Marine Ecosystem Services for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies in the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve: Coastal Protection and Fish Biodiversity Refuge at Caribbean Insular Territories

Ecosystem services (ES) encompass a wide variety of direct and indirect contributions from ecosystems to human well-being (Burkhard and Maes 2017). An appreciation of the value of ES allows society to better understand our dependence on nature and biodiversity (Sánchez 2021), and provides a framework for policy and decision-making related to the sustainable management and use of natural resources, including environmental protection, Nature-based Solutions (NbS), climate change adaptation, and disaster risk reduction (Waite et al. 2014; Prato and Newball 2016; Burkhard and Maes 2017).

As hazards associated with climate change increase, disaster risk, and disaster-related losses are expected to increase in frequency and magnitude (IPCC 2014, 2021). Investments in the protection and maintenance of coastal and marine ecosystems can help coastal communities mitigate these losses and adapt to climate change. The natural assets contained within the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina (hereafter, the archipelago) are a perfect example of the potential for proper management of natural capital to overcome vulnerability to climate change and generate Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) strategies to safeguard economic activity and human well-being. Declared a Biosphere Reserve (BR) by UNESCO in 2000 due to its natural richness, culture, and sustainable management opportunities, the Seaflower BR (SBR) contains around 77% of Colombian coral reefs, with 9 main reef islands partially protected by barrier reefs, multiple cays, and a volcanic basement (Sánchez et al. 2005; Guarderas et al. 2008; Coralina-Invemar 2012; Prato and Newball 2016).

The archipelago’s ecosystems include mangroves, seagrass beds, coral reefs, and the open ocean, all of which harbor a wide variety of marine species (Friedlander et al. 2003; Coralina-Invemar 2012) and play a crucial role in providing food, tourist attractions, and protection from waves and winds. The coastal protection ES provided by the archipelago’s ecosystems is especially valuable due to the remote, oceanic context and the low-lying nature of the islands and cays (Prato and Newball 2016), which put the islands and their inhabitants at heightened risk from tropical storms and hurricanes (IPCC 2021; Coralina-Invemar 2012). Indeed, the SBR has been recognized as the most vulnerable region of Colombia (Ideam et al. 2017).

In 2005, Category 1 Hurricane Beta affected Providencia and Santa Catalina, with loss assessment in coral reefs showing 20% mortality, mainly in the northern part of the islands, and coral bleaching on the west side of the island (Taylor et al. 2008b). As a result, multiple projects were implemented for the recovery and restoration of beaches, mangroves, and coral reefs. Sixteen years later, in 2020, Category 4 Hurricane Iota hit Providencia and Santa Catalina, destroying nearly 98% of the island’s houses. The Institute for Marine and Coastal Research, INVEMAR, estimated damage to 80% of mangroves, 90% of tropical forests, and severe damage to coral reefs located approximately 12 m deep. While highly affected, these ecosystems provided a clearly important protection for human life, by reducing wind and waves during the storm. They also found coral bleaching signs in 41% of the sites evaluated (INVEMAR 2021). Due to the importance of marine ecosystems for islanders’ well-being and biodiversity, CORALINA and the Universidad Nacional de Colombia’s Caribbean campus, led the elaboration of restoration protocols for marine ecosystems after hurricanes with the participation of other local, national, and international institutions, to provide guidelines to recover the natural capital that is vital for the SBR’s resilience and climate change adaptation strategies (Velásquez-Calderón et al. 2022).

In addition to protection from hazardous events, healthy coral reefs, mangroves, seagrasses, and the ocean are vital for food security for the archipelago’s people (Coralina-Invemar 2012; Santos-Martínez et al. 2013). These ecosystems provide provisioning ES by supplying protein-rich food sources like fish, queen conch, lobster, octopus, and other shellfish (Cooper et al. 2009; Rueda et al. 2010; Prato and Newball 2016). Given that more than 90% of food supplies in the archipelago are imported—particularly in the two most-populated islands, San Andrés and Providencia—the need for sustainable food sources to safeguard human well-being during times of crisis is critical.

Despite their obvious importance and economic value, only 1% of the value estimated from marine ES in the Colombian Caribbean and the SBR has been reflected in national statistics and accounts (Prato and Reyna 2015; Prato and Newball 2016) and most non-market values of marine ES are not considered in national and local institutional accounting systems. This gap of around 99% of real values and benefits from coastal and marine ecosystems (Prato and Newball 2016) can lead to misinformed decision-making with negative consequences for ecosystem functioning, economic activities, and human well-being (Ranganathan et al. 2008). Together, these facts highlight the need to estimate the economic value of ES provided by the natural assets of the archipelago so that their true worth can be incorporated into decision-making processes, climate change adaptation strategies, and national accounting systems (Waite et al. 2014; Sánchez 2021).

In this chapter, we present an interdisciplinary approach to better understand the importance of ecosystems and ES for well-being, sustainability, and ecosystem-based climate change adaptation strategies in the SBR since it is time for action. Our review forms the basis for recommendations for future research to guide efficient and sustainable management of the SBR’s natural assets.

Mangroves are the predominant wetlands along the world’s tropical and subtropical coasts, occupying around 13,586,000 ha (Worthington et al. 2020) and representing 0.7% of the planet’s total tropical forests (Spalding et al. 2010). Mangroves are widely recognized for providing valuable ES critical for the social, economic, and cultural development of communities in coastal and insular areas.

The main ES provided by mangroves includes biodiversity, refuge, and trophic subsidy for multiple biological groups, many of which support important fisheries (Lee et al. 2014). Likewise, mangroves sequester and store large amounts of carbon (C)—called blue carbon—for very long periods, thus contributing to climate regulation and sediment stability (Donato et al. 2011). Numerous investigations have quantified the C retention capacity of mangroves, showing that it can be up to five times greater than that stored in tropical forests (McLeod et al. 2011). Globally, C stocks in mangroves vary between 50 and 2,200 Mg C/ha (Bindoff et al. 2019). Worldwide, mangrove forests store the equivalent of 22.86 gigatons of CO₂, the loss of just 1% of remaining mangroves could release 0.23 gigatons of CO₂, equivalent to the annual emissions of 49 million cars in the USA (Leal and Spalding 2022). In 2019, the World Bank noted that 51% of the emissions covered by C pricing initiatives were below US$10 per ton (t) of CO₂ equivalent (1 t/CO₂ = 1 C credit). In 2017, the Colombian government estimated the value of potential CO₂ emissions at US$5.08/t. San Andrés’ mangroves are recognized for their high carbon storage capacity, storing around 2,658 Mg C/ha, meaning they can store around 37% of C emissions produced by the roughly 900 annual flights (7,170 Mg C) that operate on the island (Medina 2022).

Mangroves also function as connectors between terrestrial and marine environments, regulating the water quality of adjacent ecosystems (Feller et al. 2010). They contribute to the mitigation of coastal erosion, and protect against sea level rise and extreme weather events (McLeod et al. 2011; Sánchez-Núñez et al. 2019). The complex structures of mangrove vegetation, including aerial roots and associated biota, dissipate wave energy between 5 and 39% per meter of displacement (Morris et al. 2018; Sánchez-Núñez et al. 2020) and facilitate the deposition and retention of sediments (Sánchez-Núñez et al. 2020).

Healthy mangroves have even been shown to reduce economic impacts after extreme weather events (Hochard et al. 2019). Economic analysis of 22 cyclone-impacted countries showed that activity declined less and recovered more quickly in places with more extensive mangrove forests along the coastline (Morris et al. 2018). This has made it possible to estimate the economic value of this ES between US$3,679 and 693 ha/year, and has led to concepts such as “building with nature” or “living coasts” in which coastal erosion is controlled through natural marine ecosystems (Morris et al. 2018).

The mangrove forests of the SBR represent critical natural capital that directly benefits both resident and visiting populations. On the islands of Providencia and Santa Catalina, the largest extension of mangroves is found in the McBean Lagoon National Natural Park. The mangroves of southeast Santa Catalina—Manchineel Bay, South West Bay, and Old Town—also stand out. The mangroves on San Andrés currently occupy an extension of 96.98 ha, distributed across six main forests plus other minor mangrove areas. A multi-temporal analysis over 66 years (1944–2010), based on aerial photographs and satellite images, revealed a general growth of around 100%, with four of the six main mangrove forests expanding their coverage, which could be related to differences in sensors and methods between years; only the Smith Channel mangrove swamp presented a loss of 26.3%. Some of the observed changes could be explained by anthropogenic factors such as the construction of roads, houses, and buildings, sand dredging, construction of spurs, hydraulic fills, and the felling of trees (Mancera-Pineda et al. 2019).

Mangroves are key ecosystems for coastal protection and risk management facing natural disasters. For example, the Asian tsunami in 2004 caused severe impacts on mangrove ecosystems but, at the same time, the tidal wave energy was substantially reduced, protecting the inland population (Barbier 2006). After the tsunami, several governments, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, announced plans for widespread replanting and rehabilitation in degraded and deforested mangrove areas to bolster coastal protection (Barbier 2006). Hauser et al. (2015) revealed how Hurricane Sandy caused major losses to a large coastal wetland area in New Jersey, USA. They showed that erosion, sediment deposition, and marsh salinization caused severe degradation of 40% of the wetland area and long-term degradation of 50%. Additionally, Hurricane Sandy caused significant losses of flood regulating services, water filtration, and water supply ES (Hauser et al. 2015). In South Florida in September 2017, Hurricane Irma, with winds of more than 52 MPs (116 mph) and storm surge as high as 3 m, triggered one of the largest recorded mangrove dieback events in the region, with 10,760 ha of mangroves showing evidence of complete dieback (Lagomasino et al. 2021).

The coastal protection services provided by mangroves were observed on Providencia on November 16, 2020, when the eye of Hurricane Iota passed just 10 km north of Santa Catalina, generating winds between 213 km/h and 250 km/h, and waves of more than 5 m, with hurricane-force winds persisting for approximately 7 h (Stewart 2021). Inhabitants from the northern coast of Providencia noted that mangroves helped maintain water levels, reduced flooding, and acted as traps for debris and vessels that were dragged by the wind and waves, services that have been recognized in the literature (Zhang et al. 2012; Spalding et al. 2014). It is important to note that observations correspond to mangroves north of Providencia, where mangrove forests (Rhizophora mangle) between 10 and 50 m wide provided considerable protection during Iota (Fig. 1). After the hurricane, total defoliation and mass mortality of these mangroves were observed, with no leaf recovery observed even six months after the hurricane, this presents a need for immediate and effective restoration actions in order to recover mangroves and their ES for Providencia and its people (Fig. 1).

A photo of a coastline featuring Rhizophora mangle trees along the shore. Houses and buildings are situated on the coastline, alongside a small hill covered in trees.

In 2020, Prato et al. (2020) conducted field measurements at three locations in San Andrés, and found that just one single mangrove tree reduced wind speed by 59% in the case of Rhizophora mangle roots and up to 88.9% for R. mangle and Conocarpus erectus canopies, producing an average wind speed reduction of up to 70%. These results suggest that mangroves can reduce wind speeds and maintain non-damaging conditions even under category 2 hurricane winds. Because mangroves are a key natural defense system, protecting coastlines, coastal infrastructure, and human lives from storm damage, their protection and restoration in the archipelago are essential to regain this vital ES in the face of extreme cyclonic events that are expected to increase in frequency and magnitude (IPCC 2021).

Despite progress in recent decades regarding the knowledge and management of the resources provided by mangroves—developing research projects, and strengthening knowledge networks and social appreciation—there is clearly still a long way to go to incorporate mangrove ES into socioeconomic development in the SBR. It is recommended that response and restoration management plans be designed for the archipelago’s mangroves. To ensure that the value of the ES provided by mangroves is broadly appreciated, these plans should be developed with input from diverse groups of stakeholders, including members of the community, academia, and local and national governments. The first step is to identify priority areas for intervention and restoration, based on vulnerability to damage and the importance of coastal protection and other ES. Care must also be taken to develop strategies around best practices, considering the successes and failures of restoring mangrove ecosystems in other locations (Ellison et al. 2020). Recognizing that restoring the coastal protection service provided by mangroves will provide other key ES, such as food provision, water quality improvement, and biodiversity refuge, which contribute to the health and well-being of coastal communities (Prato and Newball 2016; Prato et al. 2020), mangrove conservation and restoration can serve as a critical component of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) to climate change (Spalding et al. 2014).

Corals are living colonial animals that secrete calcium carbonate as an exoskeleton that forms tridimensional hard structures with a variety of sizes and shapes. Aggregations of corals form reefs that diminish wave energy and, like mangroves, protect coastlines from erosion and storm damage (Mumby et al. 2014). Specifically, wave attenuation and energy dissipation by coral reefs occur due to different processes such as wave reflection, refraction, and bottom friction, which cause wave breaking by shoaling (Monismith 2007). The steep-sloped structures of reefs provide rapid changes in water depth and reef bathymetry, leading to wave breaking by shoaling from the fore reef to the reef crest (Fig. 2), where most of the wave energy, up to 95%, is dissipated (Lowe et al. 2005; Quataert et al. 2015). This dissipation is increased by bottom friction, which is positively associated with the tridimensional structural complexity of reefs (Franklin et al. 2013; Monismith et al. 2015; Rogers et al. 2016). Because healthier reefs are more complex, tridimensional, and higher in terms of distance from the bottom, they provide more coastal protection ES than degraded reefs, which tend to be flatter and less complex (Mumby et al. 2014).

A photo of a sea with waves breaking on the reef.

The annual economic benefits of coral reefs in terms of avoiding damage from flooding, erosion, or storms have been estimated at between USD 0.8 to USD 1.3 million for Tobago (Burke et al. 2008), USD 120 to USD 180 million for Belize (Cooper et al. 2009), and USD 700 to USD 2,200 million for the Caribbean (Burke and Maidens 2005). Reguero et al. (2021) found that benefits from coral reefs for US coastal protection exceed USD 1.8 billion annually, where many highly developed coastlines in Florida and Hawaii receive annual benefits of over USD 10 million km^–1. In addition to coastal protection ES, coral reefs provide many other important contributions to economic activity and human well-being such as biodiversity, food provision, and revenues and jobs associated with tourism (Costanza et al. 1997).

These valuable contributions to economic activity and well-being are at risk due to coral reef degradation (Burke et al. 2011). Globally, coral reefs have been affected by anthropogenic threats including warmer sea temperatures, ocean acidification, pollution, eutrophication, overfishing, and the growth of high-impact mass tourism in coastal zones (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). Additionally, marine litter, mainly plastic pollution, has become a global problem in recent decades, increasing the risk of disease in corals (Lamb et al. 2018). Marine litter also impacts other marine fauna, including reef fish, through ingestion (Kroon et al. 2018). Massive bleaching events, diseases, and mortalities have severely impacted many Caribbean reefs (Cramer et al. 2020). Coral reef degradation has been widely reported in the region (Burke et al. 2011), with coral cover losses of approximately 80%, resulting in considerable ES losses (Gardner et al. 2003).

The multiple impacts on coral reefs and their associated organisms can cause the loss of coral cover and further translate into the degradation of reef ecosystems and the decline of structural complexity, a phenomenon that has been observed throughout the Caribbean in recent decades (Alvarez-Filip et al. 2009). Coral cover losses that alter reef complexity and roughness jeopardize natural processes, resulting in ‘reef flattening’, whereby reef-building species are replaced by flat-growing weedy species (Alvarez-Filip et al. 2009; Mumby et al. 2014). As reef health, cover, and structural complexity degrade, associated ES and ecological functions are affected, threatening the well-being of coastal communities, and increasing their exposure, vulnerability, and risk of harm from erosion, inundation, and other natural hazards (Sheppard et al. 2005; Ferrario et al. 2014; Reguero et al. 2018).

Despite the ecological and economic relevance of the reef ecosystems and their associated fish assemblages, coral reefs in the SBR face the same array of threats. Indeed, the decrease in structural complexity found throughout the Caribbean has also been observed for some sites with the most extensive coral cover and colony size in the SBR: the Serrana and Roncador Banks (Sánchez et al. 2019). These losses jeopardize critical ES.

In the SBR, reefs are known to provide significant wave attenuation (Ortiz-Royero et al. 2015). The archipelago and SBR are known for having the third biggest barrier reef complex in the world after Australia and the Mesoamerican barrier reef complex (Coralina-Invemar 2012). With an extension of 142,005 ha, it represents 77% of Colombia’s coral reefs. San Andrés has 6,340 ha and Providencia has 18,144 ha of coral reefs; these two islands, along with the other seven islands of the archipelago, have a barrier reef located at the East side of each with longitudes between 55 and 12 km (Prato and Newball 2016). We have recorded wave height attenuation of up to 90% due to the coral barrier reef at San Andrés, with a reduction of waves up to 4.5 m height (Hs) at the fore reef to 0.5 m in the reef lagoon thanks to the coastal protection of the barrier reef to the East of the island (Prato et al. 2020). These results suggest the need to increase investment in restoring and maintaining healthy reefs around the islands, especially on the barrier reef areas to the East of the islands for coastal protection, and to also put efforts into strengthening the health of the West side’s coral reef areas to improve as much as possible the bottom friction provided by corals as a protection strategy to reduce waves, since that side of the islands is unprotected by a barrier reef formation. This coastal protection service is vital for human safety and well-being, especially with the expectation of more extreme events such as hurricanes in the SBR in the future (IPCC 2014, 2021).

Ecosystems should be included in the definition of exposure and vulnerability as essential for climate risk management (Walz et al. 2021). It is also necessary to make ES an integral component at the heart of risk management and development strategies. There is an intrinsic link between ecosystems and risk management. Ecosystems themselves can offer sustainable solutions for reducing the severity of disaster impacts, while adapting to and coping with extreme events. Mitigating the economic losses that will occur as coastal protection ES decrease as a consequence of reef degradation, and protecting or enhancing the economic value created by other ES benefits from healthy coral reefs must be considered by decision-makers when creating nature-based management plans for climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the SBR. Because healthy reefs provide significant coastal resilience and numerous other valuable ES, spending on coral reef management and restoration should be considered a wise investment strategy (Ortiz-Royero et al. 2015; Reguero et al. 2018).

The waters and reefs of the SBR provide habitat for 731 fish species (Vides et al. 2016) and its mangroves provide habitat for at least 100 species of resident or migrant birds, 10 reptiles, and more than 60 fish, either adults or juveniles (Riascos 1999; López et al. 2009). Some of these species, and the ecosystems that support them, provide the ES of food provision, which is essential for human health, well-being, and food security. Functioning in close connection with seagrasses and deep and open ocean ecosystems, mangroves and coral reefs provide habitat for numerous species of fishes and shellfish (mainly Queen Conch Aliger gigas, spiny lobster Panulirus argus, black crab Gecarcinus ruricola and weelks Cittarium pica) which are the principal local protein source for food security of the Raizal people and islanders in the SBR. In addition to supporting human life and health, marine resources such as fish and invertebrates also provide protein for other species across the trophic web (Swartz et al. 2010). Protecting the ability of SBR ecosystems to sustainably provide these valuable sources of food and trophic support is an essential priority.

According to the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS 2015), the SBR terrestrial area (nearly 5,000 ha) includes around 3,000 ha (about 60%) of natural and semi-natural areas. This includes 491 ha of highly valuable terrestrial dry forests, which may be the most endangered terrestrial ecosystem in Colombia and the Caribbean, still covering 22.5% of Providencia and Santa Catalina (P&SC), and 210 ha of mangroves, 60 ha in P&SC and 150 ha in San Andrés (Prato and Newball 2016). Despite severe damage by Hurricane Iota, these dry forests and other terrestrial cover are mostly recovering, except for P&SC mangroves whose condition is extremely poor and will require major restoration efforts to recover. San Andrés, though deeply transformed by urban expansion, maintains good coverage as most forests have been replaced sustainably with fruit tree ground yards in a traditional land use form. P&SC also has many yards but with significant extensions of pastures for cattle farming. Urban expansion has also transformed coastal lands in P&SC, with some parts recovering since the start of agricultural decline many years ago. On balance, the terrestrial ecosystem status is satisfactory but careful management is needed to preserve valuable forests, recover mangroves, maintain fruit tree yards, and maintain and recover natural landscapes.

Marine ecosystems include the most extensive coral reef areas in Colombia. Reef complexes include barrier reefs, atolls, seagrasses, sandy and muddy bottoms, rocky and sandy shores, mangroves, and pelagic systems, in an extremely diverse and beautiful mix. SBR coral reefs in Serranilla, studied by the Global Reef Expedition, have the second highest mean coral cover (13 ± 7%) among the sites studied in the Caribbean, and the highest fish densities are around 77 ± 19 individuals/100 m² (Carlton et al. 2021). A study of the state of Providencia and San Andrés coral formations (Navas-Camacho et al. 2019) did not find a statistically significant decrease in coral cover nor an increase in algal coverage since 1998, meaning that the current situation appears stable, and it also reported that bleaching affected no more than 3% of coral cover. Nevertheless, Zea et al. (1998) reported losses of up to 90% of coral cover for San Andrés from the 1970s to 1995. Invading lionfish populations are around 0.8 ± 1.3 ind/250 m² (32 ind/ha) on average, with maximum density values reaching the maximum values for the Colombian and western Caribbean areas (Chasqui et al. 2020).

These results could be considered favorable but reveal something that must be considered in relation to the SBR: the need for a historical perspective and the effect of the shifting baseline syndrome that makes people believe that current lower thresholds for environmental conditions have always been the same. In general, this applies to mangroves, coral reefs, seagrasses, and particular fish, shellfish, and turtle species among others. Most monitoring studies in the archipelago began in the late 1990s, after major changes of up to a 50% decrease in living coral, and increased algal coverage due to different drivers of degradation, mainly of wide distribution, like coral and sea urchin diseases, Caribbean Sea pollution, coastal development and sedimentation, destructive overfishing and even global warming causing bleaching (Díaz et al. 1995 in Díaz et al. 2000; Garzón-Ferreira and Kielman 1995; Gil-Agudelo et al. 2009; Rodríguez-Ramírez et al. 2010; Navas-Camacho et al. 2019). Larger changes to Caribbean coral reefs probably began with extensive turtle hunting since the eighteenth century (Jackson et al. 2001) but only became evident in the 1970s with increased reef research. Hence, there is a lack of historical information upon which to interpret present conditions in the SBR.

It must be said that, in Colombia, there has been an early involvement with deterioration. The first reports are from Prahl (1983) for Pacific reefs. Díaz et al. (1995) reported recent mortality of about 50% in San Andrés, and Garzón-Ferreira and Kielman (1995) mentioned that live coral cover in the Colombian Caribbean declined to around 20–30% of the hard substrate, mainly in the 10 years before their report, that is from around 1984, concluding: “Evidence suggests that coral mortality has had its origin principally from agents of wide distribution (i.e., bleaching events and pathogenic diseases like BBD Black band disease and WBD White band disease) as a part of a generalized reef deterioration process in the wider Caribbean”. Diseases have also been studied (Gil-Agudelo et al. 2009) and monitoring continues (Rodríguez-Ramírez et al. 2010; Navas-Camacho et al. 2019). Current researchers must keep in mind this historical perspective, as changes since 1998, when monitoring began, have been rather light, meaning their baseline mainly began with high algal and low living coral coverages, the latter at least half that in 1980, masking the real dimension of deterioration, similar to other Caribbean areas (Gardner et al. 2003; Alvarez-Philip et al. 2009).

Another significant issue relates to seagrasses and turtles. The sharp decline in turtle populations, due to hunting since the eighteenth century, affects seagrass beds due to lack of grazing. Reduced primary production from seagrasses affects their natural capacity for run-off retention and transformation of excess nutrients into biomass (Nellemann et al. 2009). Moreover, sea diseases affecting reef complexes seem to be related as excess organic materials favor microbial outbreaks (Jackson et al. 2001). This suggests that actions to recover turtles and seagrasses will have positive spillover effects on reef health (Guzmán-Hernández et al. 2022). In line with the benefits of an EBFMA, this means that an integrative approach to coral reef recovery is needed. As Jackson et al. (2001) note: “The central point for successful restoration is that loss of economically important fisheries, degradation of habitat attractive to landowners and tourists, and emergence of noxious, toxic, and life-threatening microbial diseases are all part of the same standard sequence of ecosystem deterioration that has deep historical roots. Responding only to current events on a case-by-case basis cannot solve these problems”. So, to face coral reef deterioration, the restoration of some coral species, even if very important and useful, does not guarantee coral reef restoration. As with fisheries, it is necessary to restore the health of the entire system by restoring key species and key ecological functions as a strategy to increase resistance to diseases and pollution, and resilience to climate change.

In the SBR, actions must involve local people in the management process by fostering and taking advantage of local community knowledge and awareness of natural resources. The creation of a special fund dedicated to providing financial resources to implement solutions and support actions such as coral restoration, banning industrial fishing, controlling illegal fishing and overfishing, reducing pollution and run-off from land, restoring dry forests, agricultural lands and mangroves, and recovering turtle populations to restore seagrass beds and reduce diseases of corals is also important (Jackson et al. 2001). Seaflower’s BR status should be leveraged to secure the resources required to sustainably manage its ecosystems, allowing the SBR to become a model of sustainability and recognizing nature as a basis for well-being, biodiversity conservation, and social, cultural, and economic prosperity.

Coral reefs and mangrove forests represent typical coastal ecosystems in tropical areas of the planet, as is the case of the archipelago. Part of the study of these ecosystems consists of spatial analyses related to their location, extension, composition, and structure, not only to establish spatiotemporal changes but also to quantify these resources and their connections to ES like coastal protection, biodiversity, and fisheries production (Nagelkerken et al. 2015). Spatial analyses, ecosystem mapping, and ES can also be an important communication tool to raise awareness of human dependence on marine ecosystems, to identify priority areas for conservation, and to identify risks, opportunities, and strengths for planning, designing, and implementing climate change EbA and NbS (Burkhard and Maes 2017) (see Fig. 3).

3 maps. The world map on the top left highlights the Caribbean Sea. A satellite map highlights San Andres Island on the left. Right. San Andres Island has stripes of coral on the west coastline, an urban area in the central north, a reef barrier on the east coastline, and mangroves in the center.

Because the waters in which many of the coral reefs are found are clear and shallow, they can currently be mapped using remote sensing or recent technologies for coastal and marine mapping that require indirect sampling (i.e., satellite data, lidar, multibeam sound, etc.) (Li et al. 2011; Pittman et al. 2009). Free public-use mapping applications such as Google Earth Engine, SPOT, Copernicus Sentinel, and Landsat imagery can be useful for large scales, but their spatial resolution limits their use on small reefs (Mumby et al. 1997). These satellite images have been used since the early 1970s, with resolutions of 10–30 m, but have limitations because infrared radiation does not penetrate the waters and cloud cover is very high in regions like the tropics (Nagendra and Rocchini 2008) (see Fig. 4). With improved spatial resolution in satellite sensors, the utility of these images has greatly improved, and there are already several initiatives to map the world’s coral reefs at finer spatial scales, like the Allen Coral Atlas (Allen Coral Atlas 2022).

2 maps and 5 satellite images. The maps highlight the location of San Andres Island. A to D are satellite images and drone images of reef barriers.

The use of Unoccupied Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones to map coastal ecosystems provides a novel opportunity that overcomes many other remote sensing limitations, including higher resolution that enables the differentiation of mangrove tree species, identify coral zones, and register even small-scale temporary changes in these ecosystems. Here we present a practical example of drone mapping exercises carried out in 2020 to accomplish research on ES from barrier reefs at San Andrés (Prato 2018). A comparison is made with a 3 m resolution planetscope satellite image provided by Planet (https://​www.​planet.​com/​products/​planet-imagery/​) for research purposes. Despite being a very high-resolution satellite image, there are marked differences in the detail and information that can be generated with respect to drone results. Through the use of this orthophotomosaic (Fig. 4e) it is possible to identify, quantify, and geo-localize coral species and other benthic cover categories following the methodologies described in Castellanos-Galindo et al. (2019) and Komarkova and Jech (2020). These mapping tools offer a novel, reliable, and fast resource to characterize and monitor these ecosystems, inform management decision-making, and design climate change EbA and NbS.

Disasters affect all three dimensions of sustainable development: society, economy, and the environment (Walz et al. 2021). In the environmental dimension, extreme events are causing massive impacts on marine ecosystems, which means ES losses and increased climate risk. Because coastal and marine ecosystems and their services are needed for society’s functioning and human survival, they play a central role in disaster risk reduction (DRR). The Sendai framework urges preserving ecosystems and reducing environmental losses and calls for transboundary cooperation on EbA to reduce disaster risk. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2022) highlighted five main reasons why ecosystems are central to DRR: (1) Human well-being depends on ecosystems that provide multiple livelihood benefits; (2) Healthy ecosystems provide cost-effective natural buffers against natural events and climate change impacts; (3) Ecosystem degradation reduces the ability of natural ecosystems to sequester carbon, and unhealthy ecosystems are less resilient to extreme weather events; (4) Ecosystems reduce the impact of climate-related disasters and contribute to more sustainable post-disaster recovery; (5) Human conflicts cause environmental degradation. Therefore, environmental management is essential to decrease the risk of conflict.

As highlighted above, the main task is to restore and maintain healthy marine ecosystems and to incorporate ecosystems into DRR policy, legislation, and planning. However, this task has proven difficult, possibly due to the need to integrate information and action across different economic sectors and disciplinary boundaries. Achieving ecosystem-based DRR is therefore dependent on a high degree of cross-sectorial cooperation and decentralization. In the SBR, CORALINA and the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, with the support of other institutions, made an institutional effort to start including marine ecosystems as subjects of DRR policy by generating marine ecosystem restoration protocols after hurricanes (mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrasses), in order to mitigate the impacts and risk for that natural capital of the islands (Velázquez-Calderón et al. 2022). Because the Colombian political system is highly centralized, this presents a clear obstacle. Additionally, there is a lack of understanding and inclusion of ecosystems and ES in disaster-related impact evaluations and what this means in terms of advancing climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and sustainable development (Walz et al. 2021). ES losses remain largely neglected in the recording and monitoring of disaster losses, as ecosystems are not considered relevant, exposed, and vulnerable assets. However, ecosystems have recently gained importance as an element for defending territories from extreme events, and people are progressively aware of human dependence on them.

Currently, San Andrés and Providencia are in the process of replanting corals and restoring mangroves. For example, currently, the goal is to restore 200 ha of coral reefs by December 2022. During this process, 320 conservation agreements were signed with Raizal families (70 in San Andrés and 250 in Providencia) to restore, recover, and rehabilitate marine and terrestrial ecosystems, including mangroves (MADS 2021).

Overall, there are three main dimensions of disaster risk analysis: hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Most archipelago marine ecosystems are exposed to hurricane impacts and climate changes. Shallow sites or sites with little change due to tides in the paths of cyclones are highly exposed (Salazar-Vallejo 2002). Mangroves and coral reefs mitigate hazards and human exposure mainly through buffering hazards and reducing overall hazard intensity. The main ES that mitigate hazards belongs to the group of regulating services (Walz et al. 2021). For instance, ES such as the sequestration and storage of carbon removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to regulate climate change. The service of moderation or attenuation of hurricanes (coastal protection) contributes to mitigating hazard severity by protecting coastlines from storm surges, waves, high-speed winds, and flooding. The regulation of floodwater and reduction of wind speed service prevents coastal erosion, reducing water flow velocity and thus acting as a filter for wastewater treatment. These regulating functions are hampered when disastrous events impact ecosystems. Ecosystems also have double exposure, which means that vulnerability is augmented by having to deal simultaneously with problems from the impacts of climate change and human pollution. The exposure of ecosystems to hazards can be somewhat balanced with measures to mitigate vulnerabilities, such as investments in early warning and preparedness, addressing human contamination and pollution, and the implementation of restoration programs. Part of the marine ecosystem restoration after hurricanes protocols provided for the archipelago (Velázquez-Calderón et al. 2022), provides a special chapter available online with vulnerability maps for marine ecosystems (coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses) at San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina, with some general thoughts that could be applied to other islands at the Caribbean (Prato et al. 2022).

The other dimension of disaster risk is vulnerability. ES can reduce people’s vulnerability, but this depends on the ecosystem’s health and conservation status. Ecosystem vulnerability analysis aims to identify and prioritize areas according to the level of vulnerability and includes the study of spatial exposure, temporary exposure, the intrinsic response capacity of the ecosystem, and the analysis of external interventions that can increase vulnerability. There are no integral ecosystem vulnerability studies in the archipelago regarding hurricanes. However, various studies shed light on this matter. In 2017, the Third Communication on Climate Change indicated that the archipelago was the department (Colombian administrative region) at greatest risk from climate change in Colombia, due to its high vulnerability levels, including factors like biodiversity, ecosystem provision service, land use, and threatened species (Ideam et al. 2017). A 2017 study by INVEMAR regarding coastal and marine vulnerability to climate change in the archipelago found, from 2014 and 2015 data, that 67% of coral reefs are in “regular” condition, 38% are in “good” condition, and 5% are in “alert” (INVEMAR 2017). Regarding the biotic integrity indicator evaluation, results show that from 100% of the coral areas of the Colombian Caribbean, 84% are in a “regular” state of conservation, and 16% of the coral reefs are in “alert”. The results of the health status indicator and its potential for restoration in seagrasses showed a high level of sensitivity due to a very low state of conservation, and mangrove ecosystems showed a low to medium level of sensitivity. The study also analyzed the adaptive capacity of ecosystems by evaluating institutional capacity for ecosystem management. The results showed that coral reefs and seagrasses have high and very high levels, while mangroves have a medium level of adaptation. Improved long-term monitoring and restoration programs with increased cover (on different areas with permanent observation stations) that better represent ecosystem variability with a focus on some special interest areas (such as coral barrier reefs), which also include the nine islands of the archipelago, are needed to better manage and protect SBR ecosystem integrity and human well-being. Sufficient investment, encouraged by the economic benefits provided by ES (Prato and Newball 2016), is necessary for integral management strategies, that must include at least illegal fishing control, restoration efforts, reduction of main causes of ecosystem degradation, long-term monitoring programs, and economic valuation assessments for a better accounting of SBR ES benefits.

As previously stated, vulnerability levels depend on ecosystem health and, in turn, on the implementation of sustainable human activities. A recent study by CORALINA and UNAL (2021) found that the archipelago has high levels of social vulnerability. Twelve indicators were analyzed, and the results showed that 70% of San Andrés have a high level of social vulnerability and 29% medium level vulnerability. On the other hand, Providencia and Santa Catalina have 62% medium and 32% high levels of vulnerability. For the three islands, the lack of access to public services (aqueduct and sewage), the low perception of risk associated with the low pro-environmental perception, and low economic capacity were particularly relevant in the high levels of vulnerability. For instance, waste waters in the islands are discharged into the environment without prior treatment, inevitably causing contamination of coastal zones and ecosystem degradation. For this reason, effective wastewater treatment is essential to reduce not only human vulnerability but also that of ecosystems. Conservation actions and working for and with nature to mitigate and adapt to climate change, are some of our strongest allies.

This chapter clearly illustrates that the natural resources within the SBR, such as coral reefs, beaches, mangroves, seagrass beds, and marine fish stocks support numerous economic activities and provide valuable contributions to human well-being. In addition to providing provisioning services such as food and water, coastal and marine resources in the SBR attract tourists, protect coastal assets from erosion, storm damage, and the harmful effects of climate change, support local livelihoods through provisioning services of fish and materials, and provide opportunities for recreation, energy creation, and carbon storage. Human activities at the local, regional, and global scales can impair the structure and function of these ecosystems, limiting their ability to deliver goods and services. To achieve the highest value from these ecosystems over time, in light of the continuing threat from climate change, these tradeoffs must be understood and managed.

Unfortunately, this is a complicated endeavor. Alternative uses of natural resources create a variety of impacts that are most often not in common units, making comparisons difficult (Schuhmann 2012). Further, many of the benefits of ecosystem conservation and the costs of degradation occur over long periods and are not revealed in easily understood metrics. Conversely, the monetary costs of conservation and the benefits of economic activities that degrade ecosystems are more likely to occur in the short term and are easily observed and understood. As a result, policymakers and the public will naturally prioritize short-term market-based outcomes such as jobs and revenues at the expense of long-term ecosystem health and function. As noted by Schuhmann (2020), the benefits provided by many ES are shared by society and cannot be sold to buyers in a way that earns a profit. As a result, there are few economic incentives for consumers and producers to engage in activities that promote healthy ecosystem function or curtail ecosystem damage.

The result of these misaligned incentives is a persistent inefficiency: valuable ecosystem goods and services are under-provided at the expense of market-based sources of well-being (Schuhmann 2020). As this chapter has documented, there is ample evidence supporting this claim for the ecosystem goods and services contained within the SBR. For example, Gavio et al. (2010) show heightened levels of biologically available nitrogen and phosphorus and pathogenic bacteria in the coastal waters of San Andrés. Sánchez et al. (2019) document significant losses in coral cover and bottom complexity (rugosity) at the Roncador and Serrana Banks. Acero et al. (2019) document notable marine fish diversity in the waters of the Roncador, Serrana, and Serranilla islands, but note a consistent absence of several commercially valuable species such as grouper and large-bodied parrotfish.

Managing the natural resource assets of the SBR in a way that allows their economic benefits and potential to support climate resilience to be fully realized requires two important steps. First, tradeoffs between market activity and ES must be made apparent to policymakers and the public. Non-market valuation research can be conducted to measure the economic value of the ecosystem goods and services within the SBR so that the costs of ecosystem loss and the benefits of environmental stewardship are clearly understood. Second, policymakers should develop and implement interventions to deliver these non-market forms of economic value and well-being. These interventions might include government provision of ES (e.g., establishing protected areas, investing in ecosystem restoration, managing sewage discharge), and creating incentives to motivate individuals to promote sustainable uses of natural resources and/or limit damage (e.g., “greening” fiscal policy by shifting taxation toward activities, goods, and services that create environmental and social costs).

Regarding the first of these steps, a deep body of research uses market and non-market valuation techniques to estimate the economic value of coastal and marine resource ES (see Schuhmann and Mahon 2015 and Heck et al. 2019 for reviews of these studies in the Caribbean), including some studies within the SBR (Castaño-Isaza et al. 2015; Wilson 2001). Two branches of this work that are especially relevant for the SBR pertain to the value of reefs, mangroves, and beaches in terms of contributions to tourism (Beharry-Borg and Scarpa 2010; Schuhmann and Mahon 2015; Burke et al. 2008; van Beukering et al. 2009), and the economic value of these same ecosystems for coastal protection (Kushner et al. 2011; van Zanten et al. 2014; Cooper et al. 2009; Milon and Scrogin 2006).

Results from this literature suggest that coastal and marine ecosystems are significant sources of economic value and that their continued degradation will result in economic losses associated with declines in visits and spending, and heightened risks to coastal real estate and infrastructure. Results also suggest unrealized opportunities for conservation funding via entry fees to Marine Protected Areas, visitor entry/exit fees, price premiums for marine recreation, and donations. These results are well known. What is perhaps less apparent is the underlying complementarity between these two commonly studied sources of value. That is, the characteristics that are most valued by tourists (wide beaches, healthy and diverse coral reefs and mangroves, and clean seawater) are precisely the same characteristics that sustain livelihoods and mitigate climate risk.

Maintaining the health and vitality of these ecosystems clearly has the potential to create “win–win” scenarios for the natural resource assets within the SBR and for the people who depend on them for their well-being. With proper management, the economic returns from tourism and fisheries can be maintained without sacrificing proper ecosystem function. However, such scenarios are unlikely to materialize under a business-as-usual approach. Without public sector interventions or collective actions to incentivize sustainable behaviors, market-based forms of well-being will continue to dominate household and business decision-making processes (Schuhmann 2020).

Economic incentives such as subsidies for sustainable behaviors, and taxes and fees for activities with the potential to damage natural resource assets, will play an important role in transitioning toward more sustainable outcomes. Policies such as user fees, entry fees, pollution taxes, and payments for ecosystem services (PES) serve to incentivize sustainable behaviors and provide revenue streams for conservation. For example, using annual data from the OECD on environmental taxes in 18 Latin American countries over the period 1994–2018, Wolde-Rufae and Mulat-Weldemeske (2022) find that environmental taxes can reduce CO₂ emissions and promote the use of renewable energy. In Belize, environmental taxes include a 1% levy paid on the arrival of vehicles and other imports, with tax revenues used to finance environmental initiatives including solid waste management, improving institutional capacity in the Department of the Environment, and environmental clean-up initiatives (Northrop et al. 2022).

In Colombia, Calderón et al. (2016) find that carbon taxes can lead to significant CO₂ reductions, but note that coupling environmental taxes with reductions in other taxes may be necessary to offset negative economic impacts. In terms of user fees, the Bonaire National Marine Park (BNMP) is one of the few Caribbean MPAs that is almost entirely financed by user fees. General tourist fees related to the environment are applied in numerous countries. These include Belize, where visitors pay an exit fee of US $56, with revenues earmarked for a conservation fund that supports the management of Belize’s 103 protected areas, and the British Virgin Islands where a US $10 entry fee is charged to visitors arriving by sea or air, with funds used for environmental protection and improvement, and to addressing climate change impacts. General tourist environmental fees are also applied in the U.S. Virgin Islands where an environmental fee of US $25 per night is paid by timeshare owners, and in Aruba, where a 9.5% environmental levy is paid by non-resident guests of hotels and other accommodations. Properly applied, non-market valuation techniques can help design such policies by quantifying economic returns in monetary units. For example, estimates of tourists’ willingness to pay (WTP) for changes in the quantity or quality of ecosystem goods and services within the SBR can be compared to conservation costs so that appropriate user fee systems can be designed. Estimates of the monetary costs of damage to ecosystem goods and services can be used to design policies that tax harmful behaviors.

Communicating the purpose and benefits of any new taxes or fees will be an essential component of such programs. Communicating the economic value of natural resource assets within the SBR will play an important role in this regard, including the main trends in the variety of preferences that people show and management goals for sustainability. This communication can be expressed in terms of the benefits that will be gained through enhanced conservation or the costs and losses that will be incurred following a business-as-usual approach. Findings from the non-market valuation literature suggest that WTP for losses in ecosystem goods and services often exceeds WTP for similar gains, hence the latter of these two communication strategies is likely to be more effective. It is also critical to recognize that the costs and benefits of monetary incentives will vary across stakeholder groups. As such, outreach and communication efforts should be clear in terms of distributional consequences both across stakeholders and over time. Concessions for stakeholders that are disproportionately affected may be required to mitigate opposition.

In summary, facing continuing threats from climate change and local and regional stressors, improved management of SBR natural resource assets is required to maintain the flow of economic benefits and contributions to human well-being. Measuring the non-market benefits of ecosystem goods and services, the economic costs of resource degradation through non-market valuation research, and the incorporation of those values into fiscal policy and public discourse will play a critical role in the sustainable management of the SBR. While some valuation research has been conducted in the SBR, much of this work was conducted more than two decades ago. Londoño-Díaz and Vargas-Morales (2015) review these earlier studies and note that non-market valuation studies in the SBR have tended to focus more on an informational and technical perspective than a policy-decisive one, but that valuation studies have been used to support the establishment of a MPA scheme in San Andrés, opportunities for PES, and the design of entrance fees to the Johnny Cay Regional Park. Since that time, the resources contained within the SBR have continued to degrade and the threats to economic well-being have become more apparent. Future research should be directed at understanding the economic value of the ecosystem goods and services within the SBR so that appropriate policies can be designed and/or updated to promote improved sustainability.

Food security, coastal protection, prosperous economies, and our own well-being depend on coastal and marine ES. Respect for other living beings and biodiversity, as well as real actions for better management and investment in healthy ecosystems are key for Seaflower and its people. Climate change and hurricanes have simultaneously created significant challenges and provided important lessons regarding the interdependence between healthy ecosystems and human well-being. It is apparent that a business-as-usual approach will result in continued degradation and heightened climate risk. Real actions directed at EbA and Ecosystem-Based Living (EBL) are essential to preserve our well-being. As one sign of the National Natural Parks of Colombia states, using a Native American saying: “We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” We must work together in interdisciplinary teams with communities, government, academia, and businesses on this EBL and climate change EbA.

My name is Arnold Hudson, I’m so proud of myself to participate in the Expedición Seaflower 2021 on that expirience wos amazing worcking wthit difrent people difrent culture, my experience of doing stodies I ricognize that we can help the future and the ecosystem around the island so our kids Will fine corals and fish.

Arnold Hudson, February 2022.