Notes 11/22

November 22, 2004

Today Laura and Albert presented to the class and the Las Tortugas UTFs our plan for achieving objective #1. The presentation was ten minutes with a 5 minute question and answer session. This presentation was shorter than the actual presentation; however, it gave us a good idea of how to pace the final presentation. We realized that it really is a lot of information that we have to present in a short amount of time. The presentation also gave us an opportunity to amend points about ORGALA that were not clearly explained.

Questions and comments we received from the panelists during the Q & A session:

Where does Ecuador's say come into this?
What power do you have to pass laws?
How will we address social tensions in the area?
How will you implement laws?
Who will be responsible for enforcement?
How will ORGALA help if legal actions are needed?
J.D. is not the highest degree in the field. It would be unwise to exclude legitimate experts who did not hold a P.h.D. --> perhaps rephrase "J.D./P.h.D" as "recognized expert"
Create a liasion with the ideal village group because many of their plans will need to be carried out through ORGALA

Aspects we need to address/clarify in our presentation:

There is a misconception that we are a politically active international organization with the power to enact legislation and impel another nation to comply with such legislation
There exists a misunderstanding regarding the type of proposals that are being passed through ORGALA --> they are not laws, they are simply proposals as to what the organization should do/donate money to
We need to underscore the apolitical nature of ORGALA
It may be worthwhile to include on the website a section regarding the limitations of ORGALA
As part of our presentation we should include a clear hierarchy of ORGALA in visual form

Questions and comments from panel of UTFs:

What are you actually preserving? I didn't hear much of anything that could be considered a preservation strategy. Seemed like it was a very long and tedious process to approve research ideas.
How does your strategy build “on the current management plan for the Galapagos National Park and the Galapagos Marine Reserve?” - it seems like totally new ideas/ organizations.
Will there be any involvement by the international community other than through non-profits?
How will your organization actually preserve the environment? i.e. stop overfishing, prevent pollution, preserve habitat, etc? YOU MUST ADDRESS THIS!!! Identify specific threats and show how your solution will mitigate them!!
What does it mean to be designated a “World Scientific Preserve”?
How far does the bio-preserve boundaries extend?
Will your strategy of giving power encourage or discourage NGO's from wanting to join? What incentive do they have to join instead of having complete control over how they use their funds now?
Who are these “non-profit” donors? And why does benefit of keeping funding exclusively to non-profit organizations outweigh the cost of loosing potential funds from other investors who have the best intentions (private citizens who wish to contribute to the environment, for example)?
Who are the current contributors to the Galapagos National Park and Galapagos Marine Reserve and why would they agree to change to a plan that cuts them totally out of the picture?
In the event of a disaster (oil spill, etc.) is it a good idea to have to wait for many branches of a “democratic” form of the organization to decide what is the best way to address such a problem- or would a more reactive government (of organization) be more effective in these situations?
Where will funding come from? How do you plan to signficantly increase current budgets to pay for all you want to do?
Exactly how much money do you estimate will come from each donor? You should be able to estimate this based on current records. How much money total would you have to influence the Ecuadorian government? How much power would each donor have on your board? Why do you think you could sell the idea of Orgala to each donor? Give examples, be more specific than it would be in each non-profit’s best interest.
What justifies such a complex governing structure?
Why have you selected PhDs and JDs as the requirements for being on the councils? Will extremely qualified candidates w/o the highest degrees be disregarded?
Will you get local input to the governing body? Why or why not? How will you do it? Why that method?
Are you taking away the responsibility of Ecuador in this process? How will they be able to enforce new things if they have trouble enforcing the current ones?
How does this plan help Ecuador?
How are your new policies enforced? It seems that you are making this new organization to “uncorrupt” the policymaking process, but then hand over the enforcement control to the supposedly “corrupt” Ecuadorian government- how will this change the current situation besides creating more bureaucracy?
Why would Ecuador agree to relinquish all power regarding the Galapagos?
How does “uncorrupting” the policy process make any difference if the duty of enforcing such laws remains unchanged? What is wrong with the laws in place?
How will your organization cooperate with Ecuador so the two don't work against each other?
Without authorization from the Ecuadorian government, how will you enforce anything you want to do? Do you plan to get that authorization?
How? Why will Ecuador agree? If you don't, how do you propose to be effective?
How will you enact your own regulations without Ecuador? If you do enact your own regulations, how will make your laws legitimate? Why would the inhabitants of the Galapagos follow your laws if they aren’t legally binding?
Be VERY CAREFUL of just saying "the corrupt gov't of ecuador" and things along that line, you must be PC about this. If someone from ecuador's gov't is there, or watching they will not appreciate being called corrupt by someone who has not been through the experience.