• Logged in as Unregistered User
  • Sign in

Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Case

Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)

SummaryThe Galapagos Islands are a remote archipelago, located 900km west of continental Ecuador. The archipelago is designated as a National Park, World Heritage Site, and Biosphere Reserve. The Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) was designated in 1998 and encompasses 138,000km2. The main management objective of the GMR is to “protect and conserve the coastal and marine ecosystems of the archipelago and its biological diversity for the benefit of humanity, the local population, science and education”. The GMR is home to high levels of biodiversity, due to its location at the confluence of major ocean currents. The GMR is divided into conservation, tourism, and extractive use zones. Uncontrolled immigration led to the local population more than doubling to 20,000 between 1991 and 2007. Despite making great strides in regards to participatory management and reducing conflict, stock sizes of important fishery resources (Sea cucumber and spiny lobster) continue to decline or show little signs of improvement
Statuspublic
TeamUVic Research Assistants
Start Date2014-07-22
Coding Complete?No
SectorMarine protected areas, Fisheries (Stock-specific), Tourism, Scientific Research and Conservation
ProjectSESMAD
Data Source(s)Secondary data
CountryEcuador
External BiophysicalEl Nino: 1997-1998, 2002-2003, 2004-2005, and 2006-2007. El Nino likely has significant impact on reproductive potential of marine resources, particularly sea cucumber. 1997/1998 El Nino event appeared to improve sea cucumber recruitment during the 2002-2003 seasons (Wolff et al., 2011)
External SocialPopulation growth from 6000 inhabitants in 1982 to around 25,000 in 2012, stimulated by a tourism and fishing boom have increased pressure on marine resources. Ecuadorian government has successfully implemented legislation under the Galápagos Special Law that restricts immigration; the average income in Galápagos is almost twice as high as mainland Ecuador creating a powerful pull for continued legal and illegal immigration. Strong pressure from globalized markets (especially in Asia) for sea cucumbers and shark fins. Relatively weak participation of the local community in the most visible and lucrative tourism operations - perception that insufficient benefits are accrued from supporting biodiversity conservation. (see Jones 2013 for all above points).
Snapshots1998 from the establishment of the GMR to present (2014)
Timeline1957 - Galapagos National Park (GNP) established, protecting all uninhabited land (~97%) 1959 - Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) created 1969 – start of organized cruise-boat tourism, triggering economic development and immigration from mainland Ecuador 1973 - Galapagos declared new province of Ecuador 1982 – population around 6000 1986 - Galapagos Reserve of Marine Resources established in 1986, extending 15 nautical miles from base line of islands – designated through a top-down approach and met with opposition. No management plan. 1992 - Commencement of commercial sea cucumber fishery after collapse of industry in mainland Ecuador 1992 – Management plan approved 1996 - Designated a Biological Reserve 1998 - Galapagos Special Law (GSL) passed, which created the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) 1999 - First management plan for the GMR (GMRMP) approved 2007 - Galapagos added to List of World Heritage Sites in Danger 2012 – population around 25,000
Modeling IssuesSea cucumber fishery crashed during this snap shot so coding for fishermen was averaged across the time period. Tourism is coded both with the tourism industry and the tourists themselves as one "actor".
Surveys
Theories

Visualization

Show Render

Hide Render

Attached Components

Actors

Name:
Galapagos Artisan Fishermen
details
Past collaboration:
Low (1)
No long history in the area. Little collaboration regarding fishery yields and minimum landing size occurred prior to the establishment of the fishing cooperatives and Participatory Management Board mandated under the Galapagos Special Law.
Costs of exit:
No
Coded as no, because although there are costs associated with leaving the fishery (including debt repayments) these are not 'very high' as many fisherman have now left the fishery during the time period being coded and have moved into the tourism sector.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Yes
Fishermen are part of cooperatives and during the peak fishery were involved in many meetings and protests, this would have involved considerable time but they got the outcomes they wanted so coded as yes. Currently the fishery is closed, but there was a commitment to convert fishing permits into tourism permits.
Interest heterogeneity:
Medium (2)
Variety of fishers spread across different islands
Leadership:
Formal leader
There is an elected president for each of the four fishing cooperatives, one of which represents the fishing sector on the PMB.
Leadership authority:
High (3)
One President (elected from the four) is responsible for representing the Galapagos fishing sector at meetings of the Participatory Management Board at which management decisions regarding the Galapagos Marine Reserve are made.
Actor group trust:
Medium (2)
Fishermen wouldf come toegther for meetings and organise themselves when issues affected them, and therefore assume there must be some level of trust for the cooperative to function in this manner.
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
No specific information on the frequency of meetings was found. However, regular meetings do occur for each cooperative, and General Assemblies summoned when significant decisions must be made at which the members of the cooperative are obligated to attend.
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Assume some remote communcation occurs
Leadership accountability:
High (3)
Leaders (Presidents) are elected by the members of the fishing cooperative. Presidents are subject to the scrutiny of the unionized members of their cooperatives, and may be changed or deprived of their positions if internal conflicts arise.
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
It is unclear if fishing cooperatives engage in regular formal meetings. However, it is evident that the fishermen coordinate their opinions and concerns, which are then voiced by a cooperative representative at the formal meetings of the Participatory Management Board. Therefore it is likely formal meeting occur.
Name:
Galapagos Tourism Sector
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
The first “tour ship” that stopped in the islands was probably the Trans Pacific cruise ship Stella Polaris in 1934. The industry was promoted duirng the 1970s, and there was modest growth in 1970s and between 1974 and 1980, tourism began to expand in earnest. Epler, B. 2007. Tourism, the Economy, Population Growth, and Conservation in Galapagos
Costs of exit:
Not Applicable
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Yes
Galapagos is seen as an ecotourism destination. Tourism accounts for 78% of all employment in the Galapagos, quite profitable.
Interest heterogeneity:
Medium (2)
A variety of different tourism ventures exist from home-stays to high end cruise ships. Tourism is considered fairly well regulated.
Leadership:
Formal leader
Leadership authority:
Medium (2)
Assume governement agency with fairly high authority, although tourism regulations set with Parks Service and CDF, so coded as medium
Actor group trust:
High (3)
Assume fairly high - no reports of conflict within the sector
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Assumed due to coordination and reporting
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Assumed due to coordination and reporting
Leadership accountability:
High (3)
Assume governement agency accountable
Actor group coordination:
Formal
Galapagos Chamber of Tourism
Name:
GMR managers
details
Past collaboration:
Low (1)
The two-tier governance framework of the PMB and IMA was established in 1998 with the Galapagos Special Law
Costs of exit:
Not Applicable
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Not Applicable
Interest heterogeneity:
High (3)
PMB composed of representatives from fishing, tourism, and conservation, which leads to conflict on interests regarding park use. PMB composed of representatives of: (1) artisan fishing sector (elected from the four Galapagos Artisan Fishing Coorperative presidents), (2) Chamber of Tourism, (3) Charles Darwin Research Station, (4) Galapagos National Park IMA is presided over by the Minister of Environment of Ecuador, and composed of the Ministries of Fishing, Tourism, and Defense. Advisory roles in the IMA are provided by the Charles Darwin Foundation and the Galapagos National Park Service. (Jones, 2013)
Leadership:
Formal leader
Formal, elected leaders/representatives for each of the sectors on the PMB formal leader of the IMA is the Minister of Environment.
Leadership authority:
High (3)
All decisions made in regards to use of the GMR are made by the PMB and IMA. Decisions made by the PMB are usually ratified by the IMA, however IMA holds considerable power to overturn any decision made by the PMB, or to make a decision when consensus is not reached.
Actor group trust:
Low (1)
It would have been low at the start and for the majaority of the time period being coded as there was a lot of conflict. However the IMA has not needed to meet in the last few years and so it could now be considered medium?
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Assumed
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Assumed
Leadership accountability:
High (3)
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
Formal and informal - between and within all organisations on the PMB
Name:
Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
CDF has been in operation since 1959
Costs of exit:
Not Applicable
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Not Applicable
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
members of the CDF are part of the scientific research community, whose interests are in the science, conservation, and education areas.
Leadership:
Formal leader
Formal - CDF is managed by an executive director who is appointed by a board.
Leadership authority:
Medium (2)
The Board of Directors is comprised of eight members of the General Assembly who are elected for six-year terms. They work with the Executive Director and make decisions on behalf of the General Assembly.
Actor group trust:
High (3)
Likely fairly high, as it is a research community with more or less converging interests.
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Well-organised, international organisation
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Well-organised, international organisation
Leadership accountability:
High (3)
CDF is managed by an executive director who is appointed by a board.
Actor group coordination:
Formal
Formal - well organised international NGO

Governance Systems

Name:
Galapagos Governance System 1998-current
details
Type of formal governance:
Management plan
System of Laws and Management plan. Coded together as one governance system.
End Date:
current
coding 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.
Begin date:
1998
Galapagos 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.
Governance trigger:
Sudden disturbance
Long 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.
Governance system description:
The Galapagos Special Law (GSL) (1998) and the GMR Management Plan (1999) govern the use of the GMR.
The 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 scale:
State-based policy
State-based: Applies only to the province of Galapagos, Ecuador.
Centralization:
Somewhat centralized (3)
Participatroy 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'
Metric diversity:
High: Many metrics for success (3)
A 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.
MPA primary goal (in practice):
["Biodiversity conservation"]
The 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 motivation:
["Ecological value", "High human impact to mitigate"]
The 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 protection:
["Protecting key life history stage(s)", "Reducing threats", "Encompassing entire habitat"]
Industrial fishing is banned Green turtle nesting and foraging
MPA internal natural boundaries:
Low (1)
Edgar coded 3 different parts of the GMR: two as low and one as medium - therefore coded as low here.
Distance to markets:
Less than 10km (1)
local 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 budget:
Missing
PA IUCN strict zones:
17 %
6% of the GMR is designated solely for conservation, whilst 11% is designated for tourism, in which extractive activities (fishing) are banned (Management plan)
MPA connectivity:
Partially (2)
The GMR encompasses an area of current convergence. However there was no explicit aim to account for connectivity, other than the size of the park.
PA CAR principles:
Partially (2)
The 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
MPA migratory benefit:
Yes
Benefits 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
MPA migratory life history:
Green turtle nesting and foraging
MPA threats to migratory sp:
["Bycatch", "Habitat destruction"]
Tuna 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 migratory threats and redux:
Migratory species protected through ban on industrial fishing within the GMR, and international conventions. No specific management actions for migratory species.
Whales (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
Social-ecological fit:
Medium (2)
The 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.
Governance knowledge use:
["Scientific knowledge"]
Mainly focussed on scientific knowledge produced by CDF
MPA IUCN somewhat strict zones:
0 %
Not 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 %
Not 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 threats:
illegal fishing; unsustainable tourism; pollution; invasive species; climate change
Unsustainable 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.

Environmental Commons

Name:
Galapagos Sea Cucumber
details
Productivity:
Moderately Productive (2)
Sea cucumber fisheries are popular throughout the Indo-Pacific but are prone to over-exploitation. Coded as moderately productive, as their productivity could be considere higher than turtles or whales which have been coded as poorly prodcutive. Low sea cucumber densities do not allow for spawning aggregations necessary for high reproductive rates, resulting in low fertilization rates. Breeding success is directly related to densities of adult individuals, and stocks are consistently below legal threshold. (Hearn et al., 2005)
Commons aggregation:
Population
Population Brown sea cucumber (Isostichopus fuscus). Manged as region stocks as opposed to the archipelago stock as a whole.
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Small (2)
Adults 20-30cm, with suggested lifespan of 12-17 years.
Commons mobility:
Medium (2)
Sea cucumbers are slowly mobile, with little movement of sea cucumbers between islands.
Commons spatial extent:
133000
coded as the spatial extent of the GMR. Although Isostichopus fuscus is found across the Eastern Pacific http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5501e/y5501e0e.htm
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Oceanic Shallow coastal waters (2-40m depth)
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
found in shallow coastal waters and distributed around all islands of the archipelago in varying densities.
Intra annual predictability:
High (3)
With no fishing, little variation in numbers within a given year Density-dependent for reproduction - and density required is unknown.
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Sea cucumbers are density-dependent for reproduction - and the minimum density required is unknown. They take approximately 4 years to mature. Recruitment rates vary due to climate and oceanic conditions (e.g. el nino)
Technical substitute:
No
Commons boundaries:
Clear boundaries (3)
Found in the coastal zone at 28-39 m depth. http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5501e/y5501e0e.htm
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Sea cucumbers are renewable, however exhibit very low reproductive and recruitment capacity. (Hearn et al., 2005)
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
Sea cucumbers inhabit shallow coastal waters and are conspicuous and lsow moving making them accessible given a boat and diving equipment.
Commons indicator:
["Status of species targeted by fisheries"]
This species (Isostichopus fuscus) is the most common commercial species found in the Eastern Pacific (Maluf, 1988) and was once known as the most conspicuous invertebrate of the shallow littoral zone in the Galapagos Islands (Wellington, 1974).
Name:
Galapagos Green Turtle
details
Productivity:
Poorly productive (1)
Many eggs lain, however high mortality rate. Also very slow to mature and reproduce.
Commons aggregation:
Population
Population.
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Medium (3)
Av weight of adult individual 68-190Kg
Commons mobility:
High (3)
Migratory species
Commons spatial extent:
133000
Coded as extent of GMR - but Green turtles in Galapagos range around Central and South America.
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Oceanic
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
Green turtles use many locations and habitats which may be quite distant from one another, however females often return to the same nesting beach. The most important nesting beaches in the Galapagos Archipelago are Quinta Playa and Bahía Barahona in Isabela Island, Las Bachas in Santa Cruz Island, Las Salinas in Seymour Island and Espumilla in Santiago Island (Zarate et al 2003)
Intra annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Availability varies according to season, but these patterns can be predicted. Also population sizes don't fluctuate too much in relation environmental factors.
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Migratory species and number of males is not well understood, however females predictably return to the same nesting beaches every couple years. Approximate numbers fairly predictable.
Technical substitute:
No
Commons boundaries:
Somewhat unclear boundaries (2)
defined foraging and nesting grounds, however migratory boundaries are not well known
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Renewable, however slow to mature and reproduce, with high infant mortality.
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
Turtles are easy to catch, both as by-catch and intentionally.
Commons indicator:
["Status of highly migratory species"]
Name:
Galapagos Sharks
details
Productivity:
Poorly productive (1)
Many species are long lived and slow to reproduce
Commons aggregation:
Guild
The GMR is home to 33 species of shark (see chapter by Hearn et al., 2014 for list - table 2.1)
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Large (4)
Commons mobility:
High (3)
Sharks highly mobile
Commons spatial extent:
133000
Coded as extent of GMR, but can migrate long distances to other eastern pacific islands
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Oceanic
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
Many species of shark found throughout the GMR. Some are found more commonly in certain regions, however presence of any one sharks species is unpredictable. Most common species hammerhead and the Galapagos sharks. (Hearn et al., 2013)
Intra annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Similar intra-annual patterns between hammerheads, whale, and Galapagos sharks in northern bioregion: greater abundance in cooler months of the year (May-October). In warmers months abundance is greatly reduced.
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Migratory, but some species through to have important aggregation sites in GMR. Sharks are regularly recorded
Technical substitute:
No
Commons boundaries:
Very unclear boundaries (1)
Many sharks are highly migratory and frequently travel out of the GMR boundaries, and to other eastern Pacific islands
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
But many species slow to reproduce
Commons accessibility:
Somewhat accessible (2)
Accessible with the right equipment and regularly seen on dives
Commons indicator:
["Ecosystem health and/or biodiversity"]
Sharks are high trophic level species, their high abundance is indicative of a healthy ecosystem. Hammerheads in particular have been shown through modeling studies to represent entire communities as an umbrella species (Hearn et al., 2013)

Component Interactions

Governance Interaction

Galapagos green turtle interaction 1998-2014

Other:
Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation (Actor)
Governs:
Galapagos Governance System 1998-current (Governance System)
Primary:
Galapagos Green Turtle (Environmental Common)
Governing Organization:
GMR managers (Actor)
Commons User:
Galapagos Tourism Sector (Actor)

Governance Interaction

Galapagos sea cucumber interaction 1998-2014

1998-01-01 - ongoing
Coded: 2014-07-23

Governing Organization:
GMR managers (Actor)
Other:
Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation (Actor)
Primary:
Galapagos Sea Cucumber (Environmental Common)
Governs:
Galapagos Governance System 1998-current (Governance System)
Commons User:
Galapagos Artisan Fishermen (Actor)

Governance Interaction

Galapagos sharks interaction 1998-2014

Other:
Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation (Actor)
Governs:
Galapagos Governance System 1998-current (Governance System)
Primary:
Galapagos Sharks (Environmental Common)
Governing Organization:
GMR managers (Actor)
Other:
Galapagos Tourism Sector (Actor)

Studies

Jones, PJS. (2013). A governance analysis of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Marine Policy, 41, 65-71.


Wolff, M., Schuhbauer, A., Castrejon, M. (2011). A revised strategy for the monitoring and management of the Galapagos sea cucumber. Revista de biologia tropical, 60(2), 539-551.


Shepherd, S., Martinez, P., Toral-Granda, M., & Edgar, G. (2004). The Galpagos sea cucumber fishery: management improves as stocks decline. Environmental Conservation, 31(2), 102–110. doi:10.1017/S0376892903001188


Hearn, A., Martinez, P., Toral-Granda, M., Murillo, J., Polovina, J. (2005). Population Dynamics of the exploited sea cucumber isostichopus fuscus in the western Galapagos Islands, Equador. Fisheries Oceanography, 14(5), 377-385


Castrejón, M., & Charles, A. (2013). Improving fisheries co-management through ecosystem-based spatial management: The Galapagos Marine Reserve. Marine Policy, 38, 235–245.


Schuhbauer, A., & Koch, V. (2013). Assessment of recreational fishery in the Galapagos Marine Reserve: Failures and opportunities. Fisheries Research, 144, 103–110. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2013.01.012


Zarate, P., Fernie, A., Dutton, P. (2003). First results of the East Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas, nesting population assessment in the Galapagos Islands. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC, 503, p 70-73.


Zarate, P., Bjorndal, K., Parra, M., Dutton, P., Seminoff, J., Bolten, A. (2013). Hatching and emergence succes in green turtle Chelonia mydas nests in the Galapagos Islands. Aquatic Biology, 19(3), p 217-229.


Parra, M., Deem, S., Espinoza, E. (2011). Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Mortality in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador During the 2009-2010 Nesting Season. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 130, p 10-15.


Green, D. (2003). Movements of green turtles within and without the Galapagos Archipelago, Ecuador. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFD-SEFSC, 503, p 74-75.


Zarate, P. (2006). Ecuador 2006 Annual Report. Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Charles Darwin Foundation.


Hearn, A., Acuna, D., & Ketchum, J. (2013). Elasmobranches of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Chapter in: The Galapagos Marine Reserve, a Dynamic Social-Ecological System. Denkinger, J. & Vinueza, L. (Eds).  New York: Springer Publishing.