galapagos added to world heritage danger list
July 2007
In 2001 I visited the Galapagos Islands to report on
the aftermath of the Jessica oil spill for
Geographical magazine, and to write several
additional feature articles for other
titles. I was spellbound by the plethora of
wildlife, the majority of which seemed totally
unafraid of humans. I also learnt from the staff
at the Charles Darwin Research Institute about
the very real dangers facing native species. As
well as the more obvious threats that invasive
species such as goats present to resident
creatures including the giant tortoise (amongst
other things, the goats eat the vegetation,
leaving little in the way of food for the
tortoises), it was also made clear to me by the
scientists and also the park rangers how new and
unwelcome flora can be unwittingly brought onto
this World Heritage site by visitors: for
example, if a seed trapped in the sole of a shoe
on the mainland is subsequently dislodged during
the tourist’s time on the archipelago, a species
can rapidly take root.
In addition to issues surrounding visitors, other challenges including illegal fishing, inadequate quarantine measures, high immigration rates from the Ecuadorian mainland, and the instability of the Park Director's position, have all been identified as problem areas on previous inspections from World Heritage staff. The straw which broke the camel's back on the latest inspection a couple of months ago appears to have been a dramatic increase in visitor numbers (jumping from 40,000 to 120,000 per year over the past decade), the fact that introduced plant species outnumber native ones, and that 180 of those 500 native species are now on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. An annual increase in the local population of 4% has not helped matters.
The List of World Heritage in Danger is designed to "inform the international community of conditions which threaten the very characteristics for which a property was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and to encourage corrective action". Interestingly, the Ecuadorian government has supported the placing of the islands on the Danger List. Indeed, during the inspection, a Presidential Decree was issued, which declared the conservation and environmental management of the Galapagos ecosystem as being a matter of national priority. The decree also outlined an agenda to systematically address the various factors affecting the state of conservation on the archipelago.
I have mixed feelings about all this news. Whilst there are of course many advantages to the World Heritage system, the fact that a destination receives this prestigious recognition inevitably attracts more visitors. I’m personally not surprised by the acceleration in visitor and immigrant numbers.
No-one would deny that tourists need to be handled more effectively. The fact that it is only possible to see the majority of wildlife by boat makes regulating and marshalling tourists potentially more straightforward than trying to control marauding hordes of visitors roaming carefree across a mainland-based site. Indeed, whilst on the archipelago I was told by one local person that the paths on the isles that tourists are permitted to walk along have remained unchanged for 40 years. With the exception of some soil erosion, the impacts on the local environments from tourism appear to have been relatively low, with birds continuing to nest on the paths despite the continuous presence of tall bipeds. The vast majority of each island can only be visited by scientists.
Immigrants from Ecuador are tempted by the lure of easy access to a high number of relatively affluent foreigners. The bitter irony is that unlike in the 1980s and early 1990s, when many tourists would travel to the archipelago and stay a few days on Santa Cruz whilst choosing their boat, visitors now fly in to the airport at Baltra, go straight to their boat and at the end of their cruise fly straight home: easy to access to details of all the available vessels in the archipelago on the internet means that the overwhelming majority of tourists book their cruise weeks or months before arriving.
So what's the solution? Banning non-scientific visitors would of course cripple the local economy. And despite the negative impacts of tourism, one still has to bear in mind the very real benefits that inviting foreigners to these islands can have: there is now an army of informed supporters around the world, many of whom I suspect have a deeper respect for the natural world as a direct result of their first-hand experiences on the archipelago.
One answer might be to limit the number of tourists per annum, and perhaps take a leaf out of Bhutan's book and increase the fee for visiting the Galapagos. When I visited the islands six years ago, the entry charge was just $100. It remains the same today. I was surprised and impressed by a large sign at the airport explaining what this money was spent on (95% remained on the islands). If this additional money from an inflated fee was spent wisely, if the potential reduction in visitor numbers as a result of an increased entrance price was offset by a quota system encompassing boat owners and other workers in the local tourism industry, and if a cap was placed on immigrant numbers, then perhaps there might be an acceptable way out of the current situation for all parties. Ultimately, it is not for any outsiders to dictate to the Ecuadorian government how they should handle the Galapagos. But what the authorities should know is that there are a great many people who hold a place in their hearts for this very special archipelago.
In addition to issues surrounding visitors, other challenges including illegal fishing, inadequate quarantine measures, high immigration rates from the Ecuadorian mainland, and the instability of the Park Director's position, have all been identified as problem areas on previous inspections from World Heritage staff. The straw which broke the camel's back on the latest inspection a couple of months ago appears to have been a dramatic increase in visitor numbers (jumping from 40,000 to 120,000 per year over the past decade), the fact that introduced plant species outnumber native ones, and that 180 of those 500 native species are now on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. An annual increase in the local population of 4% has not helped matters.
The List of World Heritage in Danger is designed to "inform the international community of conditions which threaten the very characteristics for which a property was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and to encourage corrective action". Interestingly, the Ecuadorian government has supported the placing of the islands on the Danger List. Indeed, during the inspection, a Presidential Decree was issued, which declared the conservation and environmental management of the Galapagos ecosystem as being a matter of national priority. The decree also outlined an agenda to systematically address the various factors affecting the state of conservation on the archipelago.
I have mixed feelings about all this news. Whilst there are of course many advantages to the World Heritage system, the fact that a destination receives this prestigious recognition inevitably attracts more visitors. I’m personally not surprised by the acceleration in visitor and immigrant numbers.
No-one would deny that tourists need to be handled more effectively. The fact that it is only possible to see the majority of wildlife by boat makes regulating and marshalling tourists potentially more straightforward than trying to control marauding hordes of visitors roaming carefree across a mainland-based site. Indeed, whilst on the archipelago I was told by one local person that the paths on the isles that tourists are permitted to walk along have remained unchanged for 40 years. With the exception of some soil erosion, the impacts on the local environments from tourism appear to have been relatively low, with birds continuing to nest on the paths despite the continuous presence of tall bipeds. The vast majority of each island can only be visited by scientists.
Immigrants from Ecuador are tempted by the lure of easy access to a high number of relatively affluent foreigners. The bitter irony is that unlike in the 1980s and early 1990s, when many tourists would travel to the archipelago and stay a few days on Santa Cruz whilst choosing their boat, visitors now fly in to the airport at Baltra, go straight to their boat and at the end of their cruise fly straight home: easy to access to details of all the available vessels in the archipelago on the internet means that the overwhelming majority of tourists book their cruise weeks or months before arriving.
So what's the solution? Banning non-scientific visitors would of course cripple the local economy. And despite the negative impacts of tourism, one still has to bear in mind the very real benefits that inviting foreigners to these islands can have: there is now an army of informed supporters around the world, many of whom I suspect have a deeper respect for the natural world as a direct result of their first-hand experiences on the archipelago.
One answer might be to limit the number of tourists per annum, and perhaps take a leaf out of Bhutan's book and increase the fee for visiting the Galapagos. When I visited the islands six years ago, the entry charge was just $100. It remains the same today. I was surprised and impressed by a large sign at the airport explaining what this money was spent on (95% remained on the islands). If this additional money from an inflated fee was spent wisely, if the potential reduction in visitor numbers as a result of an increased entrance price was offset by a quota system encompassing boat owners and other workers in the local tourism industry, and if a cap was placed on immigrant numbers, then perhaps there might be an acceptable way out of the current situation for all parties. Ultimately, it is not for any outsiders to dictate to the Ecuadorian government how they should handle the Galapagos. But what the authorities should know is that there are a great many people who hold a place in their hearts for this very special archipelago.