strategies for improving fisheries management in the galapagos marine reserve
Post on 12-Apr-2017
884 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related