| |
|
 |
The venturesome find their
consumers |
 |
| |
TUNIS(August
20,2008)
- In every community development work worth its salt, the top-down
approach of extension work is a taboo. Its opposite, the bottom-up
approach on the other hand is the holy grail. Like most holy grails
though, real bottom- up work which fully engages stake holders from
the very beginning to the last stage, remains illusive. In agricultural
extension work, for example, the development agent, the lowest in
the hierarchy of government officials, tells the farmers what to do.
A case of "immediate top-down."
But not all transfer of know-how or skills necessarily has to follow
that model. In other words, the top-down approach might be preferable
in some cases. This approach is appropriate in the disseminations
of such technologies such as the internet. In China, for example,
the leaders in internet technology went to great lengths to bring
it to the common man. One company had even to start with this tack
when it introduced the Net to beginners: The net is not for fishing.
And the web has nothing to do with spiders. Now we know, don't
we? that tens of millions of Chinese operate the internet.
When the Wonji Sugar Estate, as was called then, almost half a century
back, began to market its produce with a barrage of adverts, it became
a laughing stock by city know-it-alls. The contents of the adverts
on radio were basically about the sweet qualities of sugar and the
cheap price.
The smart alecks said the company was wasting money on advertisement
in a market were it had complete monopoly. Little did they know that
the company was using the adverts to educate the public in rural Ethiopia
which at the time consumed little or no sugar at all. The company
was in fact creating sugar addicts.
Mechanization or the lack of it in Ethiopia's agriculture has been
a muted point for decades now. It is not an exaggeration to say that
the only single implement the farmer ever owned since farming in the
country began, is the maresha. It is, no doubt, an enduring
piece of metal tool.
Much has been said about the maresha. It is mainly criticized for
being able to only slightly scratch the soil profile, unlike the other
modish ploughs that can go deeper and wider. By that thinking, crops
under this traditional plough may not be getting the maximum nutrient
or moisture from the soil. On the other hand the enduring quality
of the traditional plough is that it is much easier to pull by the
skinny, poorly-fed Zebu oxen.
Why has the role of improved agricultural tools been downplayed by
our agricultural universities and agricultural research institutions?
Maybe they already have the products. Maybe what is lacking is forceful
marketing and effective introduction to potential users. In other
words, lack of the top down information dissemination.
One set of implements that researchers at the EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organization) had come up with had to do with minimum tillage.
The implements reduce the number of plowings dramatically and are
used in accompaniment of the traditional plough. They are user friendly
and that includes the animals as well.
But so far the tools have been sitting idly on shelves for years.
What went wrong? What ever the reason, this was a missed opportunity
which the organization could revisit and perhaps attempt to advertise
to the farmers much as the Wonji Sugar Estate did for sugar several
decades back.
Hyping a product in itself is not enough, of course. It does not ensure
brisk sales or even attract window shopping. The implement must be
appropriate and should measurably enhance production in way or another.
We have witnessed over the years that some innovations in their prototype
stage looked promising. They looked especially perfect to their inventors.
The real test is the market place and most agricultural implements
so far have tanked, to the utter dismay of farmers.
Turning to construction work, the use of gloves for those working
with their bare hands can hardly be overestimated. Those engaged in
digging tough subsurface grounds, cutting metals, and other hard manual
work bare handedly need gloves to protect them from the pain, cuts
and bruises that inevitably follow. But we rarely see workers in gloves
at construction sites anywhere.
I have observed some workers using improvised methods that are meant
to work like gloves. They wrap flat rubber pieces around the hand
awkwardly. But they hardly replace gloves. Why is it then that manual
workers who would be much safer wearing gloves are not doing so? Is
it because of the cost, or that gloves are not available in the market
or it is because of poor or insufficient marketing by the importers?
|
| |
|
