Development of Joint Rural Water Services in Finland, 1872–2022

Abstract

Community-based systems present a key option for water services, especially in rural areas. Our goal is to achieve a state-of-the-art understanding of joint rural water supply development in Finland over 150 years. A mixed-methods approach was used: a literature survey and a questionnaire to selected experts. Based on the literature, a table including 23 decisions considered the most influential strategic events from 1872 to 2022 was produced. The table was sent to 10 selected experts known to be deeply familiar with the theme, all of whom replied. Joint rural water services in Finland have evolved based on demand through co-operative principles. The first documented scheme was constructed in 1872, while governmental financial support to rural water services started in 1951. It expanded in various forms until it dramatically declined in recent years. Multi-locality may increase the need for these services in the future. The expert survey revealed the following most influential long-term decisions: the first official water co-operative established in 1907, the land reform for immigrants and war veterans introduced in 1945, the Committee for Rationalisation of Households established in 1950, the start of domestic manufacturing of plastic pipes in 1954, and the Water Act enacted in 1962 to start water pollution control. This paper reminds us that urban and rural services are not contradictory but can supplement each other.

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization recently launched the new Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality: Small Water Supplies [1]. This document and supporting tool for sanitary inspections introduce the concept of water safety planning tailored to small supplies for the first time. The guidelines also classify three ways of water services management—by households, by communities, and by professionally managed systems. The guidelines aim at progressive improvement, and one of its key recommendations is to adopt regulatory approaches that would promote a shift towards professionalised operation and management of these supplies [2]. While this may have its arguments, it is also obvious that small, community-managed, or in this case mainly co-operatives, have their own features and, in many respects, are different from urban systems.

The three–level classification is relevant also for a developed country like Finland, where several public policymakers seem not to recognise the existing diversity of water services management. Indeed, it is not advisable to refer to too many water utilities as several bodies have recently done in Finland, since many of them are community-based systems. Furthermore, the self-managed systems at households, supported by external services, if needed, have their own characteristics.

In developing economies, one has the huge challenge of how to organise and develop water and sanitation services for billions of people lacking potable water and safe sanitation. In this context, historical experiences can be useful, although not necessarily directly applicable to other conditions. Already at the dawn of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (1981–1990), Pacey, 1977, pointed out that “technology alone is not enough”: in technological development, it is necessary to consider cultural, organisational, and technical aspects, whereby the user sphere partly overlaps with the expert sphere [3].

Finland, the case country and one of the five Nordic countries, had a population of 5.60 million at the end of 2023 with a topographical area of 337,000 km². The country has some 56,000 lakes with a minimum area of one hectare and a total number of about 190,000 lakes that are in the order of at least 500 square metres in area [4,5].

Groundwater occurs in alluvial eskers formed during the Ice Ages, the last of which ended some 10,000 years ago. For geological reasons, areas lower than 50–60 m above the current Baltic Sea level often experience problems with water quality (Figure 1). In such cases, bigger cities use surface water for their water supply or acquire their raw water mainly from groundwater sources further away from inland areas. Joint rural water supply systems were started on the western coast in areas.

In terms of weather and rainfall, the four-season climate is important. Despite some occasional drier periods, e.g., during the summer months, rainfall, either in the form of water or snow, is quite evenly distributed [6] (p. 11).

In rural areas, groundwater has traditionally been the major source for domestic rural water supply, earlier particularly important for cattle farming [6] (pp. 38–39), [7]. Sometimes excess iron and manganese may cause quality problems for groundwater and necessitate treatment before its use [8]. Geological history also impacts surface water quality, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Major areas with known and possible acid sulphate soils in Finland [9]. Localities mentioned in this article are shown on the map.

Figure 1. Major areas with known and possible acid sulphate soils in Finland [9]. Localities mentioned in this article are shown on the map.

Acid sulphate soil was formed during the brackish Litorina Sea period some 7000 years ago. When these layers are exposed to atmospheric oxygen, e.g., due to flood control and agricultural activities, surprisingly high sulphur loadings may occur [10], thus lowering the quality of surface waters.

Earlier on, in the countryside, e.g., in the Ostrobothnia region, Western Finland, river waters were even used for drinking purposes. Along with more efficient agriculture, drainage of marshland, and development of agro-industries, their use for drinking purposes was not possible anymore [11] (pp. 10–15).

At present, water services in Finland are administered and managed at multi- and interconnected levels. From small systems to larger ones—on-site property-managed systems, co-operatives (e.g., water user associations), municipal utilities, inter- and supra-municipal arrangements of various types, and sometimes through multiservice companies.

In this article, the focus will be on the long-term development of community-based water co-operatives, while recognising the fact that along with time, the interfaces to self-supply at the household level and, on the other hand, to urban-type water utilities and even to inter- and supra-municipal arrangements may change due to a declining or growing number of users.

The first documented joint (piped water) rural system dates to 1872 in Ilmajoki, the western part of the country, with appropriate conditions of using spring water and piping it by gravity flow to houses and cowsheds [12]. Accordingly, the first urban water and sewerage system dates to 1876 in Helsinki [13].

Partly, the same authors conducted an earlier survey regarding the long-term evolution of mainly urban water services from 1860 to 2003 [14], whereas this article places focus on joint rural services over the past 150 years. In terms of research methodology, a similar approach was applied here to rural services except for on-site systems—those not connected to networked systems.

The goal of this study has been to achieve a state-of-the-art understanding of the development of joint rural water supply in Finland over the last 150 years to be able to further develop these services. A specific purpose has also been to obtain the best available knowledge of the significant outcomes of the most important and influential events and decisions over the same period.

2. Research Methodology

This article starts with a literature review on joint (piped) rural water supply and its development in Finland, picking up major episodes and events over the years. This article also includes a case description of the first official water supply co-operative (water users’ association) in Finland and a more recent Government Decree on Treating Domestic Wastewater in Areas Outside Sewer Networks.

In this research, the authors used a mixed-methods approach. In addition to a literature study, they conducted a survey with a questionnaire. Thus, our paper is unconventionally a combination of a review paper and a research paper. First, based on the literature, a table including 23 decisions that were considered the most influential strategic events in terms of rural water services from 1872 to 2022 was produced by the Finnish authors. Secondly, 10 selected senior experts known to be familiar with long-term rural water development in Finland, including the Finnish authors, were requested to rank the ten most influential ones out of the listed events, considering the political, economic, social, technological, ecological, and legislative (PESTEL) framework, commonly used in futures research and administrative studies. This was later expanded with cultural and ethical dimensions (CE), creating the acronym PESTELCE. Through this framework we wished to point out that the requested experts in their assessment should consider development and major impacts in their wider context instead of, e.g., technological and economical dimensions only. Thus, the approach was largely institutional [15]. All of the experts replied.

In this article, the authors analyse and reflect on key events, choices, and alignments in terms of rural water services. The water, environment, and water history experts were each asked to identify the ten most influential events (10 = most influential −>1 = least influential). Yet, the development of on-site self-supply water systems such as individual wells and water-lifting means was delineated beyond the inscription. Finally, after discussions, conclusions are drawn.

The approach and construction of this study is shown by a graph in Figure 2.

Case Pispala refers to the first officially registered water co-operative, created in 1907. The Government Decree on Treating Domestic Wastewater in Areas Outside Sewer Networks came into force in 2004, promoting the establishment of water co-operatives in dispersed rural areas.

3. Overall Development of Joint Rural Water Services from 1872 to 2022—Literature Review

3.1. Early Joined Water Supplies

In 1872, Salomon Tuominiemi built the first documented joint rural water pipeline based on gravitation in Ilmajoki, Ostrobothnia, in Western Finland. The pipeline was 2.5 km long. The profile was levelled by filling up a wooden container made by a straight board and was targeted homeward. It was soon noted that the straight water level would reach high enough, thus enabling gravitational flow. Pipes were made using split spruce (Picea abies) at this stage. Five years later, the spruce pipes were replaced by pine (Pinus sylvestris). Also, in nearby Lapua, they started to build joint wooden pipelines in the 1870s [12] (p. 181).

The first rural water-transporting gravitational pipelines were constructed especially in Ostrobothnia on the western coast to serve the population along the riverbanks. Additionally, the region also has had a long tradition of self-help and joint projects [16]. Wooden log pipes were drilled using as straight logs as possible. These pipes were fashioned from locally available materials and maintained a reasonable degree of tightness when installed while still fresh and kept moist. Nevertheless, their capacity to withstand pressure was typically limited to around 20 m of head, resulting in extended filling times due to the low pressure. Over time, the wooden pipelines started to leak, posing issues, especially during wintertime [17]. In the 1930s and particularly in the 1950s, hand drilling of wooden pipes was replaced by a mechanical device system [18] (p. 44).

Figure 3 summarises the establishment of community rural piped water systems in Finland up to 1950. In a broader context, rural piped water systems evolved from modest beginnings and expanded gradually, a trend that stands in stark contrast to the development pattern observed in urban areas, where systems often started larger and scaled down over time.

3.2. The Postwar Rehabilitation Until the Recent Times

The postwar period meant rehabilitation, also in rurally located water services. In Lapua, Ostrobothnia, it was a common saying that one could not be considered a true local resident unless they had encountered typhoid at least once. Many migrants who were evacuated from Karelia after World War II, where good-quality groundwater occurred, had difficulties adapting to polluted surface waters [20].

After World War II, the Work Efficiency Institute was involved in developing the so-called women’s double yoke. It had belts that rested on the shoulders of the carrier. During that time rural water supply was still largely based on carried water. Before 1950, there were 389 piped water supply systems in rural areas, many of which were not officially registered. These water co-operatives used wooden pipes constructed by small local contractors [21]. Till as late as 1952, Finnish women walked “the distance from the Earth to the Moon” every day fetching water for their livestock barns and kitchens, as shown in Figure 4.

In 1948, the parliament set up the Committee for Rationalisation of Households to promote household activities with eight members, half of whom were parliamentary members, all being women. In 1950, the committee proposed to start governmental funding of joint water supply, the first of its kind. This gender tactic was indeed a shrewd approach to garnering support during the postwar rehabilitation period, particularly among migrants and war veterans. Initially, its focus was primarily directed towards rural areas. One intriguing aspect was that the Committee assessed developments with a 40-year perspective: something hardly practised by today’s committees [23]. The Committee made a recommendation on the Act on Loans and Grants for Water Supply and Sewerage in Rural Municipalities. In 1951, grants and loans were available to private associations, and plastic began to supplant wood as the preferred material for pipes [24].

Along with piped rural water supply, wide electrification of the countryside began with support from the central government. Many villages were electrified, especially in the 1950s, and by the 1970s, the electrification of the countryside had been completed [25]. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the focus of rural water supply development was on sparsely populated areas, and municipalities encouraged people to organise and develop the water reticulation services themselves. In 1980, approximately 70 percent of the population in sparsely populated areas was connected to joint water supply systems. The time frame spanning from the 1990s to the present has also witnessed the emergence of water co-operatives that specifically tackle wastewater management. In 2004, the Government Decree on Treating Domestic Wastewater in Areas Outside Sewer Networks partly promoted establishing water co-operatives [26].

In addition to actual rural areas, approximately 20 of the water co-operatives initially established in rural villages, predominantly during the 1950s, have subsequently evolved into water utilities for townships, catering to populations ranging from 2000 to 15,000 individuals. These large water co-operatives have permanent employees and are thus professionally managed [27]. The diversity of water co-operatives is driven by different types of people, needs, the environment, the economy, and population [28].

A study carried out in the early 1990s on Finnish water co-operatives revealed that often, one enlightened person called a “champion” has played a key role in initiation, establishing, planning, and implementation up to the operational phase. While the relative role of a champion has continued to have major importance at least up to the early 1990s, the role of consumers has relatively declined. The roles of the private sector as service producers and that of municipalities and local authorities have increased as well [24,29].

One of the biggest challenges in water co-operatives is that the age of the responsible persons is typically older than 60 years, and it is difficult to get the next generation to accept responsibility for water co-operatives. There are also challenges in finding suitable candidates to take up positions on boards. The main reason is that there is less willingness to engage in voluntary work. Another reason is that authorities currently prefer extending the operating areas of existing water co-operatives rather than establishing new water co-operatives. Legislation also causes challenges to water co-operatives because the operations must be professional despite the lack of similar resources in small water co-operatives compared with municipal water utilities [28]. These constraints have been recognised, and finding solutions to them has been found to be challenging [30].

As for consulting companies, the initial entity, named Soil and Water, was founded in 1949. In 1993, it became a part of Pöyry PLC, which has served the forest industries since 1958. Today it is an international consulting and engineering company that provides services across the full project lifecycle, solving complex industrial challenges, and more recently, part of AFRY, an international consulting company. Another major consulting company is Suunnittelukeskus, Plancenter, established in 1959 and later called the Finnish Consulting Group (FCG); most recently, the FCG global network of development consulting firms was sold to Cowater International. FCG is traditionally closer to rural water service users and consumers, whereas Pöyry PLC is more focused on urban water supply and management services. Along with these, local construction companies also started to develop [18] (pp. 212–213).

Probably the biggest “technology jump” in Finnish water supply and sanitation (WSS) evolution was the shift from wooden to plastic pipes when domestic manufacture of polyethylene pipes (PEs) started in 1954. It started with a smaller size and expanded gradually along with product development and material improvement to larger sizes. Figure 5 shows the transport of rolled and flexible polyethylene (PEH) pipes in 1961. Such a development gradually led to the establishment of Oy KWH Pipe Ab, which later established factories, e.g., in Malaysia, Portugal, Poland, and the United States of America. In 1965, another major Finnish company, Uponor Ltd., started manufacturing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes and gradually became one of the leading companies in Europe [31]. By the year 2000, it was among the biggest global plastic pipe manufacturers. In 2013, Uponor Infra was established through a merger with KWH Pipe [32]. It is plausible that even into the 1960s, certain systems employing wooden pipes continued to exist. The primary main trunks were relatively swiftly replaced with plastic pipes, whereas house connections could endure for a more extended period.

Finland commenced its development co-operation in 1965, with the first bilateral collaboration officially launched in 1968. Since then, water supply and sanitation, particularly, have remained among the key areas of co-operation. Over the years, bilateral partner countries (in chronological order) have included Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Vietnam, Egypt, Mozambique, Nepal, Namibia, Ethiopia, Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip), Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, and South Sudan. In the 1980s, the focus started to shift towards expertise and development activities. Gradually, the projects also came to include sanitation. Initially, the focus was predominantly on rural WSS. However, since the 1980s, support was also extended to urban water services in countries such as Vietnam, Egypt, and Mozambique [18] (pp. 226–236). Through such projects, access to water services has been provided to a population numbering approximately 10 million people by 2021, close to double the current Finnish population [34].

The latest bilateral rural water projects have been in Ethiopia and Nepal. In the first case, an interesting community-managed project (CMP) approach has been developed. The key operating philosophy of community-led accelerated WASH in Ethiopia (COWASH) IV is the empowerment of the rural communities of Ethiopia to develop their own water, sanitation, and health (WASH) facilities through the establishment of an enabling environment and the implementation of CMP interventions. Rural communities apply for support and are trained to design, implement, operate, and maintain their own WASH facilities [35]. In Nepal, so-called multiple use of water services (MUS) has been used, taking the need for water beyond the basic need and including also ecological sanitation. The overall approach is holistic, participatory, inclusive, and bottom-up [36]. In many ways, water development is vital for reaching most, if not all, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in September 2015 [37].

Particularly for developing economies, the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (IDWSSD) 1981–1990 had a dramatically ambitious goal: to provide drinking water supply and sanitation to all mankind by 1990. Yet, it did not take long to realise that it was far too unrealistic. However, it is likely that in this way WSS gained the attention that it otherwise might not have had [38]. The decade also had its national goals in Finland by promoting the expansion of water services in rural areas.

Demographic change from rural to urban areas has been continuing. Although it is forecasted that urbanisation will continue, it is important to recognise the impact that rural areas will have and most likely need to have adequate population also in the future, bearing in mind security of supplies, food production, and forestry.

3.3. Water Co-Operatives and Case Pispala

As a brief example, the authors present the case of the first officially registered water co-operative, established in 1907 in Pispala, located to the west of the city of Tampere. The area is located along a ridge formed during the last Ice Age [28,38]. There was a spring in Tahmela that provided drinking and other water to the whole of Pispala from 1906 to 1966 (Figure 6). A water co-operative took its water from the spring after the initial Co-operative Act came into effect in 1901. Although this first formal water co-operative was established in a suburban area, early water co-operatives were typically solutions for domestic rural water supplies, especially for the needs of cow houses [6,39] (p. 10).

The founder of the waterworks of Pispala was mechanic August Koivunen (1860–1938). He rented the spring in Tahmela in 1891 and built an apartment and the workrooms for himself next to the spring. Koivunen embanked the spring and built the water wheel which turned the mill and stone pair and tried to grind corn, but the power of the water wheel was not enough for it. The idea of pumping the water was ready in 1896–1897. The assistance of an expert engineer from Huber Engineering Company was used, and according to him, the water could not be elevated solely using the natural force of the spring’s waterfall; instead, a steam engine was deemed necessary for the task [39] (p. 75).

In the water users’ opinion, the water was of good quality, and it tasted good. The city’s health officer conducted water quality tests two to three times a year. Typically, the spring underwent cleaning during a single night around Midsummer, much like the water tank situated atop the hill [39] (p. 79).

A year prior to the integration of the Pispala water co-operative into the Tampere waterworks in 1962, there were a total of 603 houses, and the co-operative had 185 members. Water-use meters were installed at 328 houses, while others adhered to an agreement-based flat rate for their water-use charges. Water rates were collected biannually. The ownership of the waterworks was transferred to the city of Tampere starting from the beginning of July 1962. The selling price amounted to FIM 13,365,000 of which the town provided 10 million in cash. Additionally, the city guaranteed pensions for the two workers of the co-operative society [39] (pp. 82–83).

As per the water co-operative’s government, the opinion was that the necessary future investments would not have been feasible. Consequently, the co-operative received support, initially through extensions connected to the city’s waterworks. The operation of the waterworks initially persisted under Tampere’s ownership, following a similar pattern as under the co-operative’s management. Nonetheless, water rates saw an increase. Subsequently, Pispala was integrated into the water and sewer networks of the Tampere city waterworks [39] (pp. 82–83).

Over the years, the co-operative movement has faced several changes. Water co-operatives have good internal democratic self-governance, for example, annual general meetings. They do not exist to make profit only, and this was also the case in Pispala. Due to insufficiently low fees being charged, the water co-operative faced financial challenges, and consequently it was sold to the Tampere municipal waterworks in 1962. In any case, the Pispala water co-operative served its citizens for approximately 55 years. Over time, there also has been a transformation in land use planning. The once-traditional working-class suburb has evolved into an area highly cherished by artists and various other groups. Upon the city assuming control of the water co-operative, the development of the sewerage system also commenced. As housing density and the proportion of paved roads increased, stormwater began to flow down towards the spring, resulting in a significant decline in its water quality [39] (pp. 82–84).

3.4. Development Phases of Water Co-Operatives

Taking a broader perspective, the six key developmental phases of Finnish water co-operatives from 1900 to 2020 are encapsulated in

Table 1. Development phases of Finnish water co-operatives and their changes of characteristics from 1900 to 2020 [26] (p. 17, modified).

Phase	Characteristics of Water Co-Operatives
I 1900–1950	Built without financial support; willingness to continue as independent co-operatives is strong.
II 1945–1960	Approximately 20 of them currently operate in mid-sized towns with competent staff.
III 1950–1970	Stronger role of municipalities and state → loans and grants for organising rural water services.
IV 1975–1990	Mostly in rural areas; actively encouraged and supported by municipalities; less independent than earlier co-operatives; weaker ownership, more passive members.
V 1990–2017	Mostly in rural areas; also, sanitation; external pressure significant in setting up; often planned as temporary solutions.
VI 2020	Part of co-operatives are willing to hand over their networks to municipalities that are often not interested.

.

These co-operatives have navigated shifts in focus over time, extending from their initial establishment in geographically scattered rural regions. However, in around 20 townships, they have effectively managed to provide both water and, increasingly, wastewater services with notable efficiency [40]. For lobbying and looking after the interests of water co-operatives, the Association of Finnish Water Co-operatives (SVOSK) was established in 2009 [41]. In more recent times, many co-operatives have indicated their willingness to transfer their networks and operational responsibilities to municipalities. However, municipalities often display a lack of enthusiasm for such propositions.

3.5. Government Decree on Treating Domestic Wastewater in Areas Outside Sewer Networks

Water-borne toilets were progressively adopted, even in rural areas. The Water Act enacted in 1962 introduced the use of septic tanks for blackwater, followed by requirements of the Health Act and related permits for water-borne sanitation.

In 2004, the Decree on Treating Domestic Wastewater in Areas Outside Sewer Networks [42] was enacted. Nonetheless, the stringency of the decree was eased, particularly in the years 2011, 2012, and 2016–2017. In 2017, the requirements to renew the wastewater systems became compulsory in areas close to water bodies or situated in groundwater abstraction areas [43]. Of permanent housing, approximately 16 and 7 percent are situated in such areas, which are surprisingly low figures. It is probable that implementing such requirements would have been more viable in the initial phase, whereas they are currently mandated for recreational housing located in proximity to water bodies. Efforts have also been undertaken to promote the use of dry toilets as an alternative to waterborne sanitation [44].

4. Results of Assessment

Table 2. Assessment of the most influential long-term events and decisions on rural water supplies and their relative importance in Finland, 1872–2020 (n = 10). Events with total points of at least 30 are bolded.

Year	Event/Decision	Explanation	Relative Importance, Total Points (n = 10)
1872	First joint wooden pipeline	Ilmajoki, manually drilled pipes	26
1907	First official water co-operative	Pispala	30
1930–1960	Machine-drilled wooden pipes	drilling remarkably intensified	23
1945	Land Acquisition Reform Act	over 100,000 new farms and lots	37
1949	First consulting companies	Maa ja Vesi Oy, Suunnittelukeskus	24
1950	Rationalisation of households committee	first financial act 1951	66
1954–	Domestic manufacturing of plastic pipes	technology jump	76
1956	Finnish Water and Wastewater Association	involved also rural systems	27
1962	Water Act enacted	e.g., requirement for septic tanks in rural areas	48
1968	Development co-operation in water started	focus on rural areas	6
1970	Water administration	overall water administration	29
1980s	International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade	promotion of rural water supply in Finland	21
1990s–	Water co-operatives to be dispersed in rural areas	external support: EU, state, local governments	25
1995	Finland as an EU member	support to dispersed rural areas	6
2001	Water Services Act	responsibilities clarified	18
2004	Decree on wastewaters in dispersed rural areas	especially for permanent housing; increased sewerage systems	24
2009	SVOSK * founded	trusteeship of water co-operatives	12
2011–2019	Government Decree on Treating Domestic Wastewater Outside Sewers Networks	approx. 116,000 customer contacts	12
2012–2016	National sewerage programme	19,800 real estates to piped sewers and 50 trunk sewers	18
2014	Changes in Water Service Act	mitigating the compulsory connections	3
2016	State support for water services ceased	cabinet’s principle of decision	6
2017	Mitigation of Government Decree on Treating Domestic Wastewater	transition time was eased for those next to water bodies and groundwater areas	8
2020–2025	National water services reform	wide impacts expected for the operations of water utilities of various sizes	5

* The Association of Finnish Water Co-operatives.

provides a summary of the evaluation of the most impactful long-term decisions regarding rural water supplies. The assessment is based on 23 chosen events as perceived by the 10 invited experts, well-versed in the development of rural water services. The experts were asked to select the 10 most influential events and rank them using a scale from 10 (most influential) to 1 (least influential event).

The assessment highlighted the following five events as the most significant: the establishment of the first official water co-operative in 1907, the land reform benefiting immigrants and war veterans in 1945 [45], the inception of the Committee for Rationalisation of Households in 1950, the commencement of domestic production of plastic pipes in 1954, and the enactment of the Water Act in 1962, marking the initiation of effective water pollution control measures. Among more recent events, the 2004 Decree on Treating Domestic Wastewater in rural areas garnered attention for its contentious nature.

In compiling the assessment of selected decisions and their relative importance, it is possible that earlier decisions will have more weight since those were among the first to start the development of community water supplies.

In a wider context, development co-operation projects in rural areas have largely utilised the experiences from Finland and applied them to the local conditions. During the initial phase, this was unattainable due to the prevailing policy of unrestricted water usage at that time. Subsequently, demand-driven rural water projects and consumer contributions have become feasible, drawing substantial attention in various regions, including Ethiopia and Nepal, as discussed above. Hence, active monitoring of international developments is viable, but directly adopting solutions without proper assessment and testing is not advisable [18] (p. 255).

The ten individuals who conducted the requested long-term assessment are being maintained as anonymous participants. A specific case involving a water co-operative is grounded in the literature sources.

5. Discussion

The number of respondents (n = 10) may sound small, but when considering that the number of rural water experts is low in a country with a small population, the sample can be considered satisfactory.

Referring to multi- and interconnected levels of water services, urban and rural services of various kinds and at various levels are not contradictory, but they can supplement each other. Such multi-level governance can be planned to follow the principle of subsidiarity. In accordance with this principle, matters are to be decided on where they are known best, ultimately as close as possible to the citizens. This principle is thus very relevant for joint rural water services and co-operatives [46,47]. Accordingly, the second principle of the Dublin Statement 1992 says, “Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policymakers at all levels” [48]. This is also stated in the Maastricht Treaty, the Charter of the European Union [49].

One of the biggest challenges in water co-operatives is that the age of the responsible persons is typically older than 60 years, and it is difficult to get the next generation to accept responsibility for water co-operatives. They are also experiencing challenges in finding suitable candidates to take up positions on their boards. The main reason is that there is less willingness to engage in voluntary work. Another reason is that authorities currently prefer extending the operating areas of existing water co-operatives rather than establishing new water co-operatives. Legislation also causes challenges to water co-operatives because the operations must be professional despite the lack of similar resources in small water co-operatives compared with municipal water utilities [28].

As for safeguarding future services produced currently by Finnish co-operatives, there are several options. Bigger co-operatives are often strong enough, whereas smaller ones in dispersed rural areas will face challenges in the case of migration and an ageing population. Yet, solutions to these constraints need to be considered case by case. Such options may include increasing co-operation of various types with other co-operatives or municipal utilities in small steps, avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, developing operational services with local entrepreneurs, or shifting responsibilities to municipal bodies.

An important question is how far should pipe-water systems be expanded in rural areas? Viitasaari [50] questioned the public policy of the mid-1990s that seemed to favour centralised systems in all conditions as a standard solution. Mattila [51] (p. 67) later questioned conveying wastewaters from far distant rural areas to centralised treatment plants since the responsibility of the disposed wastes may not be felt. Due to Finland’s low population density, centralised systems would be either too complicated, too expensive or, in many places, both [52]. For instance, the recent strategy for Southwestern Finland’s regional water services noted that where joint water services cannot be viably implemented, on-site systems should be used [53].

It was intentional that in this study the authors excluded on-site systems—self-supply of water and sanitation. However, there is growing recognition that self-supply plays an important role in providing water for households in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) [54] and even in high-income economies [55]. It is obvious that case-by-case consideration is needed when joined piped water systems will be feasible and when it would be better to rely on self-managed systems. This is becoming a topical issue in Finnish rural areas with their declining population.

Overall, rural water services have significantly improved over the last 150 years. As late as in 1950, 7 to 10 percent of the rural households only had piped water. However, currently, it is not feasible to construct pipelines to every household, particularly in dispersed rural areas. Rural water services have evolved largely based on water demand, mainly through co-operative principles. Governmental support for water services started through rural systems in 1951. It continued in various forms until there was a gradual decline in recent years. Currently, municipalities will have to reconsider their responsibilities in water services in dispersed rural areas. While the rural population is likely to decrease further, free-time housing and multi-locality may increase the need for services in the future. Common piped water systems should not, however, be expanded everywhere but should instead rely on on-site systems when necessary. An interesting question is, what kind of role and properties should a “modern champion” have in community-based water services?

Multi-level governance of water services production is obviously an advantage for alleviating vulnerability and improving security of supplies. This stance contradicts, at least in part, the prevailing mindset of Finnish water utilities, which tends to prioritise technical reliability while potentially neglecting other dimensions of the PESTELCE framework. Experts and public decision-makers should also take seriously services orientation and what it means for sustainable and resilient services. This is valid not only in rural areas but also in urban conditions.

Bearing in mind sustainability and resilience of rural water systems, the interface between joint piped water systems vs. self-supply water systems is particularly important to be explored case by case. The same needs to be explored for jointly sewered vs. on-site systems.

As for other countries, the authors present here a few cases, although similar studies like theirs could not be found. In Switzerland, rural communities have developed and managed their own water supply networks—in some cases for over 100 years. The tasks are divided between the three administrative levels. Municipalities are responsible for water pumping and distribution, while cantons must make sure that the delivered water is of sufficient quality, and they have an important role in setting standards and providing support to the communities. The federal government establishes the legal framework for water resources protection and quality standards for drinking water [56]. In Kenya, they also have many water-user associations in small-scale irrigation.

In rural Ethiopia, water is collected in many places from natural or improved springs, while collecting rainwater for household water is not that common. A house-specific unprotected dug well is used in areas where groundwater is available, rainwater is over 200 mm annually, and where water service is poor or does not exist. Some communities have built and financed, with financial and technical support from the government or an NGO, a protected spring with the storage tank, a hand-dug well or a drilled borehole. Wells are equipped with a hand pump or a motorised pump. The number of users of protected springs and wells ranges from 150 to 500 people. Sometimes, boreholes with an electric or a solar-powered pump are equipped with a large water tank. Water usually gravitates from the water tank to water points along the pipeline, wherefrom people fetch their water with jerry cans. The number of jerry cans collected determines the size of the water bill. There are hardly any house connections in rural water supply systems. Groundwater is usually clean and untreated. In areas with high fluorine content, water is sometimes treated with bone charcoal filtration [57].

In Ethiopia, community-managed water supplies rely on the members of the democratically elected committee. Yet, the success of the water supply in many cases relies on the role of one active committee member, the individual champion. There are no water-borne toilets in the countryside. It is still very common to have open defecation, while a simple pit with a cover is the most common solution [57].

Demes et al. [58] brought out the champion as a change facilitator of the development process. According to Whaley et al. [59], in Eastern Africa, water point committees seldom reflect the organisational form assumed by public policy and guidance manuals. They noted that “in Ethiopia, water management arrangements are more likely to be fleshed out—fully formed committees often working in conjunction with other institutions”. In Malawi and Uganda, the management arrangements, according to them, tend to be skeleton crews of key individuals.

As for the future, in the European Union, there are large rural areas despite foreseen increased urbanisation: predominantly, they make up half of Europe and represent around 20 percent of the population [60].

6. Conclusions

From the authors’ literature study and assessment survey, the following conclusions can be drawn:

(i)

Historically, rural water services have predominantly operated on a demand-based approach.

(ii)

The significant and influential long-term decisions assessed encompass the establishment of the first rural water co-operative in 1907, the enactment of the Land Acquisition Reform Act in 1945, the establishment of the Rationalisation of Households Committee in 1950, the initiation of domestic manufacturing of plastic pipes in 1954, and the introduction of the Water Act in 1961.

(iii)

The support from the European Union, central government, and local governments was further used for expanding rural co-operatives to expand the systems from the 1990s until the mid-2015s. Yet, this was carried out without properly considering the future responsibilities. While some of the latest co-operatives would be willing to hand over the responsibility to municipal utilities, the latter often refuse to even negotiate.

In Finland there will continue to be a permanent rural population in the future to ensure aspects such as security of supplies, food production, and forestry. These areas, together with free-time housing and secondary homes, will need water services, although part of them is preferably to be managed by on-site systems.

The results of this study can hopefully be used when exploring alternative ways of safeguarding and improving rural water services in Finland as well as analysing and comparing lessons learnt from other countries and regions.