Appropriate technology
of the same patterns (some were still too complicated for it), offered almost no benefits to the weavers since it was more expensive, barely more efficient and added nothing in speed (Browne, 1983, p.36). Examples like this plague the entire AT movement and can easily be seen as a major contributor to its failures since they were all that the policymakers and public ended up seeing and therefore created a very negative image of AT. Additionally, in many cases, foreign AT projects are unnecessary and simply an example of an elitist mindset held by many AT proponents who do not believe that native technologies can be efficient or effective. This view overlooks the fact that many native technologies have been refined over hundreds of years and are often the best tools for the job in question. A clear example of this comes from DeWalt’s study of the Valley of Temascalcingo in rural Mexico where, by around 1957, farmers had developed an improved plough that was much more efficient than what they traditionally used, due to improvements in digging depth and the ability to plant seeds at the same time. The developments had come out of necessity due to poor yields and destructive floods making survival very challenging. This plough, called the sembradora plough, seems to offer a perfect example of AT since it greatly increased productivity, improved people’s quality of life by reducing the hard manual labour tasks and was available at a low cost. However, no foreign influence was involved in its design and, in fact, attempts to integrate more modern technology such as tractors failed due to the size of the plots and the lack of fine control compared to what an animal-drawn plough offered. Therefore, while AT as a concept is effective at promoting development , many of AT’s failures have come from attempts to employ it where AT was not needed. In other cases, AT has failed not because of a lack of research or attempting to solve unnecessary problems but directly due to problems in the execution. In Niger, many AT projects based around timber and community forestry were created due to the benefits and opportunities for development that a sustainable source of firewood, building materials and, in some cases, food could bring to communities. Projects such as ‘woodlots’ were developed, which were dense areas of trees planted near a village as an investment for the future. These types of projects were initially very popular because communities had lots of control over the process (Brechin and West, 1982). Additionally, the projects were well thought out and could have been hugely beneficial for many communities. However, they almost all failed in their execution. Often the forestry officials who came to help villagers set up their woodlots were incompetent and, given the short two-to-three-week period in which trees can be planted in Niger, often planting missed this time-frame: in many cases, the seedlings died out within a few months and the project was a complete failure. Also, rampant corruption meant that much of the funding directed towards these AT projects was lost and, as a result, many fewer projects were even attempted. In the few cases where trees were effectively grown, many villagers saw no benefits, as forestry officials came in and cut down all the trees for themselves. Other difficulties, such as a lack of cooperation with locals and difficulties in managing ownership rights over the trees, further compounded the failure of these projects and led to them becoming unpopular with the locals. By the time Brechin and West published their article in 1982 most of these projects had been shelved.
Despite these failures, there are examples of where AT has been effectively employed, such as water purification devices in Indonesia. These devices were employed in some Indonesian villages as part of emergency aid after the December 2004 Asian Tsunami and saw great success (Dorea, 2011, p.5).
126
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker