B. Mezgebu
20 August 2008
column
Addis Ababa — 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?
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2008 The Daily Monitor. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
Dear B.Mezgebu I found your article very interesting and positive,yes if we work together for better tomorrow Ethiopias future will be bright and we have to start today.There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Well said Mezgebu