Seaflower Marine Protected Area

Note: The data were entered in the language of the country of origin (English, French or Spanish) and there is no translation available yet.


f - Clarify if some species/habitats listed in section III are the subject of more management/recovery/protection measures than others


Marine / costal / terrestrial ecosystems Management measures Protection measures Recovery measures Comments/description of measures
Mangroves no no no
Coral no no no
Sea grass beds no no no
Wetlands no no no
Forests no no no
Others no no no


Species from SPAW Annex 3 present in your area Management measures Protection measures Recovery measures Comments/description of measures
Combretaceae: Conocarpus erectus no no no
Compositae : Laguncularia racemosa no no no
Cymodoceaceae: Halodule wrightii no no no
Cymodoceaceae: Syringodium filiforme no no no
Hydrocharitaceae: Thalassia testudinum no no no
Rhizophoraceae: Rhizophora mangle no no no
Verbenaceae: Avicennia germinans no no no


Species from SPAW Annex 2 present in your area Management measures Protection measures Recovery measures Comments/description of measures
Reptiles: Caretta caretta no no no
Reptiles: Chelonia mydas no no no
Reptiles: Eretmochelys imbricata no no no
Reptiles: Dermochelys coriacea no no no
Birds: Puffinus lherminieri no no no
Birds: Falco peregrinus no no no
Birds: Sterna antillarum antillarum no no no
Mammals: Stenella attenuata no no no
Mammals: Tursiops truncatus no no no
Species from SPAW Annex 3 present in your area Management measures Protection measures Recovery measures Comments/description of measures
Molluscs: Strombus gigas no no no
Crustaceans: Panulirus argus no no no
Reptiles: Iguana iguana no no no
Reptiles: Kinosternon scorpioides no no no

g - Describe how the protected area is integrated within the country’s larger planning framework (if applicable)

not specified

h - Zoning, if applicable, and the basic regulations applied to the zones (attach in Annex a copy of the zoning map)

Name Basic regulation applied to the zone

i - Enforcement measures and policies

To address these threats, information gathered in 2009 found that the most pressing management needs were identified to be stronger enforcement and economic development for vulnerable groups; i.e., to establish effective enforcement and compliance structures that are collaborative (community-based), transparent, legitimate, fair, and based on accurate information; and to promote sustainable and alternative livelihoods to alleviate poverty and achieve financial sustainability to support long-term MPA management and generation of local jobs in conservation. These results are in accord with on-going consultations with MPA users in which they consistently identified their main concerns as the need for stronger enforcement to achieve conservation and MPA management objectives, and for the MPA to generate new economic opportunities to alleviate local poverty and improve quality of life.

j - International status and dates of designation (e.g. Biosphere Reserve, Ramsar Site, Significant Bird Area, etc.)

International status Date of designation
Biosphere reserve yes 1/1/00
Ramsar site no
Significant bird area yes 1/1/04
World heritage site (UNESCO) no
Others: no
World Heritage Site, tentative list 2008, nomination in process

k - Site’s contribution to local sustainable development measures or related plans

not specified

l - Available management resources for the area

Ressources How many/how much Comments/description
Human ressources Permanent staff 0 There is no permanent MPA staff at this time, with personnel dependent on short-term, grantdriven contracts. The Seaflower MPA was the major outcome of a 5-year GEF-World Bank project funded from 2000-05. Funding for MPA implementation has lacked consistency since the end of the project, so MPA staff has concentrated on management aspects of education, monitoring, and some ad hoc research. CORALINA personnel in projects related to the MPA have also supported priority management functions such as education, biophysical monitoring, mapping, and targeted research. A team to carry out the new MPA GEF-funded project to strengthen implementation of the Integrated Management Plan (IMP) will lead to the creation of permanent staff by 2014, including substantial staff training. Many CORALINA staff and MPA team members have already received extensive training in MPA management through activities and programs of CaMPAM, UNEP, UNESCO, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, US government- NOAA, and other significant regional programs as well as through the generosity and technical support of many NGOs. Local volunteers, although, few in number at the present time, provide substantial support, as do the many community members who take part in meetings and consultations. All of these collaborations and others will continue and expand as the IMP becomes fully operational over the next few years.
Physical ressources Equipments
Financial ressources Present sources of funding 158000$ The MPA has no regular, secure sources of income at this time. Since the conclusion of the project to establish the MPA in 2005, there has been no annual budget specifically for MPA management and implementation and no money has been received from national or departmental government. MPA priorities such as monitoring and education have been carried out through projects primarily funded by the Environment Ministry’s Environmental Compensation Fund (Fondo de Compensación Ambiental). The amount spent on activities related to MPA management averaged US $158,000 yearly for 2006-08. The estimated annual operating budget needed to fully implement the IMP is US $750,000, which is expected to be self-financed by 2014. Additionally, several short-term grants for MPA programs were received in the last few years. Mainly these were from the NOAA Coral Conservation Fund and the White Water to Blue Water Initiative. These allowed ad hoc research and management actions to be carried out.
Sources expected in the future
Annual budget (USD)

Conclusion Describe how the management framework outlined above is adequate to achieve the ecological and socio-economic objectives that were established for the site (Guidelines and Criteria Section C/V).

Biophysical, socioeconomic and governance effectiveness indicators have been identified in a participatory process, however only few are being measured. See prior comments about the need to evaluate and streamline the many existing monitoring programs and protocols, as well as shifting to a question-based approach to best provide information needed to adequately support adaptive management.

This also applies to evaluation. Information management and analysis also need to be improved, with results disseminated to stakeholders. Although consulted presently in an informal way, stakeholders will be formally incorporated into the new evaluation process to improve the transparency, responsiveness, and accountability of MPA management.