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