[42], and include not only those in the small-scale fisheries sector but also tour operators, naturalist guides, conservationist, researchers, representatives of local governments and the general public. This will contribute credibility and legitimacy to the evaluation and adaptation Forskolin chemical structure processes of the GMR´s zoning and, at the same time, will provide voice to several members of local communities whose interests are not currently represented in the PMB, but who have influence or are influenced by the decisions taken concerning management of the GMR. Another institutional challenge to face is the uncertainty about the future

role of the Galapagos’ co-management system, caused by recent changes in Ecuador’s legal framework, which could discourage and delegitimize the participation of stakeholders in the re-zoning process. Ecuador approved a new constitution by referendum in September 2008, which resulted in fundamental selleck chemical changes to the Galapagos’ government structure. According to article 258 of the new constitution, the province of Galapagos will be managed by a Government Council, to replace IMA as the main manager of the Galapagos province. However, the functions and the relationship of the Government Council to the GNP (the main manager of the GMR) and the

PMB have not been approved and specified yet in the corresponding legal framework (i.e., Galapagos Special Law). Thus, the future role of the Galapagos co-management system is uncertain, and will be known only at the end of the reform process of the Galapagos Special Law, which began in 2009 and is expected to conclude at the end of 2012. Unfortunately, the failure of the GMR’s marine zoning and its co-management system has

disappointed many fishers and decision-makers, as well as those scientists and conservationists who strongly promoted co-management in Galapagos to this point. As a result, the Ecuadorian government is proposing Olopatadine changing the GMR’s co-management system from an advisory type to a consultative type (sensu Sen and Nielsen, [55]). Considering this scenario, members of the PMB and the IMA should seek agreement on the consultation and decision-making process to adopt for evaluating and adapting the GMR’s marine zoning. This should be done before the end of the reform process for the Galapagos Special Law, making clear how stakeholder inputs will be used to develop the new zoning plan, as well as the procedure that will be implemented to take the final decision on how to re-zone the GMR. This will be fundamental to legitimize the decision-making process, thereby contributing to encouragement of stakeholder participation and avoidance of potential conflicts between the Ecuadorian government (i.e., Government Council) and GMR stakeholders. However, the most important institutional and socioeconomic challenge facing Galapagos fisheries relates to a lack of clearly defined and limited fishing rights.