Based on UNESCO’s biosphere reserve concept and on the paper originally proposing an archipelago biosphere reserve, this chapter supports going deeper into implementing the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve as a social, economic, and environmental sustainability model. To this, it proposes some actions, from reconsidering its regulatory status to its integration with national development plans, including payment schemes for ecosystem services (PES), as Seaflower ecosystems provide society with many goods and services, estimated to be huge, but not reflected in their management and financing. Seaflower’s meaning has not been properly understood and is not taking advantage of this status. The current situation is worrying and unsustainable; it threatens the natural, historical, social, and cultural heritage of the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina, stressed by a questionable mass tourism development model and worsened, mainly in Providencia, by hurricanes Eta and Iota and because of climate change whose impact, mainly in coral reefs, could be extreme. Some of the ideas developed in this chapter were proposed by the author with the name Seaflower Initiative; now, could be integrated with Gran Seaflower Initiative, a recent proposal for the creation of a transboundary biosphere reserve in the western Caribbean.
1 Introduction
The biosphere reserve concept was proposed by UNESCO in the early 1970s as a model for both conservation and development; it has been the subject of various interpretations and some misrepresentations (Ishwaran et al. 2008). Originally a proposal for relevant examples of the world’s natural areas management and research in harmonious coexistence with society, it was elevated to a sustainable development model or limited to an honorary category, among other cases. This chapter discusses this conceptual landscape and proposes a return to the original concept as a basis for reconsidering and resizing Seaflower in the future to attain sustainability goals. This is convenient because, in Colombia, an interpretation of biosphere reserves as simple international honorary categories of conservation (Colombia 2015) has prevailed, to the detriment of their use as a model for the study and search for sustainability in accordance with the original proposal for a biosphere reserve of the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina (hereafter, the archipelago). This was understood by the local community, which saw in it an alternative model at a time of crisis due to economic openness.
Even so, the archipelago entered the labyrinth of tourism monoculture (Márquez and Márquez 2016), collapsed with the pandemic, and is now hardly recovering with the same social, economic, and environmental risks implicit in that kind of tourism. In all cases, the Seaflower idea had demonstrated a significant capacity to influence the islands, and remains strong, not even with the weak support by the Colombian state, which only now seems to be trying to understand its relevance, as Nicaragua recently did, in the context of the territorial conflict between these countries. In these conditions, Seaflower is nowadays playing a more political role. This reinforces the possibility of making it the desirable model for the islands, based on the role of islands, their people, and their ecosystems as providers of ecological goods and services: fishing, biodiversity, and tourism attraction, among many others (Fig. 2; relating to Seaflower see Prato and Newball 2015). In this sense, the role of coral reefs in climate change processes is relevant, both in their role as accumulators of enormous amounts of calcium carbonate (Frankignoulle and Gattuso 1993, in Kault et al. 2022), contributing to reducing the greenhouse effect, and for the risk they face given their extreme fragility to temperature rises (Kault et al. 2022).
Anzeige
Proper management of the archipelago’s ecological complex, mainly reefs, after the destructive impact of Hurricane Iota, would make a significant contribution to climate change mitigation, providing the world with a significant environmental service that should be compensated. Payments for Environmental Services (PES) offer a possibility to be considered to finance the proper management of the Seaflower and as an economic option for the archipelago. PES, as well as the creation of a fund, are reviewed as opportunities for Seaflower and its people, maintaining and recovering a very important socioecological heritage for local and global well-being. The educational process that must accompany Seaflower management will also help recover and re-evaluate ancestral cultural practices significant to maintaining the environmental balance that can still be found on the islands. In conclusion, it is proposed to adopt a more rigorous conceptual perspective and to try to implement it and relaunch Seaflower, so that it can fulfill its purpose of contributing to the sustainability and well-being of the archipelago, its people, and its culture. Rebuilding after Hurricane Iota should not mean a return to the previous unsustainable situation and represents an opportunity to make Seaflower what it could be.
2 The Biosphere Reserve Concept
Biosphere Reserves (BR) are areas of natural importance inhabited by significant human populations, which UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) designates as such to ensure their conservation in harmony with the cultural, social, and economic development of those populations, as well as investigating how to achieve it (Márquez 1992). Biosphere reserves are “learning places for sustainable development” (UNESCO 2022). Batisse (1986) proposed focusing the BR concept on three complementary aspects and their confluent functions, according to the following scheme (Fig. 1).
A hierarchical diagram explaining the components of biosphere reserves outlines three key aspects, development in harmony with the environment, conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, and logistics international network coordination.
Fig. 1
Outline of the concept of biosphere reserves. Elaborated by the author based on Batisse (1986), in Márquez (1992)
×
Thus, according to UNESCO (2022), BRs must fulfill the functions of:
Conservation of biodiversity and cultural diversity,
Economic development that is socio-culturally and environmentally sustainable,
Logistical support, underpinning development through research, monitoring, education, and training.
Different BRs emphasize, according to their characteristics, some of these aspects. Developed countries have placed more emphasis on ecosystem conservation and logistics functions; but from the perspective of developing countries, where economic circumstances push towards excessive use of resources, the emphasis has been placed on the need to harmonize culture, conservation, and development (Halffter 1984). BR designations must be the result of voluntary agreements between countries and the residents of the area, who undertake giving it special management; UNESCO contributes with its experience and with the support of an international research and monitoring network.
Anzeige
The Biosphere Reserves program was launched by UNESCO in the early 1970s, with the initial purpose of protecting representative samples of the main types of ecosystems of the Planet’s natural regions (Batisse 1986). It is based on Vernadsky’s biosphere concept, perhaps the first integral vision of the Earth as a structural and functional unit where humanity is an integral part. Therefore, one BR characteristic was to include society, and their productive activities, as integral parts, contrasting with the idea of natural national parks that, at least at that time, were almost by definition areas dedicated only to conservation, whereas as far as possible there should be no human inhabitants.
This implied another important conceptual difference: while parks are for strict conservation, BRs combine the needs for conservation with those for productive activities in harmony with the environment. Therefore, it was sought that BRs include not only significant ecosystems but, especially, real samples of the harmonious coexistence of society with its natural environments, of cultural patterns that could serve as models and examples of the coexistence of society and nature (Batisse 1986).
Another distinctive aspect of the BR concept is that it includes research and education as a main component of its objectives and management strategies. This implies recognition of the fact that it is not yet well known how it is possible to achieve sustainability. So, BRs are practical laboratories for sustainability studies. Finally, it is important to note that BRs are also symbols and models of cooperative resource use for collective well-being.
The BR concept prefigures and anticipates the concept of sustainable development, understood as one capable of turning limited resources into a permanent basis with which to achieve human well-being, based on the harmonious relations of society with nature. This anticipation of BR to the sustainable development concept, which arrived some ten years later, was inspired by the discussion around eco-development, a concept proposed in France, which would evolve into those of sustainability and sustainable development. For more on the BR concept and its evolution, see also Ishwaran et al. (2008).
2.1 Other Perspectives on Biosphere Reserves
The Biosphere Reserves program was very well received worldwide and many countries, including Colombia, rushed to achieve UNESCO BR designations for areas of interest. However, the prestige of BRs as an international honorary category prevailed at least in Colombia, and involvement with the BR model and its purposes was scarce. Indeed, being declared a BR by UNESCO and becoming part of the Global BR network gives an area a prominent connotation, as a recognition of its importance: it contributes to the visibility of the area and its natural and human heritage at the national and international levels, but it is not appropriate that, in many BRs, the commitments for special management and the harmonization of nature-society relationships are not fulfilled.
Colombian legislation brings this honorary characteristic of BRs to a legal category, identifying BRs as a kind of protected area, but ignoring their main purposes. Thus, Article 2.2.2.1.3.7. Decree 1076 of 2015 (Colombia 2015) establishes international distinctions “such as Ramsar Sites, Biosphere Reserves, AICAS and World Heritage Sites”, and indicates that “they are not categories of management of protected areas, but complementary strategies for the conservation of biological diversity”. It points out that “the authorities in charge of the designation of protected areas must prioritize these sites according to the international importance recognized with the distinction” (Colombia 2015). Despite the limited nature of this perspective, it is a fact that the international importance of BRs plays a very important role in the case of Seaflower, as discussed below.
3 Prehistory of the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve
The Seaflower BR proposal was based both on the basic concept of harmonization of nature and culture, and on the idea of making the archipelago more visible, recognizing its natural and cultural importance as well as an alternative development model for the islands, at a time of crisis (Márquez 1992). The significant work that CORALINA, the local environmental authority, carried out with UNESCO, under the leadership of its director June Marie Mow, to achieve recognition of the Seaflower BR, according to Law 99 of 1993, is well known. It was a task that took several years and significant efforts to meet all the requirements of UNESCO and to overcome the Colombian state’s poor understanding of the issue. But the history of where the idea of a BR in the archipelago came from, and how it was included in Law 99—one could say its prehistory—is less known.
The creation of an archipelago BR was originally proposed in a paper (Márquez 1992) forming part of a book (Márquez and Pérez 1992) prepared in the development of the Multinational Project on Environment and Natural Resources, sponsored by the Organization of American States (OAS), through Colciencias, and advanced in Colombia by the National and Javeriana universities. The paper, based on the BR concept, proposed a reorganization of the BR system in Colombia. This system had already declared several important sites in Colombia as BRs, such as the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Tuparro National Natural Park, but never really applied the BR concept. Colombian BRs were honorary names for sites that otherwise deserved the title but were not managed as such. The case of the Sierra Nevada is especially interesting, as it brings together, in an exemplary way, its enormous natural importance as the largest coastal mountain massif in the world, with the representation of all the main types of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine tropical ecosystems, and the wisdom of indigenous cultures coexisting in harmony with their natural environment.
The paper proposed the creation of a new BR in the archipelago, on the islands of Providencia and Santa Catalina, on the basis that these islands met very well the BR requirements, by combining an important natural heritage and a population with traditional cultural patterns of harmonious coexistence with nature. Moreover, it proposed, as reiterated in other parts of the book, that the BR could incorporate other parts of the archipelago, as was finally done. The book (Márquez and Pérez 1992) said in its introduction:
The constitution of the islands of Providencia and Santa Catalina and their adjacent coral reef platform into a world-class natural monument is fully justified by the great natural importance of the islands and the reef complexes that surround them. Such a constitution would attract worldwide attention and interest in knowing and preserving them. This document supports this possibility as a tool for Providencia’s development reorientation to sustainability, while increasing its economic potential, since the BR seeks harmonizing development and environment, but above all improving living conditions of their inhabitants. The application of the proposed scheme in broader sectors of the Archipelago is an open possibility (p. 11).
The Multinational Project allowed several more activities to promote the idea of the archipelago BR, including a workshop held in Providencia in June 1993, where both the idea and the book were presented to the community (Pérez-García and Márquez 1993); the idea was also explained to the representative of the archipelago in the House of Representatives of the National Congress, Mr. Julio Gallardo and his assessor, Mr. Arne Britton, that incorporated the BR, including all the terrestrial and marine areas of the archipelago, as Article 37 of Law 99 of 1993 (Colombia 1993), which created the national environmental system (SINA, using its Spanish initials) and the Ministry of the Environment. Thus, the project of the archipelago BR became a part of Colombian law. Other activities were then carried out to socialize the archipelago BR, including an International Workshop on Biosphere Reserves, also with the support of COLCIENCIAS, OAS-CYTED (OAS Science and Technology Iberoamerican Program), and the National University of Colombia’s Environmental Studies Institute (IDEA-UN). This workshop, which took place on the islands of San Andrés and Providencia between 27 and 30th June 1994, was attended by representatives of several Latin American and Caribbean BRs (Argentina, Peru, Suriname, Barbados, Jamaica, Costa Rica, among others), who helped to explain the idea to the island’s community.
By then, the process had already been assumed by CORALINA, which got broad community participation until the designation of the BR in the year 2000 by UNESCO (UNESCO 2022). CORALINA remained very involved with the BR concept, even after the Seaflower designation; many papers and booklets socializing the new BR are clear on that concept. Collaborating in this process was Catalina Toro, a researcher who worked with Batisse, the father of the BR concept, who at his advanced age lent vigorous support for the nomination of the archipelago BR. There was a very inspired proposal to call it Seaflower, a beautiful name that also evokes the ship on which the first English settlers arrived in Providencia in 1629.
In 2006, the original article was published again (Márquez et al. 2006), to reinforce Seaflower, but only recently has it become available online (see Márquez 1992).
4 Seaflower Advances
The Seaflower BR has already completed 20 years since its creation, leading one to ask: what could be the balance of its achievements and failures? First, it is significant that the idea and its vision keep moving, and many people see the Reserve as the way to sustainable development in the archipelago. In these years, far from disappearing, Seaflower has been gaining strength, even if it cannot be said that it has achieved its objectives. However, it is also far from failing. This is what makes this analysis pertinent, as it questions what could be done to make Seaflower more consistent with its concept. The main change introduced by Seaflower is in the vision of the archipelago, which until its designation as a BR was only that of a tourist destination whose main attractions were not its beauty or its cultural interest, but the possibility of acquiring goods at a lower price. San Andrés was, par excellence, the “sanandresito”, the Colombian name for places where products, not always legally imported, are traded. Today, San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina are recognized as a privileged destination, a tropical paradise, as is often said, especially referring to Providencia and Santa Catalina, where nature and Caribbean culture come together in a harmonious way, without deformations introduced by mass tourism or large hotels. The BR designation has contributed to this because, although many do not even know exactly what it is, it sounds good. Somewhat paradoxically, much of Seaflower’s progress so far is due to this change in mentality with respect to the archipelago, due more to prestige than to sustainability achievements. That is, it is the international distinction by UNESCO, rather than the concept of BR itself, that has played the main role.
However, it should be noted that mentality change is of great importance, since it creates the conditions for deeper actions. This is a very significant advance, since it has required years of work, such as that of CORALINA, which has led to events and the publication of numerous pedagogical and informative documents on Seaflower. Likewise, significant advances have been made in the knowledge of BRs, even if they have put some emphasis on its natural aspects, as in the Seaflower Expeditions, rather than on the social ones that should be compensated for in the future. What has not been properly understood is that BRs present a model of sustainable development that should be integrated, even being the very basis of the island’s development model. This has led to a divorce between national and local development projects or government plans, and the BR project, managed as a CORALINA project, with no clear connection to the development plans of the Governorate or departmental and municipal authorities. Hence, this chapter draws attention to the need to return to the BR concept, from which the future of Seaflower can be reconsidered.
Nowadays, Seaflower is playing another important role as one of Colombia’s arguments in the territorial dispute with Nicaragua, as presumed proof of Colombia’s involvement in the protection of the environment. This argument could help Colombia, and create conditions for a real involvement of the country in Seaflower. However, the International Court of Justice 2012 verdict divided Seaflower between Colombia and Nicaragua, so that its future administration will require collaboration, which could be an option for reducing conflictive interactions between the countries.
The Gran Seaflower Initiative, a recent proposal to create a large, multinational BR centered in Seaflower, could play a significant role in this scenario (see Sect. 5.9).
5 The Future of the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve
5.1 Rethinking Seaflower
The central idea of this section is the possible resizing of Seaflower, in line with the BR concept and its initial purposes, and some actions believed necessary to do this. Some of these actions are enunciated and briefly described here, most of which were outlined in articles developing the idea of a Seaflower Initiative (Márquez 2014a, b, 2016). It is important to state that the Seaflower Initiative is prior and different from the Gran Seaflower Initiative, an important idea that will be considered later.
The Seaflower Initiative proposal was based on the conviction that it is convenient, possible, and necessary to preserve the exceptional heritage of the archipelago, and that this is also the best and most enduring business we can do in it. Thus, it is an initiative for the protection of the BR, its beauty, and its possible future. In this sense, an initial step is a deep reflection on what is possible and desirable, and hence, to begin work on a model based on the valuation of the natural and human patrimony of the archipelago, which is, at the same time, the means and the end to achieving sustainability and common well-being. By 2030, the islands, depending on the management of environmental and social problems, maybe an increasingly precarious tourism destination, or, on the contrary, models of social, economic, and natural sustainability, and providers of scarce ecosystem goods and services which, by then, will be even more scarce and necessary. This requires many actions, some of which are outlined below.
5.2 Revision of the Seaflower BR’s Legal Status
An important step is the revision of the legal status of Colombian BRs, in order to change current legislation that reduces BRs only to international distinctions that do not imply much state commitment and lack mechanisms for effective action. The new status should make involvement with UNESCO legally binding, and link the BRs to national, regional, and local development plans. Likewise, it must incorporate the role that Seaflower is playing in the framework of Colombia’s international relations, mainly in the conflict with Nicaragua, as Seaflower is now divided between Colombia and Nicaragua and both countries should decide how to manage the situation created by the International Court of Justice verdict. Colombia also must decide, relating to this international context, what to do about the Gran Seaflower Initiative.
5.3 Sustainable Development Pilot Project
Developing the BR concept, the current Seaflower BR Management Plan must be restructured as a Sustainable Development Plan for the archipelago, to turn it into a prototype that can be replicated in other parts of the country and the world. It should be a pilot project where different sustainability strategies that have been applied around the world can be applied and tested. Examples of these sustainability strategies include:
Conservation, recovery, restoration, and research of ecosystems and biodiversity,
Cultural and nature tourism,
Sustainable artisanal fishing,
Alternative energies (solar, wind, marine),
Payment schemes for environmental and ecosystem services (PES),
Circular economy,
Zero emissions,
Carbon capture,
Good diving practices.
Such a project looks not only for the needs of the harmonious development of the BR but for that of the archipelago department, integrating and managing both as the real unit they are. In this sense, the logistical role of BRs is highly important, being laboratories in which to implement scientific, technical, social, economic, and political strategies for sustainability, which can in turn be replicated. Of course, this also deals with the conservation functions of BRs.
5.4 Socialization of Benefits
To address the need to improve livelihood conditions of local populations, the sustainability pilot project must include systematic efforts to socialize its benefits, so that it benefits everyone, not only a privileged few. This is an important and complex step that involves reorganizing the islands’ economy. Nowadays, some receive great benefits from the islands, even if they hardly repay or contribute to the protection of the natural and social bases that support their activities; that is the case with large hotel chains and airlines. Some steps are being taken towards a more equitable distribution of tourism benefits through native inns, for example, although this model does not compensate for the use and abuse of its natural and cultural bases either. It is therefore necessary to design measures to correct this imbalance, such as specific taxes on tourist activities, as considered later.
5.5 Ethnicity and Culture
The ethnic and cultural issue deserves special attention, because the original population of the archipelago constitutes an ethnic group, the Raizal People, with ethnic, cultural, and territorial rights, and a fundamental role in the sustainable development of the archipelago; this is recognized by the Political Constitution of Colombia in its Article 310 (Colombia 1991). In this regard, it is important to bear in mind what Judgment C-053 of 1999 states:
The Court admitted that the territory of the native community of the archipelago is constituted by the islands, cays and islets included within that territorial entity. The eventual withdrawal of the Raizal population in certain areas of the islands is nothing more than the symptom of the need to provide real protection to the cultural rights of the Raizales (Constitutional Court of Colombia 1999).
To protect traditions, it is also necessary to promote forms of land use and production in accordance with local customs.
5.6 Territorial Planning
In this sense, territorial planning processes are very important. The BRs have a scheme based on three categories of use: conservation, mitigation (buffer), and sustainable use, which must be integrated into the Territorial Planning Scheme (EOT using its Spanish initials), in the Basins Management Plans (POMCAs) and especially in the Management Plan for the Marine Coastal Environmental Unit of the archipelago (POMIUAC), which includes the management of the adjacent sea. Marine conservation and proper management are an integral part of a sustainable development project, since the islands depend on the sea, and mainly on the reefs, for many of their economic activities. In this sense, Seaflower’s Marine Protected Areas System and its zoning of the sea, play a fundamental role that must be fully fulfilled to achieve its purposes.
5.7 Education and Participation in Sustainability
Education is a fundamental component of a process of rethinking development, because without the active, conscious, and prepared participation of the population, there is little chance for success.
5.8 Other Possible Actions
Constitute a Land Bank for the purchase of land within the Seaflower BR, to avoid alienation and the loss of local control over territory.
Give preferential access to the Raizal population over island resources, especially fishing, which must be entirely artisanal with industrial fishing prohibited. Diplomatic and legal actions to prevent illegal fishing must be undertaken.
Regulate investment in the archipelago so that investors reinvest in the islands part of the profits obtained in or through them.
Protect and promote associative forms of real estate ownership for companies present in the archipelago (Article 58 of the Political Constitution) and prohibit the privatization of goods and services such as aqueducts, docks, and the airport.
Give administrative autonomy to the Raizal people for the management of resources, plans, programs, and projects, without dependence on the national government and under the supervision of international entities.
Two other important aspects concern payment schemes for environmental services (PES) and the creation of a Seaflower Fund for the financing of the Reserve, which are discussed below, in the context of climate change analyses.
5.9 The Gran Seaflower Initiative
As mentioned, what I called the Seaflower Initiative is prior and different from the Gran Seaflower Initiative, a more recent and widely diffused proposal. According to its promoters:
Gran Seaflower is an environmental and cultural region within the Southwest Caribbean inhabited by a diversity of people and cross-border ethnic identities. In addition, it is the most biodiverse marine-coastal place in the Western Hemisphere. Its heart is the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve recognized by UNESCO in the San Andrés archipelago… Harmony with nature in this crucial marine-coastal area can only be achieved through a regional consensus – this is the Gran Seaflower initiative. It’s about creating high-level partnerships between six Caribbean countries – Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua and Panama (Gran Seaflower Initiative 2020).
The Gran Seaflower Initiative could assume, support and realize some of the ideas and actions previously explained as the Seaflower Initiative but, until now, the two initiatives, even if coherent, remain independent.
6 Climate Change
Climate change, that is the alteration in the behavior of the planetary climate system, is a fact. As the IPCC report 5 (AR5) indicates, the human influence on the climate system is clear, especially through the emission of greenhouse gasses, leading to an “unequivocal warming of the climate system the atmosphere and oceans have warmed… and sea level has risen” (IPCC 2014, p. 2) and a situation where “Climate changes have caused an impact on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans” (p. 6). Growing evidence of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and heat waves, and of course, hurricanes such as Iota which devastated Providencia and Santa Catalina in November 2020, point to the need to act on climate change. Given this, adopting complementary adaptation measures is proposed, such as better preparation for climate extremes, as well as mitigation measures, such as emissions control, that help reduce and manage the risks associated with climate change. Projects to protect and recover the still well-preserved coral reef complexes of the archipelago are an important possibility to improve conditions for carbon sequestering and for enhancing reef health to resist climate change.
6.1 Seaflower, Coral Complexes, and Climate Change
The Seaflower BR includes the largest coral reef areas in Colombia and some of the largest in the Caribbean (Díaz et al. 2000). These reefs play a dual role in the context of climate change because they are among the ecosystems most threatened by global warming and climate change, but can also contribute significantly to its mitigation. Corals are extremely sensitive to global warming because they have evolved under stable tropical temperature conditions and their thermal tolerance ranges are narrow. Under thermal stress, they expel their symbiotic algae and lose their colors, in a phenomenon called bleaching; when bleaching is very intense and prolonged, corals can die. Several episodes of bleaching have been reported in the archipelago (Díaz et al. 2000), however, they have not, so far, been extreme and recovery has been good (Navas-Camacho et al. 2019), suggesting that Seaflower could be a climate refugia.
But in the context of climate change, increasingly extreme events and the risk of mass die-offs that could be very serious and affect reefs in different ways are expected (NOAA 2021). Indeed, if many corals die, dangerous processes would be triggered, since most reef biodiversity depends directly or indirectly on corals (Díaz et al. 2000). Mass deaths of corals and other organisms, and their subsequent decomposition, increase the demand for oxygen and thus tend to deplete it, causing more deaths, in a snowball process of deterioration. Decomposition would accelerate the processes of water acidification which are already occurring in the oceans, leading to the dissolution of the calcareous skeletons of corals and the huge calcareous structures that make up reefs (Kault et al. 2022; NOAA 2021). This would release enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which could generate a vicious spiral in which higher temperatures kill corals, generating more CO2 release, and thus causing even higher temperatures and more deaths.
From a very pessimistic perspective, it can be thought that an imbalance of this nature would lead to a total imbalance of the Earth’s climate, as coral reefs around the world die and decompose. This process can be even more serious than deforestation, as it is also more difficult to control once it is triggered. Thus, care for the extensive Seaflower reef area would play a very important role, without even considering the many other implications for local society through impacts on fishing or tourism, so important in the Caribbean and other reef areas.
Considering the other role of reefs in climate change—as carbon accumulators—in contrast with the apocalyptic perspective, if reefs are preserved they will continue accumulating carbon, contributing to reducing its concentration in the atmosphere. With a plus: terrestrial vegetation, especially tropical rainforests, once they accumulate a large amount of biomass and carbon, enter a state of equilibrium in which almost all the new carbon they remove from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, is returned to it through respiration; mature reefs behave in a similar way (Kault et al. 2022), but, on the other hand, reefs accumulate as much carbon as calcium carbonate. This can accumulate indefinitely, not only in the form of reefs but as calcareous sands and sediments that, in fact, make the ocean the largest carbon reservoir on the planet (Biologydictionary.net 2017). This reservoir is an almost tight reservoir unless climate change and ocean acidification destroy it.
6.2 Adaptation and Mitigation Measures in Seaflower
As explained, coral reef conservation is a very important part of the efforts needed to mitigate global climate change, and Seaflower has an important role to play in this. The questions are: what can be done? And above all, how can it be done?
To know what to do we also have to know what is happening and what is affecting the reefs. To do this, it can be useful to differentiate local from global agents of change. Among these is the general phenomenon of climate change, which does not depend on, or is not very influenceable directly by the inhabitants of a given area, in this case Seaflower. Instead, we can try to manage local factors, for example, local sources of pollution and sedimentation, direct damage to reefs by tourism (boats, divers), and other human activities (dredging, docks, maritime transport), including industrial and illegal fishing and overfishing, or more specific issues, such as parrotfish protection.
For this type of local agents, it is more feasible to propose effective actions which, in turn, raises the question of how. Economics is very important in this regard, as any action will have associated costs of at least two types: the direct costs of proposed interventions, and those generated by action or by omission of actions. The first would be, for example, compensation for actions of conservation, regeneration, and restoration of ecosystems, control, and surveillance to avoid deterioration, or those works that are required (for example, research, restoration of reefs, sewage treatment plants).
The latter, very important, arises from the question: what would be the cost of doing nothing? The likely cost is enormous, to the extent that climate change would end up destroying the reefs and with them many economic possibilities, and even island life itself, including tourism, trade, and fishing.
7 Environmental or Ecosystem Goods and Services
An approximation to this cost was made through a value estimation of Seaflower environmental or ecosystem goods and services, that is, those that Seaflower’s ecosystems provide to society. Goods refer to tangible objects that have an economic value, like fishes or beaches, while services are intangible activities and functions (like climate regulation, biodiversity refugia or the attraction of tourism) that meet human or societal needs, and represent, likewise, an economic value. According to Prato and Newball (2015), services refer to the benefits that ecosystems provide to people or “direct and indirect ecosystems contribution to human wellbeing”. Figure 2 (Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group 2010) classifies and presents some examples of services. In the case of environmental goods and services, it happens that their economic value has been little recognized and therefore they are not paid for, that is, in a certain way, their status as such is not recognized, in what constitutes a so-called market failure (Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group 2010).
A block diagram compares services provided by the coastal and open oceans and categorizes them into four types, provisioning for resources, regulating for climate and hazard control, supporting for nutrient cycling and soil formation, and cultural for tourism and education, depicting their similarities.
Fig. 2
Types of ecosystem services. Elaborated by the author based on Forest Trends and the Katoomba Group (2010)
×
Since the end of the last century, economists have been trying to solve this market failure, beginning with the identification of said goods and services which have been classified into categories, as presented in Fig. 2, and with valuation exercises of their economic value. In this sense, the classic work of Constanza and collaborators (1997) proposes a global valuation with very questioned results, but highlighting the enormous contribution of nature to humanity that, according to their estimates, is several times the gross domestic product (GDP) of the formal world economy: the contribution of nature is equivalent to USD 33 trillion, around 20 of those coming from marine ecosystems (Constanza et al. 1997). It should be noted that many people do not agree with the notion of ecological goods and services, mainly because it means monetizing the contribution of nature, and thus creates the implicit risk of its privatization—for instance, of water—to the detriment of society. However, it is also true that not knowing the value of these contributions has allowed the destruction of nature for the sake of an alleged development measured in currency. It is worth bearing in mind these considerations when raising the issue of PES, as they have risks, although they should have to be used because they are, at least for the moment, one of the main economic alternatives for defending, preserving, and restoring nature.
7.1 Seaflower Goods and Services
In a study published by the Colombian Commission for the Ocean (CCO) (Prato and Newball 2015), it is pointed out that Seaflower ecosystems, including both marine and terrestrial ones, provide ecosystem goods and services that would have an enormous value: USD 267,000 to 353,000 million a year. Many of these goods and services come from coral reefs, such as food production, tourism, and protection against coastal erosion and natural phenomena such as hurricanes. It also includes biodiversity maintenance services, climate regulation, carbon sequestration, and oxygen production, among others. This suggests a significant market failure, since it is not accounted for or entered into the accounts of Colombia or any other state, even though goods and services favor not only the archipelago and its inhabitants, but also the country and the world. This consideration leads one to think that correcting, at least partially, this market failure is part of the how, now being tried worldwide through what is called Payment for Environmental Services (PES), among alternatives that are analyzed below, including direct costs.
7.2 Payment for Environmental Goods and Services
Payment for environmental services (PES) is being made according to what is called the PES scheme, which consists of a voluntary social and economic agreement wherein an actor—the buyer—acquires a given environmental service (which must be very well defined), by paying another or others—the supplier(s)—in exchange for ensuring that the ES continues to be provided (Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group 2010). This has also been subject to criticism because of the mentioned risks of misuse for the privatization of nature, so one must be cautious. Nevertheless, PES is also a way to recognize natural services.
PESs are regulated in Colombia (Colombia 2017), where payments are essentially to compensate for ceasing an environmentally harmful economic activity, paying for what is no longer earned. For example, if a farmer grows potatoes in an area someone (mainly the state) wants to protect, earnings of potato crop production are calculated, and the farmer is paid that amount. In this case, the state is the buyer of the service and the farmer is the supplier, and both accept the arrangement voluntarily and by mutual agreement, which is highly important. The payment can be made with state resources for conservation and for a limited time, up to five years, after which the idea is that the land, now recovered, is purchased and integrated into the corresponding reserve or protected area (Colombia 2017).
PESs are rather new in most of the world, but have antecedents in the so-called swaps or debt-for-nature exchanges (Dogsé and von Droste 1990) that have been tried, with limited success, since the 1980s. In swaps, external debt was exchanged for conservation programs, for instance, designations of protected areas. The logic is similar, since the protected area ceases to be used for direct productive purposes (as in PES), but the problem was that payments were very low, since it was a one-off and not based on the value of the permanent goods and services offered, which were generally underestimated. It also implied a certain abuse of the economic fragility of the countries involved, pressuring them, even with the best of intentions, to take on unwanted obligations (see Sevilla 1990; Márquez 1992). Despite all of this, swaps are still in use.
7.3 Applications of PES in Marine Ecosystems
In the case of marine ecosystems, there are already some experiences that shed light on what could be done in Seaflower. In a work already cited (Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group 2010), some examples are identified.
One of them, an example of what is called public payments, is a fund in Tanzania, East Africa, created with resources from fishing licenses, ecotourism, and taxes on oil and gas exploitations. The Fund pays coastal inhabitants for habitat protection and sustainable use of coastal marine resources and supports conservation activities. As will be seen, something similar has been proposed for Seaflower in the past.
Another is an example of what they call open trade regulation, consisting of buying, but not using, fishing rights that are granted to fishermen and companies, according to the fishing quota. As a system of quotas is also granted to fishermen in the archipelago, the feasibility of such a mechanism could be studied.
The third example refers to private schemes or agreements and mentions the leasing of reefs in the Fiji Islands. In Colombia, there is no ownership of reefs or marine areas, and the rights of owners in the coastal zone are limited, so this model would not seem to have much application. However, this does not prevent the possibility that, since these are voluntary and private agreements, their application can be explored in the archipelago, for example, in the case of mangroves that are next to private properties.
A fourth example refers to PES in marine protected areas (MPAs) and the case of Bonaire, where a marine national park protects the reefs, which in turn supports diving, the basis of tourism to that island. A charge is established for the right to dive and for the anchoring and entry of boats, and voluntary donations are also received. As an MPA system is established and there are marine parks in the archipelago, conditions are established for PES schemes on this basis, which has also been raised in the past.
7.4 PES and Seaflower
To apply PES to the protection of Seaflower, a study would have to be done and PES schemes designed, both of which go beyond the scope of this article. However, some possible features can be sketched. The objective would be to protect terrestrial or marine ecosystems, mainly reefs, in order to fight climate change. What would have to be resolved is, first, what kind of activities (done or not done) would be paid and to whom (see Fig. 2), and second, where the funds for such payments would come from.
For the archipelago, in an initial exploration of the subject, it has been thought that a possible payment would be to compensate the fishermen of the islands. A hypothetical case for Providencia and Santa Catalina could be to stop fishing in Queena (Quitasueño) or Roncador cays, according to fishermen leader Edgar Jay. Queena is the main lobster fishing area of the archipelago, whose lobster catch value could be estimated, and then paid for through a PES scheme. An agreement to remove fishing pressure and let Queena rest for some time could be applied by areas, for example, Serrana and Roncador, or by sectors of the marine platform of Providence and Santa Catalina, or the no capture (no take) zones of the marine protected areas (MPAs).
On its own, such an agreement would have a great effect on reef and reef resource conservation, and could justify a significant payment for fishermen who could thus access resources that, amid the humanitarian crisis generated by Hurricane Iota, are now greatly needed. In the longer term, it would bring environmental, social, and economic benefits as reefs and their resources recover. The scheme would have to include many complementary aspects, such as the control of fishing pressure in other areas, since it makes no sense to leave Queena resting while overfishing Serrana or Providencia, as well as agreements with the authorities to enforce non-fishing agreements because it also makes no sense to stop artisanal fishing if industrial and illegal fishing continues.
There are also more activities that could be identified as susceptible to PES, for example (to name some):
Recovery and restoration of mangroves affected by Iota (another urgent need that would also have effects on climate).
Protection of other ecosystems, such as seagrasses.
Reintroduction and repopulation with sea turtles, a key element for the recovery of the ecological balances of archipelago reef complexes.
Surveillance and control to ensure PES schemes compliance, and to reinforce authorities in areas with prohibitions on fishing.
Specific checks and controls on sensitive species such as parrotfish, groupers, and chernas, among others.
Reduction and negotiation of fishing quotas.
7.5 Seaflower Fund
The issue of how to finance activities is critical. For a successful long-term PES project, it is necessary to seek sufficient and permanent resources. This could perhaps be achieved through the creation of a fund like the Tanzanian fund mentioned previously, complemented with ideas that had been proposed for Seaflower (Márquez 2016), including possible funding sources like:
The Colombian state through budgets must be invested in the archipelago’s development.
An aggregated value tax (IVA in Spanish) for tourist activities (10% per room per night, for example).
Specific participation in income per tourist card, which is a tax that people pay to enter the archipelago.
Voluntary donations, from an extra dollar contributed by a tourist to contributions by companies or philanthropists.
Contributions by the inhabitants of the archipelago.
Contributions by companies already established on the islands and which benefit from them, including, for example, airlines, hotel chains, supermarkets, merchants, and fuel distributors.
Another very important aspect is the negotiation of international support for Seaflower conservation, as the environmental services it provides benefit not only the archipelago but also the country and the world; this has been proposed more than once by the present author. A similar idea was very recently proposed by the Colombian government but based on debt-for-nature swaps. As previously explained, this is not the most favorable option, even if it has allowed countries like the Seychelles Islands to reduce their external debt and substantially increase their system of MPAs. However, PES is much fairer. Colombia established BRs and its MPA system without negotiating a specific agreement, and assumed risks and costs to protect goods and services that benefit many: people, countries, international organizations—especially those interested in marine issues, tourists, divers, researchers, and of course those who benefit from business on the islands, among other beneficiaries that should retribute some of the benefits. Only local people pay with the potential detriment of their living conditions, submitted to restrictions in the use of their territory, even if they also benefit from Seaflower.
8 Final Considerations
The Seaflower Biosphere Reserve is a project that is in force and appears to be becoming increasingly important, although it is far from having been fully understood and properly incorporated in both the archipelago’s and Colombia’s development processes. It is playing a key role in the context of the territorial conflict with Nicaragua. Under these conditions, it seems pertinent and possible to reassume and reinforce Seaflower in accordance with the original Biosphere Reserve concept, so that it reaches its highest goals of contributing to the protection of a very important natural and cultural heritage, for the benefit not only of its inhabitants, but also for those of the whole country and the whole world. In this context, the Gran Seaflower Initiative should be considered. Alternatives analyzed here are only part of the possible actions: the most important thing is to undertake them, taking advantage of the opportunity offered, somewhat paradoxically, by the ongoing crisis after the COVID-19 pandemic and aggravated by Hurricanes Eta and Iota. As said in a recent documentary (Welcome 2021), it’s the moment to “Arise Seaflower!”
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
