This is way late to be posted but i figure ill post everything i have had here for memories sake.. with approx dates that i typed them

My homepage:    http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2008/teams/pjm2008/index.html

ON THIS PAGE

Early Stuff
First Committee proposal
Fi nal Trust Proposal
Reorganizing Fishing work for website
My Speech

11/15/04

Actions and Recommendations- starting structure

1.      Fishing

a.       Enforcement

-         Increased number of patrols and patrol boats

-         Monitoring system will keep track of fish populations in specific areas, which can be used to identify rising problems

            The birthplace of evolutionary theory, a geological marvel formed from the outpouring of molten lava in the middle of the Pacific, and a home to hundreds of species found nowhere else in the world, the Galapagos Islands are one of the most unique locations on the planet.  Their preservation is a worldwide concern, and with the current threats that now face them, the world community must take steps to ensure that future generations can enjoy such a unique and pristine ecosystem. 

            Recognizing the intrinsic scientific value that lies in the Galapagos archipelago, we have designated the Galapagos as a World Scientific Preserve, a place where scientist and researchers will be able and encouraged to gather and share data about the past, present and future of the island environment.  Under this designation, a small subcommittee of scientists will coordinate the research efforts of scientists from many countries into a centralized database system.  They will be charged with insuring that the new and the old monitoring systems are functioning and reporting accurate data, and that all needed information is being gathered.  With this information, they will then be well-informed as to the true ecological situation and threats, and will make recommendations to the Galapagos World Biopreserve Committee.

            This committee will be the governing head of the newly organized Galapagos’ Biopreserve, coordinating the efforts and influx of international funds with the concerns and desires of the local population.  Composed equally of local representation (both from elected officials and industry representatives), NGO representation (from organizations willing to give funds to the biopreserve to be used at the discretion of the committee), and other nations representatives (primarily from UNESCO who are willing to either donate funds or forgive a portion of Ecuador’s annual dept payment), the committee will take over the effective management of the current biopreserve. 

The powers and responsibilities of this Committee include:

1)      The power to appoint the director of the GNP.  This appointment must be approved by the Ecuadorian president.

2)      The power to direct and implement policy for the newly unified GNP and GMR, which will be submitted to INGALA so that INGALA can coordinate the efforts of the groups under its jurisdiction.

3)      The committee will hear the recommendations of the scientists’ subcommittee and weigh their recommendations when determining biopreserve policies.

4)      The power to apportion money from the trust to the formation and upkeep of the monitoring systems.

5)      The committee will be responsible for coordinating with the local governments the goal of establishing ecovillages.  It will work with the local population to formulate a timetable and effective and agreeable means of implementation.

6)      The power to apportion money from the trust for the construction and establishment of the ecovillages.

7)      The committee will be responsible to UNESCO under the World Heritage Guidelines.  UNESCO will check to ensure that the committee is functioning in its proper capacity after a period of one year and then two years, and following that it will also insure that the committee is fulfilling its task with its annual(?) check-up of World Heritage sites.

The pressing tasks of this committee include:

1)      Pushing the IMO to recognize the Galapagos as a PSSA and in particular to ensure that this designation carries with it the protection from shipping through areas north of the islands where the current would carry any pollution southward to the islands.

2)      Instituting a job training and hiring program for rangers, with the aim to increase the number of rangers from 234(?) to 400 to accommodate the increase in tourism as well as the need for increased monitoring and patrolling of the ecosystem.  The said job training program will function as an internship, with interns starting at simpler tasks and gradually completing their full training.  The wages of rangers will be tied to the GPI(?) and the interns will receive a stipend until they complete the training program of 10(?) weeks.

3)      Evaluating the current status of the GNP and GMR ----- Insert other proposals here-----

4)       

The purpose and basis for the formation of this committee include:

1)      The recognition that the Galapagos Islands need to be preserved for the sake of the entire world community, and that the world community must share a part of the burden.

2)      The current system of administration and preservation lacks coordination and cohesion.  This system emphasizes a coordination and consideration of where all the funds are going to create a unified preservation strategy.

3)      The current system lacks the monetary muscle to deal with several rising problems on the Galapagos Islands.  This system will bring in more funds to face the problem without overburdening any group.  These funds can they be used to ensure proper enforcement of all the regulations that have currently been established under the Special Law of the Galapagos and its supplementary documents, as well as the necessary changes made by the committee.

4)      The current system also suffers from the conflicting interests of various groups that tear apart effective management and preservation efforts by subverting them to political agendas.  This system removes those concerns by placing the GNP director appointment in the hands of the committee and coordinating all efforts through the committee and INGALA.

5)      The committee will achieve legal basis through both a UN resolution and an Ecuadorian law, which parallel its responsibilities both to the world community and UNESCO as well as Ecuador through INGALA.

6)       

11/30/04-   The Final Trust Proposal-  most of research work done by Seema... thanks for helping me put it all together too

Page 1

The International Trust

I.                                Purpose:

To manage the finances of the international committee, including consolidating the resources from various international donors and lenders and budgeting the resources to the Galapagos’ Biopreserve Committee

II.                             Form: 

The trust will draw its funds from a pool of sources separated into five categories:

·        NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations)

·        Foreign Governments

·        Debt for Nature

·        Loans and Banks

·        Fundraising Projects and Private Donations

III. Timeline and Cost Estimates

Page 2

III.                           NGOs

All NGOs are invited to support the conservation effort in the Galapagos Islands by donating to the trust.  To maximize our funds with the least restrictions, we will solicit contributions from larger, established organizations with an expressed interest in the conservation and preservation of the Galapagos Islands' ecosystem.  These will have a seat on the committee if they so desire.  Some of these NGOs include:

WWF (World Wildlife Fund)

Swiss/Netherlands Friends of the Galapagos

Galapagos Darwin Trust in Luxemburg

Galapagos Conservation Trust in England

Frankfurt Zoological Society

New Horizons

            However, smaller NGOs are most welcome to donate their funds to the committee.  They may also present specific proposals for the allocation of their funds to the committee.  All NGOs that are working in the Galapagos are welcome to coordinate their research efforts with the efforts of the Biopreserve committee, which are backed by the international trust.  These are a short list of several NGOs already involved in research or conservation efforts in the Galapagos and have specific goals and objectives.

            Shark Research Institute

            New Era Galapagos Foundation

            Fundacion Jatun Sacha

            Wildlife Conservation Unit at Oxford University

            Consorcio Camaren

            National Museums and Galleries of Wales

Global Environmental Facility/UN Development Program
UN Fund/UNESCO

Page 3

IV.             International Countries

            All governments are invited to support the conservation effort in the Galapagos Islands by donating to the trust.  Their support can be given either through direct monetary donations or through the Debt for Nature Program that will be discussed more formally below.  Some countries that have supplied aid to the Galapagos and other conservation efforts in the past:

            United States                                                               Norway

            Great Britain (Darwin Initiative)                                  Finland

            Switzerland                                                                   Netherlands

            Germany                                                                      Belgium

            Luxemburg                                                                 Canada

            Spain                                                                            Japan

            Sweden

Page 4

V.        Debt for Nature

            The principle of Debt for Nature is that a nation’s money that would otherwise be tied up in the repayment of foreign debts can instead be utilized within that nation and put toward conservation efforts.  Such exchanges have many precedents, including examples of a single country like the United States forgiving debt under its US Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 or the example of the World Wildlife Fund buying the Ecuadorian debt to the World Bank at a reduced price and Ecuadorian gradually putting that money to work in the Galapagos.

            The Debt for Nature scheme envisioned by this trust is as follows:

1.      The Trust will buy the Ecuadorian debt from the member nations of the trust at a reduced rate, which can be agreed upon on a per country basis and will be dependent on such factors as total amount of Ecuadorian debt and GNP (Gross National Product) of the country owed.  This will be done annually, with the purpose being that a portion of the debt that Ecuador repays to a certain country annually will be instead put into the trust.  This could be used in lieu of a member country directly putting money into the trust.

2.      Ecuador will continue to repay the annual portion of the debt to that country that does not go into the trust.  Ecuador, however, will only pay 75% of the amount of debt that it owes the trust annually.  The other 25% can be used by the Ecuadorian government to fund various environmentally friendly economical or educational initiatives within Ecuador.

3.      The Trust will also look into buying Ecuadorian debt from the World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank.

Loans and Banks

            The committee may apply for loans from various credible lenders to cover the gap in funding between costs and donations.  Some lenders include:

Established in 1959, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is a bank that lends loans for the purpose of social and economic benefit. Forty-six countries own it with over 50% of the voting power in Latin America and the Caribbean. With over US$100 billion in resources, IDB funds countless organizations. It assists borrowers with developing policy plans for achieving the results they are looking for. IDB lends to small to large public and private companies, organizations, and governments.  Its funds come from subscribed capital, reserves, and borrowed funds from the capital markets of Europe, Japan, and the US.  Its debt is AAA-rated by multiple US rating services and equivalently rated in other countries.  IDB has lent over US$230 million to Ecuador in 2003 and almost US$4.5 billion since 1961, much of which has gone to the Galapagos Islands.

USAID is an independent US federal government agency founded in 1961. It supports economic growth, agriculture, trade, global health, democracy, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance. Its annual budget is less than one-half of one percent of the US federal budget.  USAID gives around US$4 billion in federal contracts and grants every fiscal year, and could provide ample funding resources. USAID very actively promotes biodiversity throughout the world. It has worked in the Galapagos Islands since 1997 and has financial obligations through 2008.  USAID already commits US$5 million to conservation efforts in the Galapagos Islands and will increase that amount to US$5.1 million in 2005.
USAID supports/funds:

·Implementing of the marine zoning plan

·Strengthening the governance of the Marine Reserve

·Reducing of illegal fishing and over-fishing

·Increasing tourism’s contributions to conservation

·Promoting public education and outreach

·Updating the Galapagos Management Plan

·Producing a strategic plan for the Charles Darwin Foundation

·Completing the community-based ecotourism activity in Puerto Villamil, Isabela Island

USAID funding to Ecuador for Fiscal Year 2004-2005

Tourism/Fundraising and Private Donations

For the Park entrance fee, tourists pay $100 per person.  It is estimated that 80,000 tourists will visit the islands in 2004.  The 45% of the fee that is designated for the GNP and GMR will supplement the funds of the committee.  The current distribution of the entrance fee is:

40% to Galapagos National Park
20% to Municipalities of the Galapagos
10% to Provincial Government of Galapagos
10% to Galapagos National Institute--INGALA
5% to Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)

5% to INEFAN
5% to Provincial Inspection System
5% to Ecuadorian Navy

            Many of the tourists who come to the Galapagos hold a deep respect for the land and its natural beauty.  Many, too, are willing and able to contribute to see that the future will still have this unique place.  Therefore, the trust will work with local companies to see if certain souvenirs or nights at a restaurant, etc. could donate a certain percentage of the profits to the trust.  Tourists in particular would be very eager to spend money knowing that a part of it will benefit the Galapagos conservation efforts.

            An international media campaign at the Biopreserve’s inception will attract support and monetary aid for the new project.  Those interested in donating would be directed to the centralized scientific database website where they can learn more about the project.  This has the potential to generate a lot of money in the short term.

Private donations will come from personal pledges from individuals, companies, and other bodies directly to the trust.  While it is impossible to predetermine the specific amount of private donations, it is fair to say that this will be the smallest source of funding for the trust. 

Timetable

In the beginning, as the trust is establishing its donors and the heavy funding of the initial projects of village construction, the trust will take out loans from various international banks.  In particular, the IDB and USAID will be crucial to providing early funding.

The goal for the committee is to move towards a trust that can fund the committee's projects entirely through donations and fundraising, eliminating the burdens of debt.  Ideally, the amount of funding from loans will decrease annually.  This will occur as construction projects are completed.  Actual upkeep and maintenance of the system carries a far lower annual cost than years in which construction is occurring.  Below are some of the estimates of the funds needed for our project.

*Includes: Buoy systems and deployment, land weather stations, soil monitoring, repair, and labor costs               

**Includes: Rangers training and salary, eco-boats for patrol, floating airport personnel, administrative costs and labor, and education opportunities

11/30/04-  My translation of Justin's work into paragraph form for the website

Though the current laws and policy governing the Galapagos Islands provide adequate protection of the environment on paper, actual protection of Galapagos biodiversity has yet to fully materialize.

The current laws establish protections full of loopholes. Several problems exist, including the fact that many marine populations (sea cucumbers, mussels, etc.) are sedentary and are easily caught en masse without high-tech fishing methods.  Companies are circumventing the law by hiring locals to use semi-industrious fishing methods.  In addition, pelagic and illegal fishing are still problems.  Artisanal fishing still allows for large boats (up to 60 feet long).

            1. Diagram of the 40 mile zone where industrial fishing is prohibited. 

(CDF/WWF 2003)

2. Diagram of current zones of protection around the islands.

[G=no take;B=non-extractive use;R=regulated extraction; Bk=port zones.]

(Charles Darwin Foundation/World Wildlife Fund 2003)

The current law for the Galapagos is good generally, but lacks specific goals for marine biodiversity and general enforcement.  Also, there are some loopholes.  A lack of prosecution for fishing violations has been prevalent.  For example, in the 2002 Dolphin death case, over 70 dead and injured dolphins were discovered in the nets of a ship fishing illegally in the GMR. The captain of the boat was only fined 4 cents and 4 weeks in "jail", which was aboard his own boat.  In addition, Magdelena, a commercial fishing boat, was captured by personnel from the Galapagos National Park Service in March, 1997. The boat was carrying 40,000 processed sea cucumbers illegally harvested within the archipelago's marine biological reserve. The judge ordered the release of the Magdelena on “transparently spurious” grounds.

Another noted problem is the lack of enforcement, which is mainly due to a lack of funding.  In 1999, there was only one ship patrolling the reserve.  y001, this number had increased to eight ships to patrol the whole of the GMR.  In addition, there are many local accounts of easy circumvention.  Despite the restrictions against such practices, shark-finning and long-lining remain prevalent. 

            “Even with proper enforcement, the marine reserve wouldn't be home free. The powerful continental fishing interests are implacable foes of the law, and are certain to challenge it in court. And judges can be bought to delay, obfuscate and frustrate the intent of the law when and if it is applied.”(Butler ’99. Ottawa Citizen)

            Also common is circumvention of the law by foreign vessels paying “middle men” from the local population to do the fishing within the Reserve.  Fisheries in Galápagos are presently in a totally chaotic situation. The marine area of Galápagos is under assault from three types of fishing. First, large international fishing vessels, mostly from Asiatic countries, are fishing around the Galápagos in pelagic zones, and often inside the GMRR. Most of this fishing is illegal and involves devastating, modern, high-technology methods such as large seines and long-lining. Second, some modern ships from the Ecuadorian mainland and foreign ships (mainly Asian) with Ecuadorian permissions and/or flying the Ecuadorian flag are also fishing both pelagically and nearer to shore. This fishing is legal, but there are reasons to question to what extent they obey the rules laid down by Ecuadorian fisheries laws and regulations. Third, with increased migration to Galápagos, one of the fallouts has been growing interest from mainland Ecuadorian fishing companies and middlemen buyers in what resources could be extracted and sold on the international market. This has been fueled by Asian markets for many of these products as well as capital from those countries. These interests have moved into Galápagos from the mainland and are using the local traditional fisherman of Galápagos as their labor source, and loaning them money or arranging bank loans to purchase boats and equipment. The local fishermen are abandoning their traditional fisheries in favor of these new short-term, rapid economic gain, export product ones. Likewise, these lucrative operations are causing a rapid influx of poor fishermen from the mainland of Ecuador as new migrants.  (From Article excerpt by MacFarland and Cifuentes ’96)

The constant “flip-flop” of park directors precludes anything from getting done.  The fishermen demand someone new, and then they get someone new.   However, park rangers and environmentalists demand someone new.  For example, the GNP has had 9 park directors since 2001. This type of shaky government lacks a stable political framework.

Now is the time to act. Current trends in overfishing and species extinction portend looming disaster for the Galapagos and its inhabitants.  Fishing stocks are on decline.

More species targeted with increasing number of fishers

CPUE (Catch per unit effort) is decreasing substantially despite increase in fishing technology.  This may be a good thing; as returns from fishing decrease, there may be a decrease in the influx of fisherman.  However, this overall trend also indicates dropping fish populations, and if the CPUE gets too low, the fishing of these species may become unsustainable.

Dealing with fishermen and rangers is a delicate balancing act, getting ever more explosive as the tension rises from inconsistency of government decision making.  For example, some news headlines have been “Galapagos park rangers walk off job: Tension rises between environmentalists and tour operators” National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada)September 15, 2004 and “Fishermen attack protesting park rangers on Galapagos Islands”. The Associated Press. September 22, 2004.  In addition, there have been 9/10 governors in the last 4 years.

The international effort can better address pelagic fishing around the Galapagos.  The increased ability to give fisherman concessions will help to stabilize the situation; for example, “Galapagos fishermen end protest over net bans after concessions” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 28, 2004).   The Biopreserve will bring a stable political framework for administration and enforcement of the law.  The population will know what to expect, and with the decrease in uncertainty, better planning and management of resources will be possible. International organizations bring more ideas and more possible solutions.  Countries/organizations are more apt to provide money for a specific issue, and especially more willing when there is a stable framework and coherent plan in place.  For example, Ecuador has taken money from the UNDP and IDB to address the specific problems of invasive species after they established a framework with a specific layout of plans of actions.  NGOs and other countries have provided funding for the eradication of goats, pigs, etc. (non-endemic species) on native islands in the wake of massive turtle extinctions.  The same message must be sent across to the global community through an international committee.  Then, perhaps the same results might be achieved to save aquatic populations.

The new laws would provide for a minimal intrusion on Ecuadorian sovereignty.  The Biopreserve would adhere to the current Ecuadorian laws.  The committee will only give specific recommendations to meet the goals of these laws.  An internationally managed regime would ensure greater compliance, funding, and enforcement, allowing for more effective policy in general.  International committee brings greater stability and will be less subject to political lobbying.  International committee allows for negotiations between countries that transcend just the Galapagos, which is in accordance with the recognition that the problem of the Galapagos cannot be analyzed in isolation.  For example, to convince Japan to decrease pressures of sea cucumber and shark fin fishing in the Galapagos, the United States might agree to help end the moratorium on whales (specific species like the Minke whale) by the IWC (International Whaling Commission). 

            The committee will also look into converting fishermen’s activities to non-extraction, while acknowledging feelings of resentment due to lack of skills and loss of independence.  Such conversion will only be done freely but will be encouraged by making other activities more economically viable.  The defined boat size of artisanal fishing as well as the methods used will be regulated by the commission.  In addition, Usury Laws may be established to prevent hiring of middlemen to exploit fisheries.

12/1/04-   My  presentation speech