Strategies for Improving Fisheries Management in the Galapagos Marine

Reserve: Results and Analysis of Field Surveys

Report prepared for:

Fundación para el DesarrolloAlternativo Responsable de Galápagos

(FUNDAR Galápagos)

Milena Frieden

2005

2

Table of Contents

Abstract 4

Figures 5

Acronyms 6

Introduction 8

1. A History of Overfishing 8

2. Participatory Management in the Galapagos Marine Reserve 9

3. Why Participatory Management Isn’t Working in the Galapagos 12

3.1. Lack of Communication 13

3.2. Social and Economic Issues 15

3.3. Tokenism and Centralized Management 18

4. Retaining the Status Quo 20

5. A Look at Effective Cooperative Endeavors 22

5.1. Finding Common Ground 22

5.2. Positive Deviation 23

5.3. Mutual Interdependence 26

6. Why Recognizing Mutual Self-Interests Could be Beneficial 27

6.1. Website for the Participatory Management Board 28

6.2. Certification for the Fishing Sector 33

6.3. Development Trust Fund for the Community 38

3

7. Report Summary 40

Conclusion 42

References 43

Appendix A: Results and Analysis of Field Surveys 49

A.1. Qualitative Research Method 49

A.2. Interview Selection and Process 50

A.3. Interview Questions 54

A.4. Summary 55

A.5. General Data Observations 56

4

Abstract

This report offers a strategy for improving the declining fisheries and

habitat of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Included are a history of fishing

in the Galapagos and an overview of the participatory management

system. Through the evaluation of the management system and interviews

with members of the Galapagos National Park, conservation and fishing

sectors, the report identifies the system’s drawbacks. The report discusses

mutual-self interests that could be harnessed to strengthen the system. The

first mutual self-interest is to improve stakeholder communication.

Empowering the community and the fishing sector are also common

interests, which would give the locals a more vested interest in the

Galapagos community and environment. Implementation of mutually

beneficial goals could bring the Galapagos stakeholders one step closer

to building the trust necessary for a sustainable Galapagos Marine

Reserve. 

5

Figures

Figure 2.1. Flow chart of Galapagos stakeholder decision-making 11process with hypothetical examples

Figure 3.1 Ladder of participation 18

Figure 5.1 Overlapping interests 23

Figure A.1 Galapagos map 52

6

Acronyms

ACP African Caribbean and Pacific

CDF Charles Darwin Foundation

COBI Comunidad y Biodiversidad

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

EC European Community

ECFMA European Commission for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FUNDAR Fundacíon para el Desarollo Alternativo Responsible para

Galápagos

GMR Galapagos Marine Reserve

GMRMP Galapagos and Marine Reserve Management Plan

GNP Galapagos National Park

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

IMA Inter-institutional Management Authority

7

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

INGALA Instituto Nacional Galapagos

KES Knowledge Exchange System

MSC Marine Stewardship Council

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PM Participatory Management

PMB Participatory Management Board

SFF Sustainable Fisheries Fund

SIFAR Support unit for International Fisheries and Aquatic Research

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

WWF World Wildlife Fund

8

Introduction

The Galapagos Marine Reserve continues to be under increasing pressure

to develop and implement more effective strategies for addressing its

declining fisheries. This report begins with a brief history of the Galapagos

fisheries, then describes how participatory management is being used to

address negative environmental impacts, why the participatory

management system is not working, and, finally, potential avenues for

improvement focusing on mutual self-interests. The information presented

in this report is a result of current literature reviews and extensive interviews

with people in the conservation sector, Galapagos National Park (GNP),

and fishing sectors. Improving communication, enabling the fishing sector,

and providing business development assistance for the community are

integral parts of the long-term sustainability of the Galapagos.

1. A History of Overfishing

People have been fishing in the Galapagos for over forty years, enough

time for this occupation to become an acceptable lifestyle among the

locals and a viable employment opportunity for a small number of people

in the Galapagos community. Though there are relatively few fishermen,

approximately 1000 out of an estimated 27,000 people, there continues to

be a tremendous impact on the Marine Reserve as a result of

overexploitation of the fisheries.

Overfishing in the Galapagos is not a recent development. As one of the

interviewees points out, “dried salt ‘bacalao’ [cod], fished artisanally,

catches and fish size, were already in decline in the 1960s due to over

9

exploitation of the resource. Frozen lobster tails, fished by larger boats

each with a number of divers to collect the lobsters, were in decline in the

‘70s also due to overexploitation.” Two periods of significant increases in

the fishing sector came from 1982 to 1984 with the lobster fishery, and in

the 1990s with the start of the sea cucumber fisheries1.

The number of registered artisanal fishers has increased from

approximately 100 in the early 1940s to 1950s to around 956 in 20022. The

number of fishermen monitored by the Participatory Research and

Monitoring Program of the Fisheries indicates there are many more active

fishermen than are registered with the Galapagos National Park (GNP)3.

For example, in 2000 there were approximately 80 percent more people

fishing for sea cucumbers than were registered with the National Park4.

Many of the fishermen are temporary and have other occupations

throughout the year. They often only fish during certain fishing seasons,

such as the lucrative sea cucumber season from May to July. Inadequate

enforcement and the ongoing poaching by local and mainland based

fishing enterprises also contribute to overfishing5. This results in a decrease

of species diversity and a reduction of the number of species available for

reproduction.

2. Participatory Management in the Galapagos Marine Reserve

In the mid-90s, the Galapagos community came together to set the

groundwork for the Special Law of the Galapagos and the Galapagos 1 Suzi Kerr, Susana Cardenas, and Joanna Hendy, “Migration and the Environment in the Galapagos: An analysis of economicand policy incentives driving migration, potential impacts from migration control, and potential policies to reduce migrationpressure” (Motu Working Paper 03-17, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, Wellington, 2004), 18.2 Ibid., 17.3 Ibid., 18.4 Ibid.5 Menakehm Ben-Yami, “Managing Artisanal Fisheries of Galapagos Consultancy Report 07-01-01- 03-02-01,” Sponsored by theWorld Wildlife Fund through the Charles Darwin Foundation, 2001, 15.

10

Marine Reserve Management Plan (GMRMP). Their efforts paid off and the

legal framework (1998) and management plan (1999) were approved.

Accounts of the development of the management plan has been

described as “a mix of education, training, human relations and technical

decision-making. It has also included intense discussions and

understanding of how to obtain a form of management, which caters to

the requirements of users as well as the requirements of conservation and

protection of the Reserve in such a way that includes the fulfillment and

aid of the regulations.”6 The intention was for the stakeholders to move

ahead together in implementing the Special Law and Management Plan.

The legal framework of the Galapagos Marine Reserve was built on

collaboration and consensus among the Galapagos stakeholders. This in

itself is a great success. The Special Law and the GMRMP were developed

with proactive intentions in mind. However, because many aspects of

these documents remain unimplemented they are considered ineffective

and are commonly disrespected.

When the Special Law was created, it established the Participatory

Management Board (PMB) as the decision-making entity at the local

level. The PMB represents the Galapagos National Park (GNP), the Charles

Darwin Foundation (CDF), tourism, guide, and fishing sectors. Most issues

are first discussed and decided by consensus in the PMB. When a

consensus is not reached, the PMB passes the undecided issue to the

Inter-institutional Management Authority (IMA) at the national level. The

IMA represents the Ministries of Environment, Defense, Trade and Fisheries,

Tourism, and the Presidents of the Ecuadorian Committee for the Defense

of Nature and Environment, Galapagos Fishing Cooperatives, and the 6 Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve Ecuador, “Management Plan for Conservation and Sustainable Use of theGalapagos Marine Reserve,” (Published by Galapagos National Park with the contribution of the Charles Darwin Foundationand financial backing from USAID, 1999), 7.

11

Galapagos Chamber of Tourism. Another example of the decision-

making process is a consensus may be reached on monitoring a certain

species, but once this species has been monitored, there may not be a

consensus as to how the species should be regulated, so the issue would

then be passed on to the IMA (see flow chart). The GNP is responsible for

the implementation of the management plan and also has the authority

to make decisions in emergency situations. Decisions made by the GNP

must later be approved by the IMA.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Source: M. FriedenFigure 2.1 Flow chart of Galapagos stakeholder decision-making process with hypothetical examples

12

The depletion of the world’s fisheries has prompted many countries and

organizations to take a closer look at implementing more effective

management plans for their fisheries. More traditional reserves are based

on centralized decision-making procedures, where the decisions are

generally made by one organization or government branch7. As the term

“participatory management” implies, it involves a variety of stakeholders.

In this scenario, which involves the input from many different types of

stakeholders with diverse interests, there is an increased probability that

the policies developed will appropriately reflect the human and

environment interaction8. Participatory management can also give the

system more legitimacy, since a broader perspective is represented9. In

Ben-Yami’s 2001 Consultancy Report for the Charles Darwin Foundation,

he emphasizes the importance of involving the fishermen in the design

and implementation of the Galapagos fisheries management system10.

He suggests co-management as an option, which fishers trust and take

part in11.

3. Why Participatory Management Isn’t Working in the Galapagos

Over the years the participatory management system has deteriorated,

resulting in ongoing conflicts between the conservation and fishing

sectors, among others. As indicated by the interviews (see Appendix A.5.),

inadequate communication, disinterest in significantly investing in the

local social and economic infrastructure, and lack of commitment to a

7 Michael Mascia, “Social Dimensions of Marine Reserves,” in Jack Sobel and Craig Dahlgren, editors, Marine Reserves: A Guideto Science, Design, and Use, (Washington: Island Press, 2004), 167.8 Ibid., 168.9 Ibid.10 Menakehm Ben-Yami, “Managing Artisanal Fisheries of Galapagos Consultancy Report 07-01-01- 03-02-01,” (Sponsored bythe World Wildlife Fund through the Charles Darwin Foundation, 2001), 4.11 Ibid.

13

truly participatory process have greatly contributed to the declining

credibility of the Galapagos Marine Reserve Management System.

Maintaining the status quo is often easier than shifting paradigms and

laying the foundation for an all encompassing long-term plan. Instituting

significant change is particularly challenging when it requires altering a

system that has taken years to develop. Making meaningful changes by

designing and implementing long-term solutions could lay the necessary

foundation for a sustainable Galapagos Marine Reserve.

3.1 Lack of Communication

The GMRMP specifically states that the responsibility of the PMB is to

“design, fulfill, evaluate, propose, aid and implement communication and

information systems . . . to ensure and guarantee participation and

representation of each sector.”12 Creating a comprehensive

communication system, which allows stakeholders to communicate with

each other and access current data and information, will help build

credibility between the sectors and in the participatory management

system as a whole. Although not new, these ideas have not been

embraced by the stakeholders. In their 2001 evaluation of the

Participatory Management Board, Drs. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and

Taghi Farvar highlight the importance of “setting up the base for the

progressive strengthening of the participatory management system, ” and

making “efforts towards publications describing the participatory

management of the GMR for the local, national and international

12 Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve Ecuador, “Management Plan for Conservation and Sustainable Use of theGalapagos Marine Reserve,” (Published by Galapagos National Park with the contribution of the Charles Darwin Foundationand financial backing from USAID, 1999), 6.3.3.3.d.

14

public”13. Drs. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and Taghi Farvar recognize that

strengthening of the participatory management system is partially

dependent on people’s understanding of how the participatory

management system works.

The importance of developing communication methods to promote

dialogue and debate on community and environmental issues between

stakeholders is being recognized throughout the world. In 2002, the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

started the Small Islands Voice initiative. Their task is to use newspapers,

magazines, radio, television and the internet to empower and strengthen

local, regional, and inter-regional communication. This initiative enables

islanders to have a collective voice, which may be key to promoting

sustainable development14.

When the interviewees from the conservation, Galapagos National Park,

and fishing sectors were asked where they generally get their information,

there were a variety of answers and suggestions for improvement. People

turn to the radio for fisheries information and the Charles Darwin

Foundation for scientific information. According to several sources there

are reports and regulations, but no central place to retrieve them. One

person suggested having a clearly documented yearly report available to

all. Others recommended a website and a regularly distributed newsletter.

The PMB was mentioned numerous times as the appropriate entity to

disseminate and house information.

13Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and Taghi Farvar, “Participatory Evaluation of the Participatory Management of the GalapagosMarine Reserve (Ecuador),” (Mission Report, 14 August – 5 September 2001), 14.14 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “Small Islands Voice – Laying the foundation,”(Coastal region and small island papers 13, UNESCO, Paris, 97pp., 2003), 6, http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/papers2/siv.htm(accessed 22 March 2004).

15

3.2 Social and Economic Issues

One of the benefits of the Special Law of the Galapagos is that it declares

industrial fishing illegal within the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR).

Technically, this has given the artisanal fishermen their own exclusive

fishing grounds. However, the fishermen’s inability to process and sell their

own fish on an economically sustainable level has made the Galapagos

fishermen dependent on local middlemen and industrial boats waiting on

the periphery of the Reserve to buy their fish15. One fisherman comments,

“For four years we have been looking for credit to improve the processing

and selling, but nothing, no assistance.” It is important for the fishermen to

have the option to work independently in the tourism sector. Also, the

ongoing illegal fishing affects the amount of potential catch.

The conservation and Park sectors encourage fishermen to pursue other

job opportunities. However, for those seeking to change careers, there

are few economically viable alternatives. Tourism is often suggested as an

alternative to fishing, but as one of the GNP interviewees states, “The

Statutes of Galapagos National Park should be implemented. It is a

regulation, which explains in detail the steps that need to be followed to

open the possibility for new tourist operators’ licenses.” There needs to be

a regulation, which allows new licenses to be issued. Issuing tourist

operators’ licenses is the first step in encouraging locals to enter the

tourism sector. However, this alone will not suffice. The lack of tourism job

training opportunities and the inability of fishermen to get lines of credit

present considerable obstacles to changing careers from fishing to

tourism. For those fishermen interested in changing careers, while

15 Ralf Buckley, Case Studies in Ecotourism, (Cambridge: CABI Publishing, 2003).

16

remaining independent, starting a business in the tourism sector requires a

considerable amount of capital and business training.

Fishermen are accustomed to working independently, so the lack of a

credit system to start a business in the tourism sector is a significant

deterrent to changing careers. Currently, there is nowhere for the

fishermen to turn if they need to apply for financing or take out a

substantial loan. There are discussions among the conservation groups to

develop a credit system, although nothing is available yet. In most

business development situations loans are essential for starting or

improving a business. The fishermen need their independence and want

to run their own businesses, be it sport fishing, diving, or marketing fish.

One of the fishermen points out “The fishing sector needs to be able to

move their boats to the tourism sector, so the number of boats in the

fishing sector will decrease and the number of boats in the tourism sector

increase . . . Fishermen could use the same boats and be independent.”

Often, fishermen do not have the type of training needed to work in the

tourism sector. One fisherman emphasized the importance of learning

English when transferring to tourism. Fishing is a more solitary occupation

and speaking a foreign language is not critical to being successful in the

fishing sector. Tourism requires a great deal of interaction with large

groups of foreigners on a daily basis and being able to speak a foreign

language is a great advantage.

Sea cucumber and lobster fishing are increasingly limited due to the

species’ declining numbers. This has left fishermen with few economic

alternatives. Assurances of skill-building projects and job opportunities in

other fields from the conservation organizations continue to be unrealized

17

and have resulted in disappointment and frustration in the local

population. Frequent changes in Park leadership, lack of funds, and

personnel cutbacks contribute to Park instability and the GNP’s ability to

maintain technical programs and law enforcement. The community could

benefit from the strengthening of the GNP as well as more community

involvement from the municipalities and the Galapagos regional planning

and coordination organization, INGALA (Instituto Nacional Galápagos).

In Marine Reserves, Mascia discusses the lack of integration of the social

sciences in marine reserve design and that much of the designs currently

are based on unsubstantial evidence and individual experiences16. In a

paper describing participatory management in the Caribbean, one

author points out the importance of creating incentives and benefits for

all the stakeholders in order to sustain motivation to believe and

participate in the participatory management system17. This is especially

important in the early stages when costs tend to be high and short-term

benefits unapparent18. The authors emphasize “A good incentive

operates at the individual level without compromising the integrity of the

group process.”19 Locals are more likely to support a participatory

management process if individual community members also benefit from

the system.

16 Michael Mascia, “Social Dimensions of Marine Reserves,” in Jack Sobel and Craig Dahlgren, editors, Marine Reserves: AGuide to Science, Design, and Use, (Washington: Island Press, 2004), 165.17 P. McConney, R. Pomeroy, and R. Mahon, “Coastal resources co-management in the Caribbean,” Presented at “TheCommons in an Age of Global Transition: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities, “the Tenth Conference of the InternationalAssociation for the Study of Common Property, Oaxaca, Mexico, August 9-13 2004, 13,http://www.iascp2004.org.mx/downloads/paper_389.pdf (accessed 4 May 2005).18 Ibid., 13-14.19 Ibid. 14.

18

3.3 Tokenism and Centralized Management

In Sherry Arnstein’s A Ladder of Participation, she describes the first two

rungs of participation as non-participatory where the objective is not to

truly have the participants have a say, but where those with the power try

to “educate” or “cure” the other stakeholders20. The next three rungs are

associated with tokenism, where those in power allow the others to voice

their opinion, with the knowledge that the powerholders will be the ones

who ultimately decide the outcome21. Arnstein points out, “When

participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow-through, no

“muscle,” hence no assurance to changing the status quo.”22 The top

three rungs give stakeholders increasing degrees of decision-making

input, allowing them to negotiate compromises with the traditional

powerholders23.

Source: Arnstein 1969Figure 3.1 Ladder of participation

20 Sherry Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, 216-224, http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html (accessed 29 April 2005), 4.21 Ibid., 4.22 Ibid.23 Ibid.

19

The Galapagos participatory management system falls between non-

participatory and tokenism. As one person honestly put it, “They [fishing

sector] don’t believe in the system, unfortunately, based on a very simple

reality, which is they are one out of five groups that sit at the table and

their activity is diametrically opposed to the interest of everyone else at

the table, so they never get their way.” One person from the conservation

sector stated, “From my perspective, while we talk about participatory

management we have retained centralized management. I think that we

need to think about more skills, persons that are actually experienced in

doing participatory management and use those skills here to reinforce the

legislative basis to truly do participatory management, instead of taking

decisions one at a time. I think that because we are going through

change and we have a situation where we have had a top down

management system, what happens if you don’t have experience you

end up getting hurt by it.” Training, workshops and ongoing community

discussions could assist in familiarizing the stakeholders in the negotiating

process and getting to know one another better.

In Science, Society and Power, Fairhead and Leach describe a national

park planning ‘community’ process in Guinea where ‘traditional’ hunters

and herbalists are included, but not charcoal-makers and bush-meat

sellers (Fairhead and Leach 2003). The authors observe that, “Interested

and knowledgeable parties find themselves excluded or silenced in

expressing certain aspects of their identities and the knowledge, political

and material interests associated with them. Apparent consensus in such

circumstances can conceal much conflict.”24 The authors describe the

practice of including stakeholders whose livelihoods do not neatly fit into

the conservation plan as, “in practice, such ‘invited’ participation has

24 James Fairhead and Melissa Leach, Science, Society and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 234.

20

frequently come to mean invitation to comply with pre-set environment

and development objectives—and within frames of debate which

obscure their [small farmers using forest resources in Guinea] own

perspectives and interactions with ecology.”25 The above Guinea

example emphasizes the importance of having genuine consensus based

on thoughtful decisions.

4. Retaining the status quo

In Jared Diamond’s Collapse, he discusses why some societies and

ecosystems have survived and others haven’t. What is it that makes

people not take the appropriate corrective actions in the face of

adversity? He suggests that in certain situations the status quo is

acceptable because it favors the well-being of a certain group of

people, but he also explains the concept of irrational behavior, which is

behavior being harmful to everyone, and is probably more applicable to

the Galapagos situation. He continues, “Such irrational behavior often

arises when each of us individually is torn by clashes of values: we may

ignore a bad status quo because it is favored by some deeply held value

to which we cling.”26 In psychology this phenomenon is often referred to

as the “sunk-cost effect,” where so much time and effort has been

invested in something that one becomes increasingly hesitant to

abandon it27.

Changing course will not always guarantee the desired results. However,

sometimes chances must be taken. In McDonough and Braungart’s

Cradle to Cradle, they discuss the five guiding principles of eco-

effectiveness: signal your intention, restore, be ready to innovate further, 25 Ibid.26 Jared Diamond, Collapse (New York: Penguin Group, 2005), 432.27 Ibid.

21

understand and prepare for the learning curve, and exert

intergenerational responsibility28. While they are suggesting the

importance of an ecological perspective to the business world, the tips

they recommend are equally beneficial to those in the ecological sector

seeking to become more socially equitable. They talk about taking the

step “to commit to a new paradigm, rather than an incremental

improvement of the old.”29

Occasionally, whether at a company or non-governmental organization

(NGO), people directly interacting at the local level have identified the

issues and necessary changes, but find it difficult to convince the decision

makers at the top to make strategic modifications essential for

implementation. A recent article in The Economist describes, “companies

have chosen to root their [“Corporate Social Responsibility”] CSR functions

too narrowly within their public- or corporate-affairs departments. Though

playing an important tactical role, such departments are often geared

towards rebutting criticism, and tend to operate at a distance from

strategic decision-making within the company.”30 The article discusses the

importance of balancing “Corporate Social Responsibility” and the

“business of business is business” priorities. The article continues,

“Businesses need to introduce explicit processes to make sure that social

issues and emerging social forces are discussed at the highest levels as

part of overall strategic planning. This means executive managers must

educate and engage their board of directors.”31

28 William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 181-186.29 Ibid., 182.30 Ian Davis, “The biggest contract,” The Economist, May 28th –June 3rd 2005, 70.31 Ibid.

22

5. A Look at Effective Cooperative Endeavors

Clearly the conflicts in the Galapagos are multi-faceted. However, efforts

to identify mutual self-interests among stakeholders could result in more

sincere collaborations and increase the confidence in the participatory

management system. Strategists seeking creative solutions for reoccurring

problems commonly use analogical reasoning, turning to case studies

and examples in other fields, which may apply to situations in one’s own

field. Case studies in other fields have demonstrated the benefits of

recognizing mutual self-interests by implementing strategies such as

finding common ground, discovering what people are doing to rise

above all odds, and exploring how successful corporations build

partnerships.

5.1. Finding Common Ground

In Measures of Success, Margoluis and Salafsky discuss the importance of

finding common ground in conservation project collaborations. It is

important to recognize the similarities and differences of various

stakeholders’ mission statements32. The following diagram illustrates where

the overlap exists (dark shaded area) and where there are differences

(lightly-shaded area)33.

32 Richard Margoulis and Nick Salafsky, Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Conservation andDevelopment Projects, (Washington: Island Press, 1998), 23.33 Ibid., 21.

23

Source: Margoluis and Salafsky 1998Figure 5.1 Overlapping interests

Each of the stakeholders needs to be clear about what they hope to

achieve. It is fine to have areas of disagreement, to agree to disagree, or

negotiate mutually accepted trade-offs34. In Getting to Yes, Fisher and

Urey, point out that mutual interests are not always obvious. Often you

need to discover common ground and create opportunities35.

Emphasizing shared interests can facilitate negotiations and make the

process more pleasant36.

5.2. Positive Deviation

The traditional approach to change is to analyze what is not working, take

control and impose top-down modifications37. Pascale and Sternin’s “Your

Company’s Secret Change Agents” describes the positive deviance

approach to change as bottom-up, inside out, and asset based38. “It

powers change from within by identifying and leveraging innovators. This

34 Ibid., 23.35 Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, (New York: PenguinGroup, 1991), 73.36 Ibid.37 Richard Pascale and Jerry Sternin, “Your Company’s Secret Change Agents,” Harvard Business Review, May 2005, 75.38 Ibid.

24

method diminishes the social distance that often blocks acceptance.”39

The business world is often more motivated to find long-term solutions to

problems. Businesses have a vested interest in efficiency and productivity

because it affects their bottom line. In their determination to find a

solution businesses more open to interdisciplinary solutions, stepping

outside of the proverbial box, looking at the bigger picture, and

incorporating ideas from other fields in implementing changes. In Harvard

Business Review, Pascale and Sternin discuss the positive deviance

approach and turn to a variety of disciplines for examples. They point out

that “. . .we have derived our conclusions from some of the largest,

messiest, most intractable change problems on the planet: malnutrition in

Mali and Vietnam, catastrophic dropout rates within rural schools in

Argentina, the trafficking of girls in East Java, the spread of HIV/AIDS in

Myanmar, and the widespread practice of female circumcision in

Egypt.”40 The purpose of these examples is to make connections to

business problems in corporations. Finding solutions to environmental and

development problems requires not only looking at the interactions

between the environmental sciences and development, but social

interactions in general.

Positive deviation is the idea of focusing on people who achieve success

against all odds. What is the fundamental nature of these people’s

techniques that make things work? In the Argentinian case, the World

Bank was being implicated for underfunding the rural schools, so decided

to hold a workshop on positive deviance for teachers and principals41.

Although 86% of children in Argentina completed elementary school only

56% from the more rural area of Misiones did the same42. The workshop

39 Ibid.40 Ibid., 75.41 Ibid., 76.42 Ibid.

25

participants became curious when they were told ten schools in the

Misiones province with the same resources had over a 90% retention

rate43. After visiting the successful schools, the workshop participants were

surprised to learn the teachers in the successful schools were negotiating

“learning contracts,” where “as the children learned to read, add, and

subtract, they could help their parents take advantage of government

subsidies and compute the amount earned from crops or owed at the

village store.”44 The partnership with parents and the children was

incentive for all involved to work towards the goal of having the children

complete elementary school. Shortly thereafter the workshop participants

started to negotiate similar contracts45. Discovering what the parents,

children, and teachers could gain from working together is what made

the Argentinian case a success.

In 2004, with the assistance of the Sustainable Fisheries Fund (SFF)46, World

Wildlife Fund (WWF), and Comunidad y Biodiversidad (COBI, a Mexican

NGO), the Baja California Peninsula spiny lobster fishery became the first

small-scale sustainable fishery to be certified in the developing world47.

Ecolabel certification encourages fishermen to harvest their fish

sustainably. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) collaborated with

Unilever, one of the world’s largest makers of fish products, and the WWF

to create a standard for sustainable and well-managed fisheries48.

Fisheries meeting this standard may use the MSC ecolabel, informing

consumers that their fish comes from a sustainable fishery49. Numerous

supermarkets throughout the world have agreed to purchase certified

43 Ibid.44 Ibid., 77.45 Ibid.46 Resource Legacy Fund (administers Sustainable Fisheries Fund), “Case Study: World Wildlife Fund – Baja California SpinyLobster Fishery Certification,” 2003, http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/programs/prg_sff.html (accessed 14 April 2005), 3.47 Word Wildlife Fund, “MSC certification: a win for Mexican lobster fishermen and environment,” 2004,http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000001195.asp (accessed 14 April 2005), 1.48 Christian Heuss, “New solutions needed to manage fisheries sustainably,” Stanford News Service, February 22, 2002,http://www.californiafish.org/newsolutions.html (accessed 15 April 2005), 2.49 Resource Legacy Fund (SSF), 1.

26

fish. Closely examining the steps to certification taken by the Baja fishery

could provide the Galapagos stakeholders with guidance for achieving a

certified fishery.

5.3. Mutual Interdependence

In 2003, Planning Perspective, a research-based company, conducted

studies for a benchmark survey on the manufacturer-supplier relations in

the U.S. automobile industry50. Toyota and Honda were rated as the

companies with whom suppliers most preferred to work51. What was it that

made suppliers prefer to deal with the Japanese automobile

manufacturers over the big three American companies, Chrysler, Ford

and GM? The Japanese automakers made a conscious effort to assure

that both they and their suppliers were benefiting from their relationships

with one another. Ensuring that locals in the Galapagos benefit from the

participatory management process could elicit community support for

conservation.

A tremendous amount of time and effort is allocated to building the

foundation for productive partnerships. When the Japanese first began

producing their cars in the United States in the 1980s they asked that their

Japanese suppliers engage in the partnerships with local American

suppliers52. Once a rapport was established between the supplier and

Japanese manufacturer, executives were sent in to work with the suppliers

and assist them in streamlining the part development process. The

Japanese were then able to set the price they believed the market could

bear ensuring that the supplier would also make a profit53. In Liker and

50 Jeffrey Liker and Thomas Choi, “Building Deep Supplier Relationships,” Harvard Business Review, December 2004, 106.51 Ibid.52 Ibid., 107.53 Ibid., 109.

27

Choi’s article, a senior executive for a braking supply company points out,

“Whenever I ask [executives in the Big Three] how they develop a target

price, the answer is: silence. They base the target price on nothing. The

finance manager just divvies up the available money: ‘Here’s what we

normally spend on braking systems, here’s what you’ll get this year.’ They

have no idea how we’ll get those cost reductions. They just want them.”54

The response this brake supplier executive received from the American

car company is similar to the expectations some conservation and Park

stakeholders have of the Galapagos fishing sector. The fishermen are

asked by many in the conservation sector to find alternatives to fishing,

but credit and organized vocational or professional training programs are

unavailable to them. Changes are necessary and are requested however

the technology and know how for achieving these goals are unavailable.

In describing the process of setting up the relationships between the

Japanese auto manufacturers and their suppliers, Liker and Choi state,

“The process can take a while, but it usually proves to be valuable for

both the suppliers and the manufacturers.”55

6. Why Recognizing Mutual Self-Interests Could be Beneficial

The dynamics and interests of stakeholders, in general, are complex.

Understanding the context in which groups of people and institutions

operate and what motivates people to work together or not, are key

factors in moving forward56. Institutional and policy analysis are necessary

to see what the goals and objectives are of each of the stakeholders and

54 Ibid., 108.55 Ibid.56 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), “Institutions and policy processes – understanding context,”Focusing Aquaculture and Small-Scale Aquatic Resource Management on Poverty Alleviation, Network of Aquaculture Centresin Asia-Pacific FAO, Bangkok, Thailand, February 12-14, 2002,http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/AC624E/ac624e08.htm (accessed 11 February 2005).

28

how these goals and objectives overlap. Common grounds must be

found in order to implement a mutually acceptable plan57.

In the Galapagos many areas could benefit from mutual collaborations

and contribute towards building confidence in the participatory

management system. Lack of a unified focus from all the sectors

combined and the absence of accountability from each sector continue

to weaken the participatory management system. A basic infrastructure is

necessary if stakeholders are to be held accountable for their plans and

ideas. Communication, enabling the fishing sector, and providing business

development assistance for the community stand out as areas needing

urgent attention. The implementation of projects contributing to the long-

term stability of the GMR management infrastructure is necessary. Building

a comprehensive website for the PMB, certifying the fisheries and creating

a development trust fund could be the first steps in establishing a viable

participatory management system.

6.1. Website for the Participatory Management Board

The World Bank’s 1992 Study of International Fisheries Research criticized

fisheries research for being “ disengaged from the needs of national

development objectives and from policy needs in general and for failing

to deliver information of practical value to management decisions.”58 In

answering the question “Why does sustainable management remain such

an elusive goal in many fisheries systems?” the article discusses that policy

making is often still viewed as a problem-solving process, which is

“rational, balanced, objective and analytical, informed by research and

57 Ibid.58 Support unit for International Fisheries and Aquatic Research – SIFAR (a research facilitation project based in the FisheriesDepartment of the FAO)/Fisheries Department, “Research and policy outcomes in fisheries – changing the paradigm?” Rome:FAO, 2004, http://www.sifar.org (accessed 13 June 2005), 1.

29

with decisions being made in logical and sequential phases.”59 This, of

course, could not be further from the truth. The article points out that

“Fisheries management outcomes may thus depend not so much on the

knowledge available, as on the effectiveness of the institutions in

deploying that knowledge to drive policy processes.”60 Information and

Communication Technologies (ICT) are “an essential component of

development initiatives and can act as a powerful overall enabler of

development.”61 The participatory management system in the Galapagos

could greatly benefit from a comprehensive communication and

information system. An informative website and database could provide

stakeholders and locals with current news, upcoming events, and

scientific information, allowing everyone the opportunity to become

involved in the Galapagos community.

A primary objective of the ACP Fish II Programme is “to provide effective

response to the information needs of those involved in fisheries

management and policy in ACP [African Caribbean and Pacific]

states.”62 The ACP Fish II (European Community) is a feasibility study

carried out by the Support unit for International Fisheries and Aquatic

Research (SIFAR) and focuses on improving institutional capacity to

manage fisheries and aquatic resources in ACP countries63. To achieve

this a web-based Fisheries Management Knowledge Exchange System

(KES) will be created. KES will be a large-scale communication mechanism

for ACP countries. This web-based concept could also be applied to the

Galapagos. Perhaps, the Galapagos could turn to the ACP system for

59 Ibid.60 Ibid.61 Digital Opportunity Initiative (a public private partnership of Accenture, the Markle Foundation, and the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) with the aim of identifying the roles that information and communication technologies (ICT)can play in fostering sustainable economic development and enhancing social equity), “From Digital Divide to DigitalOpportunities for Development,” Accenture, Markle Foundation, UNDP, 2001, http://www.opt-init..org/ (accessed on 15 June2005), 1.62 SIFAR/Fisheries Department, “Research Policy outcomes and fisheries . . .” 1.63 SIFAR/Fisheries Department, “Research Policy outcomes and fisheries . . .” 1.

30

ideas and initiate such a system on a smaller-scale for Ecuadorian fisheries

information, or on a grander scale for Latin American fisheries data. The

PMB could be instrumental in facilitating this stakeholder-involved process

by encouraging potential beneficiaries to design a plan for such a system.

First, the PMB needs a comprehensive website of its own representing all

the sectors in the Galapagos. The PMB must be equipped to act as a

forum for discussion and a portal for communicating information to the

various sectors and the community. Creating and maintaining a website is

an efficient way to do this. If done properly, it is professional, easy to

navigate, and a useful resource. It often represents people from various

disciplines working as a team to achieve a common goal. Most websites

seek to convey an institution’s image as efficient, organized and credible.

The interviewees unanimously expressed urgency in addressing the lack of

communication amongst the sectors. One fisherman emphasized, “Things

cannot be done by force. People need to move forward willingly.

Everyone needs to speak and have a dialogue.” Several people

mentioned the need for a central place where stakeholders can retrieve

information. As one person in conservation points out, “There are all sorts

of documents. It’s confusing for everyone. It could be a good idea to

involve some of the fishermen [in organizing the information].”

Interviewees in every sector also expressed the need for strengthening

communication within the fishing sector. Some people expressed that

leaders of groups were not consistently relaying information to their

constituents. One conservation person mentioned, “Many problems come

from the fishermen’s inaccessibility to information about the resolutions

and agreements settled with their leaders.” Providing a place where

31

everyone would have equal access to information and current updates

would be beneficial for all the stakeholders.

The most challenging aspect of creating a first-rate website is the process

of organizing and maintaining it. Every sector needs to agree how they

want to be represented on the PMB website, and must know that they

have to work together on an ongoing basis to make it successful. The

website would also act as a repository for rules, regulations and any

documents stakeholders would find helpful regarding the management of

the Galapagos Marine Reserve. The KES document gives an in depth

description of the different aspects involved in setting up a website64. It

also describes the various components i.e. ACP Fisheries Advisor, where

topics of interest are featured along with a question and answer section,

and mentoring and advisory service. The Global Fisheries Knowledge

Base component connects users to already existing systems. A carefully

organized PMB database could provide helpful information regarding the

PMB and its stakeholder groups to each of the five sectors and the local

community.

A website quickly loses its value if it is not updated regularly. The PMB

website should be updated at least bi-monthly. Maintaining a website for

an organization representing as many sectors as the PMB does, requires a

person working closely with the sectors, community, and web consultants

to maintain a current, informative website. This paid professional would

act as an editor and field all the information going on the website. The

key is making it helpful and interesting enough for people to view

regularly. Meetings, events and outcomes should be an integral part of

64 SIFAR/Fisheries Department, “Technical Appendix 5.A – ACP Fisheries Management Knowledge Exchange System,” ACP Fish IIProgramme Feasibility Study Report, Rome: FAO, December 2003, http://www.sifar.org/DflD_Keysheets/WBPolicyBrief13_1.htm(accessed on 12 June 2005).

32

the site. It must be run as professionally as any successful publication and

act as a reliable, engaging, news source.

Some people mentioned that the web might not be the best way to

communicate with the fishing sector. Nevertheless, a PMB website should

be available for interested parties. Each of the four cooperatives I visited

have web access. Perhaps if the PMB website offered helpful information

pertinent to the fishing sector, they would become motivated to consult

the website. Information systems workshops could be offered to introduce

interested community members to the internet. Alternative ways to

distribute information are also essential. One of the main challenges for

KES is “to harmonize internet technologies with the offline delivery

systems.”65 Radio broadcasting, newsletters and ongoing workshops are

other ways being considered to relay information66. Since all fishermen do

not have access to the internet, other communication techniques must

also be used.

Currently, many people in the fishing sector are accustomed to obtaining

news from the radio. Efforts could be made to regularly broadcast recent

participatory management updates and useful PMB website information.

The radio could continue to be used as a forum for discussion and sessions

could be broadcasted involving all sectors in discussions on a variety of

subjects.

Funds are available specifically for Information and Communication

Technologies development67. As part of the UNDP Thematic Trust Fund,

the Digital Grants Initiative (e-Grants) was created specifically to address 65 Ibid., 11.66 Ibid.67 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Bureau for Development Policy, “UNDP Thematic Trust Fund: Informationand Communication Technology (ICT) for Development,” New York: UNDP, October 2001, http://www.undp.org/trustfunds/(accessed 15 June 2005).

33

more community-based efforts. One of the goals of “e-Grants” is to

support “local community and related networks that enhance community

access and participation in various local processes and assist them in

expanding their outreach to a national/global scale.”68

Constructing a solid foundation for communicating across the sectors is

crucial. Almost every interviewee raised the issue of poor communication.

Individuals from the Park and conservation sectors expressed the need for

a webpage for all sectors. An all encompassing website organized and

maintained by the PMB could contribute to the credibility of the

participatory management system.

6.2. Certification for the Fishing Sector

Most agree that enabling the fishing sector is not only necessary, but is an

integral part of the long-term sustainability of the Galapagos Marine

Reserve. As a person in the Park sector stated, “You need to help the

fishing sector develop their own sector. Help is given for tourism and

science. It is necessary to help everyone equally.” Though not everyone in

the conservation sector agrees, one person in the conservation sector

expressed, “I don’t really believe in incentives to leave the fishing activity.

The only alternative is to create profitable enterprises at sea.” The

certification process would require that the Park, conservation, and the

fishing sectors work together closely to develop and implement a long-

term plan for a sustainable fishery in the GMR. This plan could also provide

the impetus for the fishing cooperatives to organize from within. In

discussing the types of fisheries eligible for funding, the Sustainable

Fisheries Fund (SFF) emphasizes, “Although some degree of controversy is

68 Ibid., 8.

34

almost inevitable in any certification process, the level of controversy must

be manageable.”69 In addition to the economic and environmental

benefits of certification, this process could contribute to a stronger

participatory management system.

Developing a system for processing certified fish would add value to

Galapagos fish and could reduce overfishing. Currently, only a small

percentage of fish are sold directly to tour operators. The fishing

cooperatives simply are not equipped to process the fish needed by the

tourism sector. The fishing sector needs to build the infrastructure in order

to start selling fish on a larger scale to the tourism sector. The preparation

necessary for the certification process will allow the fishing sector to supply

fish locally on a larger scale. Niche markets add value to fish and provide

marketing advantages. Galapagos tour boats will pay more for certified

fish than they pay for industrially caught fish from the mainland. However,

the tour companies can easily pass on the cost to the tourists while

emphasizing the importance of supporting the local community and a

more sustainable Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR). Conservation

organizations could initiate and promote the development of the

infrastructure to process Galapagos certified fish. Creating an

economically justified community interest in the environment would

benefit all the stakeholders.

Certification could give incentive to modernize boats, improve fishing

techniques and develop the infrastructure for processing. For the currently

underdeveloped fishing sector, modernizing boats has many benefits. It

increases safety, improves vessel hygiene conditions and facilitates the

69 Resource Legacy Fund, “Sustainable Fisheries Fund Grantmaking Guidelines,” 2005,http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/programs/prg_sff.html (accessed 14 April 2005), 1.

35

adoption of selective fishing methods70. Selective fishing techniques, such

as using certain mesh sizes according to the species being fished, help

limit the capture of other species71. In the medium term, selective fishing

benefits fishermen72. Certification programs “have greatly reduced the

incidence of destructive fishing processes.”73

Best management practices must be developed to maintain the “raw

product quality” and the facilities must be designed, equipped, and

managed according to these standards74. In creating a plan for fish

processing, transportation issues must also be addressed75. Professionals

familiar with certification requirements and best management practices

would be consulted. Managerial and technical assistance is essential

throughout the process of establishing a fully operational plant. People

need to be trained to operate the plant efficiently, profitably, and in an

environmentally friendly manner.

In the Marine Stewardship Council’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable

Fishing a sustainable fishery is defined as one managed in a way that:

can be continued indefinitely at a reasonable level

maintains and seeks to maximize ecological health and

abundance

70 European Commission Fisheries and Maritime Affairs (ECFMA), “The common fisheries policy: Conservation and responsiblefishing,” 1998, http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc_et_publ/factsheets/facts/facts_en.htm (accessed 14 April 2005), 3.2.71 Ibid., 3.4.72 Ibid.73 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), “Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE) – Belize,” UNDP,2002, http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/secondary/InteractiveMap/countrywebpages/pdfs/Belize%201p.pdf (accessed22 May 2005).74 Nadia Tchoukanova, Mauricio Gonzalez, and Sylvain Poirier, “Best Management Practices: Marine Products Processing,”Prepared according to contract F4760-030015 for Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Gulf Region by the Fisheries and MarineProducts Division of the Coastal Zones Research Institute Inc., Shippagan, New Brunswick, Canada, 2003, http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci-sci/effluents/bmp-e.html (accessed on 13 June 2005), 5.6.75 J. Graham, W.A. Johnston, and F.J. Nicholson, “Ice in Fisheries,” FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 331. Rome, FAO, 1992,http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0713E/T0713E00.htm#Contents (accessed 13 June 2005).

36

maintains the diversity, structure and function of the ecosystem on

which it depends as well as the quality of its habitat, minimizing the

adverse affects that it causes

is managed and operated in a responsible manner, in conformity

with local, national and international law and regulations

maintains present and future economic and social options and

benefits

is conducted in a socially and economically fair and responsible

manner76

While the MSC’s focus is on the “ecological integrity of world fisheries, it

should be noted that the principles also embrace the human and social

elements of fisheries.”77 The MSC recognizes that without adequately

addressing the human element it is difficult to sustain a fishery in the long-

term.

The costs for becoming certified can be an obstacle in pursuing

certification. However, grants are available through organizations such as

the Sustainable Fisheries Fund (SSF). The four categories for which funding

is provided are:

Pre-assessments of fisheries

Full assessments of fisheries

Stakeholder participation in fishery assessments

76 Marine Stewardship Council, “MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing,” Marine Stewardship Council, 2002,http://www.msc.org/html/content_463.htm (accessed 14 April 2005), 2.77 Ibid.

37

Strategic planning of fisheries assessments and certification,

deficiencies recognized during pre-assessment and full assessment,

and capacity-building related activities78

Several requirements for receiving SSF funding are the capacity to

implement the project, organize stakeholders, interact with the

government, manage project finances, and a clear commitment to the

MSC process79. Preferences are given to applicants who are able to

generate broadbased support for the certification and those who are

able to partner with other organizations80.

It is likely that more people may become interested in joining the fishing

sector as it succeeds. Strict rules and regulations regarding compliance

and entry into the cooperatives would curtail an increase in fishermen

entering the fishing sector. As one fishermen suggested, “[there should be]

a mechanism to definitely close fishing to more fishermen and the

cooperatives should be restructured.” If certification approval adequately

benefits the fishing sector, fishermen will have a vested interest in making

sure legitimate fishermen belong to the cooperatives and laws are

enforced. Striving to meet certification standards would not only create a

marketing advantage, but could help curtail illegal fishing.81

78 Resource Legacy Fund, “Sustainable Fisheries Fund Grantmaking Guidelines,” 2005,http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/programs/prg_sff.html (accessed 14 April 2005), 1.79 Ibid., 2.80 Ibid., 3.81 “A shipment of toothfish, also known as Chilean sea bass, was seized [by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAAFisheries)] because of unauthorized signatures on the catch’s certification, in violation of international conservation measures”(Reference: National Marine Fisheries Service, “U.S.: Improper Patagonian Toothfish Shipments Turned Away,” VancouverAquarium Aquanews Aquatic Environmental News Network, 4 October 2004,http://www.vanaqua.org/aquanew/fullnews.php?id=1657 (accessed 14 June 2005).

38

6.3. Development Trust Fund for the Community

In Partnerships Online/Communities Online Forum, David Wilcox defines

development trusts as “partnerships, which have been defined as

independent, not-for-profit organizations, which take action to renew an

area physically, socially and in spirit.”82 A development trust helps

community members start or improve businesses, upgrade the

educational system, restore degraded areas, and accomplish other

locally initiated projects. Assistance is provided to strategically develop

and implement business and project plans. As one of the fishermen

stated, “We need to have closer assistance, be part of a team, not just on

the sidelines.” Creating a locally based development trust fund, which is

managed by local stakeholders, could give more credibility to the

participatory management system and provide incentive for more

community members to become involved in local affairs.

A trust is often led by representatives from the public,

voluntary/community, and private sectors83. However, a trust is

accountable to its community in a variety of ways. Some have Boards

elected by the locals, others have a membership base from which

elections are held84. Many trusts answer to the community and “derive

their community legitimacy not only through constitutional arrangements

but also from day to day practice – the ways in which they involve local

people in their work.”85

82 D. Wilcox, “Creating a Development Trust,” Partnerships Online/Communities Online Forum, 1997,http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC5602.htm (accessed 15 June 2005).83 Ibid., Information sheet: What is a development trust?84 Development Trusts Association (DTA), “What is a development trust?” DTA,http://dta.org.uk/Content/about_dts/aboutdt.htm (accessed 10 May 2005).85 Ibid.

39

Often a development trust is a company limited by guarantee and is

given charitable status where the profits are not paid out to the

participants, but are invested back into the Trust to continue benefiting

the community86. The structure of a Trust includes an unpaid board, which

creates the policies, and paid staff to carry out daily operations87. Funding

is generated through grants and eventually comes from trading income.

A Trust may create subsidiary organizations to further its objectives and the

profits from the subsidiaries then support the Trust88. Generally, the goal is

to become financially self-sufficient and not rely on any single donor.

Trusts are developed from a bottom-up approach89, by local groups or

individuals, or a top-down approach90, by a public or private sponsor91.

David Wilcox lists the challenges an effective Trust must deal with from its

inception and emphasized that “unless these issues are addressed in the

setting up process the trust may spend years dealing with internal conflict

or facing criticism from local people and groups who resent the

newcomer.”92 The issues are:

The partners on the Board will come from different backgrounds

with different priorities – there may be no initial team spirit.

To stay in business when initial core funding declines, they should

rapidly develop projects, which are income earners. These must

86 D. Wilcox, “Creating a Development Trust,” Information sheet: What is a development trust?, PartnershipsOnline/Communities Online Forum, 1997, http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC5602.htm (accessed 15 June 2005).87 Ibid.88 Ibid.89 Area Networking And Development Intitiatives (Anandi) is an example of a bottom-up approach where five womendevelopment professionals organized to create a development trust in the Guajarat region of India where community womenare empowered to lead and make decisions regarding village development. http://anandiindia.org90 The Belize-Guatemala Development Trust Fund established by the president of Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is anexample of a top-down approach setup to address a variety of issues such as establishing a special human settlement inGuatemala and development and protection of the Belize-Guatemala-Honduras Ecological Park.http://www.belize.gov.bz/features/proposals/terms_of_reference.html91 D. Wilcox, “Creating a Development Trust,” Information sheet: Start up process.92 Ibid.

40

help pay for the cost of running the trust and subsidize socially

desirable projects, which lose money.

Projects and running the trust will demand a wide range of

competences (David Wilcox describes competences as

governance, management, communications, financial

sustainability and project management) from the small team of staff

and Board.

While struggling to set up the business and develop the first projects,

the trust staff and Board must also gain the support of local groups

and individuals93.

A locally based development trust fund gives people the incentive to be

proactive and encourages the implementation of innovative ideas.

Several people in the fishing sector and in the local tourism community

expressed the need not only for financial backing, but assistance in

creating and carrying out a plan. A development trust would promote the

involvement of PMB stakeholders and the community as whole. This step

would require a true commitment from all participants and would

potentially create broader based community support for sustainable

community and environmental development.

7. Report Summary

All stakeholders need to identify, clarify and convey their goals and

objectives

Common goals must be chosen, then clear long-term plans must be

designed and implemented in which all stakeholders are held

accountable

93 Ibid.

41

Three mutually beneficial strategies of potential development:

website, certification, development trust fund

o PMB Website

hire paid professional to meet with stakeholders to

determine specific communication needs and most

effective representation for each sector (conduct a

feasibility study)

post meetings and assign stakeholder responsibilities

while consistently posting a timeline indicating progress

towards milestones

include current events, interesting information, records

and documents

o Certification

introduce the process and determine interest of

stakeholders for certification (conduct a feasibility

study)

pre-evaluation with Marine Stewardship Council

design and publicize a comprehensive action plan

implement

o Development trust fund

meet with community members to determine

participation interest and evaluate specific needs

(conduct a feasibility study)

gather a steering group of people (potentially the

Board)

choose projects

create a vision, purpose, and operations protocol

write a business plan

determine costs

42

create management structure

compile promotional materials necessary to seek

funding94

Conclusion

All stakeholders have strategies. Organizations have fairly well defined

plans for how they will or will not deal with a given situation. Perhaps, this is

the time to accept that the current strategies are not working. The

situation continues to worsen and skepticism of the system is increasing.

Commitments need to be made to develop and implement for a long-

term strategy, based on long-term mutually beneficial goals. Short-term

strategies based on long-term goals are proving to be ineffective. As a

recent article in The Economist points out, “Companies that treat social

issues as either irritating distractions or simply unjustified vehicles for attack

on business are turning a blind eye to impending forces that have the

potential fundamentally to alter their strategic future.”95 Being proactive

rather than continuing to be reactive will create a more stable and

credible participatory management system.

94 D. Wilcox, “Creating a Development Trust,” Information sheet: Start up process.95 Ian Davis, “The biggest contract,” The Economist, May 28th –June 3rd 2005, 69.

43

References

Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the

American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4, July, 216-224.

http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherryarnstein/ladder

ofcitizenparticipation.html.

Area Networking And Development Intitiatives (Anandi). “About Anandi.”

http://anandiindia.org.

Ben-Yami, Menakehm. 2001. “Managing Artisanal Fisheries of Galapagos

Consultancy Report 07-01-01- 03-02-01.” Sponsored by the World

Wildlife Fund through the Charles Darwin Foundation.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia and Taghi Farvar. 2001. “Participatory

Evaluation of the Participatory Management of the Galapagos

Marine Reserve (Ecuador).” Mission Report, 14 August – 5 September.

Buckley, Ralf. 2003. Case Studies in Ecotourism. Cambridge: CABI

Publishing.

Davis, Ian. 2005. “The biggest contract.” The Economist, May 28th –June3rd.

Development Trusts Association (DTA). “What is a development trust?”

DTA. http://dta.org.uk/Content/about_dts/aboutdt.htm.

Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse. New York: Penguin Group.

44

Digital Opportunity Initiative. 2001. “From Digital Divide to Digital

Opportunities for Development.” Accenture,Markle Foundation,

UNDP. http://www.opt-init.org/.

European Commission Fisheries and Maritime Affairs (ECFMA). 1998. “The

common fisheries policy: Conservation and responsible fishing.”

http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc_et_publ/factsheets/

factsen.htm

“Face value: The Amazon’s Texan saviour,” The Economist, May 28th –

June 3rd 2005, 68.

Fairhead, James and Melissa Leach. 2003. Science, Society and Power:

Environmental Knowledge and Policy in West Africa and the

Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2002.

“Institutions and policy processes – understanding context.”

Focusing Aquaculture and Small-Scale Aquatic Resource

Management on Poverty Alleviation, Network of Aquaculture

Centres in Asia-Pacific FAO, Bangkok, Thailand, February 12-14.

http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/

005/A C624E/ac624e8.htm.

Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve Ecuador. 1999.

“Management Plan for Conservation and Sustainable Use of the

Galapagos Marine Reserve.” Published by Galapagos National

Park with the contribution of the Charles Darwin Foundation and

financial backing from USAID.

45

Government of Belize. 2000. “Terms of Reference of the Belize-Guatemala

Development Trust Fund.” Belize Guatemala Territorial Differendum

Proposals from the Facilitators. http://belize.gov.bz/features/

Proposals/terms_of_reference.html.

Graham, J., W.A. Johnston, and F.J. Nicholson. 1992. “Ice in Fisheries.”

FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 331. Rome, FAO.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0713E/T0713E00.htm#Contents.

Heuss, Christian. 2002. “New solutions needed to manage fisheries

sustainably.” Stanford News Service, February 22.

http://www.californiafish.org/newsolutions.html.

Kerr, Suzi, Susana Cardenas, and Joanna Hendy. 2004. “Migration and the

Environment in the Galapagos: An analysis of economic and policy

incentives driving migration, potential impacts from migration

control, andpotential policies to reduce migration pressure.” Motu

Working Paper 03-17, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research,

Wellington.

Liker, Jeffrey and Thomas Choi. 2004. “Building Deep Supplier

Relationships.” Harvard Business Review, December.

MacFarland, Craig and Miguel Cifuentes. 1996. “Case Study: Galápagos,

Ecuador.” Pages 135-188 in V. Dompka, editor, “Human Population,

Biodiversity and Protected Areas: Science and Policy Issues.” Report

of a workshop April 20-21, 1995, Washington, D.C. American

46

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington

D.C.

Marine Stewardship Council. 2002. “MSC Principles and Criteria for

Sustainable Fishing.” Marine Stewardship Council.

http://www.msc.org/html/content_463.htm.

Mascia, Michael. 2004. “Social Dimensions of Marine Reserves.” in Jack

Sobel and Craig Dahlgren, editors, Marine Reserves: A Guide to

Science, Design, and Use. Washington: Island Press.

McConney, P., R. Pomeroy, and R. Mahon. 2004. “Coastal resources co

management in the Caribbean.” Presented at “The Commons in an

Age of Global Transition: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities,“ the

Tenth Conference of the International Association for the Study of

Common Property, Oaxaca, Mexico, August 9-13

http://www.iascp2004.org.mx/downloads/paper_389.pdf.

McDonough, William and Michael Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle. New

York: NorthPoint Press.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. “U.S.: Improper Patagonian

Toothfish Shipments Turned Away.” Vancouver Aquarium Aquanews

Aquatic Environmental News Network, 4 October.

http://www.vanaqua.org/aquanew/fullnews.php?id=1657.

Resource Legacy Fund. 2003. “Case Study: World Wildlife Fund – Baja

California Spiny Lobster Fishery Certification.”

http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/programs/prg_sff.html.

47

Resource Legacy Fund. 2005. “Sustainable Fisheries Fund Grantmaking

Guidelines. http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/programs/prg_

sff.html.

Support unit for International Fisheries and Aquatic Research – SIFAR

Fisheries Department. 2004. “Research and policy outcomes in

fisheries – changing the paradigm?” Rome: FAO.

http://www.sifar.org.

Support unit for International Fisheries and Aquatic Research – SIFAR

Fisheries Department. 2003. “Technical Appendix 5.A – ACP Fisheries

Management Knowledge Exchange System.” ACP Fish II

Programme Feasibility Study Report. Rome: FAO, December.

http://www.sifar.org/DflD_Keysheets/WBPolicyBrief13_1.htm.

Tchoukanova, Nadia, Mauricio Gonzalez, and Sylvain Poirier. 2003. “Best

Management Practices: Marine Products Processing.” Prepared

according to contract F4760-030015 for Fisheries and Oceans

Canada – Gulf Region by the Fisheries and Marine Products Division

of the Coastal Zones Research Institute Inc., Shippagan, New

Brunswick, Canada. http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/

effluents/bmp-e.html.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO). 2003. “Small Islands Voice – Laying the foundation.”

Coastal region and small island papers 13, UNESCO, Paris, 97pp.

http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/papers2/siv.htm.

48

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2002. “Toledo Institute

for Development and Environment (TIDE) – Belize.” UNDP.

http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/secondary/InteractiveMap

countrywebpagespdfs/Belize%201p.pdf.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Bureau for Development

Policy. 2001.“UNDP Thematic Trust Fund: Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) for Development.” New York:

UNDP. October. http://www.undp.org/trustfunds/.

Wilcox, David. 1997. “Creating a Development Trust.” Partnerships

Online/Communities Online Forum.

http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC5602.htm.

Word Wildlife Fund. 2004. “MSC certification: a win for Mexican lobster

fishermen and environment.”

http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000001195.asp.

49

Appendix A

Results and Analysis of Field Study

A1. Qualitative Research Method

While in the Galapagos I was fortunate to have the opportunity to

volunteer for Fundación para el Desarollo Alternativo Responsible para

Galápagos (FUNDAR Galápagos) and the Participatory Management

Board (PMB). FUNDAR works with the village communities, international

NGOs and the Park on various projects to improve the local people’s

quality of life in an ecologically sustainable way. The Participatory

Management Board (PMB) is the decision-making entity at the local level

and represents the Galapagos National Park (GNP), the Charles Darwin

Foundation (CDF), tourism, guide, and fishing sectors. My assignment was

to write a report summarizing the goals of the Galapagos Marine Reserve,

including observations and suggestions from the people in the fishing

sector, conservation sector and the Park sector.

The objective of undertaking this study on the community dynamics of the

fishing, conservation and Park sectors was to gain a deeper

understanding of the root of the conflict in the Galapagos. Many studies

have been conducted in the Galapagos over the years. Management,

monitoring, enforcement and education are all valid goals. Other reports

and plans such as the Special Law, Galapagos Marine Reserve

Management Plan (GMRMP), Ben-Yami’s 2001 Consultancy Report and

Feyerabend and Farvar’s 2001 Participatory Management Board

Evaluations are filled with insight and long-term visions. In examining why

these goals and visions continue to remain out of reach, the qualitative

interview process appeared most suitable.

50

A2. Interviewee Selection and Process

The stakeholders on the Participatory Management Board are the Park,

Charles Darwin Foundation, Fishing, Tourism and Guide sectors. My

questions were formulated based on my interest in learning more about

the specific conflict between the fishing sector and the other sectors. As

part of this, in my interview guide I needed to include general questions

regarding the operation of the participatory management system and

the fishing policies. Though I would have liked to include more people

from the tourism and guide sectors, I quickly discovered that many of the

questions regarding fishing policies and the participatory management

system were difficult for people to answer who were not specifically in

management positions in the tourism and guide sectors. As a result, I

interviewed thirteen people in the conservation sector, six in the Park

sector, twelve in the fishing sector, three in tourism, and one in the guide

sector. The responses of the three people in the tourism sector and the

one person in the guide sector were not included in the matrix (a table for

each question organizing and comparing the answers from each sector).

A matrix was used for each question to determine patterns and analyze

the data in a more systematic manner. However, I considered the four

interviews from the tourism/guide sectors as part of the informal interview

process and incorporated their thoughts and ideas into this report.

The Park is considered separate from the conservation sector because

most people in the other sectors view them as separate entities. In the

end, the Park is able to overrule the consensus-based system of the PMB

and is considered more of a government representative, not always fully

supporting the conservation sector’s requests. The Charles Darwin

Foundation is strongly supported by national and international

51

organizations, so was placed under the conservation sector umbrella. The

conservation sector is generally committed to scientific research and

recruits people and raises funds from the international community to

provide support for the conservation of the Galapagos96. I interviewed

people from conservation organizations representing five countries.

Fishermen from each of the four Galapagos fishing cooperatives were

interviewed. The fishers are generally concerned with maintaining a

Galapagos Marine Reserve, so they and their children can continue to

earn a living.

I examined a variety of current literature. The lack of information

regarding local views emphasized the importance of interviewing local

fisher people on different islands. The island of Santa Cruz, where I was

living and where most of the population of the Galapagos lives, is home

to approximately a quarter of the fisher population. Isabela has

approximately another quarter and San Cristóbal has approximately half

of the fisher population. I arranged to interview people from all three

islands. Most of the people in the conservation sector and Park reside and

work on Santa Cruz. However, I also interviewed people in the Park system

on Isabela.

96 Craig MacFarland and Miguel Cifuentes, 1996, “Case Study: Galápagos, Ecuador,” in V.Dompka, editor,“Human Population, Biodiversity and Protected Areas: Science and Policy Issues,” (Report of a workshop April20-21, 1995, Washington D.C., American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington,D.C.)

52

= interview locations

Source: www.galapaguide.com/galapagos_map.htmFigure A.1 Galapagos map

Individuals I interviewed also referred several interviewees to me, and

other interviewees I met during my travels. In each sector I was careful to

include people in decision-making positions and people who are not. It

was important to interview people with decision-making responsibilities to

get a better understanding of why certain situations are handled in a

specific manner. However, the view of a leader does not always

accurately represent the rest of the members’ views.

The people interviewed have busy lives and many travel extensively, so it

was important to prepare a well-organized interview, which respected the

interviewees’ schedules. After the first few interviews, I confirmed the

53

eleven questions most suited for my study. Technically, the interview could

be as short as thirty minutes. However, most interviews lasted forty-five

minutes to an hour, and a few lasted as long as two hours.

A limitation of this study is my restricted knowledge of Spanish. Most of the

people in the Galapagos speak only Spanish. Before arriving in the

Galapagos, I spent three weeks living with an Ecuadorian family in Quito

while attending a Spanish school five days a week for six hours each day.

It is impossible to learn a language in three weeks. However, with the

assistance of friends, colleagues, very patient interviewees, and a skilled

translator/transcriber I was able to collect the information necessary to

write this report.

Whenever appropriate, I asked the interviewee for their approval to tape

the conversation. Otherwise, I relied on my notes. I introduced myself to

each interviewee, described the purpose of the study, and assured them

that the interview would be confidential. The questions were available for

the interviewees to read in both English and Spanish. This allowed for

clarification of the questions for interviewees who spoke English as their

second language. After each interview, I assigned a number to the

questionnaire. For those interviews that were tape recorded, the tape was

numbered as well. The interview key was kept on my computer and was

accessible only to me.

54

A3. Interview Questions

I. What are your goals for the fisheries management in theGalapagos Marine Reserve?¿Para Usted, cuáles cree que deberían ser los objetivos demanejo de las pesquerías en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos?

II. What is necessary to have an effective fishing policy? Howwould you implement it?¿Qué es necesario para tener una política pesquera efectiva?¿Cómo implementaría esa política pesquera efectiva?

III. What has been successful and not so successful in theGalapagos Marine Reserve Management Plan?¿Cuáles fueron los éxitos y los problemas durante la elaboracíondel Plan de Manejo de la Reserva Marina de Galápagos y suposterior implementacíon?

IV. Do you know of any examples of successful co-management offisheries in other parts of the world?¿Conoce otros ejemplos que han sido éxitosos en el co-manejode las pesquerías?

V. When do you think the problems with the different sectors startedto increase? What do you think are the primary reasons for theincreased problems?¿Cuándo cree Usted que los problemas con los diferentessectores comenzarón a empeorar? ¿Cuáles son las principalesrazones para el incremento de los problemas?

VI. What are the current channels of communication for scientificdevelopments, changes and decision of the fisheries? Whichsteps should be taken to improve communications between thefisheries sector and other stakeholders?¿Cuáles son las estrategias de comunicación para realizarinvestigación y tomar decisiones sobre el manejo pesquero en laRMG? ¿Cuáles son las medidas necesarias para mejorar lacomunicación entre el Sector Pesquero y los otros sectores?

55

VII. Do you think it is necessary to reduce the concentration offishing efforts in order to make the GMR more sustainable? Howwould you propose to do this?¿Usted cree que es necesario reducir el esfuerzo pesqueroconcentración para asegurar la sostenibilidad de la RMG?¿Cómo se debería hacer?

VIII. What are the incentives to leave the fishing sector? What type ofassistance is presently available for fishermen choosing to leavethe fishing industry?¿Cuáles son los incentivos para dejar la actividad pesquera?¿Qué tipo de asistencia está actualmente disponible para lospescadores que decidan dejar su actividad?

IX. How do the fishermen benefit from the fishing policies?¿Cómo los pescadores se han benificiado de la actual políticapesquera?

X. What do you consider the successes and problems of the PMB?¿Cuales considera Usted, que son los exitos y los problemas dela JMP?

XI. What are the common goals of the Galapagos National Park,the Charles Darwin Foundation, the fishing sector and the tourismsector?¿Cuáles son los objetivos comunes entre el Parque NacionalGalápagos, la Fundación Charles Darwin, el Sector Pesquero y elSector Turismo?

A4. Summary

The interview questions were constructed to provide a general framework

for the interview. Every question is in some way related to the

management or operation of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Many of

56

the questions were broad to give the interviewee the flexibility to give a

short or elaborate answer. In cases where people had difficulty narrowing

down their answers, I would ask for just two or three examples. Due to the

high degree of conflict in recent years I was especially interested in

finding out what people thought were the causes of conflict and what

could be done to improve the present situation.

At the end of the interview we often discussed the implications of the

current situation and the various steps that could be taken to improve the

circumstances. Many interviewees recommended books and literature.

This was helpful to me in many ways and gave me a better understanding

of how their views are formed.

A5. General Data Observations

The answers below reflect direct answers to the questions and generalconversations conducted during the interviews. The answers areorganized according to similarities and differences. Similarities, signifies atleast one or more persons from each sector gave a similar answer to thelisted response. The same applies for differences.

A.5.1. What are the goals for fisheries management and what is necessaryfor effective fishing policies?

The only similarities combination missing is the Park and Fishermen.Everything the Park and fishermen had in common they also had incommon with conservation (listed under “Similarities Across the Sectors”).

Similarities (Across the Sectors)

Sustainable fisheries No confidence in system Improve income for fishermen Control the number of boats and fishermen Limitations on how much to fish

57

Illegal fishing is still a problem Sanctions for law offenders Monitoring A consensus among all users Decisions need to be based on accurate information Fishermen need assistance in developing alternatives Address social and economic aspects of fisheries management Quality fishery that will add value and obtain better prices on the

market; establish a fully operational center of fisheries production Long-term loans and intensive technical assistance for fishing sector Need offshore fishing possibilities Fishing co-operatives need to organize Improve education system for community and fishermen Limit the interference of politics in the decision making process Develop relationships with the fishing and Park/conservation sectors Setup more effective governance where the national government

carries through decisions

Similarities (Fishermen and Conservation)

More advanced notice before meetings to allow adequate time toreview data/reports and prepare for the meetings

Respect for the Special Law Stop migration Improve respect for zoning Apply law evenly

Similarities (Park and Conservation)

Maintaining ecosystems and biodiversity GNP needs to improve its fisheries management ability GNP needs to improve its permanent technical abilities

Differences (Fishermen)

Adequate representation of the fishing sector on the PMB Regulate longlining, which should be allowed no closer than 10

miles offshore, and review fishing Pilot Plan 2003 done between 30-100 meters deep

58

Need a minimum 5-10 year plan where the State assists fishermenwith monitoring, boat tracking, technical support andcommercialization

More needs to be done for community development Fishermen need to be a stakeholder in the fishery; they need some

sort of ownership Management from other sectors should go on fishing boats to get a

better understanding of the work being done

Differences (Park)

Allot specific fisheries and fishing zones to specific groups offishermen

Tax for fishing resources and payment for permits and licenses

Differences (Conservation)

Need to respect the Reserve as a World Heritage Site Think beyond managing just four species, make sure non-extractive

species aren’t negatively impacted and consider climaticfluctuations

A.5.2. What has been successful in the GMR Management Plan?

This question wasn’t asked of the initial interviewees, most of which werefrom the Park, so that is why there aren’t as many answers from the Park:

Similarities (Across the Sectors) Successful

Zoning by consensus A good tool Regulations

Similarities (Fishermen and Conservation) Successful

Approval of the Management Plan Act of working together to reach an agreement Nothing

Similarities (Fishermen and Park) Successful

Fishing calendar

59

Similarities (Park and Conservation)Successful Participatory Management Board

Differences (Fishermen) Successful

Hope of alternatives

Differences (Park) Successful

Fishing register 40 miles around the Reserve

Differences (Conservation) Successful

Exclusion of industrial fishing Transfer of decision making from continent to Galapagos Research programs have been strengthened

A.5.2.a. What has not been successful in the GMR Management Plan?

This question wasn’t asked of the initial interviewees, most of which werefrom the Park, so that is why there aren’t as many answers from the Park:

Similarities (Across the Sectors) Unsuccessful

Illegal fishing is still a problem Regulations aren’t applied

Similarities (Fishermen and Conservation) Unsuccessful

Approval

Similarities (Fishermen and Park) Unsuccessful

Fishing

Similarities (Park and Conservation)Unsuccessful Participatory

Differences (Fishermen) Unsuccessful

60

Resources are diminishing No real control for tourism; tourism is polluting and it’s not

decreasing Fishing and zoning isn’t actually regulated Management Plan isn’t applied equally for each sector

Differences (Park) Unsuccessful

The political way the Reserve is managed; the decisions shouldn’tbe made by politicians

Differences (Conservation) Unsuccessful

Lack of scientific information during the planning process Leaves several controversial subjects undefined, including longlining Has not fulfilled expectations of users Migration continues Hasn’t been permanent assistance for PMB to function No confidence in system Certain unknown issues have brought separation among sectors Inclusion of AIM in the law, which didn’t permit strengthening of the

local participatory management Unity of sectors couldn’t be maintained In the middle of the process new people joined who didn’t know

there was a background of promises and confidence amongsectors; people came without a history and that hurt every sector

Sectors have not been able to strengthen from within and organize Too many parties were consulted in the beginning, which led to the

inability to produce a cohesive and effective managementstrategy and fishing policy