they come from above” exploring finnish development cooperation in the field of meteorology, 1968

296 Pages·2017·3.06 MB·English

by  Minna Mayer

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