 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The "third-world energy crisis" has already received too much coverage to justify going into detail about it here. The same applies to a discussion of how to cope with the crisis by means of development strategies based on the use of such "renewable energies" as solar power, wind and biomass. There has, however, been a conspicuous gap in such discussions, namely the lack of interest in the utilization of animal power.
This situation could be meaningfully altered by giving more attention to animal-power technology, since it offers possibilities of bringing the "renewable energy" animal power to a more general scope of application above and beyond its present nearly exclusive use in soil tilling, transportation and haulage.
The "third-world energy crisis" actually breaks down into two separate problems with only an indirect link: on the one hand, we have the steadily rising prices for commercial energy, the impact of which primarily affects the modern industrial economies, and on the other hand, there is the factual non-availability of substitute forms of energy for subsistence agriculture, which is still largely dependent on manual labor. The frequent expectation that "renewable energies" should provide alternatives for natural oil, electric power and manual labor - all at once, of course - surely cannot be met by an animal power alone. Draft animals and, in turn, animal-power technology are - with a few exceptions - only of interest for the agricultural sector, where they do, indeed, often constitute the most attractive form of "renewable energy".
Unfortunately, it is difficult to quantify the cost of such renewable energies. Take, for example, Egypt - a classic "animal power land" - with its 300000 to 400000 animal powered water-raising systems ("Saqia"): In much the same manner as their European counterparts did until just a few decades ago, Egyptian farmers still put their cattle to a multitude of uses: for tilling the soil; supplying milk, meat and offspring (calves); acting as an "economic buffer" against the ups and downs of agricultural life; and, of course, driving the family "Saqia". While the expenses involved in draft-animal husbandry can be more or less objectified on the basis of how much it costs to rear, stable, feed and care for a cow, for instance, the share of those costs to be allotted to any particular job can at best only be roughly estimated: there are numerous "opportunity costs" to be reckoned with, such as how much more milk the cow would have given, or how much less it would have eaten, if it had worked only half as hard.
For years now, such questions have fueled a running controversy between "Saqia" advocates and opponents. Both sides keep coming up with evermore elaborating economic analyses to "document" their diametrically opposite views. This is understandable, considering how hard - if not futile - it is to subject polyvalent animal usage to a process of economic analysis.
The historical background of animal-power technology in industrialized countries can certainly only be drawn on to a limited extent in relation to the conditions prevailing in developing countries. Since, however, the animal power remained competitive in Europe and America as long as the tractor had not yet gained general acceptance as a superior soil tiller, a general analogy to the present-day situation in developing countries would indeed appear reasonable.
In some areas, where the use of draft animals is still in the introductory stage, it is often thought that the animals must be put to as many uses as possible in order to make them "pay their keep". In the Sahel Strip, for example, where most draft animals are either left to forage for themselves or turned over to the care of nomads outside of the soiltilling season, animal-power technology could go a long way towards enabling the year-round utilization of such animals. Poor performance due to emaciation or prolonged idleness could be prevented by using the animals to raise water for irrigated horticultures during the dry season. In some eases, certain flanking measures (cultivation of fodder and/or the construction of fodder silos for the dry season) would have to be taken.
The use and/or ownership of animal powers can be of interest to individual farmers as well as to cooperatives. Another possibility would be to rent animal powers or to have certain steps of refinement such as threshing, grinding, etc., taken care of by self-employed animal- power operators. Such practices are by no means unknown in developing countries and are not without precedent in European and North-American history.
Rural development projects in Africa aimed at introducing or enhancing harnessing practices present near-ideal opportunities for the simultaneous introduction of animal-power technology. The infrastructure of such projects (consulting, small-loan handling, handicraft promotion, etc.) could be exploited for the purpose of introducing and propagating animal- power technology. That way, the existing infrastructure would be put to a more economically efficient overall use.
This booklet presupposes a working knowledge of the technological and economic aspects of draft-animal utilisation. It is based on the handbook "Animal Traction in Africa" (GTZ Series 120), in which the subject information is conveyed in an up-to-date, concise form.
Like the handbook, this booklet focuses primarily on applications to suit the African situation.
 |
 |
