River Management. Technological Challenge or Conceptual Illusion? Salmon Weirs and Hydroelectric Dams on the Kemi River in Northern Finland - Implementing Environmental and Resource Management - page 247

stop or fundamentally alter the river, neither were they constructed to cover the
entire diameter of the flow. The flow had to continue, otherwise they were ineffec-
tive. They were constructed annually, when the conditions on the river were right,
not triggered by an external signal such as the calendar date or a price increase.
Later in the season they were carefully deconstructed again, trying not to com-
promise the quality of the fishing site. Other fishing methods were employed in
other places along the river and during other phases in the season; the weirs were
not designed to do all the fishing. Finally, measures were in place to ensure the
sustainability of the activity, such as the closure against over-exploitation, the
identification of specific fishing sites and leaving the King's Channel open. Of
course, these two technologies cannot be simply equated; because they regulate
and harvest different aspects of the river, their impact on the entire watershed has
been very different, as has been their scale. However, both of them have to deal
with the basic characteristics of a river in order to harvest something from its flow.
This reveals more parallels than initially obvious.
Ideas and technology are two sides of the same coin. A barrier that harvests the
river selectively and adapts to its varying characteristics presupposes a conceptual
base that varies significantly from that of modernist environmental manage-
ment11, which sets out to subdue and control environmental phenomena concep-
tually and physically. The example of the Kemi River shows that such control can
hardly be entirely possible. Salmon weirs and hydroelectric dams both harvest a
particular quality of the river and the operators of both types of construction have
to know and respond to the river's dynamics. Even though hydropower develop-
ment on the Kemi River has been, and to some extend still is, driven by modernist
visions of harvesting controllable natural resources to suit particular needs, the ac-
tual operation of the system of power stations does not comply with the ideal of
management as controlling a phenomenon in order to execute a ready-made plan.
Thus, if not even a technology that commands almost one million cubic metres
of reinforced concrete, data collected during many decades throughout an im-
mense area and a group of highly educated and experienced staff - if not even
such a technology controls the Kemi River, the idea of river management in the
traditional sense seems to be a conceptual illusion. A river cannot be managed, by
imposing a rigid, predefined plan, but an engagement with its flow is always a re-
ciprocal relation. This is not to claim that a river cannot be dealt with or used for
human interests at all. Since it emerged after the last Ice Age, the Kemi River has
always been used by humans and probably will be for a long time to come. But
such uses have been - and necessarily will be - based on reciprocal engagement
with the river's flowing characteristics. Only thus can they work.
11 For a critical evaluation of environmental modernisation, see Chapter 18.