July 28, 2021 – 06h00
Jorge Villon Reyes

Without Tame as a carrier on the domestic market due to its liquidation, yesterday, Aeroregional began to fill the space that the public airline left in the Galapagos Islands and began to compete with Latam Ecuador and Avianca to that destination.

With 34 passengers on board, one of the planes with its new tricolor livery, this airline started with its first flight on the Quito-Guayaquil-Baltra triangular route.

This year, Aeroregional was one of the three airlines to whom the National Aviation Council assigned the 16 routes that Tame had in the archipelago. Other frequencies were distributed to Equinoxair and Galapagos Air Ways. This allocation process was objected to by Avianca Ecuador.

The company Servicio Aéreo Regional Regair, with the company name of Aeroregional, was granted five weekly frequencies on the Quito-Guayaquil-Baltra route and two Quito-Guayaquil-San Cristóbal frequencies.

The firm intended to increase the frequencies to Baltra, the island through which the largest number of passengers enter and the destination most desired by airlines due to its traffic.

It will initially operate two weekly frequencies on Mondays and Tuesdays using a Boeing 737-500 aircraft with capacity for 129 passengers and Boeing 737-400 for 145 passengers, according to Quiport, the concessionaire of the capital airport, the airport from which the inaugural flight departed yesterday.

The Civil Aviation Directorate indicated that yesterday’s flight was part of compliance with the certification process to operate its itinerary.

Manuel Rodríguez, president of Aeroregional, pointed out that the company’s strategy is aimed at the Ecuadorian passenger. “In the case of Galapagos, it seeks to attract passengers who must travel to the islands for work purposes, but also settlers, without neglecting the national tourist who can find a new alternative for travel,” he said.

The executive said that in the coming months they will continue to announce the opening of new domestic routes.

Last June, this company received its third aircraft, a B737-400 aircraft that was received in the Ecuadorian capital.

Ramón Miró, president and CEO of Quiport, indicated that the incorporation of this new route contributes to the reactivation of tourism and air transport. “We are sending the message to the world that things are being done well in Ecuador.”

The entry of Aeroregional to Galapagos supposes the weekly expansion of the availability of seats in that market, which is still struggling to recover passenger traffic.

“We have high expectations; if we consider that the space left by Tame, which represented 25% of the market, has not been covered,” said Jorge Rosillo, general manager of the Galapagos Ecological Airport.

The executive expects Aeroregional to increase its flights to seven a week.

“We see a tourist and economic reactivation that, although it is not immediate, it is making great strides,” said Rosillo.

Data from the Galapagos Chamber of Tourism states that during 2020 the entry of tourists fell by 73%, from 271,238 to 75,519.

38,491 tourists came to the islands in the first half of 2021, 30.56% less than in the same period of 2020 when 55,432 arrived. Most of those who have traveled this year have been Ecuadorians.

For Andrés Ordóñez, director of the Galapagos Chamber of Tourism, the economic reactivation in the islands is still gradual. “Although the number of incoming tourists, especially foreigners, increases monthly, we are still far from the 2019 indicators,” he said.

The international promotion has managed to position itself as a safe destination that acts as a magnet to increase international tourism, but indicated that reforms are still required to support entrepreneurs in their recovery, such as a tax exemption, investment incentives and business sustainability.

Read the original coverage from El Universo at https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/economia/aeroregional-entro-a-galapagos-con-parte-de-las-rutas-que-eran-de-tame-y-compite-con-latam-y-avianca-nota/

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021

Extended 44^th session of the World Heritage Committee
Fuzhou (China) | 16-31 July 2021

Examination of the State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

113.Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) (N1bis)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 1978

Criteria (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger 2007-2010 

Previous Committee Decisions see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1/documents/

International Assistance 

Requests approved: 26 (from 1979-2019) 
Total amount approved: USD 627,825
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1/assistance/

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds

 Total amount provided to the property: USD 3.5 million for the capitalization of an introduced species Trust Fund, management of introduced species, tourism management studies and other technical support

Previous monitoring missions 

June 1996: Joint UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission (including World Heritage Committee Chairperson); February 2003: UNESCO mission; June 2003: UNESCO mission; April 2005: UNESCO informal visit; February-March 2006: Joint UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission; April 2007: Joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission (including World Heritage Committee Chairperson); April 2009: UNESCO informal visit; April-May2010: Joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission; August 2017: IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

 •Fishing/collecting aquatic resources (illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing / collection of aquatic resources)

•Legal framework (inadequate implementation of the Special Law on Galápagos)

•Governance

•Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community (high immigration rate)

•Illegal activities

•Impacts of tourism/ visitor / recreation

•Invasive Alien Species / biosecurity (inadequate and ineffective quarantine measures)

•Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure

Illustrative material see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1/

Current conservation issues 

On 27 December 2019, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, which is available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1/documents/ ,providing the following information:

•The 10-year Galápagos Invasive Species Management Plan was released in February 2019;

•The Galápagos Biosecurity Laboratory was opened, which will strengthen the identification and eradication of pests and diseases, as well as related research and education. The USD 20 million Invasive Species Fund was reactivated, funding seven projects in 2019. A manual was produced to control pests in urban zones of the islands;

•Prevention and quarantine control actions have improved in recent years and the Directorate of the Galápagos Biosecurity and Quarantine Regulation and Control Agency (GBA) has increased air and maritime transportation vessel inspections. Other actions include port design improvements, securing funding for cargo operation systems and the review of quarantine and fumigation processes;

•Tourist visitation has increased although the rate of acceleration has slowed. Whilst cruise ship tourism has remained fairly constant over the past decade, land-based tourism and flights to Baltra and San Cristóbal have increased substantially. Accommodation numbers are now fixed to 317 and the construction of new tourist accommodation infrastructure is prohibited; 

•In 2018, the crews of two fishing vessels were sentenced for possessing and transporting protected species;

•Conservation initiatives of the Galápagos National Park Directorate (GNPD) include, amongst others, training of scuba diving guides, initiation of a giant tortoise captive breeding programme, and discovery of hammerhead shark nursery sites;

•A new five-year plan of action has been approved to optimise management effectiveness in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR). In 2018, an Agreement was signed with the Republic of Costa Rica to share tools for conservation and management of the Galápagos Islands and Cocos Island National Park properties;

•The GNPD has been renewing artisanal fishing licenses and surveying catch. A ban on sea cucumber fishing and restrictions on spiny lobster fishing until stocks have recovered have been introduced. An investment plan is being developed for tuna fishing in the Galápagos Marine Reserve (GMR) with the hope this will aid financing to improve the management and commercialisation system of tuna fishing in the Galápagos

•The new Zoning Plan for the Special Status Region of Galápagos was approved in June 2018. This aims to consolidate settlements within the intensive urban limits and develop buffer zones between the populated areas and protected areas.

On 30 July 2020, the World Heritage Centre sent a letter to the State Party regarding reported fishing activities by a large number of foreign vessels from diverse nationalities in close proximity of the property. 

On 16 September 2020, the State Party submitted additional information about the possible impact on the biodiversity of the Galápagos Islands due to the presence of afleet of foreign-flagged fishing vessels in the area near the State Party’s Exclusive Economic Zone from July to the end of August 2020, confirming that excessive fishing, even at a considerable distance from the Galápagos Islands, could have an impact on the property’s ecosystems. The State Party also considers that there is an urgent need to increase scientific research on biodiversity in general and the impacts of fishing near the property in particular. 

On 5 November 2020, the State Party submitted additional information, providing a copy of the “Joint Declaration by the Foreign Affairs Ministries of the Republic of Chile, the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Ecuador and the Republic of Peru” regarding fishing by foreign vessels in the areas adjacent to the waters under the jurisdiction of each country. The Declaration expresses the intent of these States Parties to take actions to jointly address the issue of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, which threatens conservation and sustainable use of marine resources in the areas beyond their national jurisdiction. 

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre and IUCN 

The continued efforts by the State Party to address the Committee’s requests and the recommendations of the 2017 IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission are welcomed. 

Regarding biosecurity, it is welcomed that the State Party has initiated a new 10-year Invasive Species Management Plan, improving coordination and efficiency of biosecurity, food sovereignty and introduced species management, as well as opening the Galápagos Biosecurity Laboratory to strengthen capacities for pest control. Furthermore, the State Party has increased vessel inspections and improved cargo logistics systems, and the reported decrease in alien species and pest-infested product confiscations is noted. It is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to address all remaining recommendations on biosecurity of the 2017 mission, to rigorously ensure that biosecurity measures are followed and fully funded, and that vessels, equipment and facilities continue to be improved to control and limit invasions of alien species and pests.

The continued growth of tourism to the property is an significant concern, with an approximate 25% increase reported in tourism between 2016 and 2018 and a substantial increase in commercial flights in 2017-2018. The State Party, in its previous report, committed to adopt measures that promote a zero-growth model for tourism, as recommended by the 2017 mission. In view of this, it is also recommended that the Committee request the State Party to develop and implement a clear action plan with urgent measures to limit the number of tourists and flights to the property to achieve the zero growth model in line with its commitment.

The reinforcement of GNPD and its overall significant progress to control, protect, conserve and enhance the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) are welcomed. The approval of the Galápagos Zoning Plan in June 2018 is noted, as well as the intention to develop buffer zones between populated and protected areas. The State Party should be commended for its increased marine control and surveillance operations, as well as the prosecution of vessels possessing and transporting protected species. The agreements signed between GNPD and the Ecuadorian Navy, as well as with the National System of Protected Conservation Areas of the Republic of Costa Rica to protect the Galápagos Islands and Cocos Island National Park properties are noted with appreciation. Furthermore, the Joint Declaration by the States Parties of Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru expressing the intent to jointly address the issue of IUU fishing in areas adjacent to their territorial waters is welcomed. However, IUU fishing in and around the property continues to represent a significant threat to its OUV, as was evidenced by the presence of a large fishing fleet from other States Parties in close proximity to the property in mid-2020. It is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to continue to further strengthen its collaboration and actions within the CMAR network as well as with other States Parties whose fishing vessels are illegally targeting migratory species that are part of the property’s OUV. It is further recommended that the Committee calls upon all States Parties to take all possible steps to ensure that fishing fleets operating under their flags do not impact the OUV of the property.

The prohibition of disposable plastic products and policies toward a plastic-free Galápagos are welcomed and it is recommended that the State Party be encouraged to pursue those efforts and share its results widely with other properties. 

The reported intention to develop an investment plan related to tuna fishing is noted, however, it is recommended that the State Party be requested to provide clarification on its intentions regarding the commercialisation system of tuna fishing within the Galápagos, particularly concerning fishing regulations in the GMR, noting that commercial fishing is prohibited in the GMR.

Draft Decision: 44 COM 7B.113

 The World Heritage Committee, 

1.Having examined Document WHC/21/44.COM/7B, 

2. Recalling Decision 42 COM 7B.85 adopted at its 42nd session (Manama, 2018),

3.Welcomes the continued efforts by the State Party to address the Committee’s previous requests and the recommendations of the 2017 IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission, and requests the State Party to address all pending mission recommendations, in particular the recommendations related to biosecurity and to rigorously ensure that biosecurity measures are enforced and fully funded;

4. Also welcomes the efforts to make Galápagos plastic free, and encourages the State Party to pursue those efforts and to share its results widely with other properties;

5. Noting with serious concern the continued growth of tourism and commercial flights to the property, despite the commitment made by the State Party to promote a zero growth model for tourism, reiterates its requests to the State Party to develop and implement a clear tourism strategy that ensures that suitable measures are sustained in the long term as permanent regulations, with a clear action plan with urgent measures to achieve the zero growth model, including maintaining the moratorium on construction of new tourism projects and the limits on the number of flights, and to submit this strategy and action plan to the World Heritage Centre for review;

6. While noting the increased marine surveillance operations, reiterates its concern that ongoing illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing in and around the property continues to represent a threat to its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), further welcomes the 2020 “Joint Declaration by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile, the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Ecuador and the Republic of Peru” expressing the intent of these States Parties to take actions to jointly address this issue and requests the State Party to continue to strengthen its collaboration and actions within the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor network as well as with other States Parties whose fishing vessels are illegally targeting migratory species that are part of the property’s OUV;

7.Calls upon all States Parties to take all possible steps to ensure that fishing fleets operating under their flags do not impact the OUV of the property;

8. Also noting that an investment plan is being developed for yellow-fin tuna fishing within the Galápagos Marine Reserve (GMR) to attract funding to improve management and the commercialization system for tuna fishing in the Galápagos, also recalling that commercial fishing is prohibited in the GMR, requests furthermore the State Party to clarify its intentions regarding commercialisation, particularly concerning fishing regulations within the GMR;

9. Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2022, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 46th session in 2023. 

Read the full coverage from the Extended 44th Session of the World Heritage Committee in Fuzhou, China at https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/44com/

Historical Context:
2020 Letter from UNESCO to Ecuador
Examination of the Importance of Retaining World Heritage Status

Mayuri Castro · July 26, 2021

Between 2012 and 2019, the global shark fin trade generated $1.5 billion. This is the main data of an analysis of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, for its acronym in English), published on July 14, 2021. The report does not detail how many of those millions of dollars were originated by fishing for shark in Ecuador. In the country, there are also no clear figures on the catches of these species – several of them in danger of extinction. The only clear thing is that their fishing (on paper, considered illegal) has not stopped.

In Ecuador, shark fishing is almost totally prohibited. According to an executive decree signed by then-President Rafael Correa, fishing gear and systems designed to catch sharks are banned. The practice known as “finning” is prohibited, which is cutting off the fins and discarding the body (the fin is like the navigation system of sharks: without it, they fall disoriented and drown on the seabed). 

There is only one exception: if the shark is caught “incidentally” it can be sold. And it is in that exception where everything falls apart. Bycatch – in theory – is the involuntary capture of species with fishing gear or systems that are used for the voluntary and planned capture of other species. For example, it can occur when a shark gets caught in a net that is in the sea, supposedly to catch tuna. According to the decree, those caught incidentally must be used in their entirety and must be sold in their entirety (not the separated fins), only by those who have a marketing and export permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

Incidentally, in the world, 38.5 million species are caught that should not end up in fishing boats […] In Ecuador, the decree is part of a gray area, says Xavier Romero, a marine biologist with more than 40 years of experience, “because although there is a ban, in Ecuador there is targeted shark fishing that is disguised as incidental.” 

The regulatory attempt of 2007 remains, 14 years later, the hook with which illegal fishing continues to catch sharks and, at the same time, its legalistic lifeline. Romero says that fishing should be prohibited at times of the year when sharks migrate because they always do so in groups and that is when it is easier for them to fall into fishing gear. Fishermen, Romero explains, supposedly go out to fish for tuna or dorado just at this time when it is easier to catch [sharks]. 

“Definitely in continental Ecuador there is a fishery directed at sharks,” says Luis Suárez, executive director of Conservation International Ecuador, an NGO dedicated to the conservation of ecosystems to ensure human well-being. Bycatch, says Suárez, is the excuse that encourages shark fishing, which is not controlled by the state due to the lack of fisheries inspectors in ports (who should make sure that sharks are not caught). Suárez affirms that this control should also be done in consensus with Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama and Peru, countries where sharks also transit.  

WWF analysis also says that more than 200 countries are importing and exporting shark meat. Ecuador appears as an exporter to Peru, the study does not detail whether legally or illegally. “We Ecuadorians have become illegal exporters of shark meat and fins,” says Walter Bustos, former director of the Galapagos National Park , whose marine reserve is a sanctuary for these animals . It is also an area in constant threat from the indiscriminate industrial fishing that stalks the rich reserve.  

This fishing is illegally distributed all over the planet. In early May 2020, a shipment of 26 tons of shark fins from Ecuador arrived to Hong Kong, it is not known if they were captured near Galapagos or in continental waters (between the Galapagos marine reserve and the Ecuadorian territorial sea there are a strip of international waters that has become a booty for fishing boats). 

According to the Chinese media South China Morning Post, those fins were taken from 38,500 sharks. Hong Kong customs authorities seized the shipment that represented the largest fin seizure to date. The fins had been shipped as sun-dried fish meat. If it had not been for the authorities of the Asian city, in Ecuador we would never have heard of the massive predation of those more than 38 thousand sharks. 

In January 2020, during the Lenín Moreno government, the Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investments and Fisheries created the National Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks in Ecuador (PAT-EC) . On paper, it sounds like an ambitious and timely plan. 

One of its goals is to minimize bycatch. The plan promises to improve the law related to fishing, control landings and discards, register vessels and fishermen, carry out training programs and improve fishing gear. It sounds incredible, like most of the Ecuadorian environmental regulations. However, until the closing of this report, we had no response to the request for an interview with the Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investments and Fisheries to find out how the fulfillment of this plan is progressing. 

In Ecuador, there is also no official information on how many tons are produced by incidental fishing, and there is no figure for how many sharks are caught in this type of fishing. “There is only anecdotal information about what is seen in ports or fishing coves,” says Suárez. The coves are geographical areas where there is fishing activity. Updated and contextualized public information is essential to understand what is happening to sharks and to be able to take appropriate measures for their conservation. 

David Veintimilla, specialist in protected areas of the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition, said that in some artisanal vessels there are “observers on board” from the Ministry of Production to identify or verify that there is no directed capture of sharks. They also do the control when disembarking, they make sure that the boats do not have shark fins, they review the dry product to verify that what they want to market has the permits, but “the Ministry of the Environment does not intervene because it does not have trained personnel for that.” Luis Suarez says that in recent years fishing inspectors have increased in ports, “but it is still insufficient.”

Veintimilla says that only the Ministry of the Environment can issue permits for the export of shark meat. And he adds that sharks can be commercialized and exported under certain conditions established by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The specialist explains that the Ministry of the Environment coordinates with the Undersecretariat of Fisheries Resources – of the Ministry of Production – so that what is stated in Decree 486 and the international agreements or conventions, of which Ecuador is a party, is complied with to protect these animals. One of these is CITES, an international agreement so that the world trade in wild animals and plants is not a threat to the survival of these species.  According to Veintimilla, the Ministry of the Environment also coordinates with the National Institute for Aquaculture and Fisheries Research (IPIAP) which, through its annual investigations, determines that the incidental capture of a certain species of shark does not harm the maritime populations of others. 

CITES protects more than 37 thousand species of animals and plants and has three different degrees of protection, called appendices. More than a dozen species of sharks are in Appendix 2 which means they are not necessarily endangered but could get to that point. Trade in the species in Appendix 2 is allowed but must be reviewed, says the Convention. In Ecuador, according to decree 486, commercialization is allowed to those who have a permit, but everything indicates that this revision is not completed. 

The shark is a top species in the food chain. It is the regulatory species of the populations of the oceans. According to the article Shark trafficking in Latin America: Ecuador and Peru are in the crosshairs, sharks have a slow growth, a late sexual age and a low fertility, therefore, if they are overfished, they can be in danger of extinction.

If bycatch remains the gray area that it is, the danger to sharks increases. Biologist Xavier Romero says that without this dominant species, in 15 to 20 years the marine food chain could be altered. “If there are no sharks, some species will increase their population and this would cause a significant ocean imbalance,” explains Walter Bustos. The International Union for Conservation of Nature ( IUCN ) says that  the giant hammerhead shark ( Sphyrna mokarran ), the common hammerhead shark ( Sphyrna lewini ) are species listed as “endangered”. The smooth hammerhead shark ( Sphyrna zygaena ), the great white shark ( Carcharodon carcharias), the basking shark ( Cetorhinus maximus ) and the oceanic whitetip ( Carcharhinus longimanus ) and three species of thresher shark ( Alopias spp ) are considered “vulnerable to extinction”. 

But the food danger is not only in the sea, but also on the tables. Eating shark meat can make humans sick because their meat accumulates heavy metals: sharks feed on all the meat that exists in the oceans and that creates a process of bioaccumulation – that is, a small fish concentrates a certain amount of heavy metals that we humans dump it into the oceans. Then a bigger fish eats it and so [the heavy metals] move to the top of the [food] chain. “All this accumulates in the meat of the fish and the great bioaccumulator ends up being the shark, making it bad meat,” explains Walter Bustos. This excess of heavy metals can damage the human liver. 

The situation of sharks in Ecuador is a question that doubles as a hook. Experts agree that the State does not dedicate concrete actions to protect them. Luis Suárez says that it is necessary for the Ministries of Environment and Production to convene a group of experts on the subject to analyze the situation and make drastic decisions, such as a total ban on the export of shark fins or a ban on shark fishing, which today can be met by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by the 2007 decree. 

In addition, the country needs strong institutions that have the capacity to control and sanction, and that invest resources well. For Suárez, director of Conservation International Ecuador, it is important that prosecutors and judges punish environmental crimes when it comes to protected species such as the shark. 

For the cargo that arrived in Hong Kong in June 2021 , the Ministry of Production sanctioned a person designated as responsible for sending the cargo of fins, “with the maximum allowed by law,” says a publication of the newspaper El Universo. A publication on Twitter from the Ministry of Production says that illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing is sanctioned with a maximum fine of $700,000.  But no criminal sanctions have yet been applied. According to the Comprehensive Organic Penal Code , crimes against endangered, endangered and migratory species of flora and fauna that are protected at the local or international level are punishable by 1 to 3 years in prison. Walter Bustos says a tougher law is needed to cast doubt on entering the global shark trade. 

Until the government can better patrol and identify illegal fishing, make a drastic decision to ban all shark commercialization, and a time comes when prosecutors and judges enforce the law rigorously, sharks will continue to swim in seas of many uncertainties, falling on the hook that could lead to their extinction. 

Read the original coverage from GK at https://gk.city/2021/07/26/tiburones-ecuador/

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021

BY TERRY HUGHES, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/26/21 12:00 PM EDT

In a triumph of politics over science, this week Australia has again avoided an “in-danger” listing for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, despite its continued decline. 

Australia reacted angrily to the draft decision by UNESCO in late June to downgrade the status of the Reef, which was described by Prime Minister Scott Morrison as “appalling.” In response, Australia immediately launched an aggressive diplomatic offensive that persuaded the 21-country World Heritage Committee this week to reject UNESCO’s science-based advice. But the reprieve may be short-lived — the committee will assess Australia’s progress again next year.

The committee this week also approved a draft climate policy which clearly states for the first time that climate-related degradation of a World Heritage Area can be used as the basis for in-danger listing. The new policy will be ratified at the UNESCO General Assembly later this year. In the meantime, Australia argued successfully that climate change is a global problem, which should not be applied to Australia’s stewardship of the Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef is famous around the world for its outstanding beauty and biodiversity and was inscribed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Area in 1981. The size of 70 million football fields, the reef stretches along the coast of the State of Queensland for 1,400 miles, the equivalent distance from Canada to Mexico. It supports a vibrant tourism industry, worth $4 billion each year, that employs 65,000 people.

But, like coral reefs almost everywhere, large swaths of the world-famous Great Barrier Reef are, in fact, in decline. The Australian government’s latest five-year report card on the status of the Great Barrier Reef acknowledged in 2019 that the outlook is very poor and deteriorating. The reef is endangered and struggling to cope with the cumulative impacts of water pollution from agriculture, coastal development, dredging, shipping and especially climate change. Ambitious plans to further develop and export coal and fossil gas across the reef from the adjoining catchment of the World Heritage Area, if they come to fruition, will only cause further damage.

Bowing to earlier pressure from UNESCO, in 2015 Australia developed a new blueprint to stave off an in-danger listing by improving the condition of the Great Barrier Reef — the Reef 2050 Plan. However, the plan has been widely criticized for ignoring Australia’s contribution to climate change. While it includes ambitious targets for reducing runoff of pollution from land, the plan is underfunded and, after 5 years of operation, is failing to reach most of its targets.

Australia clearly views an in-danger listing by UNESCO as an undesirable sanction, which it argues would damage reef tourism. But the purpose of the in-danger list is to highlight World Heritage properties that are in trouble, identify the causes of their decline and address them. Currently, 53 World Heritage properties are on the list. The Galapagos Island and Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System have both gone on, and off, the in-danger list, with no apparent impact on international tourism.

Australia’s recent record on tackling climate change is poor. It is the only country in the world to have legislated and then repealed a carbon pricing mechanism, and Australia has no meaningful policies in place to electrify transport. Australia also has one of the highest levels of per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world, with domestic emissions higher than the UK, France or Italy. On top of its domestic pollution, Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. In the lead-up to the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, Australia has not committed yet to net-zero emissions by 2050 and has not increased its comparatively weak Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement since 2015.

So far, Australia has not acknowledged the obvious link between its responsibilities for managing the Great Barrier Reef for future generations, and the damage caused by its ongoing promotion of fossil fuels. Australia can, and must, do better.

Terry Hughes is a distinguished professor at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. His research focuses on reef ecology and climate change Follow him on Twitter: @ProfTerryHughes.

Read the original opinion coverage from The Hill at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564778-the-great-barrier-reef-actually-is-in-danger

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021

The Australian government pushed back fiercely against Unesco’s recommendation – and the world is watching

Graham Readfearn
Thu 22 Jul 2021 18.30 BST

This year, Australia’s big tourism drawcard celebrates its 40th year as a UN world heritage site – a list where more than 1,100 of humanity’s most important spots go for acknowledgement and protection.

But on Friday, a committee of 21 countries will decide if it wants to listen to the advice of the UN’s science and culture organisation, Unesco, and put the Great Barrier Reef on its list of places that are “in danger”.

This is not the 40th anniversary party the reef’s legions of fans had hoped for – whether they’ve admired its 2,300km kaleidoscope of corals from a coffee table book or a mask and snorkel.

Because whatever happens at the meeting, there appears to be no scenario left where the threat of an “in danger” listing disappears for Australia.

And whatever the committee decides, experts and campaigners say the events of recent weeks will prove to be historic not only for the reef, but for the rest of the world’s natural wonders that could be jolted onto the list by climate change.

Ecosystems dominated by corals are predicted to be one of the first to collapse from global heating, caused by the world’s inability or unwillingness to cut its use of fossil fuels.

After Unesco made the call to the world heritage committee last month, the Australian government launched a frantic and forceful lobbying effort to keep the reef off the list.

Ambassadors from more than a dozen countries wearing fins and snorkel masks were dropped onto Agincourt Reef in the far north of Queensland, while environment minister Sussan Ley was dispatched on a diplomatic jet to Budapest, Madrid, Sarajevo, Paris, Oman and the Maldives.

A document that will be put before the committee on Friday evening suggests Australia may have gained enough support among its members to stave off the “in danger” listing until at least 2023.

A two-thirds majority of the committee is needed to put the reef on the list, but there could be last-minute movements. But Australia’s own amendments still leave in the text the “possible inscription” on the danger list in 2023.

The reef of the 70s

The reef was inscribed on the world heritage list in 1981, just three years after the very first natural sites – including the Galapagos Islands and Yellowstone National Park – were declared to have “outstanding universal value to humanity”.

The potted history of how the reef made the list starts with 1960s conservation campaigns to block limestone mining and oil drilling, leading to royal commissions and ultimately laws to create the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Richard Kenchington, now a professor at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security at the University of Wollongong, was working at the authority in the late 70s when he was asked to coordinate the report that asked the world heritage committee to inscribe the reef.

Back then, the main worries for the reef, he says, were finding ways to control outbreaks of coral-eating starfish – a problem that continues today.

“Being one of the first nominations for the list just came from that growing global awareness of its significance. Here was a very large marine area that was being managed under legislation and that was seen globally as very exciting.”

He says the way the reef is managed is still rightly acknowledged as world-leading, but while many of the 3,000 or so individual reefs are still spectacular it will “never be the same as it was in the 1970s” before climate change took hold.

As well as the climate threat, Unesco says progress has been too slow in cutting pollution that runs into the reef from farms – primarily sugarcane and grazing properties.

The world heritage committee last discussed the reef in 2015, but since then there have been three mass bleaching events caused by rising ocean temperatures.

Scientists spoke of emerging from the water smelling of the dead and dying flesh of corals. The system’s ability to recover was being pushed to the brink.

“All of the world’s marine environments are endangered by climate change. Full stop,” says Kenchington.

Jewel in danger

Alongside the government’s aggressive response to the prospect of an “in danger” listing, Unesco’s recommendation sparked an exchange of letters between the prime minister, Scott Morrison, and the office of the Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk.

The letters reveal that on Wednesday Queensland rebuffed a request from Morrison to immediately sign off on a new version of the centrepiece joint reef policy.

In Paris, the Australian government’s ambassador to Unesco, Megan Anderson, had been sending a summary of the draft of that new policy to committee members.

Conservationists aware of the content say in its current form it does not go far enough to either improve water quality or lock in commitments for Australia to cut emissions in line with a rise in global temperatures to 1.5C – a level Unesco has asked for.

Anderson also sent committee members a draft of the Australian Institute of Marine Science’s latest annual monitoring report on the state of corals across the reef. She said it showed “widespread recovery was underway”.

The report also said the increase in coral coverage since the 2020 bleaching event was dominated by fast-growing species susceptible to storms and coral-eating starfish, and would be the first to go in the next bleaching event.

“The predicted consequences of climate change, which include more frequent and intense mass coral bleaching events, are now a contemporary reality,” the report said.

Protecting fossil fuels

Australia is a world-leading producer and exporter of coal and gas, and the country’s resources lobby is powerful. When the Guardian revealed oil-rich Saudi Arabia was backing Australia’s stance, there was a distinct lack of surprise in some quarters.

Prof Tiffany Morrison, of James Cook University, has been researching how countries and the UN deal with threats to world heritage sites.

In research published last year, she found when the world heritage committee gets asked to put places on the “in danger” list, it is resource-dependant countries that push back the hardest.

But why has Australia tried so hard?

Australia has made procedural arguments as it pushes back, saying Unesco should have first sent a monitoring mission (which, as the procedure dictates, Australia would need to formally request). Unesco says such a mission is not needed, especially when the evidence of the reef’s predicament is so clear.

But Prof Morrison believes there’s another unstated reason for Australia’s hardcore lobbying.

“If the reef goes on the ‘in danger’ list, the social licence for the government to approve more fossil fuel extraction falls over. This is not about tourism. This is about the social licence,” she says.

Australia’s lobbying effort, she says, has now set up a test of the world heritage committee’s integrity.

“This is pivotal. Do [the committee members] hold up the intentions of the convention [to protect the world’s heritage] or do they allow that to be undermined?”

She says Unesco has previously shied away from trying to address threats to sites that aren’t immediately local – with climate change being the most obvious “non-local” threat.

“But climate change is now affecting everything, and you can’t really ignore it anymore,” she says. “This is pivotal for the world heritage committee in that they begin to address climate change in a way that they have never done before.”

This lack of precedent, Prof Morrison says, is being used by Australia to say climate change should be left to the UN convention that delivered the Paris agreement.

Tourism at risk?

Daniel Gschwind is the chief executive of Queensland’s main tourism body, the Queensland Tourism Industry Council.

The degradation of parts of the reef, the bleaching events that create international headlines and how to engage with those issues as visitors step on boats is a challenge, Gschwind says. He says the reef is well managed and remains a spectacular experience for tourists.

“But we have to confront these things head-on and with a degree of honesty,” he says. “We owe it to ourselves to go with the science.

“The tourism operators are obviously not excited about the prospect of the reef being in the headlines for the wrong reasons. That’s not good news for us.

“But whatever way the decision goes, either now or in the future, I firmly believe this has to be our call to the world to do more on climate change. The reef is threatened and we need to do something about it.”

Read the original coverage from The Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/23/whether-or-not-the-great-barrier-reef-is-listed-as-in-danger-wont-alter-the-fact-it-is-at-risk-from-climate-change

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021

EFE AGENCY
Updated 07/20/2021 15:09

The Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition reported this Tuesday that it coordinated the repatriation and transfer of a juvenile Galapagos Fur Seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis), which was out of its habitat and had been stranded on La Cruz Beach, in Tumbes (Peru).

The veterinarian Pedro Soto, from the Valdivia Marine Park, assured that blood samples, ultrasounds and X-rays were taken of the specimen, which was medicated in order to determine its clinical status and in order to carry out the corresponding treatment, ensuring its recovery and rehabilitation.

Through ministry personnel, with the accompaniment of the biologist Mayra Estrella, head of Wildlife in the province of El Oro (bordering with Peru), the fur seal was transferred to the Valdivia Marine Park in the province of Santa Elena for its accommodation and review.

The institution specified in a statement that the biosecurity, transport and care standards were met to safeguard the integrity of the specimen.

This action was articulated with the support of the Agency for the Regulation and Control of Phytosanitary and Zoosanitary, personnel from the Environment of Peru and the Ecuadorian consulate.

According to the ministry, some specimens of the Galapagos Fur Seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis) have been previously registered outside the archipelago, on both Ecuadorian, Peruvian and Colombian beaches.

This species is classified as endangered according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and the Red Book of Mammals of Ecuador.

Read the original coverage from Expreso Ecuador at https://www.expreso.ec/actualidad/lobo-peletero-galapagos-encontrado-peru-recibe-atencion-ecuador-108642.html

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021

July 20, 2021
By: Ashleigh Cirilla,Luis Villanueva,Susana Cárdenas & Alex Hearn
Topics: Ocean Conservation
Projects: Galápagos Islands & Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy

Clustered in the Pacific Ocean 660 miles (996 kilometers) off Ecuador, the Galápagos Islands provide a critical refuge for an estimated 3,000 marine species, including whales, dolphins, sharks, sea lions, rays, sea turtles, tuna, and tropical fish. The archipelago, which is part of Ecuador, hosts some of the world’s highest levels of endemism—species found nowhere else. Yet the region faces threats from climate change, overfishing, and declining overall ocean health, due in part to years-long increases in commercial fishing. In 2020, nearly 300 international industrial fishing vessels—up from 60 ships in 2018—were seen fishing at the border of Ecuador’s exclusive economic zone, raising concerns about additional pressure on Ecuador’s marine resources, which were already experiencing increased domestic commercial fishing.

Economic benefits of the Galápagos Marine Reserve

In 1998, Ecuador established the Galápagos Marine Reserve (GMR), which restricted fishing and other extractive activities in 12.4% of the waters surrounding the islands. This benefited the marine ecosystem, the fishing industry, and the local community—despite predictions of economic harm from the industrial fishing sector—and experts now believe that expanding those protections could further safeguard endangered migratory species, with minimal impact on Ecuadorian fishers.

In the 10 years following creation of the GMR, which covers 133,000 square kilometers and allows artisanal fishing in some areas, productivity for commercial tuna fishers nearly doubled in the areas adjacent to the protected area, according to a 2017 analysis. The increased productivity can largely be attributed to a “spillover effect,” which occurs when species can breed and grow to full size in protected areas, and then move outside them, where they can be caught legally.

Researchers also concluded that the reserve may have increased available fish populations for Ecuador’s tuna fleet and helped cushion the impacts of declining global tuna stocks, caused by overfishing. In fact, between 1998 and 2018, Ecuador’s purse-seine fleet nearly tripled in size from 40 to 116 vessels, tuna exports grew by 67%, according to data from Ecuador’s central bank.

Driven by people wanting to experience the region’s iconic wildlife, with highly mobile megafauna such as sharks, rays, sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds often the main attraction, tourism provides the foundation for the economy of the Galápagos Islands. Experts say long-term success for this sector depends on the continued health of the area’s marine ecosystem and biodiversity. Protecting key migration routes for these vital species would mean healthier and more abundant populations, and could benefit tourism activities in the region and possibly beyond.

Expanding reserve could deliver economic and conservation benefits

The existing GMR offers important protections for highly migratory species such as sharks, sea turtles, and seabirds, and much more is needed. In fact, the conservation status for the majority of threatened migratory species in the region has worsened since the start of the 21st century. Scientific knowledge about the biology and movement patterns of these species has increased greatly since the establishment of the GMR and this data can help inform new protections.

In late 2020, a team of Ecuadorian and international scientists developed a proposal outlining a series of scenarios to strengthen protection around the GMR, while ensuring the most productive fishing areas are kept open to the Ecuadorian fishing industry. The proposal allows Ecuador’s industrial fleet to maintain access to the most productive fishing grounds. Only a small portion of the fleet’s total catch value—less than 5%—would need to come from other areas to maintain current revenues. However, over time, the fleet could benefit from the same spillover effect that was seen around the existing marine reserve.

Similarly, artisanal fishers from the Galápagos could see more abundant and larger fish—potentially yielding lower fishing costs and better prices—and would benefit from improved enforcement and reduced illegal fishing activity.

Galápagonians* have expressed broad support for expanding the GMR. In a recent poll, 87% of respondents said expanded marine protections would benefit the local community. Among this group, 62% of people listed protections for marine species as a potential benefit, while 52% cited more abundant fishing resources to the local community. Respondents also listed tourism, increased economic opportunities, and improvement to environmental services as potential benefits of a larger marine reserve.

Expanded marine protections have benefited other regions

Recent expansions of marine protected areas (MPAs) elsewhere back up this optimism. For example, a recent analysis showed that the Hawaiian tuna industry benefited from the expansion of two large MPAs—the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument and the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.

There is growing agreement among global leaders, Indigenous groups, and scientists that it is necessary to protect and conserve at least 30% of Earth’s coastal and marine areas by 2030 to secure and maintain a healthy ocean, support ocean resilience in the face of climate change, improve food security, and more. Ecuador has expressed its commitment to achieving this target, and expanding the current GMR provides an opportunity for leaders in the region to move closer to protecting 30% of Ecuadorian waters. The Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Project supports the establishment and expansion of large-scale marine protected areas and is working with the government, local community, and other partners in the Galápagos Islands to safeguard one of the world’s most iconic marine ecosystems.

Ashleigh Cirilla is a senior manager and Luis Villanueva is an officer supporting the Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Project’s work in the Galápagos. Susana Cárdenas and Alex Hearn are researchers at the University of San Francisco de Quito and significantly contributed to the 2018 economic analysis of the current Galápagos Marine Reserve and the expansion proposal.

Read the original coverage from PEW Trusts at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2021/07/20/marine-protections-in-the-galapagos-benefit-nature-ecuadorian-fishing-fleet-and-local-economy

Editorial Note: Residents of the Galapagos Islands are known as Galapagueños/Galapagueñas, not Galapagonians.

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021

Yalilé Loaiza
July 19, 2021
From Quito

Jack Grove is a scientist, marine biologist, and naturalist who recently visited the Galapagos Islands. This is one of the more than 80 trips that the researcher has made in Ecuador to study marine species. This occasion would be foreboding given the diagnosis regarding the state of the archipelago which Grove suggests is disheartening.

Grove is a world authority on the study of marine fauna. In 1997, he first published The Fishes of the Galapagos Islands under the Stanford University Press imprint, co-authored with Robert Lavenberg. Grove has published more than twenty individual and joint scientific articles on the marine environments of the Galapagos Islands and their species, and has visited the archipelago since 1975 when he was 23 years old.

In the week-long visit, which ended yesterday, Jack Grove evaluated the environmental deterioration suffered by the Galapagos Islands as a result of the predation of species, the introduction of alien species, excessive fishing and uncontrolled tourism.

The solution to the problems of the islands is found in the establishment of international environmental policies because the Galapagos are not an isolated entity, but are influenced by the maritime territories of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia and Ecuador.

When graphing the maritime limits, it is verified that the Galapagos and Costa Rican seas meet. The latter also share limits with the Panamanian and Colombian seas. This would suppose that the mutual currents will share species, but also waste. Ecuador is the only one of these countries that is separated from the waters of the Galapagos by the underwater Carnegie mountain range, which constitutes an alley of international waters. The Ecuadorian flag vessels, which set sail from mainland Ecuador, have to cross this area before reaching the insular [EEZ of] Ecuador.

The State of Ecuador is considering the expansion of its maritime border before the United Nations. The deadline to justify the increase based on the Convention of the Sea to which Ecuador is a party since 2012, prescribes one year [remaining] and would seek to expand the continental maritime platform by 107 thousand square kilometers, along the Carnegie mountain range and thus avoid the incursion of vessels straddling between the seas of Galapagos and continental Ecuador seeking the exploitation of endemic species of the region.

Grove ensures that the conservation effort has to be collective among these nations. Environmental preservation policies will not be enough if they are only applied in Ecuador. Some of the marine species are highly migratory and by leaving the protection of a certain point of [human] geography, they could perish.

Another high-impact factor is climate. Grove has already anticipated this in several collective scientific articles where the effects of the El Niño Phenomenon on fishing and the extinction of marine species were evaluated, as well as the damages of the massive fishing of Chinese vessels, from which marine species suffer in the Galapagos marine reserve and in the waters of Ecuador.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ensures that the main sources of pollution in the Eastern Pacific Ocean are the discharge of wastewater not treated by municipal governments, agricultural waters that were not absorbed into the land and that travel through the soil through loose soil, discharges from boats and port operations, industrial pollution and oil operations, as well as plastics dumped into the sea.

According to the Galapaguista and scientist Jack Grove, the fact of sharing maritime borders requires Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia and Ecuador to find a solution for the Galapagos, a World Heritage Site by UNESCO declaration in 1978.

Read the original coverage from InfoBae at https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2021/07/19/para-cuidar-a-las-galapagos-se-deben-proteger-las-costas-de-colombia-panama-y-costa-rica/

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021

The occasional specialized commission for the treatment of draft amendments and constitutional reforms will review what happened with the project promoted by the Democratic Institutionalization Committee, which did not have the votes to be approved by the previous Legislature. 

The president of the Commission, Francisco Jiménez (Ceo), announced this Monday that for this purpose he will call the coordinator of the Committee, Pablo Dávila, to appear, although without defining a date.

Jiménez and other of the members of the roundtable, indicated that there are doubts about the procedure followed by the previous Assembly, where there were not the 91 votes that were required for the citizen initiative project to be approved and go to referendum.

The Commission received this morning the appearance of the former secretary-rapporteur of the Amendments Commission, José García, who indicated that all the information required for a follow-up stage of the project had been sent to the Constitutional Court.

The Social Christian legislator Esteban Torres stated that “a follow-up phase could not drastically alter what the Plenary has already decided.”

Ordóñez insisted that the previous Parliament “altered the procedure” for a resolution on the issue, since approval would not be possible by a qualified majority (91 votes) but by a simple majority (70). He stated that he does not agree with the Correista Fernando Cedeño, that you cannot “revive a dead person.”

However, Torres replied that this requirement was established by resolution of the Plenary, since it was not specified either in the Constitution or in the Law of the Legislative Function, regarding the process of a partial reform of the Constitution.

The project aimed to eliminate the Citizen Participation Council (CPCCS), transform the Assembly into a bicameral body and deploy greater autonomy for the Prosecutor’s Office.

The former reporting secretary considered that this proposal can no longer be taken up, because the Plenary has already ruled and the decision was reconsidered, which does not prevent another similar proposal from being presented.

Among those pending of the commission are three draft amendments: one to elect the Galapagos Governing Council by popular vote, another so that the parliament can have a greater impact on the control of the State budget, and a third on the number of votes that is required to process presidential vetoes on bills.

Read the original coverage from El Comercio at https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/comision-asamblea-reforma-constitucion-cpccs.html

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021

The ROUTES Partnership and United For Wildlife have launched a new ‘Step Up to Stop Wildlife Trafficking’ campaign and are encouraging all aviation companies that want to help to end wildlife trafficking in air transport to get involved. For International Airport Review, Michelle Owen, ROUTES’ Lead, discusses the campaign and how airports can work to combat the global issue of wildlife trafficking.

Poaching through a pandemic

Reports of wildlife seizures over the course of 2020 have revealed that, despite restricted travel, traffickers are still taking opportunities to smuggle contraband through the air transport system. But, although these reports highlight continued illicit activity, they also demonstrate successful law enforcement and highlight that, when aviation companies and law enforcement work together, illegal supply chains can be disrupted.

In recent years, awareness of wildlife trafficking through airports has grown more and more and, with it, the number of aviation companies that are realising their potential to be part of the solution”

In recent years, awareness of wildlife trafficking through airports has grown more and more and, with it, the number of aviation companies that are realising their potential to be part of the solution. Much of this critical action has been facilitated by guidance and resources from specialised partnerships; in particular, the USAID Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of Endangered Species (ROUTES) Partnership and United for Wildlife (UFW) Transport Taskforce, established by the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Now, ROUTES and UFW have joined together to launch a new campaign designed to boost these efforts: Step Up to Stop Wildlife Trafficking.

ROUTES and UFW launched a comparable campaign in 2019 called Spring Into Action, which rallied airports and airlines to take five steps to strengthen their action against wildlife trafficking. Then, of course, in 2020, the aviation industry was dealt a heavy blow with the COVID-19 pandemic. Companies were left suffering from probably the worst economic impact event that the industry has witnessed but, although air transport came to a halt, wildlife crime did not. In fact, in some areas, wildlife criminals found ways to benefit from the situation. For example, the lack of tourism in Africa during international lockdowns led to budget cuts for protected areas. This led to decreased protected area patrols and reports of poachers taking advantage of the opportunity to strike. Now, with the resumption of air travel, wildlife traffickers are once again taking to the skies. As the industry begins to find its feet (or, rather, its wings), strengthening defences against wildlife trafficking is one of many ways in which some airports are hoping to ‘build back better’.

The Step Up Campaign

The Step Up campaign has two primary purposes: to highlight how companies across the industry are striving to help to end wildlife trafficking and to inspire companies to ramp up their efforts. The campaign guide suggests actions that companies can take through the steps of ‘Set Up’, ‘Show Up’, ‘Speak Up’ and ‘Follow Up’, suitable for a range of company capacities and regardless of how far along they are in the journey of equipping themselves against this illicit trade. Companies are encouraged, and directed, to resources that can be used to hold awareness-raising events, conduct training sessions and/or carry out wildlife trafficking risk assessments. The campaign slogan “It Doesn’t Fly With Us” sends a clear message to wildlife traffickers that their crimes will not be tolerated.

In 2019, Seymour Airport (GPS) in the Galapagos Islands signed the UFW Buckingham Palace Declaration. Jorge Rosillo, CEO at Seymour Airport, details some of the ways in which they are stepping up to address the commitments of the declaration: “In 2021, with the support of ROUTES and TRAFFIC, we are delivering a training programme to airport and cargo staff and will also create awareness about wildlife trade in the cargo zone, arrivals and departures areas.”

“We at Seymour Airport are aware of the worldwide illegal wildlife trade, especially in vulnerable places like the Galapagos Islands. We, as airports, should fight against wildlife trafficking, and we are doing it with greats results,” Rosillo continued.

Indeed, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), as a whole, holds 40 per cent of the world’s biodiversity. Whilst this makes it a fantastic destination for wildlife lovers and adventurers, it also renders it an attractive target to poachers.

For this reason, ROUTES, with the support of USAID, ramped up its engagement with the LAC region, including the release of its Taking Off report, which offers detailed analyses of wildlife trafficking trends in LAC’s aviation industry. ROUTES’ resources, including training materials, have been translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and a series of webinars aimed at aviation companies in the LAC are being held. The final webinar in the series is due to take place in July 2021.

As well as airports, it is vital that airlines, too, are part of the solution, and many have stepped up to the task”

As well as airports, it is vital that airlines, too, are part of the solution, and many have stepped up to the task. The Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA) is encouraging its members to combat the illegal wildlife trade. “We are committed to addressing the problem of international wildlife trafficking and are doing our part to upgrade vigilance, as well as flight security, against such activities,” said AAPA’s Director General, Subhas Menon.

Airline staff spend more time with passengers than customs officers and, thus, have this extra potential to identify suspicious behaviours that could indicate a wildlife trafficking attempt. Qatar Airways is another airline that has taken significant steps in addressing the issue and is joining in with the campaign.

“Wildlife trafficking is a global concern for aviation, and Qatar Airways maintains a policy of zero tolerance towards the illegal transportation of wildlife and their products throughout its network. As we remain dedicated to delivering our commitment, we continue to raise employee and passenger awareness of illegal wildlife transportation,” said Esmir Ganic, Head of Aeropolitical and Corporate Affairs at Qatar Airways. “The recent campaign guide from ROUTES has provided us with information that will be used in our ongoing efforts to address the illegal wildlife trafficking.”

In the Spotlight

To further celebrate some of its partners that are embracing the work and taking big steps to protect wildlife, ROUTES launched a Partner Spotlight video series over the month of June 2021, tied in with the campaign. The videos offer an overview of illegal wildlife trade and the risks that it poses, and champion the people taking action behind the scenes at airports to prevent illicit wildlife products from taking flight. 

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS) is the Chair of Airports Council International’s (ACI) Wildlife Trafficking Task Force and one of the five partners that are featured in the Spotlight Series. CEO and President of Royal Schiphol Group, Dick Benschop, understands the urgent need for airports to get involved: “As one of the world’s largest aviation hubs, we can, and will, work to prevent and fight this problem.”

Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) is also featured for its active commitment to addressing illegal wildlife trade. Their establishment of a courthouse at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (NBO) allows wildlife crime cases to be heard with minimal delays and risks of evidence interference and sees traffickers convicted on site.

The full Spotlight Series is now available to watch on the ROUTES website.

A global problem requires global action

Ultimately, the detection and disruption of wildlife trafficking is the responsibility of enforcement agencies, so it is commendable to see so many airlines and airports recognising their opportunity to assist in this crucial work”

The adaptability and resourcefulness of wildlife criminals necessitate a global, collaborative response and all relevant parties doing what they can to address the issue. Ultimately, the detection and disruption of wildlife trafficking is the responsibility of enforcement agencies, so it is commendable to see so many airlines and airports recognising their opportunity to assist in this crucial work. All airports and other aviation stakeholders are encouraged to investigate the campaign and other ROUTES and UFW resources, and consider how they can join the movement to stop the trafficking of endangered wildlife.

Michelle Owen has a background in conservation. With TRAFFIC, she is leading the USAID Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of Endangered Species (ROUTES) Partnership. The partnership is working with aviation companies and associations, including ACI and IATA, to identify and implement solutions to wildlife trafficking in air transport supply chains. These responses range from increasing awareness of wildlife trafficking as a transnational crime, through to capacity building, developing recommended practices and testing technology solutions.

Read the original coverage from International Airport Review at https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/161666/campaign-aviation-protect-threatened-wildlife/

Informing and sharing news on marine life, flora, fauna and conservation in the Galápagos Islands since 2017
© SOS Galápagos, 2021