Towards interactive fish farming governance?a comparison of Finland and Sweden

Timo Makinen • Pekka Salmi • Leena Forsman

Received: 8 May 2013 / Accepted: 30 August 2013 / Published online: 7 September 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The neighbouring countries, Finland and Sweden, compete in the same market

with their aquaculture. Both countries have had, until recently, stringent environmental

policies limiting production volumes. During recent years, however, Swedish fish farmers

have been able to increase their production volume, and Finnish fish farmers have also

redirected their investments to Sweden. Thus, the strict Finnish environmental permit policy

has not benefited the Baltic Sea environment, but has moved the production volumes and

employment opportunities to other locations in the Baltic Sea and its drainage basin. By

comparing the Finnish and Swedish fish farming governance systems, we found that in

Sweden, various types of formal and informal interaction and practice have enhanced the

achievement of balanced decisions. This has only rarely been the case in Finland, which

features a more authoritative decision-making culture. On the other hand, increased com-

munication across the Finnish administrative sectors raises future prospects for more holistic

fish farming governance, which balances economic, social and environmental goals.

Keywords Aquaculture � Fish farming governance � Environmental permit

procedure

Introduction

During recent decades, rural areas in the Scandinavian welfare societies have transformed

from ‘productivism’ towards a ‘post-productivist’ era (see e.g. Wilson 2001), in which

T. Makinen (&) � L. ForsmanFinnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, PO Box 2, 00791 Helsinki, Finlande-mail: timo.makinen@rktl.fi

L. Forsmane-mail: leena.forsman@rkt1.fi

P. SalmiFinnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Itainen Pitkakatu 3, 20520 Turku, Finlande-mail: pekka.salmi@rkt1.fi

123

Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721DOI 10.1007/s10499-013-9700-3

environmental and recreational values and practices are increasingly emphasised. Instead

of focusing mostly on efficient food production, rural areas are more and more being seen

as landscapes of leisure and nature protection (Rannikko 2008). This transformation is a

characteristic of the coastal, archipelago and lake areas in Finland and Sweden, where fish

production, both fish farming and commercial fishing, struggles for survival. This paper

focuses on the problems and opportunities faced by fish farming in the post-productivist

environment in Finland and Sweden. Special emphasis will be placed on the functionality

of the governance system. Deriving from the theory of interactive governance (Kooiman

et al. 2005), we hold that participatory practices and negotiations are of core importance in

striking a balance between fish production and other interests.

In Finland, the main area for marine aquaculture is located in the Archipelago Sea

region in the south-west. This region is, at the same time, one of the most important

recreational areas in the country, with numerous summer house dwellers, leisure boaters

and tourists. The reputation of fish farming has been poor because of collisions with

recreational users and with the protection of water quality. The environmental conse-

quences of the nutrient load to the Baltic Sea have been of great concern during recent

decades. Therefore, fish farming has also been governed according to the aim of decreasing

nutrient emissions. This is particularly the case in Finland, where numerous plans and

strategies have been applied. Fish farming has reached the goal set in these strategies, and

consequently, Finnish fish farming has been left out of the HELCOM1 hot spot list from

2002 onwards.

In Sweden, the pressure against nutrient loads has been smaller because, until recently,

the growth of production has been slower and the production remained at a lower level than

in Finland. Furthermore, fish farming has not taken place in the main recreational marine

locations, as in Finland. In 2009, the Swedish government published a report (SOU

2009:26), which identified the extensive development potential of aquaculture. This report

highlighted the importance of increasing aquaculture in Sweden (Lindegarth et al. 2012).

In Finland, fish farming takes place in net cages in the Baltic Sea brackish water area,

but net cages are exceptional in freshwater areas—the farms mainly produce fish in tra-

ditional earthen ponds. Fish farming in net cages is a common practice in Swedish rivers

and lakes. About 90 % of Finnish food fish is reared in marine areas, whereas in Sweden,

this proportion is much smaller. About 40 % of Finnish production is located in the

Archipelago Sea region. Rainbow trout is the major species produced in both countries. In

Finland, about 1,000 tonnes of European whitefish, and in Sweden, about the same amount

of Arctic char, is produced annually. During the last 20 years, Finnish aquaculture pro-

duction has steadily declined; meanwhile, in Sweden, production has substantially

increased (Fig. 1). In 2012, Finnish production (11.3 million kg) was for the first time

smaller than Swedish production (12.0 million kg).

Some Finnish companies have moved their operations to Sweden. The largest farms in

Sweden, owned by Finnish companies, are located in the coastal area of the Bothnian Bay

in the northern Baltic Sea and in the rivers, lakes and reservoirs of northern Sweden, in the

drainage basin of the Baltic Sea. These firms have produced most of the Swedish food fish

for human consumption during recent years. Norwegian salmon is, however, the favourite

product among Swedish consumers. Because of the lack of domestic demand for rainbow

1 HELCOM is an intergovernmental organisation of the nine Baltic coastal countries and the EU, protectingthe marine environment from all sources of pollution (http://www.helcom.fi/). One form of action has beencreating common hot spot lists of the polluters which should be taken care in each member country.

712 Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721

123

trout, almost all Swedish production is exported to Finland (Fig. 2). The export of whole

fresh rainbow trout for human consumption from Sweden to Finland was almost

8,000 tonnes in 2011 (RKTL 2012a).

Aquaculture could become a remarkable employer in many rural regions, such as

coastal and archipelago areas, where new livelihoods are rare. But does this efficient mode

of fish production fit into the post-productivist landscapes and ideologies? The strict

environmental permit policy employed in Finland seems to reduce the profitability of the

fish farming livelihood and push this activity into exile in Swedish water areas. As a

consequence, the overall nutrient load to the Baltic Sea is not reduced, but is moved to

different areas. Farming circumstances and practices do not notably differ between the

countries. Although the governance and planning systems may also seem similar at first

glance, the governance practices differ in a way that attracts fish farmers to invest in

Sweden.

The aim of this paper is to compare the fish farming governance systems, their interactive

practices and outcomes between Finland and Sweden. We study how governance interac-

tions may enhance the ability to strike a balance between various interests during the

decision-making process. Moreover, we discuss whether divergences in cultural images can

Fig. 1 Food fish production inFinland and Sweden 1993–2011(Aquaculture 2011, Vattenbruk2011)

Fig. 2 Food fish production inSweden and export to Finland1997–2011 (data source FinnishGame and Fisheries ResearchInstitute)

Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721 713

123

help in understanding the detected differences. Sweden and Finland share a history until the

beginning of the eighteenth century. After that, before becoming independent, Finland was

under Russian rule for approximately 100 years. Thus, both Swedish and Russian cultures

have influenced Finnish culture. The institutions and laws were to a wide extent inherited

from Sweden–Swedish remained for decades the language of administration.

Materials and methods

The Swedish and Finnish legislation, principles and practices, which guide the aquaculture

governance systems, are compared using multiple sources of data. The main focus lies on

the implementation of the environmental permit application processes. The primary

material consisted of public documents, such as national legislation (Appendix 1), national

aquaculture strategies for Sweden and Finland (Jordbruksverket 2012, MMM 2012) and

interviews conducted with representatives of aquaculture companies operating in Finland

and Sweden. Other documents and articles used include minutes of a meeting of a

municipal committee (Storumans kommun et al. 2007).

Interviews with the representatives of fish farming companies were used to obtain a

more detailed view of the variety of practices during the environmental permit procedures

and of the company owners’ perceptions about the functionality of the system. A total of

six thematic interviews were conducted in 2011. The duration of the interviews was from

57 to 85 min. The interviews were taped and transcribed for the purposes of content

analysis.

Published descriptions of the aquaculture permit process were also used (Sweden: SOU

2009:26, Andersson 2012, Ackefors 2000; Finland: the websites of the Regional State

Administrative Agencies and Kalankasvatuksen ymparistonsuojeluohje 2012).

Results

Governance structures

Legislation and responsible bodies

The legislation concerning aquaculture is very similar in Sweden and Finland. A permit for

fish farming is required according to water and environmental legislation in Finland and

fisheries and environmental legislation in Sweden. One application is sufficient in both

countries. Furthermore, in both countries, there are many different laws and rules, which

concern fish farming, but have less practical relevance in terms of the permit process.

The regulation of fish farming is first of all in the hands of the national environmental

authorities, which decide the environmental permits for each fish farming site. In Finland,

the Ministry of the Environment is the highest environmental authority. The authorities of

state government are divided into two sublevels. The regional implementation level of the

fisheries administration is part of the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the

Environment (ELY), and the permit authority is the Regional Administrative Agency

(AVI). Implementation of environmental regulations and policies is delegated to the

Regional Environment Authorities (AVI and ELY).

In Sweden, the administrative levels are divided between the ministries, county councils

and the municipal level. County Administrative Boards, which are state institutions inside

714 Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721

123

counties, governed by ministries, decide on the permits for fish farms. The Environmental

Units of County Administrative Boards usually handle the applications and make deci-

sions. The municipal level enhances cooperation between the authorities and the local

stakeholders.

Environmental permit process

A permit from the Swedish County Administrative Board is needed for aquaculture if the

use of dry feed exceeds 40,000 kilograms annually (Decree 1998:899, Appendix 1). In

Finland, an environmental permit is required when annual consumption exceeds

2,000 kilograms of dry feed or if the annual growth of fish is at least 2,000 kilograms. In

Sweden, it is sufficient to make an announcement to the local municipality if the feed used

is between 1,500 and 40,000 kilograms annually (Decree 169/2000, Appendix 1).

In Finland, all permits are temporary, for 8 years on average (Ekroos et al. 2012), but in

Sweden, it is possible to acquire a permit for an undefined time at the lake area (personal

communication of a Finnish executive director of a fish farming company operating in

Finland, Sweden and Estonia). In Finland, a permit for a cage farm in fresh water area must

be classified as an exception, because during recent decades, there have been no new

permits of this type. In Sweden, in contrast, fresh water cage farms dominate.

The steps in the environmental permit process are rather similar in Finland and Sweden

(Table 1). Both countries require a very detailed application to the local environmental

authorities. In Finland, everything necessary is kept with the application, including

Environmental Impact issues. In Sweden, the application form itself is very short, but a

separate Environmental Impact Assessment is an important part of the Swedish application

procedure (MKB, miljokonsekvensbeskrivning2 in Swedish). Before the decision is made,

the application will be announced, e.g., in local newspapers, in both countries. This makes

it possible for stakeholders (municipalities, organisations, neighbours of the farm and other

involved) to give comments about the application to the decision-makers. The applicant

will be informed about the comments.

Aquaculture programmes and strategies

Sweden and Finland are members of the European Union and therefore committed to

support the EU aquaculture strategy. In connection with the EU aquaculture strategy, the

European Commission published a communication in COM 2009 to give new impetus to

the sustainable development of European aquaculture (COM (2009) 162 final). Three key

elements were stressed: spatial planning, environmentally friendly production and better

governance. The communication also separately mentioned that ‘‘Reducing the adminis-

trative burden, especially for small and medium enterprises is essential to promote

development.’’ The above three key elements are major aspects for consideration in the

new Finnish and Swedish strategies for aquaculture.

Recently, a national strategy for aquaculture has been published in each country. These

strategies are very similar, underlining the ecological, economic and social dimensions of

sustainability. The Swedish strategy expresses growing aquaculture production as the first

goal. There is no similar directly expressed production growth goal in the Finnish strategy.

2 This term is often translated as ‘‘environmental impact assessment’’ although ‘‘environmental impactdescription’’ would be the correct translation.

Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721 715

123

Moreover, communication between stakeholders is strongly highlighted in the Swedish

aquaculture strategy document:

‘‘Cooperation between the branch, researchers, stakeholder groups and the

authorities is characteristic to Swedish aquaculture.‘‘

‘‘Municipal politicians and other regional actors put effort into Swedish aquaculture.’’

‘‘Politicians at all levels and other actors understand the aquaculture as safe, long-

term and successful branch of business.’’ (Jordbruksverket 2012).

The Finnish aquaculture strategy is not as specific regarding the need for collaboration as

the Swedish one:

‘‘Administration supports the development of aquaculture by creating such an

operational environment with good circumstances for cooperation between private

and public sector’’ (MMM 2012).

Differences and outcomes of management practices

The most substantial differences between the Finnish and Swedish environmental permit

procedures can be detected in the interaction and communication practices throughout the

process. In Finland, the machinery of the process is not started before an application is

handed to the permit authorities (Table 1). Before that, and also, remarkably, during the

Table 1 The aquaculture permit application process in Sweden and Finland compared

Swedish application process Finnish application process

Consultations County Administrative BoardRegulatory authority

(municipality)Individuals specially affected by

the project

Application Regional state administrativeAgencies

EnvironmentalImpactassessment(MKB)

County Administrative Boardmakes a decision as to whetheran application and MKB can beprepared and sent forward

Possiblesupplementsandconsultations

Regional state administrativeagencies centre for economicdevelopment, transport and theenvironment management(ELY-Centre) Information togeneral public

Broaderconsultations

County Administrative Boardsupervisory/regulatoryauthorities individuals speciallyaffected by the project

Other state authorities,municipalities, organisations,groups affected by the project

Comments Regulatory authority (ELY-cntre,2 departments) Municipalityindividuals specially affected bythe project

Applicationwith MKB

ApplicationMKB (Environmental Impact

Assessment) including report ofconsultations Information to thegeneral public

Possibleconsultations

Regulatory authority (ELY-Centre) Regional StateAdministrative Agencies

Decision County Administrative Boarddecides whether MKB is valid

County Administrative Boardaccepts the application

Decision Regional State AdministrativeAgencies

716 Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721

123

process, there are no opportunities for the fish farmer to seek advice from or direct contact

with the decision-makers. Overall, advice may be available from the ELY-Centres (Centres

for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment), but in Finland, no such

communicative participation takes place before submission of the application, which

happens in the Swedish system.

In Sweden, a consultative meeting is arranged right at the beginning of the planning

phase. This meeting goes through the preliminary plans and allows all participants

(municipality, County Administrative Board, possibly other state officers, organisations

and individuals involved) to express their views. This helps the applicant to develop the

application to meet the requirements and reach better acceptability for the further steps in

the process. When this is repeated with the input of the environmental permit authorities,

they will become part of the planning and administration system and adapt their task

accordingly.

‘‘There is a round table discussion with environmental people sitting around the

same table with all stakeholders and they take part in the discussion with everyone

else and give direct advice how to get our 1,000 tonne permit four times bigger by

making some changes to the processing plant.’’ (Finnish executive director of a fish

farming company active in Finland, Sweden and Estonia.)

The result seems to be a situation where the different dimensions of sustainability

(economic, social and ecological) are taken into account in a more balanced way than is the

case in Finland, where the regional, fishery and environmental representatives take care of

their own mandates separately and with different relationships to the application procedure.

The history of the Finnish environmental permit authority is significant here. Earlier

decisions were made by the Water (permit) Court, and as a court of law, this was very

independent from other authorities. Remnants of this distinction can be detected in the

following interview extract:

‘‘We granted a permit so small that they should understand that they must quit.’’

(Finnish civil servant of the Environmental Permit Authority about a permit process

he was presenting as an example of ‘‘an application for an impossible site’’.)

Finnish practices in the aquaculture permit process have led to the decrease in total

production amounts as well as to a situation where unit size has remained small.

Environmental and fish farming researchers have suggested every now and then that the

units could be much larger without harmful environmental effects. For example,

(Honkanen et al. 2001) suggested in their article that either the monitoring practices are

wrong or the results of the monitoring programmes do not give any justification to restrict

aquaculture production. These suggestions have not led to any changes in the governance

procedure. In Sweden, on the contrary, these kinds of expert opinion have been taken more

seriously in stakeholder meetings and the governance of aquaculture during recent years.

The consequence has been an increase in unit size (for example a 1,000 tonne permit

application in Jamtland; Ansokan 2013) and a rapid growth in total production.

In the environmental assessment phase of the Swedish application process, models are

used to describe the effects of the nutrient load on the water ecosystems. These models

have also been tested in Finland (see e.g., Hakanson and Wallin 1991), but they never

gained the trust of the Finnish administrators and have remained unused in the application

process. In the Swedish application documents, the nitrogen load is estimated to finally end

up in the Baltic Sea (phosphorus is estimated to sedimentate in lakes and reservoirs to a

marked extent before ending up in the Baltic Sea), but this has not been an obstacle to

Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721 717

123

accepting the permits. One reason may be that local effects have not been observed by the

stakeholders that participate. In Sweden, as in Finland, too, a lake must hold a good status

for being a location for aquaculture. The difference in application procedure is that in

Sweden, the scope for the total phosphorus loading is assessed by using the eutrophication

models (Alanara and Strand 2011). In Finland, models are usually not used, and this kind

of concept of acceptable loading is not used in the permit procedure.

Not only Swedish production has exceeded the amount of Finnish production (Fig. 1),

but the average production unit size is also much larger: In Sweden 154 tonnes/a, in

Finland 65 tonnes/a (Statistics Sweden and Jordbruksverket 2012, RKTL 2012b). In

Sweden, the 15 biggest farms produce 95 % of the rainbow trout, and their average

capacity is 680 tonnes. The largest farms in Sweden produce more than 1,500 tonnes (with

many larger farms currently going through the planning process); meanwhile, in Finland,

the largest are allowed to produce a maximum of 300 tonnes annually (in the autonomous

Aland county, however, three farms are allowed to produce over 500 tonnes). In Sweden,

two farms very near each other were permitted to produce 3,200 tonnes in total after a

decision in the Environment Court (Mattsson 2010).

When Swedish production figures and Swedish export to Finland are compared (Fig. 2),

it is evident that a substantial proportion of the increase in rainbow trout production in

Sweden has been exported to the Finnish market. Based on our interviews, it may be

assumed that the new fish farmers in Sweden are mainly Finnish farmers who have moved

their activities to Sweden.

Discussion

This paper has compared governance practices and interactions related to fish farming in

Finland and Sweden, as examples of the challenges in balancing multiple interests in a

post-productivist environment. We found that, in spite of the similarities in production,

circumstances and the basic structure of the governance system, there are also differences

between Finland and Sweden, particularly in terms of the communication throughout the

processes. It is obvious that the collaborative goals in the Swedish aquaculture strategy and

the two-way communication practices in the permit process have led to a better accord

between the main stakeholders and to more resilient decision-making. This has not been

the case in Finland, where the environmental permit practices are more rigid and

authoritative.

Because of the tightened competition in the market, fish farmers try to increase their

profitability through increases in production volumes. This has rarely been an option in

Finland, where site-specific fish production has been increasingly limited by the envi-

ronmental authorities. The small, site-specific production limits and the scattered structure

of the fish farming sites have fostered Finnish fish farmers’ investments into Swedish water

areas. The paradox is, however, that the strict Finnish environmental permit policy has not

benefited the ecological status of the sea, but has moved the production volumes and

employment opportunities to other locations in the Baltic Sea drainage area. While

Swedish society seems to be able to recognise the development opportunity for aquaculture

in Sweden offered by the Finnish fish farmers, Finnish society does not reflect the danger

of losing the rural employment opportunities provided by aquaculture. Both livelihoods

and the environment suffer.

One solution for the above-described paradox would be the adoption of a flexible and

interactive spatial planning system. A successful planning system would simultaneously

718 Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721

123

improve the state of the environment, reconcile stakeholder conflicts and retain rural

working places. Some promising signs of developing new interactive cooperation have

been observed in the Finnish site selection planning for aquaculture (MMM 2013): the

environmental and fishery administration and the stakeholder groups have worked together

to create a new plan and to find solutions for where aquaculture could find new sustainable

locations and increase its production. The planning procedures concerning the Archipelago

Sea region have aimed at putting aside the conflicts of interest around the use of the marine

Archipelago areas and thus eliminating new situations where fish farming could collide

with the recreational use of the area. In Sweden, significant collisions with leisure users

have not been observed, which can be seen as one possible reason for the differences

between the countries.

Our results show that focusing only on the formal legislation-based management

structures does not reveal the functionality and outcomes of a governance system. Various

types of formal and informal interaction and real-life practice are often crucial for reaching

balanced decisions. Two-way interactions help in acquiring a wider knowledge base and

understanding the value positions of other interest groups—thus providing possibilities for

stakeholders to update their perceptions of the issues. For the purpose of moving forward,

particularly in Finnish fish farming governance, a question should be raised: what lies

behind the different policies and practices of the Finnish and Swedish governance systems?

We suggest that the observed differences between Finnish and Swedish fish farming

governance practices reflect wider cultural features in these societies. It seems that Swedish

society is more often discursive and open to change than Finnish society. During the last

25 years, the will to obey and preserve the present rules has increased among Finns;

meanwhile, Swedes are more willing to change the rules (Pettersson and Nurmela 2007). In

the international World Values Survey, it was found that the Swedes value democracy and

equality as positive issues more than the Finns. Although cultural features change slowly,

there are also signs of bridge-building between the Finnish environmental protectors and

the natural resource users. A good example of this is the national site selection plan for

aquaculture, in which the Ministries of the Environment and Agriculture and Forestry were

able to work together and had a dialogue. The increased communication across sector

barriers raises prospects for more holistic fish farming governance, which is better capable

of balancing economic, social and environmental goals.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Dr. Jouni Vielma and two unknown referees for their valuablecomments and suggestions on the manuscript. The research leading to these results has received fundingfrom the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreementno 245178 (Coexist, http://www.coexistproject.eu/) This publication reflects the views of the authors only,and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the informationcontained therein.

Appendix 1 The main legislation concerning aquaculture in Sweden and Finland

In Sweden, the main legislation concerning fish farming permits consists of.

• Fisheries Act (Fiskelag 1993:787).

• Decree on fishing, aquaculture and fishing industry (Forordning, 1994:1716, om fisket,

vattenbruket och fiskerinaringen).

• Environmental Code (Miljobalk 1998:808).

• Decree (1998:899) about environmentally hazardous activities and health and safety

protection (Forordning, 1998:899, om miljofarlig verksamhet och halsoskydd).

Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721 719

123

• Decree (1998:905) about environmental impact assessments (Forordning, 1998:905,

om miljokonsekvensbeskrivningar).

In Finland, the essential legislation is based on.

• Environmental Protection Act 2000/86,

• Environmental Protection Decree 169/2000.

• Water Act 2011/587.

References

Ackefors H (2000) Review of Swedish regulation and monitoring of aquaculture. J Appl Ichthyol16:214–223

Alanara A, Strand A (2011) FOMA-projekt, Fiskodlingens narsaltbelastning. Institutionen for Vilt, Fisk ochMiljo, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Rapport 1, p 19. [In Swedish.] http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/5670/1/Alanara_A_Strand_A_110208.pdf Cited 12 Feb 2013

Andersson J (2012) GIS-analys for lokalisering av lamliga lokaler for fiskodling I Jamtlands lan. AquabestReports, p 25. [In Swedish]. http://www.aquabestproject.eu/media/6777/gis-analys.pdf Cited 12 Feb2013

Ansokan Feb (2013) om tillstand enligt miljobalken for fiskodlingen i Vattviken, Storsjon, Bergs kommun,Jamtlands lan, Wangensten Fisk AB. [In Swedish.] http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/vasternorrland/Sv/miljo-och-klimat/verksamheter-med-miljopaverkan/aktuella-miljoprovningsarenden/ovriga-provningar/Pages/wangensten-fisk-abs-ansokan-om-tillstand-enligt-miljobalken-for-fiskodlingen-i-storsjon,-bergs-kommun-jamtlands-lan.aspx Cited 12 Feb 2013.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2009) 162 final.Building a sustainable future for aquaculture. A new impetus for the Strategy for the SustainableDevelopment of European Aquaculture. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0162:EN:NOT. Cited 12Feb 2013

Ekroos A, Eskelinen U, Paavola I-L, Komulainen E (2012) Vesiviljelyn ymparistosaately yksinkertai-semmaksi–mahdollisuudet ja keinot. Aquabest. RKTL:n Tutkimuspaivat Turussa 31.10.–1.11.2012. [InFinnish.] http://www.rktl.fi/www/uploads/pdf/Tutkimuspaivat%202012/ekroos.pdf Cited 12 Feb 2013

Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute RKTL (2012a) Foreign trade in fish 2011. Riista- ja kalatalous–Tilastoja 3/2012. Official Statistics of Finland–Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, 39 p. [In Finnish.]http://www.rktl.fi/www/uploads/pdf/uudet%20julkaisut/tilastoja_3_2012_web.pdf Cited 1Aug 2013

Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute RKTL (2012b) Aquaculture 2011. Official Statistics ofFinland. http://www.rktl.fi/www/uploads/pdf/uudet%20julkaisut/tilastoja_6_2012.pdf Cited 12 Feb2013

Hakanson L, Wallin M (1991) Use of econometric analysis to establish load diagram for nutrient in coastalareas. In: Makinen T (ed) Marine Aquaculture and Environment, Nord 1991:22, pp 9–23

Honkanen T, Helminen H, Hanninen J, Laihonen P (2001) Kalankasvatuksen tarkkailut remonttiin. Vesit-alous 2001(3):7–12 [In Finnish]

Jordbruksverket (2012) Svenskt vattenbruk–en gron naring pa bla akrar. Strategi 2012–2020, p 20. [In Swedish.]http://www.svensktvattenbruk.se/download/18.6160f287138226df0f180002827/Svenskt?vattenbruk?-?en?gr%C3%B6n?n%C3%A4ring?f%C3%B6r?bl%C3%A5?%C3%A5krar.pdf Cited 12 Feb 2013

Kalankasvatuksen ymparistonsuojeluohje. Tyoryhman ehdotus 18.4.2012. p 53. [In Finnish.] http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=137028&lan=en Cited 12 Feb 2013

Kooiman J, Bavinck M, Jentoft S, Pullin R (eds) (2005) Fish for life. Interactive governance for fisheries.MARE Publication Series No. 3. Amsterdam University Press

Lindegarth S, Bjornsson T, Dundell K (2012) Concerted action for Swedish aquaculture. Sustainability.Journal from the Swedish research council formas. February 2012. http://sustainability.formas.se/en/Issues/Issue-1-February-2012/Content/Focus-articles/Concerted-action-for-Swedish-aquaculture/ Cited12 Feb 2013

Maa- ja metsatalousministerio MMM (2012) Kansallinen vesiviljelyohjelma 2015, Valtioneuvoston peri-aatepaatos. Kala- ja riistaosasto. 14 p. [In Finnish.] http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/elinkeinokalatalous/5HCzUiQiY/VN_periaatepaatos_Vesiviljelyohjelma_2015.pdf Cited 12 Feb 2013

720 Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721

123

Maa- ja metsatalousministerio MMM (2013) Vesiviljelyn kansallinen sijainninohjaussuunnitelma, Luonnos11.01.2013. [In Finnish.] http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/kalariistajaporot/lausuntopyynnot/6E3Tm6zDH/Vesiviljelyn_kansallinen_sijainninohjaussuunnitelma_110113.pdf. Cited 12 Feb 2013

Mattsson EA (2010) Landets storsta fiskodling till Stroms Vattudal. Lanstidningen Ostersund 2.7.2010. [InSwedish.] http://ltz.se/nyheter/stromsund/1.2153099-landets-storsta-fiskodling-till-stroms-vattudal Cited 12Feb 2013

Pettersson T, Nurmela S (2007) Eri tapoja kohdata suuri elefantti. Suomalaisen ja ruotsalaisen kulttuurinvertaileva tutkimus. [In Finnish.] Om olika satt att mota en stor elefant. En jamforande studie ifinlandsk svensk kultur. [In Swedish.] http://www.pohjola-norden.fi/filebank/228-elefantti.pdf Cited12 Feb 2013

Rannikko P (2008) Postproduktivismi metsassa. In: Karjalainen T, Luoma P, Reinikainen K (ed). Ymp-aristososiologian virrat ja verkostot. Juhlakirja professori Timo Jarvikosken 60-vuotispaivana. OuluUniversity. pp 83–95. [In Finnish.]

Statens offentliga utredningar SOU (2009:26) Det vaxande vattenbrukslandet. Betankande av vat-tenbruksutredningen. [In Swedish with English summary: An Aquacultural Nation in the Making.]http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/12/21/53/f4513622.pdf Cited 12 Feb 2013

Statistics Sweden and Jordbruksverket (2012) Vattenbruk 2011. Aquaculture in Sweden in 2011. Sverigesofficiella statistik, Statistiska meddelanden JO 60 SM 1201. [In Swedish with English summary.] http://www.scb.se/Statistik/JO/JO1201/2011A01/JO1201_2011A01_SM_JO60SM1201.pdf Cited 12 Feb2013

Storumans kommun, Miljo- och samhallsbyggnadsnamden, Protokoll 2007.09.14. [In Swedish.] http://www.storuman.se/upload/Protokoll/msbn/msbn070914.pdf Cited 12 Feb 2013

Wilson GA (2001) From productivism to post-productivism … and back again? Exploring the (un)changednatural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. British Geographers 26:77–102

Aquacult Int (2014) 22:711–721 721

123