Innovation, sustainability & development - do we have a choice?

On Tuesday, November 24th I organized a round table in the Hague about the future of innovation, sustainability and development, as part of a project that should result in a New Manifesto in this area, to be launched in 2010. The ‘old’ manifesto in this case is the Sussex Manifesto, which was published in 1970 and in need for an update. Six speakers gave their perspective on the topic. As the organizer of this event, I asked them to stick to a short inspirational or provocative statement. 

Participant in the round table responding to one of the speakers

Some of the speakers chose to be provocative indeed. Jasper Grosskurth questioned one of the 3Ds that is central in the New Manifesto project, namely that of directionality: we should choose more carefully the objectives to which innovation is supposed to contribute. “Do we have a choice?” he asked the audience. His talk was inspired by a three-month trip to Africa that he had just made as part of the foresight project ‘Technology in Africa’ that he is leading. During that trip, he deliberately avoided all NGO people and tried to talk to Africans themselves, and especially local entrepreneurs. He emphasized the incredibly fast and unpredicted rate at which things like underground cable and cell phones are spreading in Africa. ‘It passes no criteria for appropriate technology, perhaps it is not what we want to happen, but it is there anyway’, was his central message. He mentioned that lots of mobile services (banking, facebook and at least a dozen other) are nowadays available in Africa. So it seems to me that many people there have at least increased choices because of these developments, even though at a policy level it is hard if not impossible to steer ICT innovation. How we as individuals and as a society (should) value those new options is another thing, of course.

The story of the next speaker, Monique Deminint of the Universal Access to Female Condoms (UAFC) program, was a stark contrast. Despite their immense social potential - like less HIV infection and female empowerment - hardly any female condom innovation has taken place. There are hardly any options available with respect to this product, only one type existed so far and it was not considered to be a very attractive one: expensive, noisy, etc. Apparently here innovation does not happen by itself, it needs to be stimulated, triggered - and here the UAFC program comes in. New prototypes are now available. Diversification in supply is supposed to go hand-in-hand with increase in demand in this project. Of course, like many contemporary NGOs, they are taking market considerations into account and working with commercial parties. But apparently the market by itself just is not enough. 

Two very different stories, two very different innovation types. What makes ICT so different from female condoms, I wonder. And is one manifesto really able to cover everything - different technological domains, different innovation types?

A more complete report on the meeting will soon be published on the event’s web page. There you can also find (links to) photo’s, presentations and video’s from the event. Here’s a previous blog that I wrote after another New Manifesto event - be warned that it is a bit more theoretical.