Blog

From the opening keynote, the Net Impact Conference was buzzing with students and professionals passionate about corporate social responsibility, green living, and international development. So it makes sense that one of the panels would be focused around "Careers at the Base of the Pyramid". NextBillion's own Francisco Noguera moderated the panel, which brought together three different perspectives on the BoP - Yasmina Zaidman, Director of Communications at Acumen Fund; Peter Eliassen, Vice President of Sales and Operations at VisionSpring (an Acumen Fund investee); and Justin DeKozmovsky, Manager of Strategic Sustainability at SC Johnson & Son.

As expected, the event primarily attracted students, and it was interesting to see the different perspectives these three organizations brought, not only on careers, but also the space as a whole. While Acumen Fund is an established force investing in social entrepreneurs in developing countries, and VisionSpring is a great example of an entrepreneurial start-up, SC Johnson & Son provided an interesting contrast of how larger corporations can reach the market opportunities at the base of the pyramid.

Despite the difference in positions and organizations, the panel's beliefs were surprisingly similar in how to increase the amount of business activity at the base of the pyramid. From investing directly as an entrepreneur in a developing country, to working as an arm of a corporation, all of the panelists spoke to the importance of developing a proof of concept. In particular, Yasmina discussed the importance of living in a world of "what works" - developing new models, then testing and refining them, instead of just talking about the world as it "should" be.

This concept appeared several times throughout the conversation, with panelists encouraging students to "just do it". Regardless of whether the "it" refers to starting a new social enterprise or joining someone else's, each of the panelists discussed the importance of passion to their career progression, and advised students to pursue opportunities wherever they may be. Justin, in particular, gave the example of how he began with SC Johnson & Son as an MBA intern, and then helped them create a business concept for work at the BoP, which they then asked him to implement. He challenged students to just pick up the phone and contact organizations when they see an opportunity to add value.

Another theme that emerged centered around the idea that although the field is still growing and changing rapidly, it has come a long way. There are numerous organizations working to support BoP initiatives - much more so than when our panelists began their careers - creating a dearth of opportunities for students to get involved wherever their interests lie.

This panel reminded me that regardless of functional discipline or background, base of the pyramid ventures need talented individuals with passion and guts. There is a growing need for talent to come from the private sector, increasingly bringing specialized skillsets to professionalize these organizations as they grow and scale. If we're going to prove that business can be profitable at the base of the pyramid - both fiscally and socially - we need to be willing to take risks, try new ideas, and use our passion to build a proof of concept that will create the businesses of the future.

Impact investing is estimated to reach a total of 500 billion USD within the next decade. Profit-seeking investment to generate social and environmental impact could be an alternative model or an important supplement to traditional aid flowing from developed countries to emerging markets.
 
Taking a closer look at this issue, J. Alexander Sloan - Advisor Council at the Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise, moderated the session “Emerging markets investment - Beyond Aid” featuring three finance professionals with previous experience in foreign aid: Henry Gonzalez - Vice President at Morgan Stanley, Amie Patel - Investment Officer at the Soros Economic Development Fund (SDEF), as well as Harold Rosen – Executive Director at the Grassroots Business Fund.
 
Aid or investment? This is one of the key questions all of the panelists - and most likely all of us - have thought about and discussed many times. Aid effectiveness is often undermined because “aid doesn’t trust governments” and tied to a comprehensive set of requirements to avoid abuse and misuse. Henry acknowledged that even though there have been successful public sector projects in place, not enough has been achieved in terms of poverty alleviation over the past decades. The question therefore arises, whether one should pursue Jeffrey Sachs’ approach of increasing aid to tackle poverty or become a “seeker” à la William Easterly by developing small and sustainable initiatives from the bottom up. Henry, Amie, and Harold found their answers and chose to direct their career path towards working in impact investing.

After having worked with the World Bank and the United Nations in the past, Henry is now eager to prove the concept of double bottom line investments within the mainstream driving investments in emerging markets rather than aid.

Amie experienced the limitations of aid delivery as well as the inefficiencies and lack of effectiveness of aid agencies while working with a non-profit Nepal. At SEDF she helps to seek investments that have a social impact. While SEDF aims to recover their initial investment, they are not focused on generating high financial returns.

Harold had worked for almost 30 years at the International Finance Corporation (IFC) before becoming a “seeker” for sustainable enterprises to invest in. He now heads the Grassroots Business Fund and wishes that US aid could be at least partly rechanneled “to do smart subsidies rather than aid straightjackets.”
 
What is the role of governments? Do governments tend to take a top-down approach? Can it work? “Yes, they do - but it doesn’t work!” Henry argued that governments need to bring in more talent to be more strategic and effective in their efforts. Many governments have failed to reduce poverty rates over the past decades. In Latin America, for instance, there is a lack of Angel Investors even though those could make an important contribution to nurture entrepreneurship and growth. Governments should incentivize investments by providing an adequate framework for venture capital funds and by promoting best practices. “But for some reason double bottom line is not something they do”, summarizes Henry.
 
Are the investments successful? Morgan Stanley’s environment and social finance arm designed a small portfolio of Micro Finance Institutions (MFI). The MFI receive funding in local currency so that they don’t carry the exchange risk that would otherwise occur. To date, all MFI are performing well and have paid interest on time. Morgan Stanley’s engagement in this type of social impact investment is still at a very early stage. However, if the set-up proves to be viable over the next few years, it is likely that a dedicated impact investment platform will be created as a stand-alone option.

SEDF has not systematically measured its impact in the past. The measurements conducted so far have included project-specific and qualitative rather than quantitative metrics to prove success. In order to pursue a more systematic approach, SEDF has started to refine metrics. The five to ten year-long investments start to pay back first returns.

Harold from GBF argued that "everybody should be happy” with 7-9 percent return on investment accompanied by social return. Impact measurement is a priority at GBF and realized with tools such as the Progress out of Poverty survey. Rather than providing affirmative data, Social Return on Investment (SROI) helps to track and manage the level of impact.
 
For those interested in entering or continuing to work in impact investment three key lessons came out in the panel:

1. Ensure balance
Currently, there is a lot of interest shifting towards impact investing generating great excitement. However, there are not enough enterprises ready to absorb the available investment capital. The current returns on investment are often times much lower than investors might expect. It is important to avoid the creation of an investment bubble and to build a pipeline of fundamentally sound investment opportunities.

2. Know the sector
One should not underestimate the difficulty of changing the DNA involved in transforming social initiatives into viable businesses. Harold found it particularly important to add “arms and legs” to each investment, combining financial support with capacity building in order to pursue an approach that is integrated and more prone to succeed in the long-run.

3. Get excited
Henry’s key advice for those interested in starting a career in impact investing: “Get a job!” As intrapreneur everyone can make a difference in their organization; no matter if big or small. “Be true to your needs and circumstances; make sure you are enjoying what you do and move when the time is right.”

Amie suggested that if you have the opportunity and the ability to work in the field you should definitely go ahead and do it. This will provide invaluable insight into processes, opportunities and challenges on the ground. As Harold put it: “Learn about the mess that is going on in the countries.”

How can we design, fund and implement affordable solutions for the developing world's toughest challenges? How can we maximize social impact with our designs? The "Design for Extreme Affordability" panel at Net Impact conference tackled these very issues.

Jeffrey Gangemi, Communications Consultant at Dun & Bradstreet moderated a conversation between two entrepreneurs who have designed affordable solutions: Peter Frykman, Founder & CEO of Driptech and Ting Shih, Executive Vice President of ClickDiagnostics.

Problem: Farmers in drought-ridden regions of the developing world need better, cheaper, more effective ways to use their meager water supplies efficiently.

Solution: Driptech creates affordable, water efficient irrigation systems for small-plot farmers in developing nations. Their drip irrigation product is low cost and low tech, but designed using high-tech expertise.

The Driptech team met at Standord in a course called Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability. Traveling to Ethiopia, they noticed that farmers were unable to grow crops due to scarcity of water and high costs drip irrigation products. This spurred their invention of Driptech tubing, which is 2-5x less costly than the alternatives and works better and more reliably. In a 5-month pilot with 15 subsistence farmers, Driptech was found to save farmers water, labor and time while enhancing their dry-season crop income.

Problem: The developing world lacks doctors, particularly in rural areas leading to poor healthcare coverage.

Solution: ClickDiagnostics uses accessible mobile technology infrastructure to arm community health workers with the ability to connect to remote medical specialists who provide remote consultation. Rural healthcare professionals that lack adequate expertise to make diagnoses can take photos of patients, send them for review by the proper physician anywhere in the world, and then make a diagnosis based on their expert input. Treatment can happen immediately. ClickDiagnostics' solution can work anywhere in the world with decent cell reception.

Both Driptech and ClickDiagnostics offer elegant, cost-effective solutions. But getting there hasn't been without challenges. Frykman and Shih described their challenges and keys to success building affordable products to serve emerging markets.

Frykman described how he was able to get funding to get Driptech off the ground, despite the process being slow and gradual. The first bit of funding was the hardest to get. After that they were able to talk about the money raised and convince other investors to get on board. They'll be going out for their A round in 8 to 12 months.

Both panelists mentioned the need to understand the country specific context in which they are working. For Driptech, distribution has hinged on successful country-specific strategies. In India, Driptech piggybacks on established commercial agricultural input distribution networks. In China, they've worked with local governments on distribution. At ClickDiagnostics, Shih has found the key to success is understanding how the healthcare structure works in each country they operate in. While her product can work anywhere, she absolutely needs to understand the context.

Driptech is eager to serve the base of the pyramid. "It's easy to design another attractive mp3 player to sell to rich people. But it's much harder to design a product to serve dollar a day farmers," Frykman said.

Both entrepreneurs are dedicated to sustainable revenue models with social missions. The for-profit model enables growth and expansion. "I'm adamant about doing well by doing good and attracting more products and services to this sector through enabling technologies," Frykman said, touching on the idea of trickle up innovation.

Keeping these products low cost is of utmost importance. Frykman acknowledged that he sacrifices durability for low cost to some extent. Driptech is currently manufacturing in India, laser punching the tubing in Palo Alto and then selling the product back in India. They plan to do all pieces of the manufacturing process in India, but for now they are eating the excess cost of transit to California to test market acceptance.

I was pleased to learn that competitive threats are not top of mind for Driptech or ClickDiagnostics. Frykman isn't worried about competition. The market he serves is untapped and a "rising tide lifts all boats" as he sees it. Similarly, partnering has been key to Shih's success so far. Shih described how ClickDiagnostics seeks out its competitors and then figures out how to collaborate, and leverage their technology, research or other assets. When solving big problems, we need to think more and more in this mind set of radical collaboration, rather than competition.

Although microfinance (MF) has not been a panacea for economic development and poverty eradication at the base of the pyramid, its significant impact has prompted many to urge the MF community to expand that success by moving into "Microfinance 2.0." This weekend's 2009 Net Impact conference addressed this transition through the panel, "Beyond Microfinance: New Knowledge and Models for Development."

Too much expansion or not enough?

In his opening comments moderator David Maxson, of Accion's Frontier Investments Group, noted that MF is experiencing growing pains as it moves from 1.0 to 2.0. Microfinance investors, several represented on the panel, are witnessing a profusion of new business models as they explore ways to move beyond providing liquidity to microfinance institutions (MFIs). Even as Accion encourages these new models, Maxson asked the panelists whether the industry is moving too far, too fast or not yet far enough, fast enough.

Overall, Gil Crawford, CEO of MicroVest Capital Management, concluded that the rapid increase in the amount of money invested in MF and the degree of commercialization of MFIs has been too much, too quickly. He predicted that the recent increase in bad MF loans may be the tip of the iceberg created by an excess of easy money that enthusiasm has pushed through the MF system and warned of probable MFI failures in the near-term. Moreover, he worried that the commercialization of MFIs will lead to a bad corporate governance and corruption.

Alex Counts, President & CEO of the Grameen Foundation USA, generally disagreed and encouraged the industry to moderate the hand-wringing in which it's currently engaged. He emphasized that waves of innovation and failure are natural and that MF has many "self-correcting elements at play." Counts labeled recent talk of women frequently borrowing from many MFIs as "rumors." In one Indian state in which such borrowing had been reported, a subsequent study concluded that 89% of the women had borrowed from only 1 MFI and that most of the remaining 11% borrowed from two. That said, Counts noted that, as MF grows and commercializes, each MFI must be clear about whether its primary goal is poverty alleviation or profit generation.

Henry Gonzalez, Vice President at Morgan Stanley in charge of the company's Emerging Markets Debt Group and former founding member of its Microfinance Institutions Group, largely echoed this moderate but laudatory tone. He identified two trends as indicative of the industry's progress: increasing numbers of MFIs starting life as for-profit institutions and increasing numbers of specialized investor funds understanding that health and education are inextricably tied to economic development. Gonzalez agreed, though, both with Counts's caveat that for-profit or integrated models must be very clear about their goals and Crawford's concern that they must have very clear governance.

Focus on core competencies or leverage existing network?

The discussion of MF's commercialization naturally gave way to another critical area of transition: new products and services. Again, Crawford remained the most skeptical about using the MF platform for either distribution of consumer goods and services or for sale of consumer and small and medium enterprise (SME) financial products. Offering working capital to the working class is a very different proposition than lending money to SMEs, and that new venture often falls outside of MFIs' core competencies. Noting, "Some very bright people are trying a little bit too hard," he encouraged all MFIs to be able to write their value proposition on a 3x5 index card - in large font.

In the middle of the spectrum, Gonzalez argued that MFIs should leverage their existing financial structure to offer a large menu of financial products. Only after financial expansion should they evaluate whether and how to use it to distribute non-financial products and services.

Counts advocated for MFIs to expand their missions by forming mutually reinforcing institutions to touch non-financial products and services. Offering products to solve other problems of the poor through sister organizations makes the otherwise generic financial products more sticky. He further urged MFIs to continuing innovating and adapting their business models in order to expand their reach into new countries and new regions within existing MF countries.

Growing under the microscope

The tremendous enthusiasm for MF in recent years has simultaneously garnered waves of new investors and thrust the industry under the microscope. The lively conversation among these four prominent players reinforced these two issues' interconnectedness. As investors enter the space, many seek a focus on growth and profit. As MFIs commercialize, increase their funds, and expand their product offerings, the new public scrutiny often concludes that profit motives are dictating the changes.

Many people further conclude that such motives are bad. They're not - if the tools are still alleviating poverty. If the desire for profit encourages expansion, and expansion both tackles poverty and generates profits, MF is indeed building the powerful ecosystem for which it is praised. As the discussion highlighted, however, we must continue to push MFIs to clearly articulate their goals, delineate their governance, and demonstrate their results. Particularly as it grows, we must keep it firmly under the microscope.

Simply judging by titles, less than a handful of panels at this year's Net Impact conference dealt with metrics and impact measurement. I found this quite surprising considering the intensive discourse and current initiatives underway in the sector (Rob and others have reported quite extensively on NextBillion lately). Most panels, however, were intractably tied to the question of how to measure non-financial impact; no matter if talking about the evolution of corporate philanthropy or about getting beyond socially responsible investing.

The Net Impact panel on "Social Impact Measurement" aimed to help uncover approaches to measuring social impact. Eileen Yang, a Consultant from Mission Measurement, and Drew Tulchin, Managing Partner at Social Enterprise Associates (SEA), discussed the issue with facilitator Gautam Kaul, a Professor of Finance at the Ross School of Business.

Eileen gave a general introduction to a few central questions institutions ask themselves: How do we measure social impact? How do we know if we progress into the right direction? How do we articulate measurements and how do we communicate them to our stakeholders?

Institutions should not get stuck with trying to find the perfect set of metrics but rather define proxy measures and consider measurement as a valuable management tool. Metrics should be kept simple and practical: "Don't measure just for the sake of measuring!"

To instill awareness for measurement mechanisms in an organization a top-down approach ensuring the buy-in from the top management is more likely to be successful than a bottom-up approach. However, also intrapreneurial initiatives that take results of a pilot project in social impact measurement from a team level to advocate among top management could contribute to a change in organizational measurement culture.

Drew went into more detail on the question "how to measure?" and outlined 'Social Return On Investment' (SROI) as a potential mechanism to measure social impact. He gave an introductory overview over a toolkit SEA and theSocial Venture Technology Group had developed for Nemours, a Delaware non-profit that addresses child health issues. The toolkit includes:

• an SROI calculator employees can use to determine the strategic relevance, the potential impact and the priority of projects,
• a tool to track performance relative to a set of objectives, as well as
• an SROI analysis to visualize outputs, outcomes and impacts relative to the investment made.

Drew reminded us that the SROI is not a uniform construct and includes different data types - narrative, qualitative, quantitative, monetizable and financial information. The weighting of each component in the overall SROI essentially depends on the needs of the audience. In order to interpret the data it is crucial to identify a benchmark or to create a base case and to track data over time.

As the panel showed, measuring social impact is a hot topic for sustainable ventures. Continuing to think about what and how we need to measure, we move towards increased effectiveness and efficiency. Every step towards improved measurement will have a substantial impact on the sustainable venture sector - it will help to translate grants with seemingly little or no return into investments with a social return.

The Q&A session covered a very broad spectrum of issues reflecting the different levels of familiarity with the topic among the audience. Even though the panel didn't go into substantial depth, it was a great opportunity to reflect on central issues related to social impact measurement. It would be great if we could build on this panel, see how its content and recommendations are aligned with other metrics efforts in the sector, and see a more targeted discourse at next year's conference.

My second event at the 2009 Net Impact Conference was a very well orchestrated case study analysis of a critical emerging market and base of the pyramid (BoP) issue - off grid solutions and energy consumption. Off grid solutions have been a point of exploration in recent years with initiatives such as the Solar Foundation work in Ethiopia and the reading lamp project in Africa and India.

Our presenter, Wolfgang Gregory, Chief Sustainability Officer for OSRAM Sylvania, a subsidiary of Siemens, painted a very lively picture of the origins of a project that has the potential to dramatically change the off grid  sector. He set the context narrating a meeting in Germany where members from his team pondered on a potential opportunity.

OSRAM Sylvania is a leading provider of lighting solutions and through its Global Care program is committed to investing in sustainable programs in emerging markets.  About 77 billion liters of kerosene is being used for lighting every year in different parts of the world accounting for a market of $55 billion USD with nearly 1.6 billion people having no access to electricity. This equated to an enormous market opportunity for OSRAM and also a potential to innovate within this sector.

Continue reading this article

The first session I attended at this year's Net Impact Conference was a lively panel on approaches to address water-related challenges in the developing world. It was moderated by Cheryl Choge of the Global Water Challenge, who began by reminding us of a few key water facts, for those of you who're curious about the scale of the problem: There are 884 million people without access to clean water and about 2.5 billion without access to adequate sanitation, the burden of which is felt disproportionately by women and children.

Water-related diseases are a leading cause of death among children across the globe. Women in developing countries spend inordinate amounts of time walking to fetch water. The panelists spoke about their work in innovative, cost-effective business models for the BOP, and touched on supply chain models, distribution channels and approaches to pricing.

The water challenge: how is it being tackled?

The Water Initiative's approach was presented by Kevin McGovern, a serial entrepreneur and co-founder of successful companies such as the SoBe beverage company. He and his team are supplying clean water to low-income consumers in Mexico, where The Water Initiative mobilizes teams of top scientists from Universities such as Cornell and UCLA to develop promising water treatment technologies at the point of use. The company works closely with communities in Mexico, studying local water conditions and deploying appropriate water solutions at affordable price points according to the recommendations of The Base of the Pyramid Protocol. (Side note: Stu Hart, one of the authors of the protocol, is a board member and a partner in this venture.)

At A Single drop of water, a Philippines-based nonprofit, Gemma Bulos and her team match civic society with local government groups to create hubs of local water expertise (PODS - people offering deliverable services). The local groups work to implement community-led WASH (Water and Sanitation) solutions. These organizations decide what technologies to implement based on the specific needs of the organization.

Finally, Bjorn von Euler works with ITT, a global supplier of water pumps and systems to transport, treat and control water and other fluids. The company follows a risk-reduction business model and has its operations spread across a variety of countries such as China, Honduras, Guatemala and India.

Following are a few sticking points from the panel:

"Appropriate" technologies matter more than "sophisticated" technologies. Although technology is a huge enabler, it isn't in itself a solution. The technological know-how for water exists, but the technology that gets implemented is often not relevant to the needs of consumers. Says Gemma Bulos,"Appropriate technologies are key". In addition success in BoP markets is contingent on several factors: First, technology works only if it is possible to source materials locally; second, the system must be easy to maintain and fix; third, the sophistication of the technology isn't nearly as important as public buy in; and fourth, the product must be reasonably priced. If the people don't think it works, they aren't going to use it.

WASH - a holistic view of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: In recent times, there is growing acknowledgement amongst players in the water industry that water management cannot be viewed in isolation. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) are closely linked, and treating them as such helps businesses understand their consumers better.  As Gemma said, "If a mother installs a faucet in her kitchen and doesn't wash her hands while cooking, the technology becomes meaningless. For this reason, consumer education must be used in tandem with system implementation. It is the only way to ensure effective use of new products.

Community buy-in is key to success of BoP water businesses. At The Water Initiative, the team empowers communities to design products and distribution channels. The company brings cost-effective water purification systems to market, focusing mainly on technologies that remove carcinogens such as arsenic, flouride and harmful pathogens. Kevin calls himself a "pro bono" entrepreneur - "An entrepreneur who not just makes money solving pressing global challenges, but also creates jobs in the process". Gemma noted that for the POD model to succeed, political will is extremely important. For this reason, the organization makes the government sign an MOU with the PODs to give PODS complete control of water management.

The developed world may need to look towards the developing world for solutions. Contrary to popular belief - innovations in "Point-of-use" water technologies are coming from developing countries and not from developed countries. Bjorn Euler brought up a great point about water challenges in the developed world; he predicted that disruptive technologies in emerging markets will likely provide next generation technological solutions to developed nations. Many western countries are struggling to revamp crumbling municipal water and sewage systems that were built decades ago. According to Bjorn, "Developed nations are going to have to work much longer" to fix their systems than emerging markets.

Top down or bottom up? Political will, all the panelists agree, is extremely important to get the job done. It isn't necessary an insurmountable obstacle, however. Gemma mentioned how a measured, cooperative, "non-activist" bottom-up approach can actually work to influence the government. When you take time to build capacity, the government takes notice. When there is sufficient push from small grassroots organizations and civic groups, the government tends to cooperate, and actively includes innovation in its mandate. Gemma recounted that in the Philippines, "The government spends more money on WASH now, and has made it a priority." Engaging municipal governments will get political will behind. It really can work both ways - top-down and bottom-up. 

Large scale collaboration is needed. Bjorn pointed out that the lack of capital or technology isn't as much of a problem as an inefficient use of existing resources. There are billions of dollars that go into water each year, but ineffective transfer of knowledge and wasteful use of resources in a highly fragmented global water market make it difficult to exchange new ideas and technologies. He also stressed out the need for collaboration. Single organization breakthroughs are unlikely to radically affect water challenges.

Trust and reputation mean everything at Base of the Pyramid markets. Finding long-term partners on the ground is critical to the success of water businesses. For this reason, a water business must work on building trust within the community even before it begins its operations. Kevin says, "It can be dangerous if even a few members of the community hold a prejudicial view of your business". This is particularly important, given that water ownership is such a sensitive issue. In addition, creating services around the product can give people economic incentives to be involved.

For instance, women undertake product distribution and advertising, and have a clear economic incentive to do so. In terms of branding the product as it hits the market, it's extremely important to involve the local population in the product's messaging. Kevin urges water entrepreneurs to use focal points to help with community engagement. This is time-consuming but absolutely essential. Bjorn adds, "Schools, like churches, can be leveraged as focal points for discussions around water usage and practices."

* * *

What does the future look like?

When asked about their 5-year visions, all the panelists agreed that they wanted to focus their energies on women. Women are vital stakeholders in the scaling process. According to research conducted by ITT, the return on investment for water projects that involve women is nearly 10x higher than those that involve men. Women are more conscious about issues centered on health and family, and tend to be good advocates and partners in WASH initiatives. Given that women tend to multiply consumption behaviors in families and communities, no water business can be successful unless women are involved. From a purely practical standpoint, Gemma added, "The availability of women in the daytime is also a factor that makes them attractive partners for such businesses"

What are the challenges and opportunities of introducing information and communications technology (ICT) in emerging markets?  How has ICT been received?  What works and what does not?  The Net Impact conference featured a panel on "Using Technology to Develop Business in Emerging Markets" which touched on some of the fundamental struggles of development work.   The panelists displayed a level of respect and caution regarding spreading ICT in emerging markets that I appreciated.

Moderated by Glen Dowell, Professor at Cornell University, the panel featured David Ferguson, Director of Global Development Commons at USAID, Grant Thomas, Vice President of Strategic Development at the Digital Opportunity Trust, and Molly Tschang, Managing Director of International Programs at Cisco.  Together, the panel brought in a wide array of development voices from academia, government, non-profit and the private sectors. 

How can ICT help emerging markets? In one example, Internet in the developing world has been found to double the stay of tourists, Ferguson pointed out.   Lots of the developing world is a wonderful place to visit, but if you can't see it online, you won't go, so developing internet abilities will open it up to tourism and business.

International development as a field is incredibly wide, because each region is unique and contextual. An emerging market strategy that's not country specific will fail, Tschang pointed out.  In her work, she focuses on community driven work that has already proven scalable.

The panelists agreed that ICT fails when it's dropped in to emerging markets irreverently, without taking context into account.  And short of the mobile phone, ICT hasn't really taken off in the developing world, Tschang explained. Other technologies can be well intentioned, but unless they are delivered in a thoughtful and relevant manner, they won't be utilized.  Tschang described that they'll find PCs used as doorsteps just years later.  "We think they need what we have," Tschang pointed out. We must engage people, bring them into the conversation, create an equal opportunity partnership, rather than a donor/ beneficiary relationship."

It's best to involve the people living with the problem when you go to solve that problem rather than shove a solution down their throats.   Never set up something that cannot continue without you, Ferguson advised. He also stressed the need to involve government in change - "Government stays in the way of a lot of things." And the status quo has gotten us where we are.  Be sensitive to local government context.

Thomas told a compelling story of a telecenter built in South Africa that initially caused a divide between young and old.  The elders thought they had nothing to do with the technology.  But someone purchased a digital camera and took photos in the community, then brought people in to see their photos on a computer. People began to learn about the skills of those around them that they hadn't known.  With a thoughtful steward, the computer unified the community, rather than divided it.

When partnering in emerging markets, Thomas stressed that everyone has to put in to the partnership.  If it's free for one side, then it has no value to them and it won't be utilized. Also, you need to understand the motivations of all partners - especially in the case of private sector involvement. Tschang noted that it's a sign of respect to place a value on the services provided to developing world, and this shifts the aid dynamic in a positive way from one of handouts to willing partner.

ICT in emerging markets needs to be better understood - investing in ICT will not cause immediate economic growth.  Rather, when shared thoughtfully, ICT is an excellent enabler across many areas of need, including education, health,  and employment. 

"The more we can get people connected [to ICT], the more they will figure out how to use it for their own good," Ferguson noted.

In the past two weeks, Nokia dropped several new hardware and software products that we noted in passing in the Newsroom section - a new line of inexpensive phones, expansion of its Life Tools service from India to Indonesia, and the upcoming rollout of Nokia Money. 

Not only should other multinationals be learning from Nokia's success in emerging markets, I think the development community should be treating its product releases more like the wealthy public treats the release of a new iPhone - with excitement and attention to its details.  Perhaps even sending some interns with sleeping bags to wait outside Nokia distribution outlets. 

I say this because I'm pretty confident that these price drops in handsets alone - an almost 40% reduction from Nokia's least expensive phones two years ago - will reach more people, faster, than any of the innovative approaches profiled elsewhere on NextBillion.net.  For better or worse if I had to choose the single organization driving the most market development at the base of the pyramid globally, it wouldn't be the Gates Foundation or Grameen, it would be Nokia.  While the company is losing out in the smartphone market it's shipping almost half a billion handsets a year, accounting for their 60% market share in India and 45% market share in China.  They intend for Nokia Money to reach 300 million people by 2011.  As a benchmark, the global microfinance industry has something shy of 150 million clients.

Nokia seems to be doing effectively what the Wall Street Journal highlighted this week as the challenge for multinationals hoping to tap emerging markets, "polycentric innovation" - developing the distributed intelligence to innovate based on the characteristics of developing and emerging markets, not taking developed market products and making them cheaper and flimsier for sale in poor countries.  Nokia does the opposite.  Speaking from experience its phones seem relatively indestructible. 

The new "1280" mobile sells for $30 before taxes, and if you live in energy poverty without access to electricity, it's got apps for that: standby battery life of 22 days, an FM radio receiver, and a flashlight.  Also, recognizing that handsets  are frequently shared, it's got capacity for up to five separate address books.

A company paper for the Mobile Money Transfer summit in Dubai a few weeks ago notes that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) per month for a handset is the metric the company uses to examine affordability of its products at the base of the pyramid.  TCO currently averages $11 a month globally; Nokia estimates that with a TCO of $5/month, "the majority of world’s lower income consumers [could] join the world’s cellular-connected community."  If you spread the up-front cost of a Nokia 1280 over the two years it might conservatively last, that's $1.25 a month, with the cost of taxes, airtime, and charging (which account for around 80% of TCO) varying by location and usage.

Life Tools and Nokia Money represent forays into software and services - Life Tools is a subscription SMS-based service that provides information on agricultural markets as well as educational and entertainment info that launched earlier this year in select markets in India.  Its origins were detailed in Forbes a few days ago, while Nokia's master plan to deliver content through its phones was covered in Fast Company a few months ago.

However, for the best creative thinking that they've got to offer and the kind of thing you actually want to be reading on a Friday afternoon or over the weekend, check out the dispatches from their lead anthropo-capitalist, Jan Chipchase, where he documents his team's research on the use and impact of mobile phones in urban slums in India, migrant worker dormitories in China, and open-air markets in Kabul.

Chipchase has an enviable ability to intuit the motivations and proclivities of people living precariously but enthusiastically at the edge of global markets. Many people and organizations try to understand and make interventions in economies in development and transition by going to the places where they are simple, easiest to deconstruct, and perhaps even idiosyncratic.  Chipchase appears to go to where they are most modern, in all the complexity that entails.  Seeing inside the creative process of human-centered design - the origin of things like phones with multiple address books - is really inspiring.

It's a bright, crisp and chilly morning in Ithaca NY, where Cornell University's main campus hosts the 2009 Net Impact Conference. I just took a short stroll across campus and am thrilled to be at this important venue. It's hard to believe a year went by already since the 2008 edition, but it's great to see many familiar faces in the hallways. 

Last year, while blogging from the U Penn campus that hosted the 2008 edition, I alluded to 2,400 reasons to be optimistic... I hear that this year there are more reasons, with close to 2,500 attendees expected. Without a doubt, it's an event that captures a lot of the energy around social enterprise and the possibilities for students and professionals to build a career around this idea. 

The content is somewhat overwhelming, I must say, with more than 20 parallel sessions going on at the same time! The Base of the Pyramid and market based approaches to poverty alleviation will play a prominent role and we'll provide coverage of those sessions. Tomorrow morning, for instance, Stu Hart will take the stage and discuss the potential of clean technologies at the base of the pyramid, with panelists Kevin McGovern.  Also tomorrow, I'll be discussing career opportunities at the base of the pyramid and posing the panelists with all the great questions NextBillion readers have suggested over the past few days. 

For now I'll go and grab a good seat to listen to the opening session with Jeff Immelt and the president of Cornell. If you're around here, shoot me a line or ping me at @fjnoguera on Twitter. If you're not around but interested in following the discussion, follow the hashtag #ni09 on Twitter and stay tuned for our posts later this weekend.