TRIWA II Management of an International River Basin District – Torne River

In TRIWA II project, realized in 2006-2008, practices for the management of Torne River, an international river basin district, were developed. For this, environmental legislation and administration in Finland and Sweden were compared and possible obstacles were charted. This included framing participation processes in water management. In addition, ecological issues were included in the project, as they form the basis for evaluating the status of the environment. The legislation and administrative systems in Finland and Sweden are very similar. There are no major differences, but in some issues, for example in forest drainage or construction in or close to the shore area, the procedures and legislation have somewhat different approach. On the other hand, in water management, the interpretation and implementation of the common Water Framework Directive have differences that influence the cooperation across the border. For example, the schedule for public hearings that pace the administrational work in addition to the directive is different in these neighbor states. People's opinion on and wishes for cooperation across border were surveyed. Even though the public participation systems are well developed both in Finland and Sweden, people feel that they are not necessarily heard in water management issues, or that their opinions are not taken into account in decision making. There is a genuine wish and need for cooperation across the border in Torne River area. Especially informal participatory processes need developing. A co-operational structure for the area is suggested. Earlier developed typologies for rivers and lakes of Torne River area were tested with fish (lakes) and phytobenthos (rivers). The results supported the typologies. Simultaneously, national classifications of the ecological status were tested. It became clear that harmonization of national indices is necessary, as the evaluation of the ecological state using fish analysis gave very different results depending on the system used. With phytobenthos, the results were very close to each other. It is obvious that the evaluation systems have to be tested and carefully chosen for the region. It also seems that the earlier suggestions for simplified typologies are usable in the area.