human systems - galapagos conservancy, inc. · 2017/12/2 · 35 galapagos report 2015 - 2016...

HUMAN SYSTEMS

35

GALAPAGOS REPORT 2015 - 2016

Estimation and forecasting of water demand in Puerto AyoraMaría Fernanda Reyes1, Nemanja Trifunović1, Saroj Sharma1 and Maria D. Kennedy1,2

1UNESCO–IHE Institute for Water Education, The Netherlands2Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Photo: © Maria Reyes Perez Introduction

Tourism is a major source of income and employment in most small tropical islands (Tsiourtis, 2002) and small island states. Despite the fact that many islands worldwide have limited water resources, the expansion of tourism over the last 40 years has been significant (Essex et al., 2004), affecting natural resources, especially water. As a consequence of tourism and local population growth, water demand has increased dramatically, causing several deficiencies on water supply and sewer services, which is directly related to the provision of facilities and services required by tourists (Charara et al., 2010; Bramwell, 2003; Gossling et al., 2012).

The lack of freshwater resources in Galapagos has been a challenge to residents and visitors since the Islands were first discovered. Since 1980, the resident population has quadrupled from 5,500 inhabitants to 26,000 in 2010, while the number of visitors has increased from 17,500 to over 200,000. This increase in the number of residents and visitors has created major challenges in water resource management. Local authorities have been unable to keep up with rapid population growth and development, in terms of upgrading and maintaining the water supply infrastructure and service, especially in Puerto Ayora, the main tourism hub. This is primarily due to: weak and unstable governance, lack of eco-friendly policies, and unplanned urbanization, among others (Reyes et al., 2015a; González et al., 2008).

Water demand in Puerto Ayora has been difficult to estimate due to the lack of water meters in the premises. Water supplied is brackish, inapt for human consumption. In addition to the municipal water supply, private individuals and/or institutions extract water from private crevices, adding to the lack of data on water demand. Bottled desalinated water is the only source of drinking water and is distributed by small private companies. In spite of the lack of records, D’Ozouville (2008) estimated water demand based on data from 13 installed water meters in households. The results of this study suggested that specific water demand for the 13 homes ranged from 92 to 1567 L/capita/day (calculations based on number of people residing in each home). However, the excessive high end of the range suggests that some domestic premises may provide informal tourist accommodations. Another factor contributing to excessive consumption and waste is that the water tariff structure is fixed, without regard to usage.

This article analyzes water demand in Puerto Ayora, where approximately 60% of the total population of Galapagos lives, and which is the center of tourism activity. Our research looked at different types of sources (municipal supply, desalinated-bottled water, and water extracted from crevices), and the four main

36


categories of consumers (domestic, hotels, restaurants, and laundries). Based on these results, we forecasted water demand under four population growth scenarios and six alternatives to reduce water use. When the results did not show sufficient supply to cover demand, we created five intervention strategies that combine different alternatives to reduce water consumption and enhance water supply in Puerto Ayora. Based on our results, we recommend specific actions to ensure water conservation and the preservation of the fragile ecosystem.

Methodology

A survey (written multiple-choice questions) was carried out from November 2013 to January 2014 in Puerto Ayora. The minimum sample size required (339 surveys) was calculated based on the total number of premises (all type of properties adding up to 2460), according to the 2012 cadastre of the Municipality of Santa Cruz. The sample size per category was later determined

based on the number of premises in each category: 240 households, 29 hotels, 30 restaurants, and 16 laundries (DeVault, 2014).

Once current water demand for the four categories was estimated, future water demand was forecasted based on four different population growth scenarios (Table 1; Mena et al., 2013). The WaterMet2 model1 (Behzadian et al., 2014) was selected among several models which simulate the entire urban water cycle, due to the low amount of data required, compared to other models.

These scenarios were selected based on a previous study done by Mena et al. (2013). “Slow growth” represents population growth targets recommended by NGOs and conservationists, while the “very fast” scenario represents growth targets indicated by the authorities to continue to ensure that Galapagos is a world tourism destination. The middle two scenarios were developed as stages between the two extremes.

Table 1. Annual population and tourist growth scenarios used for water demand forecast in Puerto Ayora.

Growth scenario Resident population increase (%) Visitor number increase* (%)

Very Fast 7 9

Fast 5 7

Moderate 3 4

Slow 1 1

*The historic average growth per year is 7%.

Results

Domestic water demand

Based on the results of the surveys, the total water demand from the municipal supply system was estimated, as was demand per capita (Figure 1). Larger households have lower demand per capita, suggesting that water consumption for general activities like cleaning and cooking is independent of the number of occupants. However, the wide range of demand suggests different

lifestyles. The average municipal water per capita demand (L/capita/day) for Puerto Ayora is 163 ± 80 L/capita/day.

Domestic water demand was also estimated based on all water sources (Table 2). An average demand per capita of 177 L/capita/day is relatively high (average specific demand in mainland Ecuador is 150 L/capita/day and in many European countries is 120 L/capita/day), considering the limited water resources and total water supply. The local population has stated clearly that additional water is needed beyond that supplied by the municipality.

Table 2. Total water demand per year for households from different water sources in Santa Cruz and the average demand per capita per day.

Municipal supply

(m3/year)

Bottled water (m3/year)

Water trucks* (m3/year)

Rain water** (m3/year)

Total demand (m3/year)

Approximate population

(no. inhabit-ants)

Demand per capita

per day (liters)

712,188 7,243 57,518 N/A* 776,949 12,000 ±177

*Water from trucks refers to partial pumping from ‘private’ crevices.**Rainwater collection was not included as it is practiced by fewer than 10% of surveyed households.

1 WaterMet2 is a metabolism-based model that quantifies a number of flows/fluxes (e.g., water and energy) in urban water systems (UWS). It can be used to assess sustainability-based performance of the analyzed water system, including quantifying the likely impact of different intervention strategies. This model is appropriate for this study given the lack of a sewage system, allowing modelling of only the supply and demand component. Moreover, this model allows water demand under various scenarios to be forecasted and evaluates the performance of several strategic water supply solutions (Behzadian & Kapelan, 2015). Also, this model

37


Table 3. Water demand per day for hotels and restaurants in Puerto Ayora.

Figure 1. Water demand per capita and number of inhabitants per household in Puerto Ayora (Reyes et al., 2015a).

0

0 0 0 0 0 0

100

200

300

400

R2= 0,2737

Number of inhabitants per household

Dem

and

per c

apita

(Ipc

pd)

Type of accommodation

Average capacity (customers)

Municipal water (m3/day)

Water trucks (m3/day)

Bottled water(m3/day)

Demand per capita (liters)

Hostel 35 8.1 0 0 205

2-star hotel 45 4.0 12.3 0.1 470

3-star hotel 35 6.0 29.7 0.3 667

4-star hotel 40 9.6 9.0 0.1 535

AVERAGE 38 7.0 11.3 0.1 469

Restaurants

15 0.2 0.9 0.1 126

25 0.5 1.7 0.1 158

45 0.4 0.9 0.2 46

50 0.4 1.8 0.3 79

AVERAGE 34 0.4 1.3 0.2 102

Hotel and restaurant demand

Total water demand was assessed for tourist facilities in Puerto Ayora (hotels and restaurants) based on survey

results related to the volume of water storage facilities and the frequency of refilling storage tanks, as well as amount of bottled-desalinated water and water supplied by trucks (Table 3).

Water demand varies according to the type of accommodation (hotel rating) and the average capacity. The majority of hotels and restaurants are connected to the municipal supply, but some hotels (mainly three-star hotels) and virtually all restaurants are primarily supplied by water trucks. Most four-star hotels have their own purification system (by desalination) and are thus less dependent on the municipal supply. Three-star hotels tend to use more water because of higher occupancy.

Analysis of demand for all categories

Total water demand for Puerto Ayora was calculated based on the average consumption derived from the survey, multiplied by the total number of premises per category according to the land cadastre of the municipality (Table 4). According to the Ministry of Tourism (Saeteros, pers. com., 2013), of the 159 tourist accommodations, only 53 were legally registered. As observed, hotels have the highest demand from the municipal water supply and

is able to represent the daily, seasonal, and annual (future) dynamics of the water demand, based on changes in population or consumption patterns. Furthermore, it has a wide range of output indicators resulting from the simulation of a wide range of fluxes: water flow, energy flow, greenhouse gas emission, among others, which offers several sustainability indicators for assessment of the intervention strategies.

38


Table 5. Suggested alternatives for improvement of the Urban Water System.

Alternative Description Input values for forecasting

1 Leakage reduction Reduction from 28% to 10% (2% annually) The same values for all four growth scenarios

2 Desalination plant Installation of a new Sea Water Reverse-Osmosis desalination plant

Plant capacities for four different growth scenarios:1. 50,000 m3/day2. 28,000 m3/day3. 16,000 m3/day4. 9,000 m3/day

3 Water meter installation Installation of water meters with an installation rate of 10% annually

The same rate for all growth scenarios

4 Rainwater harvesting Installation of rainwater harvesting tanks in each household

Capacity: 2 m3 tank/household

5 Greywater recycling Installation of greywater recycling tanks in each household

Capacity: household greywater treatment capacity of 350 L/day

6 Water demand reduction Reduction of specific demand for municipal water

Reduction from 163 L/capita/day to 120 L/capita/day (assuming 1% annual reduction)

Table 4. Total water demand quantification considering all categories.

Category Number of users** Municipal supply (m3/day)

Bottled water (m3/day)

Water trucks* (m3/day)

Total demand (m3/day)

Domestic 12,000 1951 20 158 2129

Hotels 159 1107 21 1789 2917

Restaurants 49 69 8 51 128

Laundries 16 28 0 20 47

Total - 3156 48 2018 5222

* Water trucks refer to pumping from ‘private’ crevices.** Refers to inhabitants or premises

The proposed alternatives, as well as the baseline (current situation) were simulated in the WaterMet2 model over the planning horizon from year 2014 to 2044, in order to analyze their impact on future water demand coverage (Table 5). Due to unsatisfactory coverage of water demand

for most of the individual alternatives by year 2044, combinations of these alternatives resulted in five more complex intervention strategies (Figure 2), to then assess resulting improvements in water demand coverage.

Table 6. Percentage (%) of water demand covered at the end of the planning horizon in 2044.

Population growth Baseline Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Slow 52 64 100 68 72 79 73

Moderate 35 36 100 37 40 43 41

Fast 17 17 99 18 21 22 20

Very Fast 10 11 100 11 16 13 12

trucks, which accounts for 55% of the total water demand. This suggests that the unregistered accommodations (106) consume around 37% of the total water demand.

Water demand forecasting

In order to improve future water demand coverage, six

potential alternatives were developed. The aim was to increase water conservation and to reduce water loss from the system (Table 5). These alternatives were simulated with the WaterMet22 model, considering the four population growth scenarios and a planning horizon of 30 years. The aim was to quantify potential improvements of water demand coverage with water supply.

39


Figure 2. Future intervention strategies applied to the water supply system of Puerto Ayora.

LeakageReduction

1 DesalinationPlant

2 3 RainwaterHarvesting

4 GreywaterRecycling

5Water Demand

Reduction

6Water MeterInstallation

ALTERNATIVES

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

1. Leakage Reduction

3. Water MeterInstallationSTRATEGY 1:


2. DesalinationPlantSTRATEGY 2: 3. Water Meter

Installation


4. RainwaterHarvestingSTRATEGY 3: 5. Greywater

Recycling

3. Water MeterInstallation

4. RainwaterHarvestingSTRATEGY 4: 5. Greywater

Recycling


3. Water MeterInstallationSTRATEGY 5: 4. Rainwater

Harvesting

5. GreywaterRecyclings

6. Water DemandReduction

The model indicates that using Strategy 2 (desalination combined with water meter installation and leakage reduction) results in the lowest total water demand (Figure 3). It also suggests that ensuring more availability of water through rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling will result in an increase in demand. Even though the greatest water availability would be achieved by the installation of a desalination plant, it would be counterbalanced by leakage reduction and water meter

installation (water demand measurements). On the other hand, total coverage of water demand by the end of the planning horizon will only be achieved using desalination for all four population growth scenarios. However, for the small growth scenario, strategy 5 (combination of all sustainable strategies) would suffice. The rest of the options would be far from optimal, especially for the fast and very fast growth scenario.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

Co

ve

rag

e (

%)

Slow Moderate Fast Very fast

Baseline Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 50

2

4

6

8

10

Slow Moderate Fast Very fast

Mil

lio

ns

of

m3 (

%)

Baseline Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5

Figure 3. Total water demand in Puerto Ayora by 2044 for the four growth scenarios, and percentage demand coverage in 2044 for the five intervention strategies in Puerto Ayora.

40


Conclusions

Water demand quantification for Puerto Ayora has been challenging; the available data are scarce and inaccurate. However, based on the existing data and our surveys, hotels showed the highest water consumption, with an average of 469 L/capita/day. This equals 49% of total water demand on this island. Domestic water use, at 163 ± 80 L/capita/day, is high in relation to the limited water resources; this may be a consequence of the current fixed water tariff structure.

The high average per capita demand suggests that there is no scarcity of water resources as perceived by the local population, but instead ineffective management of water supply and demand. When compared to the lower average per capita demand in mainland Ecuador (150 L/capita/day), it can be concluded that the water supplied by the municipality is sufficient for daily activities.

Regarding water demand forecasting, the results suggest that the current infrastructure would not suffice for any of the population growth scenarios. Demand coverage in the slow growth scenario will reach approximately 70%, while in the fast growth scenario, demand coverage will be a mere 20%. Only by increasing water availability by the installation of a desalination plant will water demand in 2044 be fully covered for all growth scenarios. This strategy, however, will mean a higher financial investment and greater potential environmental impacts on the island.

The current exorbitant growth trends will generate a significant increase in water demand by the local population and tourists, as well as increase demand for other basic services and natural resources. The

combination of sustainable alternatives in Strategy No. 5 will be sufficient only in the slow growth scenario, recommended by NGOs and conservation authorities, but highly unrealistic (Mena et al., 2013).

Based on the results of this study we recommend the following:

• Abolish the fixed water tariff structure in Puerto Ayora, while installing water meters throughout the system, to increase environmental awareness amongst the population and reduce demand.

• Determine the exact number of tourist accommodations (including all private homes that cater to tourists), in order to more accurately estimate demand as well as quantify the impacts from this category.

• Analyze current growth trends and make the necessary adjustments as current growth rates imply a very high impact for this island and will probably result in a significant future lack of water to satisfy local and tourist demand.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Secretary of Science, Technology and Innovation of Ecuador (SENESCYT) for the funds provided for the current research; and the Autonomous Municipal Government of Santa Cruz for providing data. We acknowledge the Galapagos National Park Directorate (GNPD) for help in management issues. We thank W. Tapia, G. Quezada, D. Sarango, and T. Guerra for data and help provided.

References

Behzadian K, Z Kapelan, G Venkatesh, H Brattebø, S Sægrov, E Rozos & C Makropoulos. 2014. Quantitative UWS Performance Model: WaterMet2, TRUST Report.

Behzadian K & Z Kapelan. 2015. Modelling metabolism based performance of an urban water system using WaterMet2. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 99:84-99.

Bramwell B. 2003. Maltese responses to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30(3):581-605.

Charara N, A Cashman, R Bonnell & R Gehr. 2010. Water use efficiency in the hotel sector of Barbados. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(2):231-245.

d’ Ozouville N. 2008. Water resource management: the Pelican Bay watershed. In: Galapagos Report 2007-2008. Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador.

DeVault G. 2014. Surveys Research - Confidence Intervals: Good survey research design seeks to reduce sampling error, Retrieved from http://marketresearch.about.com/od/market.research.surveys/a/Surveys-Research-Confidence-Intervals.html. Visited on July 15, 2014.

Essex S, M Kent & R Newnham. 2004. Tourism development in Mallorca: is water supply a constraint? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12(1):4-28.

41


González J A, C Montes, J Rodríguez & W Tapia. 2008. Rethinking the Galapagos Islands as a complex social-ecological system: Implications for conservation and management. Ecological Environment Journal 13(2):13. Gössling S, P Peeters, C Hall, J Cerón, G Dubois, L Lehmann & D Scott. 2012. Tourism and water use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tourism Management 33(1):1-15.

Mena C, S Walsh, F Pizzitutti, G Reck, R Rindfuss, D Orellana, V Toral-Granda, C Valle, D Quiroga, J García, L Vasconez, A Guevara, M Sanchez, B Frizelle & R Tippett. 2013. Determination of social, environmental and economical relations which allow the development based on different processes of modeling, potential scenarios of sustainability of the socio-ecological system of the Galapagos Islands with emphasis on the dynamic of the flux of tourist visitors. Galapagos, Ministry of Environment. Galapagos National Park Directorate. 1.

Reyes M, Trifunovic N, Sharma S & Kennedy M. 2015a. Water supply and demand in Santa Cruz Island-Galápagos Archipelago. International Water Technology Journal 6(3):212-221.

Reyes M, Trifunovic N, Sharma S & Kennedy M. 2015b. Data assessment for water demand and supply balance in the Island of Santa Cruz (Galápagos Islands). Desalination and Water Treatment Journal. Doi:10.1080/19443994.2015.1119756

Saeteros A. 2013. October 17. Interview by M. Reyes. Ministry of Tourism, Puerto Ayora-Galapagos-Ecuador.

Tsiourtis N. 2002. Greece-water resources planning and climate change adaptation. Mediterranean Regional Roundtable on Water, Wetlands and Climate Change, Building Linkages for their Integrated Management:10-11.

42


Measurement of exhaust fumes produced by water taxis in Puerto AyoraMarco Orozco, Patricio Gallardo and Juan Pablo Díaz

National Institute of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Quito, Ecuador

Photo: © Zorica Kovacevic Introduction

Maritime transport in Galapagos is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the Archipelago due to the use of internal combustion engines of boats. The use of these engines results in environmental pollution due to the emission of greenhouse gases, and fuel and oil spills during operation and maintenance of equipment. In addition, given that all fuel used in Galapagos must be imported from the continent, the potential for fuel spills during transport is a concern.

“Cargo and Transport” is one of the sectors of maritime transport established by the administrative authorities in the Archipelago. This sector includes the small vessels that operate as water taxis in Puerto Ayora (Figure 1). There are two water taxi cooperatives in Puerto Ayora: Flamingos and Charles Darwin, each with 12 boats. The operation of these vessels falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport and Public Works (MTPW).

Figure 1. Type of boat used as water taxis in Puerto Ayora. Photo: © Darío Rodríguez

To understand how this transportation sector is organized, we interviewed the Naval Zone commander, MTPW staff, and owners and managers of the vessels. The two taxi cooperatives work together and operate by turns. The water taxis are maintained in a row, each waiting for its turn, and as passengers arrive, the next taxi in line begins its operation (Figure 2).

This study examined emissions from the engines of 18 water taxis (75% of the total number) in Puerto Ayora (Table 1).

43


Figure 2. Puerto Ayora water taxis waiting their turn. Photo: © Marcelo Moya

Table 1. Analyzed boats and their engine type.

Boat NameMotor

Horsepower Type

Danahi

50 4T

Marlyn

Tauro

Joe Andre

Dayana

Zayapita

Zoilita II

Viviana II

Nayeli

Pinzón

Zayapa

Sol a Sol

Joel

Mhasao

Pink Floyd II

Kaya

Leo 70

El Patucho 40 2T

Methodology

Data collection process

To measure engine emissions of the water taxis, we used a Brain Bee au Mobile analyzer, which uses infrared rays for standard tests (BrainBeeS.p.A, 2013). The analyzer is connected to a personal computer with a serial port and data is recorded in real time.

Emission samples were taken directly from the engine exhaust. A 10-cm tube was inserted into the exhaust

line (Figures 3 & 4). Data were collected continuously for two minutes at engine idle speed (motor on without acceleration) and then recorded in a file with “txt” format for later review.

Using OMNIBUS 800 Brain Bee software, test results appear on the computer screen for the following parameters: carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), noncombustible hydrocarbons (HC), oxygen (O2), and the lambda value (Lambda λ) (Figures 5 & 6). Mononitrogen oxides (NOx) were not recorded as the equipment could only measure this gas at high temperatures.

44


Figure 3. Location of the tube in the engine exhaust line. Photo: © Juan Pablo Díaz

Figure 4. Data collection process with the taxi located adjacent to the pier. Photo: © Patricio Gallardo

Figure 5. Example of the first screen showing measurements of parameters.

Figure 6. Example of the second screen showing measurements of parameters.

45


Emissions calculations

Emission calculations were based on the regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

1. The first step is to identify the engine category to be analyzed. The water taxis all used outboards, most of which were four-stroke gasoline engines. The average rating is 37 kW (50 hp); the fuel feed mechanism is indirect injection. Based on these criteria, the engine designation is MO4I:

• M: Marine• O: Outboard

• 4: 4 stroke• I: Indirect injection

2. The power range that corresponds to these engines is between 50 to 100 hp. The level of contaminants is indicated in g/bhp-hr: the amount of gas emissions in grams [g] divided by brake power in horsepower for an hour [bhp-hr] (Table 2).

To transform the quantity of fuel used by the water taxis to energy terms, a performance index, known as the brake specific fuel consumption, was used. The value of this index, recommended by the EPA for this type of engine is 0.718 lbs/bhp-hr (EPA, 2010).

Contaminant Factor (g/bhp-hr)

HC 5.8

NOx 5.4

CO 152.2

PM 0.1

Contaminant Adjustment Coefficient

HC 1.3

NOx 1.0

CO 1.4

PM 1.0

BSFC 1.0

Table 2. Emission factors of gases from boats with motors with 50 to 100 HP (EPA, 2010).

Table 3. Adjustment coefficient for gas emissions from boats with 50 to 100 HP engines (EPA, 2010).

3. The above mentioned parameters correspond to a constant load operation. In reality, the power demand is variable according to weather conditions and navigation.

To account for these factors, it is necessary to make an adjustment to the emission factors listed above through specific adjustment coefficients (Table 3).

4. The emission factor corresponding to CO2 is determined according to the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and the adjustment coefficient , calculated as the

product of the emission factor and the adjustment coefficient for noncombustible hydrocarbons (EPA, 2010).

5. The emission factor corresponding to sulfur dioxide is determined as a function of the fuel consumption factor, the fraction of sulfur in terms of material particles (soxcnv)

(0.03 for gasoline engines), percentage weight of sulfur in the fuel (soxbas) (0.0339 for gasoline), and the adjustment factor for noncombustible hydrocarbons ; EPA, 2010).

46


Results

Data collected from the emission measurements resulted in the generation of frequency graphs for HC and probability graphs for CO, CO2, and O2. In the case of CO there is a greater chance (approximately 85%) that the volume is between 2-5% of the total volume of emitted

gases (Figure 7). The same analysis criteria apply to CO2 and O2 gases. For CO2, there is an approximate 50% probability that its volume is in the range of 4-6% of the total volume of emitted gases (Figure 8). Similarly, for O2, there is approximately a 46% probability that its volume is in the range of 6-14% of the total volume of emitted gases (Figure 9).

1

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

% Volume

Prob

abili

ty

2

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

4 6 8 10

% Volume

Prob

abili

ty

Figure 7. Probability of CO emissions with adjusted density curve.

Figure 8. Probability of CO2 emissions with adjusted density curve.

% Volume

Prob

abili

ty

2

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Figure 9. Probability of O2 emissions with adjusted density curve.

In the case of noncombustible hydrocarbons, the majority of measurements (14 of 17 boats) falls within a range of

0-1000 ppm (Figure 10).

47


ppm

Freq

uenc

y

0 1000

02468

101214

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Figure 10. Frequency of HC emissions.

Table 4. Minimum, average, and maximum amounts of various types of emission gases.

Most of the results are expressed as a percentage of the gases emitted to the environment from the engine exhaust. For example, 5.7% of the volume of the exhaust gases, on average, corresponds to CO2. Similarly, the

average values as a percentage of the total volume of gases emitted for CO and noncombustible O2 are 3.9% and 9.4% (Table 4).

Type of Gas Minimum Average Maximum

% carbon monoxide (CO) 1.8 3.7 7.1

% carbon dioxide (CO2) 1.4 5.7 9.6

ppm noncombustible hydrocarbons (HCs) 152.2 974.9 6181.0

% noncombustible oxygen (O2) 1.6 9.4 17.0

Although the analysis provides a quantitative measure of the nature of combustion in the sample analyzed, it is necessary to complement these measurements with estimates of average daily fuel consumption. For this, we used greenhouse gas emission factors, which are based on categories proposed for Otto cycle engines used for non-terrestrial purposes (Non-road Engine Modeling), as in the case of the tested boats (EPA, 2010).

Greenhouse gas emissions are commonly expressed in CO2 equivalents. These units are based on global warming potential indices, which represent the capacity that some gases have to absorb energy for a given period of time (usually 100 years), compared with the capacity of CO2

(EPA, 2016). The only gas included in the analysis that has a direct radiant effect is CO2. Gases such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides do not directly affect the radiant energy exchange between the earth and the sun. Based on the emission factors already described, annual emissions can be calculated, assuming that the fleet consists of 20 boats each with a 50-hp motor. The specific fuel consumption average is 5.7 gallons per day (average obtained from a representative sample of seven boats). It is assumed that each boat remains idle 15 days per year for preventive and corrective maintenance. The calculations were made for each boat and for the entire fleet (Table 5).

Table 5. Summary of emission calculations for various gases.

Emission factor (g/bhp-hr)

Adjustment factor

Corrected emission factor (g/bhp-hr)

Daily emissions per taxi (g)

Annual emissions of the

fleet (kg)

HC 5.8 1.3 7.6 365.8 2560.6

NOx 5.4 1.0 5.4 263.0 1841.1

CO 152.2 1.4 220.8 10,673.2 74,712.5

PM 0.1 1.0 0.1 2.0 20.3

CO2NA NA 1014.8 49,062.6 343,437.9

SO2NA NA 0.2 10.1 70.8

48


To interpret the results, an on-line tool was used to view the environmental and energy impact of consumption and emission values (EPA, 2015). The annual emissions by the group of water taxis of Puerto Ayora are equivalent to any one of the following:

• Emissions by the anaerobic decomposition of 123 tons of trash in a landfill;

• Emissions from approximately 72 light vehicles running an average of 18,000 km per year and an average gas mileage of 33 km/gal;

• Average electricity consumption of 47 homes (12,000 kWh per year per household), or

• Absorption by 8806 coniferous plants growing in urban environments over a 10-year period.

Conclusions and recommendations

Regarding the methodology:

• The probe and filters of the equipment become clogged due to high salinity, so it is necessary to be very careful with the connections of the measuring equipment.

• It would be possible to improve data collection with the use of a test bench that would avoid interfering factors such as salt water. However, such a device was not available.

Regarding emission gases of the taxis:

• Annual emissions generated by the 20 water taxis are equivalent to the annual emissions of 72 light vehicles. To make a more accurate comparison, one must take into account other parameters such as travel time, thermal efficiencies, technology, physical principles of functionality, and aerodynamics, etc. Even so, the annual emissions are impactful and provide evidence of inefficiencies that could be associated with this means of maritime transport. An average daily consumption of 5.7 gallons of gasoline per boat is relatively high and goes beyond just the on-site generation of greenhouse gases. Fuel transport from the continent must also be considered, which represents additional energy consumption and, therefore, indirect emissions, as well as implicit environmental hazards. The sinking of the vessel Jessica with approximately 240,000 gallons of fuel is a reminder of the vulnerability of the Archipelago’s ecosystems to the transport of fuel. It important to recognize that in addition to the fuel used by maritime transport, fuel needed for the generation of heat, electricity, and land transport are also shipped to Galapagos from the continent.

• Consideration should be given to the use of smaller engines, correct maintenance, an assessment of

the hydrodynamic profile of the boats, and regular monitoring of weight and cargo transported. To increase the net efficiency of the transport system, the possibility of replacing internal combustion engines with electric motors should be considered.

• Emissions data, in general, show a poor fuel-air mixture (excess of oxygen in the combustion) with a Lambda indicator greater than 1. The reason is that the engines were at a normal operating temperature causing the fuel-air mix to become impoverished and resulting in the emission gases having high amounts of noncombustible hydrocarbons, which cause air pollution. This is evidenced by the high number of noncombustible particles, which are dangerous to the health of the inhabitants and the native species.

• The high volume of CO2 generates changes due to greenhouse gases; however, components such as CO, HC, and ONx also contribute to pollution and cause adverse effects on the health of the population.

• Emission data should be reviewed carefully as the boat exhaust systems do not allow the probe to enter completely; it is recommended that the data taken from the taxi Joel be used as a reference as this unit had a new engine with only four days of operation.

• As mentioned above, study results show that in terms of energy and pollutant gases, the replacement of the internal combustion engines with electric motors would be suitable for these vessels. With a full replacement across all transport units, gas emissions would be eliminated.

• The findings interpreted above demonstrate the environmental problem caused by continued use of fossil fuel propulsion systems in this segment of maritime transport in Galapagos. Alternatives must be considered, taking into account variables such as distance traveled per day, permitted area of operation, hours of operation, design of vessels, and average speed. The implementation of these alternatives would eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and minimize contamination during use and preventive maintenance.

• In addition, we recommend a detailed economic analysis comparing internal combustion engines and electric motors, taking into account the costs of the engine, fuel, preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, and downtime (for the combustion engine) and the cost of the engine, bank of batteries, and maintenance (for the electric motor). This analysis would provide an idea of the financial impact of the transition to electric motors.

• Finally we recommend that the representatives of the two water taxi cooperatives collaborate to identify opportunities to finance the proposed change.

49


References

BrainBeeSpA. 2013. AUTOMOBILE.

EPA. 2010. Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling - Spark - Ignition. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA 2015. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator [WWW Document]. US Environmental Protection Agency. URL https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator (accessed 4.27.16).

EPA. 2016. Glossary of Climate Change Terms [WWW Document]. US Environmental Protection Agency. URL https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html (accessed 4.27.16).

50


The provincial ordinance for the responsible consumption of plastics in Galapagos: A campaign to promote another way of lifeAshleigh Klingman

Governing Council of Galapagos

Photo: © Washington Rojas, CGREG Galapagos is proud to be the first province of Ecuador where local communities promote the responsible consumption of disposable plastics through their preference for alternatives to t-shirt type plastic bags (TTPB) and disposable containers of expanded polystyrene (EPS).

To initiate this process, the plenary of the Governing Council of Galapagos (CGREG – Spanish acronym), composed of eight institutions from Galapagos and mainland Ecuador1 , passed provincial ordinance No. 05-CGREG-2015 on February 11, 2015 (with effective date of August 10, 2015). This ordinance is progressive, with three phases: 1) responsible consumer campaign to raise awareness in the resident population and among visitors; 2) promote local production of alternatives to TTPBs and EPSs, which support the local economy, and 3) restrictions on use of certain products to ensure the involvement of the entire community in this opportunity to participate in positive change.

The provincial ordinance marks the beginning of a coordinated process to promote an important example of sustainable living in this era of globalization and consumerism in one of the world’s most special places — Galapagos. Given the 30,000 inhabitants of the Archipelago, its 200,000 tourists per year, and that 97% of the land area is protected as a national park, and 140,000 km2 as marine reserve, the impact of this ordinance can be significant. To ensure that this process is sustainable, it is essential to analyze how the initial change was achieved, what the current status of the process is (2016), and what components are vital to ensure its continuation.

The purpose of this article is to inform the international community on progress and invite suggestions that will benefit sustainable development and conservation of the Galapagos Islands.

The policy of responsible consumption

The concept of responsible consumption was proposed by the Ministry of the Environment in 2012, to promote the use of reusable and biodegradable alternatives to the t-shirt type plastic bags that are frequently used globally to carry purchases from store to home. The intention is for citizens to minimize the use of these plastic products that cause waste that is harmful to the environment.

1 President and Technical Secretary of CGREG, Director of the Galapagos National Park or a representative of the Ministry of Environment, representative of the Ministry of Tourism, representative of the National Secretary of Development Planning (SENPLADES – Spanish acronym), Municipality of San Cristóbal (capital of the province), Municipality of Santa Cruz (with the majority of the resident population), Municipality of Isabela, and President of the Council of the Five Parishes.

51


Plastic is a problem because of its prevalence and persistence in ecosystems, especially in the ocean. According to an analysis carried out by scientists of the Interinstitutional Commission, approximately eight million tons of plastic waste enter the world’s oceans every year. Without improvements in waste management, it is estimated that this amount could increase 50 to 100 times more by 2025 (Jambeck et al., 2015). New research suggests that there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050 (MacArthur Foundation, 2016), micro plastic in table salt (Yang et al., 2015), and ingestion of plastic along with plankton by whales (Bugoni et al., 2001; Boerger et al., 2010; Jacobsen et al., 2010; Brandão et al., 2011; Franeker et al., 2011; Choy & Drazen, 2013; De Stephanis et al., 2013; Farrell et al., 2013; Cole et al., 2014; Galloway et al., 2015; Schuyler et al., 2015). A project of Universidad San Francisco de Quito – Galapagos Science Center (GAIAS), led by Muñoz, detected pieces of plastic and micro plastics at 17 marine and 13 terrestrial survey sites in Galapagos, demonstrating the problem within the Archipelago and the need for public policy to control and decrease the use of plastics to ensure the conservation of Galapagos.

In 2012, the plenary of the CGREG decided to support a study conducted by a consultant from the Galapagos National Park Directorate (GNPD) on the use of disposable plastics in Galapagos, with a focus on the t-shirt type plastic bags, to provide the baseline for an action plan to reduce their use (Diaz, 2011). This resolution (No. 011-CGREG-2012) also stated that an interinstitutional committee would be established to develop an action plan and ensure its implementation. The commission, formed in 2014, included the following institutions:

• Technical Secretary of CGREG• GNPD• Ministry of Tourism’s Insular Zonal Coordination• Municipality of San Cristóbal• Municipality of Santa Cruz• Municipality of Isabela

• WWF (World Wildlife Fund)• USFQ-GAIAS- Galapagos Science Center (GSC)

Defining the desired change

In two meetings in 2014 and 2015, the plenary of CGREG approved an action plan proposed by the Interinstitutional Commission to restrict the use of t-shirt type plastic bags (TTPB) and expanded polystyrene (EPS), due to their impact on Galapagos ecosystems and human health (Figure 1). The Interinstitutional Commission referenced regulations prohibiting the use of EPSs in food containers in some European cities (such as Hamburg) and the United States (New York). The action plan called for: 1) a campaign for responsible consumption to raise awareness of the resident population and visitors; 2) encouragement of local production of alternatives to TTPBs and EPSs to support the local economy, and 3) a restriction on the use of certain products to ensure community-wide involvement in this opportunity to participate in positive change.

At a meeting on February 23, 2015, the Commission decided to conduct a provincial census of commercial establishments to update the baseline that had been established by a study carried out under Resolution No. 011-CGREG-2012 (Diaz, 2011). An inter-institutional team of 80 interviewers, including university students, naturalist guides, and public sector employees at member institutions surveyed 540 businesses in the four populated islands of Galapagos (Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal, Floreana, and Isabela) during the months of May and June 2015 (Figure 2). These businesses represented approximately 60% of all businesses, according to the municipal registers on each island. The survey sought to determine the level of consumption and delivery of TTPBs and EPSs in each business.

The survey showed an increasing trend in the use of TTPBs from 2011 to 2015, particularly on Santa Cruz Island, which has a higher population growth rate than

Figure 1. Meeting of the Interinstitutional Commission in February 2015. Photo: © Freddy Baque, CGREG

Figure 2. Survey conducted with businesses in Galapagos. Photo: © Jorge Sotomayor

52


the other islands. Assuming a linear increase (which cannot be verified due to the lack of data for the years 2012, 2013, and 2014), the annual estimated increase was

1,000,000 TTPBs at the provincial level, with the greatest increase in Santa Cruz (Figure 3).

9,000,0008,000,0007,000,0006,000,0005,000,0004,000,0003,000,0002,000,0001,000,000

0

2011

2013

2015

Galapagos

Isabela

San Cristóbal

Santa Cruz

Year

Num

ber o

f TTP

B us

ed b

y G

eogr

aphi

c A

rea

Figure 3. Increase in the estimated annual consumption of TTPBs in Galapagos 2011-2015, including the expected trend in 2016 with the new ordinance. Sources: Ashleigh Klingman, Census of plastics 2015 and baseline 2011

Unfortunately, the 2011 study did not analyze the use of EPSs, so a comparison with 2015 was impossible. However, since the factors influencing the use of EPSs are similar to those related to the use of plastic bags (growth of the resident population and an increase in the annual number of tourists), it is assumed that there was also an increasing trend in the use of EPSs. A dashed line is used to illustrate the drastic change to zero use of TTPBs in 2016, according to resolution No. 005-CGREG-2015. However, it has not been possible to

achieve this goal, in part because a behavioral change takes longer and because many authorities, business owners, and consumers have had doubts about whether the substitute products represent suitable alternatives.

Challenges to consume less plastic under the current public policy

The May 2015 business census identified the greatest perceived challenges to consuming less plastic (Table 1).

Challenge to reducing consumption of TTPBs and EPSs % of respondents

Behavioral change 30

Available information 23

Awareness of the population 20

Enforcement of the legal framework 10

Promotion of alternatives 8

Interinstitutional coordination 7

Cost of alternatives 3

Other 4

Table 1. Main challenges perceived by the local community to reducing the consumption of TTPBs and EPSs, in order of percentage of the 540 commercial premise owners surveyed.

Source: Census of plastic consumption, Galapagos, 2015

53


Figure 4. Community promotion for using alternative reusables when shopping “I promote responsible consumption”. Photo: ©Red Washington, CGREG

The major challenge identified is changing behavioral patterns, which is achieved through paradigm shifts (the way that human beings conceptualize their reality and their role in that reality) and attitudes (change in

consumer preference; Figure 4). In practice, this is the greatest challenge, not only for citizens but also for decision-makers.

Implementation of the public policy in 2016

Compliance with the 2016 policy is estimated at 50%. Greater awareness within the Galapagos community has been achieved, but the legal framework has not been established at the cantonal level in San Cristóbal or Isabela. This gap could be explained in part by factors external to the work of the Interinstitutional Commission. The onset of a recession in Ecuador’s economy in the last quarter of 2015 made it difficult to achieve full implementation of the commission’s action plan; substitute products initially planned for use in the campaign were no longer competitive in price and were not available in the national market. In addition, the institutions that planned to provide funding for the campaign experienced budget cuts in 2016. Therefore, although the canton of Santa Cruz issued a local ordinance in July 2015, San Cristóbal and Isabela opted to wait due to the absence of attractive substitute products and a campaign to ensure public buy-in.

Despite these difficulties, progress has been possible due to the factors listed below.

1. Interinstitutional coordination: Interinstitutional work (GNPD, GADS2 , Ministry of Tourism, CGREG, USFQ-GAIAS, WWF) is complex due to different responsibilities and the planning dynamics that respond to strategic and urgent goals. The most notable difference in this initiative has been the strong political will of the local authorities and the commitment of their representatives on the Commission.

2. Census of businesses: Given that the highest priority change was to promote the use of alternatives by consumers, the commission decided to enlist the cooperation of the business sector through a census of businesses in 2015, which in addition to updating baseline data, also served to educate merchants regarding the social, environmental, and economic advantages of the initiative. A follow-up process, led by the municipalities of the three islands in the second half of 2015, showed that the majority of businesses are promoting the use of alternatives to TTPBs and EPSs.

3. Promotion of model citizens:Through the publication of images documenting positive behavior and alternative use competitions, proactive citizens were recognized for their “small acts that generate major changes” — the campaign slogan for responsible consumption of plastics for Galapagos (Figure 5). These examples catalyzed a trend among small groups of individuals who replicate the example of their peers. The logo of the campaign provides a visual example to follow: a citizen carrying a cloth bag and a reusable container for transport and consumption of food (Figures 6 & 7).

2 Autonomous Decentralized Municipal Governments

54


Figure 5. Model citizens with alternative reusables. Photo: © Red Washington

Figure 6. Promotion of the main message of the campaign for responsible consumption of plastics in Galapagos: ” I am an agent of change: my example and your example = an image that here we live in harmony with nature”. Graphic design: CGREG

Figure 7. Promotion of the campaign for responsible consumption of plastics. Design: CGREG and Ministry of Tourism

55


Conclusions

It is now common to see people taking cloth bags, made of recycled or biodegradable materials, to the markets, stores, and warehouses to carry their purchases to their final destination. The reduction in the use of plastics has been possible through coordinated regional regulations, interinstitutional teamwork, and community commitment.

While implementation has been limited in some ways, such as the delay in the adoption of local ordinances and the absence of attractive and economic alternatives to TTPBs and EPSs, advances have been achieved thanks to inter-agency collaboration in the communication campaign, and the interest and commitment of the Galapagos community, which has the great challenge of preserving this unique place where we are privileged to live.

This initiative should be the first of many to empower inhabitants and demonstrate that small acts can actually result in major changes.

Recommendations

For 2017, it is essential to continue working in the following activities:

1. Increase attractive alternative options in the national market. National businesses stopped buying biodegradable alternatives for ESP containers from the international market as a result of increased import taxes. Despite processes initiated with the Ministry of International Commerce in 2015 and

2016, import taxes on these items have not yet been reduced.

2. Promote the issuance of municipal ordinances in San Cristóbal and Isabela. The municipalities of San Cristóbal and Isabela have been waiting for the arrival of alternative TTPB and ESP products to foster change in consumer preference. They should be encouraged to follow the example of Santa Cruz, which issued their ordinance in June 2015 and has successfully acquired enough attractive alternatives to supply the tourist market for food and drink.

3. Reanalyze the environmental damage caused by current practices and promote less damaging alternatives. In all the Islands, the preferred alternatives for consumers who do not us cloth shopping bags is the transparent bag that many merchants use as an economic alternative to the TTPB. However, the most enlightened citizens understand that this option is potentially even more harmful to the fragile ecosystems of Galapagos. For example, in comparison with the TTPB, which are often mistaken by marine animals, such as sea lions, turtles, and birds as food, transparent plastic bags are invisible killers as they are almost imperceptible in the water and can trap fish and other marine life.

References

Boerger CM, GL Lattin, SL Moore & CJ Moore. 2010. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:2275-2278.

Brandão ML, KM Braga & JL Luque. 2011. Marine debris ingestion by Magellanic penguins, Spheniscus magellanicus (Aves: Sphenisciformes), from the Brazilian coastal zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:2246–2249.

Bugoni L, L Krause & MV Petryà. 2001. Marine debris and human impacts on sea turtles in southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42:1330-1334.

Choy C & J Drazen. 2013. Plastic for dinner? Observations of frequent debris ingestion by pelagic predatory fishes from the central North Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series 485:155-163.

Cole M, H Webb, PK Lindeque, ES Fileman, C Halsband & TS Galloway. 2014. Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and marine organisms. Scientific Reports 4:4528.

Consejo de Gobierno del Régimen Especial de Galápagos. 2015. Ordenanza provincial que promueve el consumo responsable mediante la regulación de la comercialización y distribución de productos plásticos desechables, y envases desechables de poliestireno expandido (espumafón, espumaflex, estereofón) en las Islas Galápagos. Registro Oficial 505, p. 34. Quito, expedido 21-mayo-2015.

De Stephanis R, JGiménez, E Carpinelli, C Gutierrez-Exposito & A Cañadas. 2013. As main meal for sperm whales: plastics debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin 69:206-214.

56


Díaz K. 2011. Diagnóstico previo a la aplicación de campaña para reducir el consumo de fundas plásticas en Galápagos. Informe final. Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos. 98pp.

Dongqi Y, J Li, L Li, K Jabeen, P Kolandhasamy & H Shi. 2015. Microplastic pollution in table salts from China. Environmental Science & Technology 2015 49 (22):13622-13627. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03163

Farrell P & K Nelson. 2013. Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) 177:1-3.

Franeker JA Van, C Blaize, J Danielsen, K Fairclough, J Gollan, N Guse, P Hansen, M Heubeck, J Jensen, G Le, B Olsen, K Olsen, J Pedersen, EWM Stienen & DM Turner. 2011. Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environmental Pollution 159:2609-2615.

Galloway TS, M Hamann, SE Nelms, EM Duncan, AC Broderick, TS Galloway, MH Godfrey, M Hamann, PK Lindeque & BJ Godley. 2015. Plastic and marine turtles: a review and call for research. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2015) doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv165

Jacobsen JK, L Massey & F Gulland. 2010. Fatal ingestion of floating net debris by two sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:765-767.

Jambeck JR, R Geyer, C Wilcox, TR Siegler, M Perryman, A Andrady, R Narayan & K L Law. 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347:768-771.

MacArthur Foundation. 2016. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics. Ellen MacArthur Foundation:120.

Schuyler QA, C Wilcox, KA Townsend, KR Wedemeyer-strombel, G Balazs, E Sebille & HD Sebille. 2015. Risk analysis reveals global hotspots for marine debris ingestion by sea turtles. Global Change Biology:1-10.

57


International Architecture Workshop in Galapagos: Cities in protected natural areasJaime Eduardo López Andrade and John Alejandro Dunn Insua

Universidad San Francisco de Quito, School of Architecture and Interior Design

Photo: © Wilson Cabrera Introduction

The “International Architecture Workshop: Cities in Protected Natural Areas” has taken place in Galapagos during each of the past four years to explore the role of architecture and urban planning in the conservation of the Archipelago. The annual workshop aims to contribute to the understanding of the socioecosystem of Galapagos and the preservation of the natural heritage, and to develop a sense of community in the Islands.

Each month-long workshop brings together national and international experts in architecture and urban planning and more than 30 undergraduate and master’s degree students from several countries. The workshop is part of the international summer course offering of the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the Universidad San Francisco de Quito. The premise of the workshop is that the conservation of Galapagos is essential for the development of its community, and that community development is essential for the conservation of the Archipelago as a natural heritage. It disregards the notion that development has to be synonymous with expansion or urban sprawl.

Context

Current concern about the impact of our lifestyles on the environment usually focuses on the damage caused by large urban settlements. However, the value of Galapagos lies in its potential as an effective model of the extensive damage that we, as a species, produce even on a small scale. Though we generally study large cities, we should not forget the impact of smaller human settlements, like those in Galapagos. Such examples can provide insight into the impact our daily lives have on the environment.

Given that Galapagos had no indigenous inhabitants, there were no existing cultural norms to guide newly arrived settlers as they established themselves. Rather, they were faced with challenging climatic, geological, and biological variables. As a result, the construction and urban models that exist in the Islands are improvised imitations of what settlers knew on the continent, and have not been properly adapted to the insular territory. Current morphological perception of the human dimension and occupation of the Islands

According to the Management Plan of Protected Areas of Galapagos for Good Living (DPNG, 2014), the colonized portion of the Archipelago represents 3.3% of the total land area. At first, this percentage does not appear critical.

58


However, the inhabited areas of Galapagos are dispersed over 26,000 ha on four islands. The majority of human settlement (78%) occurs on San Cristóbal and Santa Cruz, representing 11% and 16% of the land area, respectively.

This dispersed nature of inhabited regions requires the multiplication of infrastructure to connect these areas

by land, sea, and air (Figure 1). An additional aggravating factor is the physical distance between the two primary populated centers in Galapagos — Puerto Baquerizo Moreno (San Cristóbal) and Puerto Ayora (Santa Cruz) — a reality that requires regular mobility of both residents and visitors between the two locations and significant infrastructure.

Figure 1. Areas and distances involved in the interconnection of the urban populations in the Galapagos Islands.

Figure 2. Growth of the urban space occupied by the town of Puerto Ayora between 2013 (left) and 2014 (right).

The construction of large facilities in Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, such as the hospital, civil registrar, and emergency center, is of concern. Although it is necessary to provide services to the entire population of the Archipelago, these structures are oversized for the needs of the provincial capital and create an imbalance within the regional context. These structures would provide greater benefits if located in the city with the largest population (Puerto Ayora).

Galapagos is undergoing accelerated growth and urban sprawl (Figure 2). Measures to stabilize development within the Archipelago are needed. Understanding the conditions that trigger the expansion of urban centers in Galapagos can help to inform future actions and minimize such transformations, or channel them towards appropriate development.

Spatial and temporal dynamics of urban space

The expansion of the inhabited areas of Galapagos has been accompanied by changes in land use, building height, the percentage of construction on lots, distribution and zoning within urban areas, and use of public space.

Urban areas maintain markedly different functional areas. All services related to tourism are almost always concentrated along the waterfront, while community space is located inland, which increases the demand for terrestrial mobility.

Today, tourists use urban areas as a bedroom. During the

day tourists visit the natural attractions of the Archipelago, spending limited time in the inhabited areas. Therefore, the areas where services are concentrated have a low level of use during the day and very high use at night. In addition to the impact on energy consumption, this causes a type of temporal zoning in the different urban areas.

Proper urban planning based on high spatial understanding could trigger a genuine process of evolution in Galapagos cities, where the built environment and natural ecosystems are integrated, and community development supports the regeneration of natural systems. Spatial and temporal dynamics provide

59


guidelines for possible interventions that would reduce mobility needs, increase the time tourists spend in towns, and decrease energy consumption, at the same time improving the integrated structure of the city.

International Architecture Workshop in Galapagos: Study of the role of the city in the conservation of the Archipelago

Each workshop has used a different strategy to explore a specific topic related to conflicts produced between the preservation of island ecosystems and community development. This approach not only enhances the

continuity of work, it also generates new information that benefits the students and the community.

Workshop 2013: The city as an incentive for conservation

The 2013 workshop focused on the concepts of “buffer zone” and “spatial distribution of activities” in the town of Puerto Ayora (Figure 3). This approach allows for the public appropriation of the border area between the city and the national park, eliminating the possibility of creating residual spaces. It also helps to control growth along the perimeter and promote development within the city.

Figure 3. City in natural protected areas project, prepared by students of the International Architecture Workshop, Galapagos 2013.

The spatial distribution of pursuits seeks to reorganize the concentration of activity in the tourist zone, through timely interventions in the residential and commercial sectors. This would help to decrease the distance between urban activities and would involve more people in the economy.

The workshop raised the possibility of moving some services to residential areas and the use of landscape architecture as a method to integrate recreational spaces, areas of natural restoration, and facilities to the center of urban areas. Such measures would trigger changes in urban conditions. In addition, participants in the workshop recommended that greater value be placed on the volcanic landscape of the city, with the possible creation of parks in residential sectors that highlight the beauty of the volcanic rocks.

The use of architecture was proposed for certain cultural activities in the urban areas, such as the food vendors that have emerged on certain streets, and which have become tourist attractions. Appropriate architectural interventions could help improve the profitability of these operations for their owners, as well as the comfort of their clients.

Workshop 2014: City, architecture and evolution

The 2014 workshop focused on the idea of architectural and urban “evolution” and the search for solutions that would allow the development of projects adapted to the Galapagos ecosystem. Just as there are biological transformation processes, in which plants and animals mutate and adapt to the environment, urban Galapagos systems must begin to change according to the unique characteristics of the Islands.

It is necessary to study current systems and consider possible changes that would benefit communities without damaging the natural environment. This means that our urban and architectural interventions must not only be environmentally friendly, they must also facilitate social development from natural regeneration (Figure 4).

Rather than extend the urban areas to the protected areas, the 2014 workshop proposed the regeneration of city centers, while maintaining the limits of the urban areas. This would create more attractive cities, with services and recreational areas that would encourage longer tourist stays and a higher income for the local population.

60


Figure 4. Architectural and urban development projects, prepared by the students of the International Architecture Workshop, Galapagos 2014.

Figure 5. Images representing development strategies, prepared by students of the International Architecture Workshop, Galapagos 2015.

The workshop also raised the possibility of demountable building systems that can be adapted to the unique topography of the volcanic soil. In addition, respect for the volcanic landscape and projects that can blend in with the landscape would help generate a more appropriate environment for tourists and residents.

Workshop 2015: Development as a strategy for ecological conservation

This workshop focused on the design of urban strategies, working with resilient and adaptive systems, and physical transformation processes. This approach looks at development strategies that would transform the constraints associated with living in a natural protected area into long-term opportunities for social development.

These strategies go beyond the issues generally addressed in architecture and urban planning, and explore new

options to solve everyday challenges of Galapagos residents. Students looked at new alternatives for the provision of potable water, feeding the community, and the generation of knowledge that improves the quality of life of citizens (Figure 5).

Projects such as the “open school” allow the transformation of public amenities into spaces for community use, increasing efficiency in the use of existing resources. Integrating water collection systems from garúa and rain in the highlands with water recycling systems in the lowlands would result in greater and more effective distribution of water throughout the urban and suburban system, and better overall use of water resources.

The search for different products suitable for organic farming and urban agriculture would help to rebuild the food pyramid and to increase the self-sufficiency of the Archipelago.

Workshop 2016: Participatory conservation

The 2016 workshop focused on an approach to participatory planning through which citizens and institutions design new urban strategy through dialogue and debate.

Participatory workshops were held with the inhabitants of the rural communities of Santa Cruz and San Cristóbal. The dual objective of these workshops was to teach

students how to work with local residents and manage the required information, while enabling them to deliver valuable information to the parish boards on how the community expects the parish to develop. This process can better help to guide decision-makers responsible for community development.

The involvement of students with the community allows two-way feedback. It helps students to better understand the context within which they work, while helping

61


communities learn about the possibilities and meaning of urban planning. In addition, students completed project proposals for the urban parishes on both islands. In future workshops, we expect to expand the architectural and urban planning to the entire insular region.

Conclusions

The survival of the fragile island ecosystems of Galapagos depends on the “urban metabolism” present in the towns of the Archipelago. The work being accomplished through the international architecture workshops generates proposals that serve as important resources for the municipalities of Galapagos, while allowing college students from various corners of the world to consider architectural alternatives that will lower the impact of human life on the planet.

The workshop organizers sought the active involvement of local agencies and are greatly appreciative of the logistical support and information provided and the high level of participation of the technical committee of the municipality of Santa Cruz. In the future, it is hoped that there will be even greater involvement of the community and those who work in the various Galapagos institutions.

Today the Galapagos Islands are undergoing urban evolution that, if done well, holds enormous potential for transformation. Interventions that are precise and carefully designed to promote ecological and concentrated development could transform the urban centers of the Islands into a global example of conservation and sustainability. However, poorly conceived interventions could transform these same areas into examples of resource extraction and consumption that put the Archipelago at risk.

Recommendations

These annual workshops highlight various aspects of the architecture that can be improved in the Galapagos Islands. Based on the workshops held to date, our recommendations include:

• Ensure that the various institutions and regulatory agencies in Galapagos collaborate on architectural, urban, and territorial planning of the Islands in a simultaneous fashion.

• Consider urban areas as cultural landscapes and seek urban systems that are adapted to the Galapagos ecosystem.

• Explore policies and interventions that promote a more adequate use of insular urban space and limit urban sprawl to existing boundaries.

• Ensure open competition for all public architecture and planning projects — in urban, agricultural, and national park areas — that have ecosystem preservation components, to ensure the transparency and quality of the proposals.

• National agencies should support academia by seeking its support in terms of multidisciplinary advice and research for decision-making.

• The study of urban systems should be included within insular research programs, and multidisciplinary academic practices, similar to the International Architecture Workshop in Galapagos, should be promoted to allow the insular community to gain knowledge that will enable prosperous and sustainable growth.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the participating institutions: Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Superior Technological Institute of Monterrey (Guadalajara campus), University of Melbourne, and the Autonomous Decentralized Government of Santa Cruz. We also thank the following organizations for their collaboration: Charles Darwin Foundation, Governing Council of Galapagos, Galapagos National Park Directorate, and the Autonomous Decentralized Governments of San Cristóbal and Isabela. We are also grateful to all of the workshop participants.

References

CGREG (Consejo de Gobierno del Régimen Especial de Galápagos). 2015. Plan Galápagos 2015 – 2020: Plan de desarrollo sustentable y ordenamiento territorial del régimen especial de Galápagos. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

DPNG (Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos). 2014. Plan de Manejo de las Áreas Protegidas de Galápagos para el Buen Vivir. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

Ordóñez A. 2008. Tourism in Galapagos: The tourism industry and install capacity. Pp. 81 - 84. En: Galapagos Report 2007-2008. GNPD, GCREG, CDF y GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

Reck G, M Casafont, M Oviedo, W Bustos & E Naula. 2008. Carrying Capacity vs Acceptable Visitor Load: Semantics or a substantial change in tourism management? Pp. 56-58. En: Galapagos Report 2007-2008. GNPD, GCREG, CDF y GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

GALAPAGOS REPORT 2015-2016 HUMAN SYSTEMS

AGRICULTURAL AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION Marianita Granda León How to cite this article: Granda León M. 2017. Agricultural and livestock production in the Galapagos Islands: A comparative analysis of household consumption. Pp. 62-69. In: Galapagos Report 2015-2016. GNPD, GCREG, CDF and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador. Sources must be cited in all cases. Sections of the publication may be translated and reproduced without permission as long as the source is cited. The authors of each article are responsible for the contents and opinions expressed. The Galapagos National Park Directorate has its headquarters in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos and is the Ecuadorian governmental institution responsible for the administration and management of the protected areas of Galapagos. The Governing Council of Galapagos has its headquarters in Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, San Cristóbal Island, and is the Ecuadorian governmental institution responsible for planning and the administration of the province. The Charles Darwin Foundation, an international non-profit organization registered in Belgium, operates the Charles Darwin Research Station in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos. Galapagos Conservancy, based in Fairfax, Virginia USA, is the only US non-profit organization focused exclusively on the long-term protection of the Galapagos Archipelago.

62


Agricultural and livestock production in the Galapagos Islands: A comparative analysis of household consumptionMarianita Granda León

Governing Council of Galapagos

Photo: © Linda Hanrahan Introduction

Establishing regional plans and public policy requires comparing the volume of unprocessed perishable foods consumed by Galapagos households to the quantity produced by local agricultural operations. This article proposes a method for comparing household consumption to local production, and for analyzing trends to determine if it is possible to achieve self-sufficiency in some products that are grown locally. To determine the volume of household consumption, data from the National Survey of Urban and Rural Households of Galapagos (INEC & CGREG, 2012) was reviewed and then compared with results from the Census of Agricultural Production Units in Galapagos (CGREG, MAGAP & INEC, 2014).

The analysis of these sources has revealed specific information needed to ensure that the research (censuses of surveys that are carried out in these areas) will provide results that will allow more accurate comparisons

Methodology

In the Census of Agricultural Production Units (APU), the unit of investigation was defined as: 1) an expanse of rural land 500 m2 or more in size, on which some level of agricultural or livestock activity was conducted during the reference period (October 2013 to September 2014); 2) land that is owned or managed by an individual; and 3) where the means of production are shared. Land units less than 500 m2 were also included if these generated sales of agricultural products during the reference period.

Fishing, hunting, and agricultural activity exclusively devoted to forestry were not considered in this methodology. Therefore if an APU was solely dedicated to these activities, it was not included.

The National Survey of Income and Expenditures of Urban and Rural Households (ENIGHUR – Spanish acronym), completed between March 2011 and February 2012, provided additional data. ENIGHUR surveyed 603 households randomly selected from the four populated islands. All acquisition of goods, services, and food for individual or household use, as well as other data, were recorded in the survey. Acquisitions include cash or credit purchases, gifts, prizes, donations, or self-supply (consumption by a household of something produced by one of its members).

The survey data make it possible to project estimates for consumption by Galapagos households on a provincial scale. It can also be projected to the year

63


2014, to facilitate comparison between the demand for food by households in relation to the agricultural production reported by the APU Census of 2014.

The data on labor and the labor market within the agricultural sector were obtained from the Population and Housing Census of 2015 and the APU census of 2014.

Availability of land for agricultural purposes Galapagos has 25,059 ha of rural land, not all of which consists of agricultural production units. The 755 units

occupy 19,010 ha. This figure represents a decline compared to the 23,427 ha reported within APUs in 2010.

Not all of the current APUs are being cultivated or used for livestock at the same time (Tables 1 & 2). Different land uses include pastures, crops, and infrastructure (houses, barns, or sheds). Some land is in transition (fallow following a recent harvest); with stubble (ready for cultivation); or fallow for more than one year in preparation for a new crop. A portion of the APUs is also covered by thickets, forest, or invasive plant species.

Table 1. The land use of the APUs in the Galapagos in 2000 and 2014.

Table 2. Land use (ha) of the APUs in the parishes of Galapagos, 2014.

Land Use El Progreso Floreana Tomás de Berlanga Bellavista Santa Rosa Total

Permanent crops 697.1 21.7 140.4 565.7 92.5 1517.3

Transitory crops 100.3 19.8 30.2 62.9 6.3 219.6

Fallow or stubble 35.9 4.5 17.1 46.4 5.9 109.7

Fallow (multi-year) 167.7 10.2 42.9 177.2 35.3 433.3

Pasture 2098.5 143.5 2288.0 3867.6 2728.1 11,125.6

Invasive species 556.0 0.0 158.9 144.9 73.8 933.6

Shrubs and forests 1739.1 24.7 846.9 865.9 712.2 4188.9

Other uses 218.5 5.0 51.1 116.3 90.7 481.5

Total 5612.9 229.5 3575.5 5846.8 3744.8 19,009.6

Land UseCensus 2000 Census 2014

Area (ha) % Area (ha) %

Permanent crops 2208 9.4 1517.30 8.0

Transitory crops 153 0.7 219.6 1.2

Fallow or stubble 195 0.8 109.7 0.6

Fallow (multi-year) 191 0.8 433.3 2.3

Pasture 14,155 60.4 11,125.7 58.5

Invasive species Not available 933.6 4.9

Shrubs and forests 6216 26.5 4188.9 22.0

Other uses 309 1.3 481.5 2.5

Total 23,427 100.0 19,009.6 100.0

Source: National Agriculture Census 2000 (INEC, 2000), Census of Agricultural Production Units in Galapagos 2014 (CGREG, MAGAP & INEC, 2014).

Source: Census of Agricultural Production Units in Galapagos 2014 (CGREG, MAGAP & INEC, 2014).

Labor force in the agricultural sector

The labor force in the Galapagos agricultural sector is composed of 787 residents who have declared that their main occupation is an activity directly involving agricultural or livestock production. This group represents 6% of the economically active population (EAP) of 13,463 individuals (Galapagos census of 2015; INEC, 2015).

Galapagos presents challenges for agriculture and livestock production. To increase food production it is important to understand the characteristics of this sector’s workforce. According to the latest available data, 24 people work exclusively at the management and organizational level of production, 40 professionals work specifically at providing advice to agricultural production units, 231 are agricultural laborers or farmers, and 492 (the vast majority) are skilled workers (Table 3).

64


Table 3. Specific occupation of the population whose main activity is agriculture.

Occupation Level Male Female Total

Directors of agriculture and silviculture production Direction 20 4 24

Agronomists and related professions Technical 13 7 20

Agriculture technicians and veterinarian assistants Technical 17 3 20

Agriculturists and skilled workers in field crops Skilled worker 105 22 127

Agriculturists and skilled workers in silviculture Skilled worker 68 11 79

Agriculturists and skilled workers in vegetable gardens, green-houses, nurseries and gardens Skilled worker 17 5 22

Agriculturists and skilled workers in mixed crops Skilled worker 34 9 43

Cattle producers Skilled worker 96 11 107

Poultry farmers and skilled workers in poultry farming Skilled worker 36 19 55

Livestock and dairy producers qualified in animal husbandry Skilled worker 6 0 6

Producers and skilled workers qualified in mixed agriculture Skilled worker 34 5 39

Skilled forestry workers and related fields Skilled worker 14 0 14

Farm workers Laborer 121 27 148

Cattle workers Laborer 53 14 67

Farm workers of mixed crops and livestock Laborer 9 7 16

Total 643 144 787

Source: National Population and Housing Census, carried out Galapagos in 2015 (INEC, 2015).

A look at the labor offerings of the agricultural production units reveals that 149 APUs generate 220 permanent jobs. In addition, 73 temporary workers are hired during the year. The manager or owner who contracts workers is not included in the total. A total of 117 APUs have no permanent staff but do hire laborers for short periods (as many as 174 people were employed in this manner). The 489 remaining APUs never engage additional staff because many of these are family operations.

With respect to the profitability of the APUs, 213 operations never sell their products, and 122 only sell their production surpluses on a sporadic basis. Usually, the producers of these APUs are individuals with another primary occupation where they invest most of their time and earn most of their income. The remaining 420 APUs have monthly sales that on average are equal to or greater than a minimum wage (CGREG, MAGAP & INEC, 2015).

Types of agricultural products and how much is harvested in Galapagos

In one year, agricultural activity in Galapagos generates 3410 tons of agricultural products and 4009 tons of livestock products (Table 4).

Agricultural products include those obtained from permanent crops, transitory or short-cycle crops, and the harvest of trees dispersed in cropland. Crops refer to concentrated plantations, which receive a certain level of attention by the producer, while the dispersed trees usually germinate spontaneously and continue to grow with little or no maintenance, though they are harvested. The main livestock products are cow’s milk, beef, chicken, and chicken eggs, which represent the greatest production volume and diet preference within households.

Table 4. Annual agricultural production in Galapagos (reference period: October 2013 to September 2014).

Products Tons produced

Permanent crops 2375.46

Transitory crops 563.13

Dispersed trees 510.00

Milk 2119.00

Beef (includes bones) 497.17

Chickens (includes bones) 799.80

Chicken eggs 220.61

Total 7085.17


65


The main characteristic of transitory or short-cycle crops is that they are destroyed after harvest and must be replanted. The most notable products by weight at harvest are cassava, corn, and kidney tomato. The largest

permanent crops by weight are bananas, coffee, and plantains (Table 5). The harvest from dispersed trees includes oranges, mandarins, avocados, and Norwegian pears.

Table 5. Annual production of products from transitory and permanent crops in Galapagos (reference period: October 2013 to September 2014).

Permanent Crops Tons Transitory Crops Ton

Banana 707.73 Cassava 144.63

Coffee 604.67 Corn 132.40

Plantain 527.42 Kidney tomato 89.16

Sugarcane 185.57 Watermelon 62.82

Orange 158.51 Pepper 32.16

Pineapple 66.24 Cucumber 25.15

Mandarin 40.61 Otoy 16.25

Lemon 38.78 Squash 7.68

Avocado 13.96 Cabbage 7.14

Papaya 13.84 Melon 6.74

Grapefruit 5.98 Bean 5.68

Guava 4.69 Potato 5.67

Orito (miniature banana) 1.54 Carrot 5.38

Lime 1.50 Lettuce 3.98

Others 4.57 Others 18.28

Total 2375.61 Total 563.13


Livestock production per week includes 40,749 liters of milk, 21,082 pounds of beef, 24,414 dressed chickens (free range or from poultry farms), and 315,218 chicken eggs (Table 6). For purposes of comparison, the annual production was calculated and all values expressed in

tons using weights and standardized equivalents. A liter of milk was assigned a weight of 1 km; dressed chickens, 2.27 kg; field chicken eggs, 53 grams; and poultry farm eggs, 57 grams.

Table 6. Agricultural production in Galapagos (reference period: October 2013 to September 2014).

Principal products Production Unit of measurement Period

Permanent crops 2376 Tons Annual

Transitory crops 563 Tons Annual

Dispersed trees 510 Tons Annual

Milk 40,749 Liters Weekly

Beef (includes bones) 21,082 Pounds Weekly

Chicken (includes bones) 24,414 Dressed chickens Monthly

Chicken eggs 315,218 Eggs Monthly

Pork (includes bones) 2375 Dressed pigs Annual


Destination of agricultural products

Not all agricultural production reaches households. Some is used within the APU in production processes. The portion that is sold is utilized by households, restaurants, and tour operators. Coffee is the only product that APUs export outside Galapagos. Finally, a portion of the

production is wasted. In this article, waste data refer to that which occurs within the APU; data on waste occurring after products leave the APU are not included. Data from the APU census of 2014 provide more detailed information on destination of transitory and permanent crop harvests, but not livestock products.

66


Table 7. Destination of agricultural production (in tons) in Galapagos (reference period: October 2013 to September 2014).

Destination Permanent Crops

Transitory Crops

Dispersed Trees Total

Auto consumption 470.26 111.69 581.95

Animal feed 393.86 64.79 458.65

Seed 0.23 0.78 1.01

Loss 21.14 1.80 22.94

Other uses 163.37 16.30 179.67

Sold to merchants 547.74 119.13 666.87

Sold to final consumers 722.21 241.54 963.75

Sold to tourist operators 8.59 1.00 9.59

Sold to restaurants 48.06 6.10 54.16

Total 2375.46 563.13 510.00 3448.59*

Source: Census of Agricultural Production Units in Galapagos (CGREG, MAGAP & INEC, 2014)*This total refers only to the horizontal sum.

Destinations of milk and beef are understood in more detail. While the destination of dressed chickens are not included in the source data, records of 30 APUs focused on poultry production show that 55% of dressed chickens is sold to retailers and the rest to restaurants. As in the case of the agricultural harvest, the sum of products used for self-consumption, sold to retailers and final consumers, and the milk used by APUs to process other products (such

as yogurt and cheese) provides an estimate of the amount of production consumed by households. Although losses occur during processing, this was not quantified in the census. The 10 tons of chicken eggs consumed within the APU (self-consumption) and the 200 tons sold are considered as household consumption in this analysis (Tables 8 & 9).

Table 8. Livestock production (in tons), excluding eggs, in Galapagos (reference period: October 2013 to September 2014). The APU census did not include those categories with no value.

Destination Milk Beef* Chicken

Self-consumption 98.28 24.99

Processed within the APU 554.32

Sold to merchants 1055.08 380.92

Sold to final consumers 357.24 91.26

Sold to tourism operators 0.00 0.00

Sold to restaurants 16.12 0.00

Other uses 37.96

Total 2119.00 497.17 799.80

Source: Census of Agricultural Production Units in Galapagos 2014 (CGREG, MAGAP & INEC, 2014)*The auto consumption of beef includes other uses also, as the census question asked about “self-consumption and other uses.”

A total of 582 tons of transitory and permanent crops is self-consumed by households of producers; 639 tons are used in the APU for feed, seed, and other uses; 23 tons are wasted; and 1640 tons sold (Table 7). Sales by APUs are made to retailers, consumers, and restaurants. Some retailers also sell to other sectors, but this information is beyond the scope of the data sources consulted. In this

study, it is assumed that households are the ultimate destination of all sales to final consumers or retailers, except for sales corresponding to exports (i.e., the 318 tons of coffee sold to retailers on the mainland are not counted as household consumption). The entire harvest of dispersed trees is considered as destined for households.

In conclusion, Galapagos produces 5,616.55 tons of agricultural products intended for households, which is equal to 79% of the 7,085.17 tons of total production. The

remaining production is used within the APUs, sold to restaurants and tour operators, or wasted (Table 10).

67


Table 9. Production of eggs (in tons) in Galapagos (reference period: October 2013 to September 2014).

Destination Eggs from free ranging chickens Eggs from poultry farm Total

Auto consumption 9.54 0.09 9.63

Reproduction 10.61 0.00 10.61

Sold 5.44 194.94 200.38

Total 25.59 195.03 220.62


Table 10. Summary of the destinations of agricultural production (in tons) in Galapagos (reference period: October 2013 to September 2014).

Item Destination - Homes Destination – Not Homes Total

Permanent crops 1422.21 953.25 2375.46

Transitory crops 472.36 90.77 563.13

Dispersed trees 510.00 0.00 510.00

Milk 2064.92 54.08 2119.00

Beef 497.17 0.00 497.17

Chicken 439.89 359.91 799.80

Chicken eggs 210.00 10.61 220.61

Total 5616.55 1468.62 7085.17


Although part of the sale to restaurants is eventually consumed by households, this is considered a secondary transaction. Additionally, the sales that restaurants make directly to households are not considered because household surveys that quantify consumption of agricultural products do not include what households consume in restaurants. Including such data in this analysis would require determining the food consumed by each local restaurant client.

Household consumption of agricultural products

Galapagos households consume an estimated 6419 tons of the 57 most common, locally produced, agricultural products (Table 11). However, the origin of these products is not necessarily local; they could have been acquired by households in the islands or from the mainland.

Table 11. Annual consumption by households of main agricultural products in Galapagos

Products Tons

Permanent crops 1849.65

Transitory crops 2300.36

Milk and derivatives 1324.84

Beef (includes bones and viscera) 287.82

Processed meat (cold cuts) 50.95

Whole and cut chicken and giblets 393.34

Chicken eggs 212.46

Total 6419.42

Source: ENIGHUR, data projected to 2014 (INEC & CGREG, 2012).

Of the total consumption of 6419 tons cited previously, 2269 tons correspond to 13 livestock products, such as beef and chicken and their viscera (Table 12). This includes

processed meat (such as bologna, ham, or sausage), milk and its derivatives, and chicken eggs.

68


Table 12. Annual consumption of livestock products (Nos. 1-13 of the 57 products) by households in Galapagos.

N° Product Tons N° Product Tons

1 Whole chicken 295.11 8 Milk 929.69

2 Chicken pieces 95.74 9 Cheese 177.34

4 Chicken giblets 2.49 10 Yogurt 206.08

5 Beef 279.68 11 Margarine 9.77

6 Beef viscera 8.14 12 Butter 1.96

7 Cold cuts (packaged meat) 50.95 13 Chicken eggs 212.46

Total 2269.41

Source: ENIGHUR, data projected to 2014 (INEC & CGREG, 2012)Note: 1 liter = 1 kg

Annual demand by households for the 27 reference products from short-cycle crops amounted to 2300 tons. The main items are potatoes, onions, tomatoes, cassava,

and carrots, while the fruit that stand out in terms of weight are watermelon and melon (Table 13).

Source: ENIGHUR, data projected to 2014 (INEC & CGREG, 2012).

Table 13. Annual consumption of short-term crop products (Nos. 14-40 of the 57 products) by households in Galapagos.


14 Potato 551.60 28 Cauliflower 33.19

15 Watermelon 293.11 29 Fréjol tierno 25.62

16 Paiteño onion 290.31 30 Haba tierna 22.66

17 Tomato 255.80 31 Green bean 22.01

18 Cassava 150.23 32 Garlic 20.09

19 Carrot 129.86 33 Tender pea 19.93

20 Pepper 70.98 34 Beet 19.59

21 Broccoli 64.39 35 Parsley cilantro 11.58

22 Cabbage 63.79 36 Ullucus 10.33

23 Cucumber 60.04 37 Chard 9.12

24 Corn 43.65 38 Radish 7.69

25 Lettuce 38.85 39 Dried beans 4.41

26 Melon 36.95 40 Dried peas 4.26

27 White onion 34.76

Total 2300.36

The final items on the list of the 57 main agricultural products include those from permanent crops (green plantains, bananas, oranges, papayas, tree tomatoes, etc.). Households consumed 1849.65 tons of these products annually (Table 14).

Conclusions

There are several livestock and agricultural products where the quantity produced in Galapagos exceeds or is very close to meeting the demand of local households.

Milk production exceeds the demand of local households. However, processed milk is brought from the mainland; local households demand processed milk, packaged to purchase.

Local poultry production is also potentially capable of meeting local demand. However, demand of this product by restaurants, tour operators, and other sectors is unknown.

The production from fruit trees refers only to the fruits harvested in the APUs, not to the full potential production, which has not been quantified and which could be a source for households and other clients.

Unprocessed beef is banned from entering Galapagos from the mainland due to phytosanitary restrictions. This ban should continue because local production meets the local demand of households. However, this article does not analyze the demand from other sectors.

69


Source: ENIGHUR, data projected to 2014 (INEC & CGREG, 2012)

Table 14. Annual consumption of permanent crop products (Nos. 41-57 of the 57 products) by households.


41 Green plantains 505.65 50 Passionfruit 50.46

42 Banana 315.82 51 Avocado 41.58

43 Orange 298.10 52 Little orange (naranjilla) 28.14

44 Papaya 161.20 53 Coffee 4.09

45 Tree tomato 111.11 54 Guava 3.67

46 Pineapple 106.90 55 Dry garbanzo beans 1.12

47 Ripe plantain 84.58 56 Plantain flour 1.01

48 Mandarin 75.41 57 Tamarind 0.48

49 Lemon 60.33

Total 1849.65

Recommendations

• Develop case studies for those products where local production exceeds or comes close to meeting demand, to better understand this production through more detailed data.

• In future surveys or censuses of APUs, investigate the destination of all types of agricultural production in a standardized form to allow comparison and better estimates of the production that is consumed by households. Specifically, research how much production is destined for self-consumption, feed, seed/reproduction, processing within the APU, waste, sale, and other uses.

• Disaggregate the destination of sales to: retailers, final consumers, tour operators, restaurants, and others.

• Provide the required support structures (credit, imports, customs procedures, etc.) to allow local dairy producers to process and package milk in a manner that meets expectations of the local population and facilitates its sale.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank José Poma and the technical team of the Provincial Directorate of MAGAP for their valuable contributions in the review of the data presented.

References

CGREG, MAGAP & INEC. 2015, Censo de Unidades de Producción Agropecuaria de Galápagos 2014, Compilación de Resultados, Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, Galápagos, Ecuador.

INEC. 2000. Censo Nacional Agropecuario, Compilación de Resultados. Quito, Ecuador.

INEC. 2015. Censo de Población y Vivienda de Galápagos 2015. Quito, Ecuador.

INEC & CGREG. 2012. Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de Hogares Urbanos y Rurales, ENIGHUR, bases de datos.

70


Food networks, power, and social structures in Galapagos: The marketing system for potatoes and tomatoes between the Islands and the mainlandJuan Carlos Guzmán1, Patric Hollenstein2, Ïñigo Arrazola2, María Rosa Yumbla2 and Pedro Almagro3

1 Ministry of Agriculture2 ISIP-College of Economic Science, Central University of Ecuador3 Grupo de Modelado de Sistemas Complejos, Central University of Ecuador

Photo: © Richard Knab

This article analyses the commercialization of potatoes and tomatoes in the Galapagos Islands, the oligopolistic structures that are in place, and the challenges faced by local producers working within this system1. Food sovereignty is a critical issue for Galapagos, given the growth of tourism and the local population. Growing dependence on imported fresh food from the Ecuadorian mainland involves ecological and social challenges, including the increased risk of introduction of invasive species and a disincentive for rural lifestyles and livelihoods in the Islands (MAGAP & MAE, 2014; Rangel & Rosero, 2013; Bigue et al., 2012; Zapata, 2005).

Commercialization of food in the Galapagos Islands

The system for commercializing food in the Galapagos Islands is a result of evolving efforts of various actors: 1) wholesale merchants on the continent (Ambato, Guayaquil, and Riobamba); 2) specialized sellers on the continent and local suppliers that import food, avoiding public markets; 3) sellers at municipal markets and farmers markets; 4) shop and supermarket owners; 5) producers on the continent and in Galapagos who are connected with one or more of the actors mentioned above, and 6) consumers (households, hotels, restaurants, cafes, boats).

While economic transactions take many different forms, there are a series of general characteristics that describe the system as a whole. First, commercialization has evolved at the margins of public activity. It is characterized by outdated regulations and weak control over the flow of food to the Islands. Over time, this process resulted in major bottlenecks dominated by wholesalers and specialty suppliers in Galapagos. Although this oligopolistic structure takes different forms for different products, it is characterized by a strong influence of local merchants whose interests affect the rest of the local commercialization chain. These actors tend to control key components of the transportation system.

In general, agricultural production conditions and existing systems for the sale of food in the Archipelago encourage importation of food from the mainland.

1 This article is a summary of a more extensive research report for MAGAP, 2015 and 2016. The methodology used is based on a social network analysis, whereby the relationships between different types of end consumers, sellers, and producers are recorded.

71


A study of the Research System of Agrarian Problems in Ecuador (SIPAE, 2014) shows that the actors involved in food commercialization have many more incentives to work with mainland products, including a profit margin of 47% for crops grown in Galapagos (average for 29 products) versus approximately 229% for the same products imported from the mainland.

Other issues include a lack of transparency in the system, which creates a climate of uncertainty for producers and consumers, and frequent complaints from consumers and merchants regarding product quality, delivery schedule, and prices. All of these issues highlight an insufficient level of competition and a lack of control mechanisms to limit market abuses by dominant actors.

Commercialization of potatoes

Most potatoes are imported from the mainland and transported by cargo ship. Only 5% of all potatoes consumed in Galapagos is grown in the Archipelago. Once in Galapagos, inter-island trade is practically non-existent. The sale of potatoes is dominated by Galapagos wholesalers (Figure 1), who maintain close ties with the transport sector. Local wholesalers generally sell their products on credit to shops and vendors in municipal markets and farmers markets. Merchants handling smaller volumes have traditionally encountered difficulty in negotiating shipping space, times, and prices with the transport sector. The wholesaler’s special access to the transport system is one potential factor that produces an oligopolistic system.

Figure 1. Marketing of potatoes in Santa Cruz by linkages. Node size indicates the quantity of the product accumulated by each actor; the thickness of the connecting lines is proportional to the product flow between one actor and another.

In the case of Santa Cruz, the chain of intermediaries begins on the continent and ends with the final consumer (from left to right; Figure 1). Households purchase 65% of all potatoes consumed, restaurants 21%, and hotels and boats 14%. In the second chain, vendors in municipal markets, neighborhood shops, and at the farmers market sell similar quantities of potatoes (34%, 31%, and 28%, respectively). However, some of the merchants that sell potatoes at the farmers market also sell in the municipal market.

The third link in the chain is crucial for understanding the intermediaries involved in the commercialization of potatoes. Merchants obtain potatoes primarily from local wholesalers (50%), who also provide potatoes to restaurants in significant quantities. Only the vendors at the farmers market avoid intermediaries to some extent,

by purchasing directly from providers on the continent, often through family networks. At the same time, the main sources of potatoes for local wholesalers (65%) are the wholesale markets of Ambato, Riobamba, or Guayaquil. Specialized suppliers, mostly from Quito, provide the rest (35%; left; Figure 1). The concentration of the source of potatoes in a few vendors on the continent means that the commercial power of Galapagos wholesalers is relative, as long as they manage to maintain local control, and does not originate from the national structure.

In San Cristóbal and Isabela, the commercialization of potatoes depends even more on local wholesalers, who work both with specialized vendors and wholesale market merchants. Farmers markets and municipal markets do not represent important points of sale on these islands.

1. Continent-based wholesalers, 2. Local wholesalers, 3. Neighborhood shops, 4. Homes, 5. Continent-based providers, 6. Local providers, 7. Municipal markets, 8. Hotels, 9. Vendors in farmers markets, 10. Restaurants, 11. Continent-based producers, 12. Local producers, 13. Farmers market producers 14. Boats

1.

5.

11. 12. 13. 14.

2.

6.

9.

10.

7.

8.

3. 4.

72


Figure 2. Marketing of tomatoes in Santa Cruz by linkages. Node size indicates the quantity of the product accumulated by each actor; the thickness of the connecting lines is proportional to the product flow between one actor and another.

1. Continent-based wholesalers, 2. Local wholesalers, 3. Neighborhood shops, 4. Homes, 5. Continent-based providers, 6. Local providers, 7. Municipal markets, 8. Hotels, 9. Farmers market sellers, 10. Restaurants, 11. Continent-based producers, 12. Local producers, 13. Farmers market producers, 14. Boats

2 Hay que tomar en cuenta que el peso del tomate local pudo estar condicionado al hecho de que la investigación se realizó en época de cosecha.

In San Cristóbal, local shops and local wholesalers sell the majority of tomatoes. The limited local production (12% of total consumed) is sold to local wholesalers. However, unlike potatoes, the tomato supply is much more decentralized because many shops and merchants are supplied directly from the mainland (via air transport).

In Isabela, local production represents 61% of the total tomatoes sold. Local farmers only sell 23% of their product directly. The rest is mostly traded through local wholesalers.To better understand tomato commercialization in Galapagos, the path that tomatoes take from the grower to the final consumer must be analyzed (Figures 3-5). Santa Cruz has the most complex network followed by

Isabela, San Cristóbal, and Floreana (Figure 3). Therefore, the extension of production and local marketing of this product does not depend exclusively on the population size of each island.

It is also possible to describe the relationship between producers and different commercial actors by calculating centrality indicators such as PageRank and betweenness, and demonstrating these values by the corresponding size of the node (Figures 4 & 5). The PageRank value of a node is higher when it occurs at the start of the flow of a product within a system (Table 1). It is not surprising, therefore, that producers are the most central according to this parameter.

Commercialization of tomatoes

Unlike potatoes, the majority of tomatoes consumed in the Islands (78%) is locally produced2. While 45% of producers sell their harvest directly to end consumers, 55% sell to shops, and the municipal and farmers markets (Figure 2), where there is potential for greater exploitation and marginalization, evident in other regions of the country (Höllenstein, 2011; Carrión, 2011).

The system for commercializing tomatoes in Santa Cruz includes the same linkages as for potatoes (Figure 2). Households represent the highest consumption (67%), followed by restaurants (20%), and boats and hotels (13%). Producers who sell at the farmers market represent the most important source of tomatoes for final consumers

(33%), followed by the municipal market (30%), and local shops (19%). Restaurants, hotels, and boats are supplied primarily by intermediaries (29%), followed by producers at the farmers market (26%), and private producers (12%).

Local tomato production (78% of total sold in Galapagos) should be analyzed in terms of producer access to the market. Direct sales by farmers represent 37% of transactions, while the remainder of local production is sold through intermediaries. These include merchants in the municipal market, where 80% of sales consists of tomatoes purchased from local producers. The municipal market is the primary supplier to the tourism sector. Adjustments are needed in the system to allow greater market access for local producers.

1.

5.

11.

2.

6.

12.

3.

7.

13.

9.

4.

8.

10.

14.

73


Figure 3. Local network for tomatoes by island. Node size is proportional to the PageRank value.

Figure 4. Local network for tomatoes by typology. Node size is proportional to the PageRank value

Santa Cruz (67.2% of nodes)Isabela (23.3%)San Cristóbal (6,5%)

Floreana (3%)

Homes (42.8% of nodes) Producers (17.1%)Restaurants (16.2%)Boats (7.1%)Hotels (6.2%)Neighborhood shops (4.7%)Retailers (markets and farmers markets) (3.8%)Local wholesalers (1.5%)

74


Figure 5. Local production of tomatoes by typology. Node size is proportional to the betweenness values.

The centrality score of intermediation or betweenness of a node goes up when the node is a transfer point in the established path of a product through a network. The high values of merchants in the markets and fairs, local wholesalers, and neighborhood shops indicate

the intermediary position of these actors within the system. The low betweenness value for producers also corresponds to the high level of existing intermediaries (Table 1).

Table 1. Average PageRank and betweenness centrality by typology (PageRank indicators and betweenness are averages for each type of commercial actor).

Type of Commercial Actor PageRank Betweenness

Producers 402.7 0.0

Local wholesalers 306.0 15.0

Farmers market producers 290.0 10.0

Retailers (markets and fairs) 246.5 24.2

Neighborhood shops 103.3 10.3

Providers 64.5 7.5

Restaurants 1.6 0.1

Homes 0.3 0.0

Ships and boats 0.0 0.0

Hotels 0.0 0.0


The following actions would ensure greater inclusion of agricultural producers in the commercialization of their products in Galapagos:

1. Update, strengthen, and ensure supervision of municipal markets, establishing rules of participation and avoiding the monopolization of vendor stands;

2. Eliminate commercial bias against local products by controlling speculation, which only occurs with products from the continent; to this end, the modernization of the transport system is essential;

3. Create an inter-island transport system to take advantage of the productive potential of the different islands.

Homes (42.8% of nodes) Producers (17.1%)Restaurants (16.2%)Boats (7.1%)Hotels (6.2%)Neighborhood shops (4.7%)Retailers (markets and farmers markets) (3.8%)Local wholesalers (1.5%)

75


For products from the continent (such as potatoes), it is necessary to:

1. Increase competition between local suppliers to ensure that small- and medium-sized merchants have direct access to suppliers on the continent;

2. Implement supply controls of products during local harvests.

For tomatoes, which have the potential to be grown locally, but which pose commercialization challenges, it is necessary to:

1. Support infrastructure improvements at municipal

markets and farmers markets to promote increased sales;

2. Strengthen the ability of producers to sell directly to final consumers at markets and fairs;

3. Limit the participation of merchants from the municipal market in the Santa Cruz farmers market;

4. Boost direct sales from producers beyond municipal markets and farmers markets, especially to households and neighborhood shops;

5. Establish an agricultural collection and sales center, in

the center of town — similar to the farmers market in Santa Cruz — to connect producers with their clients;

6. Promote commercial relationships between farmers and the tourism sector, solving problems of associativity experienced in the past.

References

Bigue M, L Brewington, O Rosero & K Cervantes. 2012. La cadena de cuarentena. Estableciendo un sistema eficaz de bioseguridad para evitar la introducción de especies invasoras a las islas Galápagos. San Francisco: WildAid.

Carrión D. 2011. Colonialismo y capitalismo en Tungurahua: los antecedentes de la desigualdad. In: P. Ospina (Ed.), El territorio de senderos que se bifurcan. Tungurahua: economía, sociedad y desarrollo (pp. 211–246). Quito: CEN/UASB.

Hollenstein P. 2011. Entre participación y exclusión: las redes comerciales del Mercado Mayorista de Ambato. In: P. Ospina (Ed.), El territorio de senderos que se bifurcan. Tungurahua: economía, sociedad y desarrollo (pp. 247–302). Quito: CEN/UASB.

MAGAP & MAE 2014. Plan de Bioagricultura Galápagos. Mimeo.

Rangel L & O Rosero. 2013. Monitoreo y clasificación por riesgos sanitarios cuarentenarios de la carga marítima hacia la provincia de Galápagos y establecimiento de porcentaje y causas del rechazo y merma que sufre dicha carga: Análisis Estadístico, Categorización y Proyecciones. Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas, Agencia de Bioseguridad y WildAid. Galapagos, Ecuador.

SIPAE. 2014. Análisis de oferta y demanda de productos agropecuarios y alternativas de comercialización. MAGAP, Ecuador.

Zapata F. 2005. Sistema de transporte de carga hacia y entre las islas Galápagos. Ministerio de Ambiente/Fundación Charles Darwin/Global Environmental Facility/SICGAL/UNDP.

76


Importance of local knowledge and practices in island farmingPaulina Couenberg y José Poma

Technological Innovation Unit, Provincial Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture (MAGAP)

Photo: © Washington Tapia In Galapagos, the history of agricultural production spans only about 150 years. Throughout this time, farmers have managed to produce food in this unique environment known for rocky soils and a lack of water. Despite these limitations, farmers, mostly emigrants from mainland Ecuador, have demonstrated their ability to adapt their practices to the particularities of the Islands, developing a very specific Galapagos agriculture that has been adapted to the changing lifestyles of those living in Galapagos over the course of its human history.

Bioagriculture Plan for Galapagos: Local knowledge for sustainable agriculture

Beginning with research results from studies in 2006 of the System for Research on Agricultural Problems in Ecuador (SIPAE – Spanish acronym), agricultural activities have been recognized as having an important role in the conservation of the natural heritage of Galapagos. Productive practices on agricultural land ensure sustainable control of invasive species and limit the risks of their dispersal throughout the agricultural zone and into areas of the national park. In addition, greater self-sufficiency in agricultural products can reduce importations from the mainland, preventing the introduction of new, potentially invasive, species (Chiriboga & Maignan, 2006; Maignan, 2007).

In 2013, the Provincial Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture in Galapagos (PDG) produced the Bioagriculture Plan for Galapagos. Its goal was to “convert agriculture into the primary human activity with co-responsibility for the conservation of the natural heritage of the Archipelago, particularly related to control of invasive species, through the design and implementation of agroecological production systems” (MAGAP–DPA, 2014). In 2015, the Plan for Sustainable Development and Land Use Planning for the Galapagos Province (Plan Galapagos) highlighted strategic guidelines “that provide the foundation, in conjunction with Plan Galapagos, to promote agriculture adapted to island conditions.”

Committed to an agro-ecological approach, the PDG sought to recover local agricultural knowledge through a “knowledge dialogue.” 1 The starting point was understanding that local agricultural knowledge in the Archipelago responds to a need to adapt prior knowledge of agriculture to an extremely complex environment, in terms of biophysical, socioeconomic, and political factors.

1 A knowledge dialogue highlights the value of local knowledge based on the evolution of the knowledge of farmers, which results from their interaction with nature and scientific knowledge.

77


Studies of agroecosystems in areas comprised of small and medium-sized diversified producers in other parts of the world show that farmers can manage complex systems that have high productivity, high levels of resilience, and low use of external inputs — a productive culture in balance with the environment (Toledo, 2005). These agroecosystems are managed by farmers who interact with their surroundings without access to inputs, capital, or external scientific knowledge (Wilson, 1999). The empirical and specific knowledge that the farmers develop about their environment is difficult to compare with the sophisticated and broad knowledge of scientists, developed during the Green Revolution’s focus on maximizing short-term profitability (Vandermeer, 2003). Agroecology recognizes and values the experiences of local farmers. Local knowledge develops primarily to maintain and increase the genetic variety, polyculture (agriculture, forestry, and agroforestry), diversity of productive practices, and the heterogeneity of landscapes, all of which contribute to maintaining a certain level of sustainability based on resilience (Toledo, 2005).

In this context, the Ministry of Agriculture initiated a process to document, evaluate, and disseminate local knowledge of Galapagos farmers through a knowledge dialogue focused on management practices of local farms as a paradigm for sustainable management that strengthens the process of agroecological transition in the Archipelago. Presented here are some of the local practices that demonstrate that Galapagos farming systems are the result of the farmers’ capacity to adapt their practices to the natural and socioeconomic conditions of Galapagos.

Pineapple: Cultivating on rocks

Galapagos soils are extremely rocky. According to the Department of Agriculture of the United States2, such soils are unsuitable for agricultural activities. In Galapagos, farmers have developed a set of practices that allow the use of these soils for a variety of crops, including pineapples (Ananas comosus), which are commonly grown on Santa Cruz and Isabela (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Cultivation of pineapple in rocky soil.

2 USDA - Methodology used by FAO to assess soil use capacity.

Pineapple cultivation in Galapagos demonstrates how farmers manage to adapt their practices in order to produce a quality product. One of the pineapple farmers explained that adding soil around the base of the plant—a practice he learned on mainland Ecuador—did not work in Galapagos. Instead, he said, “here, you add additional rocks instead of soil.” He had to change his practice and began to experiment with planting at various distances until he found the most suitable distances for managing the crop and minimizing the effort required for weed control, thus optimizing one of the more limited resources in Galapagos — labor. His practice of positioning soil up tight around the plants gives good results although it is

never recommended in the books he has read. He also gets two harvests out of the same plant, saving him the investment of a second planting. In an empirical manner, he determined that by carefully selecting the crowns and suckers for the next planting, he could guarantee a good product from the next harvest. It is different on the mainland, where farmers sow for a single harvest, which is logical as they have access to machinery for this work. This farmer, like many others, now values the presence of rocks in his soil because they reduce the loss of soil moisture by evaporation, a crucial aspect in Galapagos agriculture given the relative scarcity of water.

78


Figure 2. Silvopastoral system with guava trees.

Guava: From invasive species to leader of a silvopastoral system

One of the most notable local practices is the control of the invasive species guava (Psidium guajava) by local cattle ranchers. Since the end of the 1970s, many farmers began to work in other sectors, mainly public service and tourism. As a result, they expanded their activities to cattle production, which uses large areas of land and requires little need for labor. This system responds to the distribution and allocation of relatively large tracts of land granted by the Ecuadorian Institute for Agrarian Reform and Colonization between 1959 and 1974, during the process of delimitation of the agricultural zone and the GNP (Chiriboga & Maignan, 2006; Maignan, 2007). However, the invasion of guava made it difficult to maintain pasture land. This was especially true on San

Cristóbal Island, where the majority of the owners of large ranches were employed in the public sector or in tourism (Villa & Segarra, 2010).

Tired of their constant, unsuccessful efforts to remove guava from their pasture land, some cattle ranchers began to implement an agroforestry system through which they managed pastures under the guava trees with very positive results (Figure 2). Farmers learned that these trees and the epiphytes that hang from them create a microclimate that captures moisture and thus supports increased growth of grass, both in height and density. The trees also provide shade for livestock in times of excessive sun. In this system, it is essential for ranchers to keep the number of trees under control. Once the grass has reached a high density, it helps to prevent any fallen fruit from coming into contact with the soil and germinating.

Compared with endemic and native species, invasive species such as guava have the advantage of being able to create symbiosis with the mycorrhizae that aid in nutrient absorption from the soil, specifically phosphorous, which is a nutrient with low absorbability in most Galapagos soils. Therefore, this silvopastoral system not only contributes to greater soil moisture, which aids in grass growth, it also provides a more nutritious grass, which contributes to the health of the livestock. A recent survey carried out by technicians of the GNP indicates that the incidence of mastitis in cows managed under this silvopastoral system is lower than that among cows that graze in traditional pastures (without trees). This system, based on the local knowledge of cattle ranchers, could provide an alternative to pasture management and control of guava trees in the agricultural zone, allowing for the production of high quality pastures for cattle, and the control of one of the most problematic invasive species in Galapagos.

Shade-grown coffee production

Coffee was initially planted in old haciendas on San Cristóbal and Isabela. Beginning in the 1960s, coffee plantations passed to heirs who retained them, while taking advantage of new business alternatives. The coffee did not require much work and helped to efficiently control invasive species, as the shade created by the coffee plants inhibits growth of other species. On Santa Cruz Island, coffee plantations are generally younger, established by the wave of immigrants arriving in the 1990s.

Coffee was exported since its introduction to Galapagos, but the fall of coffee prices in the 1980s resulted in a period of neglect and abandonment of many plantations. Beginning in 2004, Galapagos coffee prices increased considerably, causing a resurgence of its cultivation. The success of the sale of organic coffee to tourists by the hacienda “El Cafetal” encouraged other farmers to rehabilitate their old coffee plantations and establish new

79


ones under a variety of plants and trees that provide shade, such as bananas or guaba (Inga edulis or “ice cream bean”). Guaba is the preferred tree for this type of production, since it is a legume that captures nitrogen from the air and transfers it to the soil (Figure 3). The coffee growers association promoted the use of the endemic tree Scalesia

pedunculata, to help in its conservation. Unfortunately, this practice was not very successful due to mature trees falling on the coffee plants, and because Scalesia does not create a symbiosis with microorganisms and does not generate the amount of biomass needed to improve soil fertility, as in the case of guaba.

Figure 4. Farmer placing banana stems parts. Photos: Hernan Simbaña.

Figure 3. A coffee plantation with guaba trees.

Soil and climatic conditions in Galapagos allow for the production of coffee at low altitudes (200-450 m above sea level), in comparison with mainland Ecuador, where it is grown at 1000-1500 m above sea level. These conditions, combined with the varieties (Arabica, Robusta) and the sub-varieties of coffee produced, contributed to the evolution of a coffee that is distinguished by its quality and taste, and the recent recognition of Galapagos as a Designation of Origin.

Use of banana stems as water reserves for planting fruit trees

In smaller production units, families engage in more intensive agriculture with family labor and little use of external inputs due to a lack of capital. In these rural farms,

the creativity demonstrated by farmers to find solutions to problems of water shortage and attacks by pests and diseases is fundamental. On Isabela Island, one farmer reported a method he developed after experiencing a period of seven months without rain, when the soil became so hot the newly sown plants died from lack of water. This farmer devised a system of cutting banana trunks into pieces and locating them around newly sown plants (Figure 4). These trunk sections, with high mineral and water content, ensured that the soil remained hydrated and naturally fertilized. When these trunk sections are buried, the water they contain is freed, keeping the soil moist for the newly sown plant to develop. This practice can be used for planting any fruit species.

80



It has taken approximately ten years since the 2006 SIPAE studies for the Galapagos community to recognize that in addition to providing food for the local population, the local agricultural sector plays an important role in controlling invasive species. This realization counters the previous focus on nature conservation, which kept nature separate from human activity. The dialogue process has demonstrated the importance of locally-developed agricultural and livestock knowledge that builds upon age-old knowledge and folklore, recreating it for the Galapagos environment and thus transforming adverse conditions into opportunities for sustainable farming.

Based on the information presented above, we recommend the following:

• Local knowledge should be recognized and valued by conservation, research, and development institutions, as stated in the Constitution of the Republic and the National Plan for Good Living 2013-2017.

• Participatory research that recognizes and values the

experience of farmers and opens a system of dialogue and mutual learning should be conducted to create synergies between local and scientific knowledge. It is even more important to promote social processes led by these same actors.

• It is necessary to conduct participatory scientific research that assesses the potential of invasive species from an agronomic perspective, to determine their potential for agriculture and livestock production.

• Land use parameters must be modified when developing capacity utilization maps, which are the basis for land use planning of the agricultural sector.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the women and men farmers who shared their knowledge and experiences. We also thank the technical team of the Provincial Directorate of MAGAP Galapagos for the same.

References

Chiriboga R & S Maignan. 2006. Historia de las relaciones y elementos de la reproducción social agraria en Galápagos. 38 pp. SIPAE, MAE, GEF, INGALA y UNDP, Desarrollo de políticas y estrategias de manejo del sector Agropecuario y su relación con las especies introducidas en la Provincia de Galápagos, Galápagos, Ecuador.

MAGAP - DPA. 2014. Plan de Bioagricultura para Galápagos: Una oportunidad para el buen vivir insular. Galápagos, Ecuador. 10 pp.

Maignan S. 2007. En el archipiélago de Colón: Sostener el sector agropecuario para garantizar la conservación de un patrimonio natural único. In: Vaillant M, D Cepeda, P Gondard, A Zapatta & A Meunier (Eds), 2007. Mosaico agrario: Diversidades y antagonismos socio-económicos en el campo ecuatoriano, Quito-Ecuador, p. 267-292.

Toledo VM. 2005. La memoria tradicional: la importancia agroecológica de los saberes locales. LEISA Revista de Agroecología 20(4):16-19.

Villa C & P Segarra. 2010. El cambio histórico del uso del suelo y cobertura vegetal en el área rural de Santa Cruz y San Cristóbal. Pp. 95-93. In: FCD, DPNG y Consejo de Gobierno de Galápagos, 2010. Informe Galápagos 2009-2010. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador.

Vandermeer J. 2003. Tropical agroecosystems. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press LLC.

Wilson DJ. 1999. Indigenous South Americans of the past and present: an ecological perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

human systems - galapagos conservancy, inc. · 2017/12/2 · 35 galapagos report 2015 - 2016...

Documents