Suchergebnisse

Most of the large Finnish rivers were licensed and built for hydropower after the Second World War. The need for electricity at that period triumphed over all the other interests, leading to a significant decrease in migratory fish species, such as salmon and trout. Throughout their life span, licenses for hydroelectric operations have enjoyed strict protection against administrative or legal review that would result in significant economic losses to the operator. In this way, the Finnish legal framework has been highly resistant and maladaptive in the face of bringing back ecological flows and restoring migratory fish species to the Finnish rivers. Nevertheless, presently the Finnish Government's clear goal is to introduce fish passages and the natural reproductive cycle of migratory fish species in built and regulated rivers in which the ecological continuum of migratory fish is currently blocked. Considering significant normative inputs stemming especially from the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), the presentation discusses possible legal avenues for restoring ecological flows in the built Finnish rivers. We argue that the current obligations stemming from the Finnish Water Law – and their interpretation in relation to migratory fish – are outdated and even legally problematic. Overall, neither the Finnish legislature, nor the Finnish water administration have reacted quickly enough to the changes in circumstances caused by the development of EU law, the declining importance of hydropower for the Finnish energy policy, and the current knowledge of the ecological importance of migratory fish species for the river ecosystems. Finnish Water Law already contains some tools for reviewing fisheries regulations in existing water permits, but also legislative changes are required to implement and to enforce the obligations stemming from the WFD in adaptive manner. It must be noted, however, that the review of fisheries regulations in water permits is a multidimensional and river-specific task. Technically, a fish passage and restoration measures as well as monitoring of the success of measures may be required. Cooperation between authorities and hydropower companies is recommended but authorities must also be able to take necessary measures to bring back ecological flows in the case of unsuccessful cooperation. Furthermore, the water authorities need to have adaptive legal tools fit for this purpose. ; peerReviewed

Against the backdrop of the content and specific obligations arising from the right to water in international law, this article compares how the legal regimes in Finland and South Africa protect the right to water. The discussion shows that both countries provide two extensive and very different constitutional frameworks to regulate the right to water. Variances in approach at the domestic level is attributed to differences in legal cultures, hydrological circumstances and stages of socioeconomic development. It is argued that diverse development challenges may justify the need for different legislative and other measures to realise the right to water at the domestic level.

This article analyses the legal adaptive capacity for increasing sustainable fish aquaculture production in EU-Finland. Currently, fish aquaculture is driven by increasing global demand of fish, declining natural fisheries, food security and blue growth policies. At the same time, environmental policies such as the EU Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive set tightening legal-ecological requirements for the industry's nutrient emissions. Against this background, the success of blue growth policies related to aquaculture – and the hope of reconciling competing interests at sea – boil down to measures available for dealing with excess nutrients. In line with the mitigation hierarchy, the article establishes four alternative pathways for the fish aquaculture industry to grow without increasing its environmental nutrient footprint significantly, and evaluates the legal adaptive capacity and the legal risks attached to these pathways.

This article analyses the legal adaptive capacity for increasing sustainable fish aquaculture production in EU-Finland. Currently, fish aquaculture is driven by increasing global demand of fish, declining natural fisheries, food security and blue growth policies. At the same time, environmental policies such as the EU Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive set tightening legal-ecological requirements for the industry's nutrient emissions. Against this background, the success of blue growth policies related to aquaculture – and the hope of reconciling competing interests at sea – boil down to measures available for dealing with excess nutrients. In line with the mitigation hierarchy, the article establishes four alternative pathways for the fish aquaculture industry to grow without increasing its environmental nutrient footprint significantly, and evaluates the legal adaptive capacity and the legal risks attached to these pathways. ; Peer reviewed

This article aims to reveal the political positioning of 'mire nature' in Finnish peatland policy and law. The data analysed include the latest policy documents, laws and regulations related to mires and peat extraction. Analysis is based on frame analysis (i.e. how an object is defined and positioned) and ideas drawn from a political ecology approach. Two main frames can be identified within the Finnish legal and policy framework: peat as a natural resource to be utilised for national energy sufficiency and economic competitiveness, and peat as a valuable source of biodiversity and an integral element of global ecosecurity. Analysis reveals the degree to which the definition of issues or objects in legal and policy terms is important in determining outcomes. It also reveals that national policies have swung back and forth and are prone to economic power struggles. Furthermore, while laws and regulations have offered strong and longstanding support for the extractive use of peat, the latest regulatory developments show a break from this trend. However, the arguments and facts concerning climate change are poorly integrated with Finnish peatland policy and law.

The speed and uncertainty of environmental change in the Anthropocene challenge the capacity of coevolving social–ecological–technological systems (SETs) to adapt or transform to these changes. Formal government and legal structures further constrain the adaptive capacity of our SETs. However, new, self-organized forms of adaptive governance are emerging at multiple scales in natural resource-based SETs. Adaptive governance involves the private and public sectors as well as formal and informal institutions, self-organized to fill governance gaps in the traditional roles of states. While new governance forms are emerging, they are not yet doing so rapidly enough to match the pace of environmental change. Furthermore, they do not yet possess the legitimacy or capacity needed to address disparities between the winners and losers from change. These emergent forms of adaptive governance appear to be particularly effective in managing complexity. We explore governance and SETs as coevolving complex systems, focusing on legal systems to understand the potential pathways and obstacles to equitable adaptation. We explore how governments may facilitate the emergence of adaptive governance and promote legitimacy in both the process of governance despite the involvement of nonstate actors, and its adherence to democratic values of equity and justice. To manage the contextual nature of the results of change in complex systems, we propose the establishment of long-term study initiatives for the coproduction of knowledge, to accelerate learning and synergize interactions between science and governance and to foster public science and epistemic communities dedicated to navigating transitions to more just, sustainable, and resilient futures.

The speed and uncertainty of environmental change in the Anthropocene challenge the capacity of coevolving social-ecological-technological systems (SETs) to adapt or transform to these changes. Formal government and legal structures further constrain the adaptive capacity of our SETs. However, new, self-organized forms of adaptive governance are emerging at multiple scales in natural resource-based SETs. Adaptive governance involves the private and public sectors as well as formal and informal institutions, self-organized to fill governance gaps in the traditional roles of states. While new governance forms are emerging, they are not yet doing so rapidly enough to match the pace of environmental change. Furthermore, they do not yet possess the legitimacy or capacity needed to address disparities between the winners and losers from change. These emergent forms of adaptive governance appear to be particularly effective in managing complexity. We explore governance and SETs as coevolving complex systems, focusing on legal systems to understand the potential pathways and obstacles to equitable adaptation. We explore how governments may facilitate the emergence of adaptive governance and promote legitimacy in both the process of governance despite the involvement of nonstate actors, and its adherence to democratic values of equity and justice. To manage the contextual nature of the results of change in complex systems, we propose the establishment of long-term study initiatives for the coproduction of knowledge, to accelerate learning and synergize interactions between science and governance and to foster public science and epistemic communities dedicated to navigating transitions to more just, sustainable, and resilient futures.

The speed and uncertainty of environmental change in the Anthropocene challenge the capacity of coevolving social-ecological-technological systems (SETs) to adapt or transform to these changes. Formal government and legal structures further constrain the adaptive capacity of our SETs. However, new, self-organized forms of adaptive governance are emerging at multiple scales in natural resource-based SETs. Adaptive governance involves the private and public sectors as well as formal and informal institutions, self-organized to fill governance gaps in the traditional roles of states. While new governance forms are emerging, they are not yet doing so rapidly enough to match the pace of environmental change. Furthermore, they do not yet possess the legitimacy or capacity needed to address disparities between the winners and losers from change. These emergent forms of adaptive governance appear to be particularly effective in managing complexity. We explore governance and SETs as coevolving complex systems, focusing on legal systems to understand the potential pathways and obstacles to equitable adaptation. We explore how governments may facilitate the emergence of adaptive governance and promote legitimacy in both the process of governance despite the involvement of nonstate actors, and its adherence to democratic values of equity and justice. To manage the contextual nature of the results of change in complex systems, we propose the establishment of long-term study initiatives for the coproduction of knowledge, to accelerate learning and synergize interactions between science and governance and to foster public science and epistemic communities dedicated to navigating transitions to more just, sustainable, and resilient futures.