Appropriate Technology & Ownership?

During my visit with Philip he disclosed something with Oxfam which makes me question the value of appropriate technology without adequate ownership at the local NGO level. Even with the best intention of appropriate technology, if the implementation is not controlled at the local level then it is still not appropriate. There needs to be appropriate technology and implementation.

The situation is such that Oxfam is supporting a project to supply 8 grassroots NGOs, one of them being ZOVFA, with Donkey Carts, Ploughs and Ridgers which the NGOs must pay for and then sell to the farmers in a credit based system. In theory and good practice this an excellent initiative because donkey carts provide a way for farmers to transport their harvest to market whereby they can obtain a better price. It also allows transportation of manure to the fields and such. The ploughs are pulled behind two bullox and make planting the fields much more efficient and less labour intensive. Hopefully with more donkey carts the women could use them to transport water home to their families from the wells and bore holes instead of carrying the water on their heads for distances of 200 meters to 1 or 2 km. Although they make it look very easy it takes 2 people to lift the basin full of water onto the head of the woman who will carry it which is a remarkable thing to see when they don't spill a drop.

Oxfam contracted a supplier in Tamale to make the carts, ploughs and ridges for the 8 parteners and then delivered them to the local NGOs in big truck loads. ZOVFA was the last partner to receive their supply and when Philip Ayamba, the program director, happened to be there to receive them he outrightly refused to sign for them because they were of poor quality. Already some of the donkey carts from Oxfam were bending under heavy loads and the ploughs were breaking.

The farmers who have invested their resources into these equipment were justifyably very angry...wouldn't you be? Therefore when Philip inspected the supply of new materials and found wheel frames welded together, old broken tires, even thinner metal he refused the shipment outright. Since all the other 7 partners had accepted their shipments you can image the up-roar that ZOVFA caused among the supplier. Philip shares an office with Trade Aid in Bolgatanga, who are one of the 8 partners, and they are already experiencing problems due to the equipment provided and their farmers are angry. In a reality where clientalism is apparent this was a very brave and risky thing to do. ZOVFA could develop the reputation of being difficult which would make it difficult to receive funding for more projects which would essentially put the organization out of business. But Philip and his staff are also accountable to the communities in which they work and therefore could not accept the supplied materials.

Two questions come to mind...why were the materials of such poor quality when previous inputs from the company had been of high quality? Secondly, why were the materials being transported from Tamale, a 4+ hour transport when there were local manufacturers in Bawku, just 19km away or Bolgatanga just 45km away who produce high quality goods.

The answer is in mass production. Oxfam wanted to speed things along so for them it is easier to give the entire contract to one company and then distribute the products to where they are needed. Much the same way which is standard operational practice in the West since the advent of Fordism. But this supplier does not normally receive orders for the mass quantity of carts, ploughs and ridgers that were ordered, but I do not know if Oxfam checked their capacity or their quality control independently or not. Over the phone the company would have perceived a lucrative opportunity and jumped at the chance, leaving the practical logistics for later. Philip suspects that the company was unable to keep up with the production timeline and thus bought carts from suppliers in the market and painted them to seem like they were produced by just one supplier. The supplier was depending on his previously strong reputation of producing good quality merchandise. There is also the factor that maybe the quality standards were negatively affected because the materials were being produced for Oxfam for communities far away,which may be seen to remove the accountability to the local farmers. Furthermore, the price list for the donkey carts that Oxfam ordered were 2.7million cedes each (divide by 8000 for Cn$) while the ones produced locally of better quality were 1.6 million cedes. A substantial difference when you think about subsistence farmers whose access to income generating activities is a struggle at best.

ZOVFA has previous experience with equipment sent from Oxfam such as huge water tankards that need a pump to be filled because they are over 2m tall, pesticide spraying pumps (for an organic organization), rubber boots (the farmers are always barefoot or in flip flops and it is too hot for boots), and brass rings for the cows where the farmers use rope. It seems like all these things imported from abroad really don't have a place here. If people change then what do they do when there are no more rings, boots and such. They are currently waiting for Oxfam to come and collect their things that are sitting in the compound cluttering things up.

Oxfam and ZOVFA have agreed that ZOVFA should get the money and arrange to buy their own supplier of donkey carts ploughs and other material in a kind of hush hush deal. Philip wanted to hold a general meeting with the suppliers, partner organizations and Oxfam Ghana to discuss the matter but Oxfam thought this would create an uproar that would be greater than the current problem at hand. The larger question is - why wasn't ZOVFA able to buy their materials outright, determine what the farmers needed and then report back to Oxfam about their progress. ZOVFA knows the local suppliers and their quality and if they needed anything in Tamale they could have arranged it. They also know the perceptions of their local communities and what the people expect of them. Here is a case where the ownership project management level was not sufficiently transfered to local partners. This has cost Oxfam, and all those who support Oxfam here and abroad, wasted money on tranport, shoddy material and un-needed equipment.

I don't want to completely trash Oxfam, they are a very strong organization who genuinely have participatory intents at heart and the fact that they are using local NGOs at all is a sign of true commitment but it is dissapointing that it has happened this way. Call me idealistic but true trust between partner organization, with an equal valuation of knowledge on both sides would have placed ZOVFA in charge of the local aspect and Oxfam in charge of international awareness campaigns and getting the story out, something ZOVFA does not have the capacity to do. Both aspects of development are equally important and both need to have organizations and people who are best suited to carry out these tasks. When one attempts to tread on the others feet then time and valuable resources are wasted which could have been used for shea butter processing plants, more bore holes being dug or increasing the number of class rooms and teachers in rural areas (a small sample of the things that people want to do in the communities). So my conclusion in all this is that appropriate technology is not enough, it must be partenered with trust and power at the local level to be truly effective.