• Logged in as Unregistered User
  • Sign in

Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Case

Seaflower MPA

SummarySeaflower Marine Protected Area: established in 2005 and is the first and largest MPA in Colombia. It covers 65,000 km2, or some 22% of the waters surrounding Archipelago of San Andres, Old Providence and Santa Catalina in the Caribbean and is divided into three administrative sections. The creation process was characterized by direct involvement of all stakeholders. The MPA is managed by a decentralized regional entity CORALINA.
Statuspublic
TeamDR and Colombia MPA cases
Start Date2015-06-14
Coding Complete?No
SectorMarine protected areas
ProjectSESMAD
Data Source(s)Secondary data
CountryColombia
External BiophysicalNA
External SocialOverpopulation of the main island of San Andres which led to habitat alteration (mangroves), and water pollution. Overfishing by artisanal and industrial fisheries. Habitat degradation by tourism activities.
Snapshots2000-2005: pre implementation phase 2005-2014: creation and management of the MPA
Timeline1993: Creation of the regional environmental governing body, CORALINA, as part of Columbia's intent to decentralize governance system 2000: Designation of the Safflower Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO 2000: Initiation of the multi-stakeholder participatory process by CORALINA to establish the MPA 2005: creation of the MPA 2009: Reception of the IDB/GEF 5-year grant (USD 6 million) to fund management of the MPA 2014: End of the grant, no new funding available
Modeling Issues
Surveys
Theories

Visualization

Show Render

Hide Render

Attached Components

Actors

Name:
Seaflower artisanal fishers
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
They needed to collaborate and cooperate since they formed cooperatives.
Costs of exit:
Missing
NO DATA
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
No
It seems that artisanal fishers put a lot of their time and effort in the MPA creation management process but it does not seem their economic situation improved nor that MPA is functioning properly.
Interest heterogeneity:
Medium (2)
There might be differences based on gear type use and/or fishing techniques but in terms of MPA support literature suggest there was none.
Leadership:
["Formal leader"]
Fishing cooperatives have elected leaders
Leadership authority:
Missing
NO DATA
Actor group trust:
High (3)
Based on the continuous engagement of this group in the MPA planing process I imagine it is high.
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Most likely they depend on interpersonal communication for a variety of reasons: fishing spots, safety, regulation. Also some of them should live in close proximity or fish from same ports/areas. However, artisanal fishers come from 3 different islands and I am not sure what is the level of communication among those subgroups.
Remote communication:
Missing
NO DATA
Leadership accountability:
Missing
NO DATA
Actor group coordination:
Formal
There are fishing cooperatives
Name:
CORALINA
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
Considering their initial success in creating the MPA and running it, I imagine is high.
Costs of exit:
No
Group members are government employees so it should not be difficult to leave this group by moving to another job or to another location.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
No
CORALINA receives money (is paid) to manage human activities
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
CORALINA is the decentralized regional government entity whose mission is to ensure sustainable management of natural environment and resources.
Leadership:
["Formal leader"]
There is a director of the regional office.
Leadership authority:
High (3)
In theory, the leader has considerable authority over his/her personnel, management operations, administrative activities.
Actor group trust:
Not Applicable
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
All of them work for the same entity in the same location.
Remote communication:
Not Applicable
Leadership accountability:
Not Applicable
Actor group coordination:
Formal
Their activities are codified by the law.

Governance Systems

Name:
Seaflower MPA Act 2005
details
Type of formal governance:
System of laws
It is the creation act. I could not have found the actual management plan for this MPA.
End Date:
current
Still ongoing
Begin date:
2005
After 5 years of multi-stakeholder involvement, led by CORALINA, the Minister of Environment, Housing, and Territorial Development declared the Seaflower MPA.
Governance trigger:
Sudden disturbance
In this case it might not have been environmental but social trigger: declaration of the Seaflower as a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO.
Governance system description:
Local governance system
Even though the MPA Act was declared by the Ministry, its implementation and management is conducted by the regional body (CORALINA).
Governance scale:
Sub-national (State, Province, District)
It is entirely contained within Colombian territory although a recent International Court of Justice decision awarded a part of the MPA territory to Nicaragua.
Centralization:
Highly decentralized (1)
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.
Metric diversity:
Missing
NO DATA
MPA primary goal (in practice):
["Biodiversity conservation", "Fisheries improvement", "Social goals"]
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 motivation:
["Ecological value", "Feasibility"]
Its biodiversity, declared as a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO, high social capital of major (if not all) stakeholders (i.e. feasibility).
MPA protection:
["Reducing threats", "Encompassing entire habitat"]
Exclusion of all or only extractive activities from specific areas of the MPA. NEEDS TO BE CHECKED.
MPA internal natural boundaries:
Medium (2)
I would imagine give that it is considerably large. At least this is the case for different habitat types.
Distance to markets:
Between 100km-1000km (3)
Major market is located on the San Andres Island.
MPA budget:
6000000 $US
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.
PA IUCN strict zones:
3.6 %
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.
MPA connectivity:
Missing
NO DATA
PA CAR principles:
Partially (2)
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.
MPA migratory benefit:
Missing
NO DATA
MPA migratory life history:
Missing
NO DATA
MPA threats to migratory sp:
["Resource competition", "Habitat destruction", "Other"]
These threats impact not only migratory species but also local resources. They also represent the reasons MPA was establish in the first place.
MPA migratory threats and redux:
Missing
NO DATA
Social-ecological fit:
Medium (2)
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.
Governance knowledge use:
["Scientific knowledge", "Local/traditional knowledge"]
Mapping of key areas/habitats was completed through participatory exercises with all stakeholders including artisanal fishers.
MPA IUCN somewhat strict zones:
%
MPA IUCN sustainable zones :
%
MPA threats:
Missing
NO DATA
Governance system spatial extent:
65000
Horizontal coordination:
Both formal and informal

Environmental Commons

Name:
Seaflower coral reefs
details
Productivity:
Very productive (3)
Corals are broadcast spawners and they produce a large number of larvae.
Commons aggregation:
Not Applicable
Biotic:
Yes
Phylum Cnidaria
Commons unit size:
Large (4)
Individual coral colonies can be 4 meters high/wide.
Commons mobility:
Sessile (1)
Permanently attached to the benthos.
Commons spatial extent:
Missing
NO DATA
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Lifecycle completed in the marine environment.
Commons heterogeneity:
Missing
NO DATA
Intra annual predictability:
High (3)
Once established, coral reefs are quite stable and predictable within years
Inter annual predictability:
High (3)
Once established, coral reefs are quite stable and predictable from year to year
Technical substitute:
No
Commons boundaries:
Clear boundaries (3)
Coral reefs are found in shallow waters close to the shores and are distinct biogenic structures.
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Spawn yearly.
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
SCUBA and motor powered boats
Commons indicator:
["Ecosystem health and/or biodiversity"]
Coral cover has been used as an indicator of the ecosystem health.
Name:
Seaflower groupers
details
Productivity:
Missing
Commons aggregation:
Missing
Biotic:
Yes
Marine fish belonging to the serranade family: Atlantic goliath grouper(Epinephelus itajara), Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus), black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), yellowmouth grouper (Mycteroperca interstitialis)and red grouper (Epinephelus morio).
Commons unit size:
Medium (3)
Individual groupers can grow to 1-2 meters.
Commons mobility:
Medium (2)
Relatively high site fidelity.
Commons spatial extent:
0
Wherever there are coral reefs in the Atlantic ocean.
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Marine fish
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
Groupers are associated with coral reefs although they are mobile.
Intra annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Groupers are long lived species and have relatively high site fidelity.
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Groupers are long lived species and have relatively high site fidelity.
Technical substitute:
Yes
Other commercial species.
Commons boundaries:
Somewhat unclear boundaries (2)
Although they are mobile their site fidelity is relatively high.
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Reproduce yearly.
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
Using diving equipment and spearguns, monofilament lines, engine-powered boats, nets.
Commons indicator:
["Ecosystem health and/or biodiversity", "Status of species targeted by fisheries"]
Groupers are one of the top predators on reefs and are important commercial resource.

Component Interactions

Governance Interaction

Seaflower MPA coral interaction

2005-01-01 - ongoing
Coded:

Governing Organization:
CORALINA (Actor)
Primary:
Seaflower coral reefs (Environmental Common)
Commons User:
Seaflower artisanal fishers (Actor)
Governs:
Seaflower MPA Act 2005 (Governance System)

Governance Interaction

Seaflower MPA groupers interaction

2005-01-01 - ongoing
Coded:

Commons User:
Seaflower artisanal fishers (Actor)
Governs:
Seaflower MPA Act 2005 (Governance System)
Primary:
Seaflower groupers (Environmental Common)
Governing Organization:
CORALINA (Actor)