[Stoves] Appropriate tech: naive perhaps but with some useful lessons learned, lest we be condemned to repeat them.

[Cecil Cook]

Dear Richard, Ron, and Crispin,

Ron I met you in 1976 at the Habitat conference in Vancouver and you had
already begun stirring the pooh in those days.  Ron's sources response and
your history with AT both deserve an extended response from me and I hope
Crispin and other in or out of the closet ATerson the list. I need to
cogitate first before I pontificate.  I will respond at length tonight, but
right now life's duties demand I do some bread labour.

In search,

Cecil



On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Richard Stanley
<rstanley at legacyfound.org>wrote:

> Dear Cecil,  Ron et al.,
>
> Having been involved with the early AT movement in Sri Lanka and East
> Africa in the late 60's and 70's, I would agree that much of what was
> started, never really took root. We ran an AT center in Arusha Tanzania for
> 6 years ('76-thru '81) and even though it continues to this day, it never
> really reached its potential. We learned some really valuable lessons and
> I'd like to share them with the group as they have relevance in providing
> perhaps,  a broader view of the interpretations being offered, especially
> as they may affect the direction of the group in its own choices for
> extension.
>
> In looking back over that experience and others which followed over the
> past 35 odd years,    it was not all the hardware and innovations that came
> out even those developed in partnership with several universities and other
> technical institutions, which really mattered in the long run;  It was how
> well the innovations were adapted to local culture and markets– produced,
> sold and maintained by local culture in the real daily market  that
> determined their long term success.
>
> While our Kituo cha Ufundi wa Kujitegemea,  started some 22 small
> businesses --and several remain in effect today-- many more of our efforts
> dwindled, for unless the  effort was integrated to local market realities,
> the technologies were doomed to dependence upon donor or other
> institutional subsidy and through that, ultimately,  local and/or national
> political  interests of the day.
>
> Yet with all that said, the AT movement did start something of a new way
> of thinking about development,  where being encouraged to think for oneself
> in the then emerging nation states of Africa, was a new concept. Beyond
> just providing employment of the individual to achieve some metric as
> measurable outcomes for the donors rationalisations, it  focused on
> empowerment of local cultures-something rarely attempted as a large scale
> sustained movement, certainly not in south and most of colonial Africa. It
> accompanied the desire for self determination  as a fundamental issue
> driving the movement --something often sadly glossed over or missed
> altogether in the international  reportage--even to this day.
>
> Internationally such as Nicolas Jaquier's Problems and Promises of
> Appropriate Technology (UNESCO, late 70's) foretold much of this: It was
> indeed missed by the oft cited Schumacher, Illich et al. and without this
> fundamental truth as driving motivation, the AT movement took the same turn
> as many others in history: It quickly became usurped by technology for
> innovations sake with the attendant burst of media  in the US states and
> internationally. Like the whole counterculture movement, while it
> introduced new ways of looking at our own social and political mores in the
> US part of the Americas,  it soon fractured and dissolved into small
> pockets of die hard interests with little economic impact.
> Technically however the AT movement also offered us a glimpse at the same
> innovative spirit which drove much of our own US part of the American
> continent's (and dare I admit it as a US citisen, very likely all other
> culture's) development. More than a few of us spent time in the early
> American museums of Cooperstown the Henry Ford museum, and the Royal
> Tropical Institute and museums in the Netherlands and the  UK, relevant
> anthropologic studies, colonial engineering handbooks,  and missionary
> technical handbooks culling over what had been developed earlier, hoping to
> reinvent it and adapt it to local needs through use of local resources and
> skills. We were determined to in Edmund Burkes word's, "know your history,
> lest we be condemned to repeat it".
>
> We did not repeat it, but  we managed to fall prey to something else just
> as damning...
>
> Even with the technology geared to local resources and skills, we failed
> to get the delivery process right: Enamored by a few technical  successes,
> we began immediately to build more pyramids to ourselves and our
> institutions, seeking that glamor over the needs and market realities of
> the innovation itself. Institutions like NCAT were formed, the Rodale press
> and Mother Earth news popped up like spring flowers. Mother Earth News even
> went from black and white to glossy color.
>
> Well intended and very helpful small institutions such as VITA, SKAT,
> TOOL/Eindhoven Technical university, McGill University,  GTZ and many
> others emerged along with the ITDG center in  the UK  started with a great
> bang but those without institutional subsidy, eventually found themselves
> struggling. The more they focused on pure technical achievement the less
> many of them succeeded in long term impact.
>
> Of course, it can be argued that AT and indeed much of development
> technical assistance borders on - if not overlaps -
> humanitarian aid and it is therefore above daily market concerns: 'Our
> good efforts  deserve  public support much as health care defense and roads
> and water supply…'
>
> This school of thought, however valid for larger social benefit programs,
> works less well when it comes to intriduction of small technologies. The
> thinking goes that such as stoves, as fully tested,  much less those
> imagined to be developed, are like water supply,  schools and
> infrastructure, for the good of another –as a beneficiary: They need to be
> subsidised: They are not things that must eventually be sustained in the
> real local market and culture. The problem with this is that the smaller
> household level items such as the stoves,  require more intensive
> maintenance, training in use, and  promotion…on a sustained basis. Donors
> however, tend to have short memories and a generally even shorter
> commitment to projects…The tendency by most donors was– and to a large
> degree still is,  to want to complete the project and move on. Few are in
> it for the long haul;  Most will downplay the need for attendant marketing
> and promotion, assuming it to be an automatic consequence of on or a few
> local technical demonstration efforts.  (viz., build a better mouse trap
> and they will come to your door and all that). The AT movement naively
> assumed sustained donor support. The consequence of such naiveté was the
> ensuing collapse of the movement.
> Donors and development institutions are staffed largely by
> non-entrepreneurs and hence they fail to appreciate the need for such a
> budget line item as marketing and promotion. They still largely ignore this
> activity as a necessary part of the introduction of a new technology. (How
> easy has it been for any of us to raise donor funds for such?)
>
> At the continued risk of cherry picking the good points of the AT movement
> to rationalize its impact, I'd still suggest we all do have something to
> learn from it. The technologies will get better but its the delivery
> process  which needs to get better too. It's not about more institution
> building and center for excellence for anything whether in Montana or
> Wales: It about networks of excellence, widely diffused, catering to
>  individual interests of smaller, more transparent and  accountable, less
> posturised, image focused groups  aligned to — read, sustained by — local
> market acceptance.
>
> To the extent that this newsgroup has created the volumes of technical
> information and product, through lively informed debate is a tribute to the
> very nature of the network concept. To me it appears that the extent that
> its members efforts are sustained by real time alignment to local market
> interests, is the determinant of their product's real long term cultural
> acceptance and their own sustainability. If we collectivize it through
> formal organization, institutions and procedures, if we pursue corporate
> and donor support for more than initial development and promotion efforts,
> we are indeed risking the same fate of the AT movement. The closer one
> remains to the realities of the person they are assisting the more likely
> they will succeed in understanding that reality and hence the potential
> viability product they are developing.
>
> There is a very popular if not now famous poster of the UN which shows a
> group of village women in a group discussion about a local development
> project extension effort: The caption reads: "Why should  we listen to the
> advise of those who do not have to bear the same consequences of that
> advice?"
>
> By extension of that argument, the delivery process has direct
> implications to kind and extent of ownership, management and maintenance of
> the product or service being promoted.
>
> to wit;  there appears a real distinction of interests here: One school of
> thought assumes that the market for the stoves is similar to that of the
> market for Apple's computers, the Tesla's or Toyota's: A kind if trickle
> down gently approach which works only if you have enough social and
> economic capital to jump on the train…Other than empowering a few at the
> top of the food chain whether local or foreign based, this approach of mass
> production from one center for sales to the third world may produce more
> stuff, and even may lower pollution (if one judiciously ignores the
> production and distribution footprint). It may even appear to be more
> "economic" if one thinks in the short term,  but it has minimal and even a
> negative impact on real human capacity development-- real empowerment—
> toward social, economic and hence political stability , as can be seen by
> any google search of the devolution of income distribution in said nations.
>
> The other choice is to try to engage the marginalized consumer, not just
> as users and purchases of product, but as active contributors to the
> process; Not jut as survey respondents but as producers, trainers,
> managers, sellers of locally based production etc.. That is the idea behind
> real  empowerment: Call it 'do gooder' naiveté'  if you will but then, what
> better model of development --real sustained local capacity driven
> development is there ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Stanley
> www.legacyfound.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140430/25e2e039/attachment.html>