Initiating a sustainable and resilient future in catchment land use

The original idea for the project was both to research transformations in catchment land use and to co-create a seed for the transformation in a real study area. The desired transformation included aspects of sustainability to minimize environmental impacts of land use in socially just and economically feasible ways and resilience to initiate the transformation so that the environment, livelihoods, and local culture are shock-prone to possible changes in the social and environmental context, including climate change.

A strong local interest in improving the water quality of free-flowing Kiiminkijoki river to enable the return of salmon

Kiiminkijoki river catchment was selected as a study area because there is a strong local interest in improving the water quality in the river to enable the return of the salmon and because there are no blueprint solutions for how land should be managed in large river catchments (Kiiminkijoki 3,824 km²) dominated by peatlands (>50% in the Kiiminkijoki). The river itself is protected under the Natura 2000 nature conservation program due to it being a free-flowing river in a near-natural state. However, the water quality in the river deteriorated significantly in the 1900s due to peatland drainage and intensive forestry and other land use. Due to the changes in river flows and water quality, the migratory fish, including salmon, disappeared from the river.

In the beginning, we put climate change mitigation as the primary target of the project, partly due to the funding instrument and partly due to the urgency of climate actions in peatlands and in general. However, early in the process, it became evident that climate action does not resonate strongly with local and regional stakeholders, not even with the pro-environment ones. Instead, changes in the local environment, especially the improvement of water quality, were considered consensually important. Therefore, we directed the main focus of the work from climate action to water quality while climate change and other targets were kept as secondary objectives.

In addition, in the beginning, our idea was to write a technical land use plan for the catchment. Nevertheless, we soon realized that a technical plan does not necessarily initiate action but needs to be connected to a larger change process. Therefore, we started to pave the way for the organization of catchment coordination. Currently, there is no ready-made solution for how land and water use in catchments should be governed and by whom, as catchment boundaries do not follow jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, in addition to the roadmap, we developed a plan for a coordination structure in the catchment.

Building a network of actors and trust in between the actors was the most important part of the process

Our third key lesson was the importance of the process. Even though tangible pieces of knowledge, such as the land use roadmap, are important for initiating action, I argue that the process that led to the roadmap might be even more important. During the process, we built a network of actors that have a common interest in making a change and even built trust between the actors. Therefore, when the implementation of the plan starts, there is already a common interest, will, and network to implement it.

These three messages can maybe be generalized to other transdisciplinary research. When doing research together with non-science stakeholders, researchers themselves cannot dictate the agenda but the focus must be planned together with all stakeholders to make the process feasible for all. Non-science stakeholders need to be taken on board early on in the process and they have to be tightly integrated into all phases of the process. Additionally, one needs to be ready for surprises and change the plan if necessary. Sticking to an original plan that does not resonate with the stakeholders will probably not lead to action; therefore, there must be a will to make compromises.

Finally, as the project had a heavy focus on practice, it was not straightforward to ponder what the research in it was. In our case, we conducted research on multiple fronts. First, we analyzed the knowledge-building process during the process. Second, we built background information for the roadmap by modeling and examining the environmental and social impacts of different land use measures and the human-environment interaction within the catchment. Third, we conducted collaborative autoethnography to reflect on our position as researchers initiating action. In addition to these points, building solutions for catchment governance itself can be considered research. In all, I think that we were relatively successful in the end in doing research and initiating changes in practice.

The project “Co-planning of land use sector climate change mitigation in the Kiiminkijoki river catchment – MATKI” was funded by the Catch the Carbon Programme of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. Get to know the final road map here and read the Scientific article describing the process.

The writer of this blog post is Aleksi Räsänen, Tenure Track Associate Professor of Spatial Resilience Research Methods (Geography) in FRONT research programme at the University of Oulu.