• Logged in as Unregistered User
  • Sign in

Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Component

SummaryThis is the governance system which determines the use of resources within the Galapagos Marine Reserve. The Galapagos Special Law (1998) created the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR), and the Galapagos Marine Reserve Management Plan (1999) determines the use of resources within the reserve. Galapagos Special Law (GSL) implemented severe restrictions to immigration, required a new inspection and quarantine system to mitigate invasive species, and enhanced ecosystem protection through a new institutional framework. The system is governed by a bottom-up, two-tier participatory management regime which gives local stakeholders significant decision making power. Official management responsibilities are overseen by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the Ecuadoran Navy.
SubtypeFormal Governance System
SectorMarine protected areas
Begin Date1998
ExplanationGalapagos Special Law (GSL) passed in 1998, created the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR). Galapagos Marine Reserve Management Plan (GMRMP) approved in 1999. The Special Law is closely intertwined with the creation of the GMR, and therefore they are coded together as a single governance system. The GSL was created with extensive consultation and participation from the public and stakeholders.
End Datecurrent
Explanationcoding finished in 2015. An apt time to finish as verbal reports that the MPA will be under-going re-zoning ~this year and changes to the Special Law are under review.
Governance ScaleState-based policy
ExplanationState-based: Applies only to the province of Galapagos, Ecuador.
Governance System DescriptionThe Galapagos Special Law (GSL) (1998) and the GMR Management Plan (1999) govern the use of the GMR.
ExplanationThe Galapagos Special Law was established in 1998 and created the Galapagos Marine Reserve and GMR management plan, with an emphasis on a more participatory bottom-up approach (Heylings et al. 2002). The Special Law established the GMR’s overarching objective—the protection of the archipelago’s marine biodiversity, both in terms of its intrinsic (preservation) and utilitarian (fisheries and tourism) values. The main aim of the GMR is to ‘‘protect and conserve the coastal-marine ecosystems of the archipelago and their biological diversity for the benefit of humanity, the local population, science and education’’ (GNPS 1998). The Management Plan has 12 specific objectives, encompassing the long term conservation of marine and coastal habitats, endemic and vulnerable species, and resource species, including management actions for their recovery where necessary; and social objectives which include to: Support local fishers to maintain and improve their social and economic status, by ensuring fishing activities that are compatible with biodiversity conservation; Conserve marine-coastal ecosystems as the economic basis for controlled tourism, and to prevent and mitigate any impacts caused by tourism; Promote science aimed at understanding marine biodiversity and areas and sites affected by human activities. The precautionary principle and Adaptive Management, based on solid scientific basis and stakeholder participation are acknowledged in the Management Plan (GNPS 1998). The Galapagos Special Law is implemented through a two-tier governance framework: Participatory Management Board(PMB): decision making body comprised of local representatives of the tourism, naturalist guide and fishing sectors, GNPS and the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF). The PMB’s role is to evaluate and attempt to reach a consensus on management proposals relating to the GMR. The PMB has mostly focused on fishing issues, which has generated opposition from local fishing groups, which claim there is undue attention to issues that directly affect their livelihoods. Inter-institutional Management Authority (IMA): executive decision making body of the GMR. It is presided over by Ecuador’s Minister of Environment, and com- posed of three additional ministries: Tourism, Fishing and Defence. Additional seats are occupied by the local fishing sector and the local tourism sector. Both the CDF and GNPS play advisory roles on the IMA. All decisions taken by the PMB must be reviewed by the IMA, which is charged with formulating legally binding resolutions. Normally decisions reached on a consensus basis by the PMB are ratified by the IMA, but when consensus is not reached at the PMB level, the IMA can decide by majority vote. (See Jones 2013 for excellent overview).
Governance TriggerSudden disturbance
ExplanationLong history of exploitation. But in the 20th century, industrial tuna fishing boats and long liners began to exploit the area in large numbers. Plus in the 1990s, lucrative markets for sea cucumbers and illegal shark fins fueled explosive growth in fishing with sobering environmental consequences.
Type Of Formal GovernanceManagement plan
ExplanationSystem of Laws and Management plan. Coded together as one governance system.
Mpa Internal Natural BoundariesLow (1)
ExplanationEdgar coded 3 different parts of the GMR: two as low and one as medium - therefore coded as low here.
Mpa Migratory Life HistoryGreen turtle nesting and foraging
Mpa Threats To Migratory Sp["Bycatch", "Habitat destruction"]
ExplanationTuna long-lining - prior to MPA establishment British and US whalers - mid-1800s Climate change and events - ongoing threats Tourist traffic is a current threat to green turtles (20% of nesting females have evidence of boat strike)
Mpa Threatsillegal fishing; unsustainable tourism; pollution; invasive species; climate change
ExplanationUnsustainable tourism and the associated waste management and pollution is a growing problem. As is the increasing risk of more invasive species (ballast waters, and increasing movmenet of ships and boats between areas). Many of the species are endemic and highly sensitive to climatic events - e.g. Galapagos penguin, where past strong El Niño events have caused mortalities of up to 77%, with dramatic declines of prey species and reduced breeding success.
Governance Knowledge Use["Scientific knowledge"]
ExplanationMainly focussed on scientific knowledge produced by CDF
Pa Car PrinciplesPartially (2)
ExplanationThe CDF proposed a zoning scheme to represent all habitats and biogeographic regions of the archipelago in the two categories of no-take zone, (mainly focusing on inshore areas). But the final zoning plan was not based as much on scientific evidence, but instead it focussed on consensus between fishing and tourism sectors
CentralizationSomewhat centralized (3)
ExplanationParticipatroy Management Board includes users (fisher and tourism) plus government. Final and over-riding decision with IMA, which is national governement, so coded as 'somewhat centralized'
Distance To MarketsLess than 10km (1)
Explanationlocal markets within the GMR, e.g. Puerto Ayora. Distane to external market - Guayaquil - Ecuador's largest city and main sea port (most important Industrial and commercial center of the country) is ~1000km.
Mpa Iucn Somewhat Strict Zones0 %
ExplanationNot cited as such, but only 17% is no-take the remaing area of the park allows fishing, but not indistrial fishing - fitting with IUCN VI.
Mpa Iucn Sustainable Zones 83 %
ExplanationNot cited as such, but only 17% is no-take the remaing area of the park allows fishing, but not indistrial fishing - fitting with IUCN VI.
Mpa BudgetMissing
Mpa ConnectivityPartially (2)
ExplanationThe GMR encompasses an area of current convergence. However there was no explicit aim to account for connectivity, other than the size of the park.
Mpa Migratory Threats And ReduxMigratory species protected through ban on industrial fishing within the GMR, and international conventions. No specific management actions for migratory species.
ExplanationWhales (sei, humpback) Tuna Marine birds protected under ACAP – and international conventions that Ecuador subscribes to. Albatross. IUCN processes for red listed spec – gal penguin and cormorant. Upwelling bubble in equator. Sharks – large schooling hammerheads and whale shark come up from south and pregnant females up in Darwin – important behavioral aggregation/birthing points for some of these species. Sharks are migratory between Galapagos and Cocos – and several programmes looking at this
Mpa Motivation["Ecological value", "High human impact to mitigate"]
ExplanationThe Galapagos Islands have been long recognized for their unique characteristics, and it was recognised that there was considereable chnage occuring due to human impacts.
Mpa Primary Goal (In Practice)["Biodiversity conservation"]
ExplanationThe park was also created to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources by local residents - and this is more of a focus in the 2nd management plan
Mpa Protection["Protecting key life history stage(s)", "Reducing threats", "Encompassing entire habitat"]
ExplanationIndustrial fishing is banned Green turtle nesting and foraging
Metric DiversityHigh: Many metrics for success (3)
ExplanationA variety of ecological factors are monitored, inlcuding fisheries lobster, sea cucumber, and movements of migratory species sharks, turtles. Water quality. Also Galapagos Report 2011-2012 includes sections on tourism and poverty - so assume some social metrics also measured.
Pa Iucn Strict Zones17 %
Explanation6% of the GMR is designated solely for conservation, whilst 11% is designated for tourism, in which extractive activities (fishing) are banned (Management plan)
Social Ecological FitMedium (2)
ExplanationThe GMR encompasses a large ecological area, but the zoned areas are minimal (16%) with little management activity in the remaining areas of the park, except for a ban on industrial fishing.
Mpa Migratory BenefitYes
ExplanationBenefits to migratory species stem from the now reduced industrial fishing within the MPA. Whale sharks - Darwin Island is an important stopover in a migration, possibly with reproductive purposes, rather than an aggregation site Acuna-Marrero et al. 2014. Protection of green turtle nesting and foraging. Tuna - ban on indistrial fishing within GMR