Category Archives: Creativity

Innovation, a path for improving our societies?

”The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.” (Michelangelo)

 

In recent years the magical word for generating development has been productivity, and it has been said that the path to it is innovation. Taking on this idea, in this article we ask ourselves a

 

bout the situation of the countries of Latin America in terms of innovation, the idea of innovation that predominates, the other perspectives about innovation that are seen, and with that the type of society that we want to build.

Situation of innovation

GII table article 1

 

 

The Global Innovation Index (GII) of 2014, based on input indicators (institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market and business sophistication) and output indicators (knowledge and technology, and creativity), shows the positions of 143 countries, and within it, the ranking of the countries of Latin America: see table. Barbados is the most innovative country of Latin America, but on the world level it is in position 41, followed by Chile and Panama; while Nicaragua is in last place of the Latin American countries and in number 125 on the world level, followed closely by Venezuela and Honduras. In 2013, one year ago, Costa Rica was the most innovative country in Latin America, occupying position 39 on the world level, Guatemala at 87, El Salvador 88, Honduras at 107 and Nicaragua at 115. In other words, Latin America as a whole dropped in their positions, particularly the countries of Central America.

The World Bank, studying Latin America from 2006 to 2010 (Lederman, Messina, Pienknagura, and Rigolini, 2014, Latin American Entrepreneurs: Many Firms, But Little Innovation) expressed doubts about the sustainability of their growth, that is due more to the rise in prices of raw materials, and that the emergence of many firms reveals, in comparison with other regions, high entrepreneurship, but independently of their size they show a deficit of innovation, expressed in their investment in Research and Development (R+D), patents, introduction of new products and management practices.

Idea of innovation and conditions that contribute to generating it

What does innovation mean for both institutions? The World Bank thinks that the economy in Latin America is growing slowly because of a lack of innovation in companies, including the Latin American and Multinational Enterprises that operate in Latin America. So the companies are introducing new products less frequently, invest little in R+D, their patent activity is low, and they hire people with less studies at the university level. To have an impact on innovation, the WB suggests legal rights, transparency, industry and commerce policies, quality human capital, policies for supporting R+D, and policies for increasing competition and narrowing the gap in human capital (more engineers and scientists and less sociologists and macroeconomists). Taking up again the work of Schumpeter (1911, The Theory of Economic Development), they think that “the successful entrepreneurs are people who transform ideas into profitable initiatives,” and that it is a matter of “entrepreneurship that emphasizes novelties for the market”, which is in line with the neoliberal approach, of freeing markets in protected sectors, and that the private sector is the motor of innovation.

Under these liberalization policies and investment enviroments for promoting innovation, the GII states that innovation is no longer restricted to the R+D laboratories and to the publication of scientific articles, and thus takes on the OECD-2005 definition (Oslo Manual): “An innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), a new process, a new method of marketing, or a new organizational method in business practices, place of work or external relations.” If previously innovations were done by experts in closed places, now the GII thinks that the capacity to innovate is a skill of exploiting new technological combinations, and that it is incremental innovation “without investigation.” For that reason the GII proposes that innovation centers be created under the leadership of the large corporations that are the local “champions” with the participation of the government, enterprises, academics and society, in order to develop innovation capacities in clusters, inter-regional networks and value chains; these “champions” would support the innovations with capital and connections, facilitating the creation of knowledge, and with bridges to the commercialization of ideas; and that policies might exist to attract these “champion” companies that will invest in businesses, ensuring the participation of experts.

Seen in this way, the international ranking rewards those who are seeking markets, adapt to the system, with an individualistic vision, directed by large capital enterprises that include expert engineers around technologies. Is this the type of society that we are looking for with the innovations?

Different perspectivas on innovations

Let us review some innovations. The invention of the wheeel in prehistory shortened the distances between places, the telephone reduced our dependency on the wheel, internet eliminated geographic borders and connected people around the world…Florence (Italy), with the support of the Medici brothers, brought together a group of geniuses like Da Vinci and Michelangelo that drove the Renaissance. The Apaches resisted invaders for centuries because of the igalitarian and decentralized social organization, that when a leader (nant’an) fell, another and another would appear. Bill Wilson and other alcoholics understood that it was easier to fool the experts than those who were in the same situation as they were, and based on rules of free entry and exit, a commitment to not drink for 24 hours, no one in charge and everyone in charge…they created Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Toyota revolutionized the car industry with team work mechanisms, quality incentives, continuous improvement, and the search for the balance between centralization and decentralization. A family from Paysandú (Uruguay), together with others, dealt with the theft of their fencing wire, understood that wire was sold in rolls, which is why they cut the wire, nailing a piece from one post to the next. Ron Rivera (Nicaragua), along with dozens of artesans, innovated Filtrón (ceramic filter for potable water) that is saving the lives of thousands of people around the world.

These innovations challenge the status quo and are done in collective environments. They appear as something technical, but they challenge what is conventional and logical, are “absurd” in the beginning (Albert Einstein), connect things (Steve Jobs), see a different world in which they want to live (Anthony Robbins); associate things, question, observe, experiment and create networks (Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen, 2009, The innovator’s DNA); and have high aspirations, as Michelangelo says. It is not going after the market, seeking profit, individually, directed by large capital enterprises, competing with products, or – as Peter Drucker said – with “business models” and believing that there is only ONE path, but changing the way of living itself (Steve Sheppard), pushing the limits of reality in any area, following different paths, and doing it in families, networks, friendships, companies, clusters…In Latin America these forms of innovation call us to seek equity, contribute to the climate and build paths with societal models.

René Mendoza has a PhD in development studies, is a collaborator of the Winds of Peace Foundation (http://peacewinds.org/research/), an associate researcher of IOB-University of Antwerp (Belgium) and of the Research and Development Institute, Nitlapan-UCA (Nicaragua). rmvidaurre@gmail.com

 

Collective action on terrain where things are getting complicated: Case of Miraflor

Collective action on terrain where things are getting complicated: Case of Miraflor

René Mendoza V. *

 

In the previous article (“Coordination and collective action to mitigate the impact of climate change”) we worked on the framework of coordination, science, ecology and economics in the case of the CamBIO project in Central America. Now we will examine the experience of Miraflor (Estelí).

Miraflor, located at an altitude of 1,450 mts and 30 km from the city of Estelí with a population of 16,000 people, is a peasant area and symbol of change due to the agrarian reform, the emergence of women leaders, family agriculture and community tourism. Its history of changes speaks to the country, from a zone of three large estates prior to 1979, it became a zone of cooperatives in the decade of the 80s, then a protected area in 1999 and a “Protected Terrestrial Landscape”, including communities in the municipalities of Yalí and Concordia starting in 2004 (see Plan de Manejo Miraflor-Moropotente: http://www.sinia.net.ni/wamas/documentos/PM/Plan%20de%20Manejo%20Miraflor%20Moropotente.pdf). Nevertheless, since 2000 Miraflor is moving toward the reconcentration – and foreign ownership – of the land, toward an agriculture dependent on agrochemicals, potato monocropping, and private tourism, having an impact on diversified family farming, some organic farming in coffee, the production of biological inputs for corn and beans, the community tourism that combines patches of forests and trees on farms, and its virtue of being the “lungs” of Estelí.

Why does a zone with so many resources (forests, water) and prospects tend toward the reconcentation of the land and an agriculture that generates greenhouse gases (GHE)? The response has to do with property insecurity, individualized reaction to the market, and the fragile institutionality of the co-management. About the property insecurity, the declaration of the protected area, in spite of its status as “Landscape…” does not undermine the individual property titles, but generates uncertainty in the population. The small producers have doubts about the validity of their property titles, the ex large estate owners, seeking to recover their lands, repeat over and over to them that those titles “are not worth anything”, and the financial institutions for 10 years now have been telling them that these titles are not valid because they are in a protected area. Consequently, many families are decapitalizing themselves over time, selling their land, and the richest are buying it off of them, “because the power of the rich is effective.”

To the insecurity caused by the lack of credit is added the adversity of the markets. Let us look at the case of potatoes that illustrates something that is happening with other crops. The price of potatoes went up to C$1,200 in 2012, while at the end of 2013 it dropped to C$250/quintal, in part because of the oligopolic system of the supermarkets that control the supply of potatoes throughout Central America. In the face of this price variation the small scale producers, even with external support, lost money and were left indebted: “just when the FAO was supporting us with credit and technical assistance, the market fell on us and we potato growers were left owing money; the market killed us.” Being members of cooperatives they responded to the markets (of products and capital) as individuals, and the international organizations supported the producers as if they were “individuals”.

Added to the property insecurity and vulnerability to the markets is the institutionality of the co-management. The status of “Landscape” implies wide flexibility in the application of the environmental laws due to the fact that it is in category 8 out of 9 categories of protected areas in the country, with category 1 as the strictest. Of 72 protected areas, there are 6 in co-management, and of these Miraflor-Moropotente formally is co-managed by an association of inhabitants of that same zone. The co-manager promotes environmental practices, approves or disapproves of requests for permits to use wood, and reports bad environmental practices to the State, who makes the decisions. In turn, the state backs the co-management as such, which is helpful for negotiating external funding. This co-management model administers projects and conceives of coordination with the inhabitants as their participation in those projects. Correspondingly, part of the population express doubts about this co-management model: “they are people who came from the large producers”, “they don´t say anything to the large potato growers that use agrochemicals and pollute the water,” “our voice denouncing private tourism with its bad practices is not listened to”.  These voices might be biased, but as the saying goes, where there is smoke there is fire.

This institutionality has meant that the nearly 20 cooperatives in the area, who in spite of their efforts to get the zone declared a protected area in 1999, their work of defending the agrarian reform in the 90s against the ex-large estate owners, and their promotion of community tourism, are not a party to the current co-management. This also is due to their own fragility, to depending since their beginnings on external resources. So the co-manager and the cooperatives mutually exclude one another, compete for external resources, have their own local networks and their own external donors, and both have distanced themselves from the problems and the opportunities of the zone. Consequently, community tourism is supplied by the community, includes diversification of income, environmentally compatible investments and collective actions like loaning horses to one another and sharing tourist guides; while private tourism has their own horses and tourist guides, and does investments (construction) considered to be in conflict with the environmental and social laws: “For 14 years we have been building community tourism, creating the Miraflor brand, and we were able to stop alcoholism to have good tourism and reduce the violence in the homes, but then the big ones came in, buy land in the best places, build in a matter of months, appropriate our brand and openly sell alcohol.”

From the above, a first reading of Miraflor is that there has not been spaces of coordination, be they to define the structure of co-management, or to visualize its sustainable development based on their own human capacities. The science has been reduced to a minimum, the bases on which the ecology and the economics can be combined are unknown, or what the coordination can be based on. In contrast the primacy of the economy is highlighted, in spite of the fact that it is a protected area. The same is true for the financial institutions that, instead of financing activities that combine economics and ecology, prefer to avoid Miraflor “because their titles do not have value”, and the international organizations are supporting specific activities (be it potatoes, coffee or forests) and only see “individuals”, instead of strengthening peasant families with their diversified systems and community tourism, and of seeing them as the organized families that they are.

Why is it so difficult to create spaces of coordination where the local actors are protagonists with their agroforestry systems and community tourism, and thus Miraflor might consolidate itself as the “lungs” of Estelí? A second reading requires the approach of the dilemma of collective action (Olson, 1965, The Logic of Collective Action). Olson thinks that collective actions (e.g. coordination around generating less GHE in Miraflor) do not take place because of the problem of free riders (opportunism). We are all in agreement in generating less GHE, but individually the person (or organization) perceives that their contribution in order to benefit from the climate is insignificant, and that is why the person concludes that it is rational to not coordinate, not do studies and not be concerned about the effects of climate change. The dilemma is that we all want good climate and well-being, but we are part of a chain of free riders, from international organizations to peasant families, passing through institutions and local leadership. The solution to the dilemma does not rest on any one individual, so we are all then on terrain where things are getting complicated.

* René Mendoza V. (rmvidaurre@gmail.com) has a PhD in development studies. This article is based on work done with Edgar Fernández. Both are collaborators of the Winds of Peace Foundation (www.peacewinds.org).

Coordination and collective action to mitigate the impact of climate change: the case of the regional project CamBIO

Coordination and collective action to mitigate the impact of climate change: the case of the regional project CamBIO

René Mendoza Vidaurre

 “if you think one year ahead, you will plant a seed…if you think 10 years ahead, you will plant a tree “. Chinese poet, 500 AC

 In response to the question about what practices contribute to the climate, in the previous article “Coordination and collective action to mitigate climate change” we listed the recommendations laid out by different studies and organizations for forestry and agriculture. Then we pondered the implementation within the coordination between science, conservation and economics through the case of the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador. Now we will study the CamBIO project (Central American Markets for Biodiversity) within this same framework.

This project (2007-2013) was a tripartite GEF initiative (Global Environment Fund)-UNDP United Nations Program for Development with the financial support of the GEF (Global Environmental Facility), and the CABEI (Central American Bank for Economic Integration). This project sought to ”ensure that the micro, small and medium enterprises of Central America increase their contribution to sustainable development and environmental protection, incorporating biodiversity in their businesses, products and services” (http://www.bcie.org/spanish/banca-inversion-desarrollo/desarrollo-competitividad/cambio.php). This project was implemented by CABEI through intermediary financial institutions (IFIs) in Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala and El Salvador. In Nicaragua CABEI worked with the LDF (Local Development Fund), Lafise-Bancentro, the 20th of May Cooperative and FUNDESER.

According to the report of the UNDP-GEF-CABEI 2011 the most innovative case was that done by the LDF and the Research and Development Institute, Nitlapan in Nicaragua. As such, this case was systematized among the most innovative experiences of Latin America (see: Mendoza, Dávila, Fonseca y Cheaz, 2011, “Modelo de Adaptación al Cambio Climático a través de la Reconversión Productiva y transformación territorial, Proyecto CAMBio en Nicaragua”, en RIMISP, http://www.rimisp.org/wp-content/files_mf/1365017537sistcambio.pdf). The LDF and Nitlapan promoted four systems: silvo-pastoral, agroforestry, sustainable tourism and sustainable wood system in 22 municipalities in the buffer zones of interconnected protected areas: San Cristóbal, Tisay, Quiabú, Miraflores, Cerro Yalí, Kilambé, Peñas Blancas, Bosawás; Cerro Colorado, Quiragua, Musún; Juan Venado, Casitas; La Flor, Mombacho, Guatusos, and Indio Maiz. The rules were: the LDF provided credit to its best clients, and Nitlapan provided them with technical assistance; a contract was signed with the producer who chose a system (e.g. silvo-pastoral system) and chose an indicator (e.g. “establish native trees on pasture lands”, “riverbank forests”, “native foraging bushes” or “living fences with native species”). Then they defined the area to be reforested in a year, and at the end of the year CABEI would verify whether the producer complied. If he did, the producer paid only 86% of the amount of the loan, with the policies on term and interest rates remaining the same. This compliance enabled the LDF to claim 6% of the loan given to that producer, and Nitlapan 10% of the amount lent in the portfolio to cover the costs of technical assistance.

Looking at the environmental projects that generally failed in Central America, the results of this case were commendable for slightly more than 1500 producers with around 2,500 hectares reforested, springs (and creeks) recovered or protected, living fences and honey waters decontaminated. What explains this innovation? There is a shared vision among the actors: if the producers with a good credit record transform their farms, their success generates a “snowball effect” of economic and environmental improvement. Then the innovative part is that what the families do and know gets recognized, correspondingly the technical assistance has a systems-approach and not a crop-approach (trees); the myth is broken that the agricultural frontier is advancing felling the trees, they can transform their farms; a credit institutional setup that rewards the good payer with an environmental sense of responsibility; and an approach of combining ecology and economics from the perspective of  “farm trees” instead of forest plantations or compact forests. These innovations remind us of Heraclitus some 2500 years ago: “when there is no sun we can see the stars at night”. The stars in this case are the innovations, while the sun is the approach of an ecology divorced from the economy, reduced to the economy, or seen only as compact forests, a vision of credit and technical assistance that only responds to the market from the logic of crops…

The sun moves, and also can keep us from seeing the most important stars in the CamBIO project: the collective action. Part of it comes from the coordination between financial institutions (LDF, CABEI), technical assistance (NITLAPAN) and production (producer families), within a framework of incentives contributing to environmental and economic sustainability, but this is not enough. Another part of the collective action is left truncated, because of the need for science and collaboration with local organizations. The limited research that there was came from other organizations; it was assumed that those who are doing credit and technical assistance “already knew” the reality. Forcella (2012, Payments for Environmental Services and Microfinance: Proyecto Cambio in Nicaragua, Belgium), studying the project, found that the largest clients with the most cattle tended to invest the difference of the credit more in activities at odds with the environment (purchase of cattle, pastureland without trees, …), while the smaller ones tended to invest the different of the loan more in environmentally friendly activities (shaded cacao and coffee, etc.), which in addition shows that places and organizations are political arenas, that no policy is implemented as planned. The project ignored the local organizations, under the assumption that the producers are isolated individuals, thus losing opportunities to multiply the positive externalities, and undermining in part the sustainability of the project post-2013. This mutual exclusion between institutions that provide services and local organizations tends to be a common pattern, likewise the execution of projects without research. The country lost the opportunity to see more stars, and maybe more interesting stars.

In conclusion: the synergy between ecological, economic and scientific communities within an institutional framework of coordination with incentives is a key path for reducing the crisis of climate change. Science makes a difference, but in CamBIO, CABEI-UNDP-GEF they fell into the mistake of other projects, not studying their own experiences in the region in a comparative manner. Rather they adhered to the custom of providing resources and forgetting about the impact of their actions. The participation of local organizations is essential in any measure to reduce the crisis of climate change; if the local organization is weak and “coopt able”, it has to be strengthened, so that it might be an autonomous counterpart and capable of negotiating, representing the interests of the families. The individual farm is not the motor of change, but the entire local and global infrastructure. Instead of believing that “more market is better for the environment” and “there are only trees in the forest”, we should turn our attention to the reality of the country: there are more trees on farms than in protected areas! The ones who can contribute more to the climate are the small producers!

A producer of San José del Bocay said: “If I take care of a tree from the time it was planted, I will think twice before cutting it down.” If we recognize this, if the financial institutions and technical service organizations expand on these capacities, if the state and the international organizations support this infrastructure, we would understand that the success of the entire chain of institutions passes through the success of the producer families, who, with social, economic and political incentives, can think 10 years ahead and plant a tree, and can think 100 years ahead and take care of that tree. That would make a difference.

* René Mendoza V. (rmvidaurre@gmail.com) has a PhD in development studies and is a collaborator of the Winds of Peace Foundation (www.peacewinds.org)

 

Coordination and collective action for mitigating the impact of climate change: the case of the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador

Coordination and collective action for mitigating the impact of climate change: the case of the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador

René Mendoza V. *

 

What practices contribute to the climate given the crisis of climate change? Apart from measures concerning the use and supply of energy related to construction, transport and industry, and the elimination of solid waste from garbage dumps, in what follows we list some measures recommended by different studies and organizations on forestry and agriculture. For the former, decrease deforestation, regeneration and repopulation of the forests and agro-silviculture, and carbon capturing. For the latter, change the management of water, intensification and agricultural technological innovation including value adding in a sustainable manner, less and more efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers, no-till agricultural technology, increase in soil capacity, improvement of rice technology, better management of ruminant animals (sheep, goats, larger livestock), and better use of manure in combination with agriculture.

To try to implement these measures we propose a framework of synergy between science, conservation, economics and coordination. In the first section of the first article (“The importance of peasant agriculture for Climate Change”), we looked at the big contribution of science on climate change, the progress of international coordination in the United Nations, the indifference of the economy to the climate, and its effect on environmental deterioration. In the second section of the same article, we saw that science, to the extent that it requires knowledge more specific to different geographies, contributes less; other actors like the FAO and IICA raise their voice without any progress on coordination, maintaining the separation between economy and ecology. To illustrate alternatives to this challenge, this article and the following ones will show cases about how synergy happens or does not happen between science, economics, ecology and coordination. We start with the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador that has mostly aquatic biodiversity.

The Galapagos islands, known worldwide because it was the basis for Darwin to develop his theory of natural evolution by natural selection, were designated in 1934 as a Wildlife Sanctuary, in 1959 97% of its territory was declared a National Park, in 1978 they were declared the Natural Patrimony of Humanity and in 1984 a Biosphere Reserve, in 1986 the Marine Reserve of Galapagos was created, in 1998 the Special Law for the Galapagos Islands was passed, and in 2001 the Marine Reserve was declared the Natural Patrimony of Humanity. The islands have attracted the immigration of Ecuadorian families and tourism; between 1960 and 2007 tourism increased from around 2,000 to 160,000 visitors per year. This growth and the associated economic opportunities created tensions between ecology and economics, the local citizens and the foreigners. How have they been resolving them?

What follows is based on a conversation with the biologist Milton Yacelga, who stayed on the Galapagos Islands for years as part of his scientific work. The accompanying Figure illustrates the solution framework that three communities implemented: scientific community (square shape), the community of the local inhabitants (circle shape) and the community of the tourists (triangle shape).  The management plan involved the three communities: 1) to know what to conserve you have to know what there is, likewise science has to identify which species are in danger and how to manage them; 2) the local inhabitants fish to feed their families and sell to tourists, for that reason they learn from science what species to use, at what ages, and what sex (2-1=0 “if you eliminate the female you have done away with the species”), in which places and at what times (e.g. not in the prolific moment for the fish; 3) the tourists need to feed themselves from the fish, contribute to their conservation, walk around and learn.

The challenge has been the three actors coordinating in the midst of their conflicts; the same figure above shows how difficult their combination can be, between something square, triangular and round. There were times in which the local inhabitants rejected the findings of science, arguing that there always had fish and that the number of fish had never gone down, that the foreigners with science were affecting the traditional culture of Ecuador; certainly in times of low demand for fish, the fishing was less, but with the increase in tourism and the growing demand for fish, the fish population changed. The tensions with the tourists increased, and because they had to follow rules agreed upon by the scientific community and the local community (restaurants, hotels, tourist guides, transportation) that meant knowing at what moments which places could be visited, how to treat the animals and how to connect with the local population. These tensions revealed differences between economics and ecology. In the end the three communities agreed upon experimenting on one island, whose results would allow them to recognize one another and reach a framework for agreement, even with tensions within each community, like the growing exclusion of small businesses, the debate between traditional ecology and new ecology (see Mendoza, 2002, “Nicaragua: ¿Cómo salvar el bosque? Haciendo fincas, cortando árboles,” en: Revista Envío, http://www.envio.org.ni/articulo/1166), the type of tourism and its effects on the human and aquatic populations.

This agreement allowed the fish and tourism to increase, the ecology and economy to understand one another, and consequently they were able to draw up a Management Plan that provided institutionality to the coordination. Within this framework, for example, corridors were defined so that the species can migrate and immigrate, preventing them from falling into genetic degeneration from reproducing among themselves in isolated patches; they worked because there are various trails so that the tourists rotate their use without overburdening any trail, scaring away animals and birds, which in the long run would also affect tourism itself; and they agreed upon mechanisms for protecting  collective rights like water (“the water is for everyone”) in contrast to the logic of the large businesses and private tourism (“the water is mine”).

From this unique experience we can get some inspiration for the country. Having a long term perspective is the basis for seeking synergy between the economy and the ecology, while the control  of one group affects the other. It makes a big difference to produce crops, cattle and biodiversity as the basis for life, while the degradation of one affects everyone. A common effect of dispossession processes is doing away with the humus (layer of leaves) of the soil and move to where there is humus. When a management plan results from the coordination of the affected actors, it tends to be an effective framework for coordinating and resolving conflicts. If the science functions like the scientific community, outside the control of the elites, it contributes; if it is complemented by the wisdom of the population (e.g. in order to discern the impact of climate change by zones, following up on the amphibians that are indicators of global warming because of their sensitive and humid skin that in the face of heat gets filled with fungi that kills them, and the snakes that decrease in number with the deterioration of the forest and human superstition – “if the worker kills a snake he gets the day off” says the large estate owner), and responds to the actors in the territories (instead of responding only to international aid), its contribution makes a difference.

Each community if fundamental to solving the crisis of climate change. Even more fundamental is the synergy among the communities: the most important knowledge is not knowing that 1+2=3, but understanding what “+” means. And even more so if that synergy is the basis for building lasting alliances within an institutional framework of coordination between ecology, economy and science, so 1+2 is more than 3.

* René Mendoza V. (rmvidaurre@gmail.com) has a PhD in development studies, and is a collaborator of the Winds of Peace Foundation (www.peacewinds.org).

 

Innovating Innovation

My recent visit to Nicaragua was filled with innovations.  They weren’t to be found in the airports or airliners that I used in flying south (though Heaven knows both of those entities could use some major innovative help), but rather in the lives and activities I encountered during my week in very rural Nicaragua.  The notion of innovation constituted one of the main themes of the week, whether in the lives of the workshop participants with whom I learned or in some of the community development initiatives I observed later in the week.  Surrounded as I was with such creative consciousness during the week, I’ve given lots of thought to the idea of innovation, and especially where it comes from.

Of course, those who think about innovation begin from relatively different perspectives; one person’s innovation is another’s past practice.  During the workshop, for instance, the participants separated into smaller groups for more personal discussions.  My group was assigned the task of identifying one or two specific innovations that would serve their cooperatives going forward, an idea or two which might elevate the cooperatives above their past performances, build competitive advantage in the marketplace, contribute something creatively tangible that would constitute a significant break with past protocols.  Our group members represented a wide range of creativity.

New process suggestions surfaced almost faster than they could be recorded.  One coop member spoke of identifying a new contact for the market being served.  Another related a strategy very specific to the non-profit nature of his organization.  Someone else was “selling” the group on an outcome which seemed to focus primarily on satisfying the assignment at hand.  Each concept had value in its own right; ideas always possess intrinsic worth even if they hold limited practical salience.  But the drift of the discussion felt as though the participants were responding only from the places one might expect; they spoke from the confines of their respective experiences, rather than from a broader, more far-reaching point of view.  Therein lies the constraint that they, and most of us, stumble over whenever seeking new horizons.  Innovation visits most often when we’re out of our “comfort zones,” and yet that is where most of our past experiences occurred.

Innovation may, in fact, strike like a bolt of lightning.  An idea can materialize at the least likely moment and yet carry with it impact of unimaginable proportions.  But who knows what prompts such fortunate instants and, indeed, how would any of us ever plan for purely lucky moments?  They are always the exception rather than the rule.  To wait for innovation to strike is akin to playing the lottery: it could happen, but probably not.

Rather, cultivating innovation is a learned habit, a way of thinking, an exercise that stretches an imagination and lifts a vision through the discipline of hard effort.  Yes, there are methodologies specifically designed to unleash innovative solutions; competitive organizations around the world have relied upon such activities for years.  But like any exercise done well, the exertions require persistence, patience and the practices which are most likely to produce something bold and new.   And for starters, would-be practitioners have to allow themselves the courage and the spaces to act unconventionally. Those requisites seemed to be just too heavy to introduce to our little workshop conversation, and especially from a gringo.  And in any case, the bravery has to come from somewhere within each of them, not from an outside presence.

I don’t pretend to recognize all of the obstacles in Nicaraguan life that might be at work to prevent such transformational possibilities, be they cultural, historical, political or social.  I certainly cannot fault my workshop group-mates for reciting the small improvements of their daily work as examples of dynamic transformation.  On this topic, Winds of Peace can only continue to sponsor workshop and training opportunities that invite “innovating innovations.”  When the courageous moment arrives, something learned in such gatherings can take root and innovation can grow.  In bringing rural producers together to speak with one another and share their issues, we encourage our partners to “lift the veil” for themselves in discovering the full breadth of their own visions and possibilities.

Come to think of it, that’s not a bad objective for each of us, no matter how comfortable our stations in life….