• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Galapagos report 2011-2012

Galapagos report 2011-2012



The Governing Council of Galapagos, the Galapagos National Park ...

The Governing Council of Galapagos, the Galapagos National Park
Directorate and the Charles Darwin Foundation are pleased to present
the 2011-2012 Galapagos Report - a compendium of scientific and social
analyses and observations designed to stimulate cogent, thoughtful
discussion and public policy that will help to protect Galapagos
ecosystems and its biodiversity and promote human well-being (“Buen
Vivir”) in the archipelago.
The articles presented in this edition of the Galapagos Report reflect
a range of disciplines and opinions within the general areas of human
systems, tourism, marine management, and biodiversity and ecosystem
restoration. In addition, two articles present the framework for
establishing a knowledge management initiative and a citizen science
program for Galapagos. We are pleased to include articles by authors
based in Galapagos as well as colleagues from around the globe, all of
whom have shared valuable ideas and information on critical and timely
It is the intent of the Galapagos Report to inform and stimulate discussion,
as well as catalyze critical research, and effective public action and
management policy. We are grateful to the wide range of collaborators
who have shared their vision for Galapagos and whose work is so critical
to the health and future of the archipelago. Our three institutions remain
committed to working in coordination with all Galapagos stakeholders
to ensure the long-term sustainability of this natural treasure, symbol of
Ecuador’s natural patrimony.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Galapagos report 2011-2012 Galapagos report 2011-2012 Document Transcript

    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Prepared by Funded by General Coordination Linda J. Cayot, Galapagos Conservancy Galapagos Coordinator Desirée Cruz Editing Linda J. Cayot Desirée Cruz Richard Knab, Galapagos Conservancy Translation Spanish to English: Linda J. Cayot English to Spanish: Desirée Cruz Figures and Graphic Design Maria Fabiola Alvarez Photographs Front cover: Michael Perlmutter Back cover: Patricia Jaramillo Impresión Imprenta Monsalve Moreno ISBN: 978-9942-944-01-6 How to cite this document GNPS, GCREG, CDF, and GC. 2013. Galapagos Report 2011-2012. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. How to cite an article Author(s). 2013. Article title. Pp. xx-xx. In: Galapagos Report 2011-2012. GNPS, GCREG, CDF and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Sources must be cited in all cases. Sections of the publication may be translated and reproduced without permission as long as the source is cited. The authors of each article are responsible for the contents and opinions expressed. The Galapagos National Park Service has its headquarters in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos and is the Ecuadorian governmental institution responsible for the administration and management of the protected areas of Galapagos. The Governing Council of Galapagos has its headquarters in Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, San Cristóbal Island, and is the Ecuadorian governmental institution responsible for planning and the administration of the province. The Charles Darwin Foundation, an international non-profit organization registered in Belgium, operates the Charles Darwin Research Station in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos. Galapagos Conservancy, based in Fairfax, Virginia USA, is the only US non-profit organization focused exclusively on the long-term protection of the Galapagos Archipelago. 4
    • FOREWORD The Governing Council of Galapagos, the Galapagos National Park Directorate and the Charles Darwin Foundation are pleased to present the 2011-2012 Galapagos Report - a compendium of scientific and social analyses and observations designed to stimulate cogent, thoughtful discussion and public policy that will help to protect Galapagos ecosystems and its biodiversity and promote human well-being (“Buen Vivir”) in the archipelago. The articles presented in this edition of the Galapagos Report reflect a range of disciplines and opinions within the general areas of human systems, tourism, marine management, and biodiversity and ecosystem restoration. In addition, two articles present the framework for establishing a knowledge management initiative and a citizen science program for Galapagos. We are pleased to include articles by authors based in Galapagos as well as colleagues from around the globe, all of whom have shared valuable ideas and information on critical and timely issues. It is the intent of the Galapagos Report to inform and stimulate discussion, as well as catalyze critical research, and effective public action and management policy. We are grateful to the wide range of collaborators who have shared their vision for Galapagos and whose work is so critical to the health and future of the archipelago. Our three institutions remain committed to working in coordination with all Galapagos stakeholders to ensure the long-term sustainability of this natural treasure, symbol of Ecuador’s natural patrimony. Edwin Naula Director of the Galapagos National Park Jorge Torres President Governing Council of Galapagos Swen Lorenz Executive Director of the Charles Darwin Foundation 5
    • Photo title page Introduction: © Josselin Guyot-Téphany Photo page 10: © Juan Carlos Garcia / WWF Galapagos Program
    • The great challenge of Galapagos today and in the future: Human welfare dependent on the conservation of its ecosystems and biodiversity Washington Tapia1 and Juan Carlos Guzmán2 Galapagos National Park Service, 2Governing Council of Galapagos 1 The difficulty of understanding that maintaining ecosystems and their biodiversity over time is the foundation of our survival as a species has been at the core of an ongoing conflict that pits “conservation” against “development.” This struggle has come to dominate economic, political and environmental discourse. However, in Ecuador and in Galapagos in particular, the Constitution establishes the legal and conceptual framework to contextualize this paradigm. Given the changing environmental conditions resulting from global climate change and the relentless pressure on natural ecosystems, there is an urgent need for humans to coexist in balance with nature. This philosophy, referred to as “buen vivir” or “living well” is expressed in Article 258 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, which states that there will be a special legal framework in Galapagos and that “planning and development will adhere strictly to the principles of conservation of Ecuador’s natural patrimony and buen vivir.” This clearly demonstrates recognition and understanding that Galapagos ecosystems, which encompass all human activities in the islands, determine the limits that must be respected and the opportunities that can be taken advantage of. The vision of buen vivir provided by the Ecuadorian Constitution must be supported by management tools that help translate the Special Law into planning and public policy that will build a sustainable, just and equitable society—one where the population lives in harmony with nature and becomes a model for the world. The road to sustainability in Galapagos must be built collectively, reflecting both the individual perspective and the common good, both today and in the future. The first step is to recognize and accept that Galapagos is not only unique, but also a place where everything is interconnected. While it is divided into different administrative units, the interconnections among them 11
    • are undeniable. These interconnections include both the natural world (flow of matter and energy) but also human society (flow of people, materials, information, etc.). Moreover, the biophysical, economic and sociocultural flows operate at different scales of space and time, requiring an understanding of the connections and relationships between each island and the archipelago, each canton and the province, Galapagos and the Republic of Ecuador, and Ecuador and the planet. Therefore, when making decisions we must not only optimize the use of economic and financial resources but also, and more importantly, ensure that our actions are based on two fundamental and absolutely complementary criteria: 1) the carrying capacity of ecosystems, which establishes the foundation for the development of the local society, and 2) the creation of the conditions needed to achieve human wellbeing today and in the future. Galapagos is currently experiencing an accelerated loss of its isolation, or what some authors call an increase in its “geographical opening.” This makes the province and its ecosystems very vulnerable to any natural or anthropogenic disruptions. In this sense, it is clear that the province urgently needs a unique and integrated land use plan that ensures the longterm sustainability of its socioecological system. Land use planning is an important issue in the archipelago, and it is central to the process of change currently occurring in Ecuador. Planning and methodology documents are no longer merely interesting creations to be archived in institutional libraries; rather they are becoming effective tools that guide institutional planning and management based on clearly established national goals and objectives. To ensure a better present and future for Galapagos, land use planning must help us to implement the special regimen for Galapagos established in the Constitution, through integrated and preventive management that anticipates external factors to which we are and will be exposed, and that also promotes buen vivir in perhaps one of the last natural paradises on earth. It is important to link socioeconomic activities to the conservation of ecosystems and their ability to generate environmental services. Land use planning in Galapagos should: 1) respect the ecological integrity and resilience of insular and marine ecosystems, understanding that they are the natural foundation of the archipelago, and 2) understand the potential of the archipelago from the 12 perspective of the needs and activities of humans within a sustainable system. Efforts must be made to establish a well-organized and structured land use model for the region, and to develop public policy guidelines to ensure that programs and projects are developed consensually and are aligned with common territorial objectives. These efforts should result in zoning and land use that move beyond the mindset of protected areas versus populated areas. A single zoning system is needed that rationally assigns uses and activities, delimits the protected areas, and establishes criteria for the location and establishment of infrastructure, in such a way that will: • Promote the rational use of ecosystem services, respecting their integrity and ecological resilience; • Contribute to social welfare and economic development in a balanced and sustainable way throughout the province, and • Define the areas designated for protection and for human settlements in a coherent and integrated manner. In order to align the mandate of the Constitution with the local population’s need to live in a healthy environment with equal opportunity (the essence of sustainability), it is important to establish cooperative relationships among stakeholders of the urban and agricultural areas, and between those areas and the natural system of Galapagos. The conservation of Galapagos is the fundamental prerequisite to achieve sustainability of the province. Human wellbeing must be seen as the ultimate goal with the economy the means to achieving that goal, not the goal itself. This edition of the Galapagos Report, like previous editions, is intended to be more than just a publication. It is meant to be a useful tool for citizens and decision-makers alike. It includes a range of articles that address many of the changes that are needed to ensure the conservation of the natural resource base of Galapagos and the welfare of the local population. The report is organized into five sections: 1. New approaches. Effective knowledge management, including access to and use of information, is vital for informed and responsible decision-making. The first section of the report
    • Photograph: © 2008 Edinson Cárdenas S. deals with the development of new approaches for the generation and management of knowledge. 2. Human systems. The second section focuses on human systems, providing information about critical issues such as population and migration, and the establishment of systems and regulations for water use and human mobility. Tackling these issues is essential if we want Galapagos to move towards sustainability. 3. Tourism. As tourism is the main indirect driver of change in the socioecological system of Galapagos, the third section speaks to the urgent need to transition to a true ecotourism model in the archipelago. 5. Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration. The final section of the report includes topics related more directly to the natural world, such as the control and eradication of invasive species, as well as the restoration of threatened ecosystems and species. We hope that a more informed society will come to understand and accept that nature does not need humans, but that we humans depend on the capacity of ecosystems to generate environmental services (benefits). In the case of Galapagos, we still have time to shape the path of development within the limits of the archipelago’s natural ecosystems. If we do not succeed, future generations will inherit the need to find another place to live. 4. Marine management. In addition to tourism, marine fisheries represent an important economic activity for Galapagos. But these activities pose potential threats to coastal marine ecosystems. Applied science focused on generating information for the effective management of these areas must be considered a top priority. 13
    • Photo title page New Approaches: © Richard Renn
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 A knowledge management plan for the Galapagos: An imminent need Juan Carlos Guzmán1, Linda J. Cayot2, Johannah Barry2 and James P. Gibbs3 Governing Council of Galapagos, 2Galapagos Conservancy, 3SUNY-ESF 1 Photograph: Theresa Baldwin There is a very real need for improved development of, access to, and use of knowledge about the Galapagos Islands. Although Galapagos is one of the most studied places in the world, timely access to even basic information about the archipelago is often difficult. Effective knowledge management underpins effective natural resource management, decision-making, and policy development in support of biodiversity conservation and a sustainable society. Current challenges include lack of standardized archiving and cataloging of existing information, inadequate technology infrastructure, poor data integration (especially between natural and social sciences), lack of access to data/ information, and a general disconnect between data/information generators and data/information users. The primary goal of the Knowledge Management Initiative for Galapagos is to foster a culture that incorporates both knowledge and wisdom as a critical component of decision-making and policy development at all levels of governance and ensures broad engagement and participation of all stakeholders. Developing and facilitating knowledge management for Galapagos will be a collaborative process to ensure engagement of all stakeholders. The Initiative will benefit many constituencies: the Ecuadorian government, managers and political appointees, researchers, Galapagos residents, tourists who visit the Islands, and people around the globe interested in Galapagos even if unable to visit. Engagement and participation by all sectors of the community should produce better informed choices, social capital, and a shared vision for the future of Galapagos. The workshop The strategies and general outline for the Knowledge Management Plan were developed at an international workshop, Strategic Administration and Management of Knowledge for Galapagos, held in Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, 30 September to 3 October 2011. The workshop was convened by the Governing Council of Galapagos (CGREG), and included key governmental and non-governmental stakeholders as well as experts in knowledge management systems. Prior to the workshop, a series of interviews were completed with various stakeholders, both in Galapagos and continental Ecuador as well as internationally, to gain a broad sense of the concerns and needs that users and producers of information felt most important when considering knowledge management for Galapagos. 17
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Knowledge management for Galapagos Many organizations working in Galapagos are undertaking projects at the data/information level of knowledge management, digitizing historical information, facilitating access to data, and integrating information related to Galapagos’ human population. The potential benefits of integrating and sharing knowledge among Galapagos institutions and researchers are becoming increasingly apparent. Additionally, rapidly evolving data capture and dissemination technologies make establishing a highly functional knowledge management system far more feasible than even a few years ago. The challenge is to facilitate movement upward on the so-called Knowledge Management Pyramid – from the level of raw data to intellectual capital and wisdom – in a manner that incorporates everyone in Galapagos, from observers to users of knowledge (Figure 1). As more of the decision-making and policy development in Galapagos is based on the upper levels of the pyramid, the natural ecosystems of Galapagos will also benefit from this Knowledge Management Initiative. None of the levels are exclusive and both knowledge generators and knowledge seekers can be found at any level. WISDOM W General public, residents, visitors, educators, scientists, students, guides, tour operators, donors, media, decision-makers I.C. INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL Sectors within the community & employees within Galapagos institutions and organizations KNOWLEDGE INFORMATION DATA KNOWLEDGE Managers, planners, policy makers, researchers & students INFORMATION Program managers, researchers & students DATA Observers & researchers Figure 1. The Knowledge Management Pyramid (at left in blue) shows the foundation of wisdom and the movement from raw data through knowledge to wisdom. Data = raw data, field notes, observations, baseline geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing data, etc.; Information = processed data, protocols and methods, trip reports, routine reports, summary statistics and analyses, etc.; Knowledge = that used to solve problems – includes plans, technical reports, narrative analyses, and publications, etc.; Intellectual Capital = intangible combination of knowledge within an institution or group; and Wisdom = ability to identify which knowledge has the potential to become intellectual capital and provide for future growth and capacity. The inverted pyramid (at right in orange) shows the variety of potential beneficiaries at each level. Three general themes were identified during the workshop as core areas to be covered in the development of knowledge management for Galapagos: biophysical knowledge, socioeconomic knowledge, and legacy knowledge. The Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) and the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) have already begun key initiatives to establish accessible databases in the biophysical area (Figure 2). However, this type of data/ information is also spread across the globe, housed in a wide variety of institutions and in the files of individual scientists and others, where much of it is relatively inaccessible. Although numerous governmental organizations as well as non-profits and educational institutions have been involved in collecting socioeconomic data (Figure 3), these data are often less organized and accessible, and sometimes of lower quality, especially when collected 18 for administrative purposes rather than research and/or adaptive management. Perhaps the most difficult knowledge to obtain and organize is so-called legacy data (Figure 4). These previously collected data, spread all over the world, are currently often found on decaying paper and in scattered, and outdated computer files. The poor condition of much of this data may require immediate action to save it. Vision for knowledge management for Galapagos Sustainable development and the quality of life of the human society in Galapagos depends upon the health of the archipelago’s natural heritage; maintaining that heritage relies on a capacity for all to quickly access what we collectively know about Galapagos.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Citizen science Monitoring data Herbarium/ museum/ laboratory specimens Current research Geographical / maps and place names Current and ongoing management actions/results Biophysical Knowledge Figure 2. Some of the components within the biophysical area that should be included in knowledge management for Galapagos. Utilities: electricity, water, waste management Commerce: agriculture, fisheries, construction Health, education and labor Censuses and surveys Tourism Monitoring and periodic data Socio-economic Knowledge Transportation Figure 3. Some of the components within the socioeconomic area that should be included in knowledge management for Galapagos. Historical photos / videos People history - resident & scientists Deteriorating documents Citizen science (anecdotal, logbooks, journals, guide reports) Historical management actions/ results Literature / bibliography Legacy Knowledge Unpublished scientific data Figure 4. Some of the components within legacy knowledge that should be included in knowledge management for Galapagos. 19
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Galapagos will have effective knowledge management that involves all sectors of Galapagos society and stakeholders, and links both tacit (“know-how”) and explicit (formal) knowledge to decision-making. In this way, it will enhance the capacity for long-term conservation of the biodiversity and unique ecosystems of Galapagos, and sustainable development of its society. Knowledge management for Galapagos will provide a platform for open participation of all sectors of Galapagos society as both contributors and users of knowledge, nurturing the development of an informed society that values and cares for its natural and cultural environments, works to prevent and mitigate environmental degradation, and supports and pursues socioeconomic policies that are consistent with the broad goal of conserving the biodiversity and unique ecosystems of Galapagos. Goals and objectives of knowledge management for Galapagos 1. Foster a culture that incorporates knowledge/wisdom as a critical component of decision-making and policy development at all levels, and that ensures broad engagement and participation of all stakeholders. 2. Create, share, and use tacit (“know-how”) and explicit (formal) knowledge about Galapagos, enabling adequate response to the needs of the communities for the conservation of ecosystems and sustainable development. 3. Catalyze research in and about Galapagos to attain and strengthen conservation and sustainable development within the archipelago over the medium- and long-term. 4. Provide better and more complete access to knowledge for decision-makers to enable more informed decision-making, policy development, and management, thus improving the outcomes of the political and governance processes. In addition to the goals, a series of 19 specific objectives were developed; key among them were: 1. 2. Improve the technological infrastructure in the Galapagos to support the Knowledge Management System and its use by all. 3. 20 Facilitate the use and distribution of knowledge about Galapagos through the establishment of a Knowledge Management System for Galapagos under the leadership of the Governing Council of Galapagos (CGREG – for its initials in Spanish) and through the fostering of a “knowledge culture” in Galapagos. Establish and maintain a system of coordination and cooperation among institutions and communities that generate and use knowledge about Galapagos. 4. Standardize data collection and storage and the production of information, thus establishing a culture of common practices to facilitate reproducible research and effective monitoring practices. 5. Define short-term pilot projects to demonstrate the usefulness and applicability of Knowledge Management for Galapagos [e.g., initial citizen science initiatives, Integrated Indicator System for Galapagos (SIIG for its initials in Spanish), etc.]. The Plan The Plan for the Development and Facilitation of Knowledge Management for Galapagos establishes a framework for the development of a unified, accessible knowledge management infrastructure for Galapagos that will integrate diverse information resources, such as demographic, economic, and social data about the Galapagos human community, observations on the distribution and abundance of native and migratory species, records of marked plants and animals, records from museum collections (both in the Galapagos and around the world), and other data and information. The plan outlines the establishment of tools, protocols, and networks of institutions and individuals to facilitate the production, sharing, and use of knowledge. As this project proceeds, it will benefit from the experience of organizations that have successfully implemented relevant knowledge management initiatives in other parts of the world and will make use of existing technology and protocols whenever possible. The development of knowledge management for Galapagos will be carried out over three phases. Due to financial realities, this project must proceed according to the defined phases and be developed in a modular fashion so that while all parts will become integrated, the success of any single component does not depend upon the success of all other components. Phase I will involve simultaneous execution of critical start-up tasks including the necessary audits (technology and knowledge) and needs assessment in Galapagos and beyond (especially in relation to legacy data), the establishment of a project management team, oversight body, and an advisory team network, development of a financial/fundraising plan, and initiation of pilot citizen science projects and an Integrated System of Indicators for Galapagos. Phase II will include the development of an infrastructure plan for the Knowledge Management System, a prioritybased modular expansion plan for the construction of the system, the establishment of standards and protocols, an incentive system to create collaboration and cooperation
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 among institutions, capacity building within institutions, development of the initial database component of the Knowledge Management System, and expansion of the citizen science program. Phase III will be the long-term implementation of the Knowledge Management Initiative and incorporation of knowledge management within the Galapagos culture, with adequate evaluations and feedback for continual improvements. Outreach to the community will be important throughout all phases and the project management team should work continuously to ensure the public’s support of knowledge management. Project supervision and management The Plan for the Development and Facilitation of Knowledge Management for Galapagos will be carried out by a project management team under the leadership of the Governing Council of Galapagos. The team should include, at a minimum, a project leader, who will be responsible for all non-technical managerial responsibilities, communication, and outreach, and sufficient personnel to cover the following: management of the technical aspects of the Knowledge Management System, GIS/ database expertise, web programming, data specialist(s) (data entry, retrieval, and analysis), and technical writing. In addition to the project leader, an ideal team might consist of the following positions: • Understand the highly dynamic nature of the workload from start to finish — involves continuous long-term commitment by project managers As the Knowledge Management System is built, emphasis will be placed on continuous and long-term enhancement of the technical capacity and management skills in the CGREG, GNPS, NGOs, and other institutions in Galapagos. Project evaluation Continual project evaluation is critical and will be built into the Knowledge Management Initiative to ensure effective evaluation and feedback from the start of Phase I through development and implementation. Measures of success and methodology for project evaluation will be developed during Phase I and updated when appropriate. Results from regular evaluations should lead to specific actions that improve program operations. Community education, capacity building, and public relations Good communications and public involvement are not only critical to the successful completion of this project, they are important components for the long-term value of the project and to ensure that knowledge created in and about Galapagos will serve as the foundation for decision-making and policy development over the long term. During Phase I, a detailed plan will be developed for institutional and community involvement. • System technical director • GIS/database expert • Be primarily comprised of permanent staff to ensure project continuity Central to the success of the Knowledge Management Initiative is local ownership and a willingness to think Have redundancy to accommodate contingencies broadly about information. The combined thinking of (e.g., key personnel are sick or traveling, staff attrition external experts and local stakeholders has evolved and recruitment, etc.) since the initial framework was conceived and drafted. Collectively, the language moved from simple data Maintain excellent records to permit institutional management (systems) to a broader philosophical learning, integrated data management, and approach to problem solving that relies on a strong continuity of knowledge culture of sharing wisdom and experience. This will create Financial plan A financial plan with a well-developed fundraising strategy and any necessary project proposal(s) will be • Web programmer developed during Phase I. The plan will include start-up funding to cover the initial audits (consultants) and the • Data specialist (data entry, retrieval, and analysis) establishment of the project management team and oversight body. Funding for the Knowledge Management • Technical writer (this could be covered by the data Initiative for Galapagos will require large commitments specialist or someone else) – ideally with fundraising of financial and in-kind support from the Ecuadorian experience Government and from private, corporate, and foundation sources worldwide. A long-term financing system should Any missing skills could be compensated for by using also include some level of funding by institutional users paid consultants for particular tasks. and other beneficiaries of the Knowledge Management System. The project management team should: • • Conclusion 21
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Alycia Crall a dynamic flow of data and experience among institutions and people and will not stop at the mechanical collection of data. The Knowledge Management Initiative for Galapagos will provide a platform for the incorporation of Galapagos into the national network currently being established by the Ecuadorian Government, “YACHAY – City of Knowledge,” the most revolutionary project at a national level. The advantages of this strategy are countless: 1) a strong collaboration with the international scientific community; 2) an innovative way to produce knowledge based on technology of the latest generation; 3) a real presence of national research institutions, and 4) effective access to information. The Knowledge Management Initiative for Galapagos will require dedication and time of many individuals and organizations. Effective knowledge management should enhance conservation efforts and the development of a sustainable society in Galapagos to such an extent that it will outweigh all costs. Decision-making and policy development for both effective conservation and a sustainable society require open and timely access to the highest quality knowledge available. The execution of the Plan for the Development and Facilitation of Knowledge Management for Galapagos will provide just that. 22 Acknowledgments Funding for the workshop was provided by a grant to the Galapagos Conservancy from the Tinker Foundation, Inc.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Citizen science: A new conservation tool for the Galapagos Washington Tapia1, Alycia Crall2, Linda J. Cayot3, Eleanor Sterling4 and James P. Gibbs1,5 Galapagos National Park Service, 2Rutgers University, 3Galapagos Conservancy, American Museum of Natural History, 5SUNY-ESF 1 4 Photograph: Zorica Kovacevic The role of citizen science in Galapagos The Galapagos Islands could be easily described as a research mecca, attracting scientists from around the world interested in studying the region’s unique ecosystems and biodiversity and experiencing its scientific history firsthand. However, timely access to basic scientific information about the archipelago is difficult to obtain. Baseline data and resources for generating new data are lacking even though such information is essential for effective conservation management. These challenges have resulted in efforts to assess new avenues for collecting and disseminating data necessary for maintaining the ecological integrity and sustaining the human population in the archipelago. Citizen science seeks to involve members of the public as vital partners in the scientific research process, often generating data to inform conservation management and decision-making (Dickinson & Bonney, 2012). Although citizen science is currently used in many areas of the world with impressive results (Dickinson et al., 2012), it has yet to gain widespread use in the Galapagos Islands, where it could be extremely valuable in creating a nexus among scientific research, management, and social-ecological sustainability. Specifically, the Islands provide the opportunity to develop citizen science with both the local community (~25,000 permanent residents) and the community of tourists who visit the archipelago (currently >185,000 per year). While there have been occasional attempts to use citizen science in the Galapagos, a majority of previously initiated efforts have been conducted in isolation and findings from research studies have not been disseminated in an effective way. There has never been an attempt to create a broad, well-integrated program that will deliver answers to the many critical questions faced by multiple stakeholders in the archipelago. The workshop Outlining the elements of a successful citizen science program was the overall goal of a workshop convened by the Galapagos National Park (GNP) on June 25-29, 2012. Participants in the workshop included international experts in citizen science, GNP managers, scientists, naturalist guides, fundraisers, local community members, and other stakeholders. Workshop participants sought to examine primary issues about how public participation in environmental monitoring can improve conservation practice through discussion of: 1) priority questions, environmental indicators, and protocols; 2) engaging the public; 3) reaching new audiences, and 4) integrating informal and scientific knowledge. These categories highlighted not only the ecological but also the social aspects the workshop planners hoped to integrate into program development. 23
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Citizen science: benefits and challenges At the onset, workshop participants explored the benefits and challenges of utilizing citizen science in the Galapagos. By weighing these, stakeholders can better assess the appropriateness of citizen science for the specific research questions and issues that need to be addressed. Evaluation of on-going programs suggests multiple benefits for adopting this monitoring approach in the Galapagos, with benefits spanning across multiple stakeholders. Scientists benefit through the generation of data to assess spatial and temporal trends in societal and environmental indicators. The sampling extent, amount of data collected, and the frequency of data collection are not feasible through traditional scientific investigation (Dickinson et al., 2010). Continued analyses of trends in these data result in scientific findings that can inform management and policy, and generate new research questions. Managers and policy makers benefit from increased amounts of data made available in real-time that can identify emerging trends or serious issues that need to be responded to in the short term. However, having access to data in real-time is atypical of many professional scientific studies that disseminate results only after all data collection and analyses have been completed, sometimes years after the initiation of the study. Citizen science programs typically use a cyber-infrastructure that enables data to flow in near real-time from community observers to stakeholders via the internet (Newman et al., 2011). These data can then pass through customized filters and analysis mechanisms to decision-makers, allowing them to identify trends in indicators of interest and in places of concern and respond in a timely fashion. Some of the greatest benefits to development of these programs are to the participants themselves. Participants learn about the environment, gain science literacy, and experience firsthand how information contributes to decision and/or policy-making through participation (Brossard et al., 2005; Jordan et al., 2011; Crall et al., 2012). Participation also gives citizens a sense of ownership in the process of monitoring the environment while building social capital and expanding a collective sense of environmental stewardship (Overdevest et al., 2004). Residents will have access to greater knowledge about the islands, which should translate into increased understanding and greater support for conservation and the development of more sustainable local communities (Overdevest et al., 2004). Engagement and participation by all sectors of the community in the integrated vision that knowledge management creates should produce more informed choices and a shared vision for the future of Galapagos (Danielsen et al., 2005). Challenges to implementing a citizen science program will also need to be considered in the early stages of the program’s development. Because the data collected 24 through the program will be used to guide management and policy, data quality will be paramount. Program developers will need to build on existing quality assurance and quality control procedures from existing programs and adopt protocols that have been tested and validated with citizen scientists in the field (Delaney et al., 2008; Crall et al., 2011; Bonter & Cooper, 2012). Sustainability of the program will also be a significant challenge, directly related to the availability of ongoing financial resources and participant retention. Project design considerations Once benefits and challenges were discussed, workshop participants identified priorities, motivations, and participant groups to guide program development. Working groups were established to develop potential pilot projects for tourists and/or residents. These groups focused on developing projects considered most appropriate for a citizen science approach. Specifically, projects addressed research questions requiring monitoring at large spatial and temporal scales and frequent data collection, all of which are not feasible using traditional monitoring methods. When possible, participants also sought to develop projects that complemented existing professional efforts. Issues and research questions deemed less appropriate included those requiring specialized knowledge, those already being addressed, and/or those involving sensitive information such as the location of endangered species. Projects explored included: an early warning system for reporting both social and ecological indicators, development of a sustainable society (monitoring both water and waste), monitoring the health of terrestrial ecosystems (urban and rural), and monitoring by both visitors and crews during both regular and dive cruises. Working groups developed these projects given the following design considerations: 1) what are the needs of the stakeholders involved?; 2) what management decisions can be informed by the data?; 3) how will the project be implemented?; 4) who is the audience?; 5) what protocols should be used?; 6) will training be needed?; 7) how will data be analyzed and disseminated?, and 8) how will the project be evaluated? Following development, workshop participants sought ways to integrate these projects into the development of a larger, umbrella program. Program development To succeed, any program involving the public in environmental monitoring must be flexible, iterative, standardized, user-friendly, and self-reinforcing. It needs to develop positive feedback that will ensure that it becomes embedded in a community’s culture. It should produce results that are accessible on a continuous basis for decision-makers and all interested parties. It will also, in the long term, build social capital (a combination of
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 people and their skill sets) as well as trust in and respect for one another that strengthens everyone’s commitment to work together for the betterment of their community and environment. Therefore, the Galapagos citizen science program will be implemented in three phases: 1) program development; 2) initiation of pilot projects, and 3) expansion of the program. Modifications to this general framework may occur based on preliminary evaluation and feedback from stakeholders. Key start-up tasks for Phase 1 will include a needs assessment, team development, defining research questions and issues, and developing or refining existing protocols. Most successful citizen science programs begin with a needs assessment to provide baseline data on the needs of the program’s stakeholders that will guide program development and implementation (Friedman, 2008). These data can then be used to determine priority research questions and conservation/management issues that need to be addressed. A program management team will be established; with guidance from an external advisory board, the team will be responsible for program development and implementation, balancing the needs of a diverse group of stakeholders. In Phase 2, the program management team will pilot four to five projects within either tourist or resident tracks based on the needs assessment and those projects outlined by the workshop’s working groups. Each project will follow five primary steps (participant recruitment, participant training, data collection, data analysis, and dissemination of findings). Phase 3 will extensively evaluate the pilot projects initiated during Phase 2, making modifications as needed to meet previously defined goals outlined during Phase 1. Depending on the successful implementation of the program, Phase 3 will also include the addition of more projects and greater expansion of the program. If this occurs, a system will be established for coordinated expansion based on the most recently identified needs of the program’s stakeholders. Future development and broader application Throughout the development and evaluation of the Galapagos citizen science program, stakeholders will need to maintain communication with citizen science practitioners to adopt best practices while also contributing to the broader field of research. Citizen science, community-based monitoring, participatory monitoring, and volunteer monitoring are all types of programs now commonly referred to as “public participation in scientific research” (PPSR). Bonney et al. (2009) define three primary models of PPSR (later refined by Shirk et al., 2012) that relate to the level of engagement citizen science participants have in the scientific process: contributory, collaborative, and co-created. These models range from those requiring participation in data collection only (contributory) to those in which participants work alongside scientists and managers to develop projects of common interest (co-created). Because engagement in contributory projects is often short-term, these projects may be more relevant to tourist participants. In co-created projects, participants are actively involved in the entire scientific process, so these projects are more likely to produce results relevant to the local community. Therefore, the larger Galapagos citizen science program will provide an umbrella program for a number of diverse projects, spanning the range across the three different PPSR models (Figure 1). Development of pilot projects for tourists versus residents can account for the degree of participation from each stakeholder group in different aspects of the scientific process. Building on the models described above, the development and evaluation of the Galapagos program can be further refined by placing it in the framework developed for Resident Track Tourist Track CONTRIBUTORY PROJECTS Project participants are asked by scientists to collect and contribute data and/or samples COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS Projects participants assist scientists in developing a study and collecting and analyzing data for shared goals CO-CREATED PROJECTS Members of the community develop a study and work with input from scientists to address a question or issue of common concern Degree of Participation Figure 1. The Galapagos citizen science program will be the umbrella for a number of diverse projects (contributory, collaborative, co-created; Bonney et al., 2009) that involve tourists and residents in the scientific process. 25
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 INPUTS ACTIVITIES Phase 1 Identify questions or issues Needs assessment: Scientific interests Management Interests Community interests OUTPUTS OUTCOMES Phase 2 Develop program infrastructure and manage implementation of pilot projects IMPACTS Phase 3 Observations and experiences Science: research findings, publications Management: Capacity Sustainability Conservation Global Community established priorities, management plans Outcomes reinforce interests Dictate motivations, satisfaction, retention Individuals: knowledge, skills, Identity, self-efficacy Socio-ecological systems: action, collaboration Figure 2. Framework developed for public participation in scientific research projects (Shirk et al., 2012), with modifications for application to the Galapagos. PPSR projects as they relate to the quality of participation and project outcomes (Shirk et al., 2012). The existing framework closely follows the three phases of program development identified at the workshop and provides opportunities for standardization and evaluation across the larger field of research (Figure 2). Specifically, inputs into the program will need to balance the interests of each stakeholder in the citizen science program (scientists, managers, local and global communities) as outlined in the needs assessment (Phase 1; Shirk et al., 2012). Inputs will be negotiated through the establishment of diverse pilot projects and will be used to frame project design and influence project outcomes. Activities (Phase 2) will include the work necessary to implement each project and will be carried out by each project team (established in Phase 1). Outputs will include the results of activities such as observations (raw data) and experiences (from data collection and analysis; Phase 2). Outcomes (i.e., measurable elements) will result from these outputs and will include those relevant to each stakeholder group (Phase 3). Achievable outcomes will be defined through the needs assessment, but may result in research findings or publications to advance science; established priorities and management plans to advance management; knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy to build individual capacity; and action and collaborations to sustain socio-ecological systems. Over time, these outcomes may develop into long-term and sustained impacts that build capacity, enhance conservation, and/ or build a global community involved with conservation of the Galapagos (Phase 3). Program sustainability can then be realized by quantifying outcomes and impacts to align with the initial goals (inputs) of the program. Goals represent stakeholder interests and motivations, so meeting those goals will result in overall satisfaction and retention (Shirk et al., 2012). 26 Conclusions and recommendations Based on the findings from this workshop, many opportunities for developing citizen science projects in the Galapagos exist. These opportunities include, but are not limited to, involving tourists and residents in scientific research and conservation efforts; generating the data necessary for effective management; building capacity among local residents; and developing a global community of Galapagos conservation stewards. However, development of the pilot projects and umbrella program will take significant resources. A detailed plan building on the framework described here will need to be generated. The plan should prioritize the steps necessary to initiate the proposed program within current staff and financial constraints while outlining potential approaches for expansion as new resources become available. The program should also seek to leverage resources available from international partners currently engaged in citizen science. These resources include standardized protocols, cyberinfrastructures, and established volunteer networks. If done well Galapagos will not only benefit from adopting citizen science as a new conservation tool but also become an exemplar around the world for engaging the public in diverse ways to help guide conservation decision-making. Acknowledgments The workshop was enabled by the generous support of the Galapagos Conservancy. Logistical support was provided by HeliGal.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 References Bonney R, H Ballard, R Jordan, E McCallie, T Phillips, J Shirk & CC Wilderman. 2009. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for Advancement of Informal Education (CAISE), Washington, D.C. Bonter DN & CB Cooper. 2012. Data validation in citizen science: a case study from Project FeederWatch. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:305-307. Brossard D, B Lewenstein & R Bonney. 2005. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education 27:1099-1121. Crall AW, R Jordan, KA Holfelder, G Newman, J Graham & DM Waller. 2012 - in press. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Understanding of Science. Crall AW, G Newman, DM Waller, TJ Stohlgren, KA Holfelder & J Graham. 2011. Assessing citizen science data quality: An invasive species case study. Conservation Letters 4:433-442. Danielsen F, ND Burgess & A Balmford. 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:2507-2542. Delaney DG, CD Sperling, CS Adams & B Leung. 2008. Marine invasive species: Validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biological Invasions 10:117-128. Dickinson JL & R Bonney, editors. 2012. Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY. Dickinson JL, J Shirk, D Bonter, R Bonney, RL Crain, J Martin, T Phillips & K Purcell. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:291-297. Dickinson JL, B Zuckerberg & DN Bonter. 2010. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Pp 149-172. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Vol 41. Friedman AJ (ed.). 2008. Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Informal Science Education Projects. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. Jordan RC, SA Gray, DV Howe, WR Brooks & JG Ehrenfeld. 2011. Knowledge gain and behavior change in citizen-science programs. Conservation Biology 25:1148-1154. Newman G, J Graham, A Crall & M Laituri. 2011. The art and science of multi-scale citizen science support. Ecological Informatics 6:217-227. Overdevest C, CH Orr & K Stepenuck. 2004. Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource Issues. Human Ecology Review 11:177-185. Shirk JL, HL Ballard, CC Wilderman, T Phillips, A Wiggins, R Jordan, E McCallie, M Minarchek, B Lewenstein, M Krasny & R Bonney. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17:29. 27
    • Photo title page Human Systems: Alejandra Badillo
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Island cultures Christophe Grenier Université de Nantes, LETG Photograph: Shilo Landis The international workshop Cultural Identities and Sustainable Lifestyles in Islands was convened in Galapagos by the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) from September 28-30, 2010. More than 30 presentations1 were given by 20 participants: eight permanent Galapagos residents; seven representatives from foreign islands; four scientists associated with the CDF, and the author. This article presents a summary of the highlights of the presentations followed by my analysis of the factors that best explain the presence or absence of insular cultures in the islands represented at the workshop. Participants provided a number of definitions of culture. According to Bustamente, “it is what makes the everyday endowed with meaning, significance, value; it is something collective that is transmitted between generations.” Ruiz Ballesteros described culture as “a combination of material and ideal traits, from which relationships among humans and between a society and its environment are derived.” Grenier suggested that “culture has ‘geograficity:’ it can be understood by examining the traces left by society in the region it occupies, and it evolves through time according to the connectivity of the region with the rest of the world.” The situation in Galapagos Residents of the Galapagos Islands stressed that the societies within the archipelago are changing rapidly. Floreana was described as an island driven by community spirit related to its relative isolation, where the hope for further tourism development is tempered by the fear of succumming to the same process (Freire). Isabela is undergoing major tourism development, which is rapidly transforming social and economic relations within the local community (Zechettin, Espinoza). Speakers from San Cristóbal expressed the suffering of old settlers when faced by some of the current changes in the urban landscape (Cox). Santa Cruz was described as “urban”, “materialistic”, “continentalized” and “living with their backs to the sea” (Betancourt). The speakers from Galapagos gave differing views on the relationship between culture, space, and time. According to Zechettin, the number of years of residence in Galapagos does not determine one’s love or concern for the islands. For Cruz, Galapagos residents are divided into three categories: older colonists (two generations and more) with a “strong ecological conscience;” residents who arrived about 20 years ago, who have a “warm respect” for conservation; and newcomers, “opportunists removed from the reality of island life.” To Masaquiza, See summaries of the presentations in Grenier (2011). Throughout this article, the name of the speaker is provided in parenthesis; a list of speakers and their affiliations is presented at the end of the article. 1 31
    • Years BP since the first human population GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 14000 12000 Lemnos 10000 Navarino 8000 Orkneys Fiji Oceania 6000 Hawaii 4000 Easter Island Polynesia 2000 New Zealand 0 Galapagos 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Distance in km from the region of origin of the first colonization Continental islands Oceanic islands Figure 1. Geohistory of the first insular human settlements. representing the Salasaca community in Galapagos, it is difficult to maintain the Salasaca culture in the Islands because this implies regular trips away from the archipelago to maintain ties with their home region. The speakers from Galapagos also presented different views on the possibility of creating an island culture in the archipelago. According to Zapata, we cannot wait for an island culture to be created on its own, rather it is necessary to establish habits that will ensure the sustainability of Galapagos. For Cruz, the only way to create an island culture in Galapagos is to seek a shared vision of the archipelago among all stakeholders. And for Espinoza, “social capital” must be created through environmental education of children. Presentations on the scientific analyses of the culture of the Galapagos population highlighted the following: 1. 2. 32 Population, economic, political and scientific dynamics in Galapagos are all driven from outside the archipelago, creating a common culture between mainland Ecuador and Galapagos (Bustamante). The very short human history in Galapagos (closely linked to the evolution of the Modern World system / period of globalization) and a concomitant process of geographic opening (whose amplitude is currently causing both an ecological and sociocultural “continentalization” of the populated islands; Grenier, 2010) have prevented the formation of an island culture adapted to the specific insularity of the archipelago (Grenier). Where do island cultures exist among the islands discussed? The islands discussed during the workshop are very diverse. They include oceanic islands (Galapagos, Hawaii, New Zealand, Fiji, Easter) as well as continental islands (Navarino, Lemnos, Orkney). They are located in the tropics (Hawaii, Galapagos, Fiji) and temperate zones. They have oceanic climates (New Zealand, Orkney), Mediterranean climates (Lemnos), and subtropical climates (Easter Island); only Navarino is located in a cold region. Their shapes and sizes are highly varied, ranging from small islands (Easter Island, 172 km2) to large islands (New Zealand, 268,000 km2). They belong to countries with major differences in economic development and have permanent populations of highly variable sizes, from about 2500 inhabitants in Navarino to over 12 million in Hawaii. Their populations consist of various cultures: European (Orkney, Lemnos, New Zealand), Polynesian (Hawaii, New Zealand, Easter), Melanesian (Fiji), American (Hawaii), and Latin America (Galapagos, Easter, Navarino). However, none of these criteria explains the presence or absence of an island culture. None of the speakers argued that an island’s biophysical characteristics were determining factors in the maintenance of an island culture within an insular population. Therefore other explanations for the presence/absence of an island culture must be considered. One such explanation is that it is the geohistories of these islands and their societies in the ecumene (the portion of the planet occupied by humans throughout history) and the Modern World
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 system that determine whether or not island cultures emerge or endure. able to colonize more remote archipelagos, which then provided centers for secondary settlements. The three sides of the “Polynesian Triangle” cover much of the Pacific, including Hawaii (populated from the Marquesas; Sproat), Easter Island (from Gambier; Vargas), and New Zealand (from Tahiti; Mead). These islands have a certain cultural unity, although the isolation of the most remote islands, such as Rapa Nui/Easter, has enabled the development of unique island cultures. Geohistory of the first human settlements Two criteria from the geohistory of these islands provide hypotheses related to island culture (Figure 1): 1. Age of the earliest human settlements: the longer the human occupation of an island, the greater the possibility that an island culture has developed. Galapagos is an isolated oceanic archipelago, but does not form part of Oceania. The permanent human settlement in Galapagos is less than two centuries old and the inhabitants originated from mainland Ecuador. 2. Distance between islands and the regions of origin of the first colonists: the more isolated the insular population, the more unique its culture. Although the geohistories of the earliest human settlements in all of these islands explain the emergence of island cultures, neither the length of time a human population has existed on an island nor an island’s isolation are determining factors for the maintenance of that culture. To understand the presence or absence of island cultures, it is necessary to examine their paths (entrance and situation) within the Modern World system. All islands presented here have a much older human population than Galapagos, and form two groups based on proximity to the regions of origin of their first inhabitants. The first group includes continental islands that were populated earlier because of their proximity to continental populations. The second group includes the more distant oceanic islands that were populated later, because of the need for potential settlers to master navigating long distances. Thus the islands of Oceania were originally populated by inhabitants of other islands who already had an island culture, who then produced a new culture with what could be called “double insularity.” Status of islands in the Modern World system The eight islands and archipelagos presented can be classified into three groups according to their position in the current World System (Figure 2). This classification explains the type of colonization that took place, each island’s relationship with the mainland, and thus the level of its geographic opening. Melanesia was the earliest inhabited island in Oceania because of its proximity to the source regions of these islanders. New Guinea was considered the origin of the Fijian culture (Rupeni). More recently, when the Polynesians dominated marine navigation, they were The Pacific islands within the oceanic and continental Periphery of the European Union American Pacífic Insular states of the South Pacific Galapagos Easter Island Lemnos Hawaii Orkneys New Zealand Fiji Navarino Oceanic islands and the continental countries upon which they depend politically Continental islands Figure 2. Location and category of the islands discussed at the workshop. 33
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 American region were colonized in the 19th century in a particularly brutal manner. On both Easter (Vargas) and Navarino (Massardo) islands, the indigenous population came close to extinction. In Hawaii (Sproat) the native population also suffered a considerable decline, while Galapagos was populated by forced settlement. The colonization of the islands of the “American Pacific” focused on extraction of natural resources followed by the production of raw materials for global markets. Today, these islands are under the sovereignty of North or South American countries. The Orkney Islands (Kerr) and Lemnos (Dodouras) are both part of the periphery of the European Union and their relative isolation is compensated by special subsidies. The populations of Orkney and Lemnos have the same culture as the nation to which they belong, with slight differences due to their insularity. They have a common history over millennia, and a common language and religion. New Zealand and Fiji, two independent island nations in the South Pacific, still maintain their original island cultures. British settlers took much of the land belonging to the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand and imported manpower from India to work on sugar plantations in Fiji. Even so, the indigenous people managed to keep their traditional cultures alive, through fierce fighting that led to a treaty in New Zealand (Mead) and because the colonization in Fiji was relatively late and superficial (Rupeni). which is obviously unfavorable to the maintenance of island cultures. 4. The establishment of a foreign population in an island is considered an important, unfavorable factor that could derail the maintenance of an island culture, if the new settlers bring their own lifestyle and culture. In all of the islands, except Orkney islands, Lemnos and Fiji (where Hindus now represent 40% of the population), the immigration of settlers was extensive and their numbers now exceed the indigenous population. 5. Autonomy or political independence favors an island culture, by affirming a national or regional identity. Of particular note are the two South Pacific island states: in Fiji, the “kastom” or traditional Melanesian governance has recognized political authority (Rupeni), while in New Zealand, the Maori have achieved official recognition of their cultural values with some of them incorporated into the country’s laws (Mead). The autonomy of Orkney or the state of Hawaii has allowed these islands to maintain an intermediate level of island culture. Other islands are politically and adminsitratively integrated into their sovereign country; for example, Galapagos is a province of Ecuador (although today it has special status) and Easter Island is a department of Chile. 6. The existence of a policy to strengthen culture favors the maintenance of an island culture and is related to the previous point [except for Easter Island, where the Polynesian cultural renaissance resulted from Rapanui population struggles and also Chile’s recognition of its cultural diversity (Vargas)]. 7. The extensive geographic opening present on these islands since the 19th century is unfavorable to the permanence of an island culture; Lemnos is the only island discussed whose society and island ecology have not been scarred by connections with the rest of the world (Dodouras). 8. Tourism drives the current geographic opening in Galapagos and Easter Island, and plays an important role in Hawaii, where there are many more tourists than permanent residents. Tourism is unfavorable to the permanence of an island culture because it involves major geographic opening. 9. Tourism can result in the “folklorization” of an island culture. This has been the case in Hawaii and Easter Island, where cultural shows are created specifically for tourists and native cultural events become tourist attractions, often making it impossible to distinguish between the two (Sproat, Vargas). For now, Navarino does not show this tendency, but the policies of the Ethnobotanic Park Omora to recover the Yaghan Finally I propose nine criteria that explain the permanence or lack of permanence of an island culture in the islands presented (Table 1). 1. The presence of an indigenous population that has lived in the islands prior to colonization or assimilaton by Europeans is a factor that favors the development and permanence of an island culture. Galapagos is the only case presented where there was no indigenous island population. 2. The colonization of these islands in the 19th century by various groups (missionaries, businessmen, soldiers, settlers, etc.) from Europe or America works against the permanence of an island culture. Some of the European islands, however, were settled prior to the century of imperialist expansion and have thus experienced different trajectories than the others, all of which were colonized territories (including Galapagos, Ecuador’s only colonized territory). 3. 34 Different types of colonization have different effects on island culture. In Fiji and New Zealand, colonists had to accommodate themselves to the indigenous inhabitants who maintained part of their culture. In American Pacific islands, colonization nearly caused the disappearance of the indigenous populations,
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Criteria of island culture. CRITERIA ISLANDS Lemnos Orkney Fiji New Zealand Hawaii Easter Navarino Galapagos With indigenous population YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Colonized during the 19 century NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES Where the indigenous population nearly disappeared NO NO NO NO YES YES YES Not applicable With a high proportion of the population foreign NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES Politically autonomous or independent NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO Polícy to promote an island culture NO YES YES YES YES YES NO Not applicable With major geographic opening since the 19th century NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES With substantial tourism (>resident population) NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES With island culture folklorized for tourism NO NO NO NO YES YES NO Not applicable SYNTHESIS: with strong island culture YES? YES YES YES NO NO NO NO th Criteria unfavorable to the permanence of an island culture Criteria favorable to the permanence of an island culture culture as a tourism resource may have this effect (Massardo). 10. In synthesis: a) The islands of the American Pacific have no island cultures, or at least no culture that has spread throughout the population. Three of the four islands in this group are oceanic, but depend on a distant mainland state. b) In the two Pacific island states, a strong island culture exists in the general population; although in New Zealand it is perhaps more symbolic among residents of European origin, who have converted their isolation from Great Britain into a form of local culture. c) In the European islands, island culture seems strong, especially in the Orkneys. d) Of all the islands presented, the Galapagos are the only ones that have none of the factors that favor an island culture. Three of the nine factors, which refer to an indigenous population, are not applicable to this archipelago. Conclusion An island culture is like an endemic organism: it is not created overnight but develops slowly, under particular geographic conditions related to space, limited resources, and isolation. An island culture is adapted to a particular combination of natural environment and location within the World System. It is unique, although it can be compared with other cultures with similar geographical conditions. In Galapagos, the history of the islands’ oldest families covers barely a century. The lifestyle of today’s population is similar to that of the inhabitants of mainland Ecuador, as opposed to being adapted to the particuliarities of the archipelago. The possibility of forging an island culture in Galapagos as well as ensuring the survival of its unique ecology depends on finding a way to reduce the geographic opening of the archipelago and at the same time inventing a lifestyle more adapted to a certain degree of insular isolation. Acknowledgments The workshop was made possible by the kind sponsorship of Galapagos Conservancy and The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. 35
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Copyright Heidi Snell / Visual Escapes Images List of speakers and their affiliations • • • • • • • • • • • • • Betancourt, R – Entrepreneur, Santa Cruz Bustamante, T - FLACSO, Quito Cox, W – Naturalist guide, San Cristóbal Cruz, E - WWF-Galapagos, Santa Cruz Dodouras, S - Mediterranean Institute for Nature and Anthropos, Greece Espinoza, M – Naturalist guide, Isabela Freire, M – President of the parish board of Floreana Grenier, C – Charles Darwin Foundation (2008-2010), Galapagos Kerr, S - Heriot-Watt University, Scotland Masaquiza, L – Representative of the Salasaca community, Santa Cruz Massardo, F - Universidad de Magallanes / Parque Etnobotánico Omora, Chile • • • • • Mead, A – Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Ruiz Ballesteros, E - Universidad Pablo Olavide de Sevilla, Spain Rupeni, E – International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Fiji Sproat, K – University of Hawaiii Vargas, P – University of Chile Zapata, F – President of the Governing Council of Galapagos Zechettin, E – Hotel owner, Isabela References Grenier C. 2010. La apertura geográfica de Galápagos. In: Informe Galápagos 2009-2010. Pp. 123-131. FCD, PNG y Consejo de Gobierno de Galápagos, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador. Grenier C. 2011. Informe sobre el taller internacional sobre culturas isleñas. Fundación Charles Darwin, 28-30 de septiembre 2010. Pp. 15. 36
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Citizen participation in Galapagos Carlos Zapata Erazo FUNDAR Galapagos Photograph: Carlos Zapata The challenge for Galapagos society and indeed for other human societies around the globe is to identify, build, and foster a suite of social benefits that enhance public wellbeing. ”Public good” or “wellbeing” refers to those important but intangible civil rights that are guaranteed by the constitution of Ecuador (and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations). Ecuador has been a pioneer in terms of including third-generation rights, such as “rights of nature”, the “right to personal privacy,” etc., in its constitution. Identifying and constructing the “public good” is done both by public institutions (government) and organized civil society at different levels of partnership and responsibility. Ecuador’s constitution guarantees citizens the privilege of participation at different decision-making levels. When civil society participates in the construction of the public good, we can say that it is “democratizing” public policy. This has taken place in Galapagos since the Special Law for Galapagos of 1998, which permits organized groups within the civil society to participate along with the public sector in the creation of local public policy (INGALA Council and committees, Inter-Institutional Management Authority, Participatory Management Board). Within Ecuador, Galapagos pioneered the democratization of public policy, as reflected in the 1998 law that established the partnership and collaboration between the public sector and civil society. Since the establishment of the Special Law for Galapagos tensions have existed between: 1) private or proprietary interests and the public interest; 2) the public sector and civil society, and 3) national public policy and local/regional public policy in Galapagos. During the first decade of this century, in addition to the institutionalized opportunities for participation, several citizen groups temporarily emerged to generate public proposals. The Constitution of 2007 created new rights and opportunities for participation that allow civil society to find new ways in which to build the public good. However, despite the existence of constitutional and legal opportunities, as well as the freedom to organize and exercise the right to speak, oppose, collaborate, control, etc., the population as a whole is not participating in this process. To better understand the perceptions, motivations, and potential of Galapagos society on this topic, we conducted a qualitative study of local perceptions about citizen participation in Galapagos. 1 Karel Vasak, first Secretary General of the International Institute of Human Rights, stated in 1979 that human rights are of three generations, based on the principles of the French Revolution: liberty, equality and fraternity. Third generation rights are related to solidarity. 37
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 None 34.3 % Other organization 8.2 % Political party or movement 6.8 % Neighborhood councils 10.8 % Limited or anonymous company 4.4% Union 4.0% Commercial production association or guild 3.1 % 15.4% Cooperative Alumni association 5.2 % Professional guild 4.9 % 8.6% Foundation/charitable group/charity Watch dog or social control groups 4.0 % Citizen organizations 11.0% 23.3 % Churches or religious groups Figure 1. Citizen participation in civil society organizations during the last ten years in Galapagos (May 2012). Methodology Citizen action This study was conducted within the populations of the islands of Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal and Isabela. We used a survey containing eight general questions. A total of 781 surveys were distributed as follows: 240 in San Cristóbal, 240 in Isabela and 301 in Santa Cruz. Respondents were randomly selected by neighborhood in order to achieve a more uniform coverage of the population. The surveys were conducted in May 2012. Citizen participation can be considered as purposeful engagement in developing the public good or public “common.” To determine how citizen participation has occurred in Galapagos, we asked the following question: “Have you at some time or other ever taken one or more of the following actions during the last ten years? (Choose more than one if necessary);” 18 alternatives options were then listed. Participation in organizations The greatest percentage of respondents indicated that they had donated money or goods in response to “telethons” (38%), followed by providing assistance to a stranger (37%), or donating medicines, clothes or food in the case of a disaster (28%). A second group of citizen actions corresponded to volunteer participation in support of environmental and social causes, signing letters of support for an initiative, or sending supporting emails. Citizens become drivers of social transformation when they speak out and create civil society organizations (CSOs). Formal or informal CSOs are fora for dialogue and participation. To know how much an individual participates in CSOs we asked the following question: “Do you participate or have you participated in any of the following organizations during the last ten years? (Choose more than one if necessary.).” A third of the respondents indicated that they had not belonged to any organization (Figure 1). Of those who said that they had belonged to some type of organization, the most frequent were religious organizations (23.3%), cooperatives (15.4%), citizen organizations (11%) and neighborhood councils (11%). 38 Credibility and accessibility of citizen participation Civic participation is often a thankless task as it does not always achieve results. To understand the perception of Galapagos residents regarding the importance and effectiveness of public participation, we asked six specific questions under the following general question: “Please indicate your level of agreement with the following
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 None 16% Other citizen action 3% Placed banners, posters, photographs in support of a cause 12% Organized public interest meetings or events 7% Participated in protests on social or environmental issues 9% Spoke on the radio or television on a theme of public interest 5% Published a letter to the editor in a newspaper 2% Sent a letter to the mayor, ministers, assembly members or other activities 5% Sent a letter to the president of Ecuador 3% Signed a letter in support of a just cause 15% Donated money or goods to a telethon 38% Participated in a social charitable group, a foundation or citizen group 6% Used a badge identified with people who defend an idea 5% Sent an email message in support of a given cause 17% Donated money to a social charity or environmental organization 11% Donated blood 14% Participated as a volunteer in an environmental activity 17% Participated as a volunteer in an activity with social benefits 16% Donated food, medicine, clothing in disasters 28% Helped a stranger 37% Figure 2. Citizen activism in Galapagos during the last ten years (May 2012). questions (a lot, some, little, none), (strongly agree, somewhat agree, disagree).” In general, respondents expressed optimism and belief in citizen participation (Table 1). Of greatest note is that 88% of respondents believes that programs implemented by public institutions are much or somewhat improved when there is public participation. Two out of three people showed much or some interest in actively participating and agreed that Galapagos would be much (20%) or somewhat (45%) better in ten years. We also asked about the “Level of agreement on whether the constitution and laws of Ecuador allow active participation:” 51% strongly agreed, while 32% somewhat agreed (Figure 3). Only one in ten respondents disagreed. Respondents in Isabela tended to be more optimistic, while those on Santa Cruz were, relatively, the most skeptical among the three islands. Trust in organizations Trust in institutions was also assessed, defining an institution as those forms of social organization with formal or informal structures that focus on specific purposes. Institutions were evaluated within the public, private and civil society sectors. The following question was asked: “Please indicate how much you trust the institutions or groups on the following list: a lot, some, little or none.” The family was the institution receiving the most “very confident” responses (88.7%), followed by two public institutions: the educational system (42.6%) and the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS - 34.4%; Figure 4). Foundations, churches and civic groups fell into a second level of trust (24-31%). In contrast, the institutions that received more “no confidence” responses included neighbors (10.6%), tourism companies (9.6%) and the National Assembly (9%). Comparing results among islands, the family and the educational system received the greatest levels of trust on all the islands; the GNPS is the third institution in order of confidence in Isabela, and fifth in San Cristóbal and Santa Cruz. Churches are the third organization in San Cristóbal and Santa Cruz, while not even among the top six in Isabela. 39
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Perceptions of citizen participation in Galapagos (May 2012). Question A lot Some Little None NS How much do you think that the social and environmental programs of public institutions are improved by citizen participation? 58% 29% 8% 2% 2% How much do you think corruption can be controlled by citizen participation? 36% 36% 19% 7% 2% Do you consider the Galapagos community participatory? 33% 38% 22% 5% 2% Are you interested in actively participating in meetings, citizen oversight committees or groups? 29% 36% 17% 13% 5% Do you agree with the following statement: "only public participation generates social change?" 46% 29% 12% 10% 4% Do you agree that Galapagos will be better in ten years than it is now? 20% 45% 13% 7% 14% Isabela Santa Cruz San Cristóbal 70% 46% 38% 7% 34% 22% 19% 7% Strongly agree Somewhat agree 10% 10% Disagree 1% 6% Don’t know Figure 3. Level of agreement with the statement that the constitution and laws of Ecuador allow active participation (May 2012). Citizen interest To assess interest in participating, the following question was asked: “Would you be interested in actively supporting a cause? YES___ No___. If the answer is yes, how? (Choose more than one if necessary).” In Isabela, 76% of respondents expressed interest in actively participating as did 62% in Santa Cruz and 36% in San Cristóbal (Figure 5). Of those who indicated interest in actively supporting a cause, the vast majority indicated that they would like to do it through volunteer work (Figure 6). Participating by donating money was the least interesting option for respondents. Exploring still further, we asked the following question: “What causes, ideas or topics would interest you to actively participate? (Choose more than one if necessary).” Conservation was of greatest interest (65%), while 37% and 36% were interested in helping to “avoid pollution” and “improve opportunities for young people,” respectively 40 (Figure 7). Respondents on the three islands agreed with conservation as the primary cause, but respondents in Santa Cruz and San Cristóbal identified “avoid pollution” and “improve opportunities for young people” as the second and third causes respectively, while respondents in Isabela identified “improving opportunities for young people” and “improving economic conditions” as the second and third leading causes they would be interested in supporting. Problems with citizen participation To determine why some people choose not to participate, the following question was asked: “There are people who have no interest in participating in citizen groups, why do you think this happens? Please list three causes.” The most frequently listed reason was lack of time (70%) (Figure 8). Digging deeper regarding the perception of the effectiveness of participation in achieving results, we asked: “Who really has the power to generate change in Galapagos?
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 17.3% Governing Council Galapagos National Park 34.4% FUNDAR Galápagos 25.5% Neighbors 24.1% Tourism companies 16.5% Foundations 30.7% Government institutions 15.7% Citizen groups 30.6% Municipality 17.3% National Assembly 16.6% Educational system 42.6% Church / religious groups 27.7% Family 88.7% Figure 4. Percentage of responses indicating that they have a lot of trust in various institutions in Galapagos (May 2012). 76% 62% 80% 36% 60% 40% 20% 0% Isabela Santa Cruz San Cristóbal Figure 5. Interest in actively participating in a cause (May 2012). Select the top three in order of importance.” Almost a third of respondents indicated that the central government has the greatest power (32%), followed by organized citizens (21%) and municipalities (16%; Figure 9). 2. The majority of respondents agrees or strongly agrees that participation improves social and environmental programs of public institutions and helps to control corruption. Conclusions and recommendations 3. Galapagos society is interested in participating and has a positive perception regarding the usefulness of citizen participation. The preferred mechanism for participation is volunteerism, although the Galapagos society has primarily been involved through the donation of goods and money, and by helping strangers (although relatively fewer than in other countries, such as Mexico, where 56% report having donated goods and money, or assisting a stranger; Espinoza, 2008). Conservation of natural biodiversity motivates Galapagos residents, especially in Isabela where respondents expressed a greater willingness to participate in such activities. Although no good historical baseline on the evolution of citizen participation in the Galapagos exists, this research shows that a high percentage of the Galapagos population believes that participation is important for the archipelago. Specifically, the study revealed the following: 1. Churches, cooperatives and neighborhood councils are important places where social involvement is possible, although such participation is often not very visible. 66% of the Galapagos society is involved in some way with a Galapagos civil society organization. 41
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Other 29 Signing letters and petitions 71 106 Participating in protests, marches 166 Participating in meetings 48 Monthly monetary support 277 Volunteer work for several hours per week Figure 6. Total number of individuals surveyed with interest in participating through specific mechanisms (May 2012). Other activity 4% Improve citizen safety 17% Improve basic services: water, electricity, telephone 24% Improve economic conditions 26% Care for retired, sick, incapacitated, etc. 20% Improve transparency and avoid corruption 23% 36% Improve opportunities for the young 37% Avoid pollution Improve judicial system 15% 65% Conserve Galapagos and its species Figure 7. Causes, ideas or themes of interest to Galapagos residents for participation (May 2012). Other reason Specific interests of organizer/participants 2% 16% Disorderly meetings Does not achieve results, ineffective 36% 26% Does not learn of the meetings 22% Politics of the meetings or talks 21% Lack of time Figure 8. Perceptions regarding the reason that some people do not actively participate (May 2012). 42 70%
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Other organization/actor Churches Economically powerful groups from the continent 0% 1% 2% Foundations Foreign governments 6% 4% Tourism companies Communication media National Assembly Municipalities Organized citizens 5% 4% 9% 16% 21% Central government – presidency 32% Figure 9. Perception about who has the power to initiate socioenvironmental change in Galapagos (May 2012). 4. The main reason that some people do not participate is lack of time, followed by the disorderly meetings of civil society organizations. 5. Galapagos residents believe the central government, citizens and municipalities are those with the greatest ability to generate change. The family, which is the most important institution for society, the educational system and churches represent important opportunities for socialization and have the potential for building public wellbeing. 6. There are constitutional and legal opportunities that allow citizens to be important social activists. The right to participate in formal or unconventional ways (including the right of resistance) will continue to generate tensions, but far from representing an obstacle, this kind of participation makes it possible to develop societies with full rights based on discussion and collaboration. Monitoring annual changes in perceptions on citizen participation is recommended, through the collection of homogeneous data that will make it possible to identify trends over time. A study of the potential impact of training (governance, managing meetings and volunteers, etc.) is also recommended with the goal of strengthening the ability of civil society organizations to promote and maximize the impact of citizen participation. References Espinoza V. 2008. Compromiso cívico y participación ciudadana en México: Una perspectiva nacional y regional. América Latina Hoy. April, number 048. Universidad de Salamanca. Salamanca, Spain. 43
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Population and migration in Galapagos Marianita Granda León and Geovanny Chóez Salazar Governing Council of Galapagos Photograph: Lori Ulrich Introduction The official population of any jurisdiction, whether a country, province, canton or parish, is the number of inhabitants present there at a particular point in time. In Ecuador, seven population censuses have been carried out since 1950. The census counts all citizens and foreigners who are present in a particular jurisdiction on the day of the census. The censuses include those who were born and live in a place, people born elsewhere but who have made their residence in that jurisdiction, and visitors present at the time of the census. Floating population and usual residents According to the latest census conducted in Ecuador on November 28, 2010, Galapagos has a population of 25,124 inhabitants. Galapagos has the smallest population of all of the provinces and represents only one percent of the national population. The total population consists of usual residents and a floating population. Usual residents, in demographic terms, are people who have been living in a place for at least six months or if they have been there for less time, plan to stay in that place for more than six months. For example, students traveling to Quito for university become usual residents of that city, since they plan to stay there for longer than six months. The floating population consists of people who are in a place for vacation, business, medical care, family visits or other reasons, and do not plan to stay there for more than six months. For example, on a given day there are people from other provinces and other countries in Galapagos, but there are also Galapagos residents who are outside of the province, either in mainland Ecuador or abroad. Unfortunately census results do not distinguish between “Permanent Residence” or “Temporary Residence,” which is determined in Galapagos by the Governing Council; in a national census questions and criteria conform to situations that are common throughout the country. Permanent and temporary residences describe conditions that occur only in Galapagos, the only province with a special regime under the Constitution. Of the 25,124 people who were in the archipelago on Census Day in 2010, 23,046 declared that the islands are their usual place of residence. The remaining 2078 were part of a floating population consisting of two groups: 1394 from abroad and 684 from mainland Ecuador. At the same time, a total of 584 Galapagos 44
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 residents were counted in mainland Ecuador, indicating that their main place of residence was Galapagos and Usual residents*: 23,046 Floating foreign population: Galapagos residents* censused in the continent: 584 1,394 Floating national population: Population in Galapagos: they were on the continent for a short stay (less than six months; Figure 1). 684 25,124 The map is not to scale *With or without permanent or temporary resident card Figure 1. General distribution of the population of Galapagos on the day of the census 2010 (28 November). Geographic distribution of the population For political and administrative purposes, the province of Galapagos is divided into three cantons each with a corresponding municipal capital or urban parish: San Cristóbal/Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, Santa Cruz/Puerto Ayora and Isabela/Puerto Villamil. In addition to the urban parishes, each canton has at least one rural parish: El Progreso and Santa Maria/Floreana Island in San Cristóbal; Bellavista, Santa Rosa and Baltra in Santa Cruz, and Tomás de Berlanga in Isabela. More than half of the province’s population (61%) is concentrated in Santa Cruz, while San Cristóbal has 30% and Isabela 9% (Table 1, Figure 2). The Galapagos population lives mainly in urban areas, with 83% residing in the three municipal capitals and only 17% in rural parishes. On the day of the census, 1059 people were at sea, but not all those counted on cruise ships were tourists; some members of the usual population of Galapagos were at sea as crew members. The majority of people counted at sea (458 people) embarked at the port on Baltra Island, and were thus included in the total count for Baltra, which in turn forms part of the Santa Rosa parish of Santa Cruz. A total of 385 people embarked at Puerto Ayora (Santa Cruz), while 176 and 17 people embarked at Puerto Baquerizo Moreno (San Cristóbal) and Puerto Villamil (Isabela), respectively. LEGEND AND SYMBOLS Canton seat (port) Population at sea* 481 ind. Baltra 23 ind. 490 ind. 2,425 ind. 11,589 ind. * Cruise with onboard accomodations Santa Cruz 658 ind. Isabela 2,075 ind. San Cristóbal Canton Santa Cruz Canton Isabela Canton Total population: 25,124 164 ind. 385 ind. 17 ind. Floreana San Cristóbal 6,496 ind. 176 ind. 145 ind. Figure 2. Geographic distribution of the Galapagos population on the day of the 2010 Census (map not to scale). The arrows indicate the port from which the individuals departed on cruises, not the direction that they took. Source: Population Census 2010, INEC 45
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Galapagos population by canton and area in 2010. Source: Population Census 2010, INEC Canton Urban San Cristóbal 6,672 658 (El Progreso) Isabela 2,092 Santa Cruz 11,974 Total Rural Total Percentage 145 (Floreana) 7,475 30 164 (T. de Berlanga) --- 2,256 9 2,425 (Bellavista) 994 (Sta. Rosa and Baltra) 15,393 61 25,124 100 Total Percentage Total Rural: 4,386 (17%) 20,738 (83%) Table 2. Floating population by urban and rural areas in 2010. Source: Population Census 2010, INEC Canton Urban San Cristóbal 532 4 (El Progreso) 9 (Floreana) 545 26 Isabela 91 0 (T. de Berlanga) --- 91 4 Santa Cruz 975 39 (Bellavista) 428 (Sta. Rosa and Baltra) 1,442 70 2,078 100 Total Rural Total Rural: 480 (23%) 1 598 (77%) Population growth Measurements of population growth in Galapagos began in 1950 (Figure 3). Between 1950 and 2001, each census recorded a near doubling of the population. However, population growth slowed sharply during the last decade because of a policy restricting entry into Galapagos that was established via Law 67 called the Special Law for Galapagos (LOREG, for its initials in Spanish) enacted in 1998. Inhabitants 30,000 25,124 inhab. 25,000 18,640 inhab. 20,000 15,000 9,785 inhab. 10,000 5,000 1,346 inhab. 0 Annual Growth Rate AGR 1950 Census 2,391 inhab. 4.79 % 1962 Census 6,119 inhab. 4,037 inhab. 4.54% 1974 Census 5.87% % 4.91% 1982 Census 5.86 % 3.32% 1990 Census 2001 Census 2010 Census Figure 3. Annual rate of population growth in Galapagos from 1950 to 2010. Source: Population Censuses I to VII, INEC. Galapagos has traditionally been one of the provinces with the highest population growth rates, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s when it led the other provinces with an annual growth rate (AGR) that reached nearly 6% (Table 3). Currently the AGR is 3.3% per year, which for 2011 represented an increase of approximately 848 “new” people in the islands. The presence of tourists has affected Galapagos population figures, especially in recent years, although tourists usually have no intention of staying in the archipelago for more than a week. According to the Tourism Observatory of Galapagos, 80% of tourists interviewed in November 2011 indicated that they would not be staying in the islands for more than seven days. Table 3. Ranking of Annual Growth Rates (AGR) by province. Source: Population Censuses IV to VII, INEC. Period 1982-1990 Period 1990-2001 Period 2001-2010 N° AGR Province AGR Province AGR 1 Galapagos 5.9% Galapagos 5.9% Orellana 5.1% 2 Zamora Chinchipe 4.4% Sucumbíos 4.7% Esmeraldas 3.6% 3 Pastaza 3.4% Pastaza 3.5% Sucumbíos 3.5% 4 Pichincha 3.0% Pichincha 2.8% Pastaza 3.4% 5 46 Province Guayas 2.6% Guayas 2.5% Galapagos 3.3%
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 According to statistical information provided by the Governing Council of Galapagos, 173,977 tourists (including Ecuadorians and foreigners) entered Galapagos in 2010, but the number per day, according to the 2010 Floating population 25,000 census, was 2078 tourists. The 2001 census, nine years earlier, showed that only 1189 tourists entered per day, and the 1990 census counted 1174 per day (Figure 4). Usual residents 20,000 2,078 23,046 1,189 17,451 15,000 10,000 1,174 8,611 5,000 AGR floating population: 0.4% AGR floating population: 6.4% AGR resident population: 6.4% AGR resident population: 3.1% 0 November 1990 CENSUS Total population: 9,785 November 25 2001 CENSUS Total population: 18,640 November 28 2010 CENSUS Total population: 25,124 *AGR = Annual Growth Rate Figure 4. Evolution of the number of usual residents and the floating population. Source : Population Censuses V to VII, INEC The current AGR for Galapagos indicates an increase of approximately 848 people per year. Of these 848 individuals, it is estimated that 136 correspond to the increase in tourists. The remaining 712 people are new usual residents in Galapagos; 406 correspond to natural population growth and 306 migrate to Galapagos. Natural population growth refers to the number of births minus the number of deaths. In the case of births, children of mothers who usually reside in Galapagos were included even if the delivery occurred in another province or even in another country. Likewise, deaths included all those of usual residents without regard to where they died (Table 4). Table 4. Natural population growth by year. Source: Vital Statistics – Civil Register & INEC Date of Birth No. of Births* No. of Deaths Natural Population Growth 2000 472 39 433 2001 437 31 406 2002 464 30 434 2003 472 35 437 2004 442 24 418 2005 370 40 330 2006 429 27 402 2007 418 35 383 2008 415 29 386 2009 455 43 412 2010 404 43 402 *Births from mothers who live in Galapagos (with or without a resident card), including those who give birth in Galapagos, in another part of Ecuador or in a foreign country, Gross immigration 2001 y 2010 Gross immigration is based on the birthplace of each person who was counted in the Galapagos population on the day of the census. In every census each individual indicates their place of birth (province, canton and parish); for this study “birthplace” was considered the province of birth. In both censuses 65% of the population was born outside of Galapagos (Table 5). 47
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 5. Galapagos population by province of birth in the 2001 and 2010 censuses. Source: Population Censuses VI and VII - INEC Province of Birth Census 2001 Census 2010 Number Percentage Number Percentage Galapagos 6,392 34.3 8,571 34.1 Other province 11,401 61.2 14,773 58.8 Foreign country 847 4.5 1,780 7.1 18,640 100.0 25,124 100.0 Total Usual residents and recent immigration On the day of the penultimate census (25 November 2001), a total of 18,640 people were counted in Galapagos, of which 17,451 (94%) reported living in the Tungurahua: 2,008 (11.5%) Foreign: 210 (1.3%) Other provinces: 2,379 (13.6%) Total population:18,640 *Includes permanent and temporary residents Guayas: 3,368 (19.3%) Galapagos: 6,375 (36.5%) Usual residents*: 17,451 (93.6%) Floating: 1,189 6.4% province; the rest constituted the floating population. The usually resident population was structured as follows: approximately 37% were born in Galapagos, 19% in Gauyas, 12% in Tungurahua and less than 10% in each of the other provinces (Figure 5). Pichincha: 1,189 (6.8%) Loja: 822 (4.7%) Manabí: 1,100 (6.3%) Figure 5. Usual residents by place of birth, 2001 census. Source: Population Census 2001, INEC The census provides information on recent migrations, i.e., the movement of individuals during the five years preceding the date of the census. The question dealing with migration information is: “Five years ago, where did you reside?” This question identifies current residents who arrived “recently” and where they came from (Figures 5 and 6). Province of Birth – Residents Guayas (3,368 inds.) Pichincha (1,189 inds.) Manabí (1,100 inds.) Loja (822 inds.) 80 Foreign (210 inds.) 1,420 508 805 282 102 238 26 836 619 183 20 Other (2,379 inds.) 5 82 137 68 2,355 802 211 Tungurahua (2,008 inds.) In November 2001, total recent migration to Galapagos consisted of 2601 individuals who did not live in Galapagos five years earlier (1996) but who in 2001 declared that the archipelago was their usual place of residence. This figure included 802 people from Guayas, 508 from Tungurahua, 282 from Pichincha, 238 from Manabí, 183 from Loja, 520 from other provinces, and 68 people from abroad. 520 Arrived before 1996 Arrived between 1996 and 2001 (5 years before census) Born between 1996 and 2001 (5 years before census) 1,777 Figure 6. Arrival time of Galapagos residents who were not born in the Islands, Census 2001. Source: Population Census 2001, INEC 48
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 The 2010 census revealed a similar situation: the five most frequent provinces represented in Galapagos in terms of birthplace were Guayas, Tungurahua, Manabí, Pichincha and Loja (Figure 7). Guayas (1000 individuals), Tungurahua (601), Manabí (299), Pichincha (251), Loja (233), other provinces (817) and abroad (160; Figure 8). By comparing the 2001 and 2010 censuses, it is evident that immigration to Galapagos has increased slightly. A total of 160 foreign-born individuals have moved to Galapagos between the two censuses, more than double the number counted in the 2001 census (Figure 9). Recent migration (within the five years prior to the 2010 census) includes a total of 3361 individuals, all of whom were living outside the province of Galapagos five years before the census but in 2010 indicated that Galapagos is now their usual residence. Recent arrivals came from Usual residents*: 23,046 (91.7%) Floating: 2,078 8.3% Guayas: 4,114 17.9% Galapagos: 8,538 37.0% Tungurahua: 2,789 12.1% Foreign: 386 1.7% Other provinces: 3,500 (15.2%) Total population: 25,124 *Includes permanent and temporary residents Manabí: 1,484 6.4% Loja: 1,011 4.4% Pichincha: 1,224 5.3% Figure 7. Usual residents by province of birth, Census 2010. Source: Population Census 2010, INEC Province of birth of residents Guayas (4,114 inds.) Tungurahua (2,789 inds.) Manabí (1,484 inds.) Pichincha (1,224 inds.) Loja (1,011 inds.) 289 Foreign (386 inds.) 2,113 601 75 1,142 299 43 100 Arrived more than 5 years ago 873 10 Arrived within the last 5 years 251 Born in the last 5 years 755 233 23 Other (3,500 inds.) 2,825 1,000 131 216 160 2,552 817 Figure 8. Arrival time of the Galapagos residents not born in the Islands, Census 2010. Source: Population Census 2010 - INEC 2001 Census 1,000 2010 Census 817 802 508 601 520 238 Guayas Tungurahua 299 Manabí 282 251 Pichincha 183 233 Loja 68 Other provinces 160 Foreign Province of birth of usual residents Figure 9. Recent immigration 2001 and 2010. Source: Population Censuses 2001 and 2010 – INEC 49
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Emigration born in Galapagos who are now residents outside the province has increased (Table 6). The provinces with more individuals migrating to Galapagos also received the more individuals from Galapagos, although the balance of migration (immigration-emigration) “favors” Galapagos. Gross emigration is determined by the place of birth in comparison with the place of residence. Between the 2001 and 2010 censuses, the number of people Table 6. Number of individuals born in Galapagos with usual residency in provinces in continental Ecuador, 2001 and 2010. Source: Population Censuses 2001 and 2010 - INEC Census 2001 Usual Residency Census 2010 Number Percentage Number Percentage Guayas 838 49.6 Guayas 1,022 43.1 Pichincha 438 25.9 Pichincha 626 26.4 Tungurahua 98 5.8 Tungurahua 152 6.4 El Oro 54 3.2 Manabí 66 2.8 Manabí 53 3.1 Santa Elena 64 2.7 Other 208 12.3 Other 443 18.7 Total 1,689 100.0 Total 2,373 100.0 Recent emigration included those people who emigrated from Galapagos in the five years prior to the census. The number of emigrants moving from Galapagos Usual Residency to provinces of mainland Ecuador doubled in the 2010 census compared to the 2001 census. Table 7. Usual residency of individuals born in Galapagos who emigrated within the last five years. Source: Population Censuses 2001 and 2010, INEC Census 2001 Usual Residency Census 2010 Number Percentage Guayas Number 441 Percentage Usual Residency 38.4 Guayas 903 37.1 Pichincha 320 27.9 Pichincha 585 24.1 Tungurahua 101 8.8 Tungurahua 238 9.8 Manabí 44 3.8 Manabí 97 4.0 Esmeraldas 33 2.9 Loja 82 3.4 Other 210 18.3 Other 527 21.7 Total 1,149 100.0 Total 2,432 100.0 Emigration abroad is based on information provided by the head of household from which the emigrant departed. During the last two decades, between 200 and 300 people emigrated abroad from Galapagos (Table 8). Tabla 8. Number of Galapagos residents who emigrated outside Ecuador from 1990 to 2001 and from 2001 to 2010, by gender. Source: Population Census 1990, 2001 and 2010, INEC Gender Period 1990 to 2001 Period 2001 to 2010 Number Number Percentage Male 115 49.6 147 52.1 Female 117 50.4 135 47.9 Total 50 Percentage 232 100.0 282 100.0
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Conclusions The analysis of census data from Galapagos provides the following conclusions: • Galapagos has the greatest percentage of floating population of any province of Ecuador. • The rate of population growth has declined by almost half in Galapagos (according to the 2010 census) compared to previous decades, demonstrating the effectiveness of LOREG in controlling population. • The trend of increasing numbers of tourists swells the floating population and thus the total population. • Approximately two-thirds of the Galapagos population was born outside the province; this proportion has remained relatively the same in the last three censuses (1990, 2001 and 2010). • Both in the 2010 and the 2001 censuses, gross immigration to Galapagos primarily came from five provinces: Gauyas, Tungurahua, Manabí, Pichincha and Loja. Recent migration, over the last five years based on the 2010 census, has been mainly from Guayas and Tungurahua. • Approximately seven in ten children under the age of five living in the Galapagos were born in this province. 51
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Mobility patterns and use of space in Galapagos Josselin Guyot-Téphany1, Christophe Grenier2, Emmanuel Cléder1 and Daniel Orellana1 Charles Darwin Foundation, 2University of Nantes (France) 1 Photograph: Josselin Guyot-Téphany Introduction The human history of Galapagos has been one of progressive reduction of the ecological isolation that allowed the evolution of unique species. In the Galapagos Report 2009-2010, an article on this topic details the process of geographic opening (Grenier, 2010), and three other articles discuss transport issues in Galapagos: the results of the first vehicle census (Oviedo et al., 2010), taxi mobility in Santa Cruz (Cléder & Grenier, 2010) and inter-island passenger boat transportation (Ouvrard & Grenier, 2010). Continuing this line of research, this article presents a study of mobility on each island, between islands, and between the archipelago and the mainland. The study is based on the results of the survey entitled “Population Mobility in the Galapagos,” whose aim was to analyze the spatial distribution of the different flows of people (origins and destinations), and the means of transportation and patterns of movements (vehicles used, reasons and frequencies). The results complement previous research and, together with the other articles on mobility in this edition of Galapagos Report, will form the basis for the development of a shared vision on mobility in Galapagos. Methodology The Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) conducted a series of surveys in three of the inhabited islands of the archipelago between October 2010 and March 2011. In total, there were 500 valid surveys: 298 in Santa Cruz, 127 in San Cristóbal, and 70 in Isabela. When designing and conducting the survey, numbers per island were based on the 2001 Census (the most current demographic data). A subsequent comparison with the 2010 Census showed that the selected sample corresponds to the actual population distribution among the islands, and between the port towns and highlands, within a margin of error of +/-10%. This ensures that the data collected has good geographical representation. The survey consisted of 69 questions covering 247 variables (190 closed ended and 57 open ended). In order to minimize errors in the formulation and interpretation of the questions, quantitative and semi-quantitative variables were used. Detailed methodology, complete questionnaires, and an exhaustive analysis of the results can be found in Téphany-Guyot et al. (2012). Increase in traffic flow The geographic opening of the Galapagos Islands has generated a rapid and disorderly growth in the transportation system in the archipelago. The average annual increase in the number of terrestrial motor vehicles has been 7.7% since 1998, outpacing the population growth [annual average of 3.3% between 2001 and 2010 according to the Census of Population and Housing (CPV – INEC, 2010)]. 52
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 This demonstrates that the restrictions established in 1997 to limit the entry of new motor vehicles have not achieved the expected results (Table 1). As for marine transportation, since 2004, small passenger launches have replaced the larger public transport boats, increasing interisland mobilization. In 2009 it was estimated that the number of rapid launches operating was approximately 44 (Ouvrard & Grenier, 2009). At present the number of boats engaged in this activity is not clear. With regard to air transport, the number of commercial flights to the Galapagos has risen from 17 weekly flights (only to Baltra) during 2001 to 40 weekly flights (34 to Baltra and 6 to San Cristóbal) in 2011. Table 1. Laws and regulations that have been implemented to regulate terrestrial transport in Galapagos. Year Law or regulation Objective 1997 Second supplement, Official Register N°55 First regulation of vehicles in Galapagos. It restricts the entry of new terrestrial vehicles to the conservation and agriculture sectors and for replacement of vehicles already in the province. 1998 Special Law for Galapagos: Ley Orgánica de Régimen Especial para la Conservación y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Provincia de Galápagos INGALA was delegated to have jurisdiction over the determination of the number and type of terrestrial vehicles that enter Galapagos. 1999 INGALA Resolution No. 002-CI-IV-99 5-year moratorium on the entry of vehicles. 2005 INGALA Resolution No. 02-18-CI-2005 5-year moratorium on the creation of new terrestrial transportation cooperatives and for any new operation permits. 2009 INGALA Resolution No. CI-11/ 12-II-2009 Establishment of a committee, headed by the president of INGALA, to issue entry permits for new terrestrial vehicles based on environmental criteria. The uncontrolled development of the land transportation system is reflected in the increasing motorization of mobility. The survey shows that about 20% of the study population in Santa Cruz and nearly 33% in San Cristóbal and Isabela have access to a motor vehicle (personal, borrowed or rented). Even so, access to such transportation is limited to a minority of residents. The use of private motor vehicles is less common than the use of bicycles: 13% of the study population used a motorcycle or scooter more than once a week and less than 10% used some other type of motor vehicle, compared with 45% who used a bicycle at the same frequency (Figure 1). Figure 1. Frequency of use of each means of terrestrial transport in Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal and Isabela. 53
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Moreover, although they represent less than 20% of the motor vehicle fleet in the Galapagos, taxis are the most common means of transport after walking: 60% of the study population used a taxi more than once a week (67% in Santa Cruz, 57% in San Cristóbal, and 43% in Isabela). Finally the absence of effective regulation of the vehicle fleet reduces the role of public transportation. Although Santa Cruz and Isabela have buses running between the port towns and the highlands, no more than 25% of survey respondents in either island used this means of transport more than once a week. While non-motorized mobility is more frequently used than motorized mobility, the latter is gaining ground in the same way on all three islands. First, the type of mobility is related to socioeconomic categories. Higher socioeconomic classes have an “urban-continental” lifestyle: they stop walking and instead use private motor vehicles (see details Guyot-Téphany et al., 2012). Lower socioeconomic classes without access to private vehicles stop walking in favor of travel by taxi or bus. Secondly, the increased use of private motor vehicles and taxis is the result of the double demand to travel both faster and farther (Table 2), which is closely related to the everexpanding urban space. More motorized vehicles allow residents to live farther from their workplace, which in turn increases the need for more vehicles. Finally, protection from the weather (sun, heat or rain) provided by vehicles, as well as the ease of transporting cargo, are additional important reasons for using motorized vehicles. On the other hand, there are environmental and health considerations, which favor walking or using bicycles or buses (Table 3). Table 2. Reasons for using private motorized vehicles or taxis more than once per week. Reason Santa Cruz (N = 215) San Cristóbal (N = 92) Isabela (N = 45 Total (N = 352) Save time (quicker) 92% 79% 82% 87% Long distances 76% 69% 75% 74% Transport cargo or purchases 60% 47% 71% 58% Requires little physical effort 44% 54% 39% 46% Lack of alternative (public transportation) 47% 43% 46% 46% Protection from weather conditions 64% 77% 61% 67% Health problems 28% 36% 20% 29% Santa Cruz (N = 275) San Cristóbal (N = 121) Isabela (N = 74) Total (N = 470) Galapagos is a special place 97% 83% 95% 93% Reduce environmental pollution 96% 93% 95% 95% Better for health 94% 82% 96% 91% Save money 80% 68% 58% 73% Freedom to come and go at any time 88% 86% 97% 89% Short distances 59% 78% 51% 63% Lack of economic resources 31% 42% 28% 33% Table 3. Reasons for walking, using bicycles or mass transit more than once per week. Reason The continued expansion of the land transportation system and the increased speed of travel represent major changes in the island lifestyle. Survey respondents describe a paradox: while many people feel that it has become necessary to mobilize via motor vehicles, they also believe that walking or bicycling is much more adapted to the island environment and a healthy lifestyle (often relating it to “living well” or buen vivir.). The increase in vehicles and the ever-increasing flow of traffic are phenomena that occur at every level of mobility in the archipelago. The growth of marine transport has permitted a daily connection between the port towns 54 on the different islands and has halved the travel time between islands, producing a sense of “closeness” that further accelerates and expands the effects of geographic opening on all inhabited islands. According to the survey results, the ecological impact of the passenger launches (pollution and death of marine animals), as well as the disorganized nature of the transportation companies, are perceived by residents as necessary evils to have a faster and cheaper marine transportation system bringing the islands closer to one another. During the past five years, respondents in Isabela have traveled an average of six times per year to another island, those on San Cristóbal four times, and those on Santa Cruz two.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Similarly, the increase in the number of commercial flights to Quito and Guayaquil makes travel to the mainland easier. Two-thirds of respondents have traveled to the continent at least once during the 12 months prior to the survey, with the average number of trips for all respondents during the same period equal to 1.26 in Santa Cruz, 1.31 in San Cristóbal, and 1.65 in Isabela. As with terrestrial mobility, the frequency of travel by sea or air is related to sociological variables: higher socioeconomic classes have higher rates of travel between islands and between the islands and the mainland. Transforming island space into urban networks The use of ever-faster vehicles to move from one place to another significantly reduces access times between physically distant locations. Rapidly increasing mobility, in addition to producing serious environmental impacts such as increased bird mortality along the Puerto Ayora – Itabaca Channel road (Jiménez-Uzcátegui & Betancourt, 2008) and reducing safety conditions in both land and maritime transport (see details in Guyot-Téphany et al., 2012), ruptures the ecological isolation of the island ecosystems that guarantees biological uniqueness. The flow of people forms mobility networks that cross natural areas to connect the towns to one another. The greatest terrestrial flows of people are between the ports and highland villages (Maps 1-3). Bellavista, Santa Rosa and El Progreso are frequently the source of flows (daily or weekly) to Puerto Ayora and Puerto Baquerizo, where both jobs and economic services are concentrated. Thanks to motorized vehicles, the rural highland villages “grow nearer” to the ports, and are slowly converted into residential suburbs. In comparison, the beaches and natural sites are infrequently visited destinations (several times a year, once a year or never); they “grow farther” from the ports, revealing a progressive enclosure of the urban island population. Map 1. Terrestrial mobility scheme in Santa Cruz. Author: Guyot-Téphany J., CDF, 2011. Source: Mobility Survey, N=500, Cléder E., CDF, 2010/2011, INEC CPV 2011 55
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Map 2. Terrestrial mobility scheme in San Cristóbal. Author: Guyot-Téphany J., CDF, 2011. Source: Mobility Survey, N=500, Cléder E., CDF, 2010/2011, INEC CPV 2011 Map 3. Terrestrial mobility scheme in Isabela. Author: Guyot-Téphany J., CDF, 2011. Source: Mobility Survey, N=500, Cléder E., CDF, 2010/2011, INEC CPV 2011 56
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Map 4. Interisland mobility and mobility between the archipelago and the continent. Author: Guyot-Téphany J., CDF, 2011. Source: Mobility Survey, N=500, Cléder E., CDF, 2010/2011, INEC CPV 2011 The ports are the center of terrestrial mobility and the sites where each island becomes more accessible to the other islands of the archipelago. The maritime flows of people are directed from the ports of the less populated islands to those of the more developed islands (Map 4), revealing the interdependence that has developed between the islands: Puerto Ayora is the economic center of the archipelago; Puerto Baquerizo Moreno is the political capital and secondary economic hub; and Isabela is on the periphery of development. Maritime mobility is a way to overcome being in a peripheral location in the archipelago. Figure 2. Reasons for the last two trips to the continent. 57
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 The insular urban network is connected to continental space through the airports of Baltra and San Cristóbal. Survey respondents travel to the mainland to offset social isolation (lack of relationship with family and friends), lack of services (administrative, educational and especially medical), or lack of entertainment (vacations) (Figure 2). Air mobility is a way of overcoming the insular life in an urban island environment increasingly connected to the outside (by reducing access times) and disconnected from the natural environment. Guayaquil, Quito and Ambato are the destinations of 75% of trips to continental Ecuador. The continued connection with continental culture influences the rapidly changing lifestyle in Galapagos toward urban living. Based on the results of the study, we recommend the following actions: • Strengthen enforcement of the law to effectively limit the entry of new terrestrial motor vehicles into Galapagos. • Create a targeted subsidy scheme to encourage public transport and discourage personal motorized transport. • Encourage non-motorized land mobility by improving infrastructure, such as the extension of sidewalks and public spaces in urban areas, extensive implementation of safe bicycle lanes, and additional infrastructure such as parking areas, safety zones, etc. • Encourage public transit by improving bus services between ports and highlands, and implementing a public transit service in Puerto Ayora and Puerto Baquerizo Moreno. • Organize marine transportation, implementing a quality public transport service between ports with larger, more comfortable and safer boats that have low environmental impact. • Improve basic health and administration services to reduce dependence on the continent, thus reducing the number of trips per person. Conclusions and recommendations The geographic opening of the Galapagos Islands is a phenomenon that is both cause and consequence of the steady increase in the mobility of the island population. On one hand, the uncontrolled development of transport, engine of the geographic opening, generates intense human flows at all levels. On the other, the reduction in access times between physically distant locations generates increased demand for transport in an insular urban network more closely connected to the mainland than to its own natural surroundings. This mobility model is unsustainable. First, the acceleration of flows generates environmental impacts and reduces transport safety. Secondly, the acceleration of the flow in a doubly limited space (physical limits of each island and boundaries of each populated area) causes a sense of urban enclosure that in turn encourages people to travel to the mainland more frequently. Finally, the transformation of island spaces into urban networks threatens the biological uniqueness of the Galapagos, which is its main tourist attraction. Acknowledgments We thank Galapagos Conservancy and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, who funded this study. We also thank all those who helped conduct the surveys. References Jiménez-Uzcátegui G & L Betancourt. 2008. Avifauna vs. automotores. In Informe Galápagos 2007-2008. Pp.111–114. FCDPNG-INGALA, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Cléder E & C Grenier. 2010. Los taxis de Santa Cruz, una loca movilidad. In Informe Galápagos 2009–2010. Pp. 29-39. FCDPNG-CGERG, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Grenier C. 2010. La apertura geográfica de Galápagos. In Informe Galápagos 2009–2010. Pp. 123–131. FCD-PNG-CGERG, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Guyot-Téphany J, C Grenier, D Orellana & C Cléder. 2012. Apertura geográfica y movilidad en las islas Galápagos: Informe sobre la campaña de encuestas “Movilidad en Galápagos” 2010-2011. Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Ouvrard E & C Grenier. 2010. El transporte de pasajeros por lanchas en Galápagos. In Informe Galápagos 2009–2010. Pp. 40-47. FCD-PNG-CGERG, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Oviedo M, J Agama, E Buitrón & F Zavala. 2010. Primer censo de vehículos motorizados terrestres en Galápagos. In Informe Galápagos 2009–2010. Pp. 48-53. FCD-PNG-CGERG, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. 58
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Building responsible terrestrial mobility in Santa Cruz Rosa Elvira Bravo Segovia1, Marianita Granda León1 and Edison Mendieta2 1 Fundación Un Cambio por la Vida, 2Decentralized Autonomous Municipal Government of Santa Cruz Photograph: Catherine D’ Alessio Introduction Mobility has become an issue of major importance in the design of cities. Adequate coordination is required to ensure comfort, satisfaction and positive interaction among citizens as they make use of their surroundings and enjoy public spaces. The capacity of municipalities to ensure effective mobility is of great importance and provides a direct way they can improve the quality of life of their inhabitants. In the canton of Santa Cruz, responsible management is needed to improve pedestrian mobility and other forms of land transportation. Policies for the design and use of roads must be integrated with efforts to restore public spaces, promote the use of non-motorized vehicles (bicycles), promote the establishment of rights and obligations of all who use roads, and educate and build awareness among users to create a more inclusive and sustainable culture. Special attention should be given to educating youth and adolescents. Sixty percent of the Galapagos population lives in the canton of Santa Cruz. Solving socio-environmental conflicts such as mobility can be complex, especially when 96% of the population believes that the current mobility model is inconsistent with the type of development they want for their community. This paper presents a study of citizen perceptions and behaviors related to land mobility in Santa Cruz. It provided the initial input for what is now the Responsible Land Mobility Plan for the Canton of Santa Cruz. Methodology In 2010, the Foundation - A Change for Life (Fundación Un Cambio por la Vida) and the Municipal Government of Santa Cruz conducted a survey to establish a baseline of what terrestrial mobility means for the inhabitants of Puerto Ayora and to identify the key elements for creating a comprehensive public policy for Santa Cruz. The methodology established for the 2010 Population and Housing Census was used as the sampling framework for this study. We performed a two-stage design using the household as the unit of observation and individual household members as research units. 216 surveys were conducted among youth (16-21 years), young adults (22-35 years), adults (36-64 years) and seniors (65 and over). The survey group included men and women involved in various economic activities and with different levels of education (Tables 1-3). Fieldwork was conducted in April 2011. 59
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Percentage of surveys by gender. Gender Percentage Male 37 Female 63 Total 100 Percentage Public employee 13 Private employee 19 Family business 26 Housework 21 Student 20 Other 1 Total 100 Percentage Literacy center 1 Primary 14 Secondary 52 Superior 33 Total Type 100 Ownership, type and use of vehicles Motorcycle 71 1 Pickup truck 21 Bus/van 3 Truck 2 Dump truck / tank truck 2 Total 100 Table 6. Vehicle drivers. Driver Percentage Owner 51 49 Total 100 Frequency of mobilization and primary means of transportation. On a daily basis, 72% of those interviewed walks, 40% travels in their own or a family vehicle, 38% uses bicycles, and 19% uses a pickup truck/taxi (Table 7). When carrying packages, 31% always or almost always uses vehicles, while 44% never or rarely do so (Table 8). Table 7. Frequency of transportation with packages. Non-motorized vehicles (bicycles). Of the households surveyed, 85% owns non-motorized vehicles (bicycles), and of these, 64% have more than one bicycle in their home (Table 4). Frequency Table 4. Number of bicycles owned per house. Percentage Percentage of houses 1 37 2 36 3 16 4 8 5 2 8 1 Total 100 Motorized vehicles. Of the households surveyed, 65% owns motorized vehicles, 71% of which are motorcycles (Table 5). The increase in the number of motorcycles in recent years is alarming, as they create environmental pollution and a high percentage arrived without legal authorization. Of all vehicles, 49% are driven by third parties (hired drivers; Table 6). The majority of hired drivers is non-residents, which results in a high turnover Always 8 Almost always 23 Sometimes 26 Almost never Number 60 Percentage Contracted Table 3. Percentage of surveys by level of education. Level of Education Table 5. Type of motorized vehicle. Automobile/Jeep Table 2. Percentage of surveys by economic activity. Economic Activity of drivers and complicates traffic and road safety training and awareness building. 25 Never 19 Total 100 The surveyed population considers that personal vehicles are the principle means of transport in Puerto Ayora (Table 9), which explains the current high number of motor vehicles and disorganized traffic. The bicycle is considered second in preference in spite of the difficulties created by the current city design, which gives priority to motor vehicles. Current status of mobility in urban areas The study identified 19 variables associated with perceptions about terrestrial mobility, which can be organized within the following six general areas: 1. City infrastructure 2. Regulatory compliance and control
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 3. Traffic safety conditions within the city 5. Means of transport 4. Relation between the current mobility system and the environment 6. Need for urgent changes in the current mobility system Table 8. Frequency of mobilization by type of vehicle or walking. Frequency of use Personal or family vehicle (%) Taxi (%) Bicycle (%) Walking (%) Never 52 2 44 1 Almost never 3 12 4 3 At least once per month 1 13 6 2 At least once per week 4 54 8 22 Daily 40 19 38 72 Total 100 100 100 100 Table 9. Principal means of urban transportation. Type of vehicle Percentage Personal vehicle 34 Rented vehicle (taxi) 7 Bicycle 32 Walking 27 Total 100 1. Infrastructure. Approximately 87% of respondents felt that infrastructure related to mobility is unsatisfactory (Figure 1). Of note is the dissatisfaction with the lack of sidewalks, bike lanes and signage, as well as the routing of vehicles. Sidewalk coverage is adequate Totally disagree, 97% Bicycle lanes are sufficient Totally disagree 96% Signage for drivers is adequate Totally disagree 93% Signage for bicyclists is adequate Totally disagree 90% Signage for walkers is adequate Totally disagree 89% Current directions for motorized vehicles is adequate Totally disagree 87% 80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100% Totally disagree Partially disagree Indifferent Partially agree Totally agree Figure 1. Level of satisfaction regarding the current infrastructure for terrestrial mobility. 61
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 2. Regulations and control. Over 64% of people surveyed expressed dissatisfaction with the regulations for the entry of vehicles and the controls exercised by the cooperatives and transport companies over their members (Figure 2). Of particular interest is the dissatisfaction with the lack of traffic control. Traffic control is adequate Totally disagree 87% Control of cooperatives and companies is adequate Totally disagree 80% Regulations for importing vehicles is adequate Totally disagree 64% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Totally disagree Partially disagree Indifferent Partially agree Totally agree Figure 2. Level of satisfaction regarding the regulations and current control of terrestrial mobility. 3. Safety conditions for mobility. More than 54% expressed dissatisfaction related to the negative interaction between users of the roads, the insecurity of pedestrians, and the lack of favorable conditions for cycling in the city (Figure 3). Interaction among walkers-bicyclists-drivers is cordial Totally disagree 92% One feels secure when moving along the streets of Puerto Ayora Totally disagree 87% Puerto Ayora has favorable conditions for traveling by bicycle Totally disagree 54% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Totally disagree Partially disagree Indifferent Partially agree Totally agree Figure 3. Level of satisfaction with the conditions within the city for safe terrestrial mobility. 4. Mobility system in relation to the environment. More than 50% expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the relationship between the current mobility system and the environment, demonstrating a perception that fossil fuel consumption is unfriendly to the ecosystem (Figure 4). Current mobility system is ecosystem-friendly Totally disagree 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Totally disagree Partially disagree Indifferent Partially agree Totally agree Figure 4. Level of satisfaction regarding the current relationship between the mobility system and the ecosystem. 62
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 5. Means of transport. Over 55% of respondents thought that public transit should be implemented in both urban and rural areas; 74% believes that the actions of each citizen affect the current mobility system; 87% expressed dissatisfaction with the excessive number of motor vehicles, while 87% said they would adopt the use of bicycles as their primary means of transport if the city created favorable conditions for their use (Figure 5). Bicycle - principle mode of transport Totally agree 87% Number of motorized vehicles is excessive Totally agree 87% Implementation of transportation between parishes Totally agree 68% Implementation of an urban bus system Totally agree 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Totally disagree Partially disagree Indifferent Partially agree Totally agree Figure 5. Opinion on the various means of transport and citizen action. 6. Functionality of the current mobility system. 93% of respondents indicated their dissatisfaction with the functioning of the current mobility system (Figure 6) and that urgent changes are required. Urgent changes are needed in the mobility system Totally agree 93% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Totally disagree Partially disagree Indifferent Partially agree Totally agree Figure 6. Opinion regarding the functioning of the current mobility system. Mobilization habits The surveys identified 17 variables related to the behavior of three categories of users of the terrestrial mobility system: 1) pedestrians, 2) cyclists, and 3) drivers. 1. Behavior of pedestrians. Pedestrian behavior is considered satisfactory; more than 50% correctly uses the road infrastructure, and almost 40% keeps informed about and complies with traffic regulations (Figure 7). 63
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 40% 52% 57% 83% Use sidewalks when available Never Use crosswalks or cross at corners Almost never Walk in bicycle lanes Sometimes Respect transit rules Almost always Always Figure 7. Opinion regarding the behavior of pedestrians. 2. Behavior of bicyclists. Respondents consider the behavior of bicyclists satisfactory (Figure 8). However, only 28% uses the streets as marked for motor vehicles. 100% 80% 60% 40% 95% 86% Use bicycle lanes when available Bicyclists have preference over pedestrians Use lanes and streets in same direction as motorized vehicles 54% 28% 20% 0% Never Almost never Sometimes Almost always Use sidewalks Always Figure 8. Opinion regarding behavior of bicyclists. 3. Behavior of drivers. The habits of drivers of motor vehicles are considered adequate, with over 80% concerned about complying with traffic regulations (Figure 9). However, 48% of drivers invades bike paths/ lanes. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 81% 48% Respect transit laws Never Ensure that vehicle is in optimum conditions before using Almost never Figure 9. Opinion regarding the behavior of drivers. 64 96% 99% Ensure that vehicle has safety equipment Sometimes Almost always Invade bike lanes with motorized vehicle Always
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Conclusions and recommendations This study reveals alarmingly high levels of dissatisfaction with the current terrestrial mobility system in Puerto Ayora. The lack of adequate infrastructure, regulatory compliance and control, road safety, eco-friendly transport, and public transit options are among the conditions that are in urgent need of change. To achieve the necessary changes we recommend the creation of an effective, broadly accepted planning tool to initiate actions within a comprehensive vision. The Responsible Land Mobility Plan includes five general areas in which the Municipality of Santa Cruz, the Foundation A Change for Life, institutions with jurisdiction over land mobility, NGOs and citizens can initiate activities contemplated in the Mobility Plan in ways that will result in responsible land mobility in the short term (Figure 10). To document the integrated actions of the different actors and the fulfillment of the five areas of management contemplated in the Responsible Land Mobility Plan for Santa Cruz, we propose the creation of a series of indicators that resulted from this baseline study on terrestrial mobility (Table 10). Plan for development of adequate road infrastructure Implement a terrestrial transportation system consistent with the environment Design guidelines for institutional policies and responsibilities that will generate effective governance IImplement a responsible transportation culture Promote citizen participation and the empowerment of responsible mobility Responsible Terrestrial Mobility Plan for Santa Cruz Figure 10. Management areas within the responsible terrestrial mobility system. Table 10. Indicators and baseline for the management areas of the Responsible Terrestrial Mobility Plan. Management areas Indicators Baseline Design policy guidelines and institutional competencies that generate effective governance No. of traffic control actions and regulations taken No. of control actions and regulations taken in general Lack of a governance body that brings together all of the institutions with jurisdiction over land transportation and road safety Implement a land transportation system consistent with the environment % of people using a bicycle at least once a week – based on the total number of people in the urban population 18% currently uses a bicycle at least once a week % of people using taxis (pick-up trucks) at least once a week – based on the total number of people in the urban population 54% currently uses taxis at least once a week 65
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Plan the allocation of an adequate road infrastructure Level of satisfaction (%) regarding the coverage of sidewalks and bicycle lanes Current level of dissatisfaction regarding the coverage of: • Sidewalks: 97% • Bike lanes: 96% Level of satisfaction (%) regarding Current level of dissatisfaction the extent of signage for pedestrians, regarding signage: bicyclists and motor vehicles • Pedestrians: 89% • Bicyclists: 90% • Motor vehicles: 93% Implement a culture of responsible mobility Current dissatisfaction regarding interactions: 92% Rating of the behavior of different user groups Encourage citizen participation and empowerment for responsible mobility Level of satisfaction (%) regarding interactions among pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers • • • Pedestrians: 50% = Regular Bicyclists: 62% = Good Drivers: 85% = Very good % citizen participation in dialogue opportunities regarding mobility Number of locally-provided opportu- No opportunities for dialogue exist nities for dialogue on mobility % citizen participation in Mobility Observatory Since 93% of those surveyed believes that urgent changes in the current terrestrial mobility system are needed, we No Mobility Observatory exists propose periodic monitoring to analyze indicators and variables, and to take action as needed (Table 11). Table 11. Actions, variables and challenges related to the analysis of changes in land mobility. Action Challenge Effective governance Traffic control Control of cooperatives and transport companies Regulations for entry of vehicles Traffic and terrestrial transportation regulations and control measures correspond to 25% of all general regulations and actions. Ground transportation consistent with the environment Frequency of mobilization The use of motor vehicles decreases in direct proportion to the increase in the use of bicycles. Adequate road infrastructure Coverage of sidewalks, bikeways, signage and road security Infrastructure grows in inverse proportion to the level of dissatisfaction of pedestrians regarding safety. Culture of responsible mobility Interaction among pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers As more public space is appropriated for motor vehicles, there is a decrease in the use of public space and harmonious interactions among citizens. Citizen participation 66 Variables Driver education training Opportunities for dialogue Lack of opportunities for dialogue and public comment on mobility issues results in low participation.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Uses, perceptions and management of water in Galapagos Josselin Guyot-Téphany1, Christophe Grenier2 and Daniel Orellana1 Charles Darwin Foundation, 2University of Nantes (France) 1 Figure 1. Barefoot man carrying a bottle of purified water up a road in Puerto Villamil. This photo shows that while the population has piped water for domestic uses, for most people the necessity of buying drinking water, sometimes daily, is a reality. Photograph: Josselin Guyot-Tephany Introduction Residents in the Galapagos Islands have, as yet, no potable water (Figure 1). The implementation of municipal water supply systems increased access to limited water resources, but unlimited population growth has created problems that are difficult to solve: waste of water, contamination of water resources, and water diseases. Several studies on water management in Galapagos exist from technical and natural science perspectives, but social analyses are needed in order to understand water issues in their entirety. This article presents the results of the survey “Perceptions, uses and management of water in the Galapagos” whose aim was to analyze how the process of geographic opening, a phenomenon defined as the “uncontrolled growing connection of this region with the rest of the world” (Grenier, 2010) affects the relationship the islanders have with water. Methodology The Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) conducted surveys in the three most populated islands on the practices and perceptions relating to domestic water use: Santa Cruz (N=150, April-May 2010), San Cristóbal (N=100, June 2011), and Isabela (N=70, July 2011). Comparing the numbers of surveys conducted in both ports and highlands of each island with the results of the 2010 Population and Housing Census (CPV - INEC, 2010), we determined that the numbers correspond to the current population distribution. Thus the results can be used to compare urban with rural areas. In addition to obtaining quantitative information, the study involved semi-structured interviews with long-time residents to understand the historical evolution of the relationship between people and water, as well as with institutional stakeholders to define the current model of water resource management in the Galapagos. Methodological details and a thorough analysis of the results can be found in Téphany-Guyot et al. (2012). Overcoming the shortage of natural resources Until recently, the colonization and development of the Galapagos Islands were limited, mainly due to lack of water. Although the inhabitants of San Cristóbal could count on surface freshwater, the early settlers of Santa Cruz and Isabela survived by collecting rainwater or subsurface brackish water. Beginning in the 1970s, the newly created municipalities began to develop municipal water supply systems. In San Cristóbal they improved the old water distribution system by capturing freshwater in the highlands. In Santa Cruz and Isabela brackish water 67
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 distribution systems were implemented by pumping water from the basal aquifer. The municipal water systems provided inhabitants, who were increasingly concentrated in the arid port areas, access to large amounts of water. Over the past 40 years, municipal water distribution developed so rapidly that most residents are supplied through these systems. In Santa Cruz, 88% of households receive piped water compared to 93% in San Cristóbal and 81% in Isabela (Figure 2). The coverage of this service is almost complete in the port areas and is well advanced in the highlands of Santa Cruz and San Cristóbal. In the port areas municipal water systems are the only means of water supply for 75% of the inhabitants; receiving piped water in your house is synonymous with comfort and development. Furthermore, it is an affordable service: most people surveyed pay less than US$10 per month for water, except in Bellavista, where they pay US$1.21 per cubic meter. 1 0,9 0,8 Santa Cruz, N = 150 San Cristóbal, N = 100 Isabela, N = 70 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 Public system Tanks Rainwater Crevice Community system Private system Figure 2. Percentage of households that receive water from each means. One household may be supplied by more than one means, so the total may sum to greater than 100%. As the municipal water system network expanded, traditional water supply practices began to disappear. Less and less rainwater was collected; currently only a third of the households surveyed in the three islands collect rainwater (primarily rural households without access to piped water). Today, rainwater collection is perceived as a necessary solution in rural areas but is disappearing rapidly from the port towns, where this type of water has acquired a negative connotation. Similarly, in situ extraction of brackish water in the ports has decreased, with fewer than 4% of the households surveyed in Puerto Ayora and none of those surveyed in Puerto Villamil using this method. Waste and shortages of water: supply model paradox Distribution of water via pipes and tanker trucks has overcome the scarcity of surface water resources, especially in Santa Cruz and Isabela, facilitating the development of island populations. However, the geographic opening (tourism development and immigration) has created a paradox. On the one hand, urban sprawl prevents municipalities from providing continuous service to everyone in their jurisdiction; facing constant increases in demand, they must resort to water rationing. This situation explains the lack of water to a third 68 of the households surveyed, which are concentrated in the peripheral areas of the three ports, especially in Puerto Baquerizo Moreno (Figure 3, Maps 1-3). In the highlands of Santa Cruz and Isabela, harvesting rainwater no longer covers the water demand of the local residents, which has increased with lifestyle changes and modernization of agriculture. On the other hand, the pressure on municipal infrastructure (leakage from the water system) and the absence of distribution controls (water meters) are major causes for wasting water. It is estimated that the volume of water wasted or lost in the system is higher than the volume of water actually consumed. In homes where there is good water availability, the abundance of cheap water generates carelessness and wasteful practices. For example, 61% of respondents who have a tank in Santa Cruz, as well as 47% in San Cristóbal and 21% in Isabela, confirm that they allow their tank to overflow once it fills. Water uses are determined by its quality In the three islands, the water that is distributed to residents by both pipelines and tanker trucks contains pathogens (data from Galapagos National Park Service: Lopez et al., 2005, 2007a, 2007b & 2008; Liu, 2011). Furthermore, in Santa Cruz, the stagnation of water in municipal pipes and poor storage conditions in homes amplify bacterial contamination. This phenomenon probably also occurs in the other islands.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 70% Yes No 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Santa Cruz, N = 150 San Cristóbal, N = 100 Isabela, N = 70 Figure 3. Survey results for the question: Do you have sufficient water in your home? Map 1. Map showing the availability of water in Santa Cruz. Source: CDF survey “Perceptions, uses and management of water in the Galapagos Islands” Map 2. Map showing the availability of water in Isabela. Source: CDF survey “Perceptions, uses and management of water in the Galapagos Islands” 69
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Map 3. Map showing the availability of water in San Cristóbal. Source: CDF survey “Perceptions, uses and management of water in the Galapagos Islands” Residents are very concerned with this situation and adjust their water use accordingly. Domestic water use falls into two categories according to the value of the water used (Figure 4). For drinking and cooking, people make an effort to pay for and/or obtain water that is considered fit for human consumption: rainwater, purified water or potable water made at home (boiled water). Piped water or water from tanker trucks and stored in cisterns at each home is used for all other purposes. This water has little economic value and is considered contaminated, which explains why so much is wasted. Water use in homes is determined by balancing the value of water (economic value and perceived quality) with the ability to use it without significant risk of becoming sick. In the collective mind of the population, there are two kinds of water: water for human consumption and water for other domestic purposes. This difference is expressed 70 differently in each island: in Santa Cruz and Isabela, people distinguish freshwater from brackish water, while in San Cristóbal they differentiate between drinking water and piped water. Water and population: disconnect between inhabitants and their environment Although the islands studied have radically different hydrogeology, the inhabitants maintain similar relationships with water. Three quarters of respondents say they cannot use water on their island in the same way as on the mainland (Figure 5). Water contamination and disease are the two main reasons cited, followed by salinity (in Santa Cruz and Isabela) and supply problems (Figure 6). Interestingly, the fact that water is brackish in Santa Cruz and Isabela is now regarded as a problem. In the past it was considered part of the insular identity of
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Note: For dietary uses piped water and water from tanker trucks is boiled before use. Figure 4. Water supply systems and types of water used for domestic use. both islands. A minority of respondents associates the difference in water use in Galapagos and the mainland with the realities of an insular environment: limited resources (16% of respondents in the three islands) and the need to limit water use in Galapagos (6% in Santa Cruz and 9% in San Cristóbal). In other words, people indicated that they can use as much water as on the continent, but that they cannot use it in the same way due to its poor quality. The first Galapagos settlers’ struggle for survival included a daily search for water; today water, albeit of poor quality, is both inexpensive and easily accessible. (Grenier, 2010) determines the perceptions, uses and management of water in the archipelago (Figure 7). Intensive exploitation of abundant water resources that were difficult to access in the coastal zones enabled the colonization of the islands, particularly Santa Cruz, the “island without water.” The expansion of the municipal water supply systems and the use of tanker trucks are directly related to the loss of traditional water supply methods. Now, with piped water, residents can use as much water as they would anywhere in continental Ecuador. Perceptions, uses and management of water However, the current model of water management is unsustainable. First, the steady increase in demand due to the geographic opening (immigration and The geographic opening of the Galapagos Islands 71
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 1% 1% 22% 28% 77% 71% Santa Cruz 70% San Cristóbal N = 150 YES NO Do not know / No answer 30% Isabela N = 100 N = 70 Figure 5. Survey results for the question: Do you think that you can use water in the same form in the islands as on the continent? Santa Cruz, N = 144 Santa Cristóbal, N = 94 Isabela, N = 69 0% 20% Unsafe drinking water Brackish water Must limit uses Water rationing 40% 60% 80% 100% Diseases Limited resources Poor municipal supply system Other Figure 6. Survey results for the question: why can’t you use water in the islands in the same way as on the continent? continentalization of water use) requires rationing, which increases pollution. Secondly, the current supply model creates a disconnect between the island population and water resources. While residents are concerned about water resources, water distribution via pipes is inexpensive and unmeasured; this leads to indiscriminate, wasteful uses (washing vehicles, watering streets, filling swimming pools, etc.). Negative perceptions regarding the quality of available water reinforce such practices: Why should someone care about reducing consumption when their tap water is barely good enough to wash the dishes? Over the past 15 years, local authorities have been developing potable water and sewage projects to address the relative scarcity of water, the instability of municipal distribution systems, and water contamination. On the whole, these initiatives have not achieved the desired results, in large part because their design, financing and technology are not adapted to local needs and realities. Moreover, by promoting supply systems similar to those used on the mainland in place of traditional methods, the new model of resource management tends to reinforce 72 the disconnect between local people and the realities of their environment. The lack of significant improvement at the household level generates pessimism within the local population and has resulted in citizen protests (Figure 8). This situation benefits private stakeholders involved in water distribution (e.g., water purification businesses or suppliers of water purification filters for homes) and increases doubts about the current development model. Conclusion and recommendations Municipal water distribution allowed the development of the island province and particularly of its port areas, which do not have surface water resources. However, the implementation of a continental supply model, coupled with uncontrolled growth, led to the evolution of a relationship between people and water that is poorly adapted to the Galapagos environment. Money and technology will be insufficient to reverse this trend. In order to promote a sustainable model for water resource management, two goals must be achieved: 1) water must once again have a perceived value, and 2) the notion
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 7. Conceptual model “Perceptions, uses and management of water in Galapagos.” of limits to water use must be restored. Specifically, we propose the following actions: • • Promote water supply practices that are adapted to the Islands. To break the current momentum the community should become re-engaged in the issue • of water supply and encouraged, where possible, to establish individual and collective on-site water supplies. In the highlands, where the majority of water resources are concentrated (surface water in San Cristóbal, rainfall and humidity in all inhabited islands), a policy of “water sovereignty” could be developed, based on the collection of rainwater and the capture of garúa or heavy mists. In port areas, water collection could take place at public institutions (hospitals, schools, municipalities), covered public spaces (municipal markets, courts, etc.) and the areas where new houses will be constructed. Promote efficient municipal water distribution. While it is important to change the supply model, water distribution through pipes will continue to be necessary and such systems need to be improved. Water meters should be installed in all homes connected to the municipal network to control domestic use. If a proper fee system is established, sufficient funds could be collected to cover operation and maintenance costs of the municipal water distribution system. Promote green solutions to promote a healthy environment. Sewage is the major source of bacterial contamination of water in Santa Cruz and probably Isabela. The size and expense of sewage system projects currently being developed is such that their success is uncertain. Alternatives based on the separation of wastewater should also be promoted. Grey water can be treated anaerobically and black water treated with dry or bio-digester toilets that do not require water and allow reuse of the organic matter to produce energy or fertilizer for agricultural use. Acknowledgments We thank Galapagos Conservancy and The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, who funded this study, and to Noémi d’Ozouville and Alexandre Pryet for explaining the hydrogeology of the Galapagos Islands. 73
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 8. “March for a more just Galapagos” in Puerto Ayora, May 2011. Photo: Josselin Guyot-Tephany NB: colors in the photograph were changed to avoid the identification of protest participants. References Grenier C. 2010. La apertura geográfica de Galápagos. In: Informe Galápagos 2009–2010. Pp. 123–131. FCD-PNG-CGREG, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Guyot J, C Grenier & D Orellana. 2012. Apertura geográfica y movilidad en las islas Galápagos: Informe sobre la campaña de encuestas “Movilidad en Galápagos” 2010-2011”. Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. López J, D Rueda & S Nakaya. 2008. Monitoreo de calidad del agua en la isla Santa Cruz: Informe anual DNPG - JICA, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. 34 pp. López J, D Rueda & Y Nagahama. 2007a. Monitoreo de calidad del agua en la isla San Cristóbal: Informe anual DNPG - JICA, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. 32 pp. López J, D Rueda & S Nakaya. 2007b. Monitoreo de calidad del agua en la isla Isabela: Informe anual DNPG - JICA, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. 29 pp. López J, D Rueda, S Tamura & Y Nahagama. 2005. Monitoreo de calidad del agua en la isla Santa Cruz: Informe anual DNPG - JICA, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. 43 pp. Liu J. 2011. Investigación de la calidad microbiológica del agua y de las enfermedades relacionadas al agua en la isla Santa Cruz. Fundación Charles Darwin, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. 74
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 9. Water purification plant. Photo: Josselin Guyot-Tephany 75
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Water contamination in Puerto Ayora: Applied interdisciplinary research using Escherichia coli as an indicator bacteria Jessie Liu1 and Noémi d’Ozouville2 U.S. Fulbright Program Student Scholar, Charles Darwin Foundation 2 Galapagos Islands Integrated Water Studies (GIIWS), UMR-Sisyphe, University of Pierre et Marie Curie, Sorbonne-Universités 1 Photograph: Noémi d’Ozouville Introduction ““...from the well there came out water saltier than that of the sea; on land they were not even able to find even a drop of water for two days…” Tomás de Berlanga, 1535. Letter to his Majesty King of Spain. The quality and quantity of freshwater has been an ever-present problem in the Galapagos (d’Ozouville & Merlen, 2007). Of the five inhabited islands, only San Cristóbal has a permanent freshwater source in the form of surface streams. The other islands depend on small-outflow springs (Floreana), extraction from brackish basal aquifers (Santa Cruz and Isabela), or other sources such as transport in and desalinization (Baltra) for their water supply (d’Ozouville, 2007; Guyot-Tephany et al., this volume). Both Santa Cruz and Isabela experience contamination of their groundwater supply due to the location of the basal aquifer beneath dense urban settlements, the lack of effective wastewater treatment, and mixing with seawater (López & Rueda, 2010). Poor water quality has been associated with predominant health problems in those communities (Consejo de Gobierno de Galápagos, 2010). The municipal water supply in Puerto Ayora is affected by restricted hours of distribution and problems in the piped distribution network (Guyot-Tephany, 2010). Drinking water is dependent on private water purification companies and, for a portion of the population, on precipitation (d’Ozouville, 2008). Water quality is a major concern (INEC, 2011) as high concentrations of Escherichia coli in the basal aquifer that supplies Puerto Ayora have repeatedly been identified since the mid 1980s (INGALA et al., 1989; Proctor & Redfern Int, 2003; López & Rueda, 2010). The use of on-site sewage disposal systems in the form of septic tanks (Figure 1) is inadequate for preventing groundwater contamination. They were used initially by the first settlers (1930s) and have persisted through time regardless of changing realities (urban expansion and densification; Sánchez, 2007), primarily due to the prohibitive cost of implementing traditional gravityfed sanitation in the volcanic ground. In the hope of finding innovative long-term solutions to the problem, small-scale public and private sanitation initiatives are currently underway: the municipality operates two artificial wetlands to treat the effluent from food processing and manufacturing plants, and a hotel and a small highlands urbanization each have a complete sewage treatment system. This study aims to establish a baseline of bacteriological water contamination and health for Santa Cruz Island, where 17,000 people live (INEC, 2011) and which receives the majority of the 180,000 annual visitors to Galapagos (Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos, 2011). E. coli is used as an indicator of human contamination because it is easy to measure and can indicate the presence of pathogens that are more harmful to humans but more difficult to detect. 76
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Ideal Septic System: Currently in Puerto Ayora: Septic tank + drainage field= 1,500 septic tanks, no drainage fields = anaerobic + aerobic phase; high bacteriological load of water exiting tank; Remote areas, low pop. density; High population density; Downstream from water source; Settlement directly above water source; Buried in the ground/soil; Tanks above permeable fractured lava bedrock; Regular pumping of septic tank. No regular pumping of septic tank. Figure 1. Septic Tank Fact Box: comparison between the ideal septic system installation and the current situation in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz. Methods Basal aquifer In addition to the collection of water samples, we examined the water issue from broad social and environmental perspectives, and then narrowed it down to individual knowledge, perception, and practices (Figure 2). Key components included: Water was sampled from eight urban and peri-urban crevices (“grietas”) (Table 1, Figure 3). Sites within urban limits had higher levels of contamination than those located on the outskirts or several kilometers away from town. Three of the four municipal extraction sites presented low E. coli levels (0-10 CFU/100 ml). The Misión crevice presented extremely high levels of contamination and was officially closed by the municipality in October 2011 (D. Sarango, pers. com.). High levels of total coliforms in certain crevices (Figure 4) indicate that they are subject to general environmental contamination and require increased protection. 1. Water samples: Analysis of about 500 water samples, testing for E. coli and total coliforms. Samples were collected from various geographical locations within the basal aquifer as well as at strategic locations along the supply route from the source to point of use in households, for both domestic and drinking water. Blank samples were carried out as a control measure on the sampling and analysis process. Results are presented as median values of all samples. 2. Household surveys: 150 household surveys were conducted on knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding water, health, and sanitation. Each household was visited three times: 1) to introduce the project and carry out the survey; 2) to obtain water samples, and 3) to communicate personalized results. 3. Interviews and information: Information from labs and hospitals regarding illnesses and analysis results were compiled for the period from November 2009 to October 2010. Interviews with water companies, doctors, laboratories and authorities were conducted. The results are consistent with the expectation that septic tanks within the densely populated areas are the principal source of fecal contamination. Findings also suggest that water flow within the basal aquifer is still seaward, thus protecting water sources that are located upslope from contamination sources. However, excess pumping could cause flow in the basal aquifer to become landward placing upslope sources at risk. Further inland development could lead to future contamination if no significant precautionary measures of wastewater management are implemented. Of particular concern are housing developments: 1) around the deep well; 2) in the Guayabillo precinct above La Camiseta, and 3) El Mirador, which lies upslope of the INGALA crevice. Total coliforms: indicate environmental contamination from soil, leaves, animals; Fecal coliforms: indicate contamination from birds and mammal feces (including humans); E. coli: indicates contamination from human and other mammal feces. Units: Colony Forming Units (CFU)/ml or Most Probable Number (MPN)/ml. Norms in Ecuador for domestic water: 600 MPN/ml for fecal coliforms (MPN and CFU are not interchangeable nor can they be inter-converted). 1 77
    • Social and environmental factors Literature review, analysis of raw data, interviews with key informants Compilation of laboratory results from Nov. 2009 - Oct 2010 Community Level Household surveys, Three visits per household N = 150 (6 laboratories, 12,317 patients) Household Level Interviews with key actors (6 owners of water purification companies, 3 doctors) (120 Puerto Ayora, 30 highlands) Household drinking and domestic water sampling N = 306 Community water sampling (E. coli & TC) N = 114 (76 environmental, Individual (129 piped, 116 purified, 58 rain, 3 tanker) 38 purified) Individual and household health outcomes Environmental and community health outcomes GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Baseline household survey on KAP and experiences N = 150 (120 Pto Ayora, 30 highlands) Figure 2. Diagram representing integrated levels methodology. Domestic water supply E. coli levels in households, while extremely variable from household to household, were consistently higher than levels detected at their respective source (Figure 5). Previous studies have consistently shown similar patterns of increased contamination when water is stored in the household (Oswald et al., 2007; Brick et al., 2004; Wright et al., 2004). Recontamination can occur in the distribution system, in the household storage system, or due to household practices, such as storing water in a non-sealed Figure 3. Map of water source and contamination levels for Puerto Ayora. 78 container, using a ladle, or pouring to dispense water instead of a spigot. This highlights the importance of behavioral changes at the point-of-use and clean storage options. Central chlorination with cloro-gas as was done in the past does not prevent recontamination. Until uninterrupted water supply is possible, re-contamination will likely continue at a high rate. Potable water – desalinization and bottling plants Private purification companies (currently six though there
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 were only five at the time of the study) provide water for homes, offices, restaurants, hotels, boats, and shops (Figure 6). The majority of water sales occur in Puerto Ayora, with a small percentage going to Bellavista and Santa Rosa. Water is sold in three forms: 1) bulk (~US$30/ m3), 2) reusable 5-gallon bottles (~US$100/m3), or 3) new bottles (5 L, 2 L, 500 mL; at ~US$120/m3). An estimated 30 m3 of desalinized water is sold daily across all water purification companies. According to the owners, there is no on-site storage of production; all the water produced is sold the same day. Samples of purified water taken immediately after processing showed undetectable E. coli levels. Similarly bottled water in sterile 0.5 L and 5 L non-reusable containers showed undetectable levels. In contrast, results Table 1. Characteristics of water sources for Puerto Ayora. Source Vegetation cover Urban cover Salinity Users Use Dist. to sea (m) Altitude (m) Low Low 6.8 NGO Domestic 100 15 Charles Darwin Research Station Eden cemetery High High -- Private Domestic 50 5 Misión Franciscana (closed as of October 2011) None Very high 2.3 Municipal & private Distribution network & private desalinization plant 545 20 El Barranco Low High 1.4 Private Tanker trucks 1,200 31 Martin Schreyer A&B Low High -- Private Desalinization & distribution 280 15 Miguel Cifuentes Center/Tortuga Bay entrance High Low 2.8 Private Desalinization & potable water 500 17 INGALA/Pampas Coloradas Low Medium 1.7 Municipal Local distribution 1,100 23 La Camiseta High (National Park) 2.9 Municipal Local distribution 1,600 34 Deep well High Low 0.8 Municipal Local distribution 4,700 157 Average E. Coli CFU/100ml Average Total Coliformes CFU/100ml 10000 1896 612 100 235 141 70 601 240 492 259 260 23 Barranco Cifuentes / Tortuga Bay Misión Franciscana 4 Martin Schreyer Camiseta 0 Deep well 2 3 CDF 10 INGALA CFU/100 ml 1000 1932 Figure 4. Bacteriological contamination of water sources on Santa Cruz Island: levels of E. coli and total coliforms (CFU = Coliform Forming Units). 79
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 from bulk water and reusable 5-gallon bottles showed highly variable levels of contamination, independent of the source. Compromised quality of bulk water can be associated with potential sources of contamination during transport and storage. Random and extremely variable contamination of the 5-gallon bottles can be attributed to the absence of a fixed sterilization protocol for the returned jugs and unknown state of storage and Rain water, NOT boiled transport of jugs between households and purification companies. Thus, although the majority of water sterilization practices are compliant and samples had undetectable levels of E. coli, bottling clean water in dirty, reused containers, transportation, and lack of control over clients’ home environments are challenges to providing safe drinking water. 18 (0-1160) Rain water, boiled Source 2 (0-456) Bulk desalinated water Home 6 (0-1000) Re-usable 5-gallon jugs 2 (0-1000) Bottled water 0 (0) 199 (166-396) Misión Franciscana 2000 (240-5000) 5 (0-8) INGALA 25 (0-576) 3 (0-8) Grieta Camiseta 25 (0-1384) 0 (0-1) 28 (1-784) Deep well 1 10 100 1000 10000 E. coli CFU/100 ml (Logarithmic scale) Figure 5. Comparison of level of contamination (E. coli/100 ml), at the source and in the home, showing median values and range of all results. Health and household practices Biological water contaminants can cause gastrointestinal, respiratory and skin infections, and exacerbate normally healthy flora in urinary and reproductive tracts. Seventysix percent of the household surveys indicated that at least one family member had one or more of the sickness indicators during the two weeks prior to the survey. Less than 50% of households reported respiratory infection symptoms or a gastrointestinal infection (41% and 40%; Figure 7). Of all respondents, 13.3% reported not feeling well enough to work due to stomach problems. The results from 3541 stool analyses demonstrated the frequency and type of gastrointestinal infections: 64% were positive for parasitosis (Figure 8). Annual incidence of gastrointestinal parasitic infection in the Santa Cruz population was estimated at 9-13.5% after eliminating an estimated 10-40% of patients who were tourists. Of the surveyed respondents, 81% indicated that they had taken anti-parasitic medications at least once in their lifetime. Household precautions around water storage and dispensing are important to prevent point-of-use contamination. Although 58% of households kept their drinking water in covered containers, many containers 80 were not seal-tight (e.g., lids on pots, plastic covers on 5-gallon bottles). Method of dispensing drinking water is also associated with E. coli contamination levels. Using a spigot is better than using a cup or receptacle to scoop water out of the storage container. Of the surveyed households, 19% of respondents used a spigot. Multivariate models of socioeconomic factors, household practices, and water characteristics showed that bacteriological quality of domestic water and drinking water did not, in itself, explain the high incidence of water-related illness. Relationships between household practices, level of contamination, and incidence of illness are complex. This can be explained by: 1) occurrence of illness related bacteria that is independent from the degree of E. coli contamination; 2) the existence of other fecal-oral transmission pathways from food or lack of hand hygiene; and 3) methods of storing or dispensing potable water that may cause re-contamination. Conclusions This study has highlighted that the Municipality of Santa Cruz operates three water sources that present low E. coli contamination, but that the current water distribution system and common household practices are increasing the level of contamination. Making potable water a
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Final Product from Purified Water Distributor1, N = 10 E. coli: 0 UCF/100 ml (Gama 0-0) Water sold in bulk from tanker2, N = 6 At Distributor: 2 Reused 5-gallon bottles3, N = 3 E. coli: 0 (0-0) E. coli: 0 (0-0) From 4 distributors From 2 distributors Independent Retailers 3 From 3 distributors 5 gallon bottles, N = 8 Recently purchased, unopened Bottled, N = 10 Recently purchased, unopened E. coli: 0 (0-13) Bulk Water, N = 61 Stored various # days E. coli: 2(0-23) Bottled, N = 2 Stored various # days E. coli: 6 (0-1000) 5-gallon bottles returned to purified water distributors AT RANDOM E. coli: 0 (0-0) 1 At Distributor: New Bottles3, N = 2 5 gallon bottles, N =52 Stored various # days E. coli: 0 (0-0) E. coli: 2(0-1000) Percentage of Households Figure 6. Diagram of water distribution system in Puerto Ayora. 45% 40% 40.7% 40.0% N = 150 homes 35% 30% 25% 20.0% 20% 15% 8.7% 10% 7.3% 5% 0% Respiratory Gastrointestinal Skin Infection Reproductive tract Infection Urinary tract Infection Figure 7. Morbidity of water-related illness in homes in Santa Cruz during the two weeks prior to the survey. % from positive stool samples 70% 60% 59.7% N = 3,565 samples 50% 40% 35.7% 30% 21.5% 20% 8.2% 10% 1.7% 0% Amoeba histolica Entamoeba coli Giardia Helicobacter Trichuris lamblia pylori trichiura 0.9% 0.7% Oxiuris Ascaris lumbricoides 1.1% Other Figure 8. Diagnosed parasitosis rates in Puerto Ayora, October 2009 – November 2010. Parasites identified in stool samples in Puerto Ayora labs; stool samples represented 29% of all exams and 64% were positive. 81
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Inadequate storage: (poor sterilization of jerrycans, contamination from hand contact) Mode of transportation may be vulnerable to contamination Distributors not sterilizing 5-gallon bottles adequately Pure water Store Unsafe storage of domestic water Households mishandiling reusable 5 gallon bottles Wastewater Variable contamination of the water sources Contamination in pipped distribution network Figure 9. Diagram of the current water flow model for domestic and potable water from source to sink in Puerto Ayora and weak points in the system. reality for Puerto Ayora must include a complete review of distribution, storage, and household practices (Figure 9). Implementation of a large-scale brackish water desalinization plant will only guarantee safe household water for domestic and drinking use if it is one component of an integral water system. Furthermore, this study has shown that all levels of the community are at risk from a water-related illness from drinking water due to variable sterilization practices and conditions of reusable water containers. Any given restaurant, household, boat, or hotel could have contaminated bottles, which could have consequences for human health and private businesses. Lastly, malfunctioning septic tanks have again been shown to greatly compromise water quality. Improving the sanitation system requires immediate attention, as private and clandestine water use in town will continue to tap into a contaminated source. Recommendations Based on the results and conclusions of this study, we propose the following recommendations in order to guarantee improved water quality and health of the community in the short and long term: 1. 82 Weekly bacteriological water quality monitoring of municipal water supplies. Analysis should be done in Galapagos in existing laboratories by a trained technician, rather than having samples sent to the mainland. 2. Establishment of a municipal mandate requiring certified sterilization of reusuable 5-gallon jugs for drinking water. 3. Immediate closure of any extraction sites with E. coli levels above recommended limits. 4. A halt to the use of septic tanks and the implementation of alternative sanitation systems either within individual households (“on-site”) or by collecting waste from individual houses and taking it to an “off-site” treatment plant. 5. Implementation of a community education campaign on how to protect household drinking water and domestic use water from contamination. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Fulbright International, the Galapagos National Park, Agrocalidad-SICGAL, the Municipality of Santa Cruz, the water purification companies of Puerto Ayora, and the local population.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 References Brick T, B Primrose, R Chandrasekhar, R Sheela, M Jayaprakash & K Gagandeep. 2004. Water contamination in urban south India: Household storage practices and their implications for water safety and enteric infections. Int. J. Hyg. Enivon. Health 207:473-80. Consejo de Gobierno de Galápagos (CGREG). 2010. Boletín Así Vamos Galápagos, Agosto 2010, Tema: Salud. 10 pp. Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos (DPNG). 2011. Statistics of visitors to Galapagos (2011) http://www.galapagospark. org/onecol.php?page=turismo_estadisticas. Visited 20 April 2012. d’Ozouville N. 2008. Management of water resources: The case of Pelican Bay watershed. In Galapagos Report 2007-2008. CDF, SPNG, INGALA. Pp. 158-164. d’Ozouville N. 2007. Fresh water in Galapagos: The reality of a critic resource. In Galapagos Report 2006-2007. CDF, SPNG, INGALA. Pp.146-150. d’Ozouville N & G Merlen. 2007. Agua dulce o la supervivencia en Galápagos. In Galápagos: Migraciones, economía, cultura, conflictos y acuerdos. Eds. P Ospina & C Falconí. Univ. Andina Simón Bolívar, PNUD & Corporación Editora Nacional. Quito. Guyot-Tephany J. 2010. Perceptions, usages et gestion de l’eau a Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Equateur. Université de Metz Paul Verlaine. Unpublished thesis. 130 pp. INEC. 2011. Encuesta de condiciones de vida: Galápagos 2009-2010. INGALA, PRONAREG & ORSTOM. 1989. Inventario cartográfico de los recursos naturales, geomorfología, vegetación, hídricos, ecológicos, y biofísicos de las islas Galápagos, Ecuador. 160 pp. López J & D Rueda. 2010. Water quality monitoring system in Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal, and Isabela. In Galapagos Report 2009-2010. CDF, GNP & CGG. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Pp.103-107. Oswald W, A Lescano, C Bern, M Calderón, L Cabrera & R Gilman. 2007. Fecal contamination of drinking water within periurban households, Lima, Peru. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 77:699-704. Proctor & Redfern Int. 2003. Estudio de provisión de agua y tratamiento de aguas residuales de Santa Cruz. 45 pp. Sánchez G. 2007. Population dynamics in the towns of Galapagos Islands: A G.I.S. approach. A case study of Puerto Ayora town, Santa Cruz Island. MSc. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. 70 pp. Wright J, S Gundry & R Conroy. 2004. Household drinking water in developing countries: A systematic review of microbiological contamination between source and point-of-use. Tropical Medicine and International Health 9:106-117. 83
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Measuring poverty in Galapagos Marianita Granda León, Sandra González Camba and Vilma Calvopiña Carvajal Governing Council of Galapagos Photograph: Linda Cayot The purpose of this study is to explore the issue of poverty in Galapagos within a national context. The two most commonly used methods for measuring poverty are the Unsatisfied Basic Needs Index and the Poverty Lines approach (also referred to as Poverty Thresholds). These methods utilize different but complementary approaches. The first takes a social approach and is based on verifying a household’s access to services such as potable water and wastewater systems that meet or exceed minimum health requirements, as well as basic needs such as education and employment. The second method takes an economic approach, associating poverty with the lack of monetary resources for essentials, such as food, goods or services. While the Unsatisfied Basic Needs Index determines whether or not a home meets certain minimum requirements that guarantee wellbeing, the Poverty Lines approach measures the availability of resources in the home but does not verify whether an investment is actually made in the items considered necessary. An advantage of the first method is that it evaluates requirements that are applicable to any province, making it possible to compare indicators in different areas. The monetary focus of the Poverty Lines methodology is specific to the economic conditions of each region. For example, a dollar in Galapagos has a different purchasing capacity than in another province of the country. However, the Poverty Lines method provides greater numerical analysis, such as establishing how far households are from the minimal requirements for wellbeing. In other words, this approach helps to determine how poor the poor are. The two main sources of data used for calculating poverty indicators were the Living Conditions Survey – Galapagos, jointly developed in 2009-2010 by the Governing Council of Galapagos (CGREG, for its initials in Spanish), the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC, for its initials in Spanish), and the Population and Housing Census of 2010. The results presented here are from CGREG’s Measuring Poverty in Galapagos Study (CGREG, 2010), which proposed changes to the methodology for calculating economic values throughout Ecuador. This study was approved by the Ministry of Social Development, the National Secretary of Planning and Development (SENPLADES, for its initials in Spanish) and INEC. According to the 2010 census, the population of Galapagos is 25,124 inhabitants, which includes people living in collective dwellings such as hotels, tour boats, prisons, military barracks, etc. Poverty calculations were performed only for the 23,114 individuals living in homes. 84
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Poverty according to the Unsatisfied Basic Needs Index: a social approach Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL, 2007). The Unsatisfied Basic Needs Index (UBNI) strives to identify a set of basic needs and establish the standards under which the level of fulfillment of those needs will be considered unsatisfactory. The identified necessities are common for a number of countries, but the particular characteristics that qualify them as unsatisfied or in deficit are determined by each country, generally following recommendations by the United In Ecuador, an individual is considered to be living in poverty if they are part of a household that fails to achieve wellbeing by presenting at least one of the following five characteristics: 1) high economic dependence; 2) children not attending school; 3) house with inadequate physical characteristics; 4) inadequate sanitary systems, or 5) living in critically overcrowded conditions (Figure 1). Unsatisfied basic needs In what cases do they occur? • If each person in the house works more 1. High economic dependence than three jobs; and, • If the head of the house has two or fewer years of formal education. 2. Children not attending school • At least one 6-12 year old child in the house 3. House with inadequate physical conditions • If the floor of the house is predominantly does not attend a formal educational institution. earth; or, • If the walls are constructed predominantly of non-treated reed, mat, plastic or other. • If the water supply system of the home is 4. Inadequate sanitary systems other than the public network. • If the home does not have a toilet; if it has a latrine or if the toilet is connected to a cesspool. • If more than three people in the house 5. Critical overcrowding share a single bedroom for sleeping. Figure 1. Poverty indicators based on the Unsatisfied Basic Needs Index (UBNI). According to the UBNI, just over half the population of Galapagos (52%) is in poverty, since they have one or more of the defined characteristics of poverty (Table 1). Those who are deficient in just one basic need (40%) are considered to be in non-extreme poverty. People who belong to households that lack two or more basic needs (one in every 10 people) are considered in extreme poverty. The most common components of poverty in Galapagos are inadequate sanitary conditions and critical overcrowding (Figure 2). Two out of every five people in Galapagos belong to households without access to a public water system or to an adequate wastewater system in their home (either a sewer system or septic tank). One in five people in Galapagos shares a bedroom with more than two other people. Table 1. Poverty indicators in Galapagos using the UBNI. Condition Not in poverty No. Inhabitants Percentage 11,122 48.2 Poverty: not extreme 9,276 40.2 Poverty: extreme 2,677 11.6 39 ---- 23,114 100.0 No response* Total 52% *Some questions had no response in the 2010 Census. Source: Population and Housing Census 2010. Data processing and analysis: CGREG 85
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 1.4% High economic dependence Children not attending school 0.9% House with inadequate building materials 1.5% Inadequate sanitary conditions 40.4% 19.6% Overcrowding WITH NO COMPONENTS OF POVERTY 48.0% Figure 2. Incidence of poverty indicators in the Galapagos population. The bars do not sum to 100% because one person may belong to a house with more than one component of poverty. Source: Population and Housing Census 2010. Data processing and analysis: CGREG 30% 35% 40% 45% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% Sucumbíos Orellana Santa Elena Zamora Ch. Cotopaxi Morona S. Bolívar Manabí Esmeraldas Napo Los Ríos Pastaza Chimborazo Cañar Imbabura 50% has the third lowest level of poverty (52%) after Pichincha (33%) and Azuay (49%; Figure 3). Tungurahua Carchi Guayas Ecuador El Oro Loja Galápagos Azuay Pichincha One advantage of the UBNI is its comparability with other provinces. In relation to the rest of the country, Galapagos 85% 90% Lowest level of poverty (UBNI) Highest level of poverty (UBNI) Figure 3. Poverty according to the UBNI by province. Source: Population and Housing Census 2010. Data processing and analysis: CGREG Seven of the 24 provinces of Ecuador, including Galapagos, have poverty rates less than the national average. Of the approximately 14.5 million inhabitants counted in all of Ecuador in the 2010 Census, about 8.7 million (60%) are in poverty because of having at least one component of the UBNI. Galapagos follows the same pattern as mainland Ecuador where poverty levels measured by the UBNI are higher in rural areas than in urban areas; primarily due to the dispersion of the population, which makes the provision of public services more difficult. In the rural areas of Galapagos, 78 of every 100 inhabitants are in poverty, compared to 47 of every 100 in the urban areas (Figure 4A). A - Galapagos and Ecuador by area 80% 80.2% 78.0% Ecuador 53.3% 60% 100% Galapagos 60.1% 46.8% 52.0% 40% 20% Percent Poverty Percent Poverty 100% C - Cantons of Galapagos by area Urban 80.7% 80% 60% 40% 62.8% 48.5% Rural area 20% Urban Area San Cristóbal Total B -Cantons of Galapagoss 56.8% 40% 20% 0% San Cristóbal Isabela Santa Cruz Percent Poverty 52.4% Santa Cruz 100.0% 100% 80% 42.1% Isabela D- Rural parishes by cantons of Galapagos 100% Percent Poverty 50.6% 39.6% 0% 0% 60% 100.0% Rural 80% 60% 73.7% 100.0% 76.8% 60.5% 40% 20% 0% El Progreso Floreana San Cristóbal T. de Berlanga Bellavista Santa Rosa Isabela Santa Cruz Figure 4. Poverty according to the UBNI by different areas. Source: Population and Housing Census 2010. Data processing and analysis: CGREG 86
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 About 60% of the total population of Galapagos lives in the canton of Santa Cruz, which also has the highest level of poverty (57%; Figures 4B & 4C). In the canton of Isabela, 52% experience some component of poverty, while in San Cristóbal only 42% are considered poor. In the rural parishes of Tomás de Berlanga (Isabela) and Santa Rosa (Santa Cruz), none of the homes receive water through a public supply system, which means that the poverty level in these communities is 100% (Figure 4D). The rural parish of El Progreso in San Cristóbal has the lowest poverty level for a rural area in Galapagos (60.5%). The greatest needs in both the rural and urban areas are improving the coverage of public water supply systems and ensuring that houses provide proper sanitary conditions by building septic tanks until the public sewage system is expanded (Table 2). In urban areas improvements in housing infrastructure should be promoted to increase the number of bedrooms or to increase the housing supply to avoid critical overcrowding, which leads to higher levels of disease. Table 2. Poverty components according to the UBNI by urban and rural areas. Source: Population and Housing Census 2010. Data processing and analysis: CGREG Urban Area Poverty components Rural Area Population In Poverty (%) Total Population (%) Population In Poverty (%) Total Population (%) High economic dependence 3.1 1.4 1.8 1.4 Children do not attend school 1.8 0.8 1.2 1.0 Home built with deficient materials 2.6 1.2 4.1 3.2 Inadequate sanitary conditions 73.2 34.2 91.8 71.5 Overcrowding 41.8 19.5 25.8 20.1 Poverty according to Poverty Lines: economic approach Poverty Lines are determined by the monetary thresholds that ensure the ability to purchase a basket of essential items. These thresholds are used as a benchmark of poverty, with those with fewer resources considered in poverty. Poverty Lines are used in the plural because two different monetary measures are calculated: 1) the purchasing capacity of the population for food, goods and services; and 2) the purchasing capacity for food only. The first calculation measures the Poverty threshold and the second the Extreme Poverty threshold. Poverty Lines in Galapagos were calculated based on the per capita consumption patterns for the most common and basic items needed for a healthy lifestyle: 87 food items, 25 durable goods, 13 basic services, 14 items relating to education, and 72 related to personal care, clothing and entertainment (Figure 5). FOOD: 87 articles DURABLE GOODS: 25 articles BASIC SERVICES: 13 articles Rice, beef, chicken, sugar, oil, onions, potatoes, milk, bread, lentils, beer, etc. Stove, iron, refrigerator, TV, phone, blender, bicycle, computer, etc. House, water, electricity, cable TV, internet, phone service – landline and cellular, propane, etc. VARIOUS: 62 articles EDUCATION: 14 articles Clothes, personal care items (haircuts, toothpaste, etc.), recreation (DVD & magazine purchases, etc.), transportation, etc. Enrollment, uniform, transportation, textbooks, allowance from first grade through high school. Figure 5. Articles included in calculating Poverty Lines. Source: Population and Housing Census 2010. Data processing and analysis: CGREG 87
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 The calculation of the Extreme Poverty Line is restricted to the food basket. The number of food items and the amount of each item are based on the minimum caloric requirements needed to keep the body alive. The caloric standard (the average number of kilocalories per capita required in a population) is a function of age structure and gender in the country or region, as children and women have lower energy requirements than adults or men, respectively (FAO-WHO, 2004). Because the Galapagos population has more men than women (2010 Census), it has a higher caloric standard (2.218 kcal/person) than the rest of the country (2.159 kcal/person). Based on the food basket and the caloric standard of the province, the cost for daily food consumption for a Galapagos resident is US$2.61. Some homes produce a certain amount of their own food. To avoid underestimating consumption of specific sectors of the population, particularly rural households, the value of these self-supplied items are calculated based on normal purchase prices. The Poverty Line in Galapagos is calculated based on the food basket as well as the other four baskets of goods and services (Figure 5). In the case of Galapagos, the CGREG proposed adjusting the cost of water to include freshwater sources. Furthermore, in the case of durable goods, the CGREG included boats and freezers to better determine the cost of living of those who depend on fishing and tourism. In addition, urban and interisland transportation, and travel between Galapagos and the continent were itemized to more accurately calculate the overall cost of transportation. With these additions, the Poverty Line in the province (the minimum consumption of food, goods and essential services of a Galapagos resident per day) is $5.79 in 2009 prices (Figure 6). According to the economic approach of Poverty Lines, there is no extreme poverty in Galapagos. All of the inhabitants have enough monetary resources to allow them to guarantee at least the minimum required food intake. However, there is poverty; 8% do not have sufficient resources to enable them to meet basic demands for other goods or services, indicating that there is a vulnerable portion of the population that is very close to the poverty threshold. Daily consumption per person (dollars) $24 $22 $20 $18 $16 $14 $12 $10 ONE DOT = ONE PERSON $8 Poverty Line: $5.79 $6 $4 Percentage of the population: 8.11% $2 Extreme Poverty Line: $2.61 Percentage of the population: 0% $0 $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 Daily consumption per person (dollars) Figure 6. Dispersion of the Galapagos population around the thresholds of poverty (Poverty Lines). Source: Living Conditions Survey – Galapagos 2009-2010 (INEC & CGREG). Processing and analysis: CGREG In the rural areas of Galapagos there is a slightly higher incidence of poverty compared to urban areas (11% poverty in rural areas, 8% in urban areas; Figure 7). Areas with lower economic dynamics include Floreana Island and some rural areas of the other islands. On Floreana, 22% of 145 inhabitants (according to the 2010 Census) recorded lower levels of consumption of goods and basic services, probably because some of the items included in the baskets, such as entertainment services, are not available. In Tomas de Berlanga, a rural area on Isabela, 20% of its 164 inhabitants are in poverty (Figure 7). 88 When comparing poverty lines in Galapagos with other regions or countries, it must be remembered that the economic values of each region are determined by their specific economic dynamics (Table 4). Different poverty levels can exist in different regions within a single country. For example, in the United States, three poverty lines are calculated, one for the contiguous states and two more for Alaska and Hawaii, where prices are higher. The same applies to Galapagos in relation to continental Ecuador.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 A - Galapagos and Ecuador by Area 70.0% B - Cantons of Galapagos 25.0% 61.5% 60.0% 20.0% 50.0% 38.3% 40.0% 30.0% 0.0% 15.0% 24.9% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 21.8% 10.6% 7.7% Urban Rural Ecuador (2006) 8.1% 9.3% 7.4% 8.3% 5.0% 0.0% Total San Cristóbal Galapagos (2009) Isabela Santa Cruz Floreana * Floreana is a rural parish of the San Cristóbal canton C - Cantons of Galapagos by area 25.0% 20.7% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 9.6% 10.2% 8.5% 7.2% 7.8% 5.0% 0.0% San Cristóbal Isabela Urban Santa Cruz Rural Figure 7. Poverty according to the Poverty Lines method, by different areas. Source: Living Conditions Survey – Galapagos 2009-2010 (INEC & CGREG); results of Poverty of Ecuador from INEC. Table 4. Poverty Lines of Ecuador and other countries. Source: 1INEC, 2CGREG, 3Misión para el Empalme de las Series de Empleo, Pobreza y Desigualdad & DANE, 4Comisión Consultiva para la Estimación de la Pobreza & INEI, 5U.S. Census Bureau, 6Secretaría de Estadísticas de la UE. Country/Region Dollars per day per capita* Ecuador Ecuador (2006)1 $ 1.90 Galapagos (2009) $ 5.85 Colombia (2009)3 $ 4.35 Perú (2007) $ 2.44 Contiguous states and other territories $ 10.83 Hawaii $ 12.46 Alaska $ 13.53 Spain $ 29.24 Bulgaria $ 8.08 Luxembourg $ 62.59 2 Community of Andean Nations 4 United States (2009) 5 European Union (2007) 6 *Except for the United States, the conversion to dollars was done by CGREG using the available information from each country’s Central Bank for the year indicated. 89
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Distribution of resources among the population In 2009, the Gini index for Galapagos was 34%, compared to 46% for Ecuador as a whole in 2006. This means that the distribution of goods among the inhabitants of the islands is more equitable than in the rest of the country. The Lorenz Curve represents the distribution of income or resources within a society and is used to calculate the Gini index, which is a measure of inequality. The Lorenz Curve for Galapagos (Figure 8) is a function of the food and basic goods and services of the population. The diagonal line represents equal distribution across the population, while a curved line indicates the actual inequality in distribution patterns. The farther the curve is from the diagonal line, the greater the inequity. The average daily per capita consumption in Galapagos during this period was US$16.28 (± $ 0.34), with a minimum of US$2.65 (very close to the extreme poverty line) and a maximum of US$170. More than 50% of the population has daily consumption between US$8.70 and US$20. 100 % 90 % Percentage of resources 80 % 70 % d ta idy all ua qu Eig cta 60 % r Pe 50 % 40 % 30 % fe 9 00 s2 o 06 ag 20 a láp a or G d ua Ec 20 % Gini Index (Galapagos 2009) = 33.85% 10 % 0% 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % Percentage of the population Figure 8. Poverty by the Poverty Lines method for Galapagos and Ecuador. Source: Living Conditions Survey – Galapagos 2009-2010 (INEC & CGREG). Processing and analysis: CGREG. Conclusions and recommendations According to the Unsatisfied Basic Needs Index (UBNI), one in 10 people in Galapagos is in a situation of extreme poverty (lacking access to two or more basic needs) and another 40% is at the non-extreme poverty level (lacking access to a basic need). The most common conditions that contribute to this situation are inadequate sanitary conditions and critical overcrowding. On the basis of the UBNI, of the 24 provinces of Ecuador, only two (Pichincha and Azuay) have lower poverty levels than Galapagos, where the poverty rate is 52%. As in the rest of the country, rural areas of Galapagos have a higher incidence of poverty (78%) than urban areas (47%), largely due to the dispersion of the population and the difficulty of achieving coverage of basic services. 90 These results indicate the importance of improvements - especially in rural areas – to public water systems, housing, and wastewater management systems (either septic tanks or sewage systems). According to the Poverty Lines methodology, there is no extreme poverty in Galapagos, but a segment of the population (8%) is very close to the threshold and should be considered in a vulnerable situation. This methodology confirms a higher incidence of poverty in rural areas. It also indicates that although there is inequity in the distribution of goods among the inhabitants of Galapagos, there is a higher level of equity in the islands than in the rest of the country.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Ana Rosa Thoala References CEPAL. 2007. Compendio de mejores prácticas en la medición de la pobreza. Publicación de la Cumbre de Expertos en Estadísticas de Pobreza – Río de Janeiro 2007, Talleres Gráficos de CEPAL, Santiago de Chile - Chile. FAO-WHO. 2004. Human energy requirements: Report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consulation. http://www.fao.org/ docrep/007/ y5686e/y5686e00.HTM. Date of last visit: January 2012. CGREG. 2010. Medición de pobreza en Galápagos: Método de las líneas de pobreza. Informe técnico de M Granda, S González, y V Calvopiña. Talleres gráficos del Consejo de Gobierno del Régimen Especial de Galápagos. http://www.cgg. gob.ec/siig/. Date of last visit: October 2012. 91
    • Photo title page Tourism: Richard Bates
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 The new model of tourism: Definition and implementation of the principles of ecotourism in Galapagos Juan Carlos García1, Daniel Orellana2 and Eddy Araujo3 WWF Galapagos Program, 2Charles Darwin Foundation, 3Galapagos National Park Service 1 Photograph: © M. Verónica Toral Granda / WWF Galapagos Program The growth of tourism and its environmental impacts were two of the main reasons that the Ecuadorian government declared Galapagos in a state of emergency in 2007. This decision was supported by UNESCO a few months later, when Galapagos was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. As a result, a process was initiated to evaluate the state of tourism, immigration, invasive species, and the impact of human development in Galapagos. Recognizing the potential threat caused by tourism, a group of stakeholders at the local, provincial and national levels proposed fundamental changes to the management of this economic activity to minimize its impacts and ensure that tourism becomes a tool for conservation and sustainable development. A group of public and private institutions and members of civil society made significant efforts to identify and diagnose the problems, and to propose strategies for change. Since October 2009 the Ministry of Tourism and WWF have led a highly participatory process, involving more than 400 participants from the four inhabited islands, to define the components and strategies for a new system of tourism management. This process identified ecotourism as the model for the future development of tourism in Galapagos. The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) defines ecotourism as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people” (Epler, 2007). This definition also identifies three fundamental pillars of ecotourism: 1) environmental conservation; 2) local participation and benefits, and 3) social and environmental responsibility among the tourism industry, the visitors, the community, and other stakeholders. First Summit of Sustainable Tourism The new tourism model for Galapagos was presented and validated by a group of Galapagos stakeholders at the First Summit of Sustainable Tourism, held in Puerto Baquerizo Moreno in September 2010. The Summit was attended by national and international experts and more than 100 representatives of public and private institutions. The event confirmed the new vision of tourism in Galapagos and generated encouraging results. Stakeholders from different sectors agreed on the major obstacles and challenges for tourism in Galapagos, and on the substantial changes needed in the current tourism model to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development of local populations. The Summit generated a series of common objectives, targets and actions under four main areas: 1) governance; 2) reengineering the destination; 3) tourism marketing, and 4) monitoring. The Summit also confirmed that the long-term vision of tourism 95
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: © Juan Carlos Garcia / WWF Galapagos Program. in Galapagos is one of a gradual transition to a world-class ecotourism destination. In January 2011, the Governing Council of Galapagos (CGREG) formally adopted this vision as a regional policy and began implementation of activities identified through this process. In practical terms ecotourism should translate into planning and management methods that will meet the objective of minimizing negative impacts of tourism while maximizing its benefits. However, what does ecotourism mean in the Galapagos context? What may or may not be considered ecotourism? And what needs to be done to convert Galapagos into an ecotourism destination? These initial questions reveal a lack of clarity about the theoretical concept of ecotourism when implemented in a place like Galapagos with unique natural, social and cultural features. To support the implementation of ecotourism and respond to the challenges of a new development model for the tourism industry, the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS), WWF, and the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) signed a cooperative agreement in October 2010, with the aim of developing ecotourism through a gradual process that will create new options for ecotourism products and services. 96 The Ecotourism Charter: a participatory process As a first step after the Summit, the GNPS, WWF and CDF initiated a process to create the “Charter for Galapagos Ecotourism.” The development of this Charter was based on a participatory methodology that involved stakeholders (e.g., tourism chambers, associations of suppliers of products and services, the general community) in a dialogue to provide input to the strategic planning processes for a new tourism model at both the canton and parish levels. The Charter, approved by the Cantonal Council of Tourism (CCT) of Santa Cruz in September 2011, analyzes each ecotourism principle, applying them to the context of Galapagos. The Charter is currently under review by the CCT of San Cristóbal and of Isabela. The Charter reflects the three principles of ecotourism and applies them to Galapagos: 1) maximizing participation and equitable distribution of benefits to local populations; 2) environmental conservation, and 3) shared responsibility. These three principles should be the basis for any public policy, project, activity or service related to ecotourism in Galapagos. These principles are indispensable; if one is missing, tourism cannot be considered ecotourism.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 The first principle: maximum local benefits equitably distributed The first principle of ecotourism dictates that tourism in Galapagos should equitably benefit the local community and promote integrated development, linking multiple products, services and actors into ecotourism networks that stimulate the local economy and support sustainable development. This first principle has the following guidelines: • Build strategic partnerships: It is essential that the promotion and marketing of the ecotourism product of Galapagos be supported by external partners (mainland Ecuador and/or abroad) that are recognized for their high quality of service, expertise in capturing the market, social responsibility, and inclusion of local actors. Minimize solid waste: Traditional tourism is a major source of solid waste due to widespread use of disposable and non-recyclable products. Ecotourism should decrease the amount of solid waste produced and promote reuse and recycling of materials. • Minimize impacts on the landscape: The Galapagos landscape is one of the main tourist attractions and distinctive attributes of the Islands. A disorganized tourism infrastructure causes degradation of landscape and negatively affects the uniqueness of Galapagos and its image as an ecotourism destination. Infrastructure for ecotourism should follow guidelines for minimum impact construction and landscape integration. Create locally based networks of products and services: The formation of local networks to provide products and services to ecotourism activities allows better distribution of income by creating a system that includes other sectors within the tourism chain. • • • Encourage high quality local employment: Businesses and tourism activities should encourage local employment making ecotourism an attractive and high quality source of employment. • Reinvest in local sustainable development and conservation of the destination: Ecotourism should contribute to a sustainable lifestyle in Galapagos. At the same time, the sustainability of the ecotourism model in Galapagos requires the continued attractiveness of the islands as an ecotourism destination. Therefore, part of the revenue generated should be reinvested to strengthen the sustainable development model. The third principle: shared social and environmental responsibility among the tourism sector or operators, institutions, the local community and tourists Ecotourism seeks to promote and disseminate a philosophy of travel and tourist experience very different from what is currently practiced in Galapagos. Ecotourism in the Galapagos should be seen as an experience that places a high priority on learning, exploration, discovery, respect for ecosystems and culture, and shared responsibility for the visitor site, as a unique destination that integrates nature, landscapes and community. The following guidelines should be taken into account: • Develop an integrated tourism product using the “slow tourism” concept: The current model of tourism in Galapagos promotes “lightning” tourism with quick visits and short stays and little time for the visitor to reflect, learn and fully experience the environment. The ecotourism model must promote “slow tourism” or “tourism of time,” in which visitors prefer longer stays with more opportunity to enjoy and interact with the environment by experiencing more visitor sites and tourism attractions in the islands, while disconnecting themselves from the fast pace of daily life. • Design low-impact ecotourism activities to reduce the human footprint: Mass tourism degrades the visitor experience and generates significant environmental impacts. Ecotourism should promote low-impact activities such as kayaking, hiking, camping, sailing, bicycling, and snorkeling, among others. Ecotourism should also promote activities for small groups to ensure a higher-quality visitor experience. • Develop activities that promote learning, discovery and reflection: Learning and discovery are key aspects of the ecotourism experience. The current tourism model is based on observation of fauna, flora and landscapes. In many cases interpretive scripts are The second principle: environmental conservation The second principle of ecotourism in Galapagos states that any activity must have minimal impacts in order to preserve the uniqueness and value of the area and ensure long-term sustainability. Guidelines under this principle include: • • Minimize the consumption of fossil fuels in all tourism activities: Traditional tourism consumes high levels of fossil fuels, causing negative impacts at both local and global levels. Ecotourism should minimize the use of fossil fuels and replace them gradually with clean energy. Minimize use and pollution of water: Water is a scarce resource in Galapagos and traditional tourism greatly affects its availability and quality. Ecotourism must decrease both the use and pollution of water. 97
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 1. Ecotourism trails in Floreana (from Puerto Velasco Ibarra, to the highlands of Floreana and Post Office Bay, then ending back at Puerto Velasco Ibarra). Map design: CDF. preset and repetitive, based on cruise itineraries, and do not generate greater knowledge or provide time for discovery and reflection. • Develop responsible and co-responsible tourism: The current model of tourism encloses visitors in a bubble that prevents them from engaging with the natural and human environment. Ecotourism focuses on visitors who enjoy both the visit itself as well as knowing that they contribute to a model that promotes environmental conservation and a higher quality of life for the local people, and who understands their responsibility within the ecotourism model. ecotourism in the four inhabited islands This information has been organized in a geographic database to facilitate its management and use. An example of a map generated using this tool is provided (Figure 1). The EEP has been gradually implementing the Charter of Ecotourism and establishing new sites to be managed according to ecotourism principals. Currently two sites are being developed: the old road to Post Office Bay on Floreana and the area known as Las Tintoreras in Isabela. • Restoration of the old road to Post Office Bay, Floreana: In conjunction with the community of Floreana, the GNPS and the EEP working group have identified the old road from Puerto Velasco Ibarra to Post Office Bay (Figure 1) as a potential component of an “ecotourism circuit,” using trails that pass through protected areas as well as the agricultural zone, with specific attractions in each area. • Convert “Las Tintoreras,” Isabela, into an example of an ecotourism site: Puerto Villamil, Isabela, is one of the sites on Isabela with the highest visitation (day tours, island hopping, and cruises), which has generated rapid urban growth. The EEP hopes that permitted uses of the various visitor sites will be established and developed within the framework of ecotourism in Galapagos. The EEP plans to use Las Tintoreras, an iconic and frequently visited site of Puerto Villamil, as an ecotourism pilot project. As such, this initiative will include significant involvement of and interaction with the local community; generate social, economic and cultural benefits; conserve the Island’s ecosystem; and integrate with and Implementation of the model: The Experimental Ecotourism Project (EEP) After defining the principles of ecotourism, it is necessary to determine the feasibility of its implementation in Galapagos by answering the following questions: • • • What is the current status of tourism operations? Are there initiatives in place that can be considered ecotourism? How should an ecotourism operation in Galapagos function? The Experimental Ecotourism Project (EEP), implemented by the CDF, GNPS, and WWF, seeks to answer these questions. Part of this project has involved collecting information on visitor sites, areas, activities and services with potential for 98
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 complement other tourism activities of Puerto Villamil’s services chain. • Monitoring the implementation of the Strategic Tourism Plans of each canton, which have been updated to align with the new ecotourism model for Galapagos. • Strengthening the institutions that coordinate tourism, such as the Cantonal Tourism Councils and the Provincial Technical Committee for Tourism in Galapagos. Recommendations It is important that the CGREG approve the Ecotourism Charter to ensure that ecotourism becomes regional policy. There is consensus among stakeholders that ecotourism is the model that will help create sustainable tourism in Galapagos. However, the challenges are significant. Changing a model is inherently difficult and requires a detailed analysis of potentially negative trends or conditions, such as the parallel development of “lightning tourism” or the lack of linkages between tourism and other productive sectors in Galapagos. The move towards ecotourism will be a gradual process where one of the main challenges is to integrate the various programs and projects of different institutions, organizations and actors into joint and complementary action. Doing so will require the development of monitoring and control tools at all levels--from the parishes to the provincial level. Examples include: • Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the Ministry of Tourism, the Parish Board of Floreana, and the Cantonal Tourism Council of Santa Cruz for their support in the development of the Ecotourism Charter and in the fieldwork and implementation of the principles for generating ecotourism products and services. Use of information from the Tourism Observatory (TO) (Garcia et al., this document). The TO generates up-todate information that can be used by decision-makers to manage negative impacts and to strengthen positive aspects of tourism in Galapagos. References Epler B. 2007. Tourism, the economy, population growth and conservation of Galapagos. Charles Darwin Foundation. 68 pp. 99
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 The Tourism Observatory of Galapagos: A monitoring system for the new model of ecotourism Juan Carlos García1, Ernesto Rangel2 and María Auxiliadora Farías2 WWF Galapagos Program, 2Ministry of Tourism 1 Photograph: © M. Verónica Toral Granda / WWF Galapagos Program An effective system for planning and management is necessary for the sustainable development of any tourism destination. In the case of the Galapagos Islands, a protected area with a unique terrestrial ecosystem and one of the most important marine reserves in the world, this system is particularly important. How can the various stakeholders monitor the positive and negative impacts of the tourism industry and make sound decisions to promote the new model of ecotourism in Galapagos? The Tourism Observatory of Galapagos (TOG), one of the four components of the new model of ecotourism (the other components include strengthening governance, reengineering the destination, and market positioning), can play a key role in this regard. The TOG is a technical tool designed to generate monthly information to be used in planning and managing tourism at both local and regional levels. It was formally established in January 2011, by Resolution No. 3 of the Governing Council of the Galapagos (CGREG, for its initials in Spanish). This resolution also established the Technical Committee on Tourism for Galapagos, whose members include: representatives from the Ministry of Tourism, Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS), CGREG, and the National Secretary of Planning and Development (SENPLADES); a representative from each Galapagos municipality; a delegate for all of the Galapagos parishes, and a delegate from the private sector. The Ministry of Tourism coordinates the Committee, which provides recommendations to the CGREG regarding decision-making, public policy, and regulations for the development of ecotourism in Galapagos. The Observatory was the first concrete result of the new model of tourism for Galapagos, thanks to the contribution of the Ministry of Tourism, the GNPS and the CGREG, among other institutions, and the support and assistance of WWF. The TOG became operational in June 2011, and since then has collected and analyzed monthly data on indicators of the supply and demand and social and environmental impacts of tourism. One of the main products of the Observatory is a database that facilitates up-to-date analysis of the state of tourism and the identification of trends related to the development of this activity in Galapagos. This system integrates information generated by other monitoring systems, such as the Integrated System of Galapagos Indicators of the CGREG, which contains social and demographic indicators, the Transit Control Cards (TCC), and the database of the Visitor Management System (SIMAVIS) of the GNPS. Day-to-day activities of the Tourism Observatory of Galapagos The TOG obtains primary information from a monthly sample consisting of 400 surveys made directly to tourists at the Baltra and San Cristóbal airports at the end of their visit. This information provides demographic and psychographic 100
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 profiles of the tourists, and information related to their spending levels in the islands, their expectations upon arrival in Galapagos, and their level of satisfaction as they leave. The survey also covers additional information on the behavior of visitors and the number of nights they spend in Galapagos. The TOG also collects information through surveys of establishments that offer different tourism services in the towns of Galapagos in order to monitor the behavior of the businesses and the quality of service offered to tourists. The principle indicators measured include commercial activity, types of services and activities offered, details of the customer profile, and information on vendor chains. Additionally information is collected on other productive activities linked to tourism such as fisheries, agriculture and general commerce. For hotels, cruise operators, restaurants and bars or nightclubs, the TOG collects data on indicators such as total number of berths/beds/seats and occupancy rate. With this information it is possible to compare the number of berths on cruise boats and the growth in the number of beds in the population centers (Figure 1). The surveys also indicate whether these establishments engaged licensed naturalist guides and document the number of tourists served/attended to during the previous month. Multi-day cruise Type of tourism In the towns Cruise and in town 19.99% 38.64% 41.37% Figure 1. The percentage of visitors doing tourism on multi-day cruises, in the towns, and with a combination of cruise and towns. Source and elaboration: MINTUR, Tourism Observatory of Galapagos. Using social indicators, the TOG obtains data on the percentage of tourism establishments that hires staff to provide tourist services and the gender ratio of such staff (in order to determine if there is gender equity in employment opportunities). Information is also collected on the level of preparation or training of personnel that serve tourists. Since there is considerable turnover of personnel among Galapagos businesses, this system also measures employee tenure and motives for leaving. One of the main reasons the TOG was created was to provide monthly monitoring of environmental impacts generated by tourism in the islands. To collect this information, the TOG works with secondary data provided by partner institutions and those belonging to the Technical Group of the Tourism Observatory. The GNPS is the main source of information on the environmental impacts of tourism in the archipelago. Other information sources also exist, such as RELUGAL, a company which recycles used oil and thus can provide monthly data on the number of gallons of lubricating oil collected. Petroecuador also provides information on the amount of gasoline distributed monthly to the various public institutions and commercial sectors of Galapagos. Austrogas, the distributor of propane in Galapagos, provides data regarding the number of gas cylinders distributed by type (domestic vs. industrial use) and by island. Agrocalidad, another ally, provides information to the TOG on the amount of organic cargo (in kg) inspected prior to its entry into Galapagos and on the controls they conduct associated with inter-island travel. The municipality of Santa Cruz, through its Environmental Directorate, provides the TOG with data on the amount of solid waste produced and collected on the island, and its classification by type (recyclable, organic, nonrecyclable, scrap metal, brush, tires, and cement) and by sector (commercial, residential, tourism, municipal, and other). The GNPS provides monthly visitor numbers at each of the visitor sites and the total number of visitors entering Galapagos by origin (domestic and foreign) and nationality. In addition to using this information to better understand the profile of tourists, supply considerations, and social and environmental trends, the TOG uses it to develop reliable projections and econometric analyses. An example is the projection and modeling of monthly and annual growth in the number of visitors to the islands (with an accuracy level of 99.5%; Figure 2). It is also possible to project the growth of hotel beds in the towns, to make annual comparisons for all indicators, and to determine how the environmental pressures in both visitor sites and population centers are expected to increase. 101
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Visitor Arrival Model Number of Visitors 25000 20000 15000 1000 Observed Adjusted Expected ULP LLP 500 0 Dec 2012 Jul 2012 Feb 2012 Sep 2011 Apr 2011 Nov 2010 Jun 2010 Jan 2010 Aug 2009 Mar 2009 Oct 2008 May 2008 Dec 2007 Jul 2007 Feb 2007 Sep 2006 Apr 2006 Nov 2005 Jun 2005 Jan 2005 Aug 2004 Mar 2004 Oct 2003 May 2003 Dec 2002 Jul 2002 Feb 2002 Sep 2001 Apr 2001 Nov 2000 Jun 2000 Jan 2000 Periods Figure 2. Projections on the number of tourists arriving in Galapagos according to data generated by an application of the Tourism Observatory of Galapagos. Observed = the actual number of visitors that entered for the period for which data were used to make the projection; Adjusted = curve generated from the projection model (Winter’s Model), where the projection is adjusted to real data; Expected = projection of visitor numbers for 2012 (the projection is indicated beyond the vertical black line); ULP = upper limit of the projection (i.e., the projected value can be given a higher value the upper limit for a projection interval); and LLP = lower limit of the projection (i.e., projected value can be given a lower value – the lower limit for a projection interval). Source and preparation: MINTUR, Tourism Observatory The TOG gradually has become an important source of information and consultation for private and community stakeholders of local tourism and members of the Technical Group, as well as other institutions, universities and individuals who are doing research in the islands. The TOG database allows for the creation of personalized products and analyses required by each institution. Dissemination of results Information from the TOG is currently summarized via monthly, quarterly and annual reports and is available to businesses and organizations in Galapagos and mainland Ecuador, at the offices of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Tourism. The first quarterly newsletter was printed in June 2011 and in 2012 such information will be available on a website that is currently under development. In the future, greater collaboration is needed with other institutions in Galapagos that possess important secondary information on economic, social or environmental issues that will facilitate additional analyses, projections and econometric studies. The TOG is the first tourism monitoring system in Ecuador. Other important tourism areas in Ecuador, such as the Ecuadorian Amazon, have expressed interest in replicating it. Thanks to this system, for the first time updated information on the impact of tourism in Galapagos is being monitored, analyzed and disseminated. It has also gradually generated greater participation of the public and private sectors and civil society in decision-making processes. 102 Conclusions and recommendations To optimize the impact of the Tourism Observatory as a tool for effective tourism planning in Galapagos, it is essential to operationalize the Technical Committee on Tourism for Galapagos. This will allow for greater analysis of information, the identification of critical indicators of tourism impact (both positive and negative), and decisionmaking at the level of public policies, programs and projects, and timely activities. The information collected and analyzed to date identifies several challenges for the implementation of the new model of ecotourism in Galapagos. The information shows that Galapagos is not currently recognized (or positioned) as an ecotourism destination, but rather as a more traditional destination offering sun and beach. This issue should be raised with decision-makers so that policies are adopted that will lead to the development of ecotourism in Galapagos. It is recommended that the following key actions be taken to strengthen the Tourism Observatory: • Operationalize the TOG website. The TOG generates a large amount of monthly information that is impossible to summarize in print and in online reports. An online information platform is being developed that will allow tourism stakeholders to access information efficiently and each member institution of the Technical Committee on Tourism for Galapagos to perform its own analyses according to need. It remains to be determined if this requires strengthening the TOG or strengthening the capacity
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Zorica Kovacevic of each member of the Technical Committee on Tourism. • Disseminate the principle results of the TOG in the media, especially those related to key indicators related to supply and demand and social and environmental aspects of tourism. This is needed to generate greater awareness about the reality of tourism in Galapagos. • Prepare specialized information for institutions and authorities according to their specific requirements. • Use the information generated to create tourism development scenarios, as well as growth projections based on key indicators. • Develop articles, reports and other research papers based on the information obtained by the TOG. • Use the information generated to create tourism development scenarios, as well as growth projections based on key indicators. • Convert the TOG into the main resource for technical information to support decision-making regarding tourism in Galapagos. • information generated by the TOG with organizations on the mainland. • Based on the results obtained, improve methodologies and incorporate new monitoring indicators on the four inhabited islands to help understand the real impacts (positive and negative) of tourism in each island. Position the TOG as the first national observatory and collaborate to develop other tourism observatories within the country. This will require sharing 103
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 SIMAVIS: Results of monitoring various indicators at visitor sites in the Galapagos National Park Eddy Araujo, Ingrid Jaramillo, Jorge Flores, Joan Sotomayor, Marisela Gallardo and Silvia Ariscado Galapagos National Park Service Walking in Bartolomé Photograph: Richard Bates Introduction The Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) implemented the Visitor Management System (SIMAVIS, for its initials in Spanish) in order to integrate various tools needed to better manage visitors and the impacts of tourism activities at public ecotourism sites (Reck et al., 2010). The goal of SIMAVIS is not only to maintain or improve the conservation status of the visitor sites, but also to ensure optimal social conditions during the tourist’s visit (Figure 1). In 2010, the GNPS applied one of the main recommendations of SIMAVIS, the establishment of 15-day itineraries for the modality of tourism operations – navigable tours – in order to better distribute the tourist boats throughout the network of Public Use Ecotourism Sites in order to reduce overcrowding and congestion in the iconic visitor sites of Galapagos. Management Categories for Visitor Sites 1 5 Management Strategies in situ Tourism 4 Monitoring 2 AVL (GAOT) SIMAVIS 3 Itineraries Figure 1. Principle components of SIMAVIS; AVL = Acceptable Visitor Load measured as the number of Groups at any One Time (GAOT); Reck et al., 2010). Tourism monitoring is an essential component of SIMAVIS; it aims to detect impacts on ecosystems and the quality of the visitor experience. The goal is to identify the causes of these impacts and to eliminate and/or minimize their effects through direct and indirect management actions, in order to ensure ecosystem conservation and a visitor experience that is consistent with the principles of nature tourism in a protected area. Tourism monitoring is also used to detect weaknesses in other components of SIMAVIS. 104
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Methodology 2. Potential participants in data collection are identified by the type of information to be recorded. For example, four key players were identified as potential collaborators for monitoring visitor sites in the Galapagos National Park (GNP; Table 1). In addition to the reports prepared by GNPS technicians and park rangers, naturalist guides submit trip reports at the end of each trip that include a number of simple and relevant indicators. In addition, local students and volunteers collaborate with the GNPS; after receiving training, they participate in data collection in the most visited sites. Tourists also help by responding to interviews and surveys related to the quality of the tourist experience. The frequency with which monitoring is performed depends on the participants. The methodology begins with the establishment of indicators and standards for the collection of information at visitor sites. These include: 1. Physical indicators: Erosion, trail width, appearance of alternative trails, formation of gullies, vegetative cover, presence of trash, remnants of fires and graffiti. Biological indicators: Presence of introduced species and diversity of biological attractions. 3. Social and management indicators: Number of encounters between tourist groups, behavior, occurrence of accidents and condition of the tourism infrastructure. The data obtained in the field is compared with previously defined standards. Indicators at each site, including the number of visitors, are evaluated over time to detect any changes or trends. The last phase of monitoring is the decision-making process. Depending on the results of the monitoring, this phase involves the application in situ of direct and indirect intervention measures. Any measures that require changes to zoning, regulations or similar norms involve an additional step in the decisionmaking process. Such decisions are made by the Technical Council of the GNPS, the Participatory Management Board (PMB), the Inter-institutional Management Authority (IMA), or the Ministry of Environment (ME) (Figure 2). Table 1. Frequency of and personnel involved in monitoring activities in the visitor sites. Data Collectors Frequency GNPS – park rangers Daily GNPS – naturalist guides Every two weeks GNPS – public use technicians 6 months Volunteers, students, tourists 6 months DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITIES Technicians, park rangers, guides, volunteers 1. DATA COLLECTION – MONITORING 2. INFORMATION ANALYSIS MONITORING GNPS Technicians 3. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND DECISION-MAKING 3.1. Direct and indirect in situ methods ( redesign of trails, opening new areas, infrastructure to reduce impacts ) 3.2. Reevaluation - monitoring 3.3. Modification of Acceptable Visitor Load (AVL) 3.4. Redesign of itineraries Level II Technical Advisory Process: Tourism administration technicians of the GNPS with inputs from a consultative process with stakeholders 3.5. New zoning of Public Use 3.6. Revision of regulations, laws, reglamentations, resolutions, etc. 3.7. Opening new sites Level I. Political - normative: GNPS, ME, PMB, IMA Figure 2. Management decision-making system based on the results of SIMAVIS. 105
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Results for 2009–2011 Trash. Trash is one indicator consistently found at visitor sites. The presence of trash generates a strong visual impact and naturally detracts from the visit; it can also cause a behavioral change in visitors, leading them to follow the same pattern of littering. At remote sites, the presence of trash is uncommon and when it does exist it is usually due to the influence of currents and tides that carry waste from other parts of the ocean. In visitor sites near towns (Near Intensive sites and Recreational and Cultural-educational sites), the presence of trash is common, due to the intensity of use and frequency of visitation (Table 2). Table 2. Frequency of registering trash at the visitor sites included in SIMAVIS from 2009 to 2011. Island Visitor Site 2009 2010 2011 Plastic Glass Organic Isabela Concha Perla 12 13 15 x x x Sierra Negra 6 8 12 x x Cerro Tijeretas 5 4 8 x x Punta Carola 3 4 3 x x Bartolomé Bartolomé 5 2 5 x Genovesa Bahía Darwin 3 Santa Cruz C.C. Fausto Llerena 3 6 3 Seymour Norte Seymour Norte 2 1 2 Santa Fe Santa Fe 2 1 Santa Cruz Las Grietas 5 6 12 x Tortuga Bay 8 10 12 x San Cristóbal Frequency per Year Type of Trash Wood 3 Metal x x x x Introduced species. Introduced species are a major threat to the conservation of the ecological integrity and biodiversity of the archipelago. For visitor sites, the most commonly observed species include anis, rats, mice, ants and wasps. Cats and goats are seen much less frequently. The most commonly reported introduced plant species x x x are blackberry, guava and supirrosa, which at some sites have started to occupy the niche of native and endemic vegetation. The visitor sites with the highest frequency of recorded introduced species are mainly found on inhabited islands (Table 3). Table 3. Frequency of observing introduced species in the visitor sites included in SIMAVIS. Island Visitor Site Frequency per Year Cats Wasps Anis Floreana Punta Cormorant 15 13 2 x x x Santa Cruz Cerro Dragón 6 5 5 x x x Santiago Puerto Egas 5 3 2 x x Isabela Bahía Urbina 5 4 4 Santa Cruz Los Gemelos 3 3 0 x Genovesa El Barranco 2 0 0 x San Cristóbal Puerto Pitt 1 0 0 x Santa Cruz El Chato 0 2 0 x 2009 2010 2011 Type of Introduced Species x Intensity of use or acceptable visitor load (AVL). In terms of intensity of use, visitor sites fall into two different groups. On the one hand there are sites with clear overuse, such as Punta Suárez, Gardner Bay, North Seymour and Punta Cormorant, while other visitor sites, such as Punta Pitt, Cerro Brujo, Jardín de las Opuntias (all in San Cristóbal) and El Chato and El Puntudo in Santa Cruz, are 106 Goats Ants Blackberry x Aphid x x x x x x underutilized. For example, at Cerro Brujo the acceptable load (limit) is five groups per day. This number is exceeded only on Wednesdays, while very few groups or no groups visit the site during the rest of the week (Figure 3). The implementation of the new system of 15-day cruise itineraries has contributed enormously to matching
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 visitation with the acceptable visitor load at each site. This change has been dramatic at some of the previously overused sites such as Española Island. Until 2009 Española was consistently overused; since the implementation of the 15-day itineraries in 2010, only two days in each 15day period show a slight overuse of the site (Figure 4). Cerro Brujo 8 AM 7 6 PM 5 4 3 2 1 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Figure 3. Number of groups visiting per day at Cerro Brujo in San Cristóbal in 2010. Española 2009 Groups / half-day 12 AM 10 PM 8 6 4 2 0 M T W T F S S Española 2010 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 M1 T W T F S S M2 T W T F S S Figure 4. Comparison between the intensity of use at the visitor sites of Española Island (number of groups per day) without (2009) and with (2010) the establishment of 15-day itineraries; the red line indicates the Acceptable Visitor Load for Española of 5 groups per day. Conclusions SIMAVIS makes it possible to measure various elements related to tourism management in Galapagos. This report focuses only on the results of monitoring indicators at visitor sites within the protected areas of the national park. Based on the results presented, the GNPS applied management measures to mitigate the impacts detected. These included the control and monitoring of visitor sites, eradication programs for introduced species, and corrective and preventive maintenance of infrastructure and equipment at visitor sites. Although trash and introduced species are recorded on a recurring basis at visitor sites near towns, overall the Network of Ecotourism Public Use Sites of the GNP is in good condition and the integrity and resilience of the ecosystems are being maintained. The implementation of the monitoring components of SIMAVIS provides an evaluation of visitor site management and the impacts generated by tourism. Specifically it identifies impacts that require additional management actions, often related to other programs of the GNPS (for example, control and eradication programs). Management actions also often require support of the visitors to the sites (Galapagos residents and national and foreign tourists), and should help to provide greater awareness and understanding of their role in the long-term protection of Galapagos. 107
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Linda Cayot References Reck G, M Casafont, E Naula y M Oviedo. 2010. SIMAVIS: Sistema de Manejo de Visitantes del Parque Nacional Galápagos. Pp. 93-104 en: Informe Galápagos 2009-2010. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. 108
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Tourism as an economic alternative for Galapagos fishers: Opportunities and lessons learned Pablo Palacios H. and Anna Schuhbauer Charles Darwin Foundation Photograph: Alicia Bertolotti Introduction Overfishing has become an important issue worldwide in recent decades due to increased demand for marine resources, lack of proper management, and a fishing fleet whose capacity exceeds existing resources. The lives of over a billion people who inhabit the coasts and shorelines of the planet depend on existing marine resources in some form or another (FAO, 2008; Worm et al., 2009; Srinivasan et al., 2010). Globally, the collapse of several populations of marine resources has strongly impacted many families and societies, especially in developing countries (Castilla & Defeo, 2005). In several cases, governments and NGOs have developed programs to support the fishing sectors by providing alternative livelihoods in other economic activities. Unfortunately, these projects have not always been implemented successfully. The cultural roots and traditions of fishers must be considered, as they are a major reason why in many cases fishers continue fishing despite their poor economic situation (Pollnac & Poggie, 2008; Pollnac & Bavinck, 2008; Cinner et al., 2009). In the Galapagos Islands the fishing fleet increased dramatically in the 1990s due to the rise of the sea cucumber fishery after its collapse along the coast of mainland Ecuador. Fishers from the continent migrated to the Galapagos to take part in fisheries development in the archipelago, which led to over-exploitation of marine benthic resources, such as sea cucumbers and spiny lobsters (Figures 1 and 2). Currently, there are 1035 registered fishers with a PARMA fishing license issued by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS; PARMA = Pescador Artesanal de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos or Artesanal Fisher of the Galapagos Marine Reserve); approximately 470 of licensed fishers are active. Due to overfishing, the decline of the local fishing industry was inevitable and has led fishers to seek other work. One of the management measures used by the GNPS to reduce the overexploitation of fisheries resources and to improve the socioeconomic situation of the fishers was to provide economic incentives to encourage “alternative livelihoods” related to tourism. The measure was proposed at different times via two alternatives: Experiential Artisanal Fishing (EAF) beginning in 2005 and new Tourism Operation Permits (TOP) beginning in 2009. The concept of Experiential Artisanal Fishing (EAF) was originally presented by the fishing industry to the Participatory Management Board. The EAF is both a fishing and tourism activity, in which the Galapagos fisher uses his infrastructure (boat and equipment) to offer visitors the opportunity to learn about and engage 109
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 by the GNPS through which fishers could exchange their fishing licenses and fishing vessels for a tourism permit. The idea is that a reduced number of fishing vessels operating in the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) will decrease the fishing effort. The concept of new Tourist Operation Permits (TOPs) was first introduced in 1990 by a small group of fishers interested in exchanging their fishing permits for tourism permits. At that time tourism was considered a more profitable and less risky business. However, despite the insistence of the interested fishers, this proposal was not accepted until 2008 (Decree No. 1416 of the President of the Republic). In that year any fisher interested in TOP projects could apply through a public competition held The study presented here focuses on a review of the current status of Experiential Artisanal Fishing, which began in 2005, and the Tourism Operation Permits granted to fishers in 2009. The key questions are: • What are the main implementation problems? • Have the initiatives achieved a reduction in fishing pressure? • What are possible solutions? 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1999 2001 2003 2005 Spiny lobster (mt) 2007 2009 Catch in millions Catch in mt in the fisher’s culture and way of life (Resolution 0012 of GNPS). When engaged in this activity, fishers harvest less but they receive greater economic benefit because tourists pay comparatively more for a fishing trip than could be earned from a day of fishing. 2011 Sea cucumber (number in millions) Figure 1. The decrease in catch in lobster and sea cucumber fisheries (no data for sea cucumbers indicates closure of the fishing season). Source: database CDF and GNPS Number of fishermen 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 1999 2001 2003 2005 Registered fishermen 2007 2009 2011 Active fishermen Figure 2. Registered (with PARMA license) and active fishers in sea cucumber and spiny lobster fisheries since 1999. Source: GNPS database Methodology Data collection was based on a semi-quantitative evaluation using surveys, in-depth interviews, logbooks, records of the GNPS and the Port Captaincies, observations, and literature review; and on a qualitative assessment through organized workshops and interviews with all interested and affected sectors and individuals (Table 1). 110 An estimate of fishing effort in the GMR in 2011 was calculated based on the number of fishing boats (fibras) multiplied by the number of fishing days per month. Gathering information was difficult due to the fishing sector’s skepticism towards scientists and research projects. However, through a series of participatory meetings it was possible to obtain the cooperation of the fishers and the process moved forward.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Sources of information from key stakeholders who were interviewed during the period May to November 2011. Participants Sources Fishers who obtained a Tourism Operation Permit (TOP) 21 semi-structured interviews (San Cristóbal, Santa Cruz and Isabela) Fishers of the Experiential Artisanal Fishery (EAF) 13 meetings and workshops; 7 in-depth interviews (San Cristóbal) Provincial Tourism Chamber of Galapagos (CAPTURGAL for its initials in Spanish) 2 in-depth interviews (San Cristóbal and Santa Cruz) Conservation and science sector (nongovernmental organizations) 8 in-depth interviews (San Cristóbal, Santa Cruz and Quito) Local tourism agencies and operators 4 interviews (San Cristóbal and Santa Cruz) Current situation The interviews revealed that few fishers actually benefit from either EAF or TOP activities. Of the more than 450 active fishers in Galapagos, to date only 28 have a boat registered for EAF and only five have TOPs. From 2010 to 2012, each boat involved in Experiential Artisanal Fishing made a maximum of five trips per month, based on records from the GNPS and zarpes issued by the Port Captaincies. This information shows that registered EAF vessels do not generate enough activity to sustain the fisher’s families. So far EAF does not attract enough customers to be profitable. The potential number of TOPs available in 2008, calculated by a private consultant, was 72, distributed in the distinct modalities offered: Navigable Dive Tours, Dive Tours Class I and II, and Bay Tours. The GNPS would award these permits based on a public competition. Fishers presented 77 projects of which only 18 qualified as potential beneficiaries in specific modalities (mainly Navigable Diving Tour). The operationalization of the 18 winning projects and the elimination of these fishing vessels could represent a 21% reduction in fishing effort for the entire archipelago. However, due to implementation and financial problems only five fishers have successfully initiated tourism activities. This means that only three fishing boats, five launches and one dinghy have been removed from use in exchange for operating TOPs, which results in a reduction of only 5% of the fishing effort. Seven interviews with fishers involved in EAF revealed that 50% of their revenues come from tourism; the rest is covered by commercial fishing or other work. On the other hand, the five fishers who have switched to tourism through public competition for TOPs are no longer engaged in commercial fishing and obtain 100% of their income from their new business. The investment that fishers must make to initiate either TOP or EAF activities is high (TOP: US$600,000–2,000,000; EAF: US$50,000-300,000). The amount depends primarily on the size, use and origin of the vessel. Most fishers do not have the necessary solvency to refurbish the boat they already own (in the case of EAF) or to obtain loans for the amount needed to invest in a new tour boat (in the case of TOPs). While it is mandatory that EAF permits and new TOPs be used by those to whom they are granted, partnering with local and/or continental companies and investors allows fishers to invest in either new boats or to remodel their old boats. However, the result of this practice has been that some fishers become figureheads or employees, rather than the direct beneficiaries of the implemented measures. The purpose of the incentives is to promote socioeconomic development of local fishers. However, in practice there are legal ways that allow a few entrepreneurs—not the fishing sector—to benefit most. Discussion Elsewhere in the world the concept of offering economic alternatives to the fishing sector has failed because fishers fear that a change from fishing to tourism represents a possible loss of their tradition and culture. In the case of Galapagos, the majority of registered fishers have been inactive since 2005 (Figure 1). It is assumed that they have already changed their way of life, and because of this they should be excluded from “alternative livelihood” initiatives. Fishers who still fish for their livelihood should be the focus of such initiatives, and they need financial, administrative and legal advice and support from the government and NGOs to strengthen their business skills. For this to take place, it is essential that there be agreement within the fishing sector and with decisionmaking authorities. Theoretically the EAF meets the important criterion of offering economic alternatives to the fishing sector. Unfortunately, the current situation shows that the objectives have not been achieved and that regulations are not providing the necessary guidance. Despite the efforts of several NGOs and the government, the EAF activity has yet to generate the economic benefits that the “pioneer” fishers had hoped for (Castrejón, 2008). 111
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 One reason may be that while many thought it was a good choice, in-depth cost:benefit studies and a thorough analysis of the potential demand among visitors for such an activity were never conducted. It is also clear that not only fishing has caused environmental impacts. Since 1996 tourism has tripled (Figure 3), with significant consequences: excessive population growth of villages, continentalization of inhabited islands (Grenier, 2007), and loss of island identity. The effects of tourism should be taken into account in decision-making and program design. 2000 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1500 1250 1000 750 500 Number of berths 1750 250 Total visitors 2011 2008 2005 2002 1999 1996 1993 1990 1987 1984 1981 1978 1975 0 1972 Number of visitors In order to obtain tourism permits under the TOP concept, fishers must surrender their PARMA license and their fishing boats. Our results show that there is a greater success in reducing fishing effort under TOP than with EAF. If fishers compete successfully for a tourism permit, they must destroy their fishing boats. This part of the model effectively reduces the fishing effort as the number of boats in the GMR cannot be increased. In the case of EAF, the owner of a fishing vessel can initiate EAF while maintaining their commercial fishing license. Given this, the fishing effort can increase rather than decrease. Although the TOPs better meet the goal of reducing the impact of fishing on the GMR, the process for obtaining a permit was poorly designed (Contraloría General del Estado, 2009), which is reflected in the fact that only five of the 21 fishers who obtained permits have successfully transitioned to tourism. Number of berths Figure 3. Increase in the number of tourists entering Galapagos per year and in the number of berths in cruise boats since 1972. Source: GNPS database and Grenier, 2007 Based on our results, the ecological impact on the GMR has been reduced with the new TOP system. It is obvious that overfishing compared to tourism has a greater impact in marine ecosystems because it is an extractive activity. However, simultaneously promoting TOPs for fishers with the intention of reducing the fishing effort and limiting the entry of visitors in an effort to control the growth of tourism are contradictory management measures, although both are necessary in the current context. Recommendations The following recommendations to improve the current situation of both TOPs and EAF emerged from our study: 1. Improve the design and implementation of the TOP and EAF projects based on the results presented. It is not sufficient to provide fishers with initial financial and logistical support. There must be continuity of assistance until the projects are operational. 112 2. Manage, either through cooperatives, associations or working groups, the artisanal fisheries and alternative economic activities for fishers under a model that benefits the majority of active fishers. 3. Eliminate the non-active fishers from the Fishing Registry. 4. Calculate the minimum possible investment needed by the fishers to reduce the risk of losing their capital. Before buying or building a large luxury boat, they should consider remodeling their existing boat for EAF or TOP or purchasing a less expensive dive boat. In this way, fishers who benefit from EAF or TOPs can be the exclusive owners of the business as opposed to figureheads. 5. Conduct socioeconomic studies of the costs and benefits of the proposed activities; implement longterm monitoring that includes the people involved and/or affected by decision-making regarding the management of these activities.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 6. Conduct a study on the potential market for EAF to determine how realistic it is as a source of income. 7. Promote the organization, regulation and management of local tourism so that it can become a sustainable activity and so that fishers have better opportunities to integrate themselves into tourism operations. Acknowledgments Thank you to the Charles Darwin Foundation, Nuria Estrella, Daniel Orellana, Rosendo Pujol, Gunter Reck, Fernando Ortiz, Oscar Aguirre, Volker Koch, Miriam Ramos, Harry Reyes, Renato Guerrero, José Guerrero, Angélica Rodríguez, Leandro Vaca, Diego Ellis, Ingrid Jaramillo and Josselin Guyot. Thanks to all of the participants in the fishing sector and to the Galapagos Conservation Trust and an anonymous donor for their support. References Castilla JC & O Defeo. 2005. Paradigm shifts needed for world fisheries. Science 309:1324. Castrejón M. 2008. Evaluación del desempeño de la PAV en la RMG. Technical report for the WWF, Galapagos, Ecuador. 7 pp. Cinner JE, T Daw & TR McClanahan. 2009. Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology 23:124-130. Contraloría General del Estado. 2009. Informe Contraloría DR1DPG-0001-2010. Examen especial a los subgrupos: especies fiscales y patentes y denuncias presentadas por el periodo comprendido entre el 01 de octubre del 2005 y el 31 de julio del 2009 del Parque Nacional Galápagos. FAO. 2008. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization, The United Nations, Rome, Italy. Accessed March 2012: http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0250e/i0250e00.htm Grenier C. 2007. Conservación contra natura: Las Islas Galápagos, Ecuador. Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos (IFEA), Embajada de Francia en Ecuador, Institut de Rechercher Pour Le Développement (IRD), Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Ediciones Abya-Yala. 183 pp. Pollnak RB & M Bavinck. 2008. Alternative livelihoods and job satisfaction among fishermen: a cross-national study. In EOCST: Ecosystems, Societies, Consilience, Precautionary principle: Development of an assessment method of the societal cost for best fishing practices and efficient public policies. D4SA Ecoregion report on sociological aspects: Results of the Job Satisfaction surveys of all case-studies. 85 pp. Pollnac RB & JJ Poggie. 2008. Happiness, well-being and psychocultural adaptation to the stresses associated with marine fishing. Special Section on Vulnerability and Resilience in Fisheries. Human Ecology Review 15, No. 2. Srinivasan UT, WWL Cheung, R Watson & UR Sumaila. 2010. Food security implications of global marine catch losses due to overfishing. Journal of Bioeconomics 12:183-200. Worm B, R Hilborn, JK Baum, TA Branch, JS Collie, C Costello, MJ Fogarty, EA Fulton, J Hutchings, S Jennings, OP Jensen, HK Lotze, PM Mace, TR McClanahan, C Minto, SR Palumbi, AM Parma, D Ricard, AA Rosenberg, R Watson & D Zeller. 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325:578–585. 113
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Perceptions of the economic value of sharks for single-day dive tourism and commerce in Santa Cruz Island César Peñaherrera1, Yasmania Llerena2 and Inti Keith1 Charles Darwin Foundation, 2Galapagos National Park Service 1 Photograph: Inti Keith Introduction Sharks play a critical role in marine ecosystems as most are top predators in the food web (Compagno et al., 2005). When feeding, sharks not only feed themselves, they also control the population size of their prey and balance the marine ecosystem (Stevens et al., 2000). There is thus a broad consensus regarding the benefits of preserving top predators such as sharks (Holmlund & Hammer, 1999), and the potential threat of their demise on marine ecosystems (Stevens et al., 2000; Sergio et al., 2006; Ward & Myers, 2005). Unfortunately sharks face intense overfishing worldwide. This has caused drastic declines in populations of most large shark species in recent decades (Baum et al., 2003; Myers et al., 2007). More than 17% of shark species worldwide are threatened or endangered (Stevens et al., 2000; IUCN, 2010). The principle cause for these declines is the high demand for shark fins by Asian markets. Studies have determined that 26 to 76 million sharks are sold in Asia each year (Clarke et al., 2006), with annual revenue ranging from US$400-550 million (Clarke et al., 2007). However non-extractive activities can generate much higher economic returns, especially because the resource can be used multiple times in comparison with fishing. Well-managed tourism based on observing wildlife can provide an alternative that is ecologically and economically sustainable (Norman & Catlin, 2007; O’Connor et al., 2009). The Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) is considered by many as one of the best places for underwater tourism in the world (Sammon, 1992; Scuba Diving, 2000). Thirty species of sharks live in the GMR, with hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini), Galapagos sharks (Carcharhinus galapagensis), white-tipped sharks (Triaenodon obesus), and whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) the most common (Hearn et al., 2008). The tourism potential of the islands and the sharks is exploited by various tourism companies whose activities are regulated by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS). The ability to observe sharks throughout the archipelago is one of the reasons the islands are such an important tourist destination and has been reported as significantly increasing the levels of entertainment and enjoyment of tourists (Espinoza & Figueroa, 2001; Figure 1). Although shark fishing has been banned in the GMR since 1989, the high demand and subsequent economic pressure for shark fins in Asian markets have generated an illegal trade within the waters of the GMR that is difficult to measure and quantify (Reyes & Murillo, 2007). The size and dynamics of the fishing fleet involved in these illegal activities in not fully known, but unofficially it is known 114
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 1. Tourist swimming alongside a whale shark. Photo: Jonathan Green that the main incentive for many local and national fishers to become involved in this fishery is the significant economic revenue it generates. Determining the non-extractive economic value of a species is a crucial step to gain legitimacy for their protection, as it reinforces the value of nature conservation and its importance in the local economy and wellbeing of the community. For this reason, the Charles Darwin Foundation, along with the GNPS and the University of California-Davis, initiated a series of studies to measure the importance of sharks in the Galapagos economy. The objective of the first study, reported here, was to establish the basis for calculating the economic impact of sharks on tourism operations (single-day dive tours) on Santa Cruz and for the local handicrafts and souvenir sector. Methodology Santa Cruz was chosen as the study site because of the high concentration of tour operators, hotels, and shops, in comparison with the other islands (Grenier, 2010). Annually 75-80% of Galapagos tourists visiting the islands enter through the airport in Baltra Island, north of Santa Cruz (DPNG, 2011a). In Puerto Ayora there are about 45 tour operators, nine of which provide singleday dive tours (Villareal & Grenier, 2010). This number increased recently after new regulations for dive tourism and patent allocation were implemented by the GNPS. Similarly, Villareal and Grenier reported a total of 50 local handicrafts and souvenir shops located mostly along or near Charles Darwin Avenue. During March 2010, surveys were carried out with the nine dive tour agencies that offer day tours and 31 local handicrafts and souvenir shops. Surveys were directed specifically to guides and administrators working for their respective companies, and focused on perceptions regarding the dynamics of the business in which they worked. The analysis of the importance of sharks in the dive tourism sector was performed following the model proposed by Clua et al. (2011) and then adjusted for data collected in this research. First the Annual Gross Income (AGI) of each dive agency was calculated, based on the average number of tourists per trip, the frequency of trips per week, and the cost of each dive package. Second, the percentage of the AGI that corresponds to the passengers who travel looking to observe sharks (AGISO) was modeled. This value was estimated based on the perception of the guides regarding the percentage of passengers traveling with them that demonstrated that their primary interest was to observe sharks. Finally, the AGI that each shark would produce for the dive operators (AGI-Shark) was estimated. The AGI-Shark calculation took 115
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 into account the frequency of shark observations per week and the average number of sharks observed per trip as reported by the dive guides, since the population size of the various shark species found in the GMR is unknown. In the case of local handicrafts and souvenirs, the estimated AGI or total sales was based on the number of tourists registered by GNPS who entered Puerto Ayora and Baltra during 2009 and 2010 (DPNG, 2011a), and the amount spent per tourist as reported by Epler (2007) and Ordoñez (2007). These values were then related to the reported percentage of importance of products related to sharks in the AGI of the local shops. The study defined products related to sharks as all handicrafts, clothing or accessory items that use a shark image and/or use sharks as a marketing medium (Figure 2). Figure 2. Left: Figure of a commonly sold shark in a handicrafts and souvenir shop. Right: Exhibition and sale of t-shirts with figures of representative animals such as hammerhead sharks (center). Photos: Inti Keith. Results Dive agencies The dive agencies provided trip information including cost, number of passengers, and frequency of trips and shark observations. The average cost for a single-day dive trip was US$146, with a range from US$115 to US$190. Most dive companies reported making five trips per week, with an average of six passengers per trip. The dive guides indicated that they believe that approximately 92% of their passengers arrive in Galapagos to observe sharks. However, sharks are not observed during all dive trips. According to the surveys, sharks are observed on average 3.5 out of every seven days of diving. The main shark species observed on dive trips were hammerheads, Galapagos sharks, white-tipped sharks or reef sharks, and recently the black-tipped shark (Carcharhinus limbatus). It was not possible to obtain information on abundance by species, rather abundance estimates per trip relate to all shark species as a functional group. Per shark observation (IBA-SO) Total from passengers 600 000 US$ 500 000 400 000 300 000 200 000 100 000 0 DA1 DA2 DA3 DA4 DA5 DA6 DA7 DA8 DA9 Figure 3. Estimates of the total annual gross income (AGI) and the AGI for shark observations (AGI-SO) for each dive agency (DA) surveyed. 116
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Based on the information provided in the surveys, the AGI of all dive agencies was estimated to be approximately US$2,115,000, with an average AGI per operator of US$235,000 (maximum ~US$495,000; minimum ~US$105,000; Figure 3). Starting with a baseline of 92% of dive tourists arriving in Galapagos to see sharks, the total AGI-SO was estimated at US$1.97 million. The average AGI-SO per operator was US$220,000 (maximum about ~US$490,000; minimum ~US$95,000). Local handicrafts and souvenir shops According to data on tourist arrivals to Santa Cruz, an estimated 140,221 tourists arrived in 2008, 128,493 in 2009, and 136,318 in 2010 (DPNG, 2011a). Based on these totals and the published amount spent per tourist, the AGI for all of the souvenir shops was estimated to be ~US$3,890,000 for 2008, ~US$3,565,000 for 2009, and ~US$3,780,000 for 2010. The percentage contribution of handicrafts and souvenirs related to sharks in the AGI of each shop was highly variable. Establishments reported percent contributions from 2-70%, with the most frequent income estimates between 0-10% and an average of 25%. Using 25% as the baseline, it is estimated that the AGI for items related to sharks could reach ~US$970,000 for 2008, ~US$890,000 for 2009, and ~US$945,000 for 2010 (Figure 4). AGI for crafts and souvenirs of sharks AGI total (estimated) 4 000 000 US$ 3 000 000 2 000 000 1 000 000 0 2008 2009 2010 Figure 4. Total annual gross income of handicraft and souvenir shops (AGI) and the annual gross income estimated for the sale of crafts and souvenirs of sharks. Discussion This study represents a survey of the perception of dive agencies and local handicrafts and souvenir shops that operated during 2010. It is important to note that the level of uncertainty in this type of study can be high, especially due to the high degree of reticence among respondents to provide financial information about their business operations. Direct use value: dive agencies Currently it is estimated that shark-related dive trips contribute between US$1.2 and US$7.4 million annually to many local and regional economies (Rowat & Engelhardt, 2007; Norman & Catlin, 2007; Catlin et al., 2010; Martin & Hakeem, 2006). The calculation of the economic value of sharks increasingly plays a critical role as a tool to demonstrate that the impact of removing these organisms not only affects the ecosystem but also the services that humans derive from them (Clua et al., 2011). Year by year, observation tourism is becoming a non-extractive activity that generates high economic returns to society, which can greatly exceed those obtained through fishing (Norman & Catlin, 2007). In the case of Puerto Ayora, the AGI-SO has been estimated at ~US$1.9 million, within the range of values reported for other regions. However, the value reported in this study only covers tourist expenditures for singleday dive packages. To better measure the economic value of non-consumptive use we must also evaluate dive tourism within the cruise modality and estimate trip costs of tourists in both types of dive trips. Taking into account the frequency of observation and the number of sharks observed in each trip, it is estimated that each shark (independent of species) may directly generate ~US$34,000 per year from single-day dive tours. However, this estimate requires that there is always the same potential for observing sharks and that shark population size is constant. To achieve a more accurate estimate requires an intensive population study to determine the number of sharks present at each site as well as a survey of the other modality of dive cruises. Indirect use value: handicrafts and souvenir shops The estimates show the economic importance of the image of sharks as an iconic species of marine tourism in the handicrafts and souvenir business sector, with 117
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photo: César Peñaherrera at least a quarter of the annual income of these shops (~US$930,000) resulting from sales of t-shirts, key chains, figures and other souvenir items that show an image of sharks. Revenue projections in this study covered only the past three years, due to changes in the dynamics of dive tourism that resulted from new regulations imposed by the GNPS. This calculation requires that at least two assumptions are met in order to reduce the level of uncertainty associated with the results: 1) high level of experience in the handicrafts and souvenir business of the respondents, and 2) information on the time tourists spend in Galapagos. Respondents had at least five years of experience, with the average increasing to 5-15 years, as the age of the respondent increased. These data provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the information provided. In terms of the amount of time that visitors spend in Puerto Ayora and the time they have to shop for souvenirs, the Visitor Management System of the GNPS (DPNG, 2011b) indicates that tour vessel itineraries continue to allow tourists to visit port areas at least once. Conclusions and recommendations Although this study is based in part on perceptions, this is the first analysis of its kind for the GMR. As in other parts of the world, tourism based on wildlife observation generates substantial revenues within the 118 local community through non-extractive uses such as dive tourism and the production of handicrafts and souvenirs. This study provides key information for future economic studies in Galapagos. However, the results should be refined and supplemented with more detailed information on tourist behavior and spatial and seasonal abundance of the shark species that are important to the tourism industry. To better understand the amount of revenue dive trips generate each year, similar studies focused on multi-day dive cruises will also have to be completed as well as surveys of tourists involved in dive trips. Well-managed tourism can produce high economic returns both directly and indirectly through onsite expenditures by each tourist. Furthermore, it is necessary to expand this research to the different inhabited islands of the archipelago to better determine the actual annual revenue generated in Galapagos by sharks. This information should be disseminated by the authorities in order to build awareness and educate the populations of the different islands regarding the economic importance of conserving the sharks of the GMR. This information should also be used to help tourism operators understand their role as key players in the conservation of vulnerable and endangered species. Diving with sharks is becoming an important, high-income business that provides not only a direct economic benefit related to the cost of the dive package but also includes expenditures by each tourist during their stay.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Finally it is recommended that this type of study be expanded to different key species in the GMR and the Galapagos National Park. This will help to improve the understanding of the value of resources and will foster a sense of ownership for the care of native species among the residents of Galapagos. Acknowledgments This work was made possible by the kind sponsorship of Lindblad Expeditions and Galapagos Conservation Trust. We also thank Jorge Baque for his help in data collection and Alex Hearn and Scott Henderson for their valuable comments on the methodology and results. References Baum JK, RA Meyer, DG Kehler, B Worm, SJ Harley & PA Doherty. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389-392. Catlin, J, R Jones, T Jones, B Norman & D Wood. 2010. Discovering wildlife tourism: a whale shark tourism case study. Current Issues in Tourism 13(4):351-361. Clarke, SC, MK McAllister, EJ Milner-Gulland, GP Kirkwood, CGJ Michielsens, DJ Agnew, EK Pikitch, H Nakano & MS Shivji. 2006. Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9:1115-1126. Clarke, S, EJ Milner-Gulland & T Bjorndal. 2007. Social, economic and regulatory drivers of the shark fin trade. Marine Resource Economy 22:305-327. Clua E, N Buray, P Legendre, J Mourier & S Planes. 2011. Business partner or simple catch? The economic value of the sicklefin lemon shark in French Polynesia. Marine and Freshwater Research 62:764-770. Compagno L, M Dando & S Fowler. 2005. Sharks of the world. Princeton Field Guides, Princeton University Press. USA, Canada & Philippines Islands. DPNG. 2011a. Estadísticas de ingreso de visitantes a Galápagos. Parque Nacional Galápagos. Available at: http://www. galapagospark.org/onecol.php?page=turismo_estadisticas. Visited in: May 2011. DPNG. 2011b. DPNG implementa un nuevo modelo de itinerarios para embarcaciones de turismo en Galápagos. Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos. Boletín electrónico. Available at: www.galapagospark.org/pn.php?page=turismo_sistema_ manejo_visitantes. Espinoza E & D Figueroa. 2001. The role of sharks in the Galápagos Islands tourism industry. Internal report, Charles Darwin Research Station. Galapagos, Ecuador. 7 pp. Epler B. 2007. Turismo, economía, crecimiento poblacional y conservación en Galápagos. Charles Darwin Foundation. 73 pp. Grenier C. 2010. La apertura geográfica de Galápagos. In: Informe Galápagos 2009-2010. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Hearn A, J Ketchum, G Shillinger, P Klimley & E Espinoza. 2008. Programa de investigación y conservación de tiburones en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Reporte Anual 2006-7. Charles Darwin Foundation, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 114 pp. Holmlun CM & M Hammer. 1999. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological Economics 29:253-268. IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, www.iucnredlist.org Martin RA & AA Hakeem. 2006. Development of a sustainable shark diving ecotourism industry in the Maldives: Challenges and opportunities. Maldives Marine Research Bulleting No. 8. Myers RA, JK Baum, TD Shepherd, SP Powers & CJ Peterson. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a Coastal Ocean. Science 315:1846-1850. Norman B & J Catlin. 2007. Economic importance of conserving whale sharks. Report for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Australia. O’Connor S, R Campbell, H Cortez & T Knowles. 2009. Whale watching worldwide: tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a special report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare prepared by Economists at Large. Yarmouth MA, USA. Ordóñez A. 2007. Determinación de la oferta actual y el potencial turístico de las islas Galápagos. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo y Cámara Provincial de Turismo de Galápagos. Reyes H & JC Murillo. 2007. Esfuerzos de control de pesca ilícita en la Reserva Marina. In: Galapagos Report 2006-2007. FCD, PNG & INGALA. Galapagos, Ecuador. 119
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Rowat D & U Engelhardt. 2007. Seychelles: A case study of community involvement in the development of whale shark ecotourism and its socio-economic impact. Fisheries Research 84:109-113. Sammon R. 1992. The Galapagos Archipelago. In: Seven Underwater Wonders of the World. Pp 93–117. Thomasson-Grant, Inc. Charlottesville, Virginia. USA. Scuba Diving. 2000. Reader´s Choice Awards Top Best 100 destinations, resorts and operators. January/February 2000 Issue, 31 pp. Sergio F, I Newton, L Marchesi & P Pedrini. 2006. Ecological justified charisma: preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:1049-1055. Stevens JD, R Bonfil, NK Dulvy & PA Wlaker. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:476-494. Villareal P & C Grenier. 2010. The commercial sector of Puerto Ayora and its relation to the environment. In: Galapagos Report 2009-2010. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador. Ward P & RA Myers. 2005. Shifts in open-ocean fish communities coinciding with the commencement of commercial fishing. Ecology 86(4):835-847. 120
    • Photo title page Marine Management: © César Peñaherrera
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Evaluation of the effectiveness of management of the Galapagos Marine Reserve: Key findings and recommendations Mario Villalta Gómez Galapagos National Park Service Photograph: Kathy Ladewig The Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) was created in 1998 through the Law for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Galapagos Province (LOREG, for its initials in Spanish), becoming the first marine protected area in Ecuador. A management plan, approved in 1999 and still valid, was designed in a participatory manner to ensure the conservation and management of the GMR as a multiple use reserve. Twelve years later, an evaluation of the management of the GMR was essential. An evaluation process led by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and involving members of the Participatory Management Board and WWF, sought to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of existing management practices in the GMR. This paper provides a synthesis of the evaluation process and the results obtained regarding the effectiveness with which the GMR has been managed since its establishment as a protected area. Methodology The evaluation methodology included review of design issues, and sufficiency and adequacy of management processes and their relationship with the management objectives of the GMR. It was based on guidelines, proposed by the World Commission on Protected Areas of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), that focus on: 1) the context and status of conservation targets; 2) planning and design of the protected area; 3) inputs for management; 4) management processes; 5) products obtained, and 6) the impact of the results. Each focus area was reviewed in the context of the following aspects of management: legal, governance, biophysical, socioeconomic, and planning and management (Figure 1). Matrices and tables were developed as tools for data collection and analyses to help link all primary and secondary information sources. A set of evaluation criteria was defined that allowed analysis of the available information related to the management of the GMR. At the beginning of each thematic area, results were summarized and each topic was assigned a rating reflecting a percent of “the most favorable condition,” based on a qualitative assessment by the evaluation team, and supported by available information and data collected. The rating was assigned to each item as it related to the GMR as opposed to a comparison with other protected marine areas in the region or world. 123
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 After a thorough review of the relevant data; field surveys; workshops and consultations with stakeholders, regional institutions, and other government and community representatives, the team gave a nominal rating to each indicator based on the rating scale (Table 1). METHODOLOGY FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GMR CONTEXT AND STATUS PLANNING AND DESIGN INPUTS PROCESSES PRODUCTS Progress in the implementation of the management plan RESULTS Ecology of the bioregions of the GMR Biophysical context Design and zoning of the GMR Human, physical and financial resources Functionality of the participatory management system Socioeconomic context Coherence of the management plan Information and knowledge Transparency in decision-making and accountability Socioeconomic benefits Interinstitutional connections and coordination Participatory management system Legal and political structure Evaluation and follow-up Biophysical Socioeconomic Governance Planning and management Figure 1. Key components of the evaluation of management effectiveness in the GMR. Table 1. Rating scale used to evaluate the effectiveness of management. ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGE RATING Highly unfavorable 0 – 25 1 Unfavorable 26 - 50 2 Favorable 51 - 75 3 Highly favorable 76 - 100 4 Analyses covering governance, biophysical, socioeconomic, and planning and management aspects of each of the five thematic areas were completed, as was a detailed assessment of the participatory system, along with the identification of strengths and weaknesses of conservation targets and goals. The state of ecosystems and species considered conservation targets was analyzed based on the available information. In this process, information gaps were encountered, which helped to identify future research priorities. The Provisional Zoning Agreement was also analyzed and several recommendations proposed. Additionally, existing pressures and threats were assessed and recommendations were made for further analysis and mitigation. Economic activity was also examined by accessing the best available information related to the major fisheries (sea cucumber and lobster) and tourism. Tourism was analyzed as an economic activity of increasing 124 importance. Finally all stages of planning were carefully examined and recommendations made in an attempt to improve aspects of the organization, operation and management within the GNPS; this was accomplished by understanding the correlations between the various evaluation topics and how specific management issues have influenced the effectiveness of GMR management as a whole. Results General context and status Overall, the Special Law for Galapagos (LOREG) provides a very positive jurisdictional framework for the GMR; therefore the rating for this variable was favorable (Table 2, Figure 2). The same applies to the legal and political framework for the GMR, since LOREG emphasizes the
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 need to manage the entire archipelago (land and sea) under a unified vision for the conservation of natural resources and the sustainable development of human communities. However, when regulations and follow-up were analyzed, it was discovered that many regulations and decisions were taken as a result of political pressure rather than technical criteria, which resulted in an unfavorable rating. The rating for the biophysical context of the GMR was favorable. According to available information, the identification of conservation targets within the GMR is relatively well developed, especially in terms of ecosystems, although the conservation status of some species is of great concern (Figure 2). However, while most of the bio-regions of the GMR have adequate protection, open water ecosystems require greater protection than currently exists. The socioeconomic context was seen as unfavorable for effective management, due largely to the fact that the most commercially valuable fisheries resources have been affected negatively by poor management policies (Figure 2). Table 2. Variables evaluated within the thematic area Context and Status of the GMR. CONTEXT AND STATUS A Composition and structure of conservation targets at the habitat level for each biogeographic zone of the GMR B Composition and structure of conservation targets at the species level. C Scope, impact, permanence and probability of natural and anthropogenic threats that affect the GMR. D Perception by stakeholders and authorities regarding the status of marine resources of the GMR and of human impacts on them. E Diagnosis and guidance for fisheries management in the GMR. F Organizational structure of the management of the GMR. G Relevance and coherence of the legal and political framework in relation to the biophysical and socioeconomic reality of the GMR. CONTEXT AND STATUS Rating Scale 4 3 2 1 0 A B C BIOPHYSICAL CONTEXT D E SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT F G LEGAL AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE CONTEXT Figure 2. Rating of variables within the thematic area Context and Status of the GMR (variables A-G defined in Table 2). Planning and design Overall, the planning and design of the GMR received an unfavorable rating in terms of management effectiveness (Table 3, Figure 3). However, when analyzing specific variables some favorable components could be found; for example the existence of coastal zoning based on a participatory process that involves all users. The evaluation of habitats in relation to zoning indicates a growing concern about the fishing and special use zones near the populated ports. Habitats that require management measures and/or mitigation include coral zones, rocky areas (particularly those with resource extraction and near ports), coastal lagoons near ports, macro algae communities and areas of open water. The GMR has a number of planning tools available at the national, regional and local levels and at each level there are different objectives and actions to address different issues. But the management plan is not always a useful tool for decision-making, especially because of insufficient financial planning relative to the GMR management objectives. 125
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 3. Variables evaluated in the thematic area Planning and Design of the GMR. No. PLANNING AND DESIGN A Clarity and appropriateness of the objectives of the Management Plan. B Integrity of the zoning design for the GMR. C Connection of administration and management of the GMR with other planning instruments of local and/or regional and/or conservation initiatives. D Coherence of the programs and subprograms in relation to the objectives of the Management Plan. E Integration of management of marine and terrestrial management areas. F Coherence of the Annual Operational Plan in relation to the Management Plan. PLANNING AND DESIGN Rating Scale 4 3 2 1 0 A B C D E F Figure 3. Rating of the variables within the thematic area Planning and Design of the GMR (variables A-G defined in Table 3). Inputs Although considerable information is available related to the GMR, the information itself as well as financial planning and learning systems for decision-making, are not yet consolidated. For this reason, the availability of inputs (human resources, operational and financial resources, information and knowledge) was rated as unfavorable (Table 4, Figure 4). For example, it is difficult to establish the level of ecological integrity of the GMR, even though data is available from several studies at the species level, because the information on populations and productivity levels is very limited and therefore the necessary information does not exist. Table 4. Variables evaluated within the thematic area Inputs for Management of the GMR. No. INPUTS A Training of human resources. C Availability and status of physical resources: infrastructure and equipment. D Integration, availability and dissemination of reliable information (biophysical, social, economic, etc.) for decision-making in planning and management of the GMR by the GNPS. E 126 Availability of human resources. B Perception of the understanding and use of biophysical, social, economic and other information on the part of interested parties and local stakeholders.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 INPUTS 4 Rating Scale 3 2 1 0 A B C D E Figure 4. Rating of the variables within the thematic area Inputs for Management of the GMR (variables A-E defined in Table 4). Processes The overall assessment of processes (functionality of the governing body, transparency, accountability, institutional coordination, monitoring and evaluation) was equally unfavorable (Table 5, Figure 5), due largely to the widespread perception by users that decision-making is too slow and bureaucratic. Table 5. Variables evaluated within the thematic area Processes of the GMR. No. PROCESSES A Capacity of users in participatory decision-making. B Existence and functionality of a system that permits users of the GMR to regularly participate in management decisions. C Level of transparency regarding decision-making for the management of the GMR. D Level of connection of decision-making at different levels of local and national government. E Perception regarding the effectiveness of the coordination with NGOs and other entities that cooperate with the GNPS to achieve the objectives established in the Management Plan. F Evaluation, follow-up and feedback to the Management Plan. PROCESSES 4 Rating Scale 3 2 1 0 A B C D E F Figure 5. Raing of the variables within the thematic area Processes of the GMR (variables A-F defined in Table 5). 127
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Products Although the participatory management system is active and has adopted a number of important management tools, it has also allowed many decisions to be based on political interests rather than technical criteria. Moreover there is a perception that there is a lack of decentralized decision-making and a lack of connection and coordination with other entities. Clear strategies to overcome threats and pressures are also lacking (except for the Fishery Management Chapter). The fact that the Management Plan is not generally considered a management tool contributes to a considerable reduction in the effectiveness of the administration and management of the GMR (Table 6, Figure 6). Table 6. Variables evaluated within the thematic area Products of the GMR. No. PRODUCTS A Level of progress of subprogram activities of the Management Plan and the Fishery Chapter. B Continuity in the management of the GNPS. C Level of compliance with zoning regulations and management. D Level of adaptation of the programs of the Management Plan to the biophysical and socioeconomic dynamics of the GMR. PRODUCTS 4 Rating Scale 3 2 1 0 A B C D Figure 6. Rating of the variables within the thematic area Products of the GMR (variables A-D defined in Table 6). Results The overall assessment of the ecological integrity, the participatory management system, and the socioeconomic benefits generated by the GMR indicates that in general terms the conservation status of the GMR is unfavorable, given that the overall average rating is two (Table 7, Figure 7). The main reasons for the unfavorable rating include: a) some species are recorded as commercially extinct or their conservation status in recent years has moved into the category of possibly extinct; b) almost all species designated as conservation targets showed some degree of threat; c) for many species the major threats are produced by natural events such as El Niño and La Niña, but an adequate monitoring program has not been established, and d) the perception of the local population in terms of socioeconomic benefits generated by the existence of the GMR is divided, with 62% believing that their quality of life has improved or remained the same since the creation of the GMR. Table 7. General variables resulting from the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Management of the GMR. No. RESULTS A B Ecological integrity of the different bioregions of the GMR (far north, north, west, south-central and Elizabeth Bay. C Perception by users of the social and economic benefits derived from the GMR. D Maintenance of fishery resources within sustainable limits. E Impact of tourism activities. F 128 Conservation status of key species in the GMR. Economic profitability of the regulated and permitted uses of the GMR.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 G Level of tourist satisfaction. H Level of community support for the GMR. I Level of action on resolutions of the participatory management system and trends regarding the type of resolutions for which there is greater or lesser follow through. J Perception of users regarding the credibility of the participatory management entities. K Perception of the legitimacy of the GNPS in its role as the central authority for the management of the GMR. L Level of success in accomplishing the creation and strengthening of permanent structures and financing for the Participatory Management Board via the GNPS. RESULTS 4 Rating Scale 3 2 1 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L Figure 7. Rating of the final variables resulting from the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Management of the GMR (variables A-L defined in Table 7). Conclusions and recommendations This evaluation resulted in several comprehensive conclusions and recommendations, which will help in the development of a management plan that will establish effective strategies and actions to improve the management of the GMR. The main conclusions and recommendations are: • • • This demonstrates the high level of resilience of this mechanism and suggests that it should be strengthened and additional actors should be integrated. • The need to integrate the management of the two protected areas of Galapagos (marine and terrestrial) is evident. This should be accomplished with clear conservation objectives and effective policies and strategies that will address the key management issues and their relation to human settlements. • Although in many specific cases the assessment values describe an unfavorable situation, the overall evaluation showed a number of significant positive results, such as the creation of management tools including the GMR Management Plan, and more specifically the Fishery Chapter, coastal zoning, the Fishing Register, and the 5-Year Fishing Calendar. The GMR Management Plan must be reformulated and integrated with the Management Plan of the Galapagos National Park. It is important to incorporate emerging issues, clear conservation objectives, and well-defined strategies and indicators to measure management success and/or adapt management to changes that occur. • The participatory management system has been operational for 12 years despite financial challenges and a highly unstable political environment. The institutional structure of the GNPS should be reviewed and redesigned to better support the Park’s mission and to overcome current shortcomings that limit its management capacity of the GMR and its ability to respond to increasingly complex challenges. • Many management decisions have been made without sufficient technical and scientific information. The impact of the participatory management system has been favorable; it is an unprecedented system that since the creation of the GMR has allowed users to participate meaningfully in decision-making related to the management of one of the world’s largest protected marine areas. Furthermore, this system offers the world a valuable example of institutionalized mechanisms of participation for the management of protected areas. 129
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Jo Anne Rosen An integrated information system must be established to facilitate appropriate management decisions. The Charles Darwin Foundation and other NGOs should be involved in this process. • Special thanks to World Wildlife Fund (WWF), especially to Eliecer Cruz (Eco-regional Director), for technical and financial support for the development of the process to The Interim Zoning Agreement for the GMR should evaluate the effectiveness of management of the GMR. be updated and made compatible with terrestrial zoning and expanded to include the entire GMR (including open water, seamounts, rocky reefs and other ecosystems that are part of the reserve), so that it reflects new available biophysical information and current pressures and threats. • Fisheries and tourism policies should be reviewed and improved as they are key to the management of the GMR. • Patrolling, control and law enforcement in the protected areas should be organized as a single process of the GNPS; there should be constant communication between the GNPS and the appropriate judicial bodies. • 130 Acknowledgments The expansion of urban settlements puts great pressure on protected areas and their resources. The GNPS should work with municipalities and other government entities in the development and implementation of a global plan to ensure sustainable development.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Species, communities and ecosystems: The role of science in the conservation and management of the Galapagos Marine Reserve Soledad Luna, Stuart Banks, Volker Koch, Diego Ruiz, Natalia Tirado, Mariana Vera, Anna Schuhbauer, Inti Keith, David Acuña, Jennifer Suárez, Macarena Parra, Gustavo Jiménez, Carolina García, Jorge Baque and Julio Delgado Charles Darwin Foundation Photograph: Janet Laing The Galapagos Marine Reserve: its nature and management The complex climatic and oceanographic conditions of Galapagos allow for the presence of a mixture of tropical and temperate species, ecosystems and communities. The Islands are primarily influenced by their volcanic origin, the confluence of the tropical Panama Current from the northeast, the temperate Peru Current from the southeast, and the upwelling of the subsurface Equatorial Counter Current from the west. The multi-use, participatory and adaptive management model used in Galapagos has generated globally significant contributions on how to integrate scientific research and local social dynamics with effective conservation management activities in ways that benefit the human population. In this sense, the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) is an invaluable resource for knowledge, education and understanding of how to live sustainably in our natural environment (SENPLADES, 2009). An initial characterization: the baseline The first step in understanding the natural dynamics of marine ecosystems and the effects of their use is to create a baseline that encompasses: 1) the heterogeneity of the marine communities depending on the biogeographic region of the archipelago (Harris, 1969; Jennings et al., 1994; Edgar et al., 2004), and 2) changes within and outside extraction and protected zones, both before and after their establishment (Banks et al., 2012). The first consideration is useful for identifying sites that are representative of the large-scale dynamics of the GMR. The second measures the effects of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, climate change and the intensity of human use of marine environments under different uses. Between 1994 and 1999 a standardized monitoring methodology for mobile macroinvertebrates, benthic organisms, algae and demersal fish was tested and then implemented. Since 1999, when it was agreed to zone the coastal area of the GMR, a series of studies in subtidal zones near the coast were carried out as part of the establishment of the systematization of the Biodiversity Baseline, a benchmark for subsequent biological studies (Danulat & Edgar, 2002). Between 2004 and 2007, the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) collected baseline oceanographic information and built a model for Galapagos that helps to better understand the influence of the upwelling of the subsurface Equatorial Counter Current and can be used to compare and extrapolate global climate change models. 131
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Natural processes have been studied at various temporal and spatial scales to support and inform GNPS management and conservation activities. For example, studies of marine communities at specific sites have increased understanding of the dynamics of seasonal and annual ecological processes and have resulted in an adjustment of management methodologies. Moreover, long-term monitoring of marine communities around the archipelago provides useful information for planning and evaluating effectiveness of management measures, and reviewing zoning at the archipelago level as well as for biogeographic regions, individual islands, and fishing, tourism or study sites (Figure 1). Temporal scale Immediate Seasonal Annual Management: intervals of 5-10 years Decade or more (El Niño) · Studies of subtidal processes Biogeographic region · Seasonal studies of intertidal communities Regional: Eastern Ecuatorial Pacific GMR Spatial scale Island Site · Design and validation of the monitoring method · Population monitoring of target species · Monitoring impact of use in the GMR · Support of fisheries monitoring · Recruitment studies · Analysis of anthropogenic impacts · Seasonal/annual monitoring of subtidal communities · Oceanographic data collection (satellites, daily measurements, seasonal cruises at 70 sites) · Comparison with other marine management areas (Ecuador, Cocos, Malpelo, Coiba, Gorgona) Figure 1. Spatial and temporal scale of the contribution of science conducted in the GMR (Banks et al., 2012). Monitoring to detect changes Monitoring data show the status of marine communities and the effect that management measures, zoning and climate events such as El Niño have on these communities. In the case of Galapagos cod (Mycteroperca olfax), monitoring has shown that in the central and southern regions of the archipelago cod are found in higher quantities in protected zones compared to fishing zones (Banks et al., 2012). In all the sites monitored, the top trophic groups, such as sharks, have higher biomass in areas where only non-extractive activities are allowed. Monitoring has identified coastal marine “refuges” that have a narrower range of temperature changes due to the distribution patterns of ocean currents. Populations and communities living in these areas are less affected and recover more quickly after events such as El Niño (Banks et al., 2012). One of these sites is Playa Tortuga Negra on Isabela, where the only healthy populations 132 of Wellington coral (Rhizopsammia wellingtoni) and the endemic coral Tubastrea taguensis, both of which were previously widely distributed in the archipelago, are found (Figure 2). Galapagos kelp (Eisenia galapagensis), a recently discovered deep-water macroalgae that is listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is only found to the west of Isabela and Fernandina. The populations that are surviving in these refuges can help to repopulate surrounding areas or affected species. Relevance of science: contributions to management Basic research provides practical, cultural, educational and economic benefits to the general population and helps in understanding natural phenomena and their impacts in an objective manner. In the GMR, both the creation of the baseline and the subsequent monitoring have helped in the establishment of management measures to ensure
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 2. Galapagos focal species cataloged in the IUCN Red List (left to right): Galapagos Penguin (Spheniscus mendiculus) is listed as endangered, while the endemic coral Tubastrea taguensis and endemic kelp (Eisenia galapagensis) are both listed as critically endangered. that resources are maintained and that we can continue to enjoy their benefits. Recent examples include: effectiveness of management in several protected marine areas worldwide: United States, Panama, Belize, Brazil, Fiji and the Solomon Islands. • Installation of low impact mooring sites in fragmented coral communities that are at high risk. Current and future challenges • Contributions to the national Biological Diversity Agreement and to the list of island biodiversity through the generation and dissemination of relevant information. • • The main challenge for marine research in Galapagos involves promoting, strengthening and maintaining interinstitutional projects that include all stakeholders of the GMR. Specifically, it requires improving links between experts and the network of decision-makers, creating Predictions of the impact of fisheries and management a coalition of organizations that carry out long-term measures through trophic models of rocky reefs and monitoring, and establishing systems for collaboration upwelling zones. with students and national and international universities. Lastly, we wish to highlight the key role that government Inclusion in the IUCN Red List of sensitive species agencies play in coordinating information and knowledge of algae and corals that create habitat, which is a management and ensuring its accessibility to decisionmilestone for their protection. makers and the general public. • Risk and resilience analyses of populations, Recommendations communities and habitats confronted with overfishing or climate change. The species, communities and ecosystems of the GMR require continuous monitoring and study. Only through • Distribution models for fragile species to help reduce monitoring is it possible to measure the impact of climatic the impact and adjust the itineraries of tour boats. variations, evaluate the effectiveness of management measures, improve the food supply, and avoid human • Support for the evaluation of the effectiveness of activities that negatively impact the resilience of zoning and planning through annual monitoring. ecosystems. We need coordination, communication and continuity to build on the foundations that have A key to achieving conservation at the local level is to been laid. Specifically, we recommend continuing and promote and maintain joint management actions that are strengthening the following areas of research: coordinated among a broad network of marine areas that influence and are influenced by Galapagos. For example, • Baseline and inventory of species. These studies several species have long life cycles, use various types are required to fill information gaps and to assess of habitat, and some, such as plankton, are even able to the impact of climate change and management travel several hundred kilometers. Because of this, and adjustments over time. The subtidal ecological in order to be able to compare the characterization and monitoring, ongoing since 2004 in more than 60 quantification of changes in the marine protected areas sites around the islands, should be continued. of the Tropical Eastern Pacific (Figure 3), protocols for The installation of a long-term monitoring system subtidal monitoring have been implemented in Malpelo (oceanographic, population dynamics, type and (Colombia), Cocos Island (Costa Rica), Coiba (Panama) and intensity of use, etc.) with multiple players should be Machalilla (continental Ecuador). The data and lessons supported. learned have also served for an overall evaluation of the 133
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 3. Protected marine areas of the Tropical Eastern Pacific region (shaded areas). Source: Banks et al., 2009. • • Population dynamics. Monitoring and research related to population dynamics, life history and ecology of resource species, as well as socioeconomic factors important for commercial and recreational fisheries provide stakeholders with the scientific data needed for managing marine resources. Special emphasis should be placed on sea cucumbers (Stichopus fuscus), lobster (Panulirus penicillatus and P. gracilis), slipper lobster (Scyllarides astori) and Galapagos cod (Mycteroperca olfax), which is an endemic species considered vulnerable by IUCN. The evaluation of population and life cycles of migratory species with high commercial value such as wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) should be continued to provide input to the design of open water zoning and fishing regulations. Additionally, an analysis of the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of recreational fishing as an alternative income for the fishing community should be conducted. Continued research on the ecology of priority conservation species, such as those found on the IUCN Red List, endemic species, ecologically important species, those with high tourism value and those that comprise the World Heritage of “biodiversity,” such as sharks, the sunfish or mola mola, penguins, cormorants, albatross, lava gulls, petrels, marine iguanas and sea turtles. Continued studies that provide greater understanding of the inter-connectivity and identification of species and populations at risk due to their low genetic diversity. 3. Establishment of a surveillance and monitoring program of the health status and threats to vulnerable marine species such as sea lions, fur seals, sea turtles, seabirds, marine iguanas and cetaceans, to assess risks, develop rapid response protocols, design and implement sampling methodologies, and implement strategies that will contribute to the conservation and management of the GMR. • Invasive marine species. Research on invasive marine species seeks to minimize the negative impacts of these species on the marine biodiversity, ecosystem services and health of the GMR. The first step is to collect and produce basic information, followed by the implementation of monitoring and early warning systems primarily in the ports of the islands. We recommend supporting studies on the distribution, abundance and interactions of introduced species, and analysis of the risks based on the dispersal capabilities and habitat requirements of potential invasive species as determined by ocean circulation models. Special emphasis should be placed on training for GMR users, the general public and authorities, as well as the dissemination of information about threats, impacts and preventative measures. • Interpretation of science. The interpretation of scientific information and its effective communication Priority marine species. There are a number of Galapagos marine species that are of higher priority in terms of research. We recommend: 1. 134 2.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 to decision-makers and stakeholders in the GMR represent a major challenge. This effort requires a constant exchange of knowledge between the different user groups and authorities of the GMR. It is recommended that each sector designate a person or group to maintain communication, interpretation, understanding and use of science related to the reserve, as well as work to stimulate interest within their sector. The goal is to generate more knowledge, awareness and acceptance of science as critical information that is useful in solving conservation problems and clarifying misconceptions. References Banks S, R Bustamante, D Ruiz, N Tirado, M Vera & F Smith. 2012. The power of long-term monitoring to understand mechanisms of ecosystem change. In: The role of Science for Conservation (M Wolff & M Gardner, eds.). Pp. 143-164. Routledge, Oxon, UK. Banks S, M Vera & A Chiriboga. 2009. Establishing reference points to assess long-term change in Zooxanthellate coral communities of the northern Galapagos coral reefs. Galapagos Research 66:43-66. Danulat E & GJ Edgar (eds). 2002. Reserva Marina de Galápagos: Línea Base de la Biodiversidad. Pp 10-21. Charles Darwin Foundation & Galapagos National Park Service, Galapagos, Ecuador. Edgar GJ, RH Bustamante, JM Fariña, M Calvopiña, C Martínez & MV Toral-Granda. 2004. Bias in evaluating the effects of marine protected areas: The importance of baseline data for the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Environmental Conservation 31(3):212-218. Harris MP. 1969. Breeding seasons of sea-birds in the Galápagos Islands. Journal of Zoology (London) 159:145-165. Jennings S, AS Brierley & JW Walker. 1994. The inshore fish assemblages of the Galapagos Archipelago. Biological Conservation 70:49-57. SENPLADES. 2009. Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir 2009-2013: Construyendo un Estado Plurinacional e Intercultural. Republic of Ecuador. 135
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 The reform of the PARMA licensing system: The first step in eliminating the race for fish in the Galapagos Marine Reserve Mauricio Castrejón1,2 Dalhousie University, 2WWF Galapagos Program / Consultant 1 Photograph: Mauricio Castrejón Introduction Since the enactment of the Special Law for the Conservation and Sustainable Use for the Galapagos Province (LOREG, for its initials in Spanish) in March 1998, various management measures have been established to control access to and exploitation of fishery resources in the newly created Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR). These measures have included a ban on industrial fishing within the GMR, the establishment of a moratorium on the entry of new fishers, and the creation of what is known worldwide as a “limited-entry program.” The establishment of a moratorium on new licenses and fishing permits and of a limited-entry program (i.e., a system of licenses and fishing permits known as PARMA, a Spanish acronym for Artisanal Fisher of the Galapagos Marine Reserve) were useful management measures to slow down the exponential growth in fishing effort. However, their implementation has not been sufficient to eliminate the intense competition between fishers to obtain the greatest amount of resources in the shortest possible time. Such behavior, known globally as the “race for fish,” occurs because each fisher acts for themself using the following logic: “the sea cucumber/lobster/fish that I do not catch today could be caught by someone else tomorrow.” This logic encourages fishers to disregard established management measures (e.g., prohibition of catching gravid females, minimum landing size, etc.), particularly when they have immediate economic needs. The race for fish has resulted in the over-capitalization of the Galapagos fishing sector. It has also led fishers to fish under dangerous conditions and keeps them from planning their fishing operations based on market demand. This has resulted in reduced economic efficiency of fishing and over-exploitation of both the sea cucumber and lobster fisheries. To solve these problems and eliminate the race for fish, it is necessary to design and adopt a new fisheries management system that will help to align economic incentives for fishers with resource conservation. The elimination of the race for fish is one of the expected results of the implementation of the Fishery Chapter of the GMR Management Plan, which was adopted by unanimous consent by the Participatory Management Board (PMB) and the Inter-institutional Management Authority (IMA) in January 2009. This article has two objectives: 1) analyze the causes that have hindered the elimination of the race for fish in Galapagos, and 2) provide recommendations for the design and implementation of a new fisheries management system. 136
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Why has it been impossible to eliminate the race for fish in Galapagos? the number of fishers registered by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) increased from 613 to 1059 between 1998 and 2002 (Figure 1), while the number of fishing vessels increased from 222 to 446. Meanwhile, the moratorium on new licenses and fishing permits was applied late, four years after being approved, when fishing capacity was already excessive. This fact, along with the promise of generating new “alternative livelihoods” and an inadequate definition of “moratorium” within the legal framework (the children of fishers have always been able to obtain a PARMA fishing license), led to the intensification of the race for fish and the resulting over-exploitation of the sea cucumber and lobster fisheries. Efforts to eliminate the race for fish in the sea cucumber and lobster fisheries have failed due to a series of closely related circumstances (Castrejón, 2011 & 2012), including: 1. Delayed implementation of the moratorium on new licenses and fishing permits. The opening of the sea cucumber fishery without the existence of a long-term policy and a solid legal and institutional framework for fisheries management resulted in a rapid over-capitalization of the fishing sector in Galapagos between 1999 and 2002. For example, 1250 Active (maximum per year) Number of fishers 1000 Registered 750 500 250 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997 1995 1993 1991 1989 1987 1985 1983 1981 1979 1977 1975 1973 1971 0 Figure 1. Number of registered and active fishers in the GMR by year. Source: Castrejón (2012) and Ramírez et al. (2012). Note: the maximum number of active fishers represents the highest number of active fishers registered by year, either in the spiny lobster or sea cucumber fishery. 2. Inadequate design of the PARMA licensing system. The PARMA licensing system does not allow adjusting the fishing effort according to the productive capacity of each fishery. Licenses and fishing permits allow the holders to participate in all fisheries. Thus, fishing licenses are issued without regard for the conditions of fishery resources or the labor requirements of a specific fishery or fishing port. In short, enrolling new fishers on the fishing register to address the lack of labor in potentially underutilized fisheries (e.g., offshore fishing) runs the risk of indirectly increasing the fishing effort on overexploited fisheries (e.g., sea cucumber). To understand and solve this problem, two facts must be considered (Castrejón, 2011 & 2012): a. The exploitation status of each fishery in Galapagos varies by species. There are overexploited resources (e.g., sea cucumbers) and some potentially underexploited fisheries (e.g., off-shore fishing). Consequently, each fishery must be managed according to its exploitation status and specific labor requirements. b. 3. Most Galapagos fishers are “generalists,” that is, they exploit various fishery resources. However, this does not imply that every fisher participates in all available fisheries. It is estimated that 40% of active fishers (e.g., divers) only participates in sea cucumber and lobster fisheries, dedicating the rest of the year to other types of economic activities outside fishing. This creates an unbalanced distribution of labor supply in each fishing port. Inadequate allocation of licenses and fishing permits. The decline in the profitability of sea cucumber and lobster fisheries has resulted in the gradual abandonment of fishing (Figure 1). The maximum number of active fishers was 408 in 2008 (Ramirez et al., 2012). This number represented only 137
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 37% of the total number of registered fishers in the same year (1099, as recorded in the fishing register). The number of active fishing vessels has decreased in the same proportion. For example, the maximum number of registered vessels actively fishing in 2008 was 161 (Castrejón, 2011), which represents only 36% of the 446 fishing boats registered by the GNPS for that year. Despite a significant abandonment of the sea cucumber and lobster fisheries, the number of registered fishers has not decreased significantly (Figure 1). In fact, this number increased from 1023 to 1099 between October 2007 and December 2008. However, the percentage of active fishers declined during the same period from 43 to 37%. This implies that the children of fishers tend to enroll in the fishing register without any immediate intention to fish, but rather to gain access to the alternatives created for the fishing sector by the GNPS and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as Experiential Artisanal Fishing and Tourism Operation Permits. According to information provided by the Program for Conservation and Rational Use of Marine Ecosystems (CUREM, for its initials in Spanish), the number of fishers and fishing vessels registered in 2011 decreased to 1023 and 420, respectively, through the implementation of a series of administrative actions by the GNPS (Castrejón, 2012). However, the percentage of active fishers is still quite low, with only 39% in both cases (408 fishers and 164 fishing boats; see Ramirez et al., 2012). This situation underlines three important issues: 1) the fishing register is overextended, making it ineffective as a tool for assessing the actual structure and dynamics of the fishing sector; 2) many fishing licenses are being issued to people who do not depend on fishing as their main source of livelihood, and who probably are not interested in participating in its co-management; and 3) the special fishing regulation lacks adequate mechanisms to change the number of licenses and fishing permits as a function of the current number of active fishers and fishing boats. The lack of such a mechanism has resulted in some individuals remaining on the fishing register even when they have little or no interest in fishing permanently. Regarding point number three, Article 23 of the current fishing regulation states that a fisher will be eliminated from the register in the following cases: a. b. c. d. 138 Not having renewed their PARMA license for two consecutive periods. Not having made artisanal fishing their main livelihood for four years. Death of a fisher. Deciding to remain in the tourism sector 18 months after receiving a tourism permit. e. f. Voluntary surrender of fishing license/permit. Having been sanctioned by the GNPS more than twice for serious or very serious violations, as set out in the general regulations of LOREG. Under current regulations, it is nearly impossible to eliminate excessive and inactive fishing capacity because: 1) a person may renew their PARMA license even if they have only fished once in four years (fishing regulations do not specify criteria for determining whether or not fishing is the main livelihood of an individual); 2) tourism permits were issued without considering the level of activity of fishers and consequently many of these permits were allocated to people who do not depend on fishing as their main livelihood, thus eliminating the possibility of reducing the effective fishing effort in overexploited fisheries; and 3) it is unlikely a person will willingly give up their PARMA license or lose it for having committed a serious or very serious violation, in large part because these types of violations are not clearly defined in the LOREG or in the fishing regulations. In fact, it is impossible to eliminate any fishing license, as Article 69 of the current fishing regulations states that: “The Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) will allow the enrollment of a fisher to the artisanal fishing register, only when a place is available. It will be understood that an available place exists whenever a fisher has been eliminated from the artisanal fishing register, in accordance with Article 23 of this regulation. Also the enrollment of new fishers will be allowed, only if they are direct descendants of fishers who are currently inscribed in the register.” This implies that the net number of fishers eliminated from the fishing register between 2008 and 2011 (~76) could be replaced by a similar number of new fishers, who most likely will be active in fisheries. This situation has already happened to some degree. In 2007, at the request of the fishing sector, the IMA authorized the entry of 26 new fishers to the fishing register (see Resolution 008-2007). This provides evidence that the legal framework itself encourages the re-activation of inactive fishing capacity without proper planning. This situation not only promotes an increase in the effective fishing effort for both sea cucumber and spiny lobster fisheries, but also overrides any previous effort made by the GNPS and NGOs to reduce fishing capacity and effective fishing effort by developing alternative livelihoods for the fishing sector. The lack of adequate legal mechanisms to reduce the number of licenses and fishing permits based on the actual number of active fishers and fishing boats has other implications:
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 a. The current inactive fishing capacity could gradually become reactivated if the profitability of fishing activity increases due to resource recovery or improvements in marketing systems. This would once again put the fisheries (especially sea cucumber and spiny lobster fisheries) at risk of over-exploitation. b. Most children of fishers have no interest in fishing (Avendaño, 2007). Consequently, the fishing sector, whose average age was 36 years in 2006 (Castrejón, 2011), will continue to gradually age. This will cause a decrease in the number of fishers with PARMA permits, and consequently an increasing lack of labor, particularly in whitefish and offshore fisheries. c. The lack of labor in whitefish and offshore fisheries will gradually generate greater pressure to enroll new fishers in the fishery register. If this continues to occur, under the current structure of the PARMA licensing system, there is a high risk of indirectly increasing fishing effort in overexploited fisheries, such as sea cucumber. What benefits would be generated by a comprehensive reform of the PARMA licensing system? To eliminate the race for fish, a necessary first step is a comprehensive evaluation and reform of the structure and function of the current system of PARMA licenses and fishing permits, in order to establish mechanisms within the legal framework that will allow a reduction in the number of fishing licenses and permits, based on the current number of active fishers and fishing boats (Table 1). This is of particular importance given that the current fishing regulation states that “within six months from the date of publication of these regulations in the Official Register, the GNPS together with the fishing sector will establish, by an administrative resolution, the procedures and requirements that would ensure effective enrollment of new fishers in the fishing register.” Considering that the current fishing regulation was published in Official Register No. 483 on December 8, 2008, the PARMA licensing system should have been evaluated and fully reformed before June 8, 2009. However, this has not yet occurred. Table 1. Potential benefits from reforming the PARMA licensing system of the GMR. Benefit Effect Active fishers, those that actually fish, will be the principle beneficiaries of the alternative livelihoods promoted by the GNPS and NGOs. • Opportunistic individuals would be prevented from accessing current and future alternatives developed for the fishing sector. • Employment diversification of full-time and part-time active fishers would be promoted. • Effective fishing effort on the sea cucumber and lobster fisheries would be reduced. • A portion of inactive licenses could be re-allocated to fishers currently working illegally in offshore fishing in Santa Cruz, while at the same time preventing access to the lobster and sea cucumber fisheries. • Working conditions in the fishing sector (particularly divers and boat operators) would be more equitable, given that illegal fishers are generally paid less per fishing trip by the very fact of being illegal. • Active fishers would have legal assurance that they would benefit exclusively from the application of particular management measures (e.g., total closure), which could mean resource recovery and improvement in the long-term profitability of fisheries. Fishing effort would be adjusted based on a defined number of users and criteria such as seniority and performance of active fishers, the exploitation status of each resource, and the labor requirements by type of fishery and fishing port. Gradual rather than sudden re-activation of inactive fishing capacity would avoid risking another economic collapse in the lobster and sea cucumber fisheries. 139
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Recommendations Comprehensive reform of the PARMA licensing system would create the necessary legal conditions for the adoption of a new system of fishing rights and establish mechanisms that would help to align the economic incentives of fishers with resource conservation. Potential advantages and disadvantages of alternative fishing rights that have proven successful in eliminating the race for fish in other parts of the world and possible challenges for their implementation in Galapagos are presented below (Table 2). Table 2. Alternative fishing rights for sea cucumber and spiny lobster fisheries in the GMR: advantages, disadvantages, and main challenges to their application in Galapagos (see Castrejón, 2011 & 2012). Type Advantages Individual transferable quotas • • • • • Individual non-transferable quotas • Territorial use rights for fishing (TURFs, concessions) • • • • • • • Rotation of fishing grounds • • • 140 Disadvantages Improves economic • efficiency Reduces fishing capacity and effort • Provides opportunity to plan fishing operations and investments • Encourages the development of safer working conditions Improves product quality and price Tends to promote the establishment of monopolies May encourage underreporting of catch Tends to result in classification of the catch and discard Avoids creating monopolies Promotes fairness and social cohesion • May encourage underreporting of catch Tends to result in the classification of the catch and discard Suitable for benthic resource management (e.g., sea cucumber and lobster) Provides legal certainty to fishers on the use of a specific area Generates the feeling of resource ownership Encourages strengthening fisheries organizations Tends to lower surveillance and information costs Encourages compliance with management measures • Challenges • • • Areas are exploited • according to their productivity and market demand Maximizes returns by sub-area while protecting sensitive areas that could provide sanctuaries for recruitment in order to generate the repopula• tion of adjacent areas Alternative for management based on total catch quotas • • • Definition of initial allocation mechanism and collection of fees Implementation of cost-effective system for monitoring, control and surveillance Definition, validation and agreement on a method to estimate the total allowable catch per fishing season and allowable catch per fisher Success strongly • depends on social factors (e.g., organization, leadership, social cohesion) Open access areas may become scarce • and overexploited Requires a robust surveillance system to prevent illegal fishing • within DUTs Development and implementation of a strategy to improve the cohesion and organization of the fishing sector Design and adoption of a surveillance mechanism led by fishers (self-regulation) Assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of the allocation of TURFs in Galapagos by a pilot project Requires a solid understanding of the population dynamics of the resource and the behavior of economic variables such as market demand and price variability according to size Requires a robust surveillance system to prevent illegal fishing in unauthorized areas Definition of number and size of the sub-areas, as well as the optimal period of opening and closing them (rotation period) Continuous monitoring of fishing vessels to prevent illegal fishing during closed seasons • •
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 For comprehensive reform of the PARMA licensing system we recommend: 1. 2. Reaching consensus on and implementing changes through a participatory process supported by experts. For example, the Development Law Service of the United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture (FAO) could provide advice for reforming the PARMA licensing system and implementing a new system of fishing rights (see http://www.fao.org/ fileadmin/templates/legal/docs/DevLawService.pdf ). Reforming the conditions for the expiration of PARMA fishing licenses and vessel permits (Table 3). 3. Conducting a fishing survey to assess the current socioeconomic situation of active fishers in greater detail, as well as the physical condition of the fishing boats. This will allow the design and implementation of strategies for achieving the optimal size of the fishing sector. 4. Solve the problems described in a proactive rather than reactive manner, as established in the Fisheries Chapter of the GMR Management Plan. Acknowledgments This work was done with the support of WWF’s Galapagos program and The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Table 3. Proposals to reform the PARMA licensing system of the GMR. Proposal Justification / effect / observations Reduce the period for which a person would lose his PARMA license/fishing permit due to inactivity in the sector from four to one year. • Individuals with no interest in fishing would be removed from the fishing register. • The fishing register would reflect the actual size and social structure of the Galapagos fishing sector. • An extension of one or two years is recommended for license and permit holders who show that they have been inactive due to injury, illness, damage to their vessel or other major cause. • The minimum number of fishing trips per year must be high enough to eliminate individuals/fishing boats not currently active from the register, but also must be low enough to avoid forcing active, occasional or part-time fishers to fish more days than normally. • Thirty days per year is the recommended minimum number of fishing days to demonstrate that a person is still active, and thus prevent the loss of their PARMA license or fishing boat permit. • Thirty days represents only 16% of the total duration of the spiny lobster and sea cucumber fishing seasons (six months or 180 days). • The degree of activity of each fisher should be verified only through fishing certificates issued by the GNPS. • The moratorium would last two years, during which time a fishing census, reform of the fishing regulations, and reallocation of the PARMA fishing licenses/ permits would be completed. • During this period it is recommended that special fishing permits be granted to a group of new fishers who wish to devote themselves exclusively to the whitefish fishery or offshore fishing. This may help to temporarily relieve the labor shortage in these fisheries. • At the end of the moratorium, the results should be reevaluated to then decide whether the moratorium should be extended or repealed. Explicitly establish within the current legal framework that issuing fishing permits will be subject to the availability and exploitation status of each resource, with the GNPS as the institution responsible, under the terms established in the fishing regulation. • We recommend a review of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law in Chile (1991), which identifies specific management for each type of fishery according to its exploitation status (full exploitation, in recovery, or emerging development). Continue annual monitoring of the number of registered and active fishers by port and type of fishery. • This information should be used to annually evaluate the dynamics of the fishing sector, with emphasis on the age structure and the distribution of labor by type of fishery and fishing port. Require that a fisher must complete a minimum number of fishing trips per year to avoid losing their PARMA license/ fishing permit. Establish a moratorium on new PARMA licenses/fishing permits as a precautionary measure (with no exceptions). 141
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Mauricio Castrejón References Avendaño U. 2007. Estudio socioeconómico sobre los socios de la Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Artesanal de Galápagos (COPROPAG). Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano y COPROPAG. Galapagos, Ecuador. Castrejón M. 2011. Co-manejo pesquero en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos: tendencias, retos y perspectivas de cambio. FCD-Kanankil-Plaza y Valdés. Galapagos, Ecuador. Castrejón M. 2012. Derechos de pesca alternativos para el manejo de las pesquerías de invertebrados bentónicos de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. In: Ramírez J, M Castrejón y V Toral (eds.), Mejorando la pesquería de langosta espinosa de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Pp. 233-264. WWF. Galapagos, Ecuador. Ramírez J, H Reyes, A Schuhbauer & M Castrejón. 2012. Análisis y evaluación de la pesquería de langosta espinosa (Panulirus penicillatus y P. gracilis) de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos, 1997-2011. In: Ramírez J, M Castrejón y V Toral (eds.), Mejorando la pesquería de langosta espinosa de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Pp. 198-228. WWF. Galapagos, Ecuador. 142
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Evaluation of the sea cucumber fishery in the Galapagos Marine Reserve Harry Reyes1, Jorge Ramírez2 y Anna Schuhbauer3 Galapagos National Park Service, 2WWF Galapagos Program , 3Charles Darwin Foundation 1 Photograph: Alex Hearn Introduction In 2011, population monitoring of sea cucumbers (Isostichopus fuscus) in the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) estimated a density of 12 cucumbers per 100 m2 in the western Isabela macrozone (Reyes et al., 2011). This density was higher than the Critical Reference Point (11 cucumbers/100 m2 in the western Isabela macrozone) established in the Fishery Management Chapter of the GMR Management Plan. Based on this information the Participatory Management Board (PMB) decided to open this fishery after having closed it for two consecutive years. The Fishery Management Chapter recommends that if the sea cucumber fishery is opened, it should include 60 days of fishing, an established allowable quota, and a clear designation of closed areas, including sites required for recruitment or where population densities are low. Following these guidelines, the JMP decided to open a sea cucumber fishing season from 15 June to 13 August 2011 and established a total quota of one million individuals. Fishing was permitted around the islands of Española, San Cristóbal, Santa Cruz, Isabela and Fernandina, and was prohibited in the Bolivar Channel. This paper presents an evaluation of the 2011 sea cucumber fishery in the GMR and puts the 2011 fishing season in an historical context based on fishery and socioeconomic indicators. It then provides recommendations for more effective long-term adaptive management of this fishery. Methods Since 1999, when formal assessment of the sea cucumber fishery in the GMR began, eight different indicators have been used (Table 1). The number of active fishers and fishing boats during sea cucumber fishing seasons was the baseline used for determining fishing capacity. The ratio of active fishing boats and fishers to the number listed in the Fishing Register of the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) was also calculated. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) was defined as the average number of sea cucumbers captured per diver per one hour dive. The number of sea cucumbers exported to mainland Ecuador from each fishing pier was also determined. In addition, the price per individual and per pound in US$ was determined for each fishing season. 143
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Time periods and sources of data used for the various indicators for the evaluation of the sea cucumber fishery in the GMR, based primarily on data from the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS). Indicator Period Source of information Number of active fishing boats 1999-2011 Monitoring certificates - GNPS Number of active fishers 1999-2011 Monitoring certificates - GNPS Number of registered fishing boats 2000-2011 Fishing Register - GNPS Number of registered fishers 2000-2011 Fishing Register - GNPS Number of sea cucumbers harvested 1999-2007 Murillo & Reyes (2008) 2008 2011 Catch per unit effort Reyes et al. (2009) Monitoring certificates - GNPS 1999-2007 Murillo & Reyes (2008) 2008 Reyes et al. (2009) 2011 Monitoring certificates - GNPS Density 1999-2011 Population monitoring (GNPS-CDF-Fishing Sector) Price 1999-2011 Date base - GNPS Finally, the percentage of individuals retained with respect to the total number caught was calculated for each fishing season. Results The fishing capacity of the sea cucumber fishery in the GMR peaked in 2000. Since then it has declined based on the number of active fishers and active fishing vessels per fishing season (Figure 1). The ratios between active and registered boats and fishers (listed in the Fishing Register of the GNPS) have decreased over time, with a slight increase in 2011 (Figure 2). Currently the passive fishing capacity, defined as the percentage of boats and fishers registered but not active, is 49% (204 vessels) and 52% (536 fishers), respectively. The average annual sea cucumber catch from 1999 to 2011 was 3.28 million individuals. The sea cucumber catch has declined since 2002, when it peaked at 8.3 million (Figure 3). Since 2004, the catch has not reached the allowable quota. In 2011 the catch was 4522 cucumbers shy of the quota of one million. The data show a clear drop in the sea cucumber CPUE over time (Figure 4). The year 2011 had the lowest CPUE of all the seasons; the 2011 value (35.8) was less than half (45%) of the historical average CPUE (79.8 cucumbers per diver per hour). 1400 1229 1000 800 778 796 845 874 703 600 597 536 436 326 161 Fishers Figure 1. Number of active fishers and fishing boats during the sea cucumber fishing seasons 1999-2011. 144 2011 2010 204 2009 2008 160 2007 2006 2005 2003 2002 Boats 368 271 275 230 2001 2000 222 200 0 313 377 2004 400 1999 Number of boats and fishers 1200
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Number active/number registered 2,00 1,80 1,60 1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 Boats 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 0,00 1999 0,20 Fishers Figure 2. Ratio of active and registered fishing boats and fishers during the sea cucumber fishing seasons 1999-2011. 9 8.301 8 6 5.006 4.948 4.402 4 Catch closed season 1.254 0.908 0.995 2011 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 0 1999 1 2010 1.400 2009 2 2008 2.676 closed season 2.959 3 2007 5 closed season Millions of individuals 7 Quota Figure 3. Total annual catch and total allowed quota for sea cucumbers from 1999 to 2011. Note: Dashed line indicates the average total catch during the study period. In 2002 no quota was established. 160 Individuals/diver/hour 140 120 136.1 102.6 103.7 100 97.7 89.1 80 72.1 60 62.4 54.5 35.8 44.5 40 CPUE 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 0 1999 20 Average CPUE Figure 4. Change in the CPUE for sea cucumbers from 1999 to 2011. Note: Dashed line indicates the average CPUE during the study period. 145
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 5). The price for sea cucumbers has increased over the years (Figure 6). The year with the highest prices, both per unit and per pound of salted sea cucumbers, was 2011. Since 2001, when the highest CPUE value was observed, the average sea cucumber density in the GMR has decreased. Since 2004, sea cucumber density has been below the overall average (13.5 cucumbers per 100 m2; 40 34.9 Individuals/100 m2 35 33.9 30 26.9 25 20 15.4 15 10 10.6 8.8 5.1 5 0 7.1 4.1 4.1 6.9 9.3 3.9 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Density Average density Figure 5. Change in the average population density of sea cucumbers in the GMR from 1999 to 2011. 5.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 Price per pound salted US$ per individual 1.00 2011 10.00 2010 1.50 2009 15.00 2008 2.00 2007 20.00 2006 2.50 2005 25.00 2004 3.00 2003 30.00 2002 3.50 2001 35.00 2000 4.00 1999 4.50 40.00 US$ per pound salted 45.00 Price per individual Figure 6. Change in the price per individual sea cucumber and per pound of salted sea cucumbers from 1999 to 2011. Discussion The Fishery Management Chapter of the GMR Management Plan considers designating a recovery phase for sea cucumber populations when population monitoring indicates a density between 11 and 20.9 individuals per 100 m2 to the west of Isabela Island. Based on those figures, the sea cucumber fishery is considered in recovery. However, historical indicators evaluated here suggest that the recovery is very slow and incomplete, and the assertion that the population is recovering should be taken with caution. 146 In 2011 fishing indicators were well below historical values. The 2011 CPUE represented only 26% of the CPUE of 2002. The allowable quota for the 2011 season was the lowest ever established and the total catch was the second lowest in the entire study period. Sea cucumber densities declined by 73% from 2001 to 2011. All of this suggests that sea cucumber stocks have yet to recover. Wolff et al. (2012) explain the main causes of the overexploitation of sea cucumbers in the GMR. A primary reason is that fishing quotas established by the GMR’s participatory management system have been based more on political than technical or scientific criteria. There
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 have even been cases of quotas being implemented that were two to three times higher than the technical recommendations. It appears that these decisions have strongly affected the recruitment potential of I. fuscus. • It is important to note that the recruitment of I. fuscus is also related to sea temperature. It has been observed that El Niño events favor the recruitment of this species, while the cold waters of La Niña have a negative affect (HerreroPerézrul et al., 1999; Wolff et al., 2012). Also, sea cucumber populations in various regions of the world take a long time to recover. For example, in Australia and Papua New Guinea sea cucumber fisheries were closed for Holothuria scabra from 1996 to 2000 without significant recovery of the population (Skewes et al., 2006). The same effect was observed with the closure of the fishery for H. whitmaei in Queensland, Australia (Purcell, 2010). Although there is insufficient information to determine the actual effect closures have on sea cucumber populations in the GMR, it appears that the recovery of I. fuscus is slow. Even with closures in 2006, 2009 and 2010, both the CPUE and the population density of sea cucumbers are below their annual averages. There are several reasons why the sea cucumber has been slow to recover or has not recovered after a closure of the fishery. One possibility is that the density of breeding individuals could have been very low prior to the closure of the fishery. Another reason is that the population depends heavily on larvae from another population, which could also be depleted. Finally, recruitment may also be affected by the presence or absence of environmental factors required for the transport and development of larva (Purcell, 2010). Finally, it is important to consider the passive fishing capacity for the sea cucumber fishery in the GMR (the percentage of fishers and boats registered but not active). While the number of active fishers and boats has declined over time, the passive capacity has increased. Currently 50% of registered fishers and boats are inactive. If these fishers return to being active, they could negatively impact the possible recovery of sea cucumbers. Take advantage of the annual population monitoring to determine the feasibility of implementing a rotation-based management system for sea cucumber fishing areas in the GMR. The objective of this type of management is to allow the sea cucumber population to recover at designated sites, while fishing is permitted elsewhere. This requires (Purcell, 2010): - Greater knowledge about the growth rate and annual recruitment of I. fuscus, - Determining the variation in population size among fishing sites, and - Determining the limitations and requirements of participating fishers. • Given the slow recovery of sea cucumbers in the GMR, the Critical Reference Point should consider the median density of all of the monitored islands, not just western Isabela. • To reduce passive fishing capacity it is necessary to revise the GNPS Fishing Registry based on the existing effort and the level of exploitation of the resource (Castrejón, 2011; Ramírez et al., 2012). • Future sea cucumber fishing seasons should: 1) establish the total allowable quota based on prefishery population monitoring, rather than political considerations, and 2) designate no-take areas near populated islands that are identified as sea cucumber recruitment centers and/or areas with low population densities. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the GNPS, the CDF and the Galapagos fishing sector for their participation in the fisheries and population monitoring that has been carried out for sea cucumbers in the GMR. Recommendations The following recommendations are designed to streamline the adaptive management of the sea cucumber fishery in the GMR and ensure the recovery of the population: • Improve annual population monitoring of sea cucumbers including: 1) mapping the entire sample area to determine the actual percentage of sea cucumber habitat; 2) designation of random sampling sites, and 3) collection of data needed to determine the feasibility of implementing rotationbased management of fishing sites. 147
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 References Castrejón M. 2011. Co-manejo pesquero en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos: tendencias, retos y perspectivas de cambio. Charles Darwin Foundation, Tinker Foundation, Kanankil/Plaza and Valdés. Mexico D.F. 416 pp. Herrero-Perézrul MD, H Reyes-Bonilla, F García-Domínguez & CE Cintra-Buenrostro. 1999. Reproduction and growth of Isostichopus focus (Echinodermata: Holothuridae) in the southern Gulf of California, Mexico. Mar. Biol. 135:521-532. Murillo JC & H Reyes. 2008. Evaluación de la pesquería 2007 de pepino de mar Isostichopus fuscus en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Galapagos National Park. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 16 pp. Purcell SW. 2010. Manejo de las pesquerías de pepino de mar con un enfoque ecosistémico. In: Lovatelli A, M Vasconcellos & Y Yimin (eds). FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca y Acuicultura. No. 520. Rome, Italy. 169 pp. Ramírez J, H Reyes, A Schuhbauer & M Castrejón. 2012. Análisis y evaluación de la pesquería de langosta espinosa (Panulirus penicillatus y P. gracilis) de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos, 1997-2011. In: Ramírez J, M Castrejón y V Toral (eds.), Mejorando la pesquería de langosta espinosa de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Pp. 198-228. WWF. Galapagos, Ecuador. Reyes H, JC Murillo & M Wolff. 2009. Informe técnico de las pesquerías de pepino de mar (Isostichopus fuscus) y langosta espinosa (Panulirus panicillatus y P. gracilis) en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Parque Nacional Galápagos-Fundación Charles Darwin. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 10 pp. Reyes H, M Jerson, A Schubauer & JG Vásquez. 2011. Monitoreo poblacional de pepino de mar (Isostichopus fuscus) en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos, año 2011. Parque Nacional Galápagos-Fundación Charles Darwin. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 16 pp. Skewes T, S Taylor, D Dennis, M Haywood & A Donovan. 2006. Sustainability assessment of the Torres Strait sea cucumber fishery. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and CRC Torres Strait. Cleveland, Australia. 44 pp Wolff M, A Schubauer & M Castrejón. 2012. A revised strategy for the monitoring and management of the Galapagos sea cucumber Isostichopus fuscus (Aspidochirotida: Stichopodiade). Rev. Biol. Trop. 60(2):1-13. 148
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Evaluation of the spiny lobster fishery in the Galapagos Marine Reserve Jorge Ramírez1, Harry Reyes2 and Anna Schuhbauer3 WWF Galapagos Program, 2Galapagos National Park Service, 3Charles Darwin Foundation 1 Photograph: © Jorge Ramírez / WWF Galapagos Program Introduction In the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) two species of spiny lobster (red lobster - Panulirus penicillatus and green lobster - P. gracilis) are fished commercially. Historically the lobster fishery has been of great economic importance to Galapagos fishers. Unfortunately, today the fishery shows signs of overexploitation because of the overcapitalization of the fishing fleet (Hearn et al., 2006; Moreno et al., 2007). Management measures for the spiny lobster fishery in the GMR are established in the Fishery Management Chapter of the GMR Management Plan. These measures include: an annual 4-month fishing season; authorized fishing methods such as the Hawaiian sling, surface supply diving, SCUBA and free diving; a minimum total length of 26 cm for harvested lobsters; prohibition of catching gravid females; and the establishment of a total permitted quota based on an annual evaluation of the fishery and a population assessment. Moreno et al. (2007) produced the most recent multi-season assessment of the GMR spiny lobster fishery. Since then technical reports have been prepared by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) for the 2008 and 2009 lobster fishing seasons (Reyes et al., 2009; Reyes & Schuhbauer, 2010). Hearn (2004) also did a population assessment for red and green lobster and for slipper lobster. This evaluation of the spiny lobster fishery in the GMR examines the evolution of the use of different fishery and socioeconomic indicators from 1997 to 2011. Methods To evaluate the spiny lobster fishery in the GMR, eight indicators were used from various information sources during different periods of time (Table 1). Fishing capacity was based on the number and type of active fishing vessels during each lobster fishing season. The ratios of the number of active fishing vessels and fishers to the numbers listed in the GNPS Fishing Register were also calculated. We calculated the catch of lobster tail in metric tons for each fishing season and by species. The catch per unit effort (CPUE) for each fishing season was defined as the catch in kilograms of lobster tail obtained per diver per day. It is noteworthy that from 1995 to 2006, the CPUE was calculated based on onboard observations and from 2008 on, the data was collected at the landing docks. Therefore, the CPUE values between these two periods cannot be compared. 149
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Time periods and sources of information for the indicators used to evaluate the spiny lobster fishery in the GMR. Indicator Period Source of information 1997-2006 Moreno et al. (2007) 2007-2011 Monitoring records – GNPS 1997-2006 Moreno et al. (2007) 2007-2011 Monitoring records – GNPS Number of registered fishing boats 2000-2011 Fishing Register - GNPS Number of registered fishers 2000-2011 Fishing Register - GNPS Weight caught 1995-2006 Moreno et al. (2007) 2007-2011 Monitoring records – GNPS 1995-2006 Moreno et al. (2007) Number of active fishing boats Number of active fishers Catch per Unit Effort 2006-2011 Monitoring records – GNPS Price 2001-2011 Database – GNPS Commercial weight sent to the continent 1998-2011 Transport registers – GNPS In terms of marketing, we determined the total number of kilograms of lobster tail that was exported to mainland Ecuador and the total by species. We also examined the relationship between the weight exported and the weight sold locally for each fishing season. Finally we obtained the annual price of a pound of lobster tail. present (Figure 1). The number of small fishing craft (speedboats locally called launches or fibras and dinghies or pangas) decreased nearly two-fold since the peak in 2001 and the number of larger fishing boats declined seven-fold from their peak in 1991 (Figure 2). By 2011, the proportion of registered but inactive boats and fishers (passive fishing capacity) had increased to 61% and 60%, respectively, of all those registered (Figure 3). The passive fishing effort included 256 registered boats and 615 registered fishers, while the number of active boats was 164 and the number of active fishers was 408. Results Fishing capacity of the spiny lobster fishery in the GMR began to increase in 1997, peaked between 1999 and 2001, and then declined. The number of active fishers decreased nearly three-fold from the year 2000 to the 1400 Number of Fishers 1200 1183 1000 879 800 613 600 657 677 682 659 645 400 473 409 466 457 437 400 408 Figure 1. Number of active fishers during the lobster fishing seasons 1997-2011. 150 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 0 1997 200
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 350 286 287 280 276 250 245 228 200 194 150 138 Dinghies and rapid launches 5 6 2010 2009 2008 5 2011 17 2006 2004 2003 27 2007 29 28 20 2005 36 2001 2000 1998 0 42 67 1999 78 50 158 129 132 2002 100 1997 Number of boats 300 Boats Boats 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2000 Fishing effort: active / registered Figure 2. Number of active fishing boats during the lobster fishing seasons 1997-2011. Fishers Figure 3. Ratio of active and registered fishing boats and fishers during the lobster seasons 2000-2011. From 1995 to 2011, the average annual catch of spiny lobster in the GMR was 46.7 t. The last time that the catch was above the average was in 2003, although from 2009 to 2011 there was a surge in lobster catch (Figure 4). 120 100 98 86 67 40 52 46 34 32 26 42 30 32 27 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 0 1995 20 21 26 2011 54 2010 65 57 60 2009 Tons 80 Figure 4. Total annual catch of spiny lobster tails from 1995 to 2011. Note: Pointed line indicates the average total catch during the period of study. 151
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 The CPUE for spiny lobster in the GMR decreased from 1995 to 2006 and then increased from 2008 to 2011. 10 9.5 Kg of tail/diver/day 9 8.7 8 7 7.7 7.3 7 6.7 7 7 6 5.9 5.8 5.8 5 5 4.6 5.4 4 4 3 5.13 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 5. Changes in the CPUE of spiny lobster from 1995 to 2011 (unavailable data indicated by blank spaces). Data from 1995 to 2006 collected onboard and from 2008 to 2011 at the landing dock. Until 2008 almost all lobster caught in Galapagos was marketed outside the archipelago. In the last three years this situation has changed with up to 53% marketed locally in 2009 (Figure 6). Continent 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Local Figure 6. Proportion of commercial spiny lobster sent to continental Ecuador and sold locally from 1998 to 2011 (no information available for 2006). Meanwhile, the average export price per pound of lobster tail in US$ in Galapagos decreased beginning in 2006, when the price reached its historical high of US$13 (Figure 7). The biggest drop in price occurred in 2009, when a pound of lobster tail cost only US$8. Since that time, the price has recovered slightly but not to historical levels. 14 13 13 12.8 11.8 10.6 11 10 10 10.4 10.4 10.8 10 9.5 9 8 Figure 7. Changes in the price of spiny lobster tail from 2001 to 2011. 152 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 8 2001 7 2011 US$/lb of tail 12
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Discussion In recent years there has been an increase in CPUE for spiny lobster in the GMR. This indicator suggests that the resource has the potential to recover. While insufficient evidence exists to determine the exact causal relationship between each factor and the CPUE, it is possible that the increase in CPUE is related to the reduction in fishing capacity, the drop in international prices, and/or environmental factors. The results did show a relationship between the decline of fishing capacity and the increase in the CPUE for spiny lobster. This reduction of fishing capacity may be due to several factors, one of which is the currently existing moratorium on new fishing licenses (except for direct descendants of fishers) or permits for fishing boats by the GNPS. Despite this reduction in fishing capacity, it is critical to be aware that there is a passive fishing effort that could be reactivated at any time, which would negatively affect resource recovery. This passive fishing effort is a result of the high percentage of fishers listed in the GNPS Fishing Register that is not currently active (61%). The declining market price of lobster is another factor that may have contributed to an increased CPUE. The decrease in this indicator showed a relationship with resource extraction, which suggests that enough lobsters were left in the ocean to enable population recovery. As the profitability of this fishery declined, many fishers decided to focus on other fisheries or on activities other than fishing (Castrejón, 2011a). However, at the time nearly all of the lobster caught was sold as lobster tails to the markets in the Ecuadorian mainland and therefore the income of fishers depended directly on the international price, whereas a local market, independent of the international price, might have provided greater income. A change has been observed since 2009; when the price for lobster tail on the continent reached a record low, sales within the local market rose. Whole lobsters are primarily sold locally, at a price of US$10 to US$25 per lobster, depending on size (Velasco et al., 2012). The study also indicated that the lobster market in Santa Cruz has high potential demand, resulting primarily from tourism, so it is very likely that the local demand will continue to increase. If price determines the level of resource extraction, as has been suggested, then higher prices may result in increased lobster harvests, which in turn could negatively impact the recovery potential of the lobster population unless specific measures are taken. The main obstacle to resource recovery is the “race for fish” that currently prevails in the fisheries of the GMR. This race for fish occurs when fishers compete to harvest as much of the resource in as little time as possible. This results in short- term, individual interests (e.g., income) taking priority over long-term common interests (e.g., resource recovery) (Seijo et al., 1997). Several authors suggest that it is necessary to implement measures that provide incentives for focusing fishing efforts on quality not quantity, to slow down or stop the race for fish (Charles, 2005; Defeo & Castilla, 2005). Castrejón (2011a) presented a proposal for a new system of user rights for the GMR that is designed to reduce the race for fish, which is supported by one of the goals of the Fishery Management Chapter of the GMR Management Plan. Environmental variables were the third factor that may have contributed to the increase in the CPUE for lobster in the GMR. This is reinforced by the fact that in 2011 the high lobster catches that occurred in the Galapagos also occurred in other regions of the eastern Pacific, such as Baja California, Mexico, and Juan Fernandez, Chile (Crown, 2011; Pérez, 2011). Additional studies indicate changes in population parameters, such as mortality, growth, and size at maturity, that are directly related to sea temperature (Howell et al., 2005; De Leon, 2005). Recommendations To take advantage of the recovery potential of the spiny lobster and to assure sustainable use of the resources of the GMR, we recommend the following: • Structure the GMR Management System of the GNPS according to current fishing effort and current management of fishery resources. • Stop the race for fish for spiny lobster in the GMR by encouraging quality over quantity using two methods: 1) add value to the whole spiny lobster in the local market following the recommendations of Castrejón (2011b) and Velasco et al. (2012), and 2) comply with the goal of the Fishery Management Chapter of the GMR Management Plan in terms of implementing a new system of rights of use following the recommendations of Castrejón (2011a). • Conduct annual population monitoring of spiny lobsters in the GMR that are independent of the fishery and improve the GNPS’s current collection of fisheries information, including biological and socioeconomic data as well as data on lobster catch. This will improve our understanding of the behavior of the stock and provide socioeconomic, fishery, and environmental indicators. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Mauricio Castrejón for his revision of this document, and all participants of the GNPS, CDF and fishing sector who helped in the spiny lobster fishery monitoring in the GMR. 153
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: © Jorge Ramírez / WWF Galapagos Program References Castrejón M. 2011a. Co-manejo pesquero en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos: tendencias, retos y perspectivas de cambio. Charles Darwin Foundation – Tinker Foundation - Kanankil/Plaza and Valdés. Mexico D.F. 416 pp. Castrejón M. 2011b. Evaluación de la cadena de valor de la pesquería de langosta espinosa (Panulirus penicillatus y P. gracilis) de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. WWF-Galápagos. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 42 pp. Charles AT. 2005. Derechos de uso y pesca responsable: limitando el acceso y la captura a través de la ordenación basada en derechos. In: Cochrane KL (ed.), Guía del administrador pesquero: medidas de ordenación y su aplica¬ción. FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca 424. Rome, Italy. Pp. 127-155. Corona AR. 2011. Histórica captura de langosta. Diario El Sudcaliforniano. Baja California Sur, Mexico. 25 November 2011. De León ME. 2005. Variabilidad temporal de los parámetros poblacionales de la langosta espinosa del Caribe Panulirus argus (latreille, 1804) en aguas de Cuba. Doctoral thesis. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste. La Paz, B.C.S. Mexico. 71 pp. Defeo O & JC Castilla. 2005. More than one bag for the world fishery crisis and keys for co-management successes in selected artisanal Latin American Shellfisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15:265-283 Hearn A. 2004. Evaluación de las poblaciones de langosta en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos: informe final 2002-2004. Galapagos National Park – Charles Darwin Foundation. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 96 pp. Hearn A, JC Murillo, F Nicolaides, J Moreno & H Reyes. 2006. Evaluación de la pesquería de langosta espinosa (Panulirus penicillatus y P. gracilis) en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos 2005. In: Hearn A. (ed.), Evaluación de las pesquerías de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos, informe compendio 2005. Pp. 46-116. Charles Darwin Foundation. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. Howell P, J Benway, C Giannini, K Mckown, R Burgess & J Hayden. 2005. Long-term population trends in American lobster (Homarus americanus) and their relation to temperature in Long Island Sound. Journal of Shellfish Research. 24(3):849-857. 154
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Moreno J, C Peñaherrera & A Hearn. 2007. Evaluación de la pesquería de langosta espinosa (Panulirus penicillatus y P. gracilis) en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos 2006. Charles Darwin Foundation. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 23 pp. Pérez ME. 2011. Extracción de langostas en Juan Fernández crece un 40%. Diario La Tercera. Chile. 16 May 2011. Reyes H, JC Murillo & M Wolff. 2009. Informe técnico de las pesquerías de pepino de mar (Isostichopus fuscus) y langosta espinosa (Panulirus panicillatus y P. gracilis) en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Parque Nacional Galápagos-Fundación Charles Darwin. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 10 pp. Reyes H & A Schuhbauer. 2010. Informe técnico preliminar de la langosta espinosa 2009. Parque Nacional GalápagosFundación Charles Darwin. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 8 pp. Seijo JC, O Defeo & S Salas. 1997. Bioeconomía pesquera. Teoría, modelación y manejo. FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca 368. Roma, Italia. 176 pp. Velasco M, F Sondheimer, J Anastacio & L Soriano. 2012. Estudio de mercado para la comercialización de la langosta espinosa en Santa Cruz. WWF-Galápagos. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos, Ecuador. 84 pp. 155
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 How to improve the spiny lobster fishery of Santa Cruz Island Mauricio Castrejón1, Martín Velasco2, Fred Sondheimer2, Jimmy Anastacio2, Leonardo Soriano2 and Jorge Ramírez3 Dalhousie University, 2CORAMIR SA, 3WWF Galapagos Program 1 Photograph: Mauricio Castrejón Introduction The economic performance of the spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus and P. gracilis) fishery in Galapagos has been negatively affected not only by the decline in lobster abundance (due to over-exploitation) and the global economic crisis, but also by the strong fragmentation of the fishing sector, the constant presence of middlemen, and the near exclusive trading of lobster tails. In early 2010, WWF’s Galapagos program launched a research and development project focused on providing technical and scientific assistance to the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the local fishing sector to improve the management and marketing system of the spiny lobster fishery in the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR). One of the project goals was to strengthen the value chain of this fishery through marketing live lobster. Adopting a marketing system of this type can help to increase quality and add value to the product, given that its price and demand in the international market is significantly higher than those of frozen lobster tails. This could help to improve the socioeconomic condition of the fishers, without increasing harvest levels. Objectives This paper presents the most relevant results obtained by Castrejón (2012) and Velasco et al. (2012). The first of these studies focused on developing a strategy to improve the value chain of the spiny lobster fishery, while the objective of the second was to determine the current and potential market for whole lobster. Both studies were carried out on Santa Cruz Island. Methods The methods used to evaluate the value chain and market for the lobster fishery of Santa Cruz Island are described in detail by Castrejón (2012) and Velasco et al. (2012). Both studies were based on the collection of secondary data to understand the demographic, economic and social context on Santa Cruz with regard to the value chain and local lobster market. In addition, primary data were collected through interviews and surveys of fishers, middlemen, and exporters, as well as local consumers (hotels, restaurants and tourist boats). Data collected by Castrejón (2012) were used for the development of an economic model whose main objective was to evaluate the impact of different marketing strategies on the income of fishers from COPROPAG (Cooperativa de Producción Artesanal de Galápagos), the only fishing cooperative on Santa 156
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Cruz Island. The analysis included five lobster products (fresh and frozen lobster tail, fresh and frozen whole lobster, and live lobster), and four different value chains (Dominated by Middlemen, Shared, Dominated by Cooperative, and Integrated Cooperative; Figure 1, Table 1). The price of a kilogram of lobster tail (US$/kg tail) was used as a standardized measure of comparison and was Process Fishing Dominated by Middlemen Fisher estimated by dividing the whole lobster price per kg (US$7.7/kg) by 0.33 (Table 1). This indicator was used to compare the costs and income generated by different types of products (e.g., lobster tail vs. whole lobster) in different value chains (e.g., Dominated by Middlemen vs. Integrated Cooperative). Shared Dominated by Cooperative Integrated Cooperative Fisher Fisher Fisher Processing Middlemen Cooperative Cooperative Cooperative Sales Middlemen Middlemen Cooperative Cooperative Export Exporter Exporter Exporter Cooperative Distribution Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Consumption Consumer Consumer Consumer Consumer Present Ideal Figure 1. Value chains evaluated in this study (Dominated by Middlemen, Shared, Dominated by Cooperative, and Integrated Cooperative). The first one represents the value chain that currently exists in Santa Cruz, while the remaining three represent hypothetical value chains, the latter being the ideal value chain, that is the value chain that would generate the greatest benefits for COPROPAG fishers according to the results of this study. Table 1. Description of the value chains evaluated and the assumptions used for the economic model. For more details consult Castrejón (2012). Value Chain Description Model Assumptions Dominated by Middlemen • Current value chain in Santa Cruz in which middlemen have all the bargaining power • Average weight of whole lobster: 1 kg Shared • Hypothetical value chain • Tail weight: 0.31 kg • It is assumed that all lobster production on Santa Cruz is sold through COPROPAG, which processes and sells it to merchants (i.e., local middlemen) • Tail represents 0.33 of total body weight (Reck, 1983) • Therefore it is assumed that the cooperative gains greater bargaining power Dominated by Cooperative • Hypothetical value chain • It is assumed that COPROPAG takes over the role of middleman, indicating that in addition to processing the lobsters, the cooperative is also responsible for exporting the product and for its sale to exporting companies located in the mainland, which are then responsible for the sale to foreign importers (i.e., wholesalers) • Operating costs were estimated by dividing the operating cost per day (US$50) by CPUE (5.9 kg tail/diver/ day); this equals US$8.4/kg • Operating costs of middlemen: US$2.20/kg • Operating costs of exporters: US$2.52/kg • Operating costs of fishers: US$12.1/kg • Price for lobster tail: US$7/pound (equal to US$15.4 /kg) 157
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 • It is assumed that COPROPAG gains a larger share of the profit, which will increase as it achieves and coordinates a single marketing channel with all fishing cooperatives of Galapagos Integrated Cooperative • Hypothetical value chain • It is assumed that COPROPAG takes over the role of merchant and exporter • It is assumed that using this value chain the cooperative will achieve the maximum value and the greatest bargaining power Results and discussion Value chain It was determined that the value chain of the lobster fishery of Santa Cruz can be improved in three ways: 1. Sale of exclusive products. The average income of fishers in the current value chain (Dominated by Middlemen) could be improved simply by selling new, higher quality products that command a higher price in the international market, such as whole lobster (fresh, frozen or live). The sale of live lobster will provide fishers the greatest earnings per kg of lobster tail (Figure 2). However, this type of product would also be the most difficult to implement due to materials and equipment needed to store and • Price for whole lobster (fresh): US$3.50/pound (equal to US$7.7/kg) • Price for whole lobster (in kg of tail): US$23.33 /kg of tail; this was estimated by dividing the price of a whole lobster per kilogram (US$7.70 /kg) by 0.33; this conversion was needed to have a standardized measurement (US$/kg tail), from which to compare the costs and income generated by different types of products (e.g., lobster tail vs. whole lobster) in different value chains transport live lobster. In addition, this option requires a significant change in the fishing, handling and transportation methods currently used by fishers in the Galapagos. An alternative and very attractive product from the economic point of view is frozen whole lobster. This product has the greatest demand in the international market (Figure 3) and does not require major changes in fishing and transportation methods. However, economic modeling indicated that the sale of a combination of different products (e.g., 47.5% frozen tail, 47.5% whole frozen lobster and 5.0% fresh whole lobster) is relatively simpler and faster to implement in the short and medium term. Simple changes in the type of products sold by COPROPAG could generate strong economic impacts throughout the value chain, which would benefit not only fishers but all of the economic actors involved, including middlemen. Net earnings per kg of tail (US$) 21.41 +3.26 18.15 +4.76 13.39 +5.23 8.16 Tail Combined* Whole Live Figure 2. Estimated average net earnings for the fisher (in US$ per kg of lobster tail) in the current value chain of Santa Cruz (Dominated by Middlemen) if the type of products sold are changed. * The product “Combined” assumes that production consists of 47.5% frozen tail, 47.5% frozen whole lobster, and 5.0% whole fresh lobster. 158
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 3% 27% Frozen tail Frozen whole 44% Fresh whole Prepared 4% Live lobster 22% Figure 3. Importation of lobster worldwide by type of product during 2007 (Castrejón, 2012). 2. Re-structuring the value chain. The average income of the fishers could also be improved through a restructuring of the value chain. The most cost effective option is the Integrated Cooperative value chain, which is estimated to generate earnings of US$29.27 per kg of lobster for fishers (Figure 4). However, the implementation of this type of value chain would require a radical change in the organization and management system of the cooperative, as well as the role currently played by middlemen. Consequently, the adoption of an Integrated Cooperative value chain is not considered a viable option in the short and medium term. However, the Shared value chain is an alternative option that would generate significant profits for fishers. This would require strengthening the bargaining power of COPROPAG by applying specific strategies (Figure 5). It is estimated that a Shared value chain would generate earnings for fishers of approximately US$13.05 per kg of lobster tail. This represents an increase of US$4.89 over the current value chain, which has estimated earnings of US$8.16 per kg of lobster tail (Figure 4). Thus, the net earnings for fishers would increase from 18 to 29% of the total value generated by the value chain (Figure 6). This is based on two assumptions: 1) the only product marketed is frozen lobster tail, and 2) income produced by COPROPAG, after covering operating costs, are shared equally among the member fishers. 29.27 Earnings per kg tail (US$) +10.14 19.13 +6.08 13.05 +4.89 8.16 Dominated by Middlemen Shared Dominated by Cooperative Integrated Cooperative Increase in difficulty Figure 4. Estimated average earnings for the fisher (in US$ per kg of lobster tail) in the different value chains evaluated; it is assumed that frozen lobster tail is the only product sold. 159
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 DEMAND SUPPLY Solution: Create a local seal of quality; collaborative work between fishers and middlemen Solution: Sell exclusive products of higher quality and price (e.g., live lobster, whole lobster); obtain certification through local seal of quality ot o n PAG sd er PRO um CO ns Co from y bu Challenge: The low demand of the cooperative decreases its competitiveness and bargaining power s oe G d ter PA s RO lob OP sell C t no Challenge: Direct competition with fishers, cooperatives and middlemen l sel ot o n AG rs d ROP he Fis o COP t Challenge: Strong connection between businessmen, exporters and local consumers (tourist boats, restaurants, etc.) ly pp su le AG) iab P rel RO Un (COP Solution: Redefine the internal statutes of COPROPAG to convert it to a marketing cooperative, defining the new rights and responsibilities of all members Challenge: Without providing a guarantee, the cooperative lacks credibility as a lobster supplier Solution: Consolidate a single marketing chain with partners, other cooperatives and middlemen Figure 5. Challenges to and solutions for strengthening the role of COPROPAG within the value chain of the lobster fishery of Santa Cruz Island. 45.37 45.90 45.89 Retailer* 33% 32% 32% 32% Wholesaler 4% 4% 4% 4% Exporter 27% 22% 22% 13% Middleman Fisher 18% 18% Dominated by Middlemen US$ per kg of lobster tail Percentage 44.30 64% 42% 29% Shared Dominated by Cooperative Integrated Cooperative Figure 6. Total percent earnings estimated for each economic agent (in US$ per kg of lobster tail) in each of the value chains evaluated, assuming: 1) the only product marketed is frozen lobster tail, and 2) COPROPAG earnings are distributed equally among the partner-fishers, after covering operating costs. * Includes retail supermarkets and restaurants. 3. 160 Sale of new products and re-structuring the value chain. The best way to maximize the earnings from the value chain of the spiny lobster fishery will be produced through a combined change in the products marketed and the adoption of a new value chain (Figure 7). The best option is to sell a combination of different products (e.g., whole lobster and lobster tail) and to adopt a Shared value chain, which would generate a total profit of US$20 per kg tail. This value could increase gradually as COPROPAG sells a higher percentage of whole frozen lobster and/ or live lobster. Current and potential market for whole lobster in Santa Cruz Based on the recommendations outlined by Castrejón (2012), WWF funded the completion of a market study to assess the feasibility of whole lobster marketing in Santa Cruz (Velasco et al., 2012). The most important results of this study are described below. The demand for whole spiny lobster in Santa Cruz is primarily by affluent tourists coming mainly from North America and Europe. Based on this market, current and
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Live 60.29 Earnings per kg of tail (US$) Frozen whole Combination whole-tail Frozen tail 40.67 9.78 30.25 3.55 21.41 3.26 4.76 5.23 8.16 Dominated by Middlemen 9.48 8.99 3.30 6.95 6.95 11.76 8.99 29.27 19.14 13.05 Shared Dominated by Cooperative Integrated Cooperative Increase in difficulty Figure 7. Estimated average earnings per fisher (in US$ per kg of lobster tail) through the combination of different types of products and value chains. Each rectangle represents the value added by the sale of a different product (frozen tail, whole lobster-tail combination, frozen whole lobster, and live lobster). The numbers highlighted in black show the estimated total earnings for each value chain by selling live lobster. potential demand for whole lobster in Santa Cruz was estimated for the fishing season (September-December). The results revealed the following: 1. The target market consists of approximately 20,844 foreign tourists with high purchasing power and an average consumption of 1.28 pounds of whole lobster per tourist during their time in Galapagos (Figure 8). 2. The total potential demand for this market is 26,680 pounds (equivalent to 12,102 kg or 12.1 TM). 3. However, only 9.6% of the tourists who make up the target market consumes lobster (1991 tourists), resulting in a demand of approximately 2548 pounds of whole lobster (equivalent to 1156 kg or 1.1 TM; Figure 8). This implies that a large fraction of the target market is not yet fully exploited (24,132 pounds of whole lobster; Figure 8). 7. Given that the number of active fishers in Santa Cruz during the 2011 fishing season was 122 (Ramirez et al., 2012), the gross income per capita generated by the target market would be US$2935 (Figure 8). Based on these results we conclude: 1) marketing whole lobster would generate significantly higher incomes than the sale of lobster tail, and 2) there is a potential market in Santa Cruz for whole lobster that has yet to be tapped. Recommendations To improve the economic performance of the lobster fishery of Santa Cruz, the following is recommended: 1. Implement a sequential strategy for the short, medium and long term to first develop the sale of frozen whole lobster at the local level, and then gradually the sale and export of live lobster at both local and international levels (Table 2). Use pilot projects to determine the optimum conditions for maintaining and transporting live lobster. Restructure the current value chain towards a Shared value chain; this would generate benefits to fishers in the medium term. 4. If 20,844 lobsters were sold at US$17.18 per whole lobster (average price at the Pelican Bay dock), the gross income is estimated at US$358,099 (Figure 8). 5. If the same amount of lobster was marketed as lobster tail at a price of US$9.5 per pound, the gross income would only be US$83,643 (Figure 8). This is based on the consideration that 26,680 pounds of whole lobster equals 8804 pounds of lobster tail (conversion factor of 0.33, according to Reck, 1983). 2. Targeting whole lobster would generate an additional earnings of US$274,456 for the fishing sector of Santa Cruz. Promote the image of the spiny lobster through a special seal of quality for Galapagos, and through appropriate marketing tools, such as web pages, articles in specialized journals and/or airline magazines, brochures, posters, etc. 3. Promote the marketing of lobster in luxury tourist 6. 161
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Effects Purchasing power of 20,844 foreign tourists per year with high purchasing power Consumption 1 whole lobster per tourist Thousands of US$ Target market 358 Demand (a) 84 Whole 20 844 whole lobsters Tail Gross income US$2,935 per fisher for sale of whole lobster 2548 lb 24132 lb Actual demand (b) Potential demand Figure 8. Estimation of the current and potential demand of the target market for whole lobster on Santa Cruz and its likely economic effect: (a) estimated gross income (in US$) that would be generated to meet the demand of the target market estimated by this study either as whole lobster or lobster tail; (b) current and potential demand of whole lobster on Santa Cruz. Assumptions: the weight of a whole lobster is 1.28 pounds and is priced at US$17.18, while the price of the tail is US$9.5 per pound. The conversion factor from whole lobster to tail is 0.33 (Reck, 1983). boats (target market) by developing a proper marketing strategy that will unify the existing marketing channels and ensure a more equitable distribution of the revenues generated from the value chain of the fishery. 4. Maintain a high quality product (freshness, size and color) by adopting appropriate harvesting and transporting methods to facilitate the delivery of a fresh and whole product on an established schedule agreed to with the buyer; this includes avoiding the use of a handheld hook or spike. Acknowledgments Mauricio Castrejón thanks the Wharton International Volunteer Program for its support, especially Joon Lee, Adam Eichnerm, Daniel Araujo, Adriana Sillero, Marco Villegas and Caroline Kim, who assisted in conducting interviews, data collection and the development of the economic model. All authors thank the Galapagos program of WWF and The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust for their support and funding, as well as the valuable collaboration of all those who provided information for the preparation of this study, especially the members and managers of COPROPAG. Table 2. Sequential strategy over the short, medium and long term to develop the capacity to sell and export live lobster and frozen whole lobster locally and internationally, and to adopt a new value chain. Period Short term (6- 12 months) Product • Analyze the viability of marketing frozen whole lobster with fishers, dealers and exporters Value Chain • Strengthen the role of COPROPAG in the value chain by redefining its internal statutes, finalizing the process of creating and establishing a local seal of quality, and establishing a free flow of market information (e.g., sign up to www.infopesca.org) • Establish workshops and working groups between COPROPAG and dealers to analyze the feasibility of adopting a Shared value chain and determine in detail the potential increase in prices • Test market frozen whole lobster during the next fishing season • Conduct a detailed market study of the Galapagos spiny lobster at provincial and national levels Medium term (1 – 5 years) • Gradually increase marketing of whole lobster (fresh and frozen) by 80 to 100% • In parallel, develop the necessary infrastructure and techniques for the capture, maintenance, transportation and export of live lobsters 162 • Implement the Shared value chain • Evaluate economic performance of the new value chain • Continue the implementation of the improvement plan for COPROPAG
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 • Determine optimum conditions for maintenance and transport of live lobster (e.g., temperature and time of packing) • Carry out pilot studies of live lobster sales at the local level Long term (> 5 years) • Export live lobster on a commercial scale (if feasible) • Achieve a local seal of quality certification and, if possible, from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) • Consolidate a single marketing channel for lobsters at the provincial level • Evaluate and comprehensively reform the structure and function of the current system of licenses (PARMA) and fishing permits to avoid the gradual reactivation of fishing licenses currently inactive (in case the profitability of the fishery recovers by the measures described in this study) • Evaluate feasibility of implementing the Dominated by Cooperative model and implement it when possible and appropriate • Acquire export certification for the cooperative • Adopt the Integrated Cooperative value chain References Castrejón M. 2012. Evaluación de la cadena de valor de la pesquería de langosta espinosa (Panulirus penicillatus y P. gracilis) en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. In: Ramírez J, M Castrejón y V Toral (eds.), Mejorando la pesquería de langosta espinosa de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Pp. 119-154. WWF. Galapagos, Ecuador. Ramírez J, H Reyes, A Schuhbauer & M Castrejón. 2012. Análisis y evaluación de la pesquería de langosta espinosa (Panulirus penicillatus y P. gracilis) de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos, 1997-2011. In: Ramírez J, M Castrejón y V Toral (eds.), Mejorando la pesquería de langosta espinosa de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Pp. 198-228. WWF. Galapagos, Ecuador. Reck G. 1983. The coastal fisheries in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Description and consequences for management in the context of marine environmental protection and regional development. Doctoral thesis. Christian Albrecht University, Kiel, Germany. 231 pp. Velasco M, F Sondheimer, J Anastacio & L Soriano. 2012. Estudio de mercado para la comercialización de langosta espinosa en Santa Cruz, Galápagos. In: Ramírez J, M Castrejón y V Toral (eds.), Mejorando la pesquería de langosta espinosa de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Pp. 158-181. WWF. Galapagos, Ecuador. 163
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 164
    • Photo title page Biodiversity and Ecosystem Restoration: Michael Dvorak
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Management of the avian parasite Philornis downsi in the Galapagos Islands: A collaborative and strategic action plan Charlotte Causton1, Francesca Cunninghame1 and Washington Tapia2 Charles Darwin Foundation, 2Galapagos National Park Service 1 Adult Philornis in a McPhail trap, which contains papaya juice. Photograph: © Charlotte Causton Background No bird extinction has ever taken place in the Galapagos Islands since the arrival of humans in 1535. However, some endemic land bird populations are now declining in number, in part due to an introduced parasitic fly, Philornis downsi. This fly was first recorded in the Galapagos Islands in the 1960s, but its negative impact on birds was only discovered in the 1990s (Causton et al., 2006). Adult flies lay eggs in bird nests and then the fly larvae feed on the blood and tissue of hatchlings affecting growth and causing anemia, bill deformation and ultimately death (Figure 1). Nestling mortality due to these parasites can be up to 100% (references cited in O’Connor et al., 2010). So far flies have been recorded on 13 islands with the highest numbers on the inhabited islands; of the 15 islands surveyed only Genovesa and Española have been found free of these parasites (Figure 2). At least 16 endemic bird species, one native, and one introduced species are attacked by P. downsi (Table 1). The fly’s impact on birds is a serious threat especially to vulnerable and declining species. P. downsi parasitism has already been implicated in the decline of endemic, critically endangered species such as the Mangrove Finch (Camarhynchus heliobates) and the Medium Tree Finch (C. pauper) (Fessl et al., 2010; O’Connor et al., 2010). There are currently no known techniques to effectively mitigate the threat of P. downsi. In spite of considerable efforts by the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) and collaborators there are still substantial gaps in the understanding of the life history and ecology of P. downsi, which has prevented the development of methods to control the fly. Furthermore, little is known about the fly in its native range (Trinidad and Brazil). Because of this, an international workshop was held by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and CDF in February 2012 to bring together local and international experts to find a solution for the management of P. downsi. Workshop participants concluded that the development of effective management tools will depend on a collaborative and coordinated effort between experts in different parts of the world (Argentina, Austria, Ecuador, Trinidad, and USA) working in different areas of insect biology, control and management, and ornithology. These research activities are outlined in a strategic research plan that was developed by the specialists during the workshop (https://sites.google.com/site/philornisworkinggroup/action-plan). The key research questions and actions are listed below and highlight the complexity of developing a management program for an invasive insect. 167
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 1. Life cycle of P. downsi. Adults feed on decaying plants and fruits. The female flies lay eggs in the nests of birds. After 1-2 days the larvae hatch and move inside the nostril cavity of the baby birds. Mature larvae migrate outside the chick, spending the day in the nest base and feeding on blood as ectoparasites during the night. Larvae pupate in the nest base after about 7 days, and emerge as flies approximately 14 days later. GALÁPAGOS ISLANDS, ECUADOR Figure 2. Distribution of P. downsi in the Galapagos Islands. Of 15 islands surveyed, only Genovesa and Española have not been invaded by the fly (Wiedenfeld et al., 2007; B. Fessl and P. Lincango, pers. comm.). Goal 1: Understand the biology and ecology of Philornis downsi Why/how does P. downsi emerge in such large numbers at the beginning of the bird breeding season? Where are the flies in the dry season? Studies suggest that the humid vegetation zones of the Galapagos Islands act as a reservoir for flies during the dry season. Some birds may reproduce all year in this zone thus maintaining a permanent fly population. Monitoring will be conducted to determine whether flies move from the humid zone to the arid zone when conditions are favorable. 168 Is fly behavior guided by chemical attractants? The investigation of chemical attractants is important because attractants can be used to trap flies, which in turn can be used to monitor pest populations or to suppress fly numbers (see below). Preliminary studies suggest that P. downsi may produce a pheromone to attract mates and that flies are attracted to fermentation products and odors produced by protein decomposition (Muth, 2007; Lincango & Causton, 2008a; Collignon & Teale, 2010). Additional experiments are required to determine what attracts flies to nests, how flies locate their mates, and what foods they are attracted to.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Bird hosts of P. downsi in Galapagos. Scientific name (origin) (Origin: E = endemic, N = native) English common name Camarhynchus heliobates (E) Mangrove Finch Camarhynchus pallidus (E) Woodpecker Finch Camarhynchus parvulus (E) Small Tree Finch Camarhynchus pauper (E) Medium Tree Finch Camarhynchus psittacula (E) Large Tree Finch Certhidea olivacea (E) Warbler Finch Coccyzus melacoryphus (N) Dark-billed Cuckoo Crotophaga ani (I) Smooth-billed Ani Dendroica petechia (N) Yellow Warbler Geospiza fortis (E) Medium Ground Finch Geospiza fuliginosa (E) Small Ground Finch Geospiza magnirostris (E) Large Ground Finch Geospiza scandens (E) Cactus Finch Mimus melanotis (E) San Cristóbal Mockingbird Mimus parvulus (E) Galapagos Mockingbird Mimus trifasciatus (E) Floreana Mockingbird Myiarchus magnirostris (E) Galapagos Flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus (E) Vermilion Flycatcher Where do flies mate and what is the reproductive biology of the fly? Understanding the fly’s mating system is critical to the development of the management program. If we are able to determine where mating occurs (e.g., on food or in nests), we might be able to find attractant odors that are associated with the mating location and then develop a trapping method. On the other hand, an understanding of the cues for initiating copulation and egg depositing behavior is important when evaluating the feasibility of using Sterile Insect Technique (see below). What are the dispersal capabilities of P. downsi? P. downsi was probably first introduced to Galapagos with imported fruit, pigeons/chickens, or nest material, or in the holds of planes. It is possible that there has been more than one introduction event. Understanding the dispersal capability of P. downsi is crucial to determining which control methods could be effective. For example, if re-invasion is highly likely, management should focus on long-term suppression/management rather than eradication. The colonization pathway of P. downsi within the archipelago may have been natural (by wind) and/or assisted (on fruits, attracted to lights on boats, etc.). Studies suggest that P. downsi can disperse over large distances and can colonize new areas on its own (Dudaniec et al., 2008). Monitoring of airplanes and boats, and an analysis of the genetic population structure will help confirm how P. downsi disperses. How can we breed P. downsi in captivity? Being able to breed P. downsi in captivity is crucial for developing control techniques such as biological control and Sterile Insect Technique. From 2007-2008 CDF placed considerable effort on trying to rear P. downsi in captivity, with only partial success. Researchers were unable to find a suitable medium for attracting female flies to lay eggs or for rearing newly hatched larvae. To enable mass rearing it is necessary to develop easy-to-manufacture diets for all life stages of the fly and to define what stimulates egglaying in the laboratory. How do P. downsi and related species behave in their native and introduced ranges, and how does this relate to the environment? Parallel investigations of P. downsi and closely related species in their native and introduced ranges may help us to understand its biology. The genus Philornis comprises c. 50 species and the main distribution of Philornis is in Central and South America, extending to the southern United States. P. downsi has been reported from Trinidad and Brazil, where it is thought to be native (Dudaniec & Kleindorfer, 2006). Recently, it was found in Argentina where it is likely to have dispersed naturally (Silvestri et al., 2011). It is not known whether it is found in mainland Ecuador. 169
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 2. Larvae feeding on a Galapagos finch nestling. Photo: J. O’Connor, Flinders University Is P. downsi a vector of disease? A study by Aitken et al. (1958) showed that larvae of some Philornis species can transmit arbo viruses to birds. It is unknown whether P. downsi plays a role in the transfer of viruses between birds and it is important that this be investigated. to determine the safety of using permethrin with a threatened species and to design methods for delivering the insecticide to nests in tall (25 m) trees. This method in combination with the placement of traps with attractants, such as papaya and sugar, at key times during the nesting season, may increase nestling survival. Removal of abandoned nests may also help. Goal 2: Develop methods management of P. downsi effective What long-term options can we use for the management of P. downsi? There are currently no methods that effectively control P. downsi. Given the urgency of protecting endangered bird species, workshop participants concluded that while long-term control methods are being developed, it is imperative that an immediate management plan to protect birds be developed and implemented, even if the initial methods only result in a partial reduction in bird mortality. Several potential management options for P. downsi exist and could be investigated concurrently (Table 2). Techniques such as mating disruption or Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) could be used to eradicate Philornis from the archipelago. However, because of its extensive distribution, eradication would only be possible if new introductions of P. downsi do not occur on a regular basis and long-term funding is guaranteed. A combination of the management strategies may be the best option for reducing P. downsi damage to an acceptable level. Regular monitoring and evaluation will indicate success or failure. for the What methods can we implement in the short-term to reduce P. downsi numbers in nesting areas of highly threatened bird species? To date the application of 1% permethrin to the base of the nest is the only method that has been shown to be effective in reducing fly numbers and increasing fledgling survival (Koop et al., 2011). Additional research is needed 170 Mass trapping with attractants (high priority). Mass trapping using attractants is a useful technique for suppressing populations in areas of high conservation value, but not for archipelago-wide control. Chemical attractants are also useful for measuring populations over
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 time or measuring the efficacy of other control programs such as Sterile Insect Technique and biological control. If it is found that the flies use attractants it might be possible to synthesize the attractant for use in a trapping program. Mating disruption with pheromones (high priority). The general effect of mating disruption is to confuse the male by masking the natural pheromone plumes produced by the female by releasing a synthetic pheromone in the pest’s habitat. This causes the males to follow “false pheromone trails” and thus reduces the probability of successfully locating and mating with females, leading to the eventual cessation of breeding and collapse of the insect infestation. If it is found that the flies use pheromones it might be possible to synthesize these pheromones for release over large areas of the archipelago. Table 2. Summary of management options for P. downsi. Management options Trapping with pheromones or other attractants Advantages • Disadvantages Effective method for protecting threatened species with restricted populations Important tool for monitoring populations • • • Can only be used over small areas Need to apply on a regular basis Not all methods are species specific • Expensive • • • Species specific and ecologically safe Should be used in combination with other techniques Most effective when controlling low to moderate pest population densities (inversely density dependent) Works best if large areas are treated Can treat inaccessible areas Can result in eradication Classical biological control (importation of natural enemies) • • • • • • Can be genus or species specific Ecologically safe Used over large areas Can be applied over difficult topography Permanent and self-sustaining Good cost-benefit ratio • • Takes longer to develop Hard to know level of control until it is released Augmentative biological control (using natural enemies already found in Galapagos) • • • • Can be genus or species specific Ecologically safe Used over large areas Lower development costs • May not be self-sustaining and may require periodic releases of the natural enemy Chemical control (IGRs, insecticides, chitinase inhibitors, etc.) and biopesticides • Some like IGRs are safer and more group specific May be useful for protecting threatened species with restricted populations • Some are broad spectrum and safety would depend on what technique is used to deliver insecticide Only effective in small areas Requires repeated applications Resistance can be developed over time Species specific control method Can be applied over difficult topography Inversely density dependent Integrates well with other methods Can result in eradication May also be used for long-term suppression and exclusion if reinvasion is likely (e.g., California preventive release program) • • Mating disruption with pheromones • • • Sterile Insect Technique • • • • • • • • • • Expensive 171
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Biological control (medium/high priority). Biological control, if used safely, can be highly effective in keeping pests at non-damaging levels over large areas. Until recently, biological control was principally used in agricultural settings, but more recently it has been used in natural ecosystems to conserve threatened species, including in the Galapagos where the Australian ladybird (Rodolia cardinalis), was used to reduce the impact of the cottony cushion scale (Icerya purchase), on endemic plants (Calderón et al., 2012). Natural enemies of P. downsi, in particular those species that are specialist feeders, could be highly effective in reducing P. downsi to nondamaging levels. There are two types of biological control that could be used: 1) augmentative biological control where natural enemies already found in Galapagos are mass reared and released, or 2) classical biological control through importation of natural enemies from the fly’s native range. So far, four species of parasitic wasps have been reared from Philornis pupae in Galapagos. All are generalist feeders that could affect native species and, because of this, are unlikely to be suitable for use in a biological control program (Lincango & Causton, 2008b). There are no records of parasitoids of P. downsi in its native range; however, at least three species of wasps are known to parasitize Philornis species (Couri et al.,. 2006; Di Iorio & Turienzo, 2011). Chemical control (high priority). Insect growth regulators (IGRs), chitinase inhibitors or biopesticides such as Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and Spinosad, could be useful for controlling Philornis in areas of high conservation value such as Los Gemelos, or in the nesting areas of threatened species. The scale for use of these methods depends on the delivery technique and could include splat technique on trees and/or injection/ spraying on nests. These compounds are safer and more eco-friendly than traditional insecticides that are widely used for fly-control, and are low risk for non-target organisms. Sterile Insect Technique (medium/high priority). The Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) is a method of pest control in which large numbers of sterile males are released. When wild fertile females mate with these males, their reproduction is reduced such that over a number of generations, the population shrinks to an unsustainable density and dies out. This method has been used against a number of pest species (Hendrichs et al., 2005). It is highly species specific (it will not cause damage to other species) and it is environmentally benign. Requirements for assessing the feasibility of SIT include knowledge about the reproductive biology of the pest (mating and egg-laying behavior, diet, environmental conditions, how to rear pest in captivity), and availability of methods for monitoring and suppressing populations. SIT works best following an initial population suppression; SIT programs depend on population density and are often used in combination with other techniques. 172 Conclusions Iconic bird species are declining in Galapagos, in large part due to P. downsi. Because of this, major and urgent action is required. A strategic research plan has been designed to develop effective tools for managing this invasive species. Research will be conducted in parallel by researchers in different parts of the world to find a solution as quickly as possible. The success of this plan will depend on a collaborative approach between specialists with regular cross communication about the progress of each activity, the timely sharing of newly published and relevant reports or articles, and cooperation in seeking funding opportunities. Acknowledgments The workshop was enabled by the generous support of the Galapagos Conservancy, Galapagos Conservation Trust, and Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 References Aitken THG, WG Downs & CR Anderson. 1958. Parasitic Philornis flies as possible sources of arbor virus infections (Diptera, Anthomyidae). Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 99:635-637. Causton CE, SB Peck, BJ Sinclair, L Roque-Albelo, CJ Hodgson & B Landry. 2006. Alien insects: Threats and implications for the conservation of the Galapagos Islands. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 99:121-143. Calderón Alvarez C, CE Causton, MS Hoddle, C Hoddle, R Van Driesche & E Stanek III. 2012. Monitoring the effects of Rodolia cardinalis on Icerya purchasi populations on the Galapagos Islands. BioControl 57:167-179. Collignon RM & SA Teale. 2009. Chemical ecology of Philornis downsi (Diptera: Muscidae) an invasive avian parasite to the Galapagos Islands. Technical Report.SUNY, Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. Couri MS, MT Tavares MT & RR Stenzel. 2006. Parasitoidism of chalcidid wasps (Hymenoptera: Chalcididae) on Philornis sp. (Diptera: Muscidae). Brazilian Journal of Biology 66:553-557. Di Iorio O & P Turienzo. 2011. A preliminary bibliographic survey of the insects found in poultry houses from the Neotropical Region, with remarks on selected taxa shared with native birds’ nests. Zootaxa 2858:1–60. Dudaniec RY & S Kleindorfer. 2006. The effects of the parasitic flies Philornis (Diptera: Muscidae) on birds. Emu 106:13-20. Dudaniec RY, MG Gardner, S Donnellan & S Kleindorfer. 2008. Genetic variation in the invasive avian parasite, Philornis downsi (Diptera, Muscidae) on the Galapagos archipelago. BMC Ecology 8, doi:10.1186/1472-6785-8-13 Fessl B, HG Young, RP Young, J Rodríguez-Matamoros, M Dvorak & S Tebbich. 2010. How to save the rarest Darwin’s finch from extinction: The mangrove finch on Isabela Island. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 365:1019–1030. Hendrichs J, MJB Vreysen, W Enkerlin & JP Cayol. 2005. Strategic options in using sterile insects for area-wide integrated pest management. In: Sterile Insect Technique. Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. V A Dyck, J Hendrichs & AS Robinson. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer:563-600. Koop JAH, SK Huber, SM Laverty & DH Clayton. 2011. Experimental demonstration of the fitness consequences of an introduced parasite of Darwin’s finches. PLoS ONE, 6(5):e19706, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019706. Lincango P & CE Causton. 2008a. Ensayos de atrayentes para la captura de la mosca parásito, Philornis downsi (Diptera: Muscidae) en las Islas Galápagos. Technical Report, Charles Darwin Foundation, 21 pp. Lincango P & CE Causton. 2008b. Crianza en cautiverio de Philornis downsi, en las islas Galápagos. Technical report, Charles Darwin Foundation, Santa Cruz, Galapagos. Muth A. 2007. Control of Philornis downsi, bird parasite. Technical report, Charles Darwin Foundation, 27 pp. O’Connor JA, FJ Sulloway, J Robertson & S Kleindorfer. 2010. Philornis downsi parasitism is the primary cause of nestling mortality in the critically endangered Darwin’s medium tree finch (Camarhynchus pauper). Biodiversity and Conservation 19:853-866. Silvestri L, LR Antoniazzi, MS Couri, LD Monje & PM Beldomenico. 2011. First record of the avian ectoparasite Philornis downsi Dodge & Aitken, 1968 (Diptera: Muscidae) in Argentina. Syst Parasitol 80(2):137-40. Wiedenfeld DA, UGA Jiménez, B Fessl, S Kleindorfer & JC Valarezo. 2007. Distribution of the introduced parasitic fly Philornis downsi (Diptera, Muscidae) in the Galapágos Islands. Pacific Conservation Biology 13:14-19. 173
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 A trial translocation of the critically endangered mangrove finch: Conservation management to prevent the extinction of Darwin`s rarest finch Francesca Cunninghame¹,², H. Glyn Young², Christian Sevilla3, Victor Carrión3,4, and Birgit Fessl¹,² ¹Charles Darwin Foundation, ²Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, 3 Galapagos National Park Service , 4Island Conservation Finch habitat at Playa Tortuga Negra, Caleta Negra. Photograph: Francesca Cunninghame The mangrove finch (Camarhynchus heliobates) is the rarest of 13 Darwin’s finch species endemic to the Galapagos Islands (Dvorak et al., 2004; Fessl et al., 2010). Currently classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN, with an estimated population of 100 individuals, ongoing conservation management is essential to prevent extinction. Historically widespread throughout mangroves of Isabela and Fernandina (Dvorak et al. 2004), the mangrove finch is now restricted to 30 ha of mangroves in north-west Isabela at Playa Tortuga Negra (PTN) and Caleta Black (CB) (Figure 1). Until 2009 a remnant population was present south of Bahía Cartago; however, recent attempts to locate these birds have failed. Threats to the species include predation from introduced rats (Rattus rattus), nestling mortality through parasitism from introduced botflies (Philornis downsi), potential inbreeding through small population size, and environmental phenomena (tidal waves, volcanic uplift, etc.) destroying remaining habitat (Dvorak, 2004; Fessl et al., 2010). Effects of other introduced predators such as cats (Felis catus) and anis (Crotophaga ani) remain unknown (Fessl et al., 2010). Reasons for past declines are likely a combination of those listed (Fessl et al., 2011). Current conservation management Artificial-nest trials and nest-success studies showed that rat predation was the biggest threat to nesting success (Fessl et al., 2010; Fessl et al., 2011). As a result, permanent bait-stations, with rat poison, were placed 50 m apart along transects throughout the 30 ha of mangrove forest (Fessl et al., 2010). Pipes were baited with Klerat wax cubes (0.05 g brodifacoum/kg), checked every 1-2 months, and refilled as necessary; unconsumed bait was removed. As a result of the poison regime, rat numbers have decreased. Over the last four years, twice-yearly monitoring reveals, at worst, very low numbers of rats at the end of the wet season. In the two months following the implementation of rat control, mangrove finch nesting success doubled (Fessl et al., 2010). Translocation Based on the restricted range of the mangrove finch and limited natural dispersal through poor breeding success (until recently), one of the most beneficial conservation management tools may be the direct re-establishment of populations within its historic range (Fessl et al., 2010). Captive trials conducted in 2009 on Santa Cruz with the closely related woodpecker finch (C. pallidus) highlighted the risk of avian pox infection (all birds became infected, to date pox has not been recorded in mangrove finch habitat) and therefore reintroductions of captive-raised birds could never take place. Thus, a direct translocation of wildcaught birds was proposed (Fessl et al., 2010). Translocation and reintroduction 174
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 1. Recent and current distribution of the mangrove finch in the Galapagos Islands. of endangered species are well-established techniques used worldwide to reduce extinction risk and safeguard threatened populations: the overall goal being to establish additional viable populations within the species’ historical range (Seddon et al., 2007). Although studied for several years, the mangrove finch has never been held in captivity; birds have only been handled for ringing, measuring and blood-sampling. Therefore, the first step in developing a translocation program was a trial translocation to determine the best techniques to hold and transport birds, and study their adaptation to a new site. Reintroduction site selection and management Mangrove finch habitat at PTN and CB is unique in Galapagos, being the only unmodified tall mangroves protected from the open sea, resulting in the buildup of leaf litter (Dvorak et al., 2004; Fessl et al., 2010). Former finch sites at Cartago and Urbina bays are considered suitable for translocation based on current knowledge (Dvorak et al., 2004). Bahía Cartago contains the largest continuous area of mangroves in the archipelago, providing ample space for population expansion. Logistically, however, predator control and monitoring of released birds are impractical there. After visits in early 2010, Bahía Urbina was selected as the preferred site due to its suitability for rat control and proximity to the source population. Poza de los Tiburones, a mangrove forest covering 10 ha at Bahía Urbina, was chosen for the re-introduction for the following reasons: • Small area and distance from other mangroves make it manageable for rat control; • Accessibility of habitat makes post-release monitoring possible; • Proximity to the source population (PTN 22 km); • More feasible logistically and financially. On-going rat control is essential for the protection of breeding mangrove finches (Fessl et al., 2010). A rat-bait grid identical to those at PTN and CB was set up at the release site. To assess the effectiveness of the bait stations, rat monitoring using live-capture Tomahawk traps was conducted twice-yearly (Table 1). Traps were placed 25 m apart and opened for three consecutive nights using peanut-butter and oats to attract rats. The traps were closed during the day to avoid capturing non-target species. Rat numbers at the release site were reduced following the implementation of baiting in late May 2010. Capture and transfer Birds were captured for translocation in late May 2010, once the 2009/2010 breeding season ended. The plan was to capture 10 individuals for transfer, the composition to be determined by ease of capture. Preference was placed on transferring juveniles; however, in order to obtain 175
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Percentage rat catch at Poza de los Tiburones (Bahía Urbina) prior to and following implementation of rat control in late May 2010. Date Season No. rats over three nights No. trap nights % catch May 2010 Wet 26 69 37,7 Nov 2010 Dry 4 114 3,5 Apr 2011 Wet 15 114 13,2 Nov 2011 Dry 1 90 1,1 Mar 2012 Wet 5 90 5,5 enough birds, adults were included. The ability of the field team to catch 10 individuals was unknown so three days were planned for the effort. All birds would be transferred on the same day as their capture. Birds were captured using mist-nets set up in early morning at low-tide across six sites throughout the forest at PTN. Ten finches were caught, five adults and five juveniles from the 2009/2010 breeding season. Only nine were chosen for transfer (Table 2). One adult male was not transferred to avoid removing a significant number of breeding adults from the source population. Table 2. Individuals transferred from PTN to Poza de los Tiburones on each of the three days of transfer; all nine birds were identified by their individual color-ring combinations. Date Adult Males Adult Females 23/05/10 Juveniles Orange/Green Red/Yellow 24/05/10 Gold/Purple Pink/Blue Red 25/05/10 Birds were removed from nets, weighed, measured, photographed, fitted with metal and color rings, and blood samples taken for DNA sexing. A veterinarian (WildCare Institute, CDF) was present to assess the birds for any apparent health problems. All nine birds were healthy and ready for transfer. Transmitters with external aerials (Holohil Systems Ltd., Ontario, Canada) weighing 0.41 g were fitted to the interscapular region of all transferred birds (Figure 2a). Transport boxes (Figure 2b) were built and all materials used complied with Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) quarantine regulations. In order to provide food for the finches, the field team caught local invertebrates to release in the boxes. Travel by speedboat between PTN and Bahía Urbina lasted one hour. This was the first time mangrove finches had been held in cages and the duration between capture and release varied from 2-7 hours. Birds reacted very well during their time in confinement and all arrived at the release site in excellent health. Post-release monitoring 1. Telemetry Telemetry monitoring was carried out following release, with the battery life of the transmitters allowing a maximum monitoring period of 22 days. Birds were radiotracked daily on foot and by kayak using a R1000 receiver (Communications Specialists Inc., Orange, California) and 176 Blue/Blue Purple/Green Pink/Yellow Red/Orange a 3-element yagi aerial (Sirtrack Electronics, Havelock North, New Zealand) to attain a minimum of one fix per bird/per day. Telemetry monitoring was cut short for six birds by the premature detachment of the transmitters resulting in individuals being monitored for 2-16 days (Table 3). The 200-300 m range of the transmitters within the forest was sufficient to confirm the presence or absence of a bird within any patch of mangroves. All birds were found to be alive and close to the reintroduction site 48 hours after release. While one juvenile returned to PTN within the first week following release, the other eight remained near the release site until signals were lost, transmitters fell off or batteries ran out. One juvenile was found dead in the arid zone vegetation 500 m from the release site seven days after release. 2. Observational monitoring Once the transmitters stopped functioning, monitoring was continued through direct observation and listening. Playback was used to elicit response from any mangrove finch in the search area from the mangrove forest at the release site extending up the coast to PTN. Searches were conducted monthly following the end of telemetry monitoring for 4-17 days until May 2011. Observations of ringed birds during fortnightly trips to PTN each month from October to May have continued through the 2011/12 breeding season to May 2012.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 a b Figure 2. a) Adult mangrove finch fitted with radio transmitter and ready for transfer; b) transport boxes with birds inside. Photos: B. Barrett Table 3. Number of days that each bird was monitored and number of fixes obtained using telemetry, whether transmitter was recovered, last date observed with or without telemetry and fate (* successful breeding confirmed). Bird ID Sex No. days radio tracked No. telemetry fixes Transmitter recovered Last date observed Fate orange/green J 5 13 yes 28/05/2010 unknown red/yellow J 2 6 no 27/05/2010 unknown pink/blue F 9 15 yes 15/04/2011 PTN gold/purple M 8 6 no 03/05/2012* PTN blue/blue J 3 5 no 26/05/2011 unknown red M 16 35 no 16/02/2012 PTN purple/green J 7 9 yes 27/05/2010 dead pink/yellow F 6 15 yes 28/05/2010 unknown red/orange J 8 5 no 21/04/2012 PTN For four months following termination of telemetry monitoring, no finches were located at Urbina, despite 232 hours of searching by trained personnel over three separate field trips. In November 2010, however, an adult male at the release site responded to playback and a month later, in December, this bird, along with another adult male, was observed singing back at PTN. These individuals were observed at PTN throughout the breeding seasons of 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, and successful breeding was confirmed for one in 2012. In early 2011 and 2012 the juvenile that returned to PTN soon after translocation was observed, and during May 2011 one of the adult females was found at PTN. All sightings of known transferred individuals were confirmed by reading their color-rings in the field. Conclusions The ability to reduce rat numbers at the release site (Bahía Urbina) over a short period of time demonstrates that a site can be managed for the protection of mangrove finch. The increase in rat numbers seen between November 2010 to April 2011 and November 2011 to March 2012 most likely resulted from the increase in food supply during the wet season. The increase in the rat population during these periods was also evident at PTN where rats were caught for the first time in two years. With the maintenance of poison-bait stations, rat numbers at the release site can be kept significantly lower than without control, even during a wet season. Radio-tracking of mangrove finches following their translocation was successful providing that devices remained attached. Premature detachment of six transmitters resulted in valuable data being lost. The rapid loss of transmitters was likely caused by the prevalence of blood-feathers on the juveniles and adults being in molt. Monitoring by observation and listening surveys was challenging. It took several months following the radiotracking before any birds were re-sighted. No calls were heard until the onset of the breeding season four months 177
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 3. The mangrove finch (Camarhynchus heliobates). Photograph: Michael Dvorak later though birds may have been present. No mangrove finch has been detected at the release site since November 2010. Only one juvenile bird was confirmed returning to the source population immediately following release; this was surprising as it was predicted that adult birds with established territories would be more inclined to return. The presence of three more adult birds at PTN detected in December 2010 indicates that mangrove finches exhibit strong site fidelity and are capable of making relatively long-distance flights over expanses of exposed lava fields. It is known that one of these individuals that had been observed calling and exhibiting mate searching behavior at the release site did return to PTN at the beginning of the breeding season. It is possible that it returned to search for a mate. It is unknown when the other two adults returned. The persistence of at least one bird at the release site for six months and the fact that it was in good enough condition to return to PTN, suggests that the habitat at Bahía Urbina provides sufficient food and shelter for mangrove finches. It is imperative to continue to develop more effective methods based on the lessons learned in this study to re-establish mangrove finch populations outside of the 30 ha in which they currently persist. Until then they will continue to be one of the most threatened birds in the world. 178 Recommendations The trial translocation reported here was successful in advancing the development of translocation techniques for conservation of the mangrove finch. At least four of the birds removed from the source population are once again part of that population. Knowing the fate of over 50% of the translocated birds highlights the ability of dedicated field teams to work with this species. However, the trial translocation was unsuccessful in terms of increasing the range of the species. Additional translocations are needed to re-establish mangrove finch populations across its historic range. We recommend the following actions: • Improve methodologies to increase chances of permanent establishment of new populations; • Conduct a translocation in early 2013 using first clutches at PTN from accessible nests (therefore inducing double-clutching in the source pair) to avoid translocated individuals returning to the source population. Incubate these eggs in situ to avoid disease risk and hand-raise nestlings; aviaries should be constructed at the release site and fledglings held for a month before soft release; • Continue rat control in all mangrove finch sites to protect current and future populations although
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 the isolation of both the source population and new release site makes both regular monitoring and predator control expensive; • • • Acknowledgements This bi-Institutional project between the Charles Darwin Foundation and the Galapagos National Park Service Carry out research to establish methods for was made possible by funding from Darwin Initiative control of P. downsi (this work should be done in and Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust. The proposed collaboration with the mangrove finch project); with translocation in 2013 is funded by IUCN Save Our Species rats significantly reduced through the poison-bait (SOS). None of the challenging field work would have program, P. downsi represents the biggest threat to been possible without the continued commitment and nesting success; motivation from local and international field assistants and volunteers. Continue capacity building in the Galapagos National Park and with other local personnel to ensure that the project continues once international funding expires in 1-3 years; Continue the outreach program; although the mangrove finch is the rarest bird in Galápagos, its plight is relatively unknown. Education activities conducted in Puerto Villamil in support of the project have been well received. References Dvorak M, H Vargas, B Fessl & S Tebbich. 2004. On the verge of extinction: A survey of the Mangrove Finch Cactospiza heliobates and its habitat on the Galápagos Islands. Oryx 38:1-9. Fessl B, H Vargas, V Carrión, R Young, S Deem, J Rodríguez-Matamoros, R Atkinson, O Carvajal, F Cruz, S Tebbich & HG Young (Eds.). 2010a. Galápagos Mangrove Finch Camarhynchus heliobates recovery plan 2010-2015. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Charles Darwin Foundation, Galapagos National Park Service. Fessl B, HG Young, RP Young, J Rodríguez-Matamoros, M Dvorak, S Tebbich & JE Fa. 2010b. How to save the rarest Darwin’s finch from extinction: The Mangrove Finch on Isabela Island. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser B 365:1019-1030. Fessl B, AD Loaiza, S Tebbich & HG Young. 2011. Feeding and nesting requirements of the critically endangered Mangrove Finch Camarhynchus heliobates. J. Ornithol 52:453-460. Seddon PJ, DP Armstrong & RF Maloney. 2007. Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conservation Biology 21:303-312. 179
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Gone, gone…going: The fate of the Vermilion Flycatcher on Darwin´s Islands Godfrey Merlen Independent Scientific Assessor, Galapagos Photograph: Judy Molinaro The Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus) is rapidly disappearing from the human inhabited islands of the Galapagos Archipelago. Already thought extirpated from Floreana and San Cristóbal (pers. com. - Galapagos National Park rangers, tourist guides, residents), a few individuals still remain on Santa Cruz. The IUNC Red List, however, currently classifies it as being a species of “Least Concern.” This article reviews historical records of Vermilion Flycatchers in the Galapagos Islands, discusses potential threats on inhabited islands and presents preliminary data on observations or lack of observations of Vermilion Flycatchers on San Cristóbal, Floreana and Santa Cruz, as well as uninhabited islands. This work was completed with the goal of catalyzing both researchers and natural resource managers to focus on the decline of the Vermilion Flycatcher and potentially other small bird populations, study the reasons for these declines and implement conservation actions to save these species. A widely distributed species with 12 recognized subspecies from the New World Tyrannidae, Vermilion Flycatchers range from the southwest United States and Mexico to Argentina and Peru, with a hiatus in Central America (Figure 1). It is considered the most striking of the New World flycatchers, with coloration of the males being solid black and bright red; in Galapagos it is the only truly bright land bird (Figure 2). While Darwin’s finches are the most famous species demonstrating adaptive radiation in the Galapagos Islands, many other organisms have also undergone speciation, are in the process of speciation, and/or experience genetic drift and founder effects, inducing reduced genetic variability. Amongst these is the Vermilion Flycatcher, with two subspecies endemic to Galapagos: P. r. rubinus and P. r. dubius. Debate is on-going whether these should be considered as separate species from those on the continent or indeed from each other. Harris (1974) reported that Vermilion Flycatchers were present on all of the major islands of Galapagos. Today two populations are considered extirpated (San Cristóbal and Floreana) and a third is in serious decline (Santa Cruz). All of these are on human inhabited islands and the declines have occurred over the last half century. At a time when biodiversity loss on a world scale is of major concern, these unstudied disappearances suggest a lack of attention to portions of the unique biodiversity on Darwin’s Islands. Life history of Vermilion Flycatchers Vermilion Flycatchers live approximately five years, reaching sexual maturity at two years (Alvarez, 2002). They are insectivorous, territorial and monogamous (Harris, 1974). A cup nest of moss or lichen is built 3 to 6 m high in a tree generally 180
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Permanent Resident Breeding Resident Nonbreeding Resident Passage Migrant Uncertain Status Introduced Vagrant Extirpated Historical Records Only National boundary Subnational boundary River Water body Mapa creado en septiembre 2007 Kilómetros Figure 1. Distribution of Vermilion Flycatchers (range data provided by Inonatura/Natureserve; Ridgely et al., 2005). with three eggs laid each year. Breeding occurs during the warm season. In Galapagos, Vermilion Flycatchers are found from the coast to 1400 m in elevation (volcanoes of Isabela and Fernandina Islands). Their typical habitat is Scalesia, Tournefortia, and Zanthoxylum forest; these are the primary forests that have largely disappeared from the inhabited islands due to clearing for agriculture. Potential threats Changed land use, with the loss of much of the Scalesia zone and the formation of monocultures of the introduced raspberry (Rubus niveus), cinchona (Cinchona succirubra) or open grassland with no trees and bushes, may be creating habitat unsuitable for the Vermilion Flycatcher. In recent times, semi-abandoned farmland has become a festering ground for invasive plants, further reducing the native, more complex ecosystems to monocultures. Introduced animals, however, are likely the greatest threat. Introduced mammals that could impact Vermilion Flycatcher populations include Norwegian and black rats (Rattus norvegicus and R. rattus), house mice (Mus musculus), feral cats (Felis catus), and domestic/semiferal dogs (Canis lupus). Introduced birds that could influence these populations include Smooth-billed Anis (Crotophaga ani - in low numbers until El Niño 1982-83 when the population exploded), cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis - very abundant in the farm zone with nightly migrations to the coast), semi-wild chickens (Gallus gallus - present in the farmlands), and domestic doves (Columba livia - once present in the villages but now eradicated). Of particular concern is the introduced parasitic fly Philornis downsi, which is known to cause mortality of nestlings in many of the endemic land birds of Galapagos (Causton et al., this volume). The mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus, the vector for avian malaria and West Nile virus, has also been introduced. Global climate change may bring wetter conditions and worsen the effects of mosquitoes over the long term. An additional threat may be the increase in the use of chemicals for fumigation, such as Deltamethrin and Permethrin. As landowners increase the frequency of applications and the overall volume of chemicals to control introduced plagues, such as fruit flies and mosquitoes, the risks to native biodiversity also increase. Other chemicals that may impact Vermilion Flycatchers, such as Combo, are used to control introduced plants, including guava (Psidium guajava) and cinchona. 181
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 2. Male (red) and female (yellow) Vermilion Flycatchers on Santa Cruz, Galapagos. Photos: Godfrey Merlen Taxonomic confusion of Pyrocephalus In the intense collecting period of Galapagos (1835-1915), many specimens of P. rubinus were gathered. As scientists focused on the process of speciation, the smallest changes in morphology were enough to spur the naming of separate species. 1839. Gould (1839) examined Darwin’s specimens and named two species, P. nanus and P. dubius. 1896. Ridgway (1896) recorded the distribution of five or six species of Vermilion Flycatchers in Galapagos (Figure 3); although he considered that most populations were local races of P. nanus, apart from P. dubius. 1974. Harris (1974) placed all Vermilion Flycatchers in a single species, P. rubinus, with records from all the major islands except Genovesa, with only single records from Española and Wenman. He indicated that they are extinct on Santa Fe and Rábida (two islands with extreme aridity during the dry season). However in the last two years several have been seen on Rábida (F. Cunninghame, pers. com.; D. Geist, pers. com.). 1988. The paleontologist Steadman (1988) referred to two 182 endemic species, P. nanus and P. dubius, following two of the species recorded by Ridgway and thus going back to Darwin’s specimens. His account of Vermilion Flycatchers in Galapagos follows: The Galapagos Vermilion Flycatcher exists in two races: one is confined to San Cristóbal, the other is found on other islands of the archipelago. It has evolved from the Vermilion Flycatcher, Pyrocephalus rubinus, a species commonly found in the Americas. The Galapagos species has been isolated from its mainland counterpart long enough to have developed significant differences: shorter wings and tails, a lighter and duller shade of red in the adult male plumage, and yellow under-parts in adult females rather than the creamy pink, streaked under-parts of mainland females. The song of the Galapagos Vermilion Flycatcher also differs from that of its mainland counterpart. The San Cristóbal Vermilion Flycatcher is smaller and a lighter color in both males and females.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 a 92 91 90 OUTLINE CHART OF THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS I. Wenman (Wolf) b 1 1 3 I. Abingdon (Pinta) 3? I. Tower (Genovesa) I. Bindloe (Marchena) Roca Redonda 0 0 I. James (Santiago) 1 Caleta Tagus 1? I. Duncan (Pinzón) I. Narborough (Fernandina) Punta Cristóbal 1 Pta. Essex I. Albemarle (Isabela) 4 6 I. Jervis (Rábida) 4? 4 I. Indefatigable (Santa Cruz) Islotes Crossman I. Chatham (San Cristóbal) Roca Dalrymple I. Barrington (Santa Fe) 5 1 Islote Brattle 2 I. Charles (Floreana) Roca Black Beach I. Hood (Española) 92 91 90 1. Pyrocephalus nanus, Gould. 2. Pyrocephalus carolensis, Ridgway. 3. Pyrocephalus abingdoni, Ridgway. 4. Pyrocephalus intercedens, Ridgway. 5. Pyrocephalus dubius, Gould. 6. (Forma no determinada). Figure 3. Ranges of populations following Ridgway, 1896. a) copy, b) original map. Historical collections and present-day observations on Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal and Floreana Due to the undocumented but apparent decline in the Vermilion Flycatcher populations on the inhabited islands of Galapagos, I completed a review of the literature and compiled both historical data on Vermilion Flycatcher collections (Table 1) and more recent observations by various individuals. In addition, I retraced the steps of one of the collectors (S. L. Billib in 1961-62) on Santa Cruz and Floreana to highlight significant changes in the populations. For the three inhabited islands under consideration the historical totals are: 90 from Santa Cruz; 151 from Floreana, and 134 from San Cristóbal. None of the other islands with Vermilion Flycatcher collections has exceeded these numbers, suggesting that these islands, which now have severely reduced or extirpated populations, may have been the most densely populated of all the Galapagos Islands. Given sufficient rainfall and age these islands developed substantial forests and a variety of habitats, providing ideal conditions for this species. Local park rangers have indicated that they believe the Vermilion Flycatcher to have been extirpated from San Cristóbal a few decades ago. David Steadman (1988) stated that they were “extremely rare” when he visited the island, but added that records from 1929 indicate that they were “all along the main trail” from the coast to the highlands at that time. Vermilion Flycatchers were extirpated from Floreana more recently, perhaps just a few years ago [pers. com. – Galapagos National Park (GNP) personnel and C. Cruz, a resident farmer]. On Santa Cruz, Vermilion Flycatchers are currently unseen in many places where they were consistently present 20 or more years ago (author, pers. obs.; R. Sievers, pers. com.). In 2010-2011, Mandy Trueman walked the perimeter of the agricultural zone (approximately 64 km), the length of which is all potential Pyrocephalus habitat, and saw only one Vermilion Flycatcher (CDRS, pers. com.). In July 2012, Volker Koch repeated the same walk, also with only a single sighting (CDRS, pers. com.). Present day distribution on Santa Cruz appears to be peripheral to the farming zone, with the greatest abundance on the north and northwest side of the central ridge where there is a remnant Scalesia forest (author, pers. obs.; T. de Roy, pers. com.; M. Dvorak, pers. com.). 183
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Number of Vermilion Flycatcher specimens collected by Habel in 1868 (Sclater & Salvin, 1870), Baur in 1888-1891 (Ridgway, 1896), and by the California Academy of Sciences (CAS, online). The islands listed include only those where P. rubinus were collected. Collection numbers are separated into adult or immature males and adult or immature females where such information is available. No juveniles were collected. The three inhabited islands that are the focus of this article are highlighted. Collection years - Island 1868 Total Adult male Immature male Adult female Immature female Dr. Habel – collected in 1868 from a vessel gathering “orchilla” (a lichen used in dying textiles) Santa Cruz 24 Marchena 3 Pinta 0 Unidentified 1 TOTAL 1888-1891 28 Dr. G. Baur and the United States National Museum Santiago 6 2 2 Santa Cruz 5 3 2 Floreana 7 4 1 2 Pinta 12 7 1 4 S. Cristóbal 20 12 2 5 (1?) N. Isabela 2 2 TOTAL 52 30 8 13 (1?) 1898-1962 S. Cristóbal 2 California Academy of Sciences (CAS) collection. The majority of the 419 Vermilion Flycatcher specimens were collected during the 1905-6 expedition (n=344); Snodgrass & Heller collected in 1898-99 (n=39); Crocker in 1932 (n=2); Swarth & Crocker in 1932 (n=2), and Billib in 1961-62 (n=32). See Reference: CAS, online. 114 60 40 14 Floreana 133 CAS+10 Billib 1962 80 36 17 Santa Cruz 40 CAS+21 Billib 1961 28 6 6 Isabela 45 30 12 3 Santiago 22 9 11 2 Pinzón 10 6 3 1 Marchena 7 5 1 1 Pinta 5 4 1 Fernandina 4 3 1 Rábida 3 1 2 Isla Wolf 1 Baltra 1 Guayaquil – continental Ecuador 2 TOTAL 418 1 1 227 Colonization and its effect on historical collections Colonization of the Galapagos Islands began in 1832 on Floreana. The first permanent settlement on San Cristóbal began in 1851, on Isabela in 1893, and on Santa Cruz in 184 114 44 the 1920s. The principal activity of these early colonists was farming, which could only be practiced in the wetter “highlands” where some soil was available. This resulted in the settlers blazing trails through the dense, spiny, and waterless coastal zone, up through the transitional vegetation, to the green uplands where people then
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Puerto Ayora (Academy Bay) Bellavista (Fortuna) Farms Trail to Media Luna Figure 4. Billib´s collection path on Santa Cruz from the coast to the highlands. lived. Settlers cleared the land, established villages and introduced many domestic animals and plants, all of which resulted in major ecological changes to the primary habitat of the Vermilion Flycatcher. This “invasion” of the highland areas made access easy for collectors and no doubt was responsible for the large collections made by CAS in 1905-6 on Floreana and San Cristóbal but not on Santa Cruz, an island that had not yet been settled. For example, the CAS only collected 30 specimens in 19056 from Santa Cruz where there were no established trails into the highlands, while they collected well over 100 on both Floreana and San Cristóbal where well-worn trails existed. Billib’s collection of 21 Vermilion Flycatchers in 14 days on one trail on Santa Cruz suggests that their numbers remained high on Santa Cruz even 50 years ago. Retracing the steps of Billib Billib collected Vermilion Flycatcher specimens in 1961-62 on both Santa Cruz and Floreana (Table 2). Given that his collection path on Santa Cruz was from the coast (Puerto Ayora) along the early donkey trail to Fortuna (Bellavista) and then followed the Media Luna trail alongside the Horneman and Kastdalen farms (Figure 4), I was able to follow in his footsteps to look for birds. I also made a visit to the Wittmer farm, where Billib collected his specimens on Floreana, to make comparative observations. In April 2012, during the Vermilion Flycatcher breeding season when there is an abundance of insects, I walked the trails on Santa Cruz exactly as I perceived Billib did. I stopped every 200 yards to observe and to call a “wishing” noise that attracts birds, and logged altitude at each stop using a Garmin Legend GPS. I watched carefully for the distinct flight of the male vermilion flycatcher – a slow climb singing, followed by a vertical fall. Neither perching nor flying Vermilion Flycatchers were located anywhere along the 9.6-km transect. The old trail is still intact through a semi-open forest to about 120 m, where it opens out with occasional houses and probably more grass than previously. Bellavista is a small village but the Horneman and Kastdalen farms (established in 1935, at 220-276 m) are mostly grassy with occasional stands of trees. Mari Kastdalen stated that there are no longer any Vermilion Flycatchers around the farmhouse (254 m or 826 ft). I proceeded northward through the farm to the national park boundary at 507 m (1663 ft) with no sightings. I then continued down the Media Luna trail back to Bellavista. Two farmers I encountered at 246 m (800 ft) remembered having seen “los brujitos” (Vermilion Flycatchers) but could not recall the year. 185
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 On 22 September 2012, I visited the Wittmer farm at Asilo de la Paz (319 m = 1000 ft indicated by Billib), where Billib made his collections on Floreana. Nestled between extinct volcanic cones, the farm was cut out of the highland Scalesia forest. The farm has been split in two by the road that accesses the fresh water spring at Asilo de la Paz. Today it is covered with grass and a few trees; perhaps not so different from 1962. While unsure of the original boundaries of the farm, I quartered the present acreage from every angle over approximately four hours and extended the search at all cardinal points. The weather was a mix of rain, low cloud, and some sunshine. Net result: not a single bird. Table 2. Records of the Vermilion Flycatcher specimens collected by Billib in 1961-62, indicating catalogue number at the California Academy of Science (CAS), date, sex and location and elevation on Santa Cruz and Floreana. See reference: CAS, online. Catalogue No. CAS Date Sex Location Elevation (feet) 86201 13 Nov 1961 F 3 miles (4.8 km) N of Puerto Ayora (PA) 500 02 “ “ 500 03 “ “ 500 04 “ “ 500 05 “ “ 500 06 “ “ 500 07 16 Nov 1961 Trail to Fortuna 350 08 21 Nov 1961 ½ mile N PA Coastal 09 22 Nov 1961 ½ mile N PA Coastal 10 25 Nov 1961 Trail to Fortuna 300 11 “ “ 300 12 “ “ 300 13 “ “ 350 14 “ “ 350 15 “ “ 400 16 “ “ 400 17 “ “ 450 18 27 Nov 1961 Kastdalen farm 800 19 28 Nov 1961 Horneman farm 775 20 “ “ 775 21 “ “ 775 22 24 Jan 1962 Wittmer farm, Floreana 1000 23 “ “ 1000 24 “ “ 1000 25 26 Jan 1962 “ 1000 26 27 Jan 1962 “ 1000 27 “ “ 1000 28 28 Jan 1962 “ 1000 29 29 Jan 1962 “ 1000 30 30 Jan 1962 “ 1000 31 “ M M M M M M M F M F M F F M F M M M F M M F M M M M M M M M “ 1000 32 “ ? Floreana - complete skeleton collected by RI Bowman - in collection of SL Billib 1000 * Fortuna was identified by Carmen Angermeyer as the present village square of Bellavista. The Kastdalen, Horneman, and Wittmer farms are at wellknown locations. 186
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Vermilion Flycatcher observations on uninhabited islands Francesca Cunninghame (CDF) also kindly provided me with her data on the remarkable abundance of Vermilion Flycatchers on Pinzón in 2012 (Table 3), collected while making an intensive survey of hawks. This is all the more impressive for the altitudinal range and the survival of the population amongst a high population of introduced rats and the presence of Smooth-billed Anis, two of the predators most often suggested as the potential cause of the decline of Vermilion Flycatchers on inhabited islands. Although the species appears to be abundant, we have no assurance that this island will not be next in line to lose this species, especially given its proximity to Santa Cruz and the general lack of knowledge of the real reason for the population declines on the inhabited islands. For comparison purposes, I collected information on personal observations of Vermilion Flycatchers on some of the uninhabited islands from scientists, GNP personnel and others, as well as my own observations on some of these islands. This information indicates that the species is still common or abundant on Fernandina (author, pers. obs.), Pinta (S Blake, pers. com.), Alcedo volcano on Isabela - with 1.5 birds/km seen bordering the Scalesia forest (S Blake, pers. com.), and Wolf volcano on Isabela (W Tapia, pers. com.). Table 3. Abundance of Vermilion Flycatchers on Pinzón in August of 2012 (F Cunninghame, pers. com., 2012). Date Pairs Males 8 June 2012 8 July 2012 Females 1 Zone Arid coastal 2 Arid 2 Transition 1 Humid 8 August 2012 1 4 2 Arid 8 September 2012 3 2 2 Humid 8 October 2012 2 3 3 Arid TOTAL* 9 12 7 *Could include the same birds as the observations are in different months. Conclusions The combination of personal observations from scientists, park rangers and local residents on Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal and Floreana, along with my own observations on Santa Cruz and Floreana, in comparison with historical data, provide strong evidence of the decline of Vermilion Flycatchers on these three islands, in stark contrast with the abundant populations on many of the uninhabited islands. Key conclusions of this review include: 1. Vermilion Flycatchers on the inhabited islands of San Cristóbal, Floreana, and Santa Cruz were abundant 110 years ago, probably even 50 years ago. They were probably extirpated from San Cristóbal a few decades ago and more recently on Floreana. Currently the population is in steep decline on Santa Cruz, with the remaining population centered on the areas peripheral to the farming zone. The reason(s) for the declines is not determined. 2. Although Vermilion Flycatchers seem to be in decline, other species of small insectivorous birds on both inhabited and uninhabited islands, particularly Yellow Warblers (Dendroica petechia) and Galapagos Flycatchers (Myiarchus magnirostris) appear to be ubiquitous and common. 3. Although many have suggested that the decline of Vermilion Flycatchers on the inhabited islands is due to predation by Smooth-billed Anis, this is not substantiated by recorded fact or by stomach contents from anis. Nevertheless the explosion in the ani population after the 1982-83 El Niño (the three records of anis listed in Harris, 1974, which were considered to be Groove-billed Ani, Crotophaga sulcirostris, were probably Smooth-billed Anis that were misidentified) coincides with the rapid decline of Vermilion Flycatchers on Santa Cruz and Floreana. However the Vermilion Flycatcher population on San Cristóbal was already low by that time. In addition, Vermilion Flycatchers are still relatively abundant on Pinzón, an island sometimes frequented by Smoothbilled Anis. Recommendations The situation of the Vermilion Flycatcher on inhabited islands is critical. A series of studies and conservation actions are urgently needed to ensure that this species does not go extinct on Santa Cruz and to try to reestablish it on both San Cristóbal and Floreana. Based on this review, the following is recommended: 1. Study the current decline of P. rubinus and determine the cause(s). It may be a good indicator species for 187
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 ecological changes; documenting and understanding the declines of Vermilion Flycatcher populations may help save both this species as well as others. 2. Initiate a long-term monitoring program for small bird populations (all species), especially on the inhabited islands, to provide timely information on population declines and the potential for immediate action on part of researchers and managers. 3. Expand research to determine potential and existing threats to small bird species on human-inhabited islands – including introduced species, the use of chemicals, habitat destruction, etc. 4. Carry out a nesting study of Vermilion Flycatchers on Pinzón in 2013 to gain data on reproductive success in the presence of Crotofaga ani and following the rat eradication efforts in November 2012. 6. Perform a threat status evaluation of P. rubinus in Galapagos, including a review of its taxonomy, for the IUCN Red List; ensure that both the Charles Darwin Foundation and GNP websites clarify the status of these birds. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the following individuals for their willingness to share information concerning sightings of Vermilion Flycatchers in order that these small birds of Galapagos are given the attention they deserve: Mandy Trueman, Steve Blake, Mikael Dvorak, Rolf Sievers, Noémi d’Ozouville, Volker Koch, Mari Kastdalen, Carmen Angermeyer, and Tui de Roy. Galapagos Conservancy provided funding for this review. 5. Increase protection of pristine or near pristine islands to ensure the long-term protection of Galapagos biodiversity. References Alvarez T. 2002. “Pyrocephalus rubinus” (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed 28 July 2012 at: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Pyrocephalus_rubinus.html California Academy of Sciences (CAS). Online. CAS Ornithology Collection Data Base. Galapagos Vermilion Flycatcher. http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/bmammals/BirdColl/Index.asp Gould J. 1839. Birds, Part 3 (2). In C Darwin (ed.), 1839. The zoology of the voyage of HMS Beagle. Smith Elder and Co, London. Harris M. 1974. A field guide to the birds of Galapagos. Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc. New York. 160 pp. Ridgely RS, TF Allnutt, T Brooks, DK McNicol, DW Mehlman, BE Young & JR Zook. 2005. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 2.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Ridgway R. 1896. Birds of the Galapagos Archipelago. Proceedings of the United States National Museum Volume XlX, No. 1116. Sclater PL & O Salvin. 1870. Characters of new species collected by Dr Habel in the Galapagos Islands. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1870:322-327. Steadman DW. 1988. Galapagos: discovery on Darwin’s Islands. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington DC. 188
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Recovery of native and endemic plant species in Galapagos: The nursery as an important tool in ecological restoration Xavier Arturo-López and Danny Rueda Galapagos National Park Service Photograph: Patricia Jaramillo Ecological restoration involves the return of a degraded ecosystem to a condition close to its original state through the acceleration of changes in the composition and structure of the vegetation, or by reinitiating succession processes. Ecological restoration processes often require access to large quantities of diverse, high quality plant material. A conservation nursery provides a useful mechanism for the production of the plants needed to implement resource protection and ecosystem recovery strategies. The conservation nursery is also designed to contribute to the management of native and endemic species that are not commonly produced or handled by commercial nurseries. In Galapagos, 352 native and 238 endemic plants have been recorded (Galapagos Herbarium, CDF - 2008). One of the main threats to Galapagos ecosystems is the introduction of species via anthropogenic activities (Loope et al., 1988); the spread of invasive species often results in the displacement of native and endemic species. From a total of 190 endemic plant species evaluated, it is estimated that nearly 13% is critically endangered, 15% endangered and 32% vulnerable, which means that 60% of the endemic flora of Galapagos is threatened (Tye, 2002). Recent data indicate that the number of introduced plant species has exceeded 917, with the highest concentration of introduced and invasive species occurring in urban and agricultural zones of the inhabited islands, from which their seeds then disperse to areas of the Galapagos National Park (Schofield, 1973; Lawesson & Ortiz, 1994). Critically endangered species face a high risk of extinction and their future depends entirely on conservation actions, especially in the inhabited islands such as Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal, Isabela and Floreana (Tye, 2007). Exploitation or overexploitation of native forest resources, such as Piscidia carthagenensis and Psidium galapageium, and the fragmentation of Scalesia pedunculata, Psychotria rufipes and Zanthoxylum fagara forests have given way to the expansion of agricultural areas, which has endangered certain species (FUNDAR, 2008). Because of this, it is necessary to develop restoration strategies using management tools to increase and improve the quantity and quality of vegetation and restore ecosystem connectivity. This article presents the results obtained by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS), from September 2010 to December 2011, related to the production of native and endemic plants and efforts to advance ecological restoration processes in agricultural and protected areas. 189
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 1. Scalesia pedunculata plants produced in the GNPS nursery - Santa Cruz. The conservation nurseries initiative Currently the eradication or control of introduced plant and/or animal species is the primary tool used in Galapagos for restoration of native vegetation. However, such measures are insufficient, especially in highly degraded areas. To achieve the long-term vision for the conservation of the biodiversity of Galapagos ecosystems, planting native or endemic species is required, especially in certain degraded areas of the inhabited islands. In 2010, the GNPS began a long-term restoration program through the production of large numbers of native and endemic Galapagos plants in its conservation nursery. These plants are then transplanted in degraded areas of high ecological value to advance ecological restoration. Nurseries play an important role in restoration and conservation projects. They permit the production of large quantities of target species to meet the demands of restoration programs, and promote an appreciation for native forests. The nursery project of the GNPS also generates knowledge to help determine which species work best and how to produce a quality product with reduced mortality rates in the field. This strategy helps to increase plant survival and reduce establishment costs (Figure 1). Methodology The work presented in this report was carried out in the conservation nursery of the GNPS, located in the Salasaca 190 sector on Santa Cruz Island. During 2010 and 2011, the nursery worked with 11 plant species (Table 1). Plants were produced via sexual methods (seeds) and asexual methods (cuttings). Species were selected based on the conditions of the areas identified for restoration. For example, areas with a great deal of sunlight require species with rapid growth that need high levels of light, such as Scalesia pedunculata. Two methods were used to germinate seeds: soaking them in water for 24 to 72 hours, and alternating soakingdrying and scarification (scratching). Mature, healthy seeds were selected and inspected to insure they did not have mechanical damage and were of an appropriate size for the species. Once the treatment was completed, the seeds were sown directly into germination beds, with a base of peat and coconut fiber. Once germinated, seedlings were kept in the nursery for 70 to 90 days. When they reached a height of 7-12 cm, they were transplanted to growth containers (black polyethylene bags filled with substrate). Transplanting occurred when the seedlings reached 45 to 75 cm in length (Figure 2). Cuttings used to produce plants measured between 15 and 25 cm depending on the species, and were planted directly onto the substrate. Organic products were used to facilitate rooting. Results Between September 2010 and December 2011, 50,339 native and endemic seedlings were produced: 16,308 in
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Native and endemic plant species grown in the nursery of the GNPS, 2010-2011. Family Species Common name Origin Verbenaceae Clerodendrum molle Glorybower Native Boraginaceae Cordia lutea Yellow cordia Native Malvaceae Gossypium darwinii Darwin’s cotton Endemic Euphorbiaceae Hippomane mancinella Poison apple Native Celastraceae Maytenus octogona Maytenus Native Fabaceae Piscidia carthagenensis Piscidia Native Myrtaceae Psidium galapageium Galapagos guava Endemic Rubiacea Psychotria rufipes White wild coffee Endemic Asteraceae Scalesia helleri Heller’s Scalesia Endemic Asteraceae Scalesia pedunculata Tree Scalesia Endemic Rutaceae Zanthoxylum fagara Cat’s claw Native 2010 and 34,031 in 2011. The increase in the number of seedlings in 2011 is due to the fact that 11 species were produced that year, compared to only six during the previous year. The seedlings were used for ecological restoration programs in Santa Cruz. A total of 41,559 specimens were planted on nearly 54 ha distributed in the agricultural zone and in protected areas of the Galapagos National Park (GNP). The restoration sites within the GNP were primarily sites where introduced plants are controlled, such as Los Gemelos (1.5 ha). Forty hectares of the 100ha parcel in Salasaca that was incorporated into the GNP as a protected area in 2009 (and where the conservation nursery is located) were restored with endemic and native seedlings. Twelve hectares of coffee plantations associated with the endemic species Scalesia pedunculata were also restored. The number of seedlings of each species depended on the needs of the different restoration programs. Since most of the restoration sites were located in the humid and transition zones, the species that were most produced in the nursery were Scalesia pedunculata, Clerodendrum molle, Piscidia carthagenensis, Zanthoxylum fagara and Psidium galapageium. Conclusions and recommendations During the first two years of the restoration program (September 2010 to December 2011), the conservation nursery produced a total of 50,339 plants. Of these, 41,559 were planted on 54 ha designated for restoration, including agricultural areas and areas within the GNP. In order to improve and increase the variety of plant species in both agricultural and protected areas undergoing ecological restoration, the number of species included in the nursery was slowly increased, reaching a maximum of 11 species in late 2011. The results have shown that the most useful plants for ecological restoration should be: 1) native to the restoration site; 2) easily propagated; 3) resistant to limiting conditions such as low fertility, drought and compacted soils; 4) rapid growth species with good production of organic matter such as leaf litter, and 5) species that favor restoration of other species of native and endemic flora and fauna by providing minimum habitat conditions for their development. The species of greatest demand was Scalesia pedunculata (17,959 plants produced), followed by Clerodendrum molle (8758 plants produced). These two species were the most useful in restoration areas. Both grow well by sexual and asexual reproduction, in comparison with other species. Therefore, large-scale production of these two species was initiated. It was determined that the best season for planting or transplanting is during the winter when the quantity and frequency of rainfall provides sufficient conditions for plant survival. The nurseries associated with the ecological restoration programs in San Cristóbal and Isabela use the same approach. Every restoration project should define the type of plants required to meet its objectives. It is important that the GNPS knows what projects are underway within the region and what type and number of plants will be needed for restoration, so that annual goals can be established for the nursery. For coastal and arid areas, the development of native gardens in urban and rural areas should be continued to prevent the entry and spread of exotic species. A restoration project can be considered successful when it has met both its short- and long-term goals. Continued monitoring of areas reforested with plants from the nursery is needed to determine the level of success and to make improvements to the program. Success requires continuity of effort from the initial work in the 191
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Figure 2. Development and acclimatization of Scalesia pedunculata plants in the GNPS nursery. nurseries through the recovery of ecosystem dynamics, functionality, resilience and stability; in other words, until the restored area is self-sustaining. The strategies for the conservation of biodiversity of the flora of Galapagos include management of biological corridors, the establishment and improvement of living fences (ensuring that they do not impact migration of giant tortoises and other endemic and native animals), and habitat improvements in remnant and connecting areas. Restoration projects should give priority to the establishment of native and endemic plants, producing a high number of plant species that are adapted to the climate and soil conditions of each location. Success requires ¨the right plant in the right place,¨ depending on the location of each area that is to be restored. Acknowledgments The conservation nursery program for plant production and ecosystem restoration was supported by Conservation International, FUNDAR Galápagos, and the Fabricio Valverde Recycling Center of Santa Cruz. References FUNDAR. 2008. Manual de especies nativas y endémicas de Galápagos para la restauración ecológica en la zona agropecuaria. Proyecto: Estrategias agropecuarias para Galápagos. Galapagos – Ecuador. Galapagos Herbarium - CDF. 2008. Data base ACCESS. Flora of Galapagos. Charles Darwin Foundation - Charles Darwin Research Station. Galapagos, Ecuador. Lawesson JE & L Ortíz. 1994. Plantas introducidas en las Islas Galápagos. In: Lawesson JE, O Hamann, G Rogers, G Reck & H Ochoa (eds.). Botanical Research and Management in Galapagos Island. Monographs in Sistematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden. 32:201-210. Loope LL, O Hamann & CP Stone. 1988. Comparative conservation biology of oceanic archipelago. Hawaii and the Galapagos. In: Tye A. Can we infer island introduction and naturalization rates from inventory data. Evidence from introduced plants in Galapagos. Biological Invasion (2006) 8:201-215. Tye A. 2002. Revisión del estado de amenaza de la flora endémica de Galápagos. In: Informe Galápagos 2001-2002. WWFFundación Natura, Quito. Pp 116-122. Tye A. 2007. La flora endémica de Galápagos: Aumentan las especies amenazadas. In: Informe Galápagos 2006-2007. FCD, PNG & INGALA. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador, Pp 101-107. Schofield EK. 1973. Galápagos flora: the threat of introduced plants. Biological Conservation. 5:48-51. 192
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Scalesia pedunculata forest. Photograph: Patricia Jaramillo. 193
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Increasing the scale of successful invasive rodent eradications in the Galapagos Islands Karl J. Campbell1,2, Victor Carrión1,3 and Christian Sevilla3 Island Conservation, 2School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, 3Galapagos National Park Service 1 Julia Ponder with the twentieth Galapagos hawk placed in temporary captivity. Photograph: ©Rory Stansbury, Island Conservation Background Introduced rodents are major drivers of extinctions on islands, impact agricultural production, consume and spoil stored foods, and spread diseases that impact human health (Towns et al., 2006; Varnham, 2010). Introduced rodents impact the reproduction of native vegetation through seedling and seed predation, and prey on invertebrates, land and seabirds, and reptiles (Towns et al., 2006). In Galapagos, introduced rodents have negatively impacted natural ecosystems by contributing to the extinction of endemic rice rats, declines in giant tortoise populations, and declines and extirpations of land and seabirds and other fauna (Cruz & Cruz, 1987; Dowler et al., 2000; MacFarland et al., 1974; Steadman & Stafford, 1991). By consuming seeds and seedlings they impede regeneration and alter forest dynamics, affecting entire ecosystems (Clark, 1981). Impacts on invertebrates have not been quantified in the Galapagos but likely occur based on impacts elsewhere (Towns et al., 2006). The eradication of invasive rodents is possible; over 360 rodent eradications on islands worldwide have been successful to date. Anticoagulant rodenticides have made these eradications possible, using aerial bait application methods on large islands and those with rough terrain. Rodent eradications on islands as large as 11,300 ha (Campbell Island, New Zealand with Rattus norvegicus) have been successful. Success of a recent eradication attempt on the even larger Macquarie Island, Australia (12,870 ha), with both mice (Mus musculus) and black rats (Rattus rattus) is awaiting confirmation. Rodent eradication allows extant plant and animal populations to recover, creates additional habitat for extirpated species, which can then recolonize or be reintroduced, and provides rodent-free habitat for conservation introductions to occur (Bellingham et al., 2010). In 2007, a roadmap for a programmatic step-by-step approach to introduced rodent eradications in Galapagos was developed to prevent imminent extinctions (FCD / SPNG 2007). Each step builds local capacity and knowledge, and each subsequent step involves progressively larger and more complex eradications. In late 2007, a hand-baiting rat eradication on North Seymour Island (184 ha) was successful. We report here on the second step, in 2011, involving the aerial broadcast of bait to target three introduced rodent species on Rábida, Bartolomé, Sombrero Chino, and nine smaller islands. Methods and results Since the North Seymour rat eradication was completed in 2007, more than two years of planning, trials and groundwork were required to prepare for aerial 194
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Rory Stansbury, Island Conservation baiting operations. Bait color choice trials with finches determined that blue baits were least preferred by finches, and baits in this color would therefore minimize risk to finches (Carrión Bonilla, 2009). Blue non-toxic bait uptake trials with mockingbirds, finches, other land birds, lava lizards and tortoises were conducted. A toxic bait trial using Conservation 25D (Bell Laboratories, Wisconsin), a cereal bait with 25 ppm brodifacoum formulated for dry conditions with a pyranine biomarker, was conducted with before and after monitoring on Plaza Norte, allowing for the potential population level impacts of baiting to be determined (IC / CDF, 2010). A non-target risk assessment was conducted for all vertebrate species present on Pinzón, Rábida and other islands proposed for rodent eradication (Table 1). The assessment determined likely low risk, with high uncertainty, for island endemic Pinzón tortoises and Pinzón lava lizards. This high level of uncertainty was considered unacceptable for these island endemics and it was recommended to delay implementation on Pinzón and conduct additional trials for these species. Mitigation actions proposed for Plaza Sur land iguanas, which have unique genetics (Tzika et al., 2008), also delayed the proposed eradication of mice from that island. The nontarget risk assessment identified Galapagos Hawks to be at high risk and this was considered unacceptable on Pinzón due to their conservation status and the unique genetics of the Pinzón population (Bollmer et al., 2006). Hawks were also present on other islands to be targeted - Rábida, Bainbridge #3, and Bartolomé, all of which form part of the Santiago Hawk population. To build capacity in hawk mitigation measures leading up to Pinzón it was decided to capture and temporarily hold hawks from these islands in captivity until the risk to hawks from eating toxic rodent carcasses and other prey was minimal. An implementation plan was produced that detailed logistics, roles and responsibilities of personnel, baiting rates, and methods, among other details. The operation was to be timed during the dry season when natural foods for rodents are most limited. The operation was to occur in November 2010, but delays in the contracting of the helicopter caused the operation to occur in January 2011. The Technical Council of the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) reviewed and validated the non-target risk assessment, implementation and hawk mitigation plans. In accordance with the implementation plan, bait buckets were calibrated on the abandoned airstrip on Baltra with non-toxic bait to ensure buckets would disperse the precise amount of bait. Two aerially applied bait applications on the 12 target islands occurred on 7-8 and 14-15 January 2011. Bait was applied using a helicopter with a bait-spreader bucket flown along predesignated GPS lines by a specialist pilot to accurately ‘paint’ the island in parallel swaths. The coast was flown 195
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Table 1. Islands proposed for the initial aerial baiting campaign to eradicate rodents. Due to uncertainty of risks to island endemic reptiles and mitigation plans for land iguanas, eradications on Pinzón and Plaza Sur Islands were postponed. No. Island Area (ha) Eradication target 1 Rábida 499 Rattus norvegicus 2 Bartolomé 124 Rattus rattus 3 Islote Gran Felipe 0.4 Rattus rattus 4 Plaza Norte 8.8 Mus musculus 5 Roca Beagle Oeste 4.3 Rattus rattus 6 Roca Beagle Sur 8.7 Rattus rattus 7 Roca Beagle Norte 0.7 Rattus rattus 8 Bainbridge #1 11.4 Rattus rattus 9 Bainbridge #3 w/lagoon 18.3 Rattus rattus 10 Bainbridge #5 4.1 Rattus rattus 11 Bainbridge #6 4.5 Rattus rattus 12 Sombrero Chino 20.9 Rattus rattus Total 705.1 Postponed Islands originally proposed Pinzón 1,815 Rattus rattus Plaza Sur 11.9 Mus musculus with a directional bait bucket to minimize bait entering the marine environment. Each bait application across the 12 islands took two days, and applications were seven days apart. Total bait applications were 19-22 kg/ ha for most coastal areas and 9-12 kg/ha for inland areas. Tourist sites (Rábida, Bartolomé, and Sombrero Chino) were temporarily closed during the bait application, with GNPS staff providing interpretation to boat passengers and crews. Informative warning signs were placed at landing sites. Local and national press attended the second application on Rábida, and press releases were distributed by the GNPS and project partners. Twenty hawks from Rábida, Bainbridge #3, and Bartolomé were captured prior to baiting and temporarily held in captivity in aviaries on Santiago for six weeks. All 20 hawks survived and were released with radiotelemetry transmitters in healthy condition. A before-after-control-impact study was conducted to determine the potential risk of the bait application for populations of non-target species and to provide a baseline for post-eradication environmental monitoring. This study design incorporates a control, in this case an unbaited island, to account for seasonal fluctuations. Pinzón was used as a control and Rábida, Bartolomé, Bainbridge #3 and Beagle Sur as treatment islands (CDF / CCAL, 2011). There were no significant changes in the Galapagos Dove population due to baiting. Ground finches experienced a significant seasonal decrease on the control island and a minor increase on baited islands. Lava lizards experienced significant increases on baited islands, possibly due to a lack of predation and subsequent population recruitment. No species 196 monitored underwent significant declines; however Short-eared Owls on the treatment islands were likely negatively impacted by secondary poisoning. However it is expected that populations on these islands will quickly recover due to immigration. After one year of monitoring, Galapagos Hawks have shown a mixed response (Ponder & Cunninghame, 2012). On Rábida, only one of the original seven hawks remains; three are confirmed dead, three are missing. However, at least five hawks that were not originally present have been sighted on the island since the eradication event. On Bainbridge #3, all hawks survived, with one male dispersing to Santiago, and two young being fledged in 2011. Sullivan Bay (Bartolomé) hawks are all still alive, with a juvenile having dispersed to the Santiago highlands. There appears to have been an adjustment in hawk carrying capacity on Rábida, perhaps as the result of short-term food availability or changes in behavior. Two breeding seasons of monitoring is required before rodent eradication campaigns can be declared successful. This has now been completed and Rábida and nine other islets have been confirmed to be free of introduced rodents. However, rats have been detected on Sombrero Chino and Bartolomé and work is underway to compare genetic samples from before and after the eradication attempt to determine whether the attempts there failed or whether reinvasion has occurred. As both islands are within the known swimming distance of rats from Santiago, reinvasion is suspected. Reinvasion was thought likely and treating these islands allowed us to test the time until reinvasion.
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 Photograph: Rory Stansbury, Island Conservation A suite of biodiversity benefits from the introduced rodent eradications are slowly being revealed and documented. On Rábida, a gecko was found during monitoring in late 2012. The only known geckos from Rábida were recorded from subfossils estimated at more than 5700 years old, which were only classified to genus (Steadman & Stafford, 1991). The species of gecko present is currently being identified. Live Rábida Island endemic land snails (Bulimulus (Naesiotus) rabidensis), not seen since collected over 100 years ago, were collected in late 2012 (C. Parent, pers. com.). A second species of land snail, potentially endemic but not yet identified, was also found on Rábida post rat eradication and is considered a new record for the island (C. Parent, pers. com.). Post eradication, several new records of plant species for Rábida have also been added to the island’s inventory, including several threatened species (P. Jaramillo, pers. com.). projects such as these will facilitate future successes. Lessons learned from this eradication will be applied to Pinzón and Plaza Sur, and later to rodent and cat eradication on Floreana. Planning for work on Floreana is underway and involves the local community. This is in line with the programmatic roadmap developed in 2007 (FCD / SPNG, 2007). Challenges on Floreana include the large scale (17,253 ha), livestock, pets, and working with the community to develop solutions from which they will genuinely benefit. With successful rodent eradication projects throughout the archipelago, imminent extinctions of native and endemic flora and fauna can be halted and ecosystems recover. Recommendations We recommend that the process outlined here for Rábida and other islands be repeated for Pinzón and Plaza Sur with mitigation conducted for non-target species determined to be at unacceptable risk. Monitoring of short- and medium-term impacts should continue as this will allow non-target risk assessments to be refined and improve predictions of ecosystem response. Continuing to increase local capacity to conduct major restoration 197
    • GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012 References Bellingham PJ, DR Towns, ED Cameron, JJ Davis, DA Wardle, JM Wilmshurst & CPH Mulder. 2010. New Zealand island restoration: seabirds, predators, and the importance of history. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34:115-136. Bollmer JL, RT Kimball, NK Whiteman, JH Sarasola & PG Parker. 2006. Phylogeography of the Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis): A recent arrival to the Galapagos Islands. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution 39:237-247. Carrión Bonilla AL. 2009. Preferencias de color de alimento en pinzones de Darwin y cucuves de Galápagos: implicaciones para disminuir la muerte accidental por consumo de veneno. Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito. CDF / CCAL. 2011. DRAFT Conservation Measures Pre- and Post-eradication Summary Data (Galapagos, Ecuador). Charles Darwin Foundation, Galapagos Islands & Conservation and Coastal Action Laboratory, University of California Santa Cruz. Clark DA. 1981. Foraging patterns of black rats across a desert-montane forest gradient in the Galapagos Islands. Biotropica 13:182-194. Cruz JB & F Cruz. 1987. Conservation of the dark-rumped petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Biological Conservation 42:303-311. Dowler RC, DS Carroll & CW Edwards. 2000. Rediscovery of rodents (Genus Nesoryzomys) considered extinct in the Galapagos Islands. Oryx 34:109-117. FCD / SPNG. 2007. Proyecto Pinzón: Restauración de los ecosistemas de las Islas Galápagos mediante la eliminación de roedores introducidos. Reporte Final del Taller de Galápagos: Desarrollando una Estrategia para la Erradicación de Roedores Introducidos en el Archipiélago de Galápagos. 2-12 Abril, 2007. Charles Darwin Foundation / Galapagos National Park, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos. IC / CDF. 2010. Non-target risk assessment for rodenticide applications in the Galapagos Islands. Island Conservation and Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos. MacFarland CG, J Villa & B Toro. 1974. The Galapagos giant tortoises (Geochelone elephantopus) Part I: Status of the surviving populations. Biological Conservation 6:118-133. Ponder J & F Cunninghame. 2012. Proyecto Rábida: Hawk mitigation report and future recommendations. The Raptor Center / Charles Darwin Foundation. Steadman D & T Stafford. 1991. Chronology of Holocene vertebrate extinction in the Galapagos Islands. Quaternary research 36:126-133. Towns DR, IAE Atkinson & CH Daugherty. 2006. Have the harmful effects of introduced rats on islands been exaggerated? Biological Invasions 8:863-891. Tzika AC, SFP Rosa, A Fabiani, HL Snell, HM Snell, C Marquez, W Tapia, K Rassmann, G Gentile & MC Milinkovitch. 2008. Population genetics of Galapagos land iguana (genus Conolophus) remnant populations. Molecular Ecology 17:4943-4952. Varnham K. 2010. Invasive rats on tropical islands: Their history, ecology, impacts and eradication. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK. 198