Letter in support of conservation

A few months ago pressures were raising pursuant to the Ecuadorian Government allowing the use of a depredatory fishing method called “palangre” or “long line”. Many Ecuadorians and NGO’s supported the Environment Ministry which opposed this. The following letter was made by Andrés Córdova and circulated in a newsgroup in support of the environment:

LETTER OF SUPPORT SENT BY ANDRES CORDOVA TO AN ECUADORIAN NEWSGROUP CONCERNED ABOUT THE GALAPAGOS

Dear Manuel, dear all:

In the Province of Galapagos, there are compatible and even desirable activities, but there are also others that are incompatible and undesirable. The use of boulters (a depredatory fishing method, “palangre” in Spanish) is evidently incompatible. This is why I contribute my support to the multiple sectors currently backing the Minister of the Environment, who does not accept the usage of boulters, and I congratulate you on your initiative to convey your uneasiness to so many outstanding persons.

I consider that it is extremely important to keep openly incompatible activities away from Galapagos, because if they are allowed and take root, it becomes very difficult and socially expensive to eliminate them.

This has occurred with the sea cucumber and is beginning to happen to the commercialization of shark fins, favored by a curious regulation that allows the exportation of fins that are the result of “accidental” shark fishing. How about that!

Of course, Galapagos’ residents (including fishermen) deserve living conditions commensurable to the islands’ significance. Therefore, it is important to motivate compatible activities that, in addition to providing a legitimate source of income to sustain and develop the population, authentically contribute to conservation, schooling and motivation. These sectors must be given viable alternatives. It is important to make the transition from concept to reality; of course setting very high standards that are simultaneously a challenge and a necessary condition.

A key component to achieve the foregoing is migration control in Galapagos, which I believe has one of the highest population growth ratios in the country, a worrisome trend. Persons who migrate to Galapagos are fellow Ecuadorians or foreigners who have, of course, every right to dream and to strive for a better quality of life. However, the Islands’ fragility is not compatible with this sort of speculation.

That is why migration to Galapagos should be more effectively controlled, and its actual population should be made smaller. Migration should be as limited as possible; it should be organic and should obey to the highest standards.

The Galapagos’ community has the need and the right to search for activities that allow them to earn an adequate income, which is why viable and compatible alternatives must exist to replace other extractive, polluting or harmful choices.

I consider that any human presence in Galapagos or any company or activity on the Islands must definitely earn the right to be there through the exercise of a high degree of sensitivity, of the application of the highest and most strict standards, of a continuous education process and of a continuous improvement; achieved through control, monitoring and accountability; and through making the Islands’ conservation a participative challenge more than an imposition.

Every person who may have a relationship to Galapagos, either as a temporary resident a tourist, a businessman, a public sector worker, an ecologist, or in any other way, has to earn the right to live or to perform his or her activities on the Islands, by truly deserving such authentic privilege. This state of awareness and incentive must be created and must be complemented by a series of clear and pragmatic regulations that must be abided not only in form but also and more importantly in substance.

The 1998 Special Law of Galapagos was a very important step, but there are still a large number of regulations that must be drawn-up, and without which the Law’s applicability is restricted.

In relation to the foregoing, I ask myself (among others):

• Is Galapagos’ quarantine control efficient?
• Is the introduction of non-native species really and effectively being avoided?
• Do the vessels that operate or arrive to Galapagos undergo a strict certification process and a control that evidences their non-polluting condition (or that makes sure that they cannot ship exogenous species)?
• Is there an exclusive berth or port for the ships that go to the Galapagos Islands, all handled under a special control and quarantine system?
• How about the airplanes?
• Is there an effective control and monitoring system for Galapagos’ migration?
• Does the Galapagos Province (as a whole, not only the Galapagos National Park - PNG) have enough park rangers?
• Do they earn a salary worthy of their very special labor?
• Do they have enough patrol boats and speedboats?
• Is there a program to substitute two-stroke-cycle engines by modern and less polluting four-cycle engines?
• Would it be possible to import, under special import regulations (and in specially designed tankers) less polluting gasoline and/or diesel to the inhabited islands?
• What incentives are in place for the use of alternative energies in Galapagos?
• What state and private certification processes are in place to govern operations, making sure that they abide to higher standards?
• Why is the abundant quantity of domestic dogs, pigs, cats and even goats tolerated in towns such as those on Santa Cruz Island?
• What percentage of proceeds from tourism or investments truly benefits the local population or the Islands’ conservation efforts?
• How is it possible for a foreign fishing vessel to run aground in the Island of Baltra’s shores?
• Why do local tourists only pay US$ 6 to enter the Islands, why not US$ 10 or $ 20?
• Could more international resources be made available if the Galapagos National Park’s administration was to be depoliticized or if the laws actually existing for the Galapagos Islands were to be effectively applied?

Nature is a treasure and we must make our greatest efforts to preserve it and restore it; this is everyone’s duty. To be an extreme ecologist, nevertheless, is something I do not agree with. For instance there are those who, with fatalistic predictions, cast shadows that gravitate heavily over sensible areas, like an irremediable sentencing. One must strive to be positive, there is always light at the end of the tunnel; things must be done correctly.

There are times when human activities are not only compatible, but also desirable. Often times, with a rather minimum impact, they generate resources, incentives and causes for conservation and the end-results can be much more desirable with them than without them. I reiterate, in spite of the fact that it may sound utterly simplistic, that the key is to do things correctly. Tourism is a clear example, but of course it must be carried out pursuant to the highest standards.

Warm greetings to everyone,

Andrés Córdova