Finnish-Russian transboundary water co-operation: experiences from 50 years
Seppo Rekolainen Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Deputy Member of the Joint Finnish – Russian Commission on the Utilisation of Transboundary Watercourses Chair of the Water Protection Working Group
UNECE Water Convention, Implementation Committee Meeting Haaparanta, 23 May, 2017
Finland and Soviet Union in early 1960s: needs for joint management of transboundary waters
• Large water quality problems, hydropower regimes, flood management problems • Common understanding of risks, benefits and costs • One agreement: all transboundary rivers and lakes (>400, about Signing ceremony in 1964 19 significant)
26.5.2017 2 Finland – Russia Transboundary Water Cooperation joint management in 19 rivers Finnish - Russian Agreement on the Utilisation of Transboundary Watercourses (1964)
• Regulations on impacts in neighbouring country – Water flow and structural measures – Floods and water scarcity – Timber floating and navigation – Fish migration – Pollution and water quality – Public health and economy • Joint Finnish – Russian Commission on the Utilisation of Transboundary Watercourses – Each Party: 3 members and deputies, experts, secretaries Institutional framework
• Joint Commission – Meetings once a year • Working groups: – Water Protection • Water quality monitoring • Monitoring of pressures, particularly waste waters • Intercalibration of laboratory analytics • Information exchange on planned measures – Intergrated water recources management • Discharge management • Flood control and flood management • Hydropower • Fish migration • Information exchange on planned measures • No secretariat - Requires high commitment by national authorities 26.5.2017 5
The Lake Saimaa - River Vuoksi System • Catchment 70 000 km2 – Finland 77 %, Russia 23 %
• Lake Saimaa – surface 4 460 km2 – precipitation ~ 600 mm/a – water level fluctuation 3,3 m, annual mean 0,7 m
• River Vuoksi natural discharge – mean 600 m3/s – max 1170 m3/s – min 220 m3/s The profile and power plants of the River Vuoksi
VUOKSI
Total head (utilized) = 63 m Installed power = 440 MW Normal annual production = 2500 GWh TAINIONKOSKI Lake + Saimaa 8 m 75.75 3 1040 m /s + 67.70 IMATRA +60 24 m 3 970 m /s + 42.20 +40 SVETOGORSK
15 m 3 750 m /s + 26.60 LESOGORSK 15 m +20 3 Lake 750 m /s Ladoga + 5.00 0
0 5km 10km 15km 20km 25km 100km
Max. power 62 MW 178 MW 100 MW 100 MW
Normal annual 1000 GWh 600 GWh 600 GWh production 300 GWh FINLAND RUSSIA Lake Saimaa and River Vuoksi Discharge Rule
• Hydropower and flood risks main challenges at the starting point in 1970s • Initiative of the Russian Party at the Joint Transboundary Commission 1973 • Development targets at the outset – Increase winter discharge and minimum flows in River Vuoksi – Prevent exceptionally high and low water levels in Lake Saimaa – Prevent exceptionally high and low flows in River Vuoksi • First plan 1979 accepted by Joint Commission • Jointly accepted 1989, implemented 1991 The Discharge Rule
• Natural water level and discharge in normal circumstances • When water level forecast goes beyond normal zone discharge may be increased or reduced • Natural discharge resumed when flood or drought threat ceases
Vuoksi: A case of transboundary IWRM
• Main aim: to minimise adverse consequences in the river system as a whole • Participatory approach during planning and implementation: involve stakeholders to identify their needs, problems and priorities • Management of flood and drought risks in both countries • Hydro power with calculations of Russian losses in high flow periods • Potential compensation based on intergovernmental negotiations • Also other uses and interests such as navigation and habitats of fish and endangered Saimaa seal being addressed
Water quality monitoring
• Annual joint reports • Water quality monitoring on both sides of the border
14 Vuoksi 12 р. Вуокса 10
8
6
4 CODMn mg/l, FI ХПКMn мгО/дм3, RUS 2 liukuva keskiarvo (6 näytettä) Скользящая средняя (6 пробы) 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 •Vuoksi – COD Вуокса – ХПК • Blue line and dots – Finnish results 26.5.2017 • Red line and red dots – Russian results 11 • Pollution loads
• Joint report every year • Pollution loads from the Finnish side to the Saimaa – Vuoksi system
250 2500 Vuoksen-Saimaan alue BOD7 t/d Kiintoaine t/d t/d CODCr t/d m3/d Tuotanto 100 t/d Production 200 Jätevesien määrä x1000 m3/d 2000 of forest industries
150 1500
100 1000
50 500
0 0
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010 2012
26.5.2017 12 Challenges
• Climate change – Increased occurrence and variability of heavy precipitation and drought periods – Shorter snow period, more abundant autumn and winter floods, less severe spring floods – Alterations in ice conditions • Ice and snow cover essential for Saimaa seal nesting • Forecasting and optimal flow control become crucial -> real-time data and better forecasts on hydrology and meteorology • New development: Risk management Programme – Aim: Optimisation of flow regulation taking into account all benefits and costs in both sides • Improving river continuity for migratory fish Potential role of Implementation Committee • Cooperation between Finland and Russia (Soviet Union) has continued now more that 50 years – no amendments to original agreement • During these years most of the common issues have been solved and joint management implemented • There has been cases on which the Commission has not had a mandate - These issues has been solved via intergovernmental negotiations or new complementing agreements • If such issues still arise, the governments of Finland and Russia will negotiate • IC perhaps more helpful in early stages of cooperation Finland - Russia Cooperation: Some General Observations •Joint transboundary integrated water resources management is achievable even with two very different societies •Survived cold war and collapse of Soviet Union •Pragmatic, clear focus on finding joint management interests •Reasonable and equitable use of shared natural resource •Still seen as a good excersize by both Parties Tack så mycket!