The most exciting news is that, of the 14 (I think) new permits for dive liveaboards in the Galapagos, the first one is now in the water!  The Humboldt Explorer got off to a slightly rocky start due to engine problems, but when will a new boat ever go into the water without some growing pains?  The important thing is that she is the first of the new dive permits to begin operation. 

Now, let’s backtrack for a moment. After a grueling period of accepting project applications for new liveaboards, the winners were named.  Almost immediately, a group that consisted on paper of fishermen, sued the National Park claiming the process of awarding the permits was both illegal and corrupt.  This case has lingered on for over a year and a decision is expected any day now from the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court upholds the permits, then things will move forward as they are tentatively proceeding now.  If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court decides in favor of the fishermen, well, the Park will need to open a new round of solitications and award permits all over again.

When people inside the Galapagos try to explain to people outside the Galapagos that it’s complicated or tricky, this is just one example of what they mean.  The Galapagos is perhaps the most regulated part of the planet that isn’t under some regime rule.  And with good reason.  As is often said, if we can’t save the Galapagos, then there’s no hope for anywhere on the planet.

Hard to imagine a negative outcome after so many invested years and so much money simply in the process of applying for a permit, but you never know.  One small example of what was one small part of the process was providing notarized copies of years worth of zarpes.  A zarpe is the document a boat receives every time it sails out of port…permission from the Capitania to depart, as it were.  Now if you are a daily dive operator, that means you get a zarpe every day of the week.  You can imagine the expense of notarizing a few thousand zarpes.  One person with a permit said that he was going to put all the documentation in his boat to see if it would sink the boat.

Another thing is that the Park intends to drastically regulate where any liveaboards can dive from 2011 on.  All cruises in the Galapagos are being regulated to 15 day itineraries. Cruise operators are free to break up this 15 days however they wish to -7/8; 5/5/5; 10/5, etc. Think of Day 1 as the same as Day 15 in that the boat is in a port to drop off passengers, refuel and pick up new passengers.  This is being done for the sustainable good of the sites being visited, whether the site is a land visit or dive site.

For Naturalist cruises, this means they cannot visit the same site twice during that 15 day itinerary.  For Naturalist cruises, this can mean a morning visit and an afternoon visit.  For dive cruises, it’s usually just drop off, refuel, pick up and check dive.  For dive cruises, the Park is using a study to determine how many groups per day will be allowed at any given dive site and how many groups at the same time at any given dive site. As of this writing, the intent is to limit dive cruises to 2 days at Darwin and 2 days at Wolf per 15 days.  They are also trying to restrict the number of dives per day at each location.  And as has been rumored for the better part of 2 years, it seems the Park will begin to enforce the ‘no non-land accessible land visits’ for dive cruises.  It seems those who do these now do plan to defend their current rights to make land visits.

So this is where my opinion comes in.  I have discussed this with various scientists, dive guides, etc.  No one so far offers me much in the way of argument that sufficiently alters my opinion.  Granted, we all know the old cliche about opinions, nevertheless…

There are about a handful of known sites left in the world where hammerheads school in numbers and the northern islands of Darwin and Wolf are two such sites.  In my opinion, the only thing that keeps the aleteros (shark finners) out is that the divers are there. There is one station at Wolf, a boat anchored in the bay called the Tiburon Martillo, a ‘floating base’. This was absent for the last 8 months while it went into dry dock for repairs.  There is no one patrolling Darwin, 3 hours away which is better known for larger hammerhead populations.  So if the divers aren’t there, no one is there to stop the massacre.

I don’t doubt for a moment that the presence of dive boats wards off illegal fishing. Just two weeks ago, I was at a site in the central islands rarely dived any more due to distance/expense for local operators.  Due to congestion, I couldn’t dive.  And while our divers were down, 3 illegal fishing boats came to fish.  That we, a sole boat, were there did not defer them for a moment.  Me yelling did nothing.  They just continued dropping their buoys about 30 feet away from the rock. When I grabbed a camera and started taking photos of their boats which they knew I could use to identify them, well that seemed to be much more effective than nicely asking or acting like a crazy gringa yelling.  With that, they covered their faces so they weren’t personally identifiable.  And when they realized I was changing into a wetsuit (with the intention of cutting and confiscating their buoys), they played me.  I was torn between getting photos of each boat and cutting bouys.  I opted for the photo which meant leaving the first bouy to get close enough to the other boats providing a window of opportunity for the first boat to return to gather their bouy.

Then, they waited at a distance for us to leave.  During the surface interval, I asked the captain to merely circle the island.  We would not be visible on the other side of the island and I was prepared to go into the water if they had their bouys out when we came back around.  Instead, miraculously another local dive boat showed up and with two boats there, the 3 fishing boats finally gave up and left.

Same theory applies on a much grander scale at Wolf and Darwin.  Count on Costa Rican aleteros finning to their heart’s content on days when no one is there.  And for the last few years, there have been lots of days when no one was there.  To me, logic says the diminished shark population most likely has more to do with open season from aleteros than divers in the water with sharks.  No one debates that in the central islands, so why the same logic is not  applied to an unpatrolled site like Darwin is beyond me.

So I say diving is the best protection the Darwin hammerhead population has against populations diminishing, not the enemy.  Divers who dive our northern islands are all advanced divers.  No one is allowed to act irresponsibly nor do most advanced divers want to abuse the wildlife.  Yes, way too many seem to have some twisted desire to touch whale sharks, but most boats wisely have a policy of “Touch the whale shark and your diving is over for the rest of the trip.”

Having said all that, I do agree wholeheartedly that how many boats are allowed to dive either Darwin or Wolf at the same time indeed should be limited to no more than 2.  And those 2 need to stagger their dive times so no more than 1 boat has divers in the water at the same time.  Granted, I say that more because I think it provides a far richer experience for the diver.  I have been at Darwin and Cabo Marshall with 32 divers in the water.  It’s no fun.  You can’t figure out who’s shaking their noise maker and to have 16 divers ascend on top of you is the last thing I, as a diver, want when I’m in a location as remote as these sites are in Galapagos.  In terms of site sustainability, you still have 32 divers in the water on any given day.  But we don’t have reefs to protect. And few are anything more than sideline spectators to the hammerheads.  Yes, bubbles scare them, but I would imagine that if they were that scared or susceptible to altered behavior due to bubbles on the sidelines of their arena, they would have altered their behavior years ago.  It’s not like diving there just started in the last couple of years. Time has passed and they’re still there.

I am also of the opinion that it is touching animals and interacting in a physical manner (feeding, touching, chasing, finning, fishing) that is more likely to alter their behavior than watching from a respectful distance.  I’m no scientist, just a diver, but that’s my opinion and if someone can share data that alters my opinion, I’m all ears.

Now, to further speak out in setting where no one speaks out, I find it amazing the liveaboards don’t contribute more towards local research and sustainability.  And I’m not limiting that to dive cruises.  Of the money that is generated by tourism in the Galapagos, studies show that only 15% stays in the Galapagos.  That there is not a per person fee that goes directly to research and sustainability is inconceivable in my opinion.

Let’s take a look at only the liveaboards.  With only the 5.5 boats now operational, let’s take a low capacity rate of 10 divers per departure.  10 divers x 5 boats x 12 months equals 600 divers per year.  Plus the seasonal departure of another 160 divers, you have conservatively 760 divers per year on liveaboards.  If every person was charged a $100 conservation fee, that’s $76,000 per year.  If every liveaboard offered space to scientists when they had available space, that would help even further.  I find it astounding that even today, no one knows where the whale sharks migrate to when they leave Darwin.  Astounding.  I think that the price of Galapagos liveaboards is so expensive, the operators themselves should be donating this rather than increasing the costs to guests since, although it is very costly to operate in the Galapagos, it’s abundantly clear it’s also very profitable.

One thing that I recently learned that I find relatively amazing is that, on the island best known for either shark finning or aiding and abetting those who do, it would only take the creation of 9 jobs…9 economic alternatives…to end shark finning.  Is there some reason these aleteros can’t transition to other jobs like counting baby shark populations, patrolling the coastal waterways as Park guards, etc?  The only answer is funding for training, for resources, etc.  And on a side note, I find one paradox intriquing.  There seem to be plenty of baby black tips in the mangroves and a scarcity of adults whereas there seem to be plenty of adult hammerheads and a scarcity of babies.

Every new permit includes a sustainability project commitment.  Every new permit holder is a fisherman.  Every new liveaboard must be owned (on paper) by that fishermen.  There’s been a long history of no regulations around those with cupos renting  to those who will pay them the most for the lease.  Under new regulations, that is now grounds for losing your permit.

One of the goals for sustainability has been to transistion fishermen to tourism.  It’s virtually the only economic alternative there is, but no one is offering enough training so these fishermen know anything about tourism.  So much of the culture thinks only in terms of what they can make immediately.  Understandable since they have lead a life that was day to day up until now.  And now, long term vision through education is lacking.  Imagine giving construction contracts for skyscrapers to homeless people as a way to get them off the street in New York City and it’s not a far stretch in terms of an analogy.  A better analogy might be a gun or needle exchange programs since exchanging fishing permits for points towards winning a ‘tur navegable de buceo” permit was a primary way for fishermen to win points.  And those with the highest points won the permits.  Intentions are admirable, but there’s a cliche about that, too.

The good news is that the onus is actually now on the liveaboards themselves to hire and train locals, in a regulatory fashion.  Too many operators up until now bring people from the mainland where trained talent is more common than in the islands themselves.  Tightening up on that will both reduce immigration and direct more income to the local economy as opposed to the 85% that never reaches the Galapagos.  So things are certainly changing relative to how it’s been.  It seems the intentions are good, so we can only hope the results play out for the common good of both the environment and the population. And of course, each operator should more proactively do their part to contribute to a positive outcome.

I think sometimes it’s better to come from the outside rather than be bogged down by full knowledge of all the politics that more often than not, clog the wheel rather than grease it.  Doesn’t always make life smoother to voice an opinion when a code of silence is all but law, but some of us are just wired that way, much to our own discomfort.

I thought I would begin simply by copying our scubaboard exchange:

posted:…Definitely worth visiting but if you’re serious about the environment, think carefully. The inhabitants of the island (15000 in Porto Ayora and 8000 on San Cristobel) are only there because of tourism and the damage these settlements is doing to the islands is evident – trash goes to land fill on Santa Cruz and there is no sewage treatment – it’s just pumped into the sea in a long brown slick. Water treatment must surely be a priority for these towns else they risk destroying the very marine habitat the tourism and land wildlife so depends upon.

If you’re not part of the the solution – you’re part of the problem

__________________________________________________________

DTG: I always love reading dive trip reports, especially from the Galapagos, but I’m afraid I have to ask why visitors think cruises are a ‘greener’ choice than anything land based? Add them all up and all of the food scraps and sewage (and sometimes worse) from roughly 3000 people per week are going into the Marine Reserve. Annually, that’s more than 6 times the population who lives there. Townspeople don’t spill fuel nor motor 24/7 (therefore burning that much fossil fuel) nor toss big anchors and damage the undersea environment.

New permits mandate sewage holding tanks, etc, but even with laws in place to protect the environment, there’s no one around to enforce such regulations once boats are out to sea. The law already states that boats must finely grind food scraps before dumping at sea and yet, I’ve seen whole pieces being tossed. There’s a reason sharks, etc always accompany the boats.

I do think the more often visitors like yourself remind others of the need to be as environmentally conscious as possible, the better things will be. Once visitors themselves demand it by choosing only those companies who truly are environmentally sound, well a company’s financial well being will always be the single largest source of motivation for most. Most visitors make their choice by reputation or price. The visitor who inquires into environmental policies falls into a very small percentage overall.

To me, land-based vs cruise isn’t the issue. Both have a long way to go and cudos to those, both on land and at sea, who are getting there or are there.

__________________________________________________________

posted: You make some good points. Since you have business in the Galapogos, I assume you have some knowledge about the operations that go there. Which Op’s would you recommend as being environmentally friendly? Which are not?

__________________________________________________________

DTG: I think you might ask that question again a year from now. With new cupos, the National Park mandates many boat upgrades that will protect the Marine Reserve. For many, it is a difficult financial strain in these tough economic times, but to keep their permits, no choice but to comply. This applies to small local boats, too.

Ecoventura owner Santiago Dunn is a true pioneer in environmentally sound practices in the Galapagos on his Naturalist cruises/boats. They are the local partners for SkyDancer.

As one Galapagos owner said to me, “You know we Ecuadorians don’t care anything about being green.” While there are some exceptions to that mentality, it is the stereotypical norm. It is also cultural – as it is cultural that travelers often ask many questions, but rarely do those questions include queries about a company’s sustainability practices.

As someone once had to remind me, it was in my youth that “Don’t Litter” campaigns first began in the US. It used to be perfectly acceptable to throw your cans and garbage out the window. Imagine how ridiculous that seems to us now? Someone reminded me of “Give a Hoot…Don’t Pollute.” There’s a joke here in Ecuador about bus drivers warning you not to litter the bus, but rather throw it out the window. That’s the cultural context.

Now the owner learned that it’s good for marketing purposes, so went along with changes. Others are being mandated by the Park. Bottom line…the motivation doesn’t have to be pure as long as the results are the same. And as long as there is progress…which many are now making…I think that deserves support in order to inspire further progress.

Again, guests being vocal speaks volumes. Everyone asks for feedback. Give it to them. Ask why don’t companies include environmental practices feedback on their customer feedback forms? Or use the open comments sections to make unprompted observations about environmental practices.

As part of permit applications, everyone had to submit a sustainability plan. I doubt anyone has translated theirs to English. On most live-aboard websites now, you can find a scan of their PNG permit. That can be directly attributed to travelers insisting upon it after the 2007 fiasco. If enough people asked, perhaps sustainability plans would be posted, too.

And ps… even if management is solid in their environmental philosophy, the day to day task is up to locals, most of whom think ‘more = better.’ As in “What do you mean that organic cleaner is concentrated and we’re only supposed to use a tiny bit? Why when we can splash on the cheap clorox in such abundance?”

Maybe there should be a list of questions travelers could pose…beginning with insisting all companies include feedback on their environmental practices on their own customer feedback forms.

1. Do you use biodegradable: soaps, shampoos, cleaning products and especially plastic bags?
2. Do you use clorox?
3. Do you have black water holding tanks?
4. How is your food disposed of? Describe the process.
5. What do you recycle and how?
6. Do you use chemical bug spray?
7. How do you protect the marine environment when you anchor?
8. How many supplies are shipped to you each week from the mainland vs purchased locally?
9. How do you purchase your seafood? (Any suppliers known to have been involved with shark finning, illegal sea cucumber fishing?)
10. Do you heat your pool or jacuzzi with solar panels?
11. How do you support the local community?

IMHO…no non-biodegradable plastic bags should even be allowed in the Galapagos. No clorox, no bug spray, no air fresheners, no styrofoam, etc. I could go on a little too long about this. In my former position, I had the unenviable and often frustrating position of being labeled the ‘green police.’ But after some time, there were huge changes relative to when I began.

Again, it is changing in general and that’s the good news. But primarily due to demand, be it PNG or travelers. Having said that, many forget sustainable includes people, not just the environment. And many now greenwash their marketing efforts.

What traveler can actually check anything once you’re there and focused on your own activities? Who wants to be the green police? And do companies say they support the local community or do it? Even if you ask for references to support their claim, how do you go about tracking them down to verify…call their Ecuador cell phone? Uh huh.

Locals often get paid less (and sometimes not at all) from those who have the most. And if they want the continued business, they get to shut up and take it. Again, cultural. On mainland Ecuador, there is a healthy middle class, not so true in the Galapagos. It’s only been 11 years since the special law was enacted to protect the Galapagos and Galapaguenos. And so the process is ever evolving.

Certain groups of providers do pretty much establish pricing, but others don’t have that collective power. Sorry…this is a raw nerve and one that no one talks about because the other thing about the Galapagos is that there is the equivalent to the proverbial ‘blue code’ in the US. And if no one talks about it for fear of essentially being the snitch (and the Galapagos is so very small so you can imagine how hard it could be to continue operating under such conditions), how can it change? Certain practices remain in place and will remain until visitors themselves demand the change, imho. And, unfortunately, promotion by attraction doesn’t grab the attention that pointing out problems seems to, thus the catch 22.

We need both…the eco-leaders like Santiago Dunn and a means for visitors to get more involved in the solution by becoming savvy travelers and demanding it from operators.

__________________________________________________________

posted: Thank you for a very thorough answer DTG. Our LDS has a trip in Sept that I am part of. I think I will bring your article to them and see what they think about asking those very important questions. The trip is scheduled and paid for already, so changing Ops is not an option (as most Galapagos trips need to be- far in advance) but maybe we can get the ball rolling and hope that the locals see the long term benefit of a more environmentally friendly attitude.

Thanks for all the information.

__________________________________________________________

For more information, check wikipedia’s definitions and links:

Responsible Tourism and Ethical Consumerism

I have to agree with what I’m reading online…2009 was the year of shark awareness, but 2010 is going to be the year of shark action.  While there was progress made globally, it’s a mere pittance of what needs to happen to save sharks from extinction.

A great place to start is http://stopsharkfinning.net. On this site, you will find primarily anti-shark finning campaigns you get can involved with,  lists of restaurants that serve shark fin soup, encouraging success stories…how individual and groups have made a difference towards the end of this slaughter and  the site has such a great collection of links that I  don’t have to recreate them all right here.

We at Dive The Galapagos are big believers in keeping it local.  Our first step has been to get involved with the Galapagos canine unit, so far,  supported only by Sea Shepherd and us.  These dogs are trained to sniff out shark fins, sea cucumbers, sea horses and more.   The island where shark finning is still happening in the Galapagos is primarily Isabela.  The National Police were able to put 3 dogs on Isabela as of October.  The dogs receive death threats there.  We have more plans for actions in the Galapagos that we will announe as the year unfolds.

No blood soaked photos or pretty pictures…we’ve seen enough. Now, it’s time for action. This is our open plea for you to get involved, too. At Dive The Galapagos, there isn’t a lot we feel more strongly about than the illegal, inhumane and abominable practice of shark finning. We know many people feel the same and have often wondered how to make a difference. In that spirit, we want to offer up some ideas and invite you to participate.

One day while waiting at Itabaca Canal for the dive boat to come pick us up, I noticed two policemen with dogs standing atop an empty ferry. Since I had never seen police dogs in the Galapagos before, I went over to query their use and pass the time. Plus, I love dogs. I later ran into those same two policemen twice and then at the airport, they gave me a demonstration of how the dogs are trained to sniff out, not just drugs, but shark fins, sea cucumbers, sea horses and other illegal contraband. I also learned how very limited resources are to assist these cops with what they are trying to achieve in the Galapagos and decided to help as much as possible from that day forward. See info here about how you can help them, too.

Now, fast forward a few month. I was researching where I might like to dive in warm water and had decided on one place in Cuba when I stumbled across a video on YouTube that left me livid at the abuse these divers wreaked upon poor sharks. Fortunately, it ended up being passed around online and I was so happy and inspired that others found it equally detestable. It sparked an idea, a dream if you will.

I used to work as an executive in tourism and did not have the freedom to speak my own voice to the degree that I do as an independent. I have only been independent since September 1. I have looked at so many organizations dedicated to the protection of sharks and it only contributed to my confusion of how I could possibly make a difference. Or how effective they are. I must admit though I like the idea of buying billboards in China, my jury is still out on how effective that campaign will be. I know, like anything else, this is a process of education. Living in Latin America has sure brought home the understanding of different cultures in a way that can even produce empathy simultaneous with outrage. Like the shark rodeo video. If this dive guide loses his job, I could imagine in a country like Cuba how impossible it might be to find another way to earn as good of a living. And I can imagine the dive guide permitting such atrocities in order to please the client as he is expected to do in spite of how he might personally feel. I could be wrong, but I can also imagine both sides. As Chris Rock used to say of OJ, “I ain’t saying it’s right, but I understand.”

In any event, inspired by divers in the Facebook community, I am compelled to try to make a difference. So I have created 2 Facebook groups.

First group is Boycott and Blame Shark Killers and the second group is
The Data Project, DIVERS AGAINST TOUCHING ANIMALS.

For Boycott and Blame Shark Killers, I was a bit surprised to not easily find lists of manufacturers using shark products. I know locally, I won’t even purchase from a shop that carries shark cartilage. But I realized I could do more, first by researching who I should avoid and then by hopefully as a collective, encouraging others to do the same. So my hope is that this group will be used by those who feel the same way and that collectively, we compile a comprehensive lists to alert others to how they can help. Only WE can remove the price tag from shark heads…or rather fins. I was surprised to learn how far reaching the practice of using shark products is, not just in China, but in Europe and the US.

And it’s not just the demand for shark fin products, but it’s hard to believe that Shark Tournament still happen all across the US. Just google Shark Tournament. Seek the sponsors of those tournaments and REFUSE TO GIVE THEM YOUR BUSINESS. Write to local city government to protest this slaughter for sport. I was also surprised at the price of entry fees and the huge purses at most of the tournaments. And of course, so many tournament websites have the obligatory Jaws theme song as a music bed. In a civilized world, why this practice is condoned or legal is beyond me. We can help bring it to an end as others have proven by protests, boycotting sponsors, etc.

I received notice of a petition today, We Won’t Buy While Sharks Still Die. I doubt it’s the first or the last of this ilk. It’s hard to be heard as a small voice, but if enough band together, imagine how huge our voice could be?

For The DATA Project (Divers Against Touching Animals), it seems the practice of touching sharks, rays and other marine life is growing at a frightening rate. YouTube is flooded with videos of people riding and touching marine life not only by the irresponsible types in the Shark Rodeo video, but also by graceful and gorgeous free divers and shark dive operators, etc. I personally feel SO STRONGLY against this practice. I think it is so wrong and I think some well intended people are setting very bad examples that will damage wildlife and could, in short order, completely alter the way marine life and humans interact underwater.

I have always felt so safe diving, even though I felt like prey at the surface. (Note, last July, I actually jumped into a sea filled with fins much to the dismay of some, in order to snorkel with about 50 hammerheads. Earlier in life, I would have considered that so very dangerous. This time, I didn’t hesitate and only upon reflection realized how very much I’ve changed as a result of always diving with sharks.)

To me, we haven’t been underwater long enough for animals to have evolved to fear us or worse. I think that setting an example of touching animals could not only damage them short term, but long term could change their response to divers. I think they may grow to fear us whereas now, they don’t. While I can’t say I feel quite as strongly as I feel about this as shark finning, it’s a close second because of the potential harm we do to the animals as well as my belief that it will alter behavior towards us as millions may begin to pick up this irresponsible practice.

I feel SO strongly that we need to ‘begin within’ and self-disclipline against this practice NOW! This does not require money…just a willingness to express your belief and then you’re on the honor system. I would hope enough people feel the way I do to get involved and present a united front against both the horrific slaughter of sharks for sport or profit as well as a move to make divers think first of the animals they have the privilege of visiting and pledge to treat them with the respect they deserve rather than project human emotion on them in order to indulge our own human desire to interact.

In theory, every certified diver should take this pledge. And imagine how loud a voice would be in speaking out against those things we alone cannot change! If tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of us spoke with one collective message, we would be heard. And both we and our message are united, we will make a difference. Please add your voice to the collective today so together, we can get the message across.