| Summary | Act that establishes the Seaflower MPA in 2005 |
|---|
| Project | SESMAD |
|---|
| Subtype | Formal Governance System |
|---|
| Sector | Marine protected areas |
|---|
| Begin Date | 2005 |
|---|
| Explanation | After 5 years of multi-stakeholder involvement, led by CORALINA, the Minister of Environment, Housing, and Territorial Development declared the Seaflower MPA. |
|---|
| End Date | current |
|---|
| Explanation | Still ongoing |
|---|
| Governance Scale | Sub-national (State, Province, District) |
|---|
| Explanation | It is entirely contained within Colombian territory although a recent International Court of Justice decision awarded a part of the MPA territory to Nicaragua. |
|---|
| Governance System Description | Local governance system |
|---|
| Explanation | Even though the MPA Act was declared by the Ministry, its implementation and management is conducted by the regional body (CORALINA). |
|---|
| Governance Trigger | Sudden disturbance |
|---|
| Explanation | In this case it might not have been environmental but social trigger: declaration of the Seaflower as a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO. |
|---|
| Type Of Formal Governance | System of laws |
|---|
| Explanation | It is the creation act. I could not have found the actual management plan for this MPA. |
|---|
| Mpa Internal Natural Boundaries | Medium (2) |
|---|
| Explanation | I would imagine give that it is considerably large. At least this is the case for different habitat types. |
|---|
| Mpa Migratory Life History | Missing |
|---|
| Explanation | NO DATA |
|---|
| Mpa Threats To Migratory Sp | ["Resource competition", "Habitat destruction", "Other"] |
|---|
| Explanation | These threats impact not only migratory species but also local resources. They also represent the reasons MPA was establish in the first place. |
|---|
| Mpa Threats | Missing |
|---|
| Explanation | NO DATA |
|---|
| Governance Knowledge Use | ["Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"] |
|---|
| Explanation | Mapping of key areas/habitats was completed through participatory exercises with all stakeholders including artisanal fishers. |
|---|
| Pa Car Principles | Partially (2) |
|---|
| Explanation | I am not sure if the creation of this MPA followed these principles or not. They were not mentioned in the literature as such. However, based on the variables Mpa Comprehensiviness and Mpa Representativeness I would imagine that it was pretty close to this principle. That is why I selected Partially as my answer. |
|---|
| Centralization | Highly decentralized (1) |
|---|
| Explanation | The passage of the congressional law in 1993 established the National Environment System (SINA) that decentralized environmental management in Colombia through the creation of 34 regional autonomous agencies (CARs). Each of them is responsible for managing the environment and natural resources within its jurisdiction. |
|---|
| Distance To Markets | Between 100km-1000km (3) |
|---|
| Explanation | Major market is located on the San Andres Island. |
|---|
| Horizontal Coordination | Both formal and informal |
|---|
| Explanation | |
|---|
| Mpa Iucn Somewhat Strict Zones | % |
|---|
| Explanation | |
|---|
| Mpa Iucn Sustainable Zones | % |
|---|
| Explanation | |
|---|
| Mpa Budget | 6000000 $US |
|---|
| Explanation | for a period from 2009-2014. Regional office is responsible for obtaining funds on its own. It does not receive funding from the national government. This particular funding was received from IDT/GEF grant. At this point, based on our interview with Graham Edgar CORALINA does not have any major funding stream. |
|---|
| Mpa Connectivity | Missing |
|---|
| Explanation | NO DATA |
|---|
| Mpa Migratory Threats And Redux | Missing |
|---|
| Explanation | NO DATA |
|---|
| Mpa Motivation | ["Ecological value", "Feasibility"] |
|---|
| Explanation | Its biodiversity, declared as a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO, high social capital of major (if not all) stakeholders (i.e. feasibility). |
|---|
| Mpa Primary Goal (In Practice) | ["Biodiversity conservation", "Fisheries improvement", "Social goals"] |
|---|
| Explanation | MPA objectives include: 1) Preservation, recovery and long- term maintenance of species, biodiversity, ecosystems, and other natural values including special habitats; 2) Promotion of sound management practices to ensure long-term sustainable use of coastal and marine resources; 3) Equitable distribution of economic and social benefits to enhance local development; 4) Protection of the rights pertaining to historical use; and 5) Education to promote stewardship and community involvement in planning and management (Howard et al. 2005). |
|---|
| Mpa Protection | ["Reducing threats", "Encompassing entire habitat"] |
|---|
| Explanation | Exclusion of all or only extractive activities from specific areas of the MPA. NEEDS TO BE CHECKED. |
|---|
| Metric Diversity | Missing |
|---|
| Explanation | NO DATA |
|---|
| Pa Iucn Strict Zones | 3.6 % |
|---|
| Explanation | The percentage area breakdown by zone is as following: no-entry, 0.2%; no-take, 3.4%; artisanal fishing, 3.1%, special use, 0.1%; and general use, 93.2%. Only no-entry and no-take count in this case. |
|---|
| Social Ecological Fit | Medium (2) |
|---|
| Explanation | In terms of the governance process yes (multi-stakeholder participation), but in terms of management activities no. These are stymied by the lack of stable funding, environmental monitoring, and enforcement. |
|---|
| Mpa Migratory Benefit | Missing |
|---|
| Explanation | NO DATA |
|---|
| Governance System Spatial Extent | 65000 |
|---|
| Explanation | |
|---|
