18 September 2016

Mobilizing Appropriate Technologies to Grassroots Innovations Ecosystem

The concept of sustainable development is ecology and economics must be more fully integrated (Eco-Economy). As known, since the 1950s, the role played by the rural agricultural sector in society has considerably changed due to of mechanization, globalisation and new social needs. In many ways. The concept of Appropriate Technologies (AT) hence endeavors to eliminatethe adverse effects of this modern technology. To parse these issues, we can learn from any existing experiences. The main government institution (formal organization) working on AT in Indonesia is The Center for Appropriate Technology Development (CATDev). The empirical exercise is the AT movement has shown a shifting trend. It has transformed itself slowly into an alternate technology movement based on Grassroots Innovations. Grassroots development is a process of intentional social change that privileges local organizing, visioning and decision making. It is an alternative approaches to local development in poor communities.

The first rural development decade (1960-70) achieved extraordinary success in promoting economic growth, not only in the newly industrialized countries (NICs) of East and South East Asia, but also in many Latin American and some African countries [1]. For agricultural policy, the main lesson from this period was the key role of technological change in agriculture. Following World War II, technological developments in agriculture have been particularly influential in driving change in the farm sector. Technological developments (mechanization and availability of chemical inputs) occurred at an extraordinarily rapid growth in average farm size, accompanied by an equally rapid decline in the number of farms and rural populations [2]. The core instrument was the technology of the Green Revolution, seen as the missing piece in the failed community development movement of the 1950-65 period.

(Photo : Prof. Anik K. Gupta, Founder Honey Bee Network)




The second rural development decade (1980-90) was marked by a slowdown in growth (oil and food crises, increasingly evident failures of growth to reduce poverty and inequality) this quest took the form of Integrated Rural Development (IRD) projects.  When the term was first used by donor agencies in the 1960s, IRD referred to particular types of project designed to meet the requirements outlined above of comprehensive action. In Addition, IRD meant not only comprehensive action, but also integrated action (Co-rodination, Planning, Areas and Decentralisation) [3]. Althaugh, IRD has looked far less convincing in practices, particularly where the administrative implications of integrating all aspects of government services related to the rural sector have not been fully considered.

Those are some examples of how rural development or rural policy paradigm and approach evolved over time, as can be summarized and described in Table 1 :

Table 1. : Differrent Lenses Studying “Rural Development” [1][4]
1950-1960
:
Community Development. Modernisation dual economy model ‘backward’ agric. community development, lazy peasants
1970-1980
:
Small-farm growth. Transformation approach, technology transfer, mechanisation, agricultural extension growth role of agric. green revolution (start), rational peasants
1980-1990
:
Integrated rural development. Redistribution with growth, basic needs, integrated rural devt. State agric. Policies state-led credit, urban bias, induced innovation green revolution (cont.) rural growth linkages
1990-2000
:
Market liberalisation. Structural adjustment, free markets, ‘getting prices right’, retreat of the state, rise of NGOs rapid rural appraisal (RRA), farming systems research (FSR), food security & famine analysis, RD as process not product, women in devt (WID) , poverty alleviation
2000-2010
:
Process, participation, empowerment and actor approaches. Microcredit, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), actor-oriented RD, stakeholder analysis, rural safety nets, gender & devt (GAD), environment & sustainability, poverty reduction
2010-later
:
Sustainable livelihoods, good governance, decentralisation, critique of participation, sector-wide approaches social protection, poverty eradication, “Eco-Economy”, “Rural web”, “Sustainable Consumption”, “SDGs”




Besides the issue on different lenses of rural policy, contemporary issues as rising population growth and rapid urbanization are Food, Energy, and Water (FEW) security. Food security remains one of the three major challenges of humanity in addition to energy security and climate change [5]. According to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2011, the human population is now vulnerable in the availability of food, energy, and water [6]. This crisis predicted to continues to spread if there is no global action to address it. As an illustration, the water crisis in the region, not only threatens the availability of drinking water, but also have an impact on irrigation for agriculture that will impact the greater cost of physical and social [7].

Global hotspots food insecurity are South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa [8]. However, crises have different natures and degrees of severity, and therefore require different interventions, a poor definition of crisis goes beyond being merely a semantic issue. For example, FAO-GIEWS (Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture) does not have a formal definition for food crisis either, but establishes three conditions that categorize a region as in a food crisis: (i) lack of food availability; (ii) limited access to food; and (iii) severe but localized problems. Rural poverty can also create serious negative externalities i.e. Rapid migratory flows crowd out urban residents on non-farm labor markets and displace rural poverty to the urban slums, adding to urban welfare budgets.  And environmental abuse associated with the pressures of rural poverty contributes to national and global externalities under the form of siltage, exhaustion of underground water reserves, desertification, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change [1].

Appropriate Technologies (AT) : Concept and Movement in Rural Indonesia

In many ways. The concept of Appropriate Technologies (AT) hence endeavors to eliminatethe adverse effects of modern technology by devising the same to retain its organic link between man and nature and to sustain growth by making units as small as possible.The concept of AT is also closer to the operation of small scale industries. The concept of Appropriate Technology was first synthesized by the British economist E. F. Schumacher, drawing upon important foundations laid by Gandhi and others. An appropriate technology is defined here as a technology tailored to fit the psychosocial and biophysical context prevailing in a particular location and period. Schumacher encapsulated the philosophy of AT in his book, Small Is Beautiful (1973) where he described the central doctrine of AT as (a) simple, (b) small scale, (c) low cost, and (d) non-violent [9]. The most important of these characteristics are: (a) significant improvements in productivity over existing, indigenous technologies, (b) preference for labor intensity rather than capital intensity in technology selection and (3) simplicity of technology and consequent ease of local adoption [10]. This definition does not completely embrace the viewpoints but is comprehensive enough to incorporate most of the definitions which have appeared in the literature, and it accords closely with the original ideas of Schumacher [11].

Table 2. Definition of Appropriate Technology
Thormann, 1979
[a] In terms of available resources, AT are intensive in the use of the abundant factors, labor, economical in the use of scarce fac tors, capital and highly trained personnel, and intensive in the use of domestically produced inputs.
[b] In terms of small production units, AT are small-scale but efficient, replicable in numerous units, readily operated, maintained and repaired, low-cost and accessible to low-income persons.
[c] In terms of the people who use or benefit from them, AT seek to be compatible with local cultural and social environments
Harrison (1980)
AT means simply any technology that makes the most economical use of a country’s natural resources and its relative proportions of capital, labor and skills, and that furthers national and social goals. Fostering AT means consciously encouraging the right choice of technology, not simply letting businessmen make the decision for you
Betz et al. (1984)
AT equated with providing technical solutions that are appropriate to the economic structure of those influenced: to their ability to finance the activity, to their ability to operate and maintain the facility, to the environmental conditions involved, and to the management capabilities of the population.
Willoughby (1990:44)

Artefacts which have been tailored to function as relatively efficient means and to fit the psychosocial and biophysical context prevailing in a particular location and period (i.e., technology which is compatible with its context).
Todaro (1997)
technology that is appropriate for existing factor endowments. For example, a technology employing a higher proportion of labor relative to other factors in a labor-abundant economy is usually more appropriate than one that uses smaller labor proportions relative to other factors
Robert C. Wicklein (2001)
Appropriate Technology seeks to aid and support the human ability to understand, operate, and sustain technological systems to the benefit of humans while having the least negative societal and environmental impact on communities and the planet.



Centre for Appropriate Technology Development (CATDev)

The main government institution or formal organization working on AT in Indonesia is The Centre for Appropriate Technology Development (CATDev). It was initially designated as the division of Appropriate Technology Development (DATD) in 1986, a unit within the R & D Centre fro Applied Physics, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (IIS). Located in Subang, West Java Province, CATDev is a manifestation of IIS concern to fulfill the community need for appropriate technology, was supported by the local Government of Subang District and UNDP [13]. Parallel with the dinamics of national socio-economic situation, CATDev broaden their scope of activity including small and medium enterprise’s development addition to its focus i.e. community development.
CATDev vision is to become a national reference in development and implementation of AT toward sustainable development, with the mission is to cater the necessity of government, community and small and medium scale enterprises for AT. As a technology provider, CATDev support community and small medium enterprises in need of technology innovation in the area of food, agriculture, energy and implementing the technology. The approach of program implementation is not only designated to create employment opportunities, but also to support government policies in applying regional development strategies. 
CATDev is supported by 126 personnel consisting 55experts, 22 technicians, and 55 supporting staff. They has infrastructures and facilities as the followings [14]. Building for Education and Training, Meeting rooms with capacity80-100 people, Guest House with capacity 30-50 people, Laboratory Food/Post Harvest Processing, Laboratory for food and animal feed testing, Warehouse of Metal Mechanic, Warehouse of Woods, Pilot Plant for Fruit and Vegetable Processing, Pilot Plant for Flours and Derivatives, Pilot Plant for Fish and Avian Food and Clean Water Production.
AT implementation by CATDev facilitates the transformation of values in the community. Though change is certain, an unplanned change will result in long term damage. It is understood that innovation will not be accepted immediately by a community if the values entailed in innovation still need some adjustments with local values.  Experiences in implementing appropriate technology in four different areas, i.e. rural farm community in Alor (East Nusa Tenggara), horticulture farm community in Selengan (West Lombok), fish culture community in Subang (West Java), and agroforestry community in Tanete (South Sulawesi) indicate resistances that if left unaddressed, will rule out the opportunity for targeted community to gain optimal benefit. The field findings also shaped an understanding that a success in inducting innovation is determined by its compatibility with the needs of local people. Only minimal resistance was found in the case of micro hydropower technology installation in the village of Tanete – Sulawesi, because such technology was the primary need of the community, i.e. electricity for lighting [15].
AT was interpreted as several integrated efforts in a product design or innovation development which include social and cultural aspects, and also called as a complete approach to do a self-adaptive development in dynamic conditions. In short, researchers who believe on AT approach concluded that the phenomena of AT emerge together with the specific conditions in a local area that need a technology. On the other hand, the presence of AT also faced some critics from other researchers. The critics had same intention to state that appropriate technology may not be sufficient or good-enough from engineering perspective. Although from different eras, they similarly stated that it is conceited and naive to define any technological effort that improves capability to satisfy local community aspirations and goals [16].

Grassroots Innovation (GRI) for Rural Sustainable Development

Innovation and community action are two important strands for rural sustainable development. The principle of sustainable development was adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro [19]. The concept of sustainable development, according to Zaccai (2002) brought forward to promote a new perspective of development and progress in response to increasing environmental risks and global development crisis. Ecology and economics must be more fully integrated if either is to deal adequately with man's use of natural resource [20].
Grassroots Innovation are the innovation made by the people at the grassroots, such as small farmers, mechanics, artisans and self-employed entrepreneurs [21]. Grassroots innovators are less formally educated and receive little outside support for their innovations. They are the innovations by the poor and for the poor, contributing largely to poverty alleviation. China introduced grassroots innovation in the 1980s which is interpreted as the general public with neither authority nor knowledge in social economics. Similarly, GRIs can be defined as the innovative activities of improving Products, techniques and crafts in a random and extensive way by the grassroots people who have grasped the corresponding techniques and skills [22].
Grassroots Innovation Movement is a global movement that is trying to change the old paradigm that the public has only considered as users and consumers of technology into a new paradigm that society is a technology provider. That is, the people are the source of innovation. The success of grassroots innovation movement has been proved by Latin America, India and China. In Latin America the movement known as "technologies for social inclusion" which was pioneered by local communities, public institutions, laboratories, universities and NGOs. Start of networking innovators built in Brazil, "cooperative movement" in Uruguay, until the "R & D Extension Unit" in Argentina characterizes of grassroots innovation movements in Latin America [23].
Grassroots movement in India innovation which was pioneered by the Honey Bee Network, SRISTI (Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions) and NIF (National Innovation Foundation) are categorized in the "collaborative innovation activites" [24]. This movement provides important lessons for Indonesia, which also has a wealth of mega-biodiversity and abundant cultural diversity to optimize the potential of the knowledge society in order to have a better competitiveness [25]. 

Table 3. The Comparison between GRIs and Innovations in Formal Sector [21]
Factors
Grassroots Innovators
Research Institute
Enterprise
Innovation Environment
Little access to research materials, facilities, information, outside support, etc; usually located on the village or towns
City and lab; far from the market, access to the research materials, facilities, outside support, information, etc
Access to research materials, facilities, information, outside support, etc : close to the market, in the town and city
Government Suppport
Get little government support, especially financial support
Mainly depend on government support
Receive government support for product delivering public goods
Innovators
Large in number but scattered, poor, less educated, mainly work individually
Small in number, higher education, work in a team
The number is less than the grassroots innovators but more than researchers in the research institutes, work in a team, most are highly educated
Motivations
Diverse Motivations
Project-Driven
Profit-Driven
Trigger
By chance, Diverse stimulli, Obvious
Intellectual Challenge
Opportunity
Process
Crossing the river by feeling the stones
Organized and planned araound scientific outputs
Organized and planned araund market
Innovation
Suitable to the local conditions, simple in technology and low cost, meet the missed demands
Suitable for research publication and patent application
Facing mass market
Diffusion
Many in public domain, their diffusion is spontaneous, unordered and slow, less commercialized
Not much attention given to diffusion
Diffusion through a commercial way
Impact
Benefit the poor
Provide base for further research
Benefit the consumers




Unfortunately, the movement of grassroots innovation in Indonesia has not developed as in India and China. Although many programs and institutional innovations that have been established in Indonesia such as the National Innovation Committee (KIN), Regional Innovation Systems (SIDa), Unit of Technology Services  (Posyantek), Appropriate Technology Exhibition, and so forth, it seems not yet optimal able to lift local innovators to do more in the development of technology in Indonesia. The majority are "state-driven" with the old paradigm: community are user of technology, not a source of innovation. Even grassroots innovators - including SMEs - often drowned because of the lack of guidance, validation and commercialization of their product innovation. From a policy perspective, it shows the weakness of the interconnections between elements of the innovation system in Indonesia [26]. Hence do not be surprised if the patents produced in Indonesia is losing much of India and China.

One reason is the perception that anyone who could produce patents are those derived from formal research institutions and highly educated. Whereas the number of formal scientific institutions is very small when compared with the community itself. Hence to push the number of patents, necessary a national innovation movement involving non-formal innovators (grassroots innovators) to jointly conduct patenting the results of their innovation. National innovation System understood as a complex interaction between actors, institutions, networks, partnerships and productive processes that affect the performance of the technology (direction and speed of the development and diffusion of innovation and learning process) [28]. Concept of the National Innovation System in Indonesia know the three main users of technology: industry, individuals and communities as well as government institutions [29]. Thus the actual innovation system includes base of science and technology (including educational activities, activities of research, development, and engineering), the production base (including value-added activities to meet the needs of business and non-business as well as the general public), and utilization and diffusion in the community - particularly in rural areas - as well as growing the learning process.

 CONCLUSION

Paradigm of appropriate technology (AT) development and implementation in Indonesia should be changed from interventionist and formalistic way of thinking. AT institution, both government (CATdev) or non government (YDD), must see the society not only as a user or consumer of technology but also as a source of innovation or technology (and knowledge provider). Thus, AT will develop into a more "appropriate" by the creation of ecosystem for inclusive innovation. Inclusive innovation or grassroots development is a process of intentional social change that privileges the local organizing, visioning and decision making. It is an alternative to trickle-down approaches to local development in poor communities. When ecosystem of the grassroots innovations appear, then we will be able making sustainable solutions for low income communities. Automatically, its also created the open and democratic access to knowledge for grassroots. Government and academics has a role to making policy support for innovation to increasing patent and generating economic activities based on innovation at the grassroots. Some do - learn from grassroots innovation movement in India - are blending of formal and Informal science, Linking Academic, Government, Enterprise and Communities, at the same time also building innovators network for Giving voice to the grassroots Innovators. In the end, with such efforts, the sustainable development of rural-based technology will have expectations to grow and spread

Refferences
[1]       Janvry, Alain de, Rinku Murgai & Elisabeth Sadoulet. 1999. Rural Development and Rural Policy. Paper prepared for the forthcoming Handbook of Agricultural Economics
[2]       Dimitri, Carolyn, Anne Efland & Neilson Conklin. 2005. The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy.  USDA : Economic Information Bulletin Number 3
[3]       Overseas Development Institute (ODI). 1979. Briefing paper : Integrated Rural Development. London : No 4, December
[4]       Ellis, Frank & Stephen Biggs. 2001. Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s-2000s. Overseas Development Institute : Development Policy Review. 19 (4) :437-448. Published by Blackwell Publishers, Oxford
[5]       Karp, Angela & Goetz M. Ritzer. 2011. Meeting the Challenge of Food & Energy Security. Journal of Experimental Botany, page 1 of 9 2011. Doi : 10.1093/jxb/err099
[6]       Bizikova, Livia, et.al. 2013. The Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus : Towards a practical planning and decision-support framework for landscape investment and risk management. Canada : The international institute for sustainable development (IISD)
[7]       Hanjra, Munir A & M. Ejaz Qureshi. 2010. Global Water Crisis and Future Food Security in an era of Climate Change. Elsevier : Food Policy 35 365-377
[8]       Lal, Rattan. 2013. Food security in a changing climate. Journal Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology. P 8-21
[9]       Wicklein, Robert C. 2001. Appropriate Technology for Sustainable Living. Council on Technology Teacher Education. 50th Year Book. Glencoe/Mc-Graw Hill
[10]     Leland, Julian. 2011. Development from the Bottom of the Pyramid : an Analysis of the Development Innovations Ventures Program. WISE-program – ASME
[11]  Willoughby, Kelvin W. 1990. Technology Choices : A Critique of Appropriate Technology Movement. Boulder & London : Westview Press
[12]  Akubue, Anthony. 2000. Appropriate Technology for Socioeconomic Development in Third World Countries. The Journal of Technology Studies 26 (1): 33–43. Retrieved March 2011.
[13]  Center for Appropriate Technology Development (CATDev). 2005. Company Profile
[14]  Islamic Development Bank (IDB). 2016.
[15] Prasetyo, Yanu Endar, et all. 2009. Resistance to Innovation : Case of Appropriate Technology Implementation in Rural Agriculture Communities. Social Science Research Network
[16] Sianipar, Corinthias Pamatang Morgana, Gatot Yudoko, Akbar Adhiutama & Kiyoshi Dowaki. 2013. Community Empowerment Through Appropriate Technology : sustaining the sustainable development. Procedia Environmental Science   17  ( 2013 )  1007 – 1016
[18] Ibrahim, Rustam. 2003. Earned Income for Financial Sustainability in Indonesia : The Dian Desa Foundation. New York : The  Synergos Institute
[19] European Union (EU). 2012. The Common Agricultural Policy : a Story to be Continued. Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union, 2012
[20] Gendron, Corinne. 2014. Beyond Environmental and Ecological Economics : Proposal for an Economic Sociology of the Environment. Elsevier : Journal of Ecological Economics, page 240-253
[21] Zhang, Liyan. 2012. Institutional Framework for Promoting Grassroots Innovation : the Case of China. Proceeding of International Seminar Enhancing Grassroots Innovation Competitiveness for Poverty Alleviation (EGICPA). Indonesia : Yogyakarta, October 16-18th. ISBN : 978-602-14149-0-3. Page 11-15
[22] Gumbira-Sa’id, Endang et al. 2012. Strategy to Strengthen Grassroots Innovation for Poverty Alleviation in Indonesia : Case Study of Oil Palm Agribusiness and Their Potency in Supporting MP3EI and Oil Palm Industrial Cluster in Indonesia.  Proceeding of International Seminar Enhancing Grassroots Innovation Competitiveness for Poverty Alleviation (EGICPA). Indonesia : Yogyakarta, October 16-18th. ISBN : 978-602-14149-0-3. Page 19-27
[23]  Smith, Adrian, Mariano Fressoli & Hernan Thomas. 2013. Grassroots Innovation Movements : Challenges and Contributions. Elsevier : Journal of Cleaner Production  xxx (2013) 1-11
[24] Gupta, A.K. et.al. 2003. Mobilizing Grassroots’ Technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institution : articulating social and ethical capital. Elsevier : Futures 35 (2003) 975-987
[25]  Gupta, A.K. 1996. Rewarding creativity for conserving diversity in third world : can IPR regime serve the needs of contemporary and traditional knowledge experts and communities in third world (working paper). Ahmedabad : Indian Institute of Management (IIM)
[26] Simamora, Manaek & Syahrul Aiman. 2006. Policy Approaches and Support Mechanisms to Promote Innovation in SMEs  in Indonesia. National Workshop on Sub-national Innovation Systems and Technology Capacity Building Policies to Enhance Competitiveness of SMEs, 27 – 30 October 2006, Beijing, China
[27]   World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 2015
[28]  Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 1997. National Innovation System. France : OECD
[29]  Lakitan, Benyamin. 2012. Role of Government in Energizing Grassroots Innovations. Proceeding of International Seminar Enhancing Grassroots Innovation Competitiveness for Poverty Alleviation (EGICPA). Indonesia : Yogyakarta, October 16-18th. ISBN : 978-602-14149-0-3. Page 28-35


No comments:

Post a Comment