Galapagos report 2011-2012


Published on

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.

Published in: Education, Travel
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Galapagos report 2011-2012

  1. 1. GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012
  2. 2. GALAPAGOS REPORT 2011 - 2012
  3. 3. 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
  4. 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
  8. 8. Photo title page Introduction: © Josselin Guyot-Téphany Photo page 10: © Juan Carlos Garcia / WWF Galapagos Program
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  13. 13. Photo title page New Approaches: © Richard Renn
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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.
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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.
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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.
  24. 24. 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
  26. 26. Photo title page Human Systems: Alejandra Badillo
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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,
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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?
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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%
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. 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
  41. 41. 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