2004-Andean Environmental Sector Market Research

AS HOKA INNOVATORS FOR THE PUBLIC
ASHOKA INNOVATORS FOR THE PUBLIC
ANDEAN ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR
MARKET RESEARCH
DRAFT OF FINAL REPORT
JUNE 2004

RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN BY ANAMARIA ARISTIZABAL
Supervised and edited by Stanley Yung

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report outlines the main results of Ashoka’s Market Research of the environmental sector in the Andean
region. This research project was carried out to inform the next steps of the Environmental Innovations Initiative
(EII), a project of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, within this part of Latin America. Ashoka is a not for profit
organization based in Arlington, Virginia, which supports the work of more than 1,400 social entrepreneurs,
or “Ashoka Fellows” worldwide. EII gathers and disseminates principles and lessons learned from the work of
Ashoka Fellows working in environmental protection.
The Market Research involved 37 participants (Fellows and non-Fellows) from the five Andean countries
(Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador) in a workshop and in personal interviews. Both the workshop
and the interviews focused on the participants’ work, their challenges, their perceptions of the environmental
sector, and their preferences for potential EII products and offerings.
The participants’ work spans a wide range of environmental issues, and covers all sub-sectors (NGO,
government, business, education, media, etc.). The most overwhelming challenge the participants reported
was lack of funding, followed by difficulty scaling up their work, and, to a lesser degree, satisfying personnel
and infrastructure needs.
The main environmental problem identified by the respondents was biodiversity and ecosystem destruction due
to poor environmental management. Next were water issues, including quality and quantity. Many people also
mentioned the negative effects of globalization, both on the environment and on society.
The responses to these environmental problems, according to the respondents, are mainly limited by
ineffective governance. For some, this was due to institutional weakness, for others it was due to lack of
political will. Another important reported limitation was the “average person’s” ignorance of environmental
issues. Also, participants declared that the environmental sector suffers from narrow thinking and fails to
integrate itself with other sectors. In spite of this, great advances have also been achieved, mainly in the areas
of awareness-building and demand for ecological products.
Participants had a positive reaction towards EII. Without exception, they were interested in working with and in
receiving EII’s knowledge products. There was a pronounced preference both for case studies and partnerships and/
or collaborations. Case studies were perceived as a useful tool to disseminate Ashoka Fellow innovations for political,
educational, and funding purposes. Partnerships and collaborations were seen to address sectoral weaknesses by
creating synergies, platforms for networking and joint action, and opportunities for increased impact.
Participants also proposed a range of other EII products and services. These included demonstration projects,
capacity building, support for Ashoka Fellows, and production and exchange of communication materials (i.e.
brochures and videos).
1

INTRODUCTION
What is Ashoka?
Ashoka is a not-for-profit organization that invests in and develops the work of social entrepreneurs globally. A
social entrepreneur is a creative individual who has the vision and determination of a business entrepreneur,
but applies his/her skills to drive systemic changes in the social sector. Founded nearly twenty five years ago,
Ashoka has provided seed capital to over 1,400 leading social entrepreneurs or “Fellows” in 48 countries and
has launched a variety of programs designed to enhance their work and market their strategies.
What is EII?
Since 1980, Ashoka has launched over 300 social entrepreneurs working to improve economic, social, and
environmental outcomes for the communities in which they work. The cluster of environmental Ashoka Fellows
is developing a diverse array of innovative, practical solutions in the environmental sector.
The Environmental Innovations Initiative (EII), a project of Ashoka, identifies and then markets the insights of
Ashoka’s 300-plus social entrepreneurs who are working at the human-environment interface. The project’s
anchor products are principles that articulate key features of the work of Ashoka’s environmental Fellows.
These principles are works-in-progress, but we have articulated test principles in two publications: Social
Entrepreneurs and Sustainable Development: the Ashoka Green Paper for the WSSD (August 2002) and The
Turning Tide (October 2000). Our current activities include:
• Writing case studies that explore principles by examining a specific Fellow’s work.
• Bringing together environmental leaders—including Fellows and non-Fellows—at workshops and
collaborations to discuss our principles and to develop methods of implementing them.
• Managing longer-term demonstration projects that use principles to address important sectoral issues and
challenges. Community Greens, launched in 2000, is one example of an EII demonstration project.
What is the Andean Market Research?
While EII’s focus until now has been global, as we move into the marketing phase, there is a strong need to
customize our offerings at a more local level. To this end we are conducting place-based market research in
key regions to determine level of interest, identify which of our products are most desired, and establish which
environmental issues participants believe EII should focus on.
The first Market Research exercise was conducted in India in the spring of 2003. Qualitative information was
gathered in the form of 15 interviews from Fellows and non-Fellows in the environmental sector throughout the
country. These interviews were later used to create a quantitative questionnaire that was distributed to more
than 300 environmental practitioners. Feedback from that questionnaire was gathered in a report, which was
published in October 2003.
2

The subject of this report is the second Market Research exercise, covering the Andean Region, which is
composed of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Venezuela. The methodology for this exercise was slightly
different than that of the prior Market Research project. Information was gathered from a workshop conducted
in Bogotá, Colombia (February 2004), and from 30 interviews with environmental leaders in the five Andean
countries. From the data gathered, the main trends were analyzed in the topics that make up this report:
participants’ challenges, environmental problems, environmental management problems, opportunities and
innovations, EII desired products, feedback about the principles, and level of interest in participation. Additionally,
this report provides some segmentation analysis using country and Fellow/non-Fellow status as categories.
PARTICIPANTS
The participants of the Andean Market Research exercise are a diverse and impressive group of people.
Among them are the region’s most prominent environmental leaders including 37 Fellow and non-Fellow
participants (29 interviewees and 8 workshop participants), covering the green, brown, and blue agendas,
environmental businesses, and sustainable development, and representing NGOs, business, education/
research, government, funding agencies, and media. For a more detailed review of the participants, and their
areas of work, please see the attached appendix. This appendix may also be used to identify participants and
their citation codes. Cited participants have been coded with the letter of their respective country (P-Peru, C-
Colombia, E-Ecuador, B-Bolivia, V-Venezuela).
The Participants’ Challenges
One of the first questions we asked our participants was about their personal challenges in carrying out their
work. A significant number replied that funding their initiatives was their top challenge. One Participant claimed
that there is little funding for advocacy activities, and that she must carry them out with personal funds (P6).
Another was concerned with the economic sustainability of programs they create. Several expressed the need
to develop income generation through selling services. In Ecuador, a Fellow (E2) mentioned how, with the
“dollarization” of the economy, expenses have risen, making the social enterprise more difficult to manage.
Other important challenges included scaling up work, promoting it more widely, networking, and collaborating
within the sector and across the sectors. Less important but notable were personnel and infrastructure issues,
mainly related to maintaining high quality teams (P1), restraining institutional growth in order to keep close
touch with beneficiaries (P4, P12), and securing proper equipment for operations (V1, B1).
ANDEAN FACTS
2
There are several pieces of information regarding the Andes that deserve mention before plunging into an
analysis of the environmental sector. First of all, the Andean region (composed as mentioned by Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Venezuela) has a population of 117 million people, of which 75% are urban
dwellers. The region’s economies are profoundly marked by globalization, and since the 1990s, the region has
witnessed a resurgence of economic growth, bringing GNP to US$244 billion in 2003 (from 28 billion in 1970)
which represents a nine fold increase. In spite of this, the region remains troubled by poverty and inequality. It
is estimated that 44% of the Andean population lives under the poverty line, mostly in rural areas. Inequality
2 GEO Andino 2003, Andean Community, UNEP, and Universidad del Pacifico’s Research Center, Peru, 2003. 3

in the Andean region is among the highest in the world. Among the five Andean countries, Bolivia is the most
affected by both poverty and inequality.
Natural resources play a prominent role in Andean economies. It is estimated that 20% of the Andean GNP
comes from natural resources. Colombia is mainly dependent on mining and agriculture; Peru and Ecuador
on oil products, fishing, and agriculture; Venezuela is a big exporter of oil and natural gas; and Bolivia is
dependent on agriculture, minerals, and hydrocarbons.
As we will see in the next section, the Andean countries have much in common in the environmental sector.
However, there are some distinguishing factors for each country that deserve mention.
Colombia, the most populous country of the five, has an extremely complex geography that on the one hand
makes it the most biodiverse country of the Andean community. On the other hand, however, the landscape
makes it more difficult for the government to be present and to control the spread of drug trafficking and armed
conflict. The Colombian Environmental National System (“SINA”
3
), the most sophisticated in the region, tries
to compensate for this circumstance with bodies and instruments that are decentralized, autonomous, and
participatory—but institutional weakness prevails.
Even if Ecuador is not the most biodiverse of all, it is by far the country that most uses its biodiversity for commercial
purposes.
4
Ecuador is also the country whose GNP has the highest rate of growth, although this has some significant
cost for the population, specifically in terms of the dollarization of the economy, as one participant mentioned.
Peru also exploits its biodiversity with a booming industry in plant products and forestry. Another related
notable fact is that Peru is the country that has most developed organic agriculture in the Andes. Peru has a
different institutional structure than the other Andean countries. Instead of an Environment Ministry, it has
an Environmental Council (CONAM) based on the Chilean model. This model aims to integrate environmental
thinking into other ministries—a difficult and challenging goal.
In 1974, Venezuela was the first country to create an Environment Ministry. Venezuela is by far the country
with most protected areas in the region: 61% of its territory is under some kind of protection.
5
Paradoxically,
Venezuela has fewer institutions and non-governmental organizations working on environmental issues,
and it has the least number of environmental Ashoka Fellows. Additionally, given the heavy dependence of
Venezuela’s economy on oil, it is the region’s biggest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Bolivia has the most ambitious institutional structure, with respect to sustainable development.
6
Its Ministry of
Sustainable Development aims to integrate environmental concerns and development goals, something that
has proved extremely difficult. This is due partly to poverty and land degradation. Corruption also plays a major
role. However, Bolivia’s environmental sector is well coordinated with social movements, which has given rise to
numerous effective social change efforts.
3 SINA stands for “Sistema Nacional Ambiental” (National Environmental System)
4 GEO Andino 2003, Andean Community, UNEP, and Universidad del Pacifico’s Research Center, Peru, 2003.
5 Taken from www.Tierramerica.net. This percentage varies, other sources say it’s 46%.
6 “Environmental Management in Latin American and the Caribbean: Evolution, Trends, and Main Practices”, Manuel Rodriguez- Becerra,
et all, IADB, 2002. 4

ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR
Environmental Problems
In 2003, the Andean Community, an economic integration body composed of the five countries, carried out a
comprehensive analysis of the environmental sector in the Andean Region called “GEO Andino 2003
7
”. This
report outlines the region’s most severe environmental problems to date.
8
According to the report, the most alarming problem facing the Andean environment is the practice of
unsustainable resource extraction, which is widespread. This situation has adverse effects on soil (soil
degradation, erosion, and in some areas desertification), on water (pollution and depletion of groundwater
sources, and ultimately water scarcity), on forests (deforestation and loss of biodiversity), and on the oceans
(degradation of ecosystems and depletion of fish population due to over fishing).
Water is one of the main issues of concern in the Andean Region. Although there are great advances in urban
water supply (around 80% of coverage in the region), rural areas in some countries reach coverage as low as
37% (Bolivia) or 39% (Ecuador). Institutions and government departments charged with water management are
usually weak, and their policies not always congruent with the population’s wants and needs.
Forests and biodiversity are another crucial part of the Andean environment. Andean forests cover more than
230 million hectares, representing 6.5% of world forests and 35% of all Latin American forests. The Andean
region hosts 50% of the Amazon forest, and other biodiversity hot spots
9
such as the northern Andean
mountain forests (the most biodiverse region on earth) and the Chocó-Darién-Western Ecuador hot spot. This
partly explains the fact that the Andean region accounts for 25% of the world’s biodiversity. Unfortunately,
this biodiversity is severely threatened by deforestation, caused mainly by unsustainable agriculture and
commercial logging.
Many environmental problems are due to unplanned urban growth. Population growth in Andean countries (mainly in
cities) as well as poor urban environmental management has resulted in notably low quality of life in Andean cities,
especially for the poor. Air and water pollution and waste related problems are among the major flashpoints.
Mountains are also under threat in the Andean region. Unsustainable practices (primarily in agriculture and
mining) are depleting mountain biodiversity. Poverty is prevalent in rural areas in the region, causing additional
degradation of mountain resources, including water.
The final environmental problem highlighted by the GEO report is vulnerability to natural disasters, including
earthquakes, landslides, and climactic changes, which cause many deaths and economic damages, and to
which institutional responses are insufficient.
Most of the trends pointed out by the GEO report were confirmed by the interviewees. However, emphasis
7 GEO stands for “Global Environmental Outlook”. The GEO initiative is promoted by UNEP, and has resulted in a number of reports: a
global GEO, a series of country GEOs, youth GEOs, and, recently, city GEOs are on their way.
8 GEO Andino 2003, Andean Community, UNEP, and Universidad del Pacifico’s Research Center, Peru, 2003.
9 “Wild World” map of the world’s ecoregions, National Geographic Society, WWF, 2000. 5

was given to three main problems. The first is biodiversity and habitat destruction due to poor environmental
management. Several participants in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia mentioned deforestation, and degradation of
habitats (mainly the Amazon) due to big infrastructure projects (including oil and logging projects). Others in
Peru and Ecuador mentioned ocean degradation and mangrove destruction (P1, E1, E2). In Colombia, several
participants in interviews and at the workshop mentioned the destruction of the páramos ecosystem, which is
of crucial importance for water supply. At the time of the study, there was great media attention in Peru about a
gas project called Camisea, which threatens the Peruvian jungles.
The second problem is related to water and pollution. Respondents indicated that water is inappropriately
managed (P3, E2), and that an imbalance between supply and demand exists. Furthermore, there is not
much demand-side management as supply receives disproportionate focus (P1). On the pollution front, water
is the most affected (rivers and groundwater), as well as air, both primarily in urban areas (C1, C3, B2). An
increasingly acute problem with oil and pesticide pollution in rural areas (B2) was also noted.
The third problem relates to globalization. A surprising number of participants in all countries mentioned
the possibly adverse effects that globalization and “huge market forces” (B1) can have on the environment:
alteration of local production systems/economies, loss of traditional knowledge (P4), economic development
needs over environmental considerations (P9), and global warming (C5, C3). At the Colombian workshop and in
Peru, many expressed concern about the current bilateral negotiations with the USA, fearing that they could put
Andean countries at a disadvantage regarding the environment. Similar comments were made regarding the
WTO and FTAA. A Colombian participant (C6) emphasized the need to develop a strong tropical identity and to
join forces among tropical nations to confront these and other issues.
Other less prominent responses included unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, population
issues, and land use planning.
Environmental Management Trends
Manuel Rodriguez, first Environment Minister of Colombia and an authority on environmental issues
10
, as well
as one of our participants, organized a forum in November 2003 to discuss the current state of Latin American
environmental management and policy
11
. As the keynote speaker
12
, he outlined the major trends within the
environmental sector.
Rodriguez states that the most significant event in the history of regional environmental issues was the 1992
Rio Conference on Environment and Development. This event marked the start of a trend toward sustainable
development. This was reflected by a wave of institutional creation: environment/sustainable development
ministries were created in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, and an environment council in Peru,
as well as other mainstreaming bodies (i.e. Colombia and Venezuela’s National Environmental Councils).
Environmental issues were elevated to a level of constitutional importance. Major environmental laws were
enacted, international treaties (the Convention on Biological Diversity for instance) were signed, public
10 Author of “Environmental Management in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evolution, trends, and main practices”, Manuel Rodriguez-
Becerra, Guillermo Espinoza, IADB, 2002.
11 This forum was attended by the most prominent environmental leaders of the region: Yolanda Kakabadse, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Arnoldo
José Gabaldón, etc.
12 From Manuel Rodriguez’s talk “Environmental Management in Latin America: Evolution, Perspectivas”, November 11, 2003. 6

consciousness of environmental stresses has grown, and NGOs and Green Businesses have proliferated.
In spite of this, environmental degradation has continued and is growing. This is partly due to a fallback
of political will around environmental issues. In Colombia, this is clearly reflected in the joining together
of the environment and development ministries, along with budget and personnel cuts in all government
environmental bodies. Colombia’s case is not isolated. Most Andean countries are more concerned with
economic development in the face of global trade. For this reason, there is a generalized perception that
environmental/sustainability principles create undesirable trade barriers and restrictions. Institutional
weakness and lack of public sector / private sector coordination, unsustainable patterns of production and
consumption, and poverty play equally important roles in the challenging environmental panorama.
13
Returning to the interview and workshop participants, by far the most pressing reported environmental
management problem in the region was ineffective governance. Participants’ feedback was split. On one side,
some think ineffective governance is due to lack of capacity at all levels: defining appropriate laws and policies,
missing enforcement and accountability structures (P1, P4). “Weak” was the key word here, and was used to
define municipal governments (P11), urban environmental management (V3), mainstreaming of environmental
considerations to other sectors (P10, P11, P12, C5), and international negotiation skills (P11). On top of this,
there is a perceived lack of continuity, and short sightedness of government actions (E3).
The second interpretation relates to conflicts of interests and deliberate lack of political will on environmental
issues. The reasons are varied. Some say that governments and international institutions are focused on
economic growth, leaving little money and few resources for the environment (C2, P9). Others say that as
the environment is of lower priority, its institutions are weak relative to the other sectors (E3, C5), allowing
private sector interests to rule (E1). Conflicts of interest are also present. In Peru each sector regulates its own
resources (i.e. Fishing, Forestry) (P1), and in Bolivia many Environment Ministers are also owners of logging
companies.
There are other environmental management problems that deserve mention. Lack of awareness was pointed
out by a number of participants. Some cited poor participation of communities in environmental management,
and the apolitical nature of the people (P5, B2, C5). Others referred to the lack of values, both regarding nature
and traditional knowledge (P5, P3, C1). One Participant (E3) argued that the environment needs to be seen as
an economic topic in order for it to be valued.
Another less prominent problem was the narrow thinking of the environmental sector. This includes limited
thinking and acting across sectors and disciplines (C6), lack of environmental dimension in social projects, in
curricula, and in local government programs (V1), lack of innovation in the environmental sector (V2), and the
perception that environmental considerations invariably lay a huge cost on individuals and businesses (C8).
On a brighter note, there were many innovations and positive developments highlighted by the Participants.
Paradoxically, increased awareness and participation was one of them. We can interpret this apparent
contradiction as an increase of awareness and participation of a limited sector of the population versus the
13 GEO Andino 2003, Andean Community, UNEP, and Universidad del Pacifico’s Research Center, Peru, 2003. 7

mainstream. This sub-sector of society is driving environmental gatherings, campaigns, projects, community
and indigenous management of natural resources, and environmental information. There is also a more robust
environmental education element that has permeated into schools and universities, awakening the interest of
many students.
Another positive trend is the demand for ecological products and services. In all Andean countries, ecotourism
is a booming industry (E2, E3), and its biodiversity and forests are seen as a big asset (E3, B1, P11).
There is a proliferation of green businesses, ranging from sustainable enterprises in private reserves (C1),
biotrade initiatives, forest certification (B1), wind and other renewable energies, aquaculture, recycling, and
commercialization of forest fruits and other biodiversity products (P9). Some concrete initiatives include the
Waste Stock Exchange, the Clean Technology Center, and the National Council of Organic Producers. One of
the participants, Antonio Brack, has a TV program in Peru exclusively dedicated to the promotion and support
of community green businesses. Furthermore, at the time of the interviews, the first New Ventures Biodiversity
Investor Forum for the Andean-Amazonian Region was being organized in Lima, sponsored by a dozen
organizations in the region dedicated to green businesses and biotrade initiatives.
Improvements in Governance, new and better NGOs, institutions, and services, and the promotion of alternative
technologies were also mentioned. A less prominent but notable innovation is the confluence of spiritual and
environmental ideals, as in the “Pastoral Social”, a grassroots Catholic environmental movement (C1, C2).
ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS INITIATIVE
Desired Products
After a brief description of Ashoka and EII, participants were asked to comment on their most desired EII
products/services. There was a favorable response towards EII. Most if not all participants manifested a high
degree of interest and enthusiasm for EII. As for EII’s products, there is a pronounced preference for case
studies, and partnerships/collaborations.
Fellows saw case studies as ways to disseminate their work (P5, C6), and present their work to funders (P5).
Most of them volunteered to be the subjects of case studies. For non-Fellows, case studies were seen as useful
for both policy/advocacy purposes: translating policies into concrete actions for policy makers (P11), having a
positive impact on government (P1), promoting projects with a world vision of sustainability (C5). Non-Fellows
also saw important information dissemination purposes: highlighting innovations and roads to success (B1,
P12), using success stories for academic purposes (V3, P10), and exchanging information (V3).
Respondents also mentioned that case studies and other information produced by EII should be widely
distributed. Beyond the environmental sector it should reach out to civil society in general, including the private
sector and academia (E3, C6). Special focus should be given to areas outside of capital cities, where more
information is needed (P10). For this purpose, EII should develop creative dissemination tools, and use a wide
range of media, including television, radio, and print (B1, E2). One participant (B1) said that EII should become
a think tank for innovations.
8

The need for partnerships and collaborations was most enthusiastically expressed by the Fellows. They saw
collaborations as an opportunity to find synergies between their work and solidarity among NGOs (C3), to
formulate a common vision, disseminate it, and align their work around it (C5, C6, C7, P7), and to create a
regional network for information exchange (E2, B2, P6). Other Fellows were concerned about collaborations,
expressing the difficulty of making them effective (P2). In any case, they saw benefits as long a clear agenda
exists. A number of Fellows stressed the importance of having Fellow meetings being conducted in Fellow
work sites, and many underlined the need to meet face-to-face. Others talked about the need to create a
solidarity structure in case a Fellow is in need (C1), which could be a type of challenge pot (P2). One Fellow said
collaborations should focus on building bridges to government, which is most in need of support (P1). A Fellow
mentioned the need for partnering with experienced environmentalists, who could become mentors to Fellows.
Furthermore, two people suggested that EII coordinate itself with already-existing initiatives and networks (i.e.
The Environmental Forum in Colombia, Millennium Development Goals, Regional Biodiversity Initiative) in order
to have a greater impact (C10, C13, P11).
Many saw EII as a platform for networking and exchanges. These networks could lead to campaigns on
different issues (B1, B3), funding opportunities, participation in big events like the WSSD, public-private
partnerships, links to international networks (C2), and, most importantly, to spaces of dialogue, participation,
and mutual support, in which both Fellows and non Fellows can be heard (C1, E3). Along these lines, a
participant (B1) argued that EII should mainly invest in communication between people, declaring that
“communication is key.”
At the workshop in Colombia, the participants favored the demonstration projects. “EII won’t have any impact,
unless it concentrates its efforts in a specific project,” said one workshop participant (C15). The methodology
of the workshop led the participants to formulate three hypothetical projects:
1. Contribute to decontamination and restoration of the Bogotá River through actions at micro and macro-
levels, integrating economic, social and environmental dimensions.
2. Foster regeneration, conservation and adequate use of the Andean páramos (Venezuela, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia). Focus efforts, projects, and studies related to the páramos to achieve their
conservation, regeneration, and appropriate use.
3. Identify and enhance agro-ecological chains and green markets to create an alternative production
network, looking to protect food security.
Other proposed demonstration projects from the interviews include an organic farm/experiential education
center (P3), investing in a fine-wood forestry initiative that could yield badly needed economic profit for Fellows
(E2), and investing in an ecotourism project managed by native people on a Venezuelan island (V1).
Although participants preferred Case Studies, Partnerships/Collaborations and, to some degree, Demonstration
Projects, other products were valued as well. A number of participants favored capacity building. Many suggested
that EII become a clearinghouse for capacity building programs taught by Fellows (B1). Topics could include
9

environmental management, community stewardship over natural resources (C9, C10, C11, V1), community
sustainable entrepreneurial efforts (P8), and environmental conflict management (E3).
Another group of participants (both Fellows and non-Fellows) thought EII should focus on supporting Fellows.
The focus of this support would range from helping them find funding and become more economically
sustainable (C2, P5, V2), to coaching them to upscale their projects and to clarify their goals and strategies
(V2), to assisting them in finding synergies with others and achieving greater impact and visibility (E3). A few
Fellows mentioned the need to be trained in management, accounting, and communication skills, and thought
EII could assume this task.
A number of participants thought EII could coordinate production and exchange of communications materials
(P4, P5, E1). Many favored the use of video and multimedia, as it could provide a great impact in a minimal
amount of time. One Fellow (E1) who produces an environmental TV program, showed an interest in creating a
video co-production between EII and her organization.
In terms of the EII principles, feedback was vague. On the positive side, principles were said to foster
understanding of Fellows’ work, and build bridges with and among Fellows. On the negative side, some
Participants, notably those of the workshop, thought the Principles were not very useful, and at best should be
called something else (“tools” or “instruments” for instance) and should be further developed by the Fellows.
Segmentation Analysis
Because our sample of participants was small, our segmentation efforts are not ambitious, and limited to
Fellow/non-Fellow differentiation. Our data suggests that there are no Fellows working on globalization issues
at the moment. However, they compose the entire body of people working on population issues. We could
hypothesize what an Indian Fellow
14
noted in the Indian Market Research: Fellows need to strengthen their
local/global linkages, that is, their ability to connect the grassroots work they do with global trends. Conversely,
government, business, and others working at the macro level should be more in touch with population issues
and the grassroots.
When it comes to positive developments and innovations in the environmental sector, not a single Fellow
mentioned improvement in governance. This may be due to the fact that Fellows tend to be more critical of
government than are people in other sectors. This is not true for all Fellows, since more than one works in
partnership with government, or has been part of government in the past. However, as noted by Anna Zucchetti
(P1), there is a mutual mistrust between NGOs and government that needs to be bridged through workshops
and collaborations.
Finally, in terms of EII products, Fellows have, as previously mentioned, an overwhelming preference for
collaborations and little interest for case studies (unless it means being the subject of one). In the words of one
Ashoka Fellow “I would rather do things than talk about them. Many people are just concerned with theory and
writing. I like the action.” (C4)
14 Sudhirendar Sharma, Indian Fellow, Indian Market Research, April, 2003.
10

CONCLUSION
Thanks to the rich feedback of our 37 participants, EII’s Andean Market Research has gained an excellent
perspective on environmental challenges throughout the region. EII will use these insights to develop a plan
for how to customize its products and services for these ﬁve countries. Speciﬁcally, we intend to develop a
plan around suggested issue areas including biodiversity protection, natural resource management, and water;
suggested sectoral challenges including improving the interface between NGOs and government, partnerships
within the NGO sector, and the scaling up of NGOs and environmental businesses; and suggested products
including case studies and partnerships addressing the above issues and sector challenges. While personnel
changes have forced EII to move more slowly than anticipated, we will re-engage survey participants when a
proposed entry plan is prepared.
For more information, please contact:
Anamaria Aristizabal
anamaria@aristizabal.net
David Strelneck
dstrelneck@ashoka.org
11

APPENDIX 1
Table of Andean Environmental Market Research Participants
COUNTRY AND PERSON
Colombia
Mario Mejia
Diana Pombo
Silvio Ruiz
Libardo Ariza
Gustavo Wilches
Santiago Madrinan
Jaime Ortiz
German Camargo
Margarita Marino
German Velez
Leonardo Navarro
Jorge Ivan Giraldo
Maria del Pilar Barrera
Luis Fernando Vasquez
Manuel Rodriguez
Juanita Castano
Venezuela
Gerarda Fraga Suescúm
Claudia Martinez
Arnoldo Gabaldon
Bolivia
Jose Blanes
Juan Carlos Antezana
Oscar Olivera
Ecuador
Maria Elena Ordonez
Oswaldo Granda
Yolanda Kakabadse
Peru
Anna Zucchetti
Albina Ruiz
Mario Tapia
Pedro Garcia
Joaquin Leguia
Liliana Miranda
Maria Elena Foronda
Antonio Brack
Humberto Cabrera
Rosario Gomez
Lupe Guinand
Manuel Pulgar-Vidal
CODE
(Fellows in Red)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
V1
V2
V3
B1
B2
B3
E1
E2
E3
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
SECTOR
Silver Agenda
Green Agenda
Brown Agenda
Population Issues
Population Issues
Silver Agenda
Green Agenda
Green Agenda
Silver Agenda
Green Agenda
Green Agenda
Green Agenda
Green Agenda
Blue Agenda
Green Agenda
Green Agenda
Population Issues
Silver Agenda
Green Agenda
Population Issues
Green Agenda
Blue Agenda
Green Agenda
Green Agenda
Population Issues
Green Agenda
Brown Agenda
Silver Agenda
Population Issues
Green Agenda
Brown Agenda
Brown Agenda
Green Agenda
Green Agenda
Population Issues
Green Agenda
Population Issues
ACTIVITY
Capacity Building/Education
Policy/Law Advocacy
Environmental Businesses
Environmental Technologies
Policy/Law Advocacy
Policy/Law Advocacy
Policy/Law Advocacy
Media
Media
Policy/Law Advocacy
Policy/Law Advocacy
Policy/Law Advocacy
Policy/Law Advocacy
Policy/Law Advocacy
SECTOR KEY
Green Agenda: Biodiversity, Ecosystem Protection, Wildlife, Forests
Blue Agenda: Water
Silver Agenda: Environmental Business, Energy, Agriculture,
Population issues: Overpopulation, Health, Conﬂict management, Community management of natural resources
12

2004-Andean Environmental Sector Market Research

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2004-Andean Environmental Sector Market Research

Similar to 2004-Andean Environmental Sector Market Research (20)

More from Anamaria Aristizabal

More from Anamaria Aristizabal (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2004-Andean Environmental Sector Market Research