Galapagos - Ecuadorean Presidential Decree

[ChrisM]

general thoughts as this thing progresses

1. Interesting post about Explorer. I have read (on the 'net) that it had a permit along with PH and Aggressor. No idea if that is true, etc. That release seems to say that even with a permit, Wolf and Darwin are off limits. This thing gets curiouser and curiouser. I suppose if we can't go to W/D we'll just make lemonade, like the snorkelers did above. Galapagos is amazing topside.

2. Land tours. A few months ago the rumors were that dive ops wouldn't be allowed to give land tours. That would be disappointing, but understandable. Although access to land tours is restricted to a few islands, and a few trails, and a qualified naturalist is required to be with the group, it's hard to limit impact. Plus, the relatively few sites that get visited absorb all of the impact. There are a LOT of people tramping around on those trails.

And people will always be idiots. If you've been to Uluru you know the aborigines ask you not to climb the rock (but, having leased the rock to the gov't as a condition of getting it back a few years ago, they have no control), of course you look up at the rock and see the long line of people disrespecting these wishes. Even with limited access you can get undue impact.

People do the same in the Galapagos. Use flash photography on land (prohibited, but you even see this in guide books), leave trash, etc.

3. Crowds at Darwin/Wolf. I was there in 2005, we were at D/W for 7 days total. We saw a lot of boats come and go, the most at one time was I think 5 at once. Underwater we saw very few other divers, as the boats tend to try to work together somewhat on scheduling. It's certainly not crowded underwater.

These are current swept outcroppings of rock covered by huge barnacles. No coral to speak of. The diving is not what you'd call "eco friendly", hunkering down in the rocks waiting for the show. How much damage is done? I've no idea, I imagine some, but there is just not the kind of fragile life there that you'd find on a tropical coral reef (I am sure I'll be corrected where mistaken). Is killing a few barnacles to dive with whale sharks more acceptable than killing coral?

In contrast, Palau is a (relative) zoo underwater, with a seemingly much more fragile ecosystem

Although divers are affected, I have to applaud at least the efforts of the GNP in making changes. Perhaps not the way they went about it.

 

[ChrisM]

Just saw this posted on the Aggressor website. A little self serving, but that's marketing for ya

Message from the President
The Galapagos Aggressors I & II have been operating as the premier live-aboard dive yachts in the Galapagos Islands since 1993. These yachts were custom designed, built and equipped to offer a safe and luxury dive operation. We were the first live-aboard dive company to offer a permanent itinerary that offers a dive program combined with land visits. We have been granted a specific permit for this combined program since 1994 from the Park authorities.

At the present time, our yachts, Galapagos Aggressors I & II, are two of the only three operations allowed to offer this combined tour legally. With this statement, we want to assure our guests that we will continue to offer luxury diving and a land visit program and we will continue our relentless effort in preserving the Galapagos marine life. This is just an example of why Aggressor Fleet is among the top ten best diving live-aboard yachts in the world and as the most respected and successful diving operation in the Galapagos Islands.

Herbert Frei
President – Galapagos Aggressor I & II

 

[chadbeck]

If the boats can't go to wolf or darwin its going to be a tough sell to spend the extra 1500-2000 to do the same sites that the land based shops do. The longer this goes the crazier it gets.........

 

[ChrisM]

If this is the case, i.e. Galapagos Explorer is not allowed to Wolf & Darwin then I assume even if the rest of us get to go on Deep Blue etc we will not be allowed to go there either.

The whole reason to go on a livebaoard is to go there. Putting it bluntly I was only going to Galpapagos so I could go there, the rest was a pleasant diversion on the way! Gutted!

I asked my agent about this, he says that the Explorer had a permit, but didn't get the proper permit to go to Wolf and Darwin. Can't vouch for thhe info though.

 

[Downsouth]

just received a message from a fellow Dive Master, who I knew during my last year trip to Galapagos. He worked for Agressor until this circus came out. Here are some parts of what he wrote: "[FONT=&quot]por aca la sitiacion es muy problematica , el parque nacional galapagos esta queriendo eliminar la actividad de buceo en galapagos por que nunca fue legal segun el gobierno y solo hay 3 embarcaciones que lo pueden hacer legalmente y estos son el galapagos aggressor 1 y 2 y el sky dancer , al momento casi todos los guias de galapagos nos hemos quedado sin trabajo y es posible que este problema se solusione dentro de 1 año o a lo mejor en mas tiempo yo en lo personal me voy a ir de galapagos a buscar trabajo en otros lados por que hasta que el problema se solusione no tengo ingreso economico aqui , si quieres bucear en galapagos tiene que ser en uno de estros 3 barcos , te deseo suerte con eso...[/FONT]"

Here´s a blunt translation to that above: be worried, things are going bad here (in Galapagos). Only 3 boats can dive. I´m out of my job and going away from Galapagos, looking for work. Do you know how to help me on this? Good luck"

I was really trying to get full of hope, with all the stuff about the presidencial magic pen and whatever else they might do, to a messy and misconducted, poorly explained attempt to preseve the environment.

Just for the record, we assembled our own route last year (we were absolutelly unaware about any limitations to this, as we were not advised differently by the park and the operator). we stood for 4 awesome days at Darwin and WOlf, meeting no more than 5 boats while "parked" there, not at the same time. We NEVER had cluttered dives. And that was the beginning of the whale shark season.

Other important thing: early on the crisis, government and GNP "authorities" claimed that the introduction of invading species was on of the major issues. Is the present prohibition going to address that in anyway? If the environment is the concern, why not get rid of the illegals? And care for the land cruises, enormously more impactant than divers? What were the real actions to avoid the introduction of new plants and bugs? How come they allow the ridiculous "accidental shark fishing" while fighting to preserve sharks? I just thought of a way around this!!!! Let's try accidental scuba diving!! OOOPS, sorry your honor, I fell into the water just beside this huge whale shark by accident. But keep cool, I left its fins untouched!

OK, being real again... sorry for that! Diving has impacts. Surely smaller than many times more intense land cruises. But check Bonaire and so many other places that explore tourism in a conscious way. Their marine life is far more fragile than the rocks, but they manage to keep the island well preserved. Many will disagree on how unique is Galapagos ecosystem. You are all right. I, as a biologist, could not think otherwise, IF PRESERVATION WAS REALLY THE ISSUE. But it seems to be something else...

25 days from the trip, out of nails and with very little hair left, I started to deeply worry... hehehe

 

[chadbeck]

I found this from the owner of a scuba iguana and the liveaboard they run.....

"This is Jack Nelson writing to you. I am one of the partners in Scuba Iguana. I have worked in tourism in Galápagos since 1967. I have been very active in much of the process of writing the legal framework for life and business in the islands, and can assure you that it is a bewildering array of vagaries, ambiguities, contradictions and legal voids. Historically, there has always been an ebb and flow of corruption in authorities and the establishment of legal precedent and custom. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Aside from that, typically the bureaucratic authorities have no experience or interest in understanding the realities of business, and expect to dictate according to their interpretations. Bureaucracies have wide discretionary powers. Any possible explanations of this shifting playing field are necessarily simplified.
It is always difficult to explain to someone from far away, why things happen like they do here. Often I think of the official decision process like it is a Mexican Piñata. Give it a whack and see what falls out.
Scuba diving has been part of the business for the “Daphne” yacht operations for as long as I can remember. IMAX used the “Daphne” as the dive base and mother ship for the famous Galápagos movie. “Daphne” is not an improvised start-up.
The “Ley Orgánica para la Conservación y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Provincia de Galápagos” (LOREG) translated roughly as “Special Law for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Province of Galápagos” has specific language protecting the acquired rights of tourism operations existing before the LOREG. These articles affirm the Constitutional protections of acquired rights, as no law can be retroactive. This affirmation written into the LOREG was fought for by us Galápagos residents, as the Constitution had already been reformed to allow restriction of certain rights if necessary to protect the natural environment.
Subsequent to the LOREG is the RETANP, basically the Tourism Regulation. The original draft of the RETANP was written by Galápagos residents, a consensus very carefully worked out to comply with higher laws, without ambiguities or contradictions or bad grammar or technical inconsistencies, and designed to implement the idea that the local population must be involved in the tourism business in order that we would see conservation to be in our interest. It included the start of the mechanism for moving fishermen into tourism. Unfortunately, that document by law had to be vetted and approved by the Ministry of Environment and signed by the President. Nine months later we received a much modified mess, already signed into law. Four years later it is still floundering, only partially applicable. It is a bad regulation, causing rather than resolving conflict among the Park, existing operators, the fishermen, and the burgeoning population. The latest Director of the National Park has gone on a warpath of arbitrary application of the RETANP, interpreting willy-nilly as she goes. Effectively, each inhabited island has a different mix of regulation, according to the local political weight of the Park and the animosity and activism of the population.
One element in the socio-political mix has been the poorly controlled expansion of unsustainable fisheries since around 1993. As a group, the fishermen have formed a political party which dominated the islands’ institutions under the Presidency of Lucio Gutierrez, who was overthrown for egregious corruption. This party came into being after the fishermen had already gained many concessions by intimidation, after looting Park offices on Isabela and other similar actions. The theorists of the National Park and supporting environmentalist groups have hit on the idea of changing the fishermen into tourist operators, and since many of them are already empirically experienced hookah divers (with a shockingly high accident and mortality rate) it seemed a brilliant notion to set aside scuba operations for them. This cleaving of the business is supposedly justified by the lack of a separate diving regulation.
One of the first decrees of our new President Rafael Correa (inaugurated in January) was to recognize the chaos and emergency here, brought on by years of mismanagement and special interest groups. Correa is a passionate and forceful and even capricious character. He demands quick action. Even increasing the pressure is the subsequent UNESCO declaration of Galápagos as an Endangered Human Heritage. This is the context of the National Park abrogation of contracts, without consideration of the affected clients and businesses."

 

[Mossman]

just received a message from a fellow Dive Master, who I knew during my last year trip to Galapagos. He worked for Agressor until this circus came out. Here are some parts of what he wrote: "[FONT=&quot]por aca la sitiacion es muy problematica , el parque nacional galapagos esta queriendo eliminar la actividad de buceo en galapagos por que nunca fue legal segun el gobierno y solo hay 3 embarcaciones que lo pueden hacer legalmente y estos son el galapagos aggressor 1 y 2 y el sky dancer , al momento casi todos los guias de galapagos nos hemos quedado sin trabajo y es posible que este problema se solusione dentro de 1 año o a lo mejor en mas tiempo yo en lo personal me voy a ir de galapagos a buscar trabajo en otros lados por que hasta que el problema se solusione no tengo ingreso economico aqui , si quieres bucear en galapagos tiene que ser en uno de estros 3 barcos , te deseo suerte con eso...[/FONT]"

Here´s a blunt translation to that above: be worried, things are going bad here (in Galapagos). Only 3 boats can dive. I´m out of my job and going away from Galapagos, looking for work. Do you know how to help me on this? Good luck"

Here's a better translation:

"For now, the situation is very problematic, the GNP is wanting to eliminate the diving in the Galapagos because it was never legal according to the government and there are only three liveaboards that do it legally and these are the Aggressor I and II and the Sky Dancer. At the present, almost all of us Galapagos guides have been without work and it's possible that the problem will take a year or more to work itself out, so personally I'm leaving the Galapagos to look for work elsewhere because until the problem is resolved, I have no income here. If you're looking to dive in the Galapagos it has to been on one of those three boats. I wish you luck with this . . ."

Other important thing: early on the crisis, government and GNP "authorities" claimed that the introduction of invading species was on of the major issues. Is the present prohibition going to address that in anyway? If the environment is the concern, why not get rid of the illegals? And care for the land cruises, enormously more impactant than divers? What were the real actions to avoid the introduction of new plants and bugs? How come they allow the ridiculous "accidental shark fishing" while fighting to preserve sharks? I just thought of a way around this!!!! Let's try accidental scuba diving!! OOOPS, sorry your honor, I fell into the water just beside this huge whale shark by accident. But keep cool, I left its fins untouched!

Illegals? They're Ecuadorian nationals, trying to make a livelihood in an impoverished third-world country. It must be nice to come to an island filled with fish from the rich American perspective that fish are meant to be seen and not eaten, but when you have millions of starving human mouths to feed, it's not that easy to enforce draconian environmental restrictions on fishing so that a few rich Americans can come sightseeing.

OK, being real again... sorry for that! Diving has impacts. Surely smaller than many times more intense land cruises. But check Bonaire and so many other places that explore tourism in a conscious way. Their marine life is far more fragile than the rocks, but they manage to keep the island well preserved. Many will disagree on how unique is Galapagos ecosystem. You are all right. I, as a biologist, could not think otherwise, IF PRESERVATION WAS REALLY THE ISSUE. But it seems to be something else...

Of course it's something else. Bonaire is a tiny island with a small population, owned by a wealthy European country that can afford to subsidize the natives and enforce marine park restrictions. Ecuador has millions of people to feed, and with the U.S. boycotting cocaine imports, it doesn't have many resources to sell.

 

[WaterKtn]

My trip was officially canceled yesterday. I am at the point where I'm actually relieved. I am so tired of dealing with this, its a relief to get it over with. Thanks for the comeraderie.

 

[Fionab]

Sorry to hear about your trip We still don't know what is happening to ours.

 

[cowjazz]

My trip was officially canceled yesterday. I am at the point where I'm actually relieved. I am so tired of dealing with this, its a relief to get it over with. Thanks for the comeraderie.

WaterKtn,

Sorry to hear about your trip. I fear we are all facing the same fate.

Please stay on board. The roller coaster ride is not over yet. I (and several hundred other disappointed divers) would be very interested in how you are handled during the refund process.