Department of Political and Economic Studies (Development Studies) Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki ”THEY COME FROM ABOVE” EXPLORING FINNISH DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF METEOROLOGY, 1968-2015 Minna Mayer ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki, for public examination in hall 2, Metsätalo (Unioninkatu 40), on 26 August 2017, at 10 o’clock. Helsinki 2017 Opponent Professor Harlan Koff, University of Luxembourg Pre-examiners Professor Harlan Koff, University of Luxembourg Dr. Tiina Kontinen, University of Jyväskylä Supervisors Professor Emeritus Juhani Koponen, University of Helsinki Professor Liisa Laakso, University of Tampere Publications of the Faculty of Social Sciences 55 (2017) Development Studies © Minna Mayer Cover: Minna Mayer Photos: Minna Mayer Distribution and sales: Unigrafia, Helsinki https://shop.unigrafia.fi/ ISSN 2343-273X (Print) ISSN 2343-2748 (Online) ISBN 978-951-51-3265-9 (Paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-3266-6 (PDF) Unigrafia Helsinki 2017 ABSTRACT Finnish development cooperation in the field of meteorology has continued for nearly 50 years and over 100 countries have been beneficiaries of this aid. Cooperation in this field is complex, it brings together public and private sector actors and experts from different backgrounds. Projects have succeeded in capacity development, but have struggled with sustainability. Local capacity often lowers after projects ends. Data includes interviews (n=56) with experts from the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Vaisala, Ministry for Foreign Affairs and 8 recipient countries. Archive material and policy documents are also included in analysis. Exploratory case study method applying conventional content analysis is used. The objective of the study is to explore the underlying issues influencing the challenge of sustainability. Theoretical framework includes a combination of concepts and theories: governmentality (Foucault) and analytics of government (Dean), power theories (Lukes, Clegg and French & Raven) and approaches regarding patterns of aid behavior. Historical analysis shows the various phases of these projects, and reflects them to the history of Finnish aid from the late 1960s to the 2010s. Experts’ experiences from the grass-roots level form an important basis for the analysis. Policy analysis shows that projects have been well-fitting with development policies up until the 2000s, after which the gap between policy and practice has widened. Cooperation is focused more on technology and less to the societal aspects of meteorology. The Ministry is not involved in practice, allowing projects to be driven towards more technology-oriented goals by the experts of meteorology, many of which who have adopted an “apolitical” strategy. This weakens connections between projects and local people. Private sector experts have adopted an opposing strategy, and engage actively with politicians, who are able to make financially beneficial decisions for them. Analysis shows that all important decisions within the aid system "come from above", bureaucracy is heavy and control is tight. Lack of flexibility and trust in the system lowers the influence of the projects. Differences between the donor stakeholders are found in general approaches to key issues. Power analysis shows that the Ministry holds the most influential forms of power, while FMI and Vaisala hold mainly dispositional power. Recipients of aid lack access to important forms of power, yet they are expected to sustain capacity after projects ends. Several “donor traps” are also found to actualize, which influence outcomes of aid. In order to make projects truly sustainable for the aid recipients, the donor would have to give up some power and through that, also some accountability. This is nearly an impossible choice, since both are highly important for the donor. This study finds that within the current system, there is no one actor who has both motive and power to change aid. For the sake of the future, this is a significant challenge to overcome regarding the role of the developing nations, as well as the renewal of the aid system. Key words: development cooperation, development aid, complexity theory, meteorology, climate change, capacity development, governmentality, power, sustainability, ownership, public–private partnerships. iii ABSTRAKTI Suomalainen kehitysyhteistyö meteorologian alalla on liki 50-vuotisen historian aikana tavoittanut yli 100 maata. Meteorologia on ala, jossa Suomella on kansainvälisesti arvostettua erityisosaamista. Kehitysyhteistyöhankkeet on toteutettu julkisen ja yksityisen sektorin yhteistyönä. Projektit ovat onnistuneet kapasiteetin kehittämisessä, mutta vaikutusten ylläpito on ollut keskeinen haaste yhteistyöhankkeiden päättymisen jälkeen. Tutkimusaineisto koostuu haastatteluista Ilmatieteen laitoksen, Vaisalan, Ulkoasiainministeriön ja 8 eri avunsaajamaan asiantuntijoiden kanssa (n=56). Näiden lisäksi on käytetty arkistomateriaaleja sekä politiikkadokumentteja. Menetelmänä on tapaustutkimus ja perinteinen sisällönanalyysi. Tarkoituksena on selvittää mitkä tekijät vaikuttavat avun kestävyysongelmaan. Teoreettinen viitekehys rakentuu eri osista: governmentality käsitteestä (Foucault) ja siihen pohjautuvasta analytics of government teoriasta (Dean), kolmesta eri valtateoriasta (Lukes, Clegg ja French & Raven) sekä erilaisista lähestymistavoista avunantajien toimintaan ruohonjuuritasolla. Historiallisessa analyysissä esitellään meteorologisen avun eri vaiheita ja haasteita, peilaten niitä suomalaisen kehitysavun vaiheisiin 1960-luvun lopulta 2010-luvulle asti. Asiantuntijoiden kokemukset hankkeista muodostavat tärkeän pohjan tutkimukselle. Politiikka-analyysi osoittaa että projektit ovat olleet hyvin linjassa kehityspolitiikan kanssa 2000-luvulle asti, jonka jälkeen on ilmennyt enemmän haasteita. Ministeriö ei osallistu aktiivisesti hankkeiden käytännön toteutukseen, mahdollistaen sen että meteorologian asiantuntijat voivat ohjata projekteja haluamaansa suuntaan. Yhteistyö sektorilla on keskittynyt enemmän teknologiaan kuin meteorologian yhteiskunnallisiin ulottuvuuksiin. Monet meteorologian asiantuntijoista ovat omaksuneet ei-poliittisen lähestymistavan, joka heikentää projektien yhteyttä kehitystavoitteisiin ja paikalliseen yhteiskuntaan. Yksityisen sektorin asiantuntijoiden tulee sen sijaan toimia aktiivisessa yhteistyössä poliitikkojen kanssa, koska vain heillä on päätäntävaltaa laitehankintojen suhteen. Analyysi osoittaa että apujärjestelmässä päätökset tulevat yläpuolelta, byrokratia on raskasta ja kontrolli on tiukkaa. Joustavuuden ja luottamuksen puute heikentää hankkeiden vaikuttavuutta. Toimijavertailussa tuodaan esille eroja lähestymistavoissa Ilmatieteen laitoksen, Vaisalan ja Ulkoasianministeriön asiantuntijoiden kesken. Valta-analyysi osoittaa miten ministeriöön on keskittynyt merkittävin valta, kun taas Ilmatieteen laitos ja Vaisala voivat käyttää valtaa, joka tulee heidän organisaatioiden roolin mukana. Avunsaajamailla sen sijaan ei ole tärkeitä vallankäytön muotoja saatavilla, silti heidän oletetaan ylläpitävän projektien saavutuksia yhteistyön päättymisen jälkeen. Lisäksi projekteissa toteutuu erilaisia ”avunantajien ansoja”, jotka myös heikentävät vaikuttavuutta. Jotta projektit saavuttaisivat kestäviä tuloksia, avunantajien tulisi luopua jossain määrin vallasta ja sitä kautta osin myös vastuullisuudesta. Tämä on liki mahdoton vaihtoehto, sillä molemmat ovat avunantajamaalle tärkeitä. Tutkimuksessa tuodaan esille, ettei ole yhtään sellaista toimijaa, jolla olisi sekä valtaa että motiivi tehdä muutoksia apujärjestelmän rakenteeseen. Tämä on merkittävä haaste tulevaisuuden kannalta sekä kehittyvien maiden aseman että apujärjestelmän uusiutumisen näkökulmista. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The process of conducting this research and writing this thesis has been a humbling learning experience. When I started this project, I was sure that I wanted to be a researcher. In the end of this project, I am happy to say I still do. Doing this study has been a privilege, for which I am grateful to the University of Helsinki. I would like to thank Professor Harlan Koff from the University of Luxembourg for agreeing to act as the opponent as well as the pre-examiner of this thesis. Thank you for your time and all your insightful comments and overall enthusiasm towards my work. I would also like to thank Dr. Tiina Kontinen for your insightful and very useful comments and taking the time to pre-examine my work. I want to thank my thesis supervisors, Professor Emeritus Juhani Koponen and Professor Liisa Laakso, who both have provided support and guidance whenever needed. Especially Juhani’s meaning for my own career as a researcher has been significant. I do not think you understand how great you are. I wish to thank you with all my heart for teaching me since I started my studies in our small discipline of Development studies. You have been a great role model, everyone can learn from your wisdom and patience. I have always felt that you have listened to what I’ve had to say, and that in itself has been very empowering. I wish to thank my colleagues at the University of Helsinki whom I had the privilege of sharing my workspace. Our community of development studies has been a great place to work. I would like to thank our Professor Barry Gills and Professor Anja Nygren for their guidance, fairness and overall support in all parts of this process. All your hard work for our discipline is much appreciated. I would like to thank my fellow PhD students, especially Henni Alava, Liina-Maija Quist, Mira Käkönen, Ilona Steiler, Anja Onali, Sirpa Rovaniemi as well as those lucky ones who have already finished their theses: Dr. Eija Ranta, Dr. Henri Onodera, Dr. Minna Hakkarainen, Dr. Erja Hänninen, Dr. Julia Jänis and Dr. Gutu Wayessa Olana. Additionally, I would like to thank Mariko Sato, Kaisu-Leena Rajala, Maaret Ukkonen, Matti Karvanen and Hanna Wendelin, my fellow students from the discipline of development studies. I would also like to thank Dr. Marikki Stocchetti, who supervised my Master’s thesis with Professor Emeritus Juhani Koponen. My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Lauri Siitonen, who took the time to read my thesis and give insightful comments. I would also like to thank the following people who have been important teachers of mine during my studies in the University of Helsinki: Docent Pertti Multanen, Professor Jeremy Gould and University Docent Kimmo Vehkalahti. I would also like to thank Professor Jussi Pakkasvirta, Professor Elina Oinas, Dr. Florencia Quesada and Dr. Päivi Hasu, as well as Mari Lauri and Aija Rossi. I have been honored to be able to do this research for the University of Helsinki, my alma mater located in my hometown. I want to thank the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Vaisala corporation, Ministry for Foreign Affairs and meteorological institutes from the aid recipient countries for their cooperation. I thank all informants who gave their time for the interviews and were willing to answer all my questions. Additionally, I would like to thank Martti Heikinheimo and Sami Kiesiläinen for their help during my fieldwork in Barbados, Jaakko Nuottokari for supporting this project from the beginning and Panu Partanen for your guidance. Thank you to my dear friends, especially Veera and Mervi, who have made it easier to forget about this thesis when I have needed a break. My family has been the force that has enabled me to reach this point in my life. My parents, Tellervo and Elias Mayer have supported my studies from the first grade to this day. Without their financial support, the process of finishing this thesis would have been much longer. Thank you for allowing me to choose my own path in life v and always supporting me along the way. I would also like to thank my sister Marianne and her husband Marko. The biggest thank you I owe to Sami, who has had to put up with me when I have been stressed and anxious, working long hours, weekends and nights. Thank you for always being there for me and our son Kasper. I promise, in the future I will have more time for everything. As this process comes to its end, I am happy to know that the path from first grade to the end of my doctoral studies is finally near the end. Although life is about lifelong learning, completing this thesis has taken away from other aspects of life and I’m ready for a long break from all studies. I think that only people who have completed their dissertations know how hard this process can be, sometimes giving up much more fun things, finding the energy to stay focused and determinated to work, knowing that one day I’ll be finished with this project. I dedicate this thesis to Kasper, who has taught me more about life than anyone. Your energy, positive spirit, limitless eagerness towards learning and life in general is a constant source of both amazement and inspiration in my life. I hope that you find your calling in life and that maybe one day you’ll take the time to read this book. Helsinki, 6.8.2017 Minna Mayer vi CONTENTS Abstract ___________________________________________ iii Abstrakti __________________________________________ iv Acknowledgements ___________________________________ v Contents __________________________________________ vii Abbreviations _______________________________________ xi 1 Introduction ____________________________________ 1 1.1 Statement of the Problem _____________________________ 2 1.1.1 The Main Stakeholders _________________________________ 4 1.1.2 Political Processes Relevant for Meteorology ___________________ 7 1.1.3 The Scope of The Study _________________________________ 8 1.2 The Pervasive Questions Concerning Development Aid __________ 9 1.2.1 The Aspirations in Development Policies: Aid Effectiveness, Ownership and sustainability ____________________________________ 10 1.2.2 Development as Technical Blueprints or Political Negotiation Processes __________________________________________ 11 1.2.3 The Question of Power in Development Cooperation ____________ 13 1.3 Meteorology Projects at the Crossroads of Societal Contexts ______ 13 1.4 Meteorology Projects as A Part of Finnish Development Cooperation and Aid __________________________________________ 16 1.5 Research Objectives and Questions _______________________ 21 1.6 The Structure of the Thesis_____________________________ 23 2 Political and Cultural Aspects of Weather and Natural Disasters ________________________________________ 26 2.1 An Introduction to Meteorology _________________________ 29 2.2 Weather, Humanitarian Crises and Aid ____________________ 32 2.3 Climate Change – Relevance for Developing Countries __________ 34 2.4 Modern vs. Traditional Approaches to Weather _______________38 2.5 Societal and Political Aspects of Weather ___________________ 41 2.5.1 IMO and WMO History ________________________________ 41 2.5.2 Disaster Mitigation ___________________________________ 43 2.5.3 Meteorological Phenomena in Colonial Times _________________ 44 2.6 Chapter Summary – Relevance for Research Topic _____________ 46 3 Conceptualizing Development and Cooperation – Theoretical Background and Analytical Concepts ________________ 47 vii 3.1 The Approach of Complexity Theory to Aid _________________ 48 3.2 Actor-Oriented Approach ______________________________ 51 3.3 Theoretical Background _______________________________ 52 3.3.1 The Development Complex – Arguments For and Against Aid ______ 52 3.3.2 Conceptualizing ”Development” __________________________ 57 3.3.3 Developing Capacity – Capacity for Development? ______________ 58 3.4 Conceptual Tools for Analysis ___________________________ 62 3.4.1 The Concept of Governmentality __________________________ 63 3.4.2 Theories about Power _________________________________ 65 3.4.3 Patterns of Aid Behavior _______________________________ 70 3.5 Chapter Summary – Theoretical Approach __________________ 73 4 Research Methodology and Methods ______________ 75 4.1 Research Design – Case Study as a Method __________________ 77 4.2 The Data Collection Process ____________________________ 81 4.3 Research Techniques ________________________________83 4.3.1 Semi-Structured Thematic Interviews ______________________ 84 4.3.2 Interviews with Experts ________________________________ 85 4.3.3 Analysis of Historical Documents _________________________ 86 4.3.4 Content Analysis _____________________________________ 87 4.4 Analytical Strategy and Propositional Pattern _______________ 88 4.5 Ethical Considerations ______________________________ 89 4.6 Chapter Summary – Connecting Methods to Theory and Data ____ 90 5 Meteorological Development Cooperation in the History of Finnish Aid _______________________________ 91 5.1 Earliest Stages and Official Start: 1930s to the 1970s ___________ 97 5.1.1 Early Forms of Cooperation with the WMO __________________ 101 5.1.2 First Projects – Summary ______________________________ 104 5.2 The Enthusiastic 1980s ______________________________ 105 5.2.1 Gaining Recognition in the Global Field of Meteorology _________ 106 5.2.2 The FINNIDA/WMO Project for SADC Countries ______________ 111 5.2.3 Bilateral Cooperation Projects in the 1980s ___________________ 117 5.2.4 Summary of Projects, 1980–1989 ________________________ 119 5.3 Disappointments of the 1990s _________________________ 120 5.3.1 The Regional Project in the Central American Isthmus (CAI) _______121 5.3.2 Additional Projects in the 1990s _________________________ 123 5.3.3 The Impact of the Recession ____________________________ 124 5.3.4 Summary of Projects, 1990–1999 ________________________ 125 5.4 The New Partnerships and Instruments of the 2000s __________ 125 5.4.1 The Re-Birth of Regional Programs _______________________ 126 viii 5.4.2 Cooperation in Mozambique ____________________________ 128 5.4.3 ICI-Projects in the Field of Meteorology ____________________ 129 5.4.4 Summary of Projects, 2000s _____________________________131 5.5 the Multiform of Cooperation in the 2010s _________________ 132 5.5.1 Projects in the 2010s _________________________________ 133 5.6 Chapter Summary – Main Historical Events ________________ 136 6 Between the Rhetoric and Practice of Development ____ 139 6.1 Committee Explorations and First Statements, 1960s–1970s _____ 140 6.2 The “No Policy” 1980s _______________________________ 144 6.3 The Decision-in-Principle and Position Paper of the 1990s ______ 145 6.4 The Comprehensive Approach of the 2000s ________________ 149 6.5 The Complex Aid Context of the 2010s ____________________ 152 6.6 Chapter Summary – Practices as Policy ___________________ 154 7 Cooperation in Practice : Perspectives, Values and the Incentives of Actors ________________________________ 159 7.1 Project Challenges in Practice __________________________ 159 7.1.1 The Planning Process ________________________________ 164 7.1.2 Goal Setting – Capacity Development _____________________ 164 7.1.3 Execution and the Issue of Ownership _____________________ 165 7.1.4 The Termination Phase of Projects _______________________ 167 7.2 Between High Expectations and Inadequate Resources _________ 168 7.2.1 Partner Organizations ________________________________ 168 7.2.2 Chasing Time – Local Experts ____________________________ 171 7.2.3 FMI Experts _______________________________________ 174 7.2.4 Private Sector Experts ________________________________ 179 7.2.5 Ministry Officials ___________________________________ 181 7.3 Aid Behavior — Patterns of Concern _____________________ 185 7.4 Chapter Summary – Challenges with the “Practical” ___________ 188 8 The Politics of Development Cooperation in the Field of Meteorology _____________________________________ 190 8.1 Experiences with the “Political” ________________________ 190 8.1.1 The Perspectives of Meteorological Experts__________________ 193 8.1.2 The Perspectives of Private Sector Experts __________________ 198 8.1.3 The Perspectives of Ministry Officials ______________________ 201 8.2 Political Controversies _______________________________ 204 8.2.1 Data ____________________________________________ 204 8.2.2 Meteorological Equipment and Defense Politics ______________ 206 8.2.3 The Aid System – Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) ______ 208 ix 8.3 Experiences from the WMO ___________________________ 209 8.4 Politics and Science on a Collision Course __________________ 214 8.5 Public–Private Partnerships ___________________________ 219 8.6 Chapter Summary – The Politics of Cooperation _____________ 221 9 Below the Surface of Aid __________________________ 223 9.1 The Perspectives of Donor Stakeholders to the structure of Aid ___ 223 9.1.1 The Perspectives of Meteorological Experts__________________ 223 9.1.2 The Perspectives of Private Sector Experts __________________ 226 9.1.3 The Perspectives Of Ministry Officials _____________________ 227 9.2 Defining Differences in Approaches ______________________ 230 9.2.1 The Straightforward vs. Complex Approach _________________ 231 9.2.2 The Traditional vs. Modern Approach _____________________ 231 9.2.3 Donor vs. Recipient Ownership __________________________ 233 9.2.4 The Reactive vs. Proactive Approach to Politics _______________ 234 9.3 Stakeholder Dynamics – Control and Power in Cooperation _____ 235 9.3.1 The Logic of the Aid Structure and Ways of Control ____________ 235 9.3.2 The Extent of Power Analysis (EPA) Model __________________ 238 9.3.3 The Sustainability Paradox of Development Aid ______________ 242 9.4 Chapter Summary — Obstacles of Sustainability _____________ 242 10 Conclusions __________________________________244 10.1 Main Findings ____________________________________ 247 10.2 Meteorological Capacity in a Wider Perspective ______________ 251 10.3 Between Science & Politics and Culture & Nature _____________ 252 10.4 The Solutions Of Complexity Theory for Improving Aid Practices __ 252 10.5 Aid Critique — Serving the Needs of Developing of Developed Countries? _______________________________________ 253 10.6 The Future of Aid and Cooperation in the Field of Meteorology ___ 255 10.7 Challenges, Critique and Suggestions for Future Research Topics __ 256 Epilogue __________________________________________ 257 References ________________________________________ 258 Annex I - Timelines _________________________________ 283 x