Talvivaara revealed a gap in the system

The environmental catastrophe would have occurred regardless of the regional administration reform

The Talvivaara environmental catastrophe revealed a gap in the administrative system which at least in principle should have the capacity to respond to small and large crises.

This is how Ilari Karppi, Professor of Regional Studies at the University of Tampere, estimates what happened at the Talvivaara mine. No system would have been able to prevent the disaster.

“Some people might want to ask if Talvivaara was the litmus test that showed the inefficiency of environmental administration. However, Talvivaara would have happened regardless of the administration reform as the same people have ended up doing more or less the same jobs they did already before the reform.”

Talvivaara in the remote Kainuu area in Finland is a polymetallic and uranium mine that started mining nickel in 2008. In November 2012 poisonous chemicals leaked from the mine to the surrounding rivers and lakes. An investigation conducted by the Finnish Environment Institute found high levels of aluminium, cadmium, nickel, uranium and zinc in the released waste waters. The company was at first unable to block the leakages and the waters poisoned the area around the mine for several weeks.

Karppi directs the assessment of the Reform Project for Regional State Administration in 2009-2010 whose first results were published in the report ‘Strong reform of a quiet kind’ by the Ministry of Finance. The regional Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY) are a core part of the reform, and it is the actions of these centres that have been criticised in connection to the Talvivaara crisis. The assessment of the reform project continues and it will be completed by the late summer 2013.

Preliminary news of failure

“Talvivaara would have happened regardless of the regional administration reform, just as recession and depression happen: you do not go out of your way to get such crises,” Karppi says.

According to Karppi we can speculate if another kind of administrative structure would have given room to different administrative discretion and if all the permits the mine needed would have been granted.

“I do not believe that this would have happened. Therefore I cannot back those statements that claim that the Talvivaara case proves the failure of the environmental administration reform.”

In connection to the debate around Talvivaara, the regional administration reform has been criticised by both the Minister of the Environment Ville Niinistö and the former Minister of the Environment, Sirpa Pietikäinen who is currently a MEP.

According to Ilari Karppi, not a lot of effort is needed to find evidence to both defend and oppose almost any administrative measure.

Talvivaara revealed lack of cooperation

Although the Talvivaara case was an environmental catastrophe that has affected the public image of administration, it has provided the opportunity to learn new lessons.

“Talvivaara has been a good showcase to highlight the defects in administrative cooperation,” Karppi says.

Cooperation goes smoothly in small routine matters e.g. between the police and environmental administration. At the other end of the scale are the big catastrophes for which special regulations, such as emergency laws, are in place.

“We have nothing that applies to the crises that fall between these two extremes. ELY Centres and police administration have now surely registered that we have a gap in the system and this will hopefully help the authorities to cooperate in problem-solving in the future.”

Problems in regional administration vary

The first assessment of the regional state administration reform in 2010 did not reveal major problems.

“At the time, the criteria of good administration were fulfilled by the fact that no immediate problems or catastrophes had occurred,” Karppi says.

The new assessment will concentrate on the everyday administration process and on how the problems of steering and operating system have been solved.

In some places there are major problems, but there has been progress too.

The assessment has revealed that there are big differences between the strategic steering of the Regional State Administrative Agencies (AVI) and the ELY Centres. The former are run by the Ministry of Finance and the latter by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Some of the differences are explained by the fact that these authorities have different responsibilities.

Environmental administration’s worst nightmare

Environmental administration has struggled after the reform but it has not been left in a state of total confusion.

According to Karppi, the understanding inside the environmental administration is that environmental hazards are not something to be encountered in the future but a reality as we speak. Especially personnel cuts are seen to already threaten the accomplishment of statutory tasks at the ELY Centres.

ELY Centre employees frequently work under a lot of pressure.

“The people who work there represent the state administration, but they are also inhabitants in their own neighbourhoods and cannot be immune to the ongoing debate on jobs and livelihood.”

Administrative officials have to work in an environment where different interest groups, such as Chambers of Commerce, trade unions or mining companies influence opinions.

“This part of the decision-making is not just maths and logic; the human and social sides are also involved.”

Seeds for the next round of reforms have already been sown

There are inbuilt pressures for change and development in the regional state administration reform that took place three years ago.

“The reform was undertaken in order to create a simpler and more clear-cut system than the one that came about. The model we have now is very asymmetrical. We have very different ELY Centres and AVI Agencies in different parts of the country. In that sense we do not have a level playing field throughout the country,” Karppi says.

The original government proposal and will of the legislators called for an administrative system that would be more easily understood.

“The seeds for the next round of reforms are already included in the present system. But this is a dynamic process. We do not have an absolute end result that we would have one system and then make use of it for the next hundred years.”

“At present we have a situation which is very satisfactory in some aspects and nearly untenable in some others.”


Text Heikki Laurinolli
Photograph Jonne Renvall
Translation Laura Tohka

This story was originally published in Finnish in Aikalainen 4/2013