What Makes a Technology Economically Sustainable?

© Dale Hampshire
Date Posted: June 7 2010.

As I have travelled through villages in Vanuatu I have often seen machinery, and other bits and pieces of technology that have been introduced but are not being used and have fallen to the wayside. In this article I would like to address some of the reasons why technologies fail to be adopted in village communities. Please feel free to send comments to Dale.Hampshire@VillagesFirst.com. I have found technologies fail for one or more of the following reasons; (i) the local people are not excited about the benefits, (ii) the cost is too high, and (iii) there is inadequate support - especially ‘after sale’ support. Here are some questions that I would ask of any proposed technology.

Are the features compelling enough to change behavior, if that is required?

Over hundreds of years, villagers have developed a way of subsistence living that minimizes risk and maximizes efficiency. If a new technology requires a significant change in behavior, it may fail unless the benefits are compelling.

The motivation to introduce a technology, whether it comes from an aid donor, or church, NGO or a relative living in town, begins with the belief that it will satisfy a need; save time, effort, or money; or relieve some hardship, and bring a benefit to the user. The intended end-user may not see the benefits as clearly as the one offering the technology. It may be accepted as a gift, then sit unused after the training team leaves.

Every technology, whether it is brand new or simply being transferred
from another place, should be field tested under the local conditions.
A trial run will indicate what needs to be adapted, if anything, to operate successfully and deliver the benefits as promised. My personal experience is that laboratory testing provides only an indication of potential benefits. It is not until the technology is required to perform under real conditions that the true picture comes into focus. At the very least, field testing will give you an indication of the interest villagers have in the technology.

One area that could be improved upon with little effort or cost is the latrines found throughout the villages. A typical latrine is the ‘sit down’ type with two boards nailed to the top and curves cut to make a space. This design is practical and user-friendly, but difficult to clean.

Over the years, I have occasionally found the ‘squat’ type latrine introduced as a better latrine design by aid workers. Surveying the villagers, I found that the squat type was difficult to use (need strong legs and good aim) and impossible to clean. The squat type is very successful in other places, but when very little water is available, flushing is impossible and cleaning is difficult - it is not an improvement. Whatever benefits it has in other countries did not materialize in the field in Vanuatu.

Two years ago, I gave a $6 plastic toilet seat to a family in a remote village on Ambae Island. The top boards were removed from the existing latrine seat and the plastic seat installed. This simple adaptation effectively solved the cleaning problems. The seat is still being used today.

In small, rural communities, social peer group pressure can work to advantage if the benefits are apparent. By setting an example, those with social status lower the social risk of adopting a new technology by using and promoting the technology. When we introduced locally made, coconut oil-based soap in Vanuatu in 1994, it was adopted as ‘the’ soap to use, and those who continued to use the imported
soap were teased by their peers. Eventually, everyone was using the new soap.

One of the technologies we are developing is a smokeless wood stove. Rather than crouching on the ground to attend their cooking fires and prepare their food, villagers will be able to sit on a chair or stand. The feedback is positive from villagers who have seen the demonstration stove work, but will this change in behavior - standing or sitting instead of crouching – be accepted? It may be that the stove’s other features; uses less fuel, no smoke, inexpensive to build, will tip the scales against this behavioural challenge.

To provide compelling benefits, it is necessary to know the local needs and design for them. I have found that there is currently a
shortage of technologies that fit well with the needs of rural villagers.

Is the cost of acquisition too high for the average user?

In Vanuatu although the average cash income of a rural family is between $20 and $100 per month, villagers can often find an extra $50-100 in a month by a strong push to produce cash crops, drawing from savings, or requesting a gift of money from a relative living in town. National Bank microfinancing and other microfinance organizations such as Vanwoods, allow small loans to microenterprises that may help purchase a technology. But in most situations, a technology that costs more than $50-100 is not affordable.

The calculation of acquisition cost should include the cost of shipping - sometimes getting the item to the village costs as much as the purchase price. Does the technology need tools that do not come with it – for example, a shovel to mix concrete? Does it need any associated technology such as an electricity generator? Does it need a shed or protective covering? All of these should be included in the acquisition cost.

What often happens is a technology is donated to a family or a small village business at no cost, or at low cost, with the hope that the free unit will demonstrate to others the benefits and motivate other to pay full price for it. Ultimately, unless the cost is affordable, the technology is not adopted beyond the first free unit, and even that unit typically falls into disuse if cash money is required to replace a part or make a repair.

As a quick rule of thumb, multiply the cost of the technology by 30 times and ask yourself, as a person living in a rich country, whether you would buy it at that price. For example, $200 doesn’t seem like much money to pay for a solar unit that powers one light bulb for 8 hours each day. But in villager terms, with $30 cash discretionary income each month compared to an average rich country household with $1,000 discretionary income per month, that $200 equates to $6,000. Would you pay $6,000 for one light bulb? The solar unit below powers four light bulbs and a refrigerator for a village cooperative store. It costs $7,000 – would you pay $210,000?

There is a shortage of appropriately priced technologies. Normally we begin with technologies that have been developed for rich countries and then adapt them for a village environment – or sometimes try to transfer them unchanged. This has created a gap between what we offer and what they can afford. We need to begin at the most basic level – even at the household level - and develop technologies that improve the standard of living but are specially created to meet the villagers’ needs. Unless an average village household can afford to acquire the technology without financial assistance, the technology cannot be adopted.

Is it possible for the average villager to get the technology?

Over the last two years, cell phones have been adopted throughout rural communities in Vanuatu. The ability to talk to others over a distance where travel is difficult is a compelling feature. The price is within budget for many households and cell phones are commonly available at village stores. For other technologies, particularly those introduced by aid organizations, churches, and non-profit NGO’s, a set number of introduction, five, ten or fifty for example, are budgeted with no provision for ongoing support or a wider supply in the future. Once the units have been installed, the supply chain is broken and other villagers who were not included do not have a chance of acquiring the technology.

When you hear a story about 100 solar lighting units being donated to a village, ask yourself what will happen when the donations have been made and someone gets married in the village and builds a new house. Will they be out of luck because the project has now ended and the units (no matter the cost) are no longer available? What about the people in the next village down the road?

Do the benefits exceed the operating costs - including labour time, supplies, and replacement parts?

There are out-of-pocket cash costs for operating some technologies to buy supplies, raw materials and replacement parts. There may be maintenance service fees, or special tools required to maintain or repair the technology. Sometimes the daily operating costs are small but when a part breaks or wears out the replacement cost is usually so high that the technology has to be abandoned.

Labour time should also be a consideration. Could the time be used to generate more value doing something else? Opportunity cost analysis may determine the best use of a household’s resources. It is very specific to their situation and economic opportunities available in the village community where they live. But an understanding of a technology’s opportunity cost should be gained before assuming it provides an advantage.

The coconut drier at right is used by a family on Northwest Ambae to dry coconuts before pressing them for their oil. The oil is used as a substitute for imported diesel fuel. For the moment we will not consider the cost of acquiring the technology; (i) the drier, (ii) the press, (iii) the tractor that uses the fuel and (iv) the oil/diesel system the tractor needs to use both fuels. The next best option for the family is to use their coconuts and their labour to make green copra and sell it the copra drier at 8 cents per kilogram. Since both processes start by gathering the nuts, we will not count that labour cost.

Is it of more value for the family to make oil, or green copra?

The making of green copra involves four steps; (i) splitting the coconut by axe, (ii) cutting out the coconut meat, (iii) bagging the meat and carrying it to the coconut drier. At that point the family receives 10 cents per kilogram of coconut meat. A three member family team can typically cut 100kg in three hours (900 coconuts), with one member of the team carrying the bag to the drier in an hour. The team earns about $2.50 per person per hour. That works out to a cash earning value of about one cent per coconut. The only tools needed are an axe and a copra cutting tool.

The making of oil as a substitute for diesel fuel requires five steps; (i) the coconuts are husked, (ii) scraped to produce shredded coconut, (iii) fuel is gathered to heat the drier, (iv) the shredded coconut is dried on the drier, and (v) the dried coconut is pressed to produce the oil. This family uses about 90 coconuts to produce 10 liters of coconut oil per week. To prepare 90 coconuts, dry them and then press the oil takes one person about 10 hours (3+3+0.5+1+2.5). Other than the firewood and the coconut, no other material is needed to complete the process. The cost of diesel on Northwest Ambae is $2 per liter, making the diesel equivalent value of the coconut oil produced each week equal to $20. At equivalent value, the family is earning $2 per hour making coconut oil – 80% of what they could earn if they made green copra instead. Opportunity cost analysis puts making coconut oil in second place behind making green copra.

Why would the family waste time making oil? The reason may lie in the value they receive per coconut. Making green copra earns one cent per coconut, but making oil earns 22 cents. In a situation where the coconut available is the limiting factor, not labour, maximizing the return on the coconut makes sense.

Why then, doesn’t everyone make coconut oil and sell it as a diesel substitute instead of making green copra? The obstacle may be the $5,000 cost of the oil press the family received from an aid donor. This examples demonstrates the careful consideration that should given to the cost factors surrounding a new technology - and illustrates some of the challenges.

Just a note of caution about assuming villagers have ‘lots of free time’. As subsistence farmers most of their time is taken in clearing, planting, tending and harvesting their crops. In addition, the routine chores of daily living take much longer without the conveniences of 24 hour electricity, stoves and refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and microwaves.

What will be the technology’s disposal costs? Historically, waste has been disposed of by simply throwing it into a pile away from the dwellings. This worked because everything villagers used was biodegradable. But increasingly, the household rubbish heaps are being filled with plastic and metal materials. Waste disposal at the moment, is a hidden problem in South Pacific communities, but is sure to rise in urgency as time moves on.

Reuse and recycling systems are not present in most island countries and have certainly not reached out to rural communities. But the disposal method, safety and associated costs should be considered as we develop technologies for these areas.

Solar-powered LED lighting for households is a step in the right direction – it reduces the use of petroleum fuel-powered generators and extends the lifetime of light bulbs. However, at some point the system and the bulbs break or wear out and must be disposed of. Would it not be better to promote the use of coconut oil lamps which burn without smoke or smell, use a carbon negative fuel and can be made simply from a recycled tuna tin? Instead of using an imported, factory-made device as complicated as a solar panel or LED bulb, wouldn’t it be better to develop a way to concentrate the light of an oil flame so it can be used for reading?

Is the initial training sufficient to sustain the use of the technology over time and in situations that may arise?

Whether the initial training is in person or by printed brochure, whether it is one-on-one or by a group workshop, does it effectively transfer all the user requires to become competent in the operation, maintenance and repair of the technology, and hopefully, will they be able to pass on that understanding to others? Where possible, there should be a training program that includes hands-on training with the technology. In addition, the trainees should understand how it works (the science behind it), and be familiar with what can go wrong and how to deal with it. At the point of initial training, each person should be made aware of sources of ongoing support, including suppliers of parts, servicing, and materials. A good training program will greatly increase the success of a technology, but careful consideration is required to make sure the trainees are given all they need.

Several years ago, a foreign trainer conducted workshops on Ambae Island showing village women how to make soap from coconut oil. The women were very enthused about making their own soap, until they found out that the white powder (sodium hydroxide) that the trainer had combined with the oil in order to make the soap was not available to them locally. The goal of training should be to enable the person to continue to use the technology after the training is done. The trainer should not only show them how to operate the equipment but should transfer an understanding of all aspects of the new technology and in all ways enable them to use it. It would be worthwhile for the trainer to remain in the village for a few days, or perhaps return to the village after a short time, to see if the training was sufficient.

What is in place to support the technology after the training team leaves the village?

Technical support Ideally, ‘after the sale’, there should be help available to users to contact when they run into problems or need assistance. This would lower the abandonment rate for a new technology. With the widespread adoption of cell phones throughout the rural areas of Vanuatu, it would be easy to set up a call center to provide advice and assistance. It has been my observation however, that few aid donors or development organizations provide such assistance after the initial introduction. Users are often left without access to spare parts or technical assistance.

Parts and Service As mentioned above, generally the ways and means of accessing technical assistance, or even parts and servicing, is missing. Often the technology is manufactured thousands of kilometers away, and the original supplier is uninterested in servicing such a small and distant market. There needs to be an easy way for users of the technology to obtain the parts and servicing they need to keep the technology working.

Supplies and Materials The soap-making example from above illustrates how a technology can be introduced without regard to the supplies and materials necessary to use it. When the technology is developed in a modern environment with every convenience, it can be difficult to recognize all of the inputs that are required to make it work and continue to work over time. Supplies and materials that are essential may be very limited in supply, or even unobtainable, in a village environment. This is another reason why field testing is so important.

A good test of a technology’s success is to return to the area to check whether it is still being used after one year, or five years, or even ten years. I believe if an organization is committed to sustained development, this is absolutely necessary. What I generally see however, is a quick introduction, a quick report of ‘success’ or ‘failure’, and then on to another area, or on to another technology, for the next introduction. Another indication of sustainability is that, without the assistance of aid donors or other outsiders, the technology is able to replicate itself across the population.

Does the technology change and adapt to local conditions – does it ‘progress’ over time?

Recently, after demonstrating the smokeless wood stove in the village of Lafutialau on Ambae, the villagers immediately suggested improvements to the design. They asked me, could we make the fuel chamber larger to make lighting easier, could we make the chimney longer to accommodate two cooking pots, and could we add an attachment to the chimney making it run horizontally and then vertically so as to create a flat, heated surface on the chimney for drying shredded coconut? They suggested we could then dry the coconut as we fed it into the hand-powered press to make coconut oil. I responded that since they now had the tools to make bricks for the stove of whatever size and shape they wanted, and they also had the tools to fashion sheet metal and make a different shaped chimney, they could try their ideas on their own.

Users of the technology will come up with ways to improve it. There should be a way for them to experiment and also to share their ideas will other users.

In a nutshell, what makes a technology economically sustainable?

To be economically sustainable, a technology needs to; (i) possess compelling benefits, (ii) be available at an appropriate acquisition cost and have appropriate operating costs, and (iii) have excellent introductory and ‘after sales’ support.

Below, several technologies are shown. What would you conclude about their economic sustainability?