Researcher’s viewpoint: How did Finnish development cooperation leave its mark on Kenya’s water services?

Development cooperation draws criticism in both politics and academia. I went to Kenya to bring awareness to its implications, its outcomes and its challenges, and to improve understanding of the complex social conditions of the Global South. How has Finnish development cooperation succeeded in its mission, both in terms of the country brand and in terms of development itself? Can project-based development cooperation achieve permanent results?

Background

In 2022, my colleague and I toured Finland interviewing former employees of a Finnish development cooperation project called Kefinco. The message was bleak: The interviewees estimated that nothing was left of the development cooperation projects implemented in the 1980s and 1990s. The group, which consisted mainly of engineers and operational level employees, had a gloomy view of the development cooperation, mainly for technical reasons and because of errors in the project. Pumps would break down, spare parts would not work, and the concept of ownership had not been successfully instilled in the minds of water users. In addition, trust in the ability of Kenya’s former dictator president Daniel arap Moi’s corrupt government to manage the aftercare of the development cooperation project eroded the faith of former employees in the sustainability of the project’s results.

At the end of October 2025, I visited the heart of the project in Kakamega, Kenya. With the narrative I mentioned above, I did not think I would see anything but abandoned and dried-up wells, with only concrete rings and bitter memories left. However, on my previous brief visit to Kakamega, I knew that Kefinco is still remembered in the region mainly in a positive light and that many people have something to say about it.

To be precise, shallow wells, bore wells, protected springs and water pipe systems that were built between 1981 and 1995, totalling 3,714 pieces. In addition, a number of water works were renovated and their capacity increased with the project funds. However, the overwhelming majority of the work on the project consisted of low-tech solutions, even though the Moi administration originally wanted to provide its citizens with water through pipes to their homes. However, this utopian and downright transparent populist demand was quickly abandoned and the Finnish joint-venture Kefinco (YIT and Finnconsult) drew up a project plan based on the cheapest possible technology: the hand pump known from Finnish summer cottages.

“I did not believe we would find a single well”

Those were the words my local research assistant said to me with a smile after our first interview. In fact, it was the first of about thirty interviews that we conducted during November, and all of the interviews were related to some of the water stations that we had located, operational or abandoned. In any case, we found notably more of Kefinco’s wells than we could imagine, about fifty. The vast majority of these were operational in one way or another. Not necessarily with the original pumps, but people fetched water from them.

After spending time in rural wells, village houses, yards and living rooms, perhaps the most striking preliminary observation is the fact that, contrary to the expectations offered to me, the project has indeed succeeded in producing lasting results, despite its difficulties and shortcomings. This applies to both physical infrastructure and, to varying degrees, to the social transformation of the communities in which the wells have been built. Another observation that should be mentioned is that Finland is now generally known around Kakamega and even in a positive light. All of the interviewed Kenyans knew the background of Kefinco, and in some areas, Kefinco had in fact become a synonym for the well. Not just Finnish wells, but all wells.

For whom is development cooperation an important subject and why?

It is typical for development cooperation in modern Finland to be surrounded by a cynical and pessimistic atmosphere, even among the workers themselves, let alone in the public debate. Right-wing populism attempts to frame the discussion with a broad selection of selfish and racist views, including tired remarks about “Finland first” and “sending money to warlords.” On the other hand, the inefficiency and neo-colonial aspects of development cooperation are discussed, as is the “smoke screen of development” that masks the structural problems that generate inequalities. Some of these undoubtedly have their roots in real events and should be considered when designing projects. Even better, of course, would be that development cooperation would not be needed at all to produce such services. However, almost all the people I interviewed asked or told me to take action to get Kefinco continue its work.

The views against development cooperation presented above do not speak very well to the rather unified message that my interviewees gave: Kefinco meant a great deal to them, and the communities affected by it had experienced a lasting and multifaceted change for the better.