Implementing EU water policy goals at the local-regional level in Finland and Sweden: the use of different types of knowledge in collaborative decision-making in water governance

The discretion EU member states exercise in implementing EU Directives has implications on both the design of decision-making processes, as well as on implementation in practice. The design of decision-making subsequently preconditions actors’ power to influence governance. Aspects of design include participation and representation, as well as the different types of knowledge used in decision-making. Expert (scientific, technical), bureaucratic (administrative, policy) and experiential (lay, practical) are all legitimate types of knowledge, but they do not typically have the same impact on decision-making. Previous research has shown that in cases of conflicting interests expert knowledge, often based on quantitative computational methods or other forms of exclusive technical knowledge, is used to counter more experiential types of knowledge. As a result, some stakeholders have less power to influence decision-making, especially in more collaborative forms of governance, which may undermine the legitimacy of the entire governance process. In our comparative case study of Finland and Sweden, we focus on the aspect of knowledge-use in the implementation of EU policy goals at the local-regional level. The tentative results from the analysed management plans and decisions, as well as conducted interviews with collaborative governance process participants, show that Finland and Sweden have two very different approaches to the types of knowledge that are used in decision-making. These differences have broad implications on both the collaborative water governance processes, as well as on implementation in practice.