flood damage in the area causing a bi-modal flood regime. In addition, land-use management practices increase the flood risk in the area:

“It is well known, that in Lapland forests and wetlands have been drained so much that the melting water flows too fast into the Kemi River, and that causes the floods. That it is not only the climate change, but the forest management practices that cause that”.

(Interview 9)

The Rovaniemi urban area has been marked as a significant flood-risk area (environment.fi 2019). The town lies at the confluence of the Kemi and Ounas Rivers, and therefore the regional authorities regularly deal with floods and flood-risk management (see Figure 3). Flood-risk management plans are prepared via a participatory process and in close co-operation with the regional authorities. The Economic Development, Transport, and Environment Centre of Lapland is responsible for flood-risk prediction and mapping and leads the co-operation among regional authorities. The chairperson of the steering group is from the Regional Council of Lapland. During floods, command is given to the Rescue Department of Lapland. The Kemijoki Oy hydropower company is responsible for fulfilling the permit conditions and maintaining the machinery and floodgates. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for creating the flood-risk management plans and implementing the flood risk directive, and the Finnish Meteorological Institute and Finnish Environment Institute provide the scientific basis for flood preparedness in the form of flood and climate modelling and forecasting.

According to the interviewees, co-operation among regional authorities was functional in terms of flood-risk control and the worst-case scenario did not actualize (Interviews 2 and 3). However, the preparedness to the change in flood frequency, such as bi-annual flooding and unpredictability of flood risk modelling caused by climate change, was lacking. The participants in this study emphasized that the flood-risk management in Kemi River basin was at a good or excellent level regarding the current risk level. One of the interviewees commented:

“Well, the flood-risk management plans are updated for each community all the time, and the of course include the estimation of the structures that need to be built to keep the flood in control with preventive measures, and what kind of material preparation is needed”.

(Interview 2)

In Kemi River basin building reservoirs and dams have been perceived as the main solution to reduce flood risk in the future. Flood-risk management has also been used as an argument to gain support for these projects, as they have caused decade long environmental conflicts in the area. The Vuotos reservoir project has been the source of one of the most remarkable environmental conflicts in Finland [24]. Environmental conflict over the Vuotos reservoir included heated political debate and colorful media framings and has taken the form of prolonged environmental licensing procedures and several court rulings. The environmental conflict started on 25 September 1992, when Kemijoki Oy applied for a water permit from the Water Court of Northern Finland [67]. The Vuotos reservoir project was argued to be part of the solution for flood-risk management (Interview 8), as one interviewee concluded:

“And then here are some other people, who have an opinion, that the reservoir should be built. One argument for that has then recent years been this flood-risk management”.

(Interview 8)

The Vuotos reservoir case was closed in 2002 by the Supreme Administrative Court decision that did not allow construction of the reservoir [56]. The Vuotos case was a historical set of administrative court rulings in Finnish water law, because a water permit based on Article 2(6) of Finnish Water Act of a dam or reservoir had never been rejected. The Vaasa Administrative Court stated that what was applicable in the 1960s was not applicable today and rejected Kemijoki Oy’s water permit. The Supreme Administrative Court [56] stated that the change towards the recognition of environmental values in a regulatory environment and community law has been considered and maintained the decision of the Vaasa Administrative Court. According to Koivurova [61], the adaptivity of law was visible in the reasoning of the Finnish administrative court system, as community law and strengthening environmental standards have altered the regulatory environment. The change in societal values also reflect the experience of building Lokka and Porttipahta reservoirs and the massive damage caused to the Sámi population, local communities, and nature [23,25].

The political interests to build the Vuotos reservoir were strong, which resulted in new arguments being sought. The Vuotos reservoir was integrated in the flood-risk management plan for 2016–2021, to prepare for flood events that occur each 250 years, as well as in the land-use plan of Eastern Lapland in 2016. One of the interviewees commented:

“In Rovaniemi, East Lapland land-use plan the Kemihaara reservoir was considered for flood-risk management but it was mainly in the Natura 2000 area...and then the Natura assessments and alternative measures were sought in this process and it then went to the Ministry of the Environment, which then prepared an exception permit to the Council of State, which then declined the permit, so that the Kemihaara reservoir cannot be planned on Natura 2000 area”.

(Interview 5)

The reservoir would have been in the Kemihaara mires Natura 2000 site, which was founded in 2007 and the Kemijoki Oy company had received funding for the conservation of the area from the Center for Economic Development, Transport, and Environment, Lapland. Therefore, the project required Natura impact assessment and an exemption which are granted by the Regional Center for Economic Development, Transport, and Environment. This management plan resulted in a round of appeals to the Finnish Administrative Court system. In the ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court, the flood-risk management plan was confirmed as lawful, whereby the reservoir could not be in the Natura 2000 area [57].

5. Discussion

5.1. Changes in the Aquatic Regime

This paper studied adaptive water governance in the Kemi River basin. Climate change causes an inevitable need to adapt, as environmental change is evident, and temperature rises in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic more than global average. In the Kemi River basin, scientific knowledge is integrated in the river basin management and planning and a pool of mapping and monitoring data exists. Ice is a central biophysical parameter of arctic aquatic ecosystems [68], and in this paper I referred to long-term ecological data to demonstrate how climate change alters the Kemi River ice layer in regulated and unregulated parts of the river. The measurements conducted by the Regional Environmental Center, Lapland in the Kemi River show a clear declining trend, especially in the unregulated part of the river. A declining trend in ice thickness necessitates adapting in the socio-ecological system. Similarly, a comparison between the Kemi River and Torne River catchments showed that impacts of climate change are detected in unregulated rivers, whereby river regulation causes changes in flow regime [8].

This study revealed challenges for adaptive water governance, based on the emerging bi-modal flood regime. Previous studies demonstrate that a bi-modal flood regime is evolving as the Sub-Arctic snowmelt floods in spring decrease and autumn floods increase [69,70,71]. In this study, the stakeholders were referring to the transformation of flood frequency from major spring flood to bi-annual winter and spring floods, which causes challenges to the hydropower regime and flood control. Hydropower in the Kemi River basin aims at steady electricity generation in wintertime, functions as flexible energy balancing the peaks, and stabilizing the grid for the wind and solar energy. Despite the available data, the water governance system of Kemi River is slow in absorbing the disturbances as the hydropower regime aims at steady electricity generation and the permit conditions would need to be scrutinized.

5.2. Functional Co-Operation and Lack of Coordination in Flood-Risk Management

When considering flood-risk control, co-operation among regional authorities has been functional in the river basin on a good level. Similarly, a study of Räsänen [27] revealed that the administrative co-operation in flood-risk management has functioned well in Rovaniemi but persistent conflict and low level of preparedness of the residents increase the risk of flood damage in the area. This study revealed a lack of coordination between the flood-risk management plans and climate change adaptation plans in the Kemi River basin. Climate change increases the probability of record floods, and the preparedness on major flood events has also been used as an argument to build a reservoir in the river basin.

In the Kemi River basin, the flood-risk management is based on technological fixes of the past and amplifies the decade-old conflicts in the river basin [28]. Although organized in a participatory manner, flood-risk management is based on technological solutions for building reservoirs and dams, and they are perceived as the main solution by the flood-risk management authorities. This has strengthened the long-lasting environmental conflicts in the area that stem from historical and geographical aspects, such as cultural trauma caused by damming of the river [26]. In the Sierilä project scrutinized in this article, the biodiversity trade-offs became subject to wide legal and societal debate. Similarly, the Vuotos reservoir project has been the source of one of the most remarkable environmental conflicts in Finland [24].

5.3. Persistent Environmental Conflict Causes Challenges to the Adaptability of the Water Governance System

In the Kemi River basin, the hydropower regime has damaged the traditional uses of the river and traditional ways of knowing about the river. Hydropower was also a key to modernization in Northern Europe, which gained political support despite its damage to ecosystems [26]. Hydropower provided by the river’s many hydropower plants is used as regulating power to balance between electricity production and consumption. Transition to climate neutrality increases the demand and required capacity of regulating power. In the Finnish water governance system, hydropower capacity can only be increased in rivers with existing hydroelectric power plants, as the remaining free flowing rivers are protected under national legislation [72]. The Finnish permit system is designed for a narrow balancing between benefits and damage, which fails to give adequate value on the biodiversity values and cultural values of the river ecosystem. In addition, the Water Framework Directive, with the objective of achieving good ecological status of European waters and the so-called non-deterioration principle, guides the balancing between hydropower and ecological value. Climate change also causes unpredictability in the energy system relying on hydroelectricity [73].

The adaptability of the water governance system in Kemi River basin is challenged by the power structures and technological fixes of the past. The ecological condition of the river is satisfactory as the hydropower plants have damaged rivers’ ecological connectivity. Building fishways have been suggested as a solution to improve the Kemi River’s ecological condition [74]. Re-introducing migrating fish species and creating functioning fishways would be significant in terms of conservation efforts of salmon populations of the Baltic Sea, which are already threatened by climate change and water pollution. River basin restoration would require co-operation between the hydropower producer, regional authorities, and residents. Stronger political pressure and changing permit conditions might also nudge the change towards ecological restoration of the Kemi River.

5.4. Limitations

The study presents a case study on the Kemi River basin, which acts as an empirical setting to study the environmental change and adaptive capacity of the flood-risk management system with certain limitations. Case study research is suitable for creating in-depth understanding on complex social or socio-ecological phenomena, and its limitations are related to generalizability of created knowledge [53]. In this study, the number of semi-structured interviews and use of snowballing as a secondary method to screen for more participants create certain limitations. Respondents typically suggest like-minded further interviewees, which is important to consider in the data collection and analysis phases. In this study, the main stakeholders were selected based on their expertise and snowballing was applied to detect possible gaps in the research setting. In the Kemi River basin, the hydropower and reservoir development has been source of decade long environmental conflict, which is why the number of experts who are willing to speak on behalf of the river is limited. Further research could potentially examine role of power or arguments in the long-lasting environmental conflict in the river basin. Adding fellow researchers in the data collection and analysis phase could also increase the validity of the results.

5.5. Policy Implications

The Arctic and Sub-Arctic region is facing several crises, such as climate and biodiversity crisis simultaneously, which is why traditional knowledge should be better recognized, as it has even been purposefully misused and neglected in the water governance processes [75,76]. Especially vulnerable communities, such as Sami people and reindeer herders, would benefit from support for climate adaptation. As a practical example, reindeer herders need to find ways to keep the reindeer off ice in their winter pastures. The skidoo-safari entrepreneurs need to find new ways to earn a livelihood when the ice and snow layer stays for shorter periods of time. Therefore, this study stresses the importance of traditional and indigenous knowledge to be integrated by governance and management stakeholders in the adaptive water governance cycles. Moreover, previous studies have shown that traditional knowledge has been purposefully misused and neglected in water governance processes [75,76]. Recognizing their rights, while restoring the damage from the natural resource use and returning the ecological connectivity of the river would bring the socio-ecological system towards equilibrium and improve the adaptive capacity in the region.

Integrated flood-risk management [10,11], which recognizes the need to protect and restore natural infrastructure and applies nature-based solutions, has not been considered, although it would potentially increase the adaptive capacity in the area. Forests and peatlands in Finland have been drained for forestry’s purposes, and therefore part of their natural capacity to absorb disturbances is lost. For instance, peatland restoration would have the potential to increase the flood-control function in the river basin, as it would return part of the catchment’s ecological functions. It would also return some of the lost nature and cultural values of the area and increase its capacity to react to change.

6. Conclusions

This paper studied the adaptive water governance of the Kemi River basin and focused on environmental change, flood-risk management, and hydropower. It examined the environmental changes in the socio-ecological system and the capacity of the water governance system to respond to the vulnerabilities brought on by changing climate. This study shows that water governance solutions in the area have been technology centered: building more reservoirs, dams, and floodwalls. This has caused decades long environmental conflict in the area, which reduced the quality of interaction within the water governance system in the Kemi River basin. Integrated river basin management would return part of river’s ecological characteristics, support the ecosystem-based adaptation, and foster resilience of the socio-ecological system. The Arctic and Sub-Arctic region is facing several crises simultaneously, such as climate and biodiversity crisis, which is why the adaptive capacity should be strengthened.