sc-14/conf.226/1/rev paris, 4 april original: english · sc-14/conf.226/2 – page 3 11 update on...

SC-14/CONF.226/1/REV Paris, 4 April

Original: English

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme Twenty-sixth session

Jönkoping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden

10 to 13 June 2014

PROVISIONAL AGENDA

1. Opening by the Chair of the ICC 2. Opening remarks by the UNESCO Director-General 3. Report by the outgoing Chair of the ICC 4. Election of the Chair, Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur

5. Adoption of the agenda and timetable 6. Report by the Secretary of the MAB Programme

7. Reports on actions undertaken by Member States / regional and thematic MAB

Networks in the context of MAB and discussion on collaborative thematic and research projects

8. Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP)

9. MAB and World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) – post Rio+20 opportunities

and towards a strategy for 2014-2021

10. Proposals for new biosphere reserves and extensions/modifications to biosphere reserves that are part of the WNBR

11. Update on the exit strategy

12. Periodic review of biosphere reserves and follow-up of recommendations 13. UNESCO MAB policy on open access to MAB/biosphere reserve documentation

14. Michel Batisse Award for Biosphere Reserve Management

15. MAB Young Scientists Award Scheme

16. Information on the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve Case

17. Date and venue of the 27th session of the MAB-ICC 18. Other matters

19. Adoption of the report

20. Closure of the session

SC-14/CONF.226/2 Paris, 09 April 2014

Original: English


International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme

Twenty-sixth Session


http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/about-mab/icc/icc/icc/26th-session

Item 5 of the Provisional Agenda: PROVISIONAL ANNOTATED AGENDA

Item Title Document

1 Opening by the Chair of the ICC

2 Opening remarks by the Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO

3 Report by the outgoing Chair of the ICC In her report, the Chair informs the Council of specific activities/initiatives she had contributed towards the implementation of the MAB Programme and other aspects of WNBR activities since the 25th session of the MAB-ICC.

4 Election of the Chair, Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur The 34 members of the MAB-ICC are invited to elect their Bureau.

5 Adoption of the agenda and timetable

SC-14/CONF.226/1 SC-14/CONF.226/2 SC-14/CONF.226/3

6 Report by the Secretary of the MAB Programme The Secretary provides an overview on actions and activities undertaken by the MAB Secretariat since the 25th session of the MAB-ICC. The report will include, inter alia, information on MAB thematic and regional networks.

SC-14/CONF.226/4 SC-13/CONF.225/11

SC-14/CONF.226/2 – page 2

7 Reports on actions undertaken by Member States / regional and thematic MAB Networks in the context of MAB and discussion on collaborative thematic and research projects MAB National Committees will be given the opportunity to provide brief reports on their activities since the last MAB Council session and to discuss on collaborative thematic and research projects especially in view of the future MAB strategy.

SC-14/CONF.226/5

8. Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) In this document, the MAB Secretariat and UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Service (IOS) will report on the results of the Madrid Action Plan.

SC-14/CONF.226/6

9. MAB and World Network of Biosphere reserve (WNBR) – post Rio + 20 opportunities and towards a strategy for 2014-2021 Based on the contribution from members of MAB-ICC Bureau and Member states, the reports of previous MAB-ICC, and the result of the evaluation of MAP, the Secretary presents a concept note which outlines the processes and consultations needed to ensure the preparation of a draft strategy for MAB and WNBR for the period 2014-2021. The Council is invited to consider the ideas expressed, directions outlined and proposals suggested in this concept note and provide directions for the proposed 2014-2021 strategy.

SC-14/CONF.226/7

10 Proposals for new biosphere reserves and extensions/modifications to biosphere reserves that are part of the WNBR This document contains the recommendations on proposals for new biosphere reserves and extensions/modifications to existing biosphere reserves considered by the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves in March 2014. The MAB ICC is invited to consider those recommendations as well as the additional information received by the Secretariat since March 2014 and to decide on the complete list of new sites that will be included into the WNBR in 2014 and extensions or changes to biosphere reserves that are already part of the Network.

SC-14/CONF.226/8


11 Update on the exit strategy This document presents the status of implementation of the exit strategy adopted by the MAB council at its 25th session. The MAB ICC is invited to comment on the progress made and to provide its recommendations on the way forward.

SC-14/CONF.226/9

12 Periodic review of biosphere reserves and follow up of recommendations This document contains the recommendations concerning the periodic reviews on individual biosphere reserves considered by the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves (IABCR) in March 2014. The MAB-ICC is invited to consider the IACBR’s recommendations, and to provide guidance on the periodic review process.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

13. UNESCO MAB policy on open access to MAB /biosphere reserve documentation This document contains a draft UNESCO MAB policy on open access to MAB and biosphere reserve documentation prepared by the MAB Secretariat. The objective of the proposed policy is to enhance transparency and the public’s access to MAB and biosphere reserve information, data, documents and multimedia materials, including complete biosphere reserve nomination files, biosphere reserve periodic review reports and associated items. At its meeting in March 2014, the Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves made comments on the draft policy which have been reflected in document SC-14/CONF.226/11. The MAB-ICC is invited to examine and adopt the policy on open access to MAB and biosphere reserve documentation.

SC-14/CONF.226/11

14 Michel Batisse Award for Biosphere Reserves Management The document announces the 2014 winner of the Michel Batisse Award.

SC-14/CONF.226/12


15 MAB Young Scientists Award Scheme This document announces the 2014 winners of the MAB Young Scientists Award Scheme as suggested by the Bureau of the MAB-ICC. The Council is invited to consider and approve the proposed winners of the MAB Young Scientists Award Scheme of 2014.

SC-14/CONF.226/13

16 Information on the Seaflower Biosphere reserve case This document informs the Council on the ruling of the International Court of justice on 19 November 2012 which changed the maritime boarder between Colombia and Nicaragua and thus, affects the Seaflower Biosphere reserve which was designated in 2000 as a site within the World network of biosphere reserve. At its meeting in March 2014, the Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserve made recommendations which are reflected in this document. The MAB-ICC is invited to examine and endorse the IABCR recommendations.

SC-14/CONF.226/14

17 Date and venue of the 27th session of the MAB-ICC The Council is requested to suggest dates and venue for the convening of the 27th session of the MAB-ICC. In keeping with past practises, the next MAB-ICC would be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, unless a Member State offers to host the next session in its country.

18 Other matters

19 Adoption of the report

20 Closure of the session

SC

-14/

CO

NF.

226/

3/R

EV

Par

is, 2

0 M

ay 2

014

Orig

inal

: Eng

lish

PR

OV

ISIO

NA

L T

IME

TA

BL

E

26

th S

ES

SIO

N O

F T

HE

IN

TE

RN

AT

ION

AL

CO

OR

DIN

AT

ING

CO

UN

CIL

(IC

C)

OF

TH

E M

AN

AN

D T

HE

BIO

SP

HE

RE

(M

AB

) P

RO

GR

AM

ME

10

-13

JU

NE

20

14. J

ön

ko

pin

g,

Eas

t V

ätt

ern

La

nd

sc

ap

e B

ios

ph

ere

Res

erv

e,

Sw

ed

en

T

uesd

ay,

10 J

un

e

Wed

nesd

ay,

11 J

un

e

Th

urs

day,

12 J

un

e

Fri

da

y,

13 J

un

e

8:3

0-1

0:0

0

Reg

istr

ati

on

B

ure

au

meeti

ng

B

ure

au

meeti

ng

10:0

0-11

:15

1.

Ope

ning

by

the

outg

oing

Cha

ir of

the

ICC

2.

O

peni

ng re

mar

ks b

y th

e U

NES

CO

D

irect

or- G

ener

al (t

bc)

3.

Rep

ort b

y th

e ou

tgoi

ng C

hair

of th

e IC

C

4.

Elec

tion

of th

e C

hair,

Vic

e-C

hairs

and

Rap

porte

ur

5.

Adop

tion

of th

e ag

enda

and

tim

etab

le

9.

MA

B an

d W

NBR

– p

ost R

io+2

0 op

portu

nitie

s

and

tow

ards

a s

trate

gy fo

r 201

4-20

21

11. U

pdat

e on

the

exit

stra

tegy

12

. Per

iodi

c re

view

of b

iosp

here

rese

rves

and

follo

w-

up

of r

ecom

men

datio

ns

East

Vät

tern

Lan

dsca

pe B

iosp

here

R

eser

ve E

xcur

sion

8:

00 –

14:

30

11:1

5-1

1:3

0

Co

ffee b

rea

k

Co

ffee b

rea

k

Co

ffee b

rea

k

11:3

0-13

:00

6.

Rep

ort b

y th

e Se

cret

ary

of th

e M

AB

Pr

ogra

mm

e 7.

R

epor

ts o

n ac

tions

und

erta

ken

by M

embe

r

Stat

es /

regi

onal

and

them

atic

MAB

Net

wor

ks in

the

cont

ext o

f MA

B a

nd

di

scus

sion

on

colla

bora

tive

them

atic

and

rese

arch

pro

ject

s

9.

MA

B an

d W

NBR

– p

ost R

io+2

0 op

portu

nitie

s

and

tow

ards

a s

trate

gy fo

r 201

4-20

21 (c

ont’d

) 12

. Per

iodi

c re

view

of b

iosp

here

rese

rves

and

follo

w-

up

of r

ecom

men

datio

ns (c

ont’d

)

13:0

0-1

4:3

0

Lu

nch

bre

ak

L

un

ch

bre

ak

L

un

ch

bre

ak

(B

ure

au

me

eti

ng

) L

un

ch

bre

ak

14:3

0-15

:45

7.

Rep

orts

on

actio

ns u

nder

take

n by

Mem

ber

St

ates

/ re

gion

al a

nd th

emat

ic M

AB

N

etw

orks

in th

e co

ntex

t of M

AB

and

disc

ussi

on o

n co

llabo

rativ

e th

emat

ic a

nd

re

sear

ch p

roje

cts

(con

t’d)

10. P

ropo

sals

for n

ew b

iosp

here

rese

rves

and

exte

nsio

ns/m

odifi

catio

ns to

bio

sphe

re re

serv

es

th

at a

re p

art o

f the

Wor

ld N

etw

ork

of B

iosp

here

Res

erve

s (W

NBR

)

12. P

erio

dic

revi

ew o

f bi

osph

ere

rese

rves

and

fol

low

-

up o

f rec

omm

enda

tions

(con

t’d)

13. U

NE

SCO

MAB

pol

icy

on o

pen

acce

ss to

MA

B/bi

osph

ere

rese

rve

docu

men

tatio

n

17. D

ate

and

venu

e of

the

27th

ses

sion

of t

he

M

AB-

ICC

18

. Oth

er m

atte

rs

15:4

5-1

6:0

0

Co

ffee b

rea

k

Co

ffee b

rea

k

Co

ffee b

rea

k

Co

ffee b

rea

k

16:0

0-17

:30

8.

Eval

uatio

n of

the

Mad

rid A

ctio

n P

lan

(MA

P)

10. P

ropo

sals

for n

ew b

iosp

here

rese

rves

and

exte

nsio

ns/m

odifi

catio

ns to

bio

sphe

re re

serv

es

th

at a

re p

art o

f the

Wor

ld N

etw

ork

of B

iosp

here

Res

erve

s (W

NBR

) (co

nt’d

)

14. M

iche

l Bat

isse

Aw

ard

for B

iosp

here

Res

erve

Man

agem

ent

15. M

AB

Youn

g Sc

ient

ists

Aw

ard

Sche

me

16. I

nfor

mat

ion

on t

he S

eaflo

wer

Bio

sphe

re R

eser

ve

C

ase

19. A

dopt

ion

of th

e re

port

20. C

losu

re o

f the

ses

sion

17:3

0-1

9:0

0

Bu

reau

meeti

ng

B

ure

au

meeti

ng

Din

ner o

ffere

d by

the

Gov

erno

r of J

önkö

ping

to

Hea

ds o

f Del

egat

ions

"Lau

nchi

ng o

f the

Pol

icy

Brie

f on

Sust

aina

ble

Man

agem

ent o

f Mar

gina

l Dry

land

s (S

UM

AM

AD

)"

UN

ES

CO

-MA

B a

nd F

lem

ish G

overn

ment

Cockta

il


Original: English

2


International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme

Twenty-sixth session

10-13 June 2014, Jönkoping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden Item 6 of the Provisional Agenda: Report by the Secretary of the MAB Programme

Since the 25th session of the MAB International Coordinating Council (MAB-ICC), MAB has seen many new developments at the international, regional and national levels. Divided into the following five sections, this report provides MAB-ICC with an update on these developments:

I. The overall situation of the MAB Programme, II. Implementation of the main decisions of the last session of MAB-ICC, III. MAB regional/thematic networks; IV. Highlights of MAB actions and activities, V. MAB partnerships.

I. Overall situation of the MAB Programme

1. Completion of 36C/5 (2012-2013) of MAB. After the 25th session of MAB-ICC, the

implementation of MAB Programme was accelerated by the Secretariat as well as by MAB national committees and thematic and regional networks. The results of the implementation of the six Expected Results relating to MAB as well as assessments of the impacts and lessons learnt during the biennium were reported to the Executive Board at 192nd and 194th Sessions as well as to the 37th General Conference, which accordingly endorsed the reports1. It should be noted that the successful delivery of the MAB Programme was made in the context of the special financial difficulties experienced by UNESCO throughout the 2012-2013 biennium.

2. MAB in 37C/4 and 37C/52. Thanks to the strong support from the Member States, the MAB Programme has maintained its importance in UNESCO’s new Medium-Term Strategy (2014-2021) and 37C/5 quadrennial workplan. The MAB Programme has been assigned to implement one of the six Main Lines of Actions (MLAs) under the Natural Sciences programme, namely, ‘Strengthening the roles of ecological sciences and biosphere reserves’. This MLA is related to a specific Expected Result entitled ‘Use of biosphere reserves as learning places for equitable and sustainable development and for climate change mitigation and adaptation strengthened, and the ecological and biodiversity sciences reinforced’. Despite the difficult financial situation of the Organization and a much reduced expenditure package for UNESCO’s Regular Programme, the governing bodies of UNESCO have given ecological sciences and MAB Programme around 79% of the total Regular Budget proposed, thus ensuring a basis for the implementation of the MAB Programme.

1 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002266/226627e.pdf. 2 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002268/226841e.pdf


Original: English

3

3. MAB and Priority Africa flagship programmes in the 37C/5. The MAB Secretariat participated actively in the development of Priority Africa flagship programmes, within which ‘Flagship 4: Fostering sciences for the sustainable management of Africa's natural resources and disaster risk reduction’ and ‘Expected Result 3: UNESCO network of internationally designated sites expanded to foster sustainable socio-economic development including transboundary sites which successfully manage shared water and/or ecosystem resources’ specifically address action relating to MAB.

4. Information sharing with Member States. In addition to the information on MAB provided to the governing bodies of UNESCO, the Secretariat also provided a report to the MAB International Support Group (ISG) in March 2014 about the achievements and challenges of MAB. In 2013, reports were provided during the preparation of the 37C/4 and 37C/5 to the Africa and Asia-Pacific Member State groups represented by the Permanent Delegations to UNESCO. A new MAB leaflet and a new World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) map were produced and distributed widely, both in hard-copy and on-line. This information sharing meetings were highly appreciated by the Member States.

5. MAB contributions to major international processes related to sustainable development.

Through the MAB Secretariat, input and expertise were made available in support UNESCO’s overall contributions to CBD, IPBES, UNCCD, climate change, Future Earth, the Post-2015 Development Agenda discussion and the preparation of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the UN Secretary General’s Science Advisory Board (SAB). The work of MAB – in particular the relevance and added value of the WNBR - contributed to all these input and interventions.

6. New biosphere reserve proposals in 2013. There has been an increase in the proposals for biosphere reserves in 2013, with a total of 29 nominations from 19 countries. This higher number of requests for new biosphere reserves, including requests for transboundary biosphere reserves, provides strong evidence that MAB and its WNBR are vibrant and highly relevant to the Member States. The interest in making use of MAB and WNBR continues to grow in the contexts of new and emerging international cooperation for sustainable development.

7. The MAB Secretariat. The financial situation has led to a reduction of professional-level

posts in the MAB Secretariat, which has impacted the capacity of the MAB Secretariat. However, in the new and reduced structure of the Natural Sciences Sector, the MAB Secretariat is still well maintained in the Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences with two professional sections, namely, a) the Section of MAB Research and Policy: Ecology and Biodiversity, and b) the Section of MAB Networking: Biosphere Reserves and Capacity Building. The Secretariat’s capacity is further reinforced by some 15 science professionals partially working for the MAB Programme in the Field Offices of UNESCO across all regions

8. Overall, the MAB Programme is highly relevant to the needs of the Member States, and

contributes significantly toward UNESCO’s Overarching Strategic Objective of Promoting International Scientific Cooperation on Critical Challenges to Sustainable development. MAB and WNBR constitute a central pillar in UNESCO’s programmes for sustainable development. In spite of continued financial constraints, the opportunities for MAB and its WNBR to grow and become stronger are real, tangible and worth exploring vigorously.


Original: English

4

II. Implementation of the main decisions adopted at the 25th session of MAB-ICC

9. Implementation of the Exit Strategy. Reference is made to the MAB ICC decision on the Exit Strategy3. After the last MAB Council meeting, the MAB Secretariat has been following this decision very closely. The first year of the Strategy’s implementation has shown very encouraging signs, as demonstrated by the response to the MAB Council’s call for the submission of periodic reports. A document (ref. SC-14/CONF.226/9) has been prepared for this session of the MAB Council, detailing the progress made, recommendations made by the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves at its meeting in March 2014, as well as remaining issues to be addressed by the MAB Council.

10. Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP). Reference is made to MAB ICC decision to carry out a comprehensive evaluation prior the completion of the MAP at the end of 20134. UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Office (IOS), in close cooperation with the MAB Secretariat and an electronic MAB working group, has carried out an online survey using a questionnaire designed for specifically for the MAP evaluation as well as interviews with programme specialists and a document desk review. A related document (ref. SC-14/CONF. 226/6) has been prepared by IOS for the MAB Council. The results of the MAP Evaluation will be highly relevant and useful in the elaboration of the new MAB Strategy and related action plans for the WNBR.

11. Preparation of the new MAB Strategy. Reference is made to the debate and conclusion of

the 25th Session of the MAB Council regarding MAB and World Network of Biosphere Reserves – post Rio+ 20 opportunities and towards a strategy for 2014-20215. As follow up, the Secretariat first concentrated in the preparation of UNESCO 37C/4 and 37C/5, as well as on ensuring quality implementation of the remaining tasks in the 2012-2013 workplan (36C/5) and related reporting. The development of a new MAB Strategy was further discussed at several regional MAB meetings in 2013. In February 2014, in order to enable broad participation and collective contributions to the preparation of the new MAB Strategy, a simple questionnaire was designed in consultation with MAB Bureau Members and the electronic MAB working group. The questionnaire was sent to all MAB National Committees in March 2014. At the time of writing, close to 30 MAB National Committees, some individual Biosphere Reserves and the EuroMAB network had replied with specific comments and suggestions in response to the questions of the questionnaire, providing a substantive basis for further work. A preliminary draft (‘zero draft’) has been prepared (ref. SC-14/CONF.226/7) for the attention of this session of the MAB Council.

12. The time frame for the preparation of the new MAB Strategy is one year, given the fact that it has to be further elaborated, most likely through several working groups of MAB. It should also be associated with, and benefit from, the global processes relating to the preparation of the SDGs and the Post-2015 Development Agenda. In the light hereof, it is suggested that the text of the new MAB Strategy be finalized by the 27th Session of the MAB-ICC in 2015.

3 SC‐13‐CONF‐225‐11_Final_Report Paragraph 56‐65 4 SC‐13‐CONF‐225‐11_Final_Report Paragraph 29‐34 5 SC‐13‐CONF‐225‐11_Final_Report Paragraph 35‐47


Original: English

5

III. Information concerning MAB thematic and regional networks

13. Thematic and regional MAB networks provide the main platforms for MAB cooperation in research, elaboration of new ideas and subjects, sharing of information, exchange of experience and lessons learnt, and mobilization of cooperation for capacity building. During the last 12 months, despite the constraints of the limited regular budget in UNESCO, most MAB thematic and regional networks continued their cooperation, bringing together new resources and new partners. This is evidenced by the list of meetings below (in chronological order):

11th International Meeting of the East Atlantic Biosphere Reserve Network (REDBIOS), at the Biosphere Reserve of the Island of Príncipe, Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, from 3 to 9 May 2013.

3rd Meeting of the Global Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves in the Islands of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa, West‐Estonian Archipelago biosphere reserve, from 3 to 7 June 2013.

3rd General Assembly of the African Network of Biosphere Reserves (AfriMAB) in Accra, Ghana, from 24–27 September 2013.

EuroMAB 2013 meeting in Frontenac Arch Biosphere, Canada, from 15 to 19 October 2013.

13th Meeting of the East Asian Biosphere Reserve Network in Ulaanbaatar and Hustain Nuruu Biosphere Reserve, Mongolia, from 21-25 October 2013.

Training Course for Island and Coastal Area Biosphere Reserves Managers, island of Jeju, Republic of Korea, from 21 to 25 October 2013.

7th SeaBRnet meeting in Puerto Princesa, Palawan Biosphere Reserve, Philippines, from 23 to 27 October 2013.

5th SACAM Meeting (26-28 November 2013) and ECO Workshop (29-30 November 2013) in Islamabad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

4th Meeting of the Pacific Biosphere Reserves Network (PacMAB): Role of Biosphere Reserves in Sustainable Development in the Pacific, from 23-25 April 2014 in Nadi, Fji.

14. In addition to these events, MAB has participated actively in many other workshops and

meetings on issues such as climate change, mountain ecosystems, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). One example of this engagement by MAB was the International Workshop on Mangroves and Sustainable Development held in July 2013 in Santa Marta, Colombia, organized by UNESCO-Quito, the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS), Conservation International (CI), and the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia.

15. The above meetings provided very rich information and knowledge from country and site studies, and addressed the common issues of the MAB Programme: biodiversity and its sustainable use under different ecosystems (islands and coasts, forests, mountains, drylands) and various socio-economic contexts; development of green economies in and around biosphere reserves; transboundary cooperation using biosphere reserve as platforms; identification of new biosphere reserves in different region and subregions; promoting biosphere reserves as model regions for sustainable development; research and


Original: English

6

measures on climate change impacts mitigation and adaptation; ecosystem rehabilitation; participatory management and governance; traditional knowledge and management; interdependence of biodiversity and cultural diversity; and education for sustainable development.

16. It is noted that, however, there is a need to improve communication within MAB, between UNESCO programmes and sectors, and with civil society regarding the results obtained and the new findings and ideas emerging from MAB’s thematic and regional networks. It is also noted that a very large number of MAB-supported technical workshops and seminars are held at the national level, the results of which are not effectively shared internationally. This issue will be addressed under the items relating to the new MAB Strategy and MAB communication.

IV. Highlights of MAB actions and activities

17. While MAB thematic and regional networks as well as national networks have supported

exchange and sharing of information and experience relating to research and development, numerous actions and activities have been undertaken by MAB National Committees and the development authorities of Member States. Several examples of MAB actions and activities supported and facilitated by the Secretariat are highlighted below.

18. Completion of the Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD) project. Funded by the Flemish Government of Belgium, this 10 year project, which aimed to combat desertification at pilot sites in nine countries: Bolivia, Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan and Tunisia, has been completed. During the last 10 years, the nine countries and their experts worked together to share experience in drylands conservation and development; to study rehabilitation of degraded drylands and improvement of agricultural yields through better water management; to produce development of policy guidelines for decision-makers; and to support local communities to adopt more sustainable livelihoods through ecotourism, handicraft production, bee-keeping and dietary diversification, and to reduce their dependence on traditional dryland agriculture in a deteriorating environment.

19. Trifinio-Fraternidad Biosphere Reserve of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. This is the

first tri-national Biosphere Reserve in the Latin America and Caribbean Region, established to promote transboundary cooperation in conservation of biodiversity and management of natural resources. As a major step following the establishment of the tri-national biosphere reserve, the three countries have agreed to work together to promote green economy development of the local communities and municipalities located in the Trifinio-Fraternidad Biosphere Reserve. This cooperation is supported by Germany, which has committed project support totalling11 million euros.

20. The first MAB Category II Center. Following the decision by the 37th session of General

Conference, the Director-General of UNESCO officially inaugurated the Category II International Centre on ‘Mediterranean Biosphere Reserves, Two Coastlines United by their Culture and Nature’ in April 2014. Located within the premises of the Abertis Foundation in Castellet I la Gornal, Kingdom of Spain, it is the first MAB category II centre under UNESCO auspices. The center will focus on scientific cooperation between the two shores and the biosphere reserves of the Mediterranean. As the first example of such a MAB institution, it is noted that the Centre combines public commitment and private sector financial support for


Original: English

7

long-term support to MAB, indicating a new modality for MAB cooperation in support of capacity building at regional level.

21. Supporting nomination of new transboundary biosphere reserves for Peace in Lake Chad and in Central Africa. Sound management of transboundary ecosystems is one of the priorities of AfriMAB. During the last biennium, the MAB Secretariat supported feasibility studies at two transboundary biosphere reserves: one in Lake Chad involving Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria, Central African Republic and Libya; and another in the TRIDOM area in Central Africa involving Congo, Gabon and Cameroon. The study contributed to the capacity of MAB national committees in these countries.

22. Promoting the use of solar energy by empowering women in Volcans Biosphere Reserve, Rwanda. MAB and its local partner, the ‘Gorilla Organization’, supported the solar electrification of 100 households in Nyarugina village within the Volcanoes BR in Rwanda, home to the endangered Mountain Gorillas. The solar equipment provides improved access to energy and security. The equipment is installed, maintained and repaired by local grandmothers, who were sent to India for six months in 2012 to train as fully qualified solar engineers. The training was provided through a partnership with Barefoot College in Tilonia, India, and was supported by the Government of India, providing a good example of south-south cooperation.

23. Exhibition 'Climate change impacts on mountain regions of the world’ Funded by the Flemish Government of Belgium and using satellite images from JAXA, ESA, USGS, MAB and IHP, and presented during the 37th Session of UNESCO’s General Conference, this exhibition highlighted the effects of climate change in different mountain regions, many of which are UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. The exhibition is currently shown in Italy, and will be shown in Lima, Peru, in December for the next UN Climate Change Conference (COP20). Discussions are ongoing regarding a possible exhibition at the UN Climate Summit 2014.

24. No plastic - a small gesture in our hands was an awareness and mobilization campaign project supported by the MAB programme, the Spanish Ministry for Agriculture, Food and the Environment, and the Island of Principe (Sao Tomé and Principe), to reduce plastic waste and promote access to drinking water in a biosphere reserve. The campaign was launched in February 2014 and was a great success. Fifty plastic bottles can be exchanged for a ‘Principe Biosphere Bottle’, a reusable stainless steel bottle that can be replenished at various treated water points installed across the island of Principe. On the first collection day of the campaign, 24,000 used plastic bottles were collected by schoolchildren and 400 ‘Principe Biosphere Bottles’ were distributed to the local population.

25. RENFORUS Initiative - Renewable Energy Futures for UNESCO Sites. The objective of the

RENFORUS initiative is to provide the international community with global climate change field observatory sites involving the sustainable use of environmentally sound renewable energy sources in UNESCO sites (biosphere reserves and World Heritage sites). While addressing climate change mitigation, this initiative will also aim to demonstrate the benefit of harnessing locally available renewable energy sources and the potential impacts hereof on the environmental and ecological preservation of UNESCO sites.


Original: English

8

26. Implementation of Green economy in Africa Biosphere Reserves (GEBR) was started in June 2014 with inception meetings followed by workshops to set up the baseline for future forest monitoring and related socio-economic activities in Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. The project is the first KOIKA fund-in-trust (1.8 million US dollars) for African Biosphere Reserves.

27. UNESCO – CHIC Group (China) Biosphere Integrated Rural Urbanization Programme

(BIRUP): The Biosphere Integrated Rural Urbanization Programme (BIRUP) in the Ba’nan District, Chongqing (China) promotes green economies based on integrated rural land consolidation with new agricultural projects, training of farmers and expansion of urbanized rural villages in-line with the biosphere reserve concept. Thorough the BIRUP project, possible inputs for the Milan Expo 2015 are also under preparation.

28. MAB communication, outreach and publications have increased since the last MAB Council,

although much more still remains to be done:

Production and distribution of the 2013-2014 map of the WNBR, with generous support from the German National Commission for UNESCO and MAB-Germany. The map is available in English, French, Spanish and German, and available also online from the UNESCO website.

Production and distribution of a MAB programme Leaflet (in English, French, Spanish), also available online from the UNESCO website.

A MAB Facebook page has been established on an experimental basis. The Facebook page features new posts once or twice daily with information, pictures and videos about activities related to biosphere reserves and the MAB programme. Use of other social media platforms is also under discussion.

The video ‘People and nature - better together!’ produced by EuroMAB network, features the biosphere reserve story and shows that a sustainable way of living is not only possible, but already happening.

The video ‘Mangroves and Sustainable Development’ developed by the UNESCO Quito Office in partnership with the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) and Conservation International – Ecuador, promotes the conservation and sustainable use of mangroves, the values of the ecosystem goods and services and to address economic issues and cultural, social and spiritual aspects of mangroves.

The book ‘Reservas de la Biosfera de Chile — Laboratorios para la Sustentabilidad’ (Biosphere Reserves of Chile — Laboratory for Sustainability) presents each of the biosphere reserves in Chile, in particular their natural and cultural heritage, in order to stimulate research and raise the interest among the Chilean population about the uniqueness of ecosystems and human livelihoods in biosphere reserves.

The book ‘AfriMAB — Biosphere Reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa: Showcasing Sustainable Development’ shares stories of sustainable development as portrayed through the management of biosphere reserves in nine African countries.


Original: English

9

29. MAB training and education continued during the last 12 months, with the following new activities undertaken: ERAIFT (Regional Post-Graduate Training School on Integrated Management of

Tropical Forest and Lands initiated by UNESCO-MAB in partnership with DR Congo, EU and UNDP) now offers bilingual courses (French and English) and short term capacity building for professional staff of national institutions. With 21 sub-Saharan countries benefitting, ERAIFT has developed a strong technical partnership at all level. In 2012-2013, 41 Masters and 36 PhD students have been enrolled with 23 graduated during the 2012-2013 academic year. Cooperation with UNEP has been fostered through revived MAB participation in the Great Apes Survival Partnership. The enrolment for the 9th promotion of DESS (Diploma in Advanced Specialized Studies) to start in September 2014 has been launched.

A training course on bioinformatics and taxonomy in Rwanda trained 23 trainers from universities, research institutions and NGO’s who will be an asset for a bioinformatics centre foreseen to be established as part of the Centre of Excellence. As a result of courses organized by UNESCO in 2012 in collaboration with University of Rwanda and University of Cape Town, South Africa, eleven species of mosses new to Rwanda have been recorded. This is a very important step in the inventory of plants in the country, which is a biodiversity hotspot.

Training Course for Island and Coastal Area Biosphere Reserve Managers. UNESCO and the island of Jeju organized this training course in the island of Jeju, Republic of Korea, from 21 to 25 October 2013. The aim of the course was to deepen the understanding of biosphere reserve managers of the concept and vision of biosphere reserves, raise their awareness of the vulnerability of island and coastal biosphere reserves to climate change, and transfer technical knowledge.

Masters Course on Biosphere Reserves for Sustainable Landscape Development. Offered by the Department of Economy and Society, Human Geography Unit - School of Business Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), the course gives a deep insight into the concepts of sustainability and biosphere reserves.

Effort to build capacity of MAB national committees in Southern Africa. In the sub-region, so far only South Africa and Zimbabwe have established biosphere reserves. A capacity building regional workshop was organized by the UNESCO Harare office in July 2013 in Limpopo Province in South Africa. This was followed by another training workshop in Botswana in November 2014 in collaboration with BfN (German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation).

V. MAB partnership

30. Partnerships are vital for the MAB Programme and its WNBR. In a rapid changing world and

dynamic international environment, MAB needs to consolidate its traditional partnership with scientific institutions and organizations on one hand, and on the other hand to explore vigorously new partnerships with civil society organizations, local governments, development agencies and the private sector. For the latter, encouraging developments are already taking place through the work of the UNESCO Offices in Beijing, Jakarta and New


Original: English

10

Delhi and Venice, in particular in the fields of ESD and biodiversity. While partnerships remain a critical matter of discussion for the new MAB strategy, the past months have seen positive developments in MAB partnership, as follows.

31. In partnership with the French government and research institutions, as well as CBD, IUBS (International Union of Biological Sciences) and the Global Partnership for Plant Conservation, MAB Secretariat will organize the International Conference 'Botanists of the Twenty-first Century: Roles, Challenges and Opportunities' in September 2014 in Paris, with the objective of developing forward-looking perspectives for the botanical profession in the twenty-first century.

32. Sustainable financing for AfriMAB. Following the request of the 3rd general assembly of AfriMAB, the MAB Secretariat completed a study and concept note on the AfriBioFund, a trust fund to be established to support regional activities in African Biosphere Reserves with particular focus on development and logistic functions. It is worth noting that this study has been financed by voluntary contributions from African MAB national committees.

33. Partnership with the World Heritage Convention has led to new joint efforts for development

of a project on biodiversity in Africa and related fundraising. An expert dialogue of MAB/WNBR and WH as well as the global geopark network on the use of space technologies for the management of internationally designated sites held in May 2014 in China provides new insight into common management challenges and opportunities for cooperation between the three categories of sites.

34. Communication and information exchange with the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and

IUCN has become more active. This is evidenced by a joint proposal of IUCN, MAB, Ramsar and WHC for a comparative study on international designated conservation areas (to be financed by Jeju Island of the Republic of Korea); MAB cooperation with IUCN for a coastal and island Biosphere Reserves workshop at the World Park Congress 2014; and IUCN participation at the 20th session of International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserve in March 2014.

35. SCOPE has expressed interest in continuing its work with MAB and has offered to publish a

special issue of about MAB and WNBR in the international journal Ecosystem Health and Sustainable Development (EHS) in early 2015. Exchanges with the Stockholm Resilience Center also demonstrate strong potential for joint activities in research. UNEP-WCMC has indicated its willingness to reactivate database cooperation on WNBR - an issue that will require further examination by the MAB Council and the next session of International Advisory Committee.

36. An important partnership with Member States is the provision of professional staff to the

MAB Secretariat through UNESCO’s Associate Expert Scheme. Thanks to the French Government, an associate expert is now based at the GRASP Secretariat in Nairobi. Other arrangements include professional secondment and government supported young professional internships. The MAB Secretariat and UNESCO Field Offices welcome such partnership, in particular given the reduction of staff at the MAB Secretariat and the growing interest of many countries and young researchers in the work of MAB and WNBR.


Original: English

11

VI. Conclusion – facing the challenges and moving forward

37. MAB is relevant, active and vibrant. While MAB and its WNBR continue growing, delivering and performing, the challenges are also mounting and serious. Among the main challenges faced are the following.

38. Firstly, the lack of resources. A much greater effort must be made by all to raise resources, both financial and technical. To sustain and develop an intergovernmental scientific programme of MAB’s scale and an extensive world network of learning laboratories for biodiversity and sustainable development, it is no longer adequate to rely mainly on UNESCO’s regular budget. New funding sources must be found, in the interest of all countries and communities involved.

39. Secondly, the MAB research agenda. A new, inspiring and forward-looking MAB research

agenda is truly needed for the Post-2015 era. Such an agenda must lead MAB work to address the most critical issues (both current and emerging) relating to biosphere sustainability, and must contribute to the mainstream development agenda of participating countries.

40. Furthermore, communication. MAB needs to communicate much better in this era of

information and interconnectivity. MAB needs to publish more and better, and explore new forms of communication. Only with the support of general public will the ideas, concepts and scientific advice from MAB make real impacts. Successful communication to this end is essential.

41. Next, the tools and instruments used in the operation of MAB. There is a need to improve

the technical operation of the programme, by refining, compiling and improving the tools and instruments used - in project development, in the technical guidance provided for field management practices, for databases and data standards. There is also a need to consider greatly enhancing the MAB Young Scientists Award or Fellowship Scheme.

42. In conclusion, the MAB Secretary is confident that - with the continued support and

guidance from all Member States, in particular guidance of the MAB ICC - and with the successful elaboration of the new MAB strategy, MAB will continue to be one of the most inspiring, energetic and productive programmes of UNESCO. Now in its 5th decade, MAB continues to provide highly useful and increasingly important services to all Member States.

43. On behalf of the MAB Secretariat and all colleagues working both in Paris and the network

of Field Offices. I express my sincere thanks to the MAB Council for its attention.


Original: English



Jönköping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden

10 - 13 June 2014

ITEM 7 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: REPORTS ON ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY MEMBER STATES / REGIONAL AND THEMATIC MAB NETWORKS IN THE CONTEXT OF MAB AND DISCUSSION ON COLLABORATIVE THEMATIC AND RESEARCH PROJECTS 1. Representatives of Member States, regional and thematic MAB and biosphere reserve networks are invited to make succinct presentations on their respective activities since the last MAB ICC. All Member States and networks are also invited to provide the MAB Secretariat with written reports that will be placed on the MABnet in the languages received. In addition to outlining past activities, Member States and network representatives are also invited to summarize their planned future activities and to identify related cooperation opportunities with other Member States, networks or the MAB Programme at large. 2. In order to facilitate an informed discussion on the reports and on related collaborative thematic and research projects, Member States and network representatives are encouraged to submit their reports well in advance of the Council session. 3. Representatives of institutions which would like to propose future cooperation with the MAB community are encouraged to participate in the debate on this item. 4. The MAB ICC is invited to take note of national and network reports presented and/or made available on the MABnet and to discuss their content, conclusions and suggestions for possible future cooperation, notably in the context of the future MAB Strategy. 5. The MAB ICC is also invited to discuss the benefits and possible format of a more streamlined and standardized reporting and programme planning process.

SC-14/CONF.226/6 Paris, 27 May 2014

Original: English

1




10 - 13 June 2014

ITEM 8 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: EVALUATION OF THE MADRID ACTION PLAN (MAP) 1. The final evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan – MAP (2008-2013) was undertaken by UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Office (IOS) in cooperation with the MAB Secretariat and the MAP Evaluation Reference Group (consisting of the MAB Bureau and four biosphere reserve focal points/managers) as agreed by the MAB ICC at its 25th session in May 2013 (ref SC-13/CONF.225/11). 2. The objective of the evaluation was to assess overall progress on the implementation of the MAP and to generate inputs for the formulation of the future strategy of the MAB Programme and the WNBR. Due to limited financial resources, the evaluation was managed and conducted on the basis of desk study, interviews with and self-assessment by the MAB Secretariat and a comprehensive survey targeting biosphere reserve (BR) managers, representatives of MAB National Committees (MAB NCs) and representatives from regional and thematic networks. 3. A summary of the full report of the final MAP evaluation together with key findings are attached. The full evaluation report is available as a reference document on the MABnet web page for the 26th MAB ICC.1 4. The MAB ICC is invited to examine, discuss and to take note of the MAP evaluation report and to consider its findings, as appropriate, in the elaboration of the future MAB Strategy.

1 http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/about-mab/icc/icc/26th-session-of-the-mab-council/


Original: English

2

Summary and Key Findings from the Final Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (2008-2013)

Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan – summary of findings and recommendations The World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) constitutes a unique platform for promoting and developing new ideas on the complex relations between people and the environment. The Madrid Action Plan (MAP), endorsed at the 3rd World Congress of Biosphere Reserves in 2008, was developed in order to further elevate biosphere reserves as principal internationally designated areas and learning sites for sustainable development. The present evaluation concludes that progress has been achieved in all four action areas of the MAP. More than half of the biosphere reserves report activities related to the MAP priority themes of climate change, ecosystem services and urbanization. Finally, there is some evidence of biosphere reserves serving as learning and demonstration sites. However, progress has been uneven across the network and across areas of interest, and significant challenges remain with regard to all of the issues mentioned above. The evaluation highlights five areas of improvement: strengthen the value of the WNBR for BRs and the active involvement of the latter in the network’s activities; strengthen the clearing house function of the WNBR; develop the WNBR’s global role as a laboratory of ideas; raise the profile of the WNBR; strengthen the financial and human resource base of the WNBR. Introduction The final evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) was carried out by UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Service in collaboration with the MAB Secretariat. The purpose of the evaluation was twofold: to assess overall progress on the implementation of the MAP; to generate inputs for the formulation of the future strategy of the MAB Programme and the WNBR. Due to limitations in terms of evaluability of the MAP and the resources and data available to the evaluation it was not possible to develop a systematic analysis of progress in implementation over time. Instead, the evaluation has taken stock of the current state of affairs with regard to the different actions and targets of the MAP. The evaluation is based on a desk study, interviews with and self-assessment by the MAB Secretariat and a comprehensive survey 2 targeting biosphere reserve (BR) managers, representatives of MAB national committees (MAB NCs) and representatives from regional and thematic networks. The main report of the evaluation is available online.3

2 The response rates to the survey were satisfactory (39% and 45% for BRs and MAB NCs respectively). However, non-response has been non-random (see discussion below) and caution is warranted in the interpretation of percentages throughout the discussion of the survey findings. 3 http://www.unesco.org/ios


Original: English

3

Key findings Participation in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and the importance of the Biosphere Reserve designation Key finding 1

A significant proportion of biosphere reserves and MAB national committees are ‘disconnected’ from the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

There are clear indications of significant levels of activity within the framework of BRs and resulting benefits from these activities in the three core areas of the BR concept: conservation and sustainable use, research and sustainable development (see next section). However, it has also become evident that the levels of activity and the corresponding benefits are quite uneven across the WNBR. More specifically, there are clear signs that a significant proportion of BRs are ‘disconnected’ from activities undertaken within the framework of the WNBR. This claim is supported by the following findings. The non-response rates to the survey of 61% among BRs and 45% among MAB NCs

(with BRs in the country),4 despite the long response period and multiple measures taken to increase response, can be explained by multiple reasons. Non-response is not random (the group of non-respondents in many aspects is not similar to the group of respondents). An important reason for non-participation in the survey is the level of activity under the banner of the BR concept in a particular country or BR and/or the value attributed to the BR designation.

The contact information list of the Secretariat was not up to date. Despite multiple efforts to update the information, there are still gaps in information. To some extent, the incomplete contact information available at the MAB Secretariat reflects the turnover of staff among national counterparts responsible for a particular BR. This situation points at the limited importance of the BR concept and the relationship with UNESCO for some stakeholders (of some BRs). In addition, it points at the low levels of communication between the Secretariat and parts of the network.

There are clear differences in activity levels within the WNBR between regions. The Regional Networks of EuroMAB, IberoMAB and AfriMAB are relatively active and have a relatively high membership ratio from BRs and/or MAB NCs (and other stakeholders) within the region. In other regions these networks are less active and have lower participation rates of stakeholders related to BRs in the region.

There is limited direct collaboration between the MAB Secretariat and individual BRs, which is logical given the high number of BRs. Among MAB NCs the percentage of direct collaboration with the MAB Secretariat is much higher (81%). This is logical given the function of regional networks and MAB NCs as intermediaries and information channels between the Secretariat and individual BRs. However, there is a significant proportion of MAB NCs in the sample which are not directly in contact with the Secretariat. Given the high non-response rate to the survey, this proportion is likely to be much higher in reality (at population level).

A significant proportion of MAB NCs are active and providing important contributions to individual BRs and the BR model in general. At the same time, taking into account the high non-response to the survey and the divergent activity levels as expressed in the survey, a significant proportion of MAB NCs are likely to be inactive.

4 55% non-response for the total population of MAB NCs.


Original: English

4

Institutionalization of the Biosphere Reserve model Key finding 2

The majority of biosphere reserves report some level of activity on all three of the major functions of a biosphere reserve. There are clear indications of benefits resulting from these activities. However, a significant proportion of biosphere reserves are not active in one or more of the functions.

The data analysis revealed that most BRs have some type of management structure, but there is still a significant proportion of BRs that do not have such a structure. It is unlikely that a BR fulfills its three core functions without the existence of a management structure. Further evidence on the different levels of activity with respect to the three core functions5 of BRs is provided below. The following findings relate to the dimension of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The findings show that there is no convincing evidence that the BR concept has had a significant effect on conservation and sustainable use. This does not necessarily imply that there has been no effect (in particular cases or across BR network). It simply cannot be determined from MAP-related variables. In just over half of the BRs, the zonation scheme constitutes a basis for planning (e.g.

land use planning). Two thirds of MAB NCs reported that they promote this issue. Around 70% of MAB NCs reported to have assisted BRs on the issue of zonation.

43% of BRs have multiple international designations (Ramsar, World Heritage, BR). Moreover, the zonation of most BRs is based on existing protected areas (69 %). However, there are proportionally less post-Seville than pre-Seville BRs based on existing zonation schemes.6

Roughly half of the BRs report that their activities are aligned to international conventions. However, it is unclear whether this finding refers to awareness of alignment or actual alignment. In fact, a successful implementation of the biosphere concept is evidence of alignment to the objectives of for example the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In over half of the countries (participating in the survey) activities have been undertaken by MAB NCs (and in most cases BRs) to promote the incorporation of the BR concept in national legislation. However, in reality the proportion of countries with BRs that also have legislation on BRs appears to be less than 50% (no exact estimation can be given).7

Ecosystem services and climate change are key topics of education and research activities (see below).

Research and education activities within the framework of BRs are quite prevalent.8 Almost all BRs (93%) reported research activities being undertaken within the framework

of the BR. A slightly lower (86%) percentage reported the occurrence of education activities.

The research themes set out in the MAP were reasonably well covered throughout the BR network, with the following proportion of BRs reporting research activities on these

5 The three core functions, which are slightly differently presented below, are: conservation, development, logistic support. 6 Usually existing protected areas. 7 A study on the legal interpretation of the BR concept in the framework of national legislation was presented at the MAB-ICC meeting in Jeju in 2009. The number of responses to the questionnaire was limited to 30 countries. Excerpts from legislation from 13 countries were included in the report. No overall figures on biosphere-related legislation across the network were presented in this report. 8 It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to assess (e.g.) the quality and impact of research.


Original: English

5

themes: sustainable development (61%), climate change (53%), ecosystem services (52%), rural urban issues (26%).

Local development activities have been implemented within the framework of 81% of BRs. Sustainable development is an umbrella concept9 which is most often mentioned as the

theme of BR-related activities. A relatively high percentage of BRs (56%) reported that activities have been undertaken

regarding the marketing of BR related goods and services.10 In the majority of BRs (70%), local communities have reportedly benefited from activities

undertaken within the framework of BRs. Key finding 3

The most important themes of biosphere reserve-related activities are sustainable development, climate change and ecosystem services.

The five most important themes (in declining order of importance) dominating BR-related activities are the following: Sustainable development: 85% (local development, education and research) Climate change: 66% (mostly research and education) Ecosystem services: 63% (mostly research and education) BR-related products and marketing: 56% (mostly local development) Urban-rural interface: 55% (mostly local development)11 Key finding 4

There is some evidence of biosphere reserves serving as learning and demonstration sites.

Evidence of biosphere reserves serving as learning and demonstration sites is the following. 78% of BRs report that research activities conducted within the framework of the BR

were in line with the principle of BRs as demonstration and learning sites. However, the percentage of BRs reporting replication or scaling-up effects of research is substantially lower.

The high prevalence of research activities undertaken within the framework of biosphere reserves (see above).

The influence of research outputs on awareness-raising and (to a limited extent) on policy processes (see below).

Key finding 5

The biosphere reserve concept lacks visibility and clear branding.

Visibility and branding of the BR concept can result from several channels of information (web sites, social media) as well as associated information outputs (policy briefs, academic publications). Despite different activities and outputs at the level of the Secretariat and at more decentralized levels within the WNBR (regional networks, BRs), the challenge of increasing the visibility of BRs remains.

9 This concept is particularly prone to different interpretations as respondents may associate it primarily with the word ‘sustainable’ or more generally to economic development. 10 As is the case with most themes, there is room for interpretation here as this category may or may not (depending on the interpretation of the respondent) include for example tourism activities. In general, the different themes can be interpreted differently by respondents, which affects the responses. 11 For example, the complex interlinkages between processes of urbanization and the use, quality and conservation of environmental resources.


Original: English

6

Some underlying findings are the following. The MAB Secretariat currently lacks the capacity and resources to implement an

effective communication and knowledge-sharing strategy. 57% of BRs report having a communication strategy to disseminate different information

products to specific audiences. This leaves a large proportion of BRs without any strategy.

The most frequently produced information materials are targeted at the general public and tourists (around 85%). Research and education materials are being produced within the framework of activities in two-thirds of the BRs and policy-oriented research publications in just over half of the BRs.

In the vast majority of BRs, publications produced within the framework of the BR are reported to have influenced the behavior of audiences. The most frequently reported category of influence is awareness-raising. It is very likely that the respondents’ answers are not based on any empirical analysis. However, the fact that awareness-raising scores better than influence on decision-making processes, and the fact that these percentages are consistent between BR focal points and MAB NC representatives, provide some confidence on this variable.

The three functions of BRs are not always well-understood by external audiences. Key finding 6 The majority of biosphere reserves systematically collaborate with different institutional actors. Principal elements supporting this finding are the following. The majority of BRs (61%) have some type of collaboration agreement with more than

three different types of institutional actors. A small yet significant percentage of BRs (12%) reports no systematic collaboration with external actors.

The majority of BRs cooperate with academic institutions and public and civil society organizations. By contrast, the proportion of BRs collaborating with the private sector, UNESCO programmes and other international organizations is markedly lower.

Local communities are in some way involved in the activities undertaken within the framework of BRs in the vast majority of BRs (83%).

Key finding 7 For each main area of action of the MAP, a significant proportion of survey respondents (roughly one third) report substantial progress being achieved. At the same time a higher proportion of respondents report ‘some progress’. A clear majority of BRs and MAB NCs report having used the MAP for guidance. The percentage of regular consultation of the MAP is higher among the MAB NCs (44%) than among the BRs (33%). The vast majority of BRs report some or substantial progress being achieved in all four major areas of action of the MAP. Zonation has the highest percentage of substantial progress being reported12 but also the highest percentage of no progress. For each main area of action, roughly one third of the BRs report ‘substantial progress’ being achieved. Correspondingly, roughly half to two thirds of the respondents report ‘some progress’ being achieved and are thus not outright positive of the achievements in each of the four main areas of action. The results are more or less consistent with the responses from the MAB NC survey. 12 The majority of BRs have undertaken activities to clarify or improve the zonation of the BR.


Original: English

7

Key finding 8

Cooperation, management and communication has been consistently rated as the highest priority action area for the future. Within this action area, strengthening the capacities and resources for managing and governing biosphere reserves is consistently reported as the highest priority for the future.

Cooperation, management and communication (which is a rather heterogeneous category of actions) has been rated as the highest priority for the future by BR managers, representatives of MAB NCs and members of the electronic working group. More specifically, the most important priorities for the future according to BR managers based on spontaneous qualitative responses are the following: Strengthening the capacities and resources13 for managing and governing the BR (51%) Addressing threats to conservation and reconciling sustainable economic development

with conservation (48%) Effectively enshrining the BR concept in national policy and legislation (43%) Strengthening coordination, communication and cooperation within the framework of the

WNBR and with other relevant stakeholders (39%) Increasing the visibility and enhancing the awareness of the BR concept among key

stakeholders (38%) In addition, the most important priorities for the future according to representatives of MAB NCs based on spontaneous qualitative responses are the following: Strengthening the capacities and resources for managing and governing the BR (45%) Strengthening coordination, communication and cooperation within the framework of the

WNBR and with other relevant stakeholders (44%) Increasing the visibility and enhancing the awareness of the BR concept among key

stakeholders (41%) Addressing threats to conservation and reconciling sustainable economic development

with conservation (38%) In sum, BR managers and representatives of MAB NCs largely agree on priorities, with the most important one being the strengthening of capacities and resources for managing and governing BRs. The role of the MAB Secretariat Key finding 9

The MAB Secretariat has been partially successful in fulfilling its role in the implementation of the MAP.

The MAB Secretariat plays a pivotal role in the coordination, monitoring and implementation of key activities within the framework of the WNBR and by implication the MAP. A tentative assessment of the achievement of specific MAP actions for which the responsibility lies (partially) with the MAB Secretariat was undertaken. The word tentative is purposely used here as the available data (e.g. survey, self-assessment, programme

13 80% of the responding BRs received funding from either national or local governments. However, funding is mostly project-based and not sustainable. A key reason is the lack of research evidence that has direct policy relevance (which would facilitate the mobilization of resources from donors).


Original: English

8

documents, interview data) do not always provide conclusive evidence. Nonetheless, overall patterns of achievement are quite clear. Overall, despite resource constraints and increased workloads, the MAB Secretariat has maintained its key functions within the framework of the WNBR and the broader MAB programme. The Secretariat has been especially successful in its standard-setting role. The effective implementation and follow-up of the “Exit Strategy” has, for instance, boosted compliance among BRs with periodic review requirements. 80 % of all BRs is currently in compliance with the rules on period review. Nevertheless, the MAB Secretariat has been considerably less successful in some of the other key roles, notably in the area of the branding, communication and visibility of the BR concept. There is no integrated communication strategy and there are insufficient capacities and resources to implement an effective communication strategy. Additionally, the MAB Secretariat has not been very successful in carrying out its clearing house function. Web sites and publications do not provide an up to date state of the art knowledge repository with knowledge products for specific audiences. A comprehensive assessment of the levels of achievement of MAP actions under the (partial) responsibility of the MAB Secretariat as well as a forward-looking analysis on the priorities for the Secretariat are presented in the report.


Original: English

9

Recommendations On the basis of the key findings of the evaluative analysis, five main areas of improvement have been identified. 14 The bullet points under each of the five areas of improvement constitute specific recommendations15 for improvement but should not be considered as an exhaustive list. Strengthen the value of the WNBR for BRs and the active involvement of the latter in the network’s activities

- Increase the outreach and inclusiveness of (regional and thematic) network activities, especially in particular areas the world

- Strengthen internal communication processes and tools (e.g. newsletters, websites) - Organize a fourth World Congress of Biosphere Reserves - Strengthen the Secretariat’s information management capacities

Strengthen the clearing house function of the WNBR

- Develop an online repository of knowledge with (references to) key publications on BR-related priority themes

- Develop an online database of information on BRs targeting different types of audiences

Develop the WNBR’s global role as a laboratory of ideas

- Consider developing a flagship synthesis publication on BRs - Establish partnerships with academic institutions for long-term research within the

framework of BRs - Create a global ‘research platform’, bringing together academic researchers for

research internships or sabbaticals to work on BR-related priority themes Raise the profile of the WNBR

- Improve the MAB website - Promote a clear and shared vision of the BR concept to different audiences - Consider hiring a professional communication specialist - Clearly position the WNBR (e.g. through the Secretariat) in international debates on

sustainable development and related themes Strengthen the financial and human resource base of the WNBR

- Consider establishing a multidonor trust fund - Promote the BR concept at the appropriate national policy and political levels to

obtain adequate financial support16 for BRs and their support structures - Promote financial sustainability at the BR level through a diversification of the funding

base

14 Specific actions and roles and responsibilities are not included here for multiple reasons and should be defined by the MAB Governing Bodies in collaboration with the Secretariat. 15 Some recommendations are based on ongoing initiatives and should receive priority attention. 16 Enshrined in supporting legislation.


Original: English

10

A note on the evaluability of a future strategy and action plan The MAP was defined with clear provisions for evaluation (mid-term and ex post). To facilitate monitoring and evaluation, the plan was presented in matrix format, indicating the key targets, actions, timeframes, success indicators and responsible actors. Despite this in principle helpful framework, a number of factors17 in fact significantly reduced the evaluability of the MAP. One of the explanations for the abovementioned constraints is the fact that the MAP targets and actions were formulated on the basis of a consensus-seeking process. While stakeholder consensus is a crucial element in the development of a strategy and action plan within the context of an intergovernmental program, such consensus should be established at the level of strategic directions and high-level priorities. The development of specific actions and corresponding indicators is first and foremost a technical exercise, subject to principles of coherence and logic. As a result of these constraints, the evaluation has identified the following guiding principles for a future strategy and action plan. Basic ingredients for a future strategy: A strategy should preferably be limited to a number of key challenges/areas of concern,

strategic objective and strategic lines of action that logically flow from the objectives. An action plan (e.g. a separate document building on the strategy) should present:

o An overall intervention logic of how major strategic lines of action can be broken down into different types of activities (at different levels) generating specific outputs for particular (institutional) actors which are intended to bring about specific changes in the behavior of these actors, eventually contributing to achieving the overall objectives of the strategy.

o A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders responsible for implementing the plan, for all types of activities.

o Identification of key assumptions that underlie each causal step in the intervention logic (from activity to output to outcome).

o Identification of indicators of key outputs generated at different levels, and indicators of outcomes (changes in society).

o Development of a monitoring matrix which lists the output and outcome indicators, the sources of information/verification, and the responsibilities for data collection (including periodicity).

Overall, the strategy should abide as much as possible to the principles of coherence (the logical coherence between strategic objectives and lines of action and activities, outputs, outcomes) and simplicity. The number of key activities (actions) should be limited. With an increasing number of proposed activities the need for defining a clear hierarchy of activities (research versus specific research activities) becomes more important. Intended activities (actions) should be as clear as possible (only one action element per activity statement) and there should be no overlap between types of activities in different parts of the intervention logic.

17 The broad scope of the MAP, the lack of clarity in formulation of particular elements of the MAP, the lack of a clear definition of roles and responsibilities, the lack of an intervention logic as a basis for the action plan (see section 1.4. of the main report for further discussion).


Original: English

11

Annex: Challenges identified in previous studies18 and their relevance based on the report

Challenge Covered in the

report (yes /partly/no)

Current (and future)

relevance (high /moderate)

1 Ensuring capacities and resources for the effective management of the biosphere reserve

yes high

2 Safeguarding the financial sustainability of different institutional actors in the WNBR

partly high

3 Ensuring a multi-stakeholder, participatory approach to management and planning within the framework of the biosphere reserve

partly moderate

4 Reconciling the three functions of the biosphere reserve, especially conservation and (economic) development

partly high

5 Ensuring compliance with the updated criteria of the Statutory Framework, particularly regarding zonation in “pre-Seville” sites

yes high

6 Monitoring and assessing the performance of BRs

yes high

7 Incorporating the BR concept in (inter)national legislation and standard-setting instruments

partly high

8 Ensuring government support to and endorsement of the BR model

partly high

9 Ensuring collaboration and information-sharing between BRs and other actors within the WNBR

yes high

10 Enhancing the awareness and understanding of the BR concept (branding)

partly high

11 Aligning the work conducted within the framework of BRs with other international initiatives and conventions

partly high

12 Strengthening the collaboration with other UNESCO programmes and external organizations

partly high

13 Using the BR model as a conflict resolution mechanism

partly high

14 Addressing the potential tradeoffs between BRs as ‘sites of excellence’ and ‘sites of learning’

no moderate

15 Strengthening the role of BRs in climate change research and policy debates

partly high

16 Using the BR concept as a platform for (regional/global) training programmes

no moderate

18 The list of sources is provided in the report.

SC-14/CONF.226/7/REV Paris, 30 May 2014

Original: English


International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme Twenty-sixth session

Jönkoping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden 10 – 13 June 2014

ITEM 9 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: MAB AND WORLD NETWORK OF BIOSPHERE RESERVE (WNBR) – POST RIO + 20 OPPORTUNITIES AND TOWARDS A STRATEGY FOR 2014-2021

1. The present document has been prepared pursuant to the decision of the MAB ICC at its 25th session to entrust the Bureau of the MAB ICC and its ‘Electronic Reference Group’ in collaboration with the MAB Secretariat with the preparation of a draft future strategy on MAB and its WNBR to be presented at the 26th session of the MAB ICC. 2. The document consists of two sections: Section I outlines the background to and the process behind the preparation of the draft strategy together with a proposed timeframe and suggested working methods for the continued elaboration of the new Strategy that hopefully would be finalized for adoption by the MAB ICC in 2015. Section II contains the ‘zero’ draft of the strategy elements based on inputs received from MAB National Committees and Focal Points. 3. The MAB Council is invited to examine, discuss and adopt the proposed timeframe and working methods for the further elaboration of the new MAB Strategy outlined in Section I of the attached document and to take note of the content of the ‘zero’ draft strategy contained in Section II.


Original: English

2

SECTION I

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL FOR TIMEFRAME AND WORKING METHODS FOR THE CONTINUED PREPARATION AND FINALIZATION OF THE NEW MAB STRATEGY

1. At its 25th session, the MAB ICC discussed the development of a new Strategy for MAB and the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) that would follow on the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan - MAP (2008-2013). The Council subsequently decided that a draft of the new Strategy should be presented to the MAB ICC at its 26th session (Jönköping, Sweden 10 - 13 June 2014) and that the text should be developed in harmony with the UNESCO mid-term strategy (2014-2021) and be supportive of relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) that are to be integrated into the UN’s post-2015 Development Agenda. It was also agreed that the MAB Secretariat would support the strategy development processes, which is to be overseen by the Bureau of the MAB ICC and its ‘Electronic Reference Group’ (formerly referred to as the ‘Electronic Working Group’, and that the draft should reflect the outcomes of the ongoing evaluation of the MAP. 2. On 6 March 2014, the MAB Secretary issued a MAB Circular Letter inviting all MAB National Committees and Focal Points to contribute to the strategy development process by providing key elements for the new strategy focusing on 8 questions drafted in consultation with the Electronic Reference Group. 3. A good number of inputs were subsequently received from MAB National Committees and Focus Points and a regional network. These inputs are available in their original format in a compiled reference document available for consultation on the MABnet web page for the 26th MAB ICC (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/about-mab/icc/icc/26th-session-of-the-mab-council/). 4. Based on the inputs received (up to 21 May 2014), the MAB Bureau/Electronic Reference Group together with the MAB Secretariat prepared a preliminary ‘zero’ draft of the new MAB Strategy, reflecting as faithfully as possible the suggestions and recommendations made, with reference kept to the originator of the input through endnotes, sometimes grouping them together under what appears to be priority issues for several Member States. In cases where text has been introduced from other sources, such as from the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021, they are marked with footnotes. Paragraphs without endnotes or footnotes have been produced by the MAB Bureau/Electronic Reference Group together with the MAB Secretariat. 5. In terms of structure, the zero draft builds on the questions raised in the MAB Circular letter organized under eight ‘Strategy Elements’ (SEs):

SE1. Vision and mission statements for MAB and the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) for enhanced visibility, impact and public recognition SE2: Identifying International Key Issues and Processes and Implementing Related Long-term Strategic MAB and WNBR Goals and Expected Achievements SE3. Development and Effective Delivery of MAB and WNBR Services To the Benefit of UNESCO Member States SE4. Focused and integrated MAB Research, Policy and Action Agendas


Original: English

3

SE5. Enhancing the Functioning of the MAB Regional and Thematic Networks SE6. MAB Governance Mechanisms SE7. Funding Mechanisms and Implementation Partners SE8: Effective MAB and WNBR use of contemporary communication, information and data sharing tools and instruments for enhanced visibility and benefit to Member States and to society

6. Timeframe and working methods. As outlined in the MAB Circular Letter of 6 March 2014, the proposed timeframe for the preparation of the new MAB Strategy, starting from the 26th session of the MAB Council, is one year (i.e. the new strategy should be ready for adoption at the 27th MAB ICC in 2015). For this purpose, it is suggested that following the deliberations at the 26th MAB ICC on the zero draft strategy, the MAB Secretariat should produce a more condensed draft which brings together common statements made by the ICC and distributes this to the MAB Bureau/Reference Group. 7. A two-day working meeting will then be organized by the MAB Secretariat in October-November 2014 in order to prepare the first draft of the new strategy that should be widely circulated for consultation and comment in November-December 2014. It is foreseen that this iterative process, which will take place through electronic communication, including through the MABnet engaging all MAB stakeholders, including the regional and thematic MAB and biosphere reserve networks, will produce several drafts, the almost-final version of which should be ready in time for the 27th session of the MAB ICC for final clearance and adoption.


Original: English

4

SECTION II

ZERO DRAFT OF THE NEW MAB STRATEGY 2014-2021

Strategy Element 1. Vision and mission statements for MAB and the World Network of

Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) for enhanced visibility, impact and public recognition 1. Succinct, easy to understand, while sufficiently comprehensive vision and mission statements are critically important in order to provide MAB and its WNBR with the visibility and public recognition required to achieve more substantive impact. Framed by the overall MAB and WNBR vision and mission statements, regional and thematic networks, as well as individual BRs could also find it useful to develop their own respective statements. 2. Several MAB Nat Coms are of the opinion that the mission and vision statements contained in the MAP are still valid and that no changes are needed.1 Some other MAB Nat Coms propose minor changes.2 Other Member States, a regional network and some BRs propose more substantive modifications or additions.3 3. It should be noted that the Vision and Mission statements in the MAP focus primarily on the WNBR (albeit as part of MAB). Should there be separate statements for the overall MAB Programme (in addition to the statements focusing on the WNBR) or should the existing statements be amended to feature MAB more prominently? 4. The continued use of ‘Man’ in the title of the MAB Programme is viewed by some as outdated and the term ‘Biosphere Reserve’ (BR) is not acceptable in many countries that rather refer to their BRs as ‘Biosphere’, ‘Biosphere Area’, ‘Biosphere Park’, ‘Biosphere Region’ etc. – or equivalents in languages other than English. A more significant action would be for UNESCO to give comparable levels of prominence to World Heritage Sites and BRs, possibly renamed as ‘World Biosphere Regions’ or ’World Biosphere Sites’. Making changes to these names could have benefits as well as disadvantages.4 5. In the following paras, inputs received from Member States are grouped into 3 main categories: amendments proposed to the original vision and mission statements; proposals for entirely new statements; and comments of a more general nature on both the vision and mission statements respectively. 6. Original Vision Statement for the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) within the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme contained in the MAP:

The World Network of Biosphere Reserves of the Man and the Biosphere Programme consists of a dynamic and interactive network of sites of excellence. It fosters harmonious integration of people and nature for sustainable development through participatory dialogue, knowledge sharing, poverty reduction and human well-being improvements, respect for cultural values and society’s ability to cope with change, thus contributing to the MDGs. Accordingly, the WNBR is one of the main international tools to develop and implement sustainable development approaches in a wide array of contexts.

7. Proposed amendments to the original vision statement:

The World Network of Biosphere Reserves of the Man and the Biosphere Programme consists of a dynamic and interactive network of sites of excellence. It


Original: English

5

fosters harmonious integration of people and nature for sustainable development through participatory dialogue, facilitating research and 5 knowledge sharing, poverty reduction and human health and6well-being improvements - restorative theories, empirical findings and potentials, 7 respect for cultural values and society’s ability to cope with change, thus contributing to the achievement and/or implementation of:8 [to the [MDGs and the]9 SDGs.10 Accordingly, the WNBR is one of the main international tools [to] for strengthening synergies with Multilateral Environmental Agreements and 11 develop and implement sustainable development approaches in a wide array of contexts via a reduced environmental impact.12] It sets out to achieve, by 2025, conciliation between biological diversity conservation and development whilst maintaining associated cultural values, thus contributing to peace and the MDGs and SDGs. An intention to make significant contributions to addressing the three emerging challenges is outlined in the MAP: The WNBR is one of the main international tools to develop and implement sustainable development approaches in the context of climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, biodiversity and ecosystem services loss and rapid urbanisation.13 - It supports environmental education of the new generations in order to maintain a sustainable future.14

the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference, particularly to the set of

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be developed and building upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and converging with the post 2015 development agenda

the post 2014 agenda of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development

the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity by 2020 the Dresden Declaration on Biosphere Reserves and Climate Change Accordingly, the WNBR is one of the main international tools to develop and implement sustainable development approaches in a wide array of contexts.15

8. Proposed alternative vision statements:

a. The WNBR is a dynamic and interactive network of sites of excellence. These sites are the main international tool to implement and understand sustainable development.16

b. The WNBR is a dynamic and interactive network of sites of excellence, being the

main international tool to develop and implement sustainable development.17

9. Proposed MAB Programme vision statement:

c. The vision of the MAB programme is to contribute decisively to the strengthening and implementation of strategies for the harmonious integration of people and nature, to promote sustainable development through participatory dialogue, exchange of knowledge, poverty reduction, improved welfare, respect for cultural values and adaptive capacity of society to change, thus contributing to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).18


Original: English

6

d. - The intergovernmental MAB Programme of UNESCO is one of the guides of the international community on its way towards sustainable development, offering a unique world network of model regions for sustainable development. - The intergovernmental MAB Programme of UNESCO contributes, in the framework of its mandate and in coordination with other relevant institutions and programmes, to guide the international community on its way to sustainable development, in particular to implementing the sustainable development goals and to comply with its commitments in the framework of Multilateral Environmental Agreements as well as social and cultural conventions and agreements including those on human rights and on the diversity of cultural expressions. - Through its World Network of Biosphere Reserves it supplies its Member States with the necessary knowledge and tools to sustainably use and protect their biological resources. Member States have strong criteria and structures in place to take full advantage of the Programme at national level, to use it for international cooperation and for channeling ODA resources. - The MAB Programme is recognized by the international community as a major contribution to implement the Sustainable Development Goals and as an asset to sustainably use and conserve biological diversity and ecosystem services to thereby fulfill the CBD-goals. 19

10. General comments on the vision statement:

e. The vision statement is quite broad and could provide a better explanation of the link between MAB and WNBR.20

f. It would be helpful to outline the strategy of the MAB Programme in other areas

than BR development.21

g. As problems are getting worse, there is a need to add ‘testing of the ecological transition’ to the mandate of the WNBR.22

h. The protection of biodiversity and nature values should be specified.23

i. The vision statement should be replaced by a shorter and more compelling vision

defining an optimal future state.24

j. If the current version of the vision statement is used as a basis for a new version, it should be updated to remain relevant in the context of global sustainable development processes.25

k. New changes in society, culture and nature, are challenging us to develop an education mechanism or system of actions that will bring self-awareness to the people, which will foster intergeneration connections that will underline the solidarity, cooperation, collective spirit and responsible attitude towards the communities.26

l. The vision should be to promote BRs as places of "excellence" where it is

possible to apply the principles of sustainability. Excellence here refers to an ethical commitment, institutional strengthening, an utility paradigm of shared management and open dialogue, learning, intangible heritage and solidarity.27


Original: English

7

m. The WNBR should primarily serve nature conservation, preservation of natural biodiversity of species, landscapes, conservation of the natural mechanisms of the ecosystems cyclic development.28

11. Original Mission Statement for the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) within the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme

To ensure environmental, economic, social (including cultural and spiritual) sustainability through: - development and coordination of a worldwide network of places acting as demonstration areas and learning sites with the aim of maintaining and developing ecological and cultural diversity, and securing ecosystem services for human well-being; - development and integration of knowledge including science for advancing our under-standing of interactions between people and the rest of nature; - building global capacity for the management of complex socio-ecological systems particularly through encouraging greater dialogue at the science-policy interface, environmental education and multi-media outreach to the wider community.

12. Proposed amendments to the original mission statement:

To ensure environmental, economic, social (including cultural and spiritual) sustainability through: - development, operation29 and coordination of a worldwide network of [places] areas30 acting as [demonstration] model31 areas and learning sites with the aim of maintaining and developing ecological and cultural diversity, and securing ecosystem services for human well-being and stimulating economic activities that are consistent with sustainable development in the face of climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, biodiversity and ecosystem services loss and rapid urbanisation;32 - development [and]33 integration and sharing34 of knowledge including science for advancing our understanding of interactions between people and [the rest of]35 nature; - promoting specific actions to build [building] 36 global capacity for the management of complex socio-ecological systems particularly through encouraging greater dialogue at the science-policy interface, stimulating research on tools and methods for environmental management and development, 37 [environmental] 38 education for sustainable development and [multi-media outreach to the wider community] 39 efficient outreach to the wider community through all available channels.40 - devising acceptable mechanisms that will inhibit vested interest groups from ravishing biodiversity and culture-rich sites for commercial exploitation; - development and strengthening of linkages with academic institutions with the aim in view of coming up with innovative learning and research programs for the youth regarding key issues like climate change, biodiversity loss/conservation, impacts of burgeoning population, growth of urban centers, etc.41 - Biosphere reserves shall be places in which responses to adapt to worldwide change will be tried and tested with emphasis on sustainability so that successful responses can subsequently be applied in the rest of the territory.42


Original: English

8

By 2021, the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) • consists only of biosphere reserves with recognized high quality standards based

on the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework for the WNBR. The high quality standards are verified and maintained by the Periodic Review Process.

• Member States propose biosphere reserves for designation only in as far they add value to the World Network as model areas for sustainable development.

• Member States increasingly designate and manage transboundary biosphere reserves to ensure ecosystem based management of natural resources, and improve the management of existing areas.

• The MAB Secretariat seeks and disseminates knowledge and information within the WNBR and to all relevant partners, in particular UN agencies, processes and conventions.43

13. Proposed alternative mission statements:

n. MAB is a network of sites that operationalize sustainable development in a wide array of local contexts.44

o. The WNBR fosters the harmonious integration of people and nature for

sustainable development through participatory dialogue; knowledge sharing; poverty reduction and human well-being improvements; respect for human rights and cultural values, particularly of indigenous peoples and society’s ability to cope with change - thus contributing to the Post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals.45

p. Considered as «Small UNESCO’s» the WNBR comprises places for testing and

implementation of adaptive responses to global change in terms of sustainability, that foster the harmonious integration of people and nature for sustainable development through participatory dialogue; knowledge sharing; poverty reduction and human well-being improvements; respect for human rights and cultural values, particularly of indigenous peoples and society’s ability to cope with change - thus contributing to the Millennium Development Goals.46

14. General comments on the mission statement:

q. The mission statement could further emphasize the need for an interdisciplinary approach in the study of the environment at regional and global scales.47

r. The original mission statement as formulated are more like strategic objectives to

complement the vision and mission statements rather than an integral part of the mission.48

s. It may also be recalled that Biosphere Reserves are of interest to all UNESCO

areas of competencies, not just to the Natural Sciences Sector.49

t. The protection of biodiversity and nature values should be specified.50

u. The WNBR mission statement should be to focus, implement and demonstrate a balanced relationship between humans and the biosphere at all levels, providing test sites and learning methods for conservation and sustainable development, through planned and coordinated management with the effective participation of social actors, and taking as reference the ethical commitment and protective role


Original: English

9

in the development of research, innovation and best practices for efficient use of resources, in order to preserve the environmental and cultural values that identify and promote the comprehensive development of the local population. In short, the mission statement can be characterized by promoting a "Green economy beyond the tangible - the human being as a value and cohesion at the nexus of living space”.51

15. In addition to the question raised in para 3 above (on if there should be separate statements for MAB and the WNBR), a final question that emerges is if it is useful to maintain mission as well as vision statements, or if they possible could be merged into a single statement?


Original: English

10

Strategy Element 2: Identifying International Key Issues and Processes and Implementing Related Long-term Strategic MAB and WNBR Goals and Expected

Achievements 16. Peace and equitable and sustainable development are the overarching objectives in the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4). i This Strategy recognizes that sustainability issues are at the centre of the international debate as current and foreseeable patterns of human activity are fundamentally altering Earth systems, testing the biophysical limits of our planet. This is having profound impacts on the Earth’s freshwater resources, on the ocean, atmosphere and climate, and on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. ii Subsequently, greater knowledge-sharing is critical to induce the transformative changes needed to address the complex and inter-related challenges of sustainable development.iii This is also underscored in the Rio+20 Outcome document.iv 17. From the above follows that a considerable number of key issues that are relevant to MAB and the WNBR can be identified. This diversity is a challenge; and the key issues will vary from one region, country, or BR to another.52 18. This said, several of these concerns were captured in the Madrid Action Plan (MAP), which focused on challenges associated with climate change, loss of biological and cultural diversity, and urbanization.v The type of problems that humanity faces have not changed in nature since the adoption and conclusion of the MAP (2008-2013), but they are now more acute, especially because of climate change and its consequences on biodiversity and development.53 The MAP is therefore very much still valid in terms of identification of issues and related long-term MAB and WNBRS goals.54 This was also evident from the Final MAP Evaluation.vi 19. In line with the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014–2021, the MAP and the Final MAP Evaluation, the following section outlines the international key issues and process and associated long-term strategic MAB and WNBR goals and expected achievements covered in this strategy. I. International Key Issues and Processes I.I Equitable and Sustainable Development, post 2015 development agenda – Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) 20. Member States agreed at the Rio+20 Conference (June 2012) to launch a process to develop a set of SDGs that should apply to all countries and be based on the fundamental

i UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), available on: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002268/226841e.pdf amendments: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002274/227488e.pdf ii UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 50 iii UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4) iv The Future We Want, available on: http://www.uncsd2012.org/thefuturewewant.html v Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves (2008-2013), available on: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001633/163301e.pdf vi Ref. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/SC-14-CONF-226-6-MAP-eng.pdf and http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/MAP-Final_draft_evaluation-mai2014.pdf


Original: English

11

principles of human rights, equality, and sustainability.vii The Working Document prepared for the 5-9 May 2014 Session of the Open Working Group on the SDGs included a total of 16 Focus Areas for the SDGs (see Annex I), several of which match those of the MAP and the UNESCO’s Medium Term Strategy, as highlighted below. I.II. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation 21. Climate change continues to be of paramount concern to the future of humankind and a big challenge of our time.55 According to the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased and it is now extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.viii The IPCC also reports that in recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Evidence of climate-change impacts is strongest and most comprehensive for natural systems. Some impacts on human systems have also been attributed to climate change. ix Examples from BRs include deglaciation of the mountains that are in the core zone of Huascaran BR in Peru.56 I.III. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 22. Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is a critically important challenge57. Habitat loss and fragmentation due to human development and unsustainable consumption and production patterns are considered as the major cause of diminishing biodiversity globally. Loss of biodiversity results in a reduction in ecosystem services (e.g. food and fiber production, disease control, crop pollination and recreation) and will ultimately cause a direct threat for human survival.58 23. Increased demand for food globally has led scientists to manipulate plant DNA to produce strong and drought and disease resistant crops. There is the general concern that GMO products are harmful to human beings. When GMO food products are released to the environment, they may not be recalled, making it a dangerous global experiment.59 I.IV. Water and Natural Resources 24. The current scales of unprecedented exploitation of our natural resources calls for improved governance and stewardship of the world’s natural resources.60 Equity of resource use/access is also called for.61

vii Member States agreed at the Rio+20 Conference (June 2012) to launch a process to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that should apply to all countries and be based on the fundamental principles of human rights, equality, and sustainability. Background and updated information on the work of the Inter-governmental Open Working Group that will submit a report to the 68th session of the UN General Assembly with a proposal for SDGs for its consideration and appropriate action is available on: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 viii IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, available on: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf ix IPCC, 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. WGII AR5 Summary for Policymakers, available on: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf


Original: English

12

25. Freshwater remains a critical element of security, sustainability, inclusion and peace, with its vital importance increasing due to, among other factors, demographic growth, urbanization and climate change.x The quality of inland water is under compromise from dumped industrial and chemical wastes, untreated sewage, pesticide’s residues and fertilizers and chemical run off. The above activities worsen the already existing problem of water pollution. The increased use of underground water in coastal regions results in the intrusion of salt water.62 I.V. Urbanization and Population Increase 26. Rapidly expanding cities and urban areas and a burgeoning world population have resulted in overconsumption of limited natural resources, intensification of urbanization, overexploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources, accelerating pollution and environmental degradation.63 27. Demographic change is a threat to many biosphere reserves – people are leaving rural areas and concentrate increasingly in urban areas. The relation of cities with their rural environments must be subject of BR management.64 II. Measures to be Undertaken to Address the Above Issues and Challenges / Long-term Strategic MAB and WNBR Goals and Expected Achievements 28. The key strategic objective related to MAB in the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (strategic objective 5) is formulated as: Promoting international scientific cooperation on critical challenges to sustainable development. It covers the full range of issues outlined above.xi 29. The challenge, particularly given the limited capacity of the MAB Secretariat and all those involved in MAB in individual regions and countries, is to prioritize efforts in order to most effectively deliver on the implementation of MAB’s strategic objective, vision and mission statements.65 Indeed, MAB must have one understanding of what the programme is and should do.66 The conceptual core essence of MAB’s efforts should be based on the principles of public participation and citizen collaboration, innovation and lifelong learning, solidarity, cooperation and exchange of knowledge and experience, and active and adaptive management.67 30. The proposed activities identified below, which focus both on what MAB and the WNBR can and should deliver, as well as on how MAB and the WNBR could be strengthened to deliver more, have been elaborated taking the above concerns and objectives into consideration. II.I. Promoting Equitable and Sustainable Development and the Implementation of the Post

2015 Development Agenda – Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 31. Building on its experience in leading intergovernmental and international science programmes and bodies and on their global observation capacities, UNESCO will contribute to shaping the research agenda of global and regional scientific cooperation, based on the Rio+20 outcome document and the post - 2015 development agenda.xii

x UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 53. xi UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), Strategic objective 5, page 15 xii UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 51


Original: English

13

32. While the assessment of reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 is still outstanding and as the precise shaping of the SDGs is still work in progress, MAB and its WNBR should be strategically positioned to assume their roles in the international development arenas and to support the future SDG implementation.68 33. Preparing for climate change impacts, preservation of ecosystem services (e.g. freshwater, soil ecosystems etc.), protecting biological diversity and traditional living practices (farming, forestry, fisheries, social habits etc.). These are important heritage and basic pillars for developing new methods.69 MAB should continue to provide the scientific and institutional frameworks to ensure UNESCO’s inputs into the post- 2015 development agenda.70 34. Focus should be on operationalizing sustainability (including social and economic) at the local level, supported through community-based research and the new economy, 71 promoting sustainable livelihood and sustainable enterprise principles to achieve poverty reduction,72 and sustainable coexistence of nature and human society.73 35. BRs should enhance their active role as learning sites and real model areas (not laboratories74) for developing and testing solutions which leads countries to sustainable development, and that countries can apply the results of the models developed also in other areas.75 The WNBR and regional networks should promote a partnership approach and integrated international, national and local efforts to meet global development targets.76 36. Overall, MAB and the WNBR could make a key contribution to the SDGs implementation process through promoting the effective integration of most, if not all, of the SDGs in a concerted and coherent fashion within a given BR. II.II. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation 37. Climate change will be one of the main challenges for BRs. Strategies for adaptation and mitigation need to be developed – the Dresden Declarationxiii is an excellent basis in this respect.77 The potential of BRs to address climate change should be realised through the direct involvement of existing and future sites in projects and adaptation/mitigation plans and strategies.78 Such as through the creation of corridors (altitudinal, latitudinal and longitudinal) across large landscapes,79 and through monitoring and research programmes.80 38. MAB should be involved in the climate change discussion/ negotiations for the stabilization of greenhouse emissions,81 and contribute to the development and adoption of renewable and clean energy.82 II.III. Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services 39. Protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services is a key topic for MAB.83 Research programmes to improve resilience of ecosystems to maintain and restore ecosystem services should also be high on the MAB agenda.84 40. More integrated approaches to the provision of ecosystem services and their contribution to health and well-being, both within BRs and more widely are called for. 85 This requires that current and potential contributions to, and enhancement of, ecosystem services by the administrations, businesses, and citizens of urban areas embedded within BRs. Rights and xiii Dresden Declaration on Biosphere Reserves and Climate Change is available on: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/DRESDEN_DECLARATION_MAB.pdf


Original: English

14

responsibilities of those utilizing and benefiting from ecosystem services deriving from BRs – both within BRs and extending more widely, including to sometimes distant urban areas – including investment in their effective management needs to be elucidated.86 BRs should provide local experiences on mainstreaming ecosystem services into policy making, ensuring food security and restoring degraded ecosystems.87 41. MAB should promote intelligent marketing of BR eco-friendly products and eco-tourism,88 and support the green economy sustained in responsible tourism and quality economies.89 BRs shall contribute to green economies by inter alia implementing the TEEB-Programme in BRs. II.IV. Promote the Sustainable Use and Management of Water and Natural Resources 42. As part of the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy, the Organization will continue to build institutional and human capacities of Member States in the various fields of freshwater resources management. The Organization will make available updated knowledge for policy guidance on freshwater resources via the periodic World Water Development Reports, produced by the World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP), on behalf of UN Water.xiv MAB and the WNBR should contribute to this knowledge base. 43. In order to address the future global challenge on water resources scarcity especially in BRs, MAB need to join the UNESCO IHP Programme on Eco-hydrology. A new thematic group should be initiated to deal with this aspect.90 44. Highly profitable economic activities such as mining and extraction of hydrocarbons often raises questions concerning what the degree of interaction should be with biosphere reserves especially in the buffer and transition zones.91 II.V. Developing and Managing Biosphere Reserves as Model, Learning and Demonstration

Sites 45. In line with its Medium-Term Strategy, UNESCO will endeavor to strengthen the role and potential of the UNESCO-designated biosphere reserves and other UNESCO-affiliated sites, along with their associated networks, as pilot sites for research on mitigation and adaptation to climate change, green economies and as sites for collaboration with other international innovative environmental initiatives. They will further serve to build scientific knowledge and identify best practices for natural resource use and ecosystem management, restoration and rehabilitation, as well as geosciences, and to strengthen the interface between science, policy and society at local, national, regional and global levels.xv 46. Biosphere reserves should [be real model areas and learning sites (not laboratories)]92 [used as learning laboratories] 93 for sustainable development, creation of scientific knowledge, climate change adaptation, and building of peace and sustainability.94 BRs that function as “sites of excellence” or models of sustainable development will also serve as a models for sustainable development of the regions at large,95 and they should play a key role as testing grounds for the ecological transition, linking between the local and the global, at the interface between science and society.96 47. MAB must have a unique focus on the operationalization of sustainability (including social, economy, cultural diversity and heritage) at the local level, supported through community-based research and the new economy.97 The WNBR constitutes a unique arena xiv UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 53. xv UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 55.


Original: English

15

for co-production of knowledge for sustainable development between practitioners and researchers.98 48. For this purpose, BRs should support social development, environmental protection, sustainability of ecosystems, conservation of biodiversity, resource management by active engagement of the local communities and their indigenous knowledge, 99 and facilitate access to and sharing of methods and approaches to zoning, planning and decision-making to address the priorities of local communities residing in BRs.100 49. BRs should be places in which to establish alliances between conservation officials, development promoters and economic and social stakeholders in order to put genuinely sustainable development models into practice, including proper governance models.101 The implementation of sustainability should be a way of life for the residents of the BR and act as a general guideline for all stake holders in decision-making.102 50. BRs have the potential to act as learning and demonstration sites for the implementation of the ecosystem approach, the conservation and management of biological and cultural diversity, adaptation to climate change. As such they should contribute to the implementation of global initiatives and should be centre stage in this regard.103 51. BRs established in disputed territory among countries can also act as peace parks making our planet a safe place for the harmonious coexistence of people and nature, but also among people by establishing an enabling environment for promoting a culture of peace with regard to the use of and benefit from shared natural resources, especially at the trans-boundary level.104 52. Biosphere reserves should be considered as “small UNESCO’s”, encapsulating the goals of UNESCO regarding education, the natural and social sciences, as well as culture.105 53. In order for MAB and the WNBR to reach their full potential in developing and managing BRs as model, learning and demonstration sites, efforts are needed to strengthen them in accordance with the below priorities. 54. The WNBR must consist of fully functioning, well managed sites that work in concert with the MAB programme,106 in compliance with Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework.107 BRs that maintain an effective activity should be further strengthened, and the exit strategy implemented for those BRs that cannot comply. Overall, this should result in an increase in the delivery, value and prestige of the MAB Programme and the WNBR.108 55. As part of the exist strategy, it will be important to define the terms of references for the finalization of the overview and qualification of “old” and non-fully functional BRs.109 56. Analysis of zonation schemes and determining percentage minimum sizes for core areas and buffer zones. Countries must develop strict national-specific criteria, including optimal and efficient functional zonation schemes based on the Statutory Framework of the WNBR and the Seville Strategy.110 57. Efficient evaluation systems must generally be linked, in collaboration with the biosphere reserves themselves and, in particular, with the MAB National Committees, in order to identify the best demonstration cases and implement the exit strategy efficiently.111 58. MAB must work to build BRs’ capacities through enhanced discussions and knowledge sharing among BRs working at the local level, through reinforced recognition and


Original: English

16

participation of indigenous people and local communities in BR’s, 112 stronger partnerships with academia, decision-makers, community stakeholders, economic sectors industry and private sector in order to design and implement actions aimed at improving socioeconomic and environmental conditions in existing BRs, 113 and enhanced network interactions with research programmes (e.g. on water issues and climate change).114 59. MAB also needs to facilitate the establishment of a common language and methods to better evaluate similar (larger-scale) research projects in order to generate broader conclusions and build a community of practice, and partnerships between conservation managers, development promoters and economic and social actors, to implement real sustainable development models, including appropriate governance models.115 60. The needs of women and the importance of ensuring their participation and access to the sustainable use of natural resources need to be taken into account. The needs of indigenous and local communities and the importance of ensuring their participation and access to the sustainable use of natural resources need to be taken into account.116 61. WNBR guidelines should be developed on good management of BRs117 and on how BRs best can be used as tools/platforms for promoting sustainable development and the SDGs.118 62. As part of the search for synergies with programs, projects and conventions of UNESCO, MAB program should be based among other things on the report on possible ways to protect and enhance the brand recognition of BRs, World Heritage sites and possibly Global Geoparks. In this context it is also necessary to coordinate upstream processes at the national level for these labels so that states can have clear guidelines for the recognition of their sites.119 63. MAB should encourage enhanced interests in incorporating BRs in national land use plans (and maps), national legislation and harmonization among BRs at the regional level and mitigate, and seek to ensure more equal levels of expertise in BR management among the different MAB BR Networks.120 II.VI. Promoting International, Regional and National Cooperation 64. In accordance with its Medium-Term Strategy, UNESCO will promote scientific collaboration, especially South-South and North-South-South triangular cooperation, as a catalyst for dialogue and co-production of scientific knowledge, in synergy with local and indigenous knowledge brokers, and for science diplomacy. The Organization will further promote joint management of transboundary areas and resources, including transboundary surface and groundwater resources and transboundary biosphere reserves, as a means for sharing knowledge and best practices, building peace and promoting dialogue among nations.xvi 65. Furthermore, greater knowledge-sharing is critical to induce the transformative changes needed to address the complex and inter-related challenges of sustainable development. UNESCO will promote international scientific cooperation and integrated scientific approaches to support Member States in effectively managing natural resources, reducing knowledge divides within and among countries, and building bridges for dialogue and peace.xvii xvi UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 56. xvii UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 49.


Original: English

17

66. Strengthening international cooperation between neighboring countries in transboundary sites of the WNBR and ‘site-to-site’ cooperation that leads to sustainable development of the regions and maintenance of neighborliness. 121 Promote the establishment of new transboundary Biosphere reserves for management of ecosystems and promote peace among the neighboring countries especially with regards to solving conflicts around natural resource use and benefit sharing.122 67. Promote the integration, closer linkages and coordination of MAB and the WNBR with other relevant sites (World Heritage Sites, Geoparks etc), UNESCO and other programmes that are seeking to achieve similar objectives.123 Link Biosphere Reserves to National and Regional Protected Areas Networks.124 68. The MAB program should encourage the harmonization of national/EU agricultural support systems for sustainable conservation of natural and cultural values of land use, by focusing on the costs and availability of demonstrated results.125 II.VII. Promoting Education, Training and Capacity Building 69. Education for Sustainable Development is a prerequisite for and a leading instrument in all BR-related activities to follow-up the outgoing decade.126 70. MAB’s educational efforts should be broadened from the specialized scientific communities to involve all partners of civil society, including closer cooperation with the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPNet),127 and a more focused approach on how capacity building for indigenous communities should be integrated in the MAB programme.128 71. MAB should promote capacity building programmes directed to BR managers and BR authorities that allow for improvement of the sustainable development actions implemented and technologies applied in individual BRs, 129 and encourage exchange of expertise between BR networks, regional training and capacity building efforts.130 72. MAB should promote training and capacity building at the interface of the interlinked issues of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, and socio-economic and cultural well-being of human communities.131 In doing so, focus should give to participation and education of young people and on programmes designed to enable both new knowledge and a better understanding of the past history, as well as new and emerging changes and challenges that could be addressed through proper use of technology and sustainable and smart use of natural resources.132 73. Emphasis should be put in enabling the people to act more responsibly, to act and think according to ethical and moral principles.133 II.VIII. Contribute to Research [to be cross-references with SE4] 74. Following its Medium-Term Strategy, UNESCO will put into practice integrated approaches to science and engineering for sustainable development, called “sustainability science”. These integrated, “problem-solving” approaches draw on the full range of scientific, traditional and indigenous knowledge in a trans-disciplinary way to identify, understand and address economic, environmental, ethical and societal challenges.xviii

xviii UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 52.


Original: English

18

75. The WNBR should be further developed in order to increase the interdisciplinary research efforts between the developing and industrialized countries134 and MAB should provide a platform facilitating the dialogue between the scientific and policy making communities and society for sustainable development135, and help strengthen international science cooperation and culture for peace, sustainability and social inclusion.136 76. MAB should introduce the concept of “Sustainability Science” which is the integrated approach of natural science, humanities and social sciences.137 In order to enhance the involvement of researchers in MAB, consideration should be given to the appointment of an international advisory scientific committee, with the task to suggest measures promoting co-production of knowledge in BRs.138 77. There are many national and international opportunities where BRs can play key roles at the interface of environmental conservation, research on human-environment interactions, sustainable development, cultural identity, and learning for a sustainable future139, MAB and its WNBR should therefore seek to fully engage with existing relevant international, regional and national research initiatives and programmes, such as:

a. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (IPBES).140

b. Future Earth.141 c. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).142 d. The Group on Earth Observation (GEO) – GEO-BON, GCOSS, the Global

Ecosystem Monitoring Networks and Programmes.143 e. International Model Forest Network.144 f. Activities of IUCN, especially the World Conservation Congresses and World

Parks Congresses.145 78. In doing so, MAB should seek to establish solid, prioritised positions of MAB and the WNBR within these initiatives, programmes and activities that also would benefit management and planning within the WNBR and at the level of individual BRs.146 79. MAB should design research programmes to mitigate climate change,147 and priority studies on how to clean the environment from accumulated solid wastes without any further damage and avoid any negative impacts of GMOs on human health.148 Analysis of long term observations conducted in the WNBR should be undertaken and the results presented to decision makers and positive results of applied research should be widely distributed and promoted.149 80. In promoting scientific research, recognition should be given to cooperative strategies applied to cultural identity principles of knowledge and socialization favoring continued innovation.150 81. Consideration should be given to regional cooperation programmes, such as European Commission programmes including Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+, which can include activities and partners not only in the European Union but in other European countries and other parts of the world.151 II.IX. Promote the Implementation of Relevant International Conventions 82. In addition to its contributions to the realization of the SDG’s, MAB should also produce measurable deliveries and contributions to and partnerships with the Rio Conventions: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), UN Convention to Combat Desertification. 152


Original: English

19

83. In focusing on knowledge-sharing and systematic observation platforms, research programs, and outreach strategies, mechanisms should be devised to maximise the involvement and enhance dialogue between MAB and specific programs and processes under relevant conventions in a way that ensures that BRs are seen as learning sites of excellence by donors and implementing agencies and to enhance opportunities for support through convention related financial mechanisms.153 84. Regional MAB and BR networks should be encouraged to work on reaching the CBD Aichi Targets and updated CBD Global Strategies.154 85. Collaboration with the World Heritage Convention for natural world heritage and with the emerging Global Geoparks Network will provide great latitude for creating synergy effects regarding the visibility of UNESCO-designated sites the world over, while at the same time maintaining the specific identities and functions of biosphere reserves. 155 Enhanced cooperation should also be sought with the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, reflecting the links between cultural diversity and biodiversity, 156 as well as with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (UK).157 86. MAB should also seek to engage in mutually beneficial partnerships with financial institutions associated with the above-mentioned conventions, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund. [to be cross-references with SE4]


Original: English

20

Strategy Element 3. Development and Effective Delivery of MAB and WNBR Services to the Benefit of UNESCO Member States

87. In line with the international key issues and processes and the related strategic MAB and WNBR goals and expected achievements outlined under strategic objective 2, the WNBR should act as an integrated global network of learning and demonstration sites for innovation in sustainable development, including ecosystem-based management, the conservation of biological and cultural diversity, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, and economic activities based on and supporting regional identity. These activities should be supported by research and monitoring (both biophysical and socio-economic), including evaluation of the implementation of integrated policies. This would benefit both the Member States where individual BRs are located, through contributing to innovative management and policy, and much wider constituencies (e.g., the international initiatives mentioned above). BRs should be clear examples of the implementation of many aspects of global conventions.158 88. While these activities and services are outlined in some detail below, they could also be subject for more in-depth elaboration in a new MAB Action Plan accompanying this Strategy. 89. However, given the availability of resources MAB should focus on coordination activities and its multiplier role based as much as possible on existing programs and projects.159 90. Services are here divided into two main categories: I) services to be delivered by MAB and the WNBR to the benefit of society; II) enabling services necessary to ensure effective delivery of category I services. I. MAB and the WNBR: Supporting Sustainable Development - BRs as Model Sites for Sustainable Development I.I. Research and Learning from Doing [cross ref to SE4] 91. BRs should be model sites to conserve biodiversity, reduce poverty, and contribute to economic development and sustainable use of natural resources including environmentally, socially and economically viable models for boosting green economies and local livelihoods by providing a wide range of both direct and indirect ecosystem services including clean water supply, production of fuel wood and raw materials for charcoal, timber for construction, food, medicinal plants, socio-cultural and spiritual services, as well as support to sustainable tourism activities and relevant capacity building that promote environmental awareness, conservation and protection of ecosystem, respect biodiversity and cultural diversity and related policy making.160 92. MAB ecosystem services were articulated around the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and were grouped into 4 service categories: supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural. 161 MAB should continue to elaborate the four distinct categories of services but more attention should be given to socio-cultural services in transition zones.162 Given the resources available this approach should be re-evaluated and appropriate prioritization should be introduced taking into account the added value the Organization can provide. The public and private sector partnerships in ecosystem services should be further developed in areas where MAB has a specific comparative advantage.163 93. Promote and support research programs that involve academic and traditional knowledge stakeholders and social organisations aimed at providing solutions to sustainability problems experienced in BRs.164 Enhance cooperation between experts and


Original: English

21

practitioners in relevant key issues on innovative practices.165 As mentioned above, the WNBR constitutes a unique arena for co-production of knowledge for sustainable development between practitioners and researchers, but in order to fully exploit this potential, thresholds for cooperation between, on one hand, practitioners in the BR community and, on the other hand, the research community should be lowered. Other key elements for this purpose include recognizing youth as driver for change and civil society cooperation and local participation from civil society, institutions and enterprises to ensure an inclusive process for new BRs.166 94. Increase cooperation and coordination with existing international programmes and initiatives and increased linkages between biosphere reserve activities and sustainable development initiatives at multiple scales and levels, 167 including as model sites for strengthening synergies with Multilateral Environmental Agreements and other relevant conventions, 168 and by Member States in their work with other UNESCO programmes, including IOC and MOST.169 I.II. Data and Information Service Provider 95. As a network gathering knowledge from research and practice of BRs on the operationalization of sustainability (including social, economy, cultural diversity and heritage) at the local, regional, and international levels, MAB should identify, promote and publicize the many innovative and successful approaches from different social, cultural and environmental contexts, ranging from rural to urban, and act as a clearinghouse and distribution center of such knowledge, supporting learning exchanges among BRs internationally and sharing of best practices and guidelines with focus on success stories and on the post 2015 global agenda including the SDGs.170 96. MAB should provide information and support to build regional sustainable development models of recycling-based social and economic systems that can enjoy sustainable benefits from ecosystem services.171 97. To ensure added value of services, the MAB Secretariat should host (or facilitate, through one or more appropriate partners), an internet database of research needs/questions posed by BRs across the world, and examples of good practice. 172 98. MAB should make full and effective use of the web as a main tool for information and data exchange, 173 and seek to provide information in multiple languages in addition to English and French.174 I.III. Servicing Cooperation and Peace Building 99. MAB and the WNBR should promote collaboration and exchange among and within BRs, and encourage BRs to actively engage different BR stakeholders groups, including local communities, decision-makers, politicians and economic sectors and researchers, with emphasis on young people, in joint international cooperation projects.175 100. MAB shall promote multicultural dialogues and the establishment of transboundary BRs as ‘peace parks’.176


Original: English

22

I.IV. Education, Training, Capacity and Public Awareness Building Services 101. BRs shall be used as platforms for education of local young people, pupils and students to enhance their interest in nature preservation, 177 and projects aiming at education and capacity building among UNESCO-MAB member countries promoted.178 102. MAB and Its WNBR shall provide services, such as, capacity building, skill acquisition, improved technology practices and machinery in communities within and around biosphere reserves.179 II. Enabling MAB and the WNBR to Deliver Effective Services 103. BRs as places of excellence for sustainable development involves a rigorous and effective network management support,180 and that BRs in many cases are given a real boost in terms of service support and resources to allow them to fulfill their roles as model spaces for sustainability and for meeting the MDGs and the SDGs.181 II.I. Resource Mobilization Services [cross ref to SE7] 104. The MAB programme should aim to secure funding, and in particular, sponsorship for this function, which links to the implementation of initiatives including post-2015 Sustainable Development, Future Earth, and European Commission programmes, all of which are implemented in individual countries.182 105. To increase organizational resilience of the BRs, different means for funding has to be explored, including through social innovation and entrepreneurship.183 MAB should promote improved financial mechanisms for biosphere reserves and regional networks and improved generation of profits and livelihood benefits through sustainable production, harvesting, processing and marketing of biosphere reserve products, as well as increased involvement, support and buy-in of private sector.184 II.II. Servicing the Information, Data and Communication Infrastructure [cross ref to SE8] 106. The MAB Programme must service as a hub and clearinghouse of knowledge, information and data derived from BRs and BR network research and practice,185 hosting (or facilitate, through one or more appropriate partners), an internet database of research needs/questions posed by BRs across the world, and examples of good practice.186 This may require further clarity regarding data sharing conditions from the perspective of researchers and UNESCO MAB.187 Such a clearinghouse should also facilitate and enable learning from experimentation and therefore also “failures” through which a wealth of valuable experiences could be made available.188 107. There is a need to enhance the visibility of MAB and the WNBR at all levels. All MAB stakeholders should therefore be involved in a major new MAB communication operation.189 MAB should assist BRs and MAB Nat Coms to create awareness at International (international celebration days) as well as national level of member states of the value of MAB and BRs as a tool in the quest to showcase sustainable development and promote sustainable living practices.190 Opportunities to enhance the contacts between the MAB Secretariat and stakeholders in BRs, such as elected local officials, for example through, mutual study visits, should be examined,191


Original: English

23

108. The UNESCO- MAB website (the MABnet) should be developed to respond to the information needs of different users and stakeholders. Politicians should be provided with information on the connections between knowledge-politics-practice. 192 The MABnet must be updated continuously and possibly made more accessible through provision of information in languages in addition to English and French.193 MAB and BRs must also take full advantage of online social-network opportunities to disseminate key MAB Programme messages.194 II.III. Training, Capacity Building and Technical Assistance Services 109. MAB should provide technical assistance to Member States and MAB Nat Coms on how existing BRs could better contribute, including through improved networking, to addressing climate change, rapid and unplanned urbanisation and biodiversity/ecosystem services loss, including on socio-economic evaluation of natural resources,195 and support learning exchanges among BRs internationally on post 2015 global agenda in general.196 Mechanisms for easy feedback of research to practitioners in BRs shall be developed. Education, training and capacity-building are possible mechanisms. The MAB secretariat can assist by coordination/facilitation.197 110. MAB and Its WNBR should provide services, such as, capacity building, skill acquisition, improved technology practices and machinery in communities within and around biosphere reserves, 198 and the Earth Sciences should be strengthened, especially in developing countries, for the better appreciation of ecosystem services. In particular the understanding and management of surface and ground water resources in tropical sub humid-semi arid savannahs.199 II.IV. Servicing the Periodic Review and Exit Strategy of the WNBR 111. The periodic BR review process is a key element for achieving and supporting a functional WNBR. Generating a dynamic process of adaptive management of sites according to a 10 year timeframe, the periodic review process allows Member States to assess progress, review weaknesses, re-engage stakeholders and to improve the functioning of the sites in the light of experience gained.200 The periodic review process also offers the MAB Secretariat with the possibility to produce status reports of the overall WNBR network. For this to be successful, the MAB Secretariat shall support the development and availability of operational databases, cartography tools, and performance indicators.201 This would also help in the implementation of the exit strategy.202. MAB should also seek to develop a standardized BR management plan format. 203 Overall, the effective implementation of the Seville Strategy should be promoted.204 II.V. Promote Policy Integration, Including Legal Provisions 112. Provision for open and participatory procedures and processes in the designation, planning and implementation of BRs and for enhanced legal safeguards and recognition should be promoted.205 113. MAB should seek to more effectively ensure that its recommendations and lessons learnt are appropriately and more fully reflected in relevant national plans, policies and legal frameworks.206 Consideration could be given to development of a UNESCO convention on MAB and BRs in this context.207


Original: English

24

Strategy Element 4. Focused and integrated MAB Research, Policy and Action Agendas

114. Consistent with the items developed under strategy elements SE1- SE3, this strategy element (SE4) aims at further sharpening MAB’s future agendas in relation to research, policy and action. As under SE3, the items identified can be grouped into two main categories: actions targeting and directly benefiting external stakeholders; and actions aiming at reinforcing MAB and the WNBR. Several of the included elements could likely be subject for more detailed elaboration under a new MAB Action Plan. 115. A wide variety of themes (e.g., ecosystem services and their trade-offs, and related policy and practice; socio-economic development; climate/environmental change and biodiversity loss/change; biological and cultural diversity; contributions of, and linkages to, urban areas) have been listed within the SE2 and SE3. A key challenge therefore is to prioritize efforts in order to most effectively deliver on the implementation of the vision and mission statements (SE1). This needs to be discussed further as the strategy and eventual action plans evolve.208 116. Recognizing that research, policy and action agendas in the context of MAB and the WNBR often would and should be overlapping and intertwined, no attempt has been made to separate them. As mentioned above, a clear distinction is sought between agendas focusing on what MAB and the WNBR should deliver (section I) and on how it could do so effectively, including related required enabling factors (II). I. Research, policy and actions agendas – key issues, processes, stakeholders and goals 117. As recalled under SE2, in-line with its Medium-Term Strategy, UNESCO will put into practice integrated approaches to science and engineering for sustainable development, called “sustainability science”. These integrated, “problem-solving” approaches draw on the full range of scientific, traditional and indigenous knowledge in a trans-disciplinary way to identify, understand and address economic, environmental, ethical and societal challenges.xix 118. In the case of MAB, this implies promoting and conducting research in the areas of biodiversity and ecosystems services, climate change, socio-economic issues, including the protection of both natural and cultural values using participatory processes. MAB and the WNBR should help provide the tools people need to be able to cope with changes and to promote sustainable development.209 119. In general terms, MAB’s research agenda(s) should be multidisciplinary and innovative, promoting the interface between science, policy and society.210 incorporating a wide field of knowledge and actors, including national research councils, science agencies, universities, and local communities. 211 Traditional knowledge should be used as a “knowledge input” while recognizing the importance of empowering indigenous communities as vulnerable guardians of unique knowledge.212 120. Future MAB research should focus on activities and enterprises that promote improved livelihood and sustainable development of biosphere reserves, as well as provide fora for exchange of ideas. MAB must also facilitate and encourage financial support for these activities.213

xix UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), para 52.


Original: English

25

I.I. Biodiversity and ecosystem services 121. MAB and the WNBR must make decisive contributions to biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing, including towards the achievement of the 2010 biodiversity target of the CBD to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth.214 122. This should include site-based policy-relevant research programmes in BRs, including on key ecosystem services,215 restoration, conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems216, as well as studies on the role of payments for environmental services in the creation of long-term financial strategies to support conservation and sustainable development activities in BRs.217 I.II. Climate change 123. Research, action and policy-related work on climate change, mitigation and adaptation, remain high on the agenda of MAB and the WNBR.218 124. Few countries have the capability of projecting ecosystem responses to global warming and climate change. There is need for new visions on land use-global warming response of ecosystems, particularly in regions where livelihoods are highly dependent on basic ecosystem services. This should include the capability of developing ecosystem responses to the combination of land use and climate change.219 I.III. Green economy and sustainable finance 125. Green economies will have to be built on in-depth knowledge of natural and cultural heritage, and on socio-economic realities,220 BRs are thus uniquely well placed to support the transition to green economies and green societies more broadly. Issue proposed for this purpose, include:

a. Methodologies and tools to develop organic production systems that ensure a minimum use of chemical substances;221 and promote the coexistence of nature and local development;222

b. Eco-tourism development; 223 and tourism management systems coordinated and labeled with BR label;224

c. Establishment of microfinance systems;225 d. Infrastructure which supports environmental conservation and green business

opportunities;226 e. Energy transitions (alternative and renewable energy, renewable), circular

economy, territorial ecology;227 f. Researches demonstrate the results achieved by extensive land use methods;228 g. Agro ecological transition: what changes do according to levels of action and

governance (consumer exploitation territory, state and beyond), integration biodiversity objectives into production;229

h. Conversion of economic systems that negatively affect conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity;230

i. Local development based on protection and preservation of the natural environment;231

j. Livelihood diversification and involvement of local business.232


Original: English

26

I.IV. Natural resources 126. MAB and the WNBR can usefully contribute to agendas focusing on the sustainable, rational and fair use of natural resources, through the promotion of:

k. Equitable sharing of benefits of natural resources;233 l. Joint work with the mining and hydrocarbon sectors to support research and

conservation initiatives in BRs to enhance understanding and sharing information on sustainable mining practices, built on the outcome of local engagement processes and by better understanding and applying ICMM sustainable mining principles in local context and to exchange information with similar networks.234

m. Studies on water and land use management, aquatic pollution and environmental flows and estimation of exploitable natural resources.235

I.V. Education for sustainable development 127. Contribute to follow-up and implementation of the post 2014 agenda of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) programmes with educational and research institutions including through exchange of educational resources for widespread adaptation and application.236 128. Actions in education should be oriented towards promotion of responsible attitudes of people towards their environment and other people. It is necessary to introduce critical thinking into society where interdependence of living systems processes are understood and respected.237 II. Research, policy and action agenda items on enhancing the effectiveness and service delivery of MAB and the WNBR 129. A rich portfolio of ways and means to enhance and ensure the contribution of MAB and the WNBR to address the research, policy and action priorities above have been identified. II.I. Evaluation, assessments and demonstration 130. MAB should enhance dialogue between science and policy-makers in order to generate consensus regarding the BRs potential to address climate change, unsustainable urbanisation and biodiversity/ecosystem services loss and encourage best practices in decision-making.238 131. There is need for research ON BRs (BRs as objects of research), considering that research IN BRs (BRs as sites for research) is important but well established already.239 132. BRs should promote research which is useful for BR management. This means that managers, stakeholders and communities should participate in framing the research question (“co-design” of research); they should participate in devising methods and in the knowledge-generation (“co-production” of knowledge). Interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, co-design and co-production are usually referenced as key aspects of “Sustainability Science”. 240 133. Due to burgeoning population, and growth of urban centers,241 more research studies should be oriented towards urban areas, providing them with proper solutions and procedures to be undertaken in order to enable the quality environment for the people.242


Original: English

27

134. At the scale of individual BRs, high priority should be given to research which shows how communities, businesses, and organizations within these BRs – and, where appropriate, in adjacent or nearby urban areas – can benefit from supporting the aims of BRs (e.g. studies into social enterprise, and the economic benefits from products and services which draw from and feed back into BRs).243 135. MAB should explore the potential links between BRs and reforestation/prevention of forest degradation activities, biodiversity conservation strategies and land use planning frameworks in Member States.244 136. BRs should also be sites for research which test and evaluates regional approaches to adapt to, and mitigate the impacts of, climate change, and how they can combat climate change (e.g. by sequestering carbon, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). Such activities will assist in many ways to increasing public and government (at all scales) support and resources for BRs, and contribute to policy and practice not only in BRs but more widely; successful examples from BRs should be suitable for wide implementation elsewhere.245 137. Demonstration of methodologies for implementation of research actions, at regional and local levels is an important responsibility for the regional networks. 246 138. Global research studies on the true effectiveness and efficiency of Biosphere Reserves in fulfilling the three functions of the Biosphere Reserve concept and making a difference in the lives of people living and working in BR, and on the economic impact of the existence of BRs – within the respective region of individual BRs, but also with respect to national economic impacts and influences.247 139. Studies on how better valorization of demonstration sites/ research findings in BRs can be achieved.248 140. BR conducted research programmes linked to the development of the management plan and zoning, and incorporation of research recommendations targeted at improving management routines and practices.249 141. BRs encouraged to experiment with innovative responses to conditions of worldwide change and to disseminate success in the form of demonstration cases.250 142. MAB Nat Coms and BR authorities are to be provided with periodic summary reports on available methods, technologies and approaches to BR’s zoning, planning and monitoring.251 143. Enhance the understanding in private businesses on how supporting BR values can improve their business activities,252 and the promotion of business and public associations to develop the BR brand as beneficial for their activities e.g. tourism; clean/green production particularly in agriculture and aquaculture. 253 Consider promoting the implementation of special labels to enhance the commercial attractiveness of products that are generated in BRs.254 144. Strengthen the role of BRs as demonstration areas and research ways and means of including BRs into national development policies, land-use planning and the environment (laws, policies and programmes).255


Original: English

28

145. Incite BRs to experience innovative responses to global change conditions and to disseminate the achievements in the form of show cases.256 146. Focus on implementation mechanisms, guidelines and solutions of what are "sites of excellence" and "models of sustainable development".257 147. Reinforce the concept of transition zone as specific to RBs and as examples for non-protected areas, integrating the functions of conservation, development and logistics of BRs into transition zones projects.258 II.II. Monitoring, observation and inventories 148. MAB should promote integrated comparative monitoring schemes (piloting and implementation) of ecological and socio-economic effects of BRs over the time (development monitoring) and in comparison with other BRs and similar non-BR areas (structural monitoring) as an important strategic management tool.259 149. An evaluation of the BRIM framework is proposed in order to move from Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring (BRIM) to Biosphere Reserve Integrated Assessment (BRIA), by distinguishing between observation and monitoring on the one hand and assessment and management on the other.260 150. Development of cost-effective methods and tools to conduct more effective and continuous monitoring of the ecosystem services provided by BRs and the success of actions implemented to promote sustainable development.261 151. Establishing a data base of the WNBR including biotic monitoring (flora, fauna - as vertebrates and invertebrates); abiotic monitoring (hydrology and surface water objects quality/quantity); and social monitoring.262 Establish an integrated comparative monitoring schemes for ecological and socio-economic effects in BRs.263 152. Promote the creation of capacities for long-term monitoring and to support research, e.g. through capacities for processing of data, of IT-based model building etc.264 153. Generate database on traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities.265 154. Identify all available databases, articles and reports about past research on the biosphere reserve and help creating inventories of empiric data and make accessible to BRs all primary or secondary data (as far as possible within the limits of intellectual property rights).266 155. Improve the mapping capacity of the biosphere reserve, including GIS referenced data, exact zonation, and map overlays.267 156. Summarized information on climatic characteristics in BRs (temperature, humidity, pressure, snow and blanket of snow, cloudiness, wind etc) over decades will allow further analysis of the interaction of biodiversity and climate change.268 157. Strategically collect and document/report open questions and limits of knowledge.269


Original: English

29

II.III. Advocacy and integration 158. More emphatic lobbying and horizontal activities with other initiatives (eg. UNESCO World Heritage, Ramsar Convention, IPBES, Global Network of National Geoparks, European Geopark Network etc.).270 159. The international scientific community needs to be better informed on the potential of the WNBR to facilitate efficient North-South and South-South cooperative research on climate change and biodiversity.271 One of the indicators in CBD annual report should be reflected by the number of biosphere reserves present in the country.272 160. Strengthen cooperation between BR management structure and local community.273 161. BR managers should have an open mind towards traditional knowledge and promote its use as complementary to scientific research, improving management effectiveness.274 162. BR managers could organize “biosphere research day” and promote partnerships in general, including establishing framework agreements or MoUs with suitable universities and research institutes.275 163. BRs should be highlighted as major tool in relation to the SDGs and integrated with other programmes targeting the SDGs.276 164. BR needs to be more intensely used as learning sites for local and regional sustainable development.277 165. Increased use should be made of the BR as research facilities in developed and industrialized countries to conduct integrated environmental research, making use of the archives of long time observations and environmental monitoring and management experiments in the core, buffer and transition zones.278 166. Cultural events which highlight BRs, such as an international meeting on promoting cultural activities in support of environmental conservation should be considered.279 167. Better alignment between policy frameworks and implementation.280 168. MAB could promote the SLIQ approach (System thinking; Landscape planning; Intersectoral coordination; Quality economy) to facilitate the understanding and management of BRs as institutions that effectively integrates a system of different components and objectives.281 169. Public associations support and activities should be encouraged.282 170. Methods to incorporate BRs into national development, territorial planning and environment policies (legislation, policies and programs) should be explored.283 II.IV. Education, training and capacity building 171. A global agenda to train BR and/or coordinators and other stakeholders in implementing the BR concept to the benefit of all.284


Original: English

30

172. Provision of technical assistance to Member States on how existing BRs could better contribute to addressing climate change, rapid and unplanned urbanisation and biodiversity/ecosystem services loss.285 173. Training on the ecosystem services concept and on how to use it within BRs, the creation of a database including research themes, initiatives and research associates and the promotion of scientific research and case studies of BRs, should be promoted.286 174. Development and publication of teaching materials with an interdisciplinary approach for managers of BRs and other valuable territories of high international status in printed and electronic form.287 175. Special attention should be given to the applied aspects of MAB and more case studies based on recommendations of the conducted fundamental ecological research should be organized with involvement of different business communities and local population. Sharing the results of such case studies will help in capacity building of regional networks and should be included into bilateral agreements covering also transboundary cooperation of BRs.288 176. Formulation of step by step guidelines for policy development is needed.289 177. Education and research support roles well established.290 II.V. Cooperation 178. Also as stated under SE2, there are many national and international opportunities where BRs can and should play key roles at the interface of environmental conservation, research on human-environment interactions, sustainable development, cultural identity, and learning for a sustainable future291, MAB and its WNBR should therefore seek to fully engage with existing relevant international, regional and national research initiatives and programmes, such as: The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (IPBES);292 Future Earth;293 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);294 The Group on Earth Observation (GEO) – GEO-BON, GCOSS, the Global Ecosystem Monitoring Networks and Programmes;295 International Model Forest Network;296 Activities of IUCN, especially the World Conservation Congresses and World Parks Congresses.297 179. MAB’s research agenda should, when appropriate, also include cooperation with the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (IGBP), and WWF.298 180. Transnational and international collaboration is essential to add value to MAB and WNBR activities. It is notable that, while there are databases for the WNBR, there are no comparable databases for scientists working in BRs. Thus, the MAB Secretariat should host (or facilitate, through one or more appropriate partners), an internet database of active researchers in BRs, including their fields of activity, and their outcomes from research in BRs.299 181. More focus on regional collaboration for research, implementation and monitoring. 300 BRs should conduct research programmes on analyses of ecosystem services and their management through stakeholder participation.301 Exchanges between BRS in the WNBR should be promoted.302


Original: English

31

182. The partnership approach to achieve the vision and mission of the MAB Programme requires action implementation by many actors. Cooperation and collaboration for implementation at regional levels should therefore be strengthened.303 183. The interaction of BR managers and scientists must be a win-win-situation, from which both benefit. For win-win-situations, managers and scientists need to openly discuss to identify their respective expectations, rules and constraints. Enhanced cooperation with the policy of local community (local government). BRs should provide co-operative conservation and development strategies.304 184. Promotion of transboundary biosphere reserves, for cooperation, environmental diplomacy, peace, security and conflict management.305 Reinforce transboundary BRs by facilitating multi-scale dialogue, supporting national MAB Nat Coms in capacity building, specific to transboundary issues.306 185. Collaborating with locals with their specific traditions and traditional knowledge, including, where it is the case, indigenous Peoples; by a rethink of our approach and the engagement of communities as rights-holders and hosts of BRs.307 186. Put forward tools to build collaboration by exploring the tools and opportunities available to enhance sustainability of BR management, by evaluating success, and by sharing developments in technology for enhanced citizen engagement.308 II.VI. Institutional and administrative MAB and BR issues. 187. As UNESCO is the only UN Specialized Agency with a mandate to designate specific areas as BR the development of the WNBR should continue to be a key priority for MAB.309 188. Formulation of national policy on MAB Programme and allocation of budget for MAB activities.310 189. Financial and legal support for BR actions should be permanently established.311 190. Building cooperating management methods of BR consisting of multiple communities.312 191. Regular undertaking of periodic reviews and related actions to update zonation, management and other changes to meet Seville & MAP requirements and recommendations.313 192. Establish functional zonation, taking into account the interrelationship of all three zones. 193. The delineation of the BR zones, especially of the older BR, still needs to be improved.314 194. Strengthen the “transition zone” concept and highlight the need for them to be large enough; stress their major role in achieving strategic biosphere reserve objectives by hosting the bulk of the population and economic development activities.315 195. “Exit strategy” process implemented for BRs that don’t meet the MAB criteria. The completion of the process should be a milestone.316


Original: English

32

Strategy Element 5. Enhancing the Functioning of the MAB Regional and Thematic Networks

196. There is general agreement that the network mechanism is useful (no submission received disputes this) but that the functioning of most if not all networks could be enhanced, in some instances significantly.317 Expressions of support include seeing strong value of regional and thematic networks, such as by providing strategically important and interesting platforms for international cooperation and research.318 197. The aims and activities of the networks generally seem to be poorly communicated/disseminated, with little or no action between meetings and a poor sense of progress/resolution of issues over time. However, where adequate resources, especially funds for a dedicated secretariat, exist there can be a real added value to the networks.319 198. The importance of the networks was also duly emphasized in the MAP evaluation that recommends, in order to strengthen the value of the WNBR for BRs and their active involvement in the networks activities, to increase the outreach and inclusiveness of regional and thematic network activities, especially in certain areas of the world.320 I. Modalities for enhancing the networks I.I. Financial resources [cross ref to SE7] 199. Regional and thematic networks require sufficient and stable financing in order for them to operate effectively. Although the financial situation is not necessarily entirely satisfactory for any of the networks, it is particularly severe for several of the networks focusing on developing countries. Therefore, mobilization of financial resources is an imperative for most networks and there are several ways and means to do so, including through:

a. Developing creative twinning and tripartite arrangements;321 b. Stimulating private sector involvement and corporate sponsorship;322 c. Support from the Secretariat to the regional networks;323 d. Development of regional network projects for external funding, such as through

existing regional inter-governmental structures, focusing on regional priorities and action-oriented results.324

e. Thematic networks built within or around projects that contribute to the costs of the network for the project’s life span.325

I.II. Communication and visibility [cross ref to SE8] 200. The visibility of and communication within and from networks are often limited, resulting in reduced impact and effectiveness. Enhanced visibility and communication is therefore a priority for the networks326 and it could be promoted through:

a. Improved communication to the general public of the good work done;327 b. The use of web-based resources and platforms;328 c. Development of an interactive web based online communication network to

increase participation and streamline knowledge-sharing processes and where BR staff and other stake holders could post questions and requests and where information and records of results and other resources could be kept and be open for the public,329 and through the UNESCO-MAB website that could feature the main high-value products of each network.330


Original: English

33

I.III. Organizational arrangements and working methods 201. Organizational arrangements and working methods have a direct impact on the operations, outreach and effectiveness of the networks. While recognizing that the regional networks have variable working methods and statutes which address local needs and that they perhaps should be kept flexible in order to keep relevant and efficient in the context of their areas of work,331 and that the thematic networks typically should be self-organized,332 they could often be improved, such as through:

a. Strengthened participation of Member States, 333 including UNESCO National Commissions and MAB Nat Coms,334 Ministries of Environment335, as well as of universities and grass-roots NGOs;336 and through stronger cooperation with new partners in general;337

b. Establishment of permanent, full time regional network secretariats; 338 c. Establishment of permanent reference centers, or offices for thematic networks

focusing on their respective themes;339 d. Establishment of national BR associations;340 e. Identification of Member States long-term commitment towards the networks;341 f. Support from the UNESCO MAB Secretariat to help ensure coordination among

the networks;342 g. Network activities coherent with and integrated into the UN post 2015

development agenda;343 h. Improved collaboration and coordination between BRs and relevant conventions

and agreements and similar initiatives;344 i. Building thematic networks within or around projects that can contribute to the

costs of the network during the life span of the project;345 j. Sharing of information on measures, characteristics and good practices of each

BR, and exchange of BR managers, focal points and liaison officers;346 k. Favouring the use of web-based resources and platforms to increase

participation and streamline knowledge-sharing processes;347 l. Accountability of network Bureau Members;348 m. Introduction of sun set clause for thematic networks;349 n. Annual assessment of the performance of the regional networks;350 o. Periodic reviews (ten years) of thematic networks assessing whether or not they

should continue;351 p. Closing down of networks when they do not deliver the expected results.352

II. Regional and thematic coverage of networks 202. In terms of establishing new networks, Member States are divided among those that a) believes there are enough networks, if not too many, already;353 b) those that support additional networks in principle but provided certain conditions are met;354 and c) those that would support additional networks on new themes.355 203. Arguments against establishment of new networks include that:

a. It is not useful to promote the multiplicity of networks, but to rely on those that work best and to share and transfer their experiences;356

b. In general there is no need for additional networks.357 The number of already existing networks is very high already. The capacity of the Secretariat to effectively support these networks is also rather limited;358

c. There are too many thematic networks. It should be possible to find a more flexible system to address important issues. For example, constitute thematic task forces that might be needed with sunset clauses.359


Original: English

34

204. In case new networks are to be established, several suggestions are made concerning preconditions that should be consider prior to their establishment, notably:

a. New thematic networks must have a sunset clause and an inbuilt review mechanism;360

b. MAB should secure the future and the quality of existing networks before starting any new ones;361

c. Informal networks should be promoted according to expressed needs;362 205. Proposals for establishing new networks include the following:

a. A Network of Transboundary Biosphere Reserves allowing participants and stakeholders of the TBRs to share best practices for solving cross-border issues;363

b. MABWET - Network of wetlands within the MAB Programme;364 c. Thematic networks on arid and semi-arid areas, mountains, Amazon, coastal and

marine areas, governance, management models of biosphere reserves;365energy, livestock breeding and agriculture, tourism;366 and on interactions of BRs and urban areas.367

206. The alternative to add new themes or groups under existing networks is also proposed. This would require that the network statutes should be flexible enough to allow for the inclusion of new themes within existing networks. 368 Some regional networks have already established such thematic sub-networks or groups.369 207. Views have been expressed concerning the geographical coverage and structure of EuroMAB.370


Original: English

35

Strategy Element 6. MAB Governance Mechanisms 208. Well structured and effectively implemented and managed governing mechanisms are at the foundation of a successful MAB Programme. While several Member States and individual BRs consider the existing governance mechanisms as being appropriate,371 most submissions point at opportunities for improvement, either in the effective execution of existing governance frameworks, or through proposed changes to the mechanisms in question. I. General considerations 209. In view of the fact that the design of governance mechanisms should be effective in support of the implementation of the new MAB Strategy, it may prove premature to settle these issues firmly until later when the new strategy is starting to take shape. This would also allow for an assessment process aimed at establishing the strengths, weaknesses and possible alternatives to the current governing mechanisms is included within the future strategy, so decisions are made on an informed basis.372 Important lessons have certainly been drawn from many years of experiences working with the Seville Strategy and from the implementation and evaluation of the MAP,373 but continuous monitoring and evaluation of the action and governance mechanisms is called for in order to ensure timely and effective adaptation to change.374 210. Given the increased constraints on resources, a cost-benefit analysis of the governing mechanisms could be conducted and cost saving measures could be proposed especially by reinforcing electronic consultation processes and electronic communication.375 211. A further assessment of governance mechanisms should also seek to elucidate the competencies of different international groups and committees of the MAB Programme and UNESCO’s executive office.376 212. A more rigorous and consistent application of existing governance norms/procedures is critical for the future success of the MAB Programme.377 II. National Level MAB National Committees and Biosphere Reserves 213. MAB Nat Coms have a critical role to play regarding the implementation of the vision and mission of the MAB Programme.378 It is therefore important that there be MAB Nat Coms or National Commissions for UNESCO that see to the development of the MAB Programme, including that they provide well-defined institutional support.379 214. MAB Nat Coms and BRs should be recognised legally by central governments and their activities should be integrated into the governmental and sectoral policies, especially National Agenda 21 and national priorities of social-economical plans at all levels.380 215. Countries should have MAB Nat Coms which are to be docked with the Ministry in charge of conservation and/or land management. This allows a vertical information flow from the model biosphere reserve to the authorities in charge of political decisions.381 216. The composition of the membership of the MAB Nat Coms should be multi-transdisciplinary and include representatives from the public and private sectors,382 and a wide range of stakeholders from diverse sectors, including representation from BRs to widen


Original: English

36

the understanding of, and involvement in BRs, and to bring in additional sources of funding. 383 217. There is a need to revisit the governing mechanism, especially on the role and responsibility between MAB Nat Coms and regional networks and how they could complement each other.384 218. Guidelines for MAB Nat Coms, including their preferred structure and responsibilities may be disseminated to those countries without MAB Nat Coms, or with just a Focal Point for MAB.385 Management models could be developed in each biosphere reserves, providing organizational structure with MAB Nat Coms including a minimum budget required to perform specific activities.386 219. At the national level, the terms depend on the countries,387 and the stewardship of the MAB program in different countries is country specific, this implies that revision of strategies concerning the MAB Nat Coms is a national matter.388 (see 1997 Guidelines for Establishing MAB Nat Coms).xx 220. The communication between the MAB Nat Coms and the National UNESCO Commissions needs to be strengthened further.389 221. MAB Nat Coms should be represented by their focal points, and BRs by their managers, local community representatives and relevant Govt. officers as part of various BR Management committees.390 222. Countries shall share the composition of their MAB national/ regional committees with the UNESCO MAB Secretariat and progress regarding MAB programme should be communicated in the form of an annual report to the regional networks and MAB Secretariat.391 III. International level III.I. Regional and thematic networks 223. At present, there are no governing mechanisms per se at regional level; the regional networks have the potential to play a variety of roles, including linkage to regional institutions and processes, collaborative research and policy development, and mutual support. However, this implies a need for adequate resources.392 224. Regional networks should have governing mechanisms. The networks should present the challenges and needs of their respective regions at the MAB ICC sessions.393 225. Functioning of regional networks should be based on: Members charter; Statutes of the network including new themes; Short term and long term action plans and targets. The regional networks should have the following organs: A general assembly comprising of the member states. A Bureau which should be elected at general assembly meeting. The Bureau shall be composed of: A Chairperson; A Secretary General; Five technical coordinators facilitating intellectual and scientific activities of the network.394 226. New stakeholders and partners, such as leading research groups, private sectors and civil society organizations should be engaged in the networks.395

xx Available on http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001115/111527eo.pdf


Original: English

37

III.II. Statutory Framework of the World Network 227. The Statutory Framework of the World Network remains entirely appropriate.396 228. The WNBR should review the legal situations and issue relevant guidelines to apply to all BRs within in the network.397 229. Designation of BRs should be for a 10 years period (not-permanent), renewal only upon resubmission (rather than periodic review).398 230. The periodic BR review form should be made simpler and support and guidance provided to MAB Nat Coms and BRs in preparing them. A joint MAB - World Heritage programme working group established to learn from respective experiences of periodic reviews should be considered.399 III.III MAB ICC and Bureau 231. Delegations to the ICC should always include representatives from national government institutions to provide political in- and oversight.400 232. A prominent/outstanding and experienced person chairing the MAB-ICC, well known and respected by donor organizations and institutions relevant for cooperating with MAB and who is lobbying for the MAB-programme and acts as a broker in funding questions would be beneficial. This would also result in an increased international visibility and recognition of the MAB programme.401 233. ICC MAB sessions should include issues on their agendas identified by regional networks.402 234. Globally, the ICC is working much more effectively, especially since meetings have become annual. It may be appropriate to review the membership and remit of the Bureau; and it is essential that all of its members to contribute fully to its activities; such a commitment should be made by any prospective member before being elected to the Bureau.403 235. The Bureau of ICC MAB with representatives of all regions recognized by UNESCO should meet more often for better management and coordination of MAB activities.404 III.IV. International Support Group (ISG) for the Madrid Action Plan and the MAB Secretariat 236. The ISG of Permanent Delegates to UNESCO is increasingly working well for advocacy for the MAB programme and should continue to contribute to communications and advocacy to the benefit of MAB; this requires continued strategic work by the MAB Secretariat.405 III.V. International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves. 237. More transparency in the appointment of members of the IAC is required.406


Original: English

38

IV. UNESCO MAB Secretariat and UNESCO Regional Offices 238. UNESCO’s Regional Offices can play an important part in communication flows between countries and the MAB Programme Secretariat so that all countries may genuinely participate in strategic MAB Programme decisions and in transmitting recommendations from the Programme to the biosphere reserves.407 However, the UNESCO Regional Offices should be reformed into multi-sectorial regional offices with all the five sectors represented to improve implementation of UNESCO programmes. To keep the regional dimension of the MAB programme, a coordination mechanism among these multi-sector regional offices should be put in place within the same UNESCO region.408


Original: English

39

Strategy Element 7. Funding Mechanisms and Implementation Partners 239. There seems to be an (unfortunate) consensus on the issue of financing: there is not, and probably never has been, sufficient financing for MAB and the WNBR, and that this is a critically important challenge to overcome. On a more positive note, there is also general agreement that the potential for raising and generating funds is good. The issue at stake resembles to some extent that of the question of the chicken and the egg in terms of what comes first: funding or service delivery? In other words, would a larger budget be a precondition for MAB and the WNBR to function better, or could MAB with the resources actually available improve service delivery and thus prospects for increased access to additional financial resources? Inputs received outline both scenarios. Combined they offer a rich package of fund raising and more targeted service delivery proposals. I. General remarks 240. In terms of the recommendations contained in the final MAP evaluation, the following general suggestions were made to strengthen the financial resource base of the WNBR:xxi

Consider establishing a multidonor trust fund; Promote the BR concept at the appropriate national policy and political levels to

obtain adequate financial support for BRs and their support structures; Promote financial sustainability at the BR level through a diversification of the

funding base. 241. During the long history of the MAB Programme, no reliable funding mechanisms were ever established at the national, regional or global levels. 409 Many BRs therefore struggle financially facing a constant challenge to secure long-term monetary resources, especially with regards to operational funding, notably in countries where MAB is not supported and funded by national governments. 410 Creation of a sustainable financing mechanism aimed at strengthening the biosphere reserves, MAB and regional networks and to promote the implementation of plans and strategies is therefore a key priority.411 242. While the basic operational resources of the MAB Programme and the biosphere reserves must be provided from regular budgets for all levels of implementation: the UNESCO Secretariat, the Regional Offices, the MAB Nat Coms / National Commissions for UNESCO, each BR etc, 412 there is a clear need to bring in new implementation partners, leading research groups, private sector enterprises or groups, and civil society organizations. 413 However, in doing so, attention needs to be given to so that local communities do not lose their independence and influence, especially if the partners are from other regions.414 To increase organizational, including financial resilience in MAB and BRs, different means of funding should be explored, including through enhanced social innovation and social entrepreneurship.415 243. UNESCO has one of the most famous and best-recognized global ‘brands’. MAB's priority should be to establish how this brand can be used to raise funds for the WNBR and its BRs without damaging the image which built the brand in the first place. Funders generally require results-based activities. However, MAB generally does not have a good evidence base of effectiveness. This needs to be pulled together to grab the attention of donors. In other words, there is a clear need for a review of how MAB, at all levels, works with the private and philanthropic sectors on action and implementation, and what opportunities exist. 416

xxi See document SC-14/CONF.226/6


Original: English

40

244. Clearly, if the WNBR would be seen as a global collection of sites of excellence to promote learning and pilot concrete actions on climate change adaptation and mitigation and biodiversity conservation etc, individual BRs would then have much more easy access to financial resources from existing programs led by multilateral agencies and international funds.417 245. Today, major public and private institutions are all equipped with lobbying structures favoring their interests. Why has UNESCO no such similar structures? 418 246. It should be recalled that, in addition to financing, new partnerships might also foster a rise in public awareness and involvement of local communities and such cooperation among partners could be very useful in promoting and implementing sustainable development.419 II. National and BR levels 247. UNESCO approved BRs should receive basic funding from public budgets to cover administration and personnel costs of the BR. Such funding should not be project based because it is an indefinite public task and responsibility that also underly the sovereignty of the country/state in respect to the establishment, management and review of BRs. 420 Subsequently, a sustainable financial mechanism should be mainstreamed in national priorities. 421 As MAB and BR activities covers several disciplines and competencies, financing must be subject for cooperation among all relevant ministries and experts and MAB activities must be positioned in the policy of local governments.422 248. This said, the budgets available to the state for strengthening national, regional and global strategies, are very limited in developing countries, including for ensuring conservation and development models, such as BRs. It is therefore important to engage a multitude of public and private partners. 423 At both the national level and for individual BRs, widening the range of stakeholders involved in governance will not only widen understanding of, and involvement in BRs, but should also bring in additional sources of funding. For individual BRs, a key need is to find ways in which communities, businesses, and organizations within and close to BRs (e.g., in nearby urban areas) can benefit from supporting the aims of BRs, e.g., through social enterprise, products and branding which help promote income generation from activities which enhance BRs and support local livelihoods.424 249. More technical solutions include the establishment of independent national BR trust funds;425 twinning arrangement of BRs that in addition to financial resources also encourage transboundary and transnational cooperation and engendering good will; 426and capacity building in member countries for writing project proposals to funding institutions and for fund administration.427 250. Member states could also consider incorporating in their fiscal and tax regulations for individuals and businesses, a percentage for the benefit of MAB and BRs to address sustainability issues.428 251. It is also the responsibility of the individual BRs, and through their national associations and governments, to find proper financing and partnerships.429 252. MAB should help to build and market expertise within the network and within individual organizations to develop own-source revenue, since many countries cannot rely solely on public funding and private-sector altruism to support BRs.430


Original: English

41

III. Regional and international levels 253. In countries eligible for ODA the MAB Coms should strive to increase the importance of MAB and BRs internally for bilateral negotiations with donor countries and international funding organizations.431 Fundraising should also include active participation in “calls” from regional funding mechanisms as the EU Horizon 2020.432 254. MAB should strategically consider how its goals are aligned with those of the major international organizations, initiatives etc. identified under SE2. There are, for example, opportunities with regard to the 2014-2020 programming period of the European Commission. 433 Indeed, in the case of Europe, it is essential that MAB works with the European Union for funding research projects. European funds are commonly used in the territories. More formal partnerships for financing cooperation projects and networking should therefore be established with the EU.434 IV. UNESCO and MAB Secretariat 255. The Secretariat should assist Members in writing project proposals and act as a broker. 435 The MAB secretariat should also try to strengthen cooperation with the secretariats of the different UN Conventions, with GEF, UNDP, World Bank etc.436 256. More flexible mechanisms are needed to address short term research and capacity building needs and awareness raising projects. The MAB Special Account is a useful mechanism in this context.437 257. We must analyze if the MAB Secretariat has the resources needed and what is the potential of the programme to attract partners. Otherwise the risk is great to consume a lot of resources in research of funds without obtaining meaningful results. The financing mode proposed by the Global Geoparks Network with contributions per site should be studied. This system is interesting, but it does not take into account the distribution of wealth globally and could potentially disadvantage economically weaker countries or regions. 438 258. UNESCO should design funding mechanism at the level of regional and individual BRs for management plans, research, community programmes, training workshops and meetings of the national as well as regional MAB networks. UNESCO together with UN funding agencies should divert some of their funds in conservation activities in BRs to encourage the establishment and management of BRs and international financial institutions, within their respective mandates, may be requested by UNESCO to provide financial resources for the promotion of sustainable development and poverty eradication through the WNBR. The UN should make it mandatory for member states to allocate an appropriate fund for establishment and management of biosphere reserves. 439 259. It is the responsibility of the MAB secretariat and regional networks to promote international level partnerships and to ensure that BRs benefit from partnerships that they would not have the leverage to establish on their own.440 V. Alignment with international processes, conventions and donors 260. MAB should promote and maintain its contribution to international conventions on biodiversity, climate change, and desertification and facilitate the establishment of funding mechanisms and co-operation for joint project implementation with international, regional organizations.441 Focusing on the key strategic and policy issues and related MAB and WNBR goals outlined under SE2, MAB should specifically explore how BRs best can be


Original: English

42

used to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes and reduce pressure on Member States in terms of implementation and reporting commitments from global conventions. Universities have key roles to play; they are increasingly required to undertake applied research and provide practical learning opportunities, so that partnerships with universities have great potential for bringing money and other resources into BRs.442 261. Funding mechanisms have evolved over the last few years in order to facilitate the alignment of proposals submitted to donors and the work-programme of UNESCO. More work in that direction is needed to increase medium term funding-mechanisms to co-finance research in priority areas such as the SDG’s and the 3 Rio Conventions.443 262. The WNBR could be promoted and positioned as a long-standing, well established option to developing and financing climate change mitigation and adaptation pilot projects under the umbrella of the GEF, the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund.444 263. Leading research groups and think tanks should be more effectively brought in by MAB. Arrangements could be established in a way that research on ecosystem monitoring and methods for environmental management targets individual BRs or BR regional networks, and results are shared amongst BRs authorities and national committees.445 However there must be a clear skills and technology transfer framework spelt out in the partnership for capacity building.446 264. Networks of practitioners, including NGOs, that work internationally in the field of sustainable development (e.g with focus on energy, organic farming, local food etc) are potentially important partners.447 265. Strengthened collaboration with other key international organizations, e.g. UNDP, WWF, IUCN etc would also be helpful, especially to developing country member states.448 VI. Private sector partnerships 266. There is a crucial need to enhance level of partnership around the MAB programme. The goal should be to generate private sector partnerships. 449 Theses partnerships need to be promoted at local, national and international levels. 450 267. There should be a deeper involvement of -- and guidance provided to -- entrepreneurial sector of BRs, especially those supporting social enterprises and green economies.451 Large companies could contribute through their earnings.452 268. Potential partnerships with private enterprise already active in the BRs or their surrounding regions that could be explored including mining and oil companies, agriculture and industry, should only involve partners that are genuinely committed and dedicated to conservation and sustainable development and that they view BRs as an opportunity to promote and enhance their sustainability practices to mutual benefits.453 269. A stocktaking exercise of success cases could be used to gather private actors and increase MAB’s buy-in from an economic perspective, whilst ongoing projects and actions on sustainable production in existing BRs could be listed and periodically updated on a web-based clearing-house that companies and donors could have access to.454 UNESCO MAB could perhaps also organize a special International MAB BR Business Forum to highlight good practices and explore and promote new partnership opportunities with the private sector.455


Original: English

43

VII. Civil society, research groups, think thanks 270. The list of civil society organizations, research groups, think thanks, NGOs etc that potentially could engage with and help support MAB and BRs financially, and through their public awareness and other activities is almost endless.456 VIII. Innovative financial tools 271. MAB should experiment with new tools, in particular “crowd funding” (which could also have a double benefit of increasing visibility of the projects).457 272. Funding of Mega projects to be initiated in BRs could generate carbon finance for sustainable development and community programmes.458 273. Innovative programmes like trophy hunting should be encouraged in BRs for conservation and financial uplifting of local communities.459 IX. Due diligence 274. In-line with UNESCO’s overall partnership and due diligence policies, for most partnerships outlined above, there should be some mechanisms or criteria established with MAB against which a partner could be approved as an appropriate one. Taking into account not only the financial contribution, but also the respect and reputation, the trust and confidence, gained while acting as environment friendly entities that are proud to promote and sustain biodiversity, cultural diversity, and protection of natural and cultural heritage and smart use of resources.460


Original: English

44

Strategy Element 8: Effective MAB and WNBR use of contemporary communication, information and data sharing tools and instruments for enhanced visibility and benefit

to Member States and to society 275. Effective and open communication, data and information exchange is a prerequisite for a successful MAB Programme. Contemporary communication and information and data sharing tools have huge potential for the MAB Programme, which operates globally through a large number of Member States, BRs, regional and thematic networks. While the MAB Secretariat, MAB Nat Coms, regional and thematic networks and individual BRs are starting to make good use of these contemporary communication, social media and information tools,xxii there is a perceived urgent need to further improve information and data sharing within and from MAB, the WNBR, regional and thematic networks.461 In doing so, it should however be remembered that many countries still have poor access to modern communication facilities calling for continued focus also on more traditional means of communication and information exchange.462 276. The task to communicate MAB matters more effectively is not only a function of how well MAB mobilizes communication tools and instruments available, it also depends on how successful MAB is in terms of producing good results and services that are appreciated. Good results will attract press and media and public attention and help us communicate on our behalf.463 In addition to relevant, timely and tangible results, communication would likely also be facilitated by a ‘modernization’ of some of the key words associated with MAB, including the reference to ‘Man’ and ‘Reserve’ and by having short and easy-to-understand MAB and vision and mission statements.464 Measures to enhance communication, information and data sharing I. Open access 277. Promote an open access policy to MAB and WNBR related documents, data, information and multimedia materials. xxiii This shall include that information gathered by researchers in or on BRs shall be made easily accessible for both practitioners and other researchers and that UNESCO’s information on BRs shall be made easily accessible.465 II. MABNet 278. The UNESCO MAB web site, the MABNet, shall be further developed as the key communication, data and information hub. 466 It shall promote electronically sharing of resources, publications, case studies and good practises.467 As an interactive clearinghouse platform, the MABNet shall provide information on and allow feedback from MAB Nat Coms, individual BRs, regional networks, partner organizations and individual experts and allow

xxii Examples include: UNESCO MABNet: www.unesco.org/mab UNESCO MAB Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/manandbiosphere UNESCO MAB online community of practice: https://teams.unesco.org/_login/default.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fcop%2fmab%2f_layouts%2f15%2fAuthenticate.aspx%3fSource%3d%252Fcop%252Fmab&Source=%2Fcop%2Fmab Biosphere Smart Initiative: http://www.biospheresmart.org/ Renewable Energy Futures for UNESCO Sites (RENFORUS) Initiative: http://www.renforus.net/ xxiii Open Access Policy to be discussed at the 26th MAB ICC under item 13. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/SC-14-CONF-226-2_Provisional_annotated_agenda_en.pdf


Original: English

45

sharing of MAB-related technical and scientific documents, success cases, workshops, invitations 468 and discussions through dedicated web-based fora. 469 The MABNet shall provide accurate, timely and regularly updated information and be structured so as to ensure easy availability of information.470 MAB should open the MABNet to, or create a new internet presence specifically for, BRs to use to promote their activities and cooperation around similar initiatives.471 The MABNet can also include on-line training courses.472 The MABnet shall include a “MAB Agenda” with the main planned programmes, events and tasks related to biosphere reserves and MAB.473 Available on the MABNet, but also issued by email, a periodic information newsletter shall be produced and circulated to all the Members.474 279. MAB shall consider developing guidelines on graphical layouts, structure and content that could provide coherence to web pages of individual BRs, MAB Nat Coms, thematic and regional networks. 280. MAB Nat Coms that have not created their own webpages, should do so475, and link them to the MABNet. III. Administration 281. Communication with Member States should be standardized and MAB Nat Coms recognized as the official focal points for sharing strategic tools and documents.476 Member States need to continuously provide current information to the MAB Secretariat.477 282. MAB should consider hiring a professional communication specialist.478 283. Strengthen the MAB Secretariat’s information management capacities.479 IV. Data and mapping 284. Develop an online database of information on BRs targeting different types of audiences.480 Establish key word searchable databases on MAB and BR issues,481 improved mapping tools,482 and access to satellite, remote sensing and GIS data.483 Following the example of the IPCC data-clearing centre, MAB could consider developing a similar facility especially for ecosystem and other biofunctions models.484 285. The establishment of the joint BiosphereSmart Initiative goes in the right direction to make information on biosphere reserves easily available. The links to the individual BR on the interactive map are very useful. Also it is appreciated that the new forms for the periodic review and nomination have standardized formats for the description of individual biosphere reserves. The Secretariat should continue to complete the initiative.485 286. The data base can only be as good as the data provided and put in by National Committees and BRs. They should be requested to regularly update their inputs,486 V. Conferences 287. International WNBR meetings should be considered to exchange information and demonstration of successful implementation among members of all regional networks and thematic groups, while regular regional network meetings should be increased to strengthen the communication between BRs. 487 Sharing of information within networks should be improved via the organisation of research conferences.488 MAB side events could be held in the margins of conferences of the Parties of major relevant conventions489 and the MAB Secretariat should assist Biosphere Reserves to convey the message to respective


Original: English

46

governments to ensure better visibility of the MAB Programme at large international conferences and workshops. 490 MAB should promote video conferencing for meetings, seminars and workshops.491 288. Organize a fourth World Congress of Biosphere Reserves.492 2015 will be 20 years since the Seville Conference in 1995. There is value in trying to hold another gathering, preferably in a developing country. The purpose would be not just to refresh MAB, but to deal with rejuvenation. Both Seville and Madrid were good impulsion points for change; it is time for another global meeting to mark the implementation of the new Strategy and ensure that BRs fulfill all their great potential.493 VI. Social media 289. Simple, cheap and accessible communication through social media among BRs is critically urgent.494 MAB and the WNBR should have a presence in social networks.495 and every BR and MAB Nat Com should have their own dedicated Facebook accounts.496 MAB’s updates, key messages and events could be published on a continuous basis in major social networks497 and a more active MAB presence on social networking sites (such as Facebook) is called for.498 Information and communication technologies like Facebook, Twitter, and Skype may be used for knowledge sharing and communication, technical cooperation and capacity building.499 While Internet and social networks are very powerful mechanisms of communication at the present time we need to discuss all details how better to use them.500 VII. Networks 290. Communication and information/data sharing tools and instruments would be of advantage if comprehensive network could be sustained and guaranteed501. Improve the transdisciplinary function of the networks.502 VIII. Publications 291. Cooperative arrangements (such as with SCOPE) to publish joint publications and policy briefs for decision makers on scientific and technical issues.503 292. Consider developing a flagship synthesis publication on BRs. 504 For example, publication in 2016 of the results of the MAB Programme over 45 years.505 293. Develop an online repository of knowledge with (references to) key publications BR-related priority themes.506 IX. TV and video 294. UNESCO should convince its country-members to produce more TV and Video presentations about their achievements in implementing MAB Program and to support their show at the prominent Broadcasting systems (or may be UNESCO could have its own TV channel for such purpose).507 X. Key audiences 295. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the benefits of BRs for urban areas: their administrations, businesses, and citizens (where the majority of the Earth’s population live).508


Original: English

47

XI. Branding, labeling and marketing 296. MAB must work with BRs to establish a unified brand that can be marketed to the general public and encourages community engagement by creating a simple logo and a slogan, as well as a simple but flexible description of and message from BR’s. MAB should also launch a campaign to market the BR brand globally.509 297. BRs throughout the world produce many excellent products, and collectively they represent a large international market; any website which helps BRs to buy from and sell products and activities to each other would create huge opportunities for both individual BRs and the WNBR.510 XII. Partnerships 298. UNESCO MAB should consider partnering with major international sports teams etc for granting us visibility (e.g. football clubs etc).511 XIII. Miscellaneous 299. MAB broadband networks should be developed for both public and professionals at local, regional, and international level, where new innovations, success stories and issues related to MAB Programme could be highlighted for general awareness.512 300. MAB should clearly position the WNBR (e.g. through the Secretariat) in international debates on sustainable development and related themes.513 301. The Secretariat should elaborate a system of how to retrieve information from BRs as UNESCO’s contribution to IPBES.514 302. The Secretariat should establish and maintain a list of calls for proposals from funding organizations (EU, World Bank etc.) where BR-managers and National Committees explore and examine current financing opportunities.515 303. Means should be found for the production by the Secretariat of e-learning opportunities for capacity building. MAB information materials should be made available in the form of apps for android and iOS. 516 XIV. Communication strategy/action plan 304. Develop a comprehensive communication strategy [action plan] (with differentiated targets and tools) with corresponding means and tools within the network (web page performance, social network), updated directories and libraries, with easy access.517


Original: English

48

ANNEX I: SDG Focus Areas contained in the Working Document for the 5-9 May 2014 Session of the UN SDG Open Working Group 1. Poverty eradication, building shared prosperity and promoting equality - End

poverty in all its forms everywhere 2. Sustainable agriculture, food security and nutrition - End hunger and improve

nutrition for all through sustainable agriculture and improved food systems 3. Health and population dynamics – Healthy life at all ages for all 4. Education and life-long learning - Provide quality education and life-long learning for

all 5. Gender equality and women’s empowerment - Attain gender equality and women’s

empowerment everywhere 6. Water and sanitation - Water and sanitation for a sustainable world 7. Energy - Ensure access to affordable, sustainable, and reliable modern energy for all 8. Economic growth, employment and infrastructure - Promote sustainable, inclusive

and sustained economic growth and decent jobs for all 9. Industrialization and promoting equality among nations - Promote sustainable

industrialization and equality among nations 10. Sustainable cities and human settlements - Build inclusive, safe and sustainable

cities and human settlements 11. Sustainable Consumption and Production - Promote sustainable consumption and

production patterns 12. Climate change - Take urgent and significant action to mitigate and adapt to climate

change - Build a climate change goal based on the outcome of COP21 of the UNFCCC 13. Conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, oceans and seas - Take

urgent and significant actions for the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, oceans and seas

14. Ecosystems and biodiversity - Protect and restore terrestrial ecosystems and halt all

biodiversity loss 15. Means of implementation/Global partnership for sustainable development -

Strengthen global partnership for sustainable development – Trade; Financing and debt sustainability; Capacity building; Strengthened global partnership for sustainable development

16. Peaceful and inclusive societies, rule of law and capable institutions - Peaceful

and inclusive societies, rule of law and capable institutions.

(source: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html)


Original: English

49

Proposed /supported by: 1 Chile, Lebanon, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, Switzerland, Zimbabwe, 2 Egypt, France, Hungary Pakistan, Spain, Sudan, 3 Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Philippines, UK, EuroMAB, Karst BR (Slovenia), La Palma BR (Spain), 4 UK 5 Austria 6 Austria 7 Austria 8 Germany 9 Colombia, Pakistan, 10 Belgium, Canada, Sudan, UK, 11 Pakistan 12 Austria 13 Colombia 14 Hungary 15 Germany 16 Canada 17 EuroMAB 18 La Palma BR (Spain) 19 Germany 20 Belgium 21 Belgium 22 France 23 Hungary 24 UK 25 UK 26 Karst BR (Slovenia) 27 La Palma BR (Spain) 28 Black Sea BR (Ukraine) 29 Germany 30 Germany 31 Germany 32 Colombia 33 Colombia 34 Colombia 35 Germany 36 Colombia 37 Colombia 38 Germany 39 Germany 40 Germany 41 Philippines 42 Spain 43 Germany 44 Canada, EuroMAB 45 Canada 46 EuroMAB 47 Belgium 48 Canada 49 France

50 Hungary 51 La Palma BR (Spain) 52 UK 53 France 54 Colombia, France, Peru, 55 Germany, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Sweden, UK, Chile 56 Peru 57 Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, UK 58 Pakistan 59 Pakistan 60 Pakistan 61 UK 62 Pakistan 63 Pakistan, Philippines, Sweden 64 Germany 65 UK 66 EuroMAB 67 La Palma BR (Spain) 68 Pakistan, Belgium, Colombia, Germany, UK, Vietnam, Zimbabwe 69 Hungary 70 Pakistan 71 Canada 72 Nigeria 73 Japan 74 Germany 75 Germany, Peru 76 Sudan 77 Germany 78 Colombia, Sweden. Switzerland 79 South Africa 80 Pakistan 81 Zimbabwe 82 Pakistan 83 Switzerland 84 Pakistan 85 UK, Germany 86 UK 87 Sweden 88 Egypt 89 La Palma BR (Spain) 90 Sudan 91 Peru 92 Germany 93 Pakistan 94 Pakistan 95 Belarus, Germany 96 France 97 EuroMAB 98 Sweden 99 Pakistan

100 Colombia 101 Spain 102 Ramat Menashe BR (Israel) 103 UK 104 Pakistan 105 EuroMAB 106 Canada, Chile 107 Colombia 108 Spain, Chile, EuroMAB 109 Hungary 110 Germany 111 Spain 112 South Africa, EuroMAB 113 Colombia, EuroMAB 114 EuroMAB 115 EuroMAB 116 Germany 117 Egypt 118 Vietnam 119 Switzerland 120 Lebanon, Chile 121 Belarus 122 Pakistan 123 South Africa 124 Lebanon 125 Hungary 126 Germany 127 Belgium 128 South Africa 129 Colombia 130 Lebanon 131 Sudan 132 Karst BR (Slovenia) 133 Karst BR (Slovenia) 134 Belgium 135 Belgium, Pakistan 136 Pakistan 137 Japan 138 Sweden 139 Colombia, Pakistan 140 Pakistan, Switzerland, UK 141 Pakistan, Sweden, Switzerland, UK 142 UK 143 Colombia 144 UK 145 UK 146 Colombia 147 Pakistan 148 Russian Federation 149 Russian Federation 150 La Palma BR (Spain) 151 UK 152 Belgium, Pakistan, UK, 153 Colombia 154 Lebanon, Germany


Original: English

50

155 Pakistan 156 UK 157 UK 158 UK 159 Switzerland 160 Pakistan 161 Belgium 162 Sudan 163 Belgium 164 Colombia 165 Germany 166 Sweden 167 Germany 168 Pakistan 169 Germany 170 Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Lebanon, Peru, Spain, Turkey, EuroMAB, Karst BR (Slovenia), Ramat Menashe BR (Israel) 171 Japan 172 UK 173 France, Peru, Spain, EuroMAB 174 Peru 175 Belarus, Colombia, Hungary 176 Pakistan, Karst BR (Slovenia) 177 Belarus 178 Turkey, Karst BR (Slovenia) 179 Nigeria 180 France 181 La Palma BR (Spain) 182 UK, France 183 Sweden 184 Germany 185 Spain, Sweden, Peru, Turkey 186 UK 187 France 188 Sweden 189 Spain, Karst BR (Slovenia) 190 South Africa 191 France 192 EuroMAB 193 Peru 194 Spain 195 Colombia, Lebanon, Peru 196 Canada 197 Sweden 198 Nigeria 199 Zimbabwe 200 France

201 France 202 Spain, EuroMAB 203 Turkey 204 Germany 205 Germany 206 Russian Federation 207 Russian Federation 208 UK 209 KARST BR (Slovenia) 210 Pakistan 211 Belgium, Canada , Germany, Lebanon, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines 212 Germany 213 Nigeria 214, Germany, Japan, Pakistan, Philippines, La Palma BR (Spain) 215 Germany 216 Japan, Pakistan 217 Colombia 218 France, Pakistan, Philippines, Sweden, Vietnam 219 Zimbabwe 220 LA PALMA BR (Spain) 221 Colombia 222 Japan 223 Pakistan 224 Vietnam 225 Pakistan 226 Vietnam 227 France 228 Hungary 229 France 230 Colombia 231 Japan 232 Pakistan 233 Pakistan 234 Peru, EuroMAB 235 Pakistan 236 Germany 237 KARST BR (Slovenia) 238 Colombia 239 EuroMAB 240 Germany 241 Philippines 242 KARST BR (Slovenia) 243 UK 244 Colombia 245 UK 246 Sudan 247 South Africa 248 South Africa 249 Germany 250 Spain 251 Colombia 252 Vietnam

253 Vietnam 254 Colombia 255 Spain 256 EuroMAB 257 EuroMAB 258 EuroMAB 259 Austria 260 Austria 261 Colombia 262 Belarus 263 EuroMAB 264 Germany 265 Pakistan 266 Germany 267 Germany 268 Belarus 269 Germany 270 Hungary 271 Belgium 272 Pakistan 273 Japan 274 Germany 275 Germany 276 Pakistan 277 Belgium 278 Belgium 279 Vietnam 280 South Africa 281 Vietnam 282 Vietnam 283 EuroMAB 284 South Africa, Germany 285 Colombia 286 EuroMAB 287 Belarus 288 Russian Federation 289 Sudan 290 Vietnam 291 Colombia, Pakistan 292 Pakistan, Switzerland, UK 293 Pakistan, Switzerland, UK 294 UK 295 Colombia 296 UK 297 UK 298 Philippines 299 UK 300 Sudan 301 Germany 302 Germany 303 Sudan 304 Germany 305 France, Germany, Pakistan, EuroMAB 306 EuroMAB 307 EuroMAB


Original: English

51

308 EuroMAB 309 Belgium 310 Pakistan 311 Vietnam 312 Japan 313 Germany 314 Belgium 315 Spain 316 Hungary 317 Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, UK, Zimbabwe, EuroMAB, La Palma BR (Spain) 318 Belgium, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, EuroMAB 319 UK 320 MAB Evaluation Rep. 321 Belgium 322 Belgium, Nigeria 323 Germany 324 France, UK 325 Germany 326 Austria, South Africa, Spain 327 Austria 328 Colombia 329 Colombia, South Africa, Spain 330 Spain 331 Belgium, Canada, EuroMAB 332 Germany 333 Colombia 334 Peru 335 Egypt 336 Egypt 337 Germany 338 South Africa 339 La Palma BR (Spain) 340 Canada, EuroMAB 341 Spain 342 France 343 Pakistan 344 Pakistan 345 Germany 346 Japan 347 Colombia, Lebanon 348 Lebanon 349 Belgium 350 Sudan 351 Spain, EuroMAB

352 Germany 353 France, Germany, South Africa, Switzerland 354 Canada, Colombia, Spain, UK, EuroMAB, Karst BR (Slovenia) 355 Belarus, Canada, Hungary, Peru, Russian Federation, Spain, UK 356 France 357 Germany, South Africa 358 Germany 359 Switzerland 360 Spain, EuroMAB 361 UK 362 Canada, EuroMAB 363 Belarus 364 Hungary 365 Peru 366 Spain 367 UK 368 Colombia 369 Karst BR (Slovenia) 370 Hungary, Russian Federation (V. Neronov) 371 Hungary, Germany, Nigeria, Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Ramat Menashe BR (Israel), Karst BR (Slovenia) 372 Colombia 373 Sudan 374 La Palma BR (Spain) 375 Belgium 376 Switzerland 377 Canada, EuroMAB, Lebanon 378 Sudan 379 Spain, EuroMAB 380 Vietnam 381 Germany 382 Germany 383 UK, Spain, Philippines, EuroMAB 384 South Africa 385 Sudan 386 Peru 387 France 388 Belarus 389 Belgium 390 Pakistan 391 Pakistan 392 UK 393 Russian Federation 394 Pakistan 395 Belarus 396 France 397 Vietnam

398 Canada 399 EuroMAB 400 Germany 401 Germany 402 Russian Federation 403 UK 404 Russian Federation 405 UK 406 Germany 407 Spain, EuroMAB 408 Sudan 409 Russian Federation 410 South Africa 411 Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Hungary, South Africa, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sudan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe. 412 Spain 413 Hungary, Germany, Japan, Pakistan, Spain, Sudan, UK, 414 Japan 415 Sweden 416 UK 417 Colombia 418 La Palma BR (Spain) 419 Karst BR (Slovenia) 420 Germany 421 Vietnam 422 Japan, Peru 423 Peru 424 UK 425 South Africa 426 Zimbabwe 427 Germany 428 La Palma BR (Spain) 429 Canada, EuroMAB 430 EuroMAB 431 Germany 432 Belgium, France, UK 433 UK 434 France 435 Germany 436 Russian Federation 437 Belgium 438 Switzerland 439 Pakistan 440 EuroMAB 441 Sudan 442 UK 443 Belgium 444 Colombia 445 Colombia 446 Zimbabwe 447 France 448 Zimbabwe


Original: English

52

449 Canada, Germany, Lebanon, Nigeria, Spain, EuroMAB 450 Canada 451 EuroMAB 452 La Palma BR (Spain) 453 Peru 454 Colombia 455 Russian Federation 456 Lebanon, Karst BR (Slovenia) 457 Austria, EuroMAB 458 Pakistan 459 Pakistan 460 Karst BR (Slovenia) 461 Strong consensus on this point 462 Sudan 463 France 464 UK 465 Sweden 466 MAP Evaluation Rec. 467 Austria, Belarus, 468 Colombia, Philippines, Spain, Sudan, UK 469 EuroMAB 470 Hungary, UK 471 Lebanon, UK, EuroMAB 472 Columbia 473 Hungary 474 Ramat Menashe BR (Israel) 475 Germany 476 Hungary 477 UK 478 MAP Evaluation Rec. 479 MAP Evaluation Rec. 480 MAP Evaluation Rec. 481 Belgium, Japan, Spain, EuroMAB 482 Belgium 483 Zimbabwe 484 Zimbabwe 485 Germany 486 Germany 487 Sudan 488 EuroMAB 489 Colombia 490 South Africa 491 Spain 492 MAP Evaluation Rec. 493 UK 494 Canada 495 Germany 496 Egypt 497 Colombia 498 Hungary 499 Pakistan

500 Russian Federation 501 Nigeria 502 Austria, EuroMAB 503 Belgium 504 MAP Evaluation Rec. 505 Belarus 506 MAP Evaluation Rec. 507 Russian Federation 508 UK 509 EuroMAB 510 UK 511 La Palma BR (Spain) 512 Pakistan 513 MAP Evaluation Rec. 514 Germany 515 Germany 516 Germany 517 France

SC-14/CONF.226/8/REV Paris, 27 May 2014 Original: English

1


International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme

Twenty-six session

Jönköping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden 10 - 13 June 2014

The Secretariat of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation provided by States to the Secretariat of UNESCO.

The publication of any such advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation on UNESCO’s website and/or on working documents also does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries.

ITEM 10 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: PROPOSALS FOR NEW BIOSPHERE RESERVES AND

EXTENSIONS/MODIFICATIONS TO BIOSPHERE RESERVES THAT ARE PART OF THE WORLD NETWORK OF

BIOSPHERE RESERVES (WNBR) 1. Proposals for new biosphere reserves and extensions to biosphere reserves that are already

part of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) were considered at the last meeting of the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves (IACBR), which met at UNESCO Headquarters from 17 to 20 March 2014.

2. The members of the Advisory Committee formulated their recommendations regarding

specific sites in line with the recommendation categories as follows:

Nominations recommended for approval: the proposed site is recommended for approval as a biosphere reserve; no additional information is needed.

Nominations recommended for approval pending the submission of specific information:

the proposed site is recommended for approval as a biosphere reserve subject to receiving the specific information as requested by the Advisory Committee. If the latter is received by the Secretariat by 15 May 2014, it will be considered by the next session of the MAB-ICC to be held from 10-13 June 2014 and the Council may approve the inclusion of the site in the WNBR.

Nominations deferred: the proposed site is deferred as it does not meet the criteria for

biosphere reserves as stipulated in the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves and/or major clarifications with regard to the application of the Framework to the proposed area is requested by the Advisory Committee. The relevant National Authorities are therefore invited to revise the nomination and/or provide the requested clarifications for examination by the Advisory Committee at its next meeting.

Nominations rejected: the proposed site is rejected as it is not sufficiently compatible

with the principles of the MAB Programme. 3. The Bureau of the MAB ICC will consider the attached recommendations of the IACBR as

well as the additional information received by the Secretariat particularly with regard to nominations recommended for approval subject to receiving additional information and nominations recommended to be deferred. The Bureau will recommend for the consideration of the MAB ICC final decisions on all sites included in this document.

4. The MAB ICC is invited to decide on the new sites for inclusion in the WNBR and extensions

of biosphere reserves already included in the WNBR that could be approved.


2

Recommendations of the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves: Nominations recommended for approval Mt. Chilbo (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). The Advisory Committee took note of this site which covers a total surface area of 50,340 ha consisting of 2,930 ha as core area, 26,500 ha as buffer zone and 20,910 ha as transition area. The Advisory Committee took note of this site which covers a total surface area of 50,340 ha consisting of 2,930ha as core area, 26,500ha as buffer zone and 20,910ha as transition area. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has reported that the site has been “formed at the coastal area of the East Sea of Korea by fault movement and volcanic eruption during the period of the late Neogene and the early Quaternary”. It is of great significance in biodiversity conservation for its distribution of 16 species of plants endemic to Korea and 30 species of nationally and globally threatened plants and animals. This site is described as a very important storehouse of genetic diversity with 132 species of medical herbs, 67 species of wild vegetables, 16 species of wild fruits, and notably a specialty mushroom Tricholoma matsutake (pine mushroom, it is highly priced due to its distinct spicy-aromatic odour which is of great economic and scientific value. Tourism in the buffer zone and agriculture and fishery in the transition area are the main economic activities in the proposed biosphere reserve. It has 160 tourist attraction sites and has a developed infrastructure for tourism and handles myriad of visitors every year. The site’s potential to develop and implement an ecotourism industry is mentioned in the nomination file. Many historical remains and relics have been well preserved in the Mount Chilbo Reserve. For example Kaesim temple built in 826 and about 11 natural monuments. It is envisaged that this and other assets which attract people to the site will help it fully implement the function of logistic support through the promotion of public awareness on biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. It is reported that plans are underway to create a demonstration site for conservation and suitable development in the transition area and organize the regular field training and lectures for land management staff. Local community and public authorities’ participation is described. However, no cultural and social impact assessment has been conducted yet. The Advisory Committee noted that no management policy or plan for the biosphere reserve has been established. The Committee recommended that a proposed management plan for the biosphere reserve be developed and submitted one year from the notification of nomination approval. The Committee recommended that this site be approved. Bosque Seco (Ecuador). The Advisory Committee welcomed the proposed biosphere reserve by Ecuador. The area is located in south-western Ecuador, it covers approximately 501,040 ha of which 317,600 ha comprises dry forests and scrub similar to that of the Noroeste Biosphere Reserve in Peru. The dry forests located within the proposed biosphere reserve are the most extensive and best preserved in the country. Their rarity makes them a conservation priority as 97% of dry forest ecosystems are on the verge of extinction. The proposed reserve is also home to one of the highest concentrations of endemic birds in South America. Fifty-one species have been identified in addition to fifteen endemic species of trees and shrubs, and three endemic species of mammals. The area has been classified as the Tumbesino Endemism Centre and forms part of the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena biodiversity hotspot. It also includes significant population of flagship species, such as the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) and mantled howler (Alouatta palliata). The proposed area covers eight counties in the provinces of Loja and El Oro, inhabited by 106,000 people. The main economic activities are livestock rearing and agriculture (coffee,


3

fruit and corn). Numerous manifestations of culture and identity are expressed through regional productive systems (e.g. bordered systems, livestock management and albarradas) and local crafts. The area also encompasses more than 100 heritage sites, including the Puyango Petrified Forest – the largest of its kind in the world – and the city of Catacocha, an Ecuadorian national heritage site. The proposed biosphere reserve would guarantee ecosystem services of water regulation for the Catamayo-Chira and Puyango Tumbes bi-national basins. The Advisory Committee concluded that this proposal meets the criteria for biosphere reserves and that there is a great potential to create a transboundary biosphere reserve with Peru. The Committee recommended that this site be approved. Mont-Viso/Area della Biosfera del Monviso (France/Italy). The Advisory Committee acknowledged the receipt of the signed political agreement between the two countries to establish the Mont-Viso / Area della Biosfera del Monviso transboundary biosphere reserve, as a follow up of the recommendation of the 25th session of the MAB-ICC. The Advisory Committee recommended that this proposal be used as a model for transboundary biosphere reserve proposal. Therefore, the Advisory Committee recommended that the site be approved. Minami-Alps (Japan). The total surface area for this site is 302,474 ha consisting of 24,970 ha as core area, 72,389 ha as buffer zone and 205,115 ha as transition area. This site is formed from the Mountain area, enclosed on two sides by the south-flowing Fuji and Tenryu Rivers. It includes the Koma Mountains, the Akaishi Mountains (hereafter termed the “Minami Alps”) and the Ina Mountains. Recorded plants growing at altitudes above 800 meters in the Minami Alps include 138 families and 1,635 species of tracheophytes, 51 families and 248 species of mosses, and 15 families and 98 species of lichens. The flora of the Minami Alps is characterized by a relict distribution of plants that have migrated south along the Japanese archipelago in the ice age when it was connected by land to the continent. The fauna in this area include 15 families and 39 species of mammals, 35 families and 102 species of birds, 4 families and 9 species of reptiles, 4 families and 9 species of amphibians, 4 families and 10 species of fish, 16 families and 45 species of shellfish, and 179 families and 2,871 species of insects. The great mountains, which are the main attraction of the Minami Alps, have hindered interactions among the areas in the Minami Alps foothills, and so, as a shared asset of these mountains, interactions among the regions will be expanded, protection and sustainable use of this superb natural environment will be fostered jointly, and an attractive region will be created which draws on the natural beauty of the Minami Alps. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the good quality of the proposal. The Committee recommended that this site be approved and encouraged the national authorities to develop elaborate sustainable development programmes in order to enhance the objectives of the biosphere reserve. Katon-Karagay (Kazakhstan). The proposed Katon-Karagay Biosphere Reserve is situated in the upper part of Bukhtarma, Belaya Berel and Chyornaya Berel Rivers, including Southern slopes of Listvyaga and Katunskiy Ridges (with the eastern summit of Belukha mountain), ridges of Bukhtarma river's left bank: Sarymsakty, Tarbagatay (Southern Altai part) and Southern Altai. The northern section includes part of Katunskiy Ridge and has altitudes ranging from 2000m to 4506m (Belukha Mountain); Southern part stretches from 850m


4

(Bukhtarma River Valley) to 3487m (Southern Altai Ridge). Abundance of meadow herbs and flowers comprises more than 1000 species of higher vascular plants, as well as mosses, lichens and fungi. Flora of Kazakhstan Altai includes 2,450 species of 693 genera and 131 families, including: Southern Altai – 2,052 species (83.8%) of total species number of Kazakhstan Altai of 608 genera (87.7%) and 116 families (88.5%). The total surface area amounts to 1,631,940 ha consisting of 126 432 ha as core area; 855 508 ha as buffer zone and 650, 000 ha as transition area. Local population, living in the transition area of biosphere reserve, practices mainly breeding of cattle, sheep, deers, horses and Siberian stags. Plant production is an additional activity and the main plantations are occupied by fodder, perennial and annual herbs and cereal fodder cultures (barley, oat) for feeding cows, Siberian stags, horses and sheep in winter period. Private farms are dominating in cattle-breeding sector of the region. The majority of those farms have small numbers of animals – less than 40 sheep. In the structure of land use the largest agricultural territories are located in Belovskiy rural district (39.6%), slightly smaller agricultural lands in Korobikhinskiy (14.5%) and Belkaragay (12.2%) rural districts, and the smallest in Urylskiy, Zhambylskiy, Chernovinskiy, Katon- Karagayskiy rural districts (from 7.9 to 9%). The authorities are encouraged to develop a management plan that is inclusive of the core area, buffer zone and transition area. This management plan should include a design for sustainable grazing of cattle. The Advisory Committee recommended that this site be approved. Crocker Range (Malaysia). The proposed site covers an area of 350,584 ha and it is located in the south of Mouth Kinabalu (a World Heritage Site) in Sabah. Some 144,492 ha make up the core area, which consists of 139,919 ha of Crocker Range Park (CRP) and three forest reserves totalling 4,573 ha that are legally protected. An area of 60,313 ha is demarcated as the buffer zone and 145,779 ha for the transition area. The core area as described in the nomination form is covered by natural vegetation which is ecologically connected. Limited studies on flora has been conducted; however, six permanent plots dedicated to ecological monitoring have been established and more than 300 plant species had been recorded as of August 2011. Two endemic Rafflesia sp. are found in the Crocker Range. A total of 737 plant species have been recorded in the Trus Madi in the eastern vicinity of the Crocker Range. With regard to fauna, the number of species recorded in CRP and its surrounding area includes: 101 mammals, 259 birds, 47 reptiles, 63 amphibians, 42 freshwater fishes. CRP is also a habitat for some endangered species, e.g. orangutan, sun bear and clouded leopard. The development and logistic function of this proposed biosphere reserve was clearly described. Community and local authority participation and involvement in the design and management of a biosphere reserve were also described. The issue of the existence of a local community in the core area was mentioned and described as contentious. The authorities, however, believe that sustainable human activities are important even within parks; therefore, the Enactment has been modified to accommodate the community in the CRP with some conditions (Section 59(1)(g), Park Enactment 1984, Amendment 2007). A local non-statutory regulation called the “Tagal system” is used as a “cultural tool” to practice sustainable fishing. Approximately 76 villages (19% of all the villages) in the proposed site are currently practicing the Tagal system and this non-statutory regulation has been incorporated into the Sabah Inland Fisheries and Agriculture Enactment 2003. The Advisory Committee commended the national authorities for a well-prepared nomination. The Committee noted the importance of this site for biodiversity conservation. The Advisory committee congratulated national authorities for extensively involving the local communities


5

in the nomination process for this site. They are encouraged to continue monitoring the activities of the inhabitants in the core area to ensure that the conservation functions are not compromised. The Advisory Committee recommended that this site be approved. Inlay Lake (Myanmar). The Advisory Committee welcomed this first biosphere reserve nomination in Myanmar. Covering a total area of 561,199ha the site is situated in Taunggyi District, Southern Shan State. The core area is 29,178 ha, the buffer zone covers 114,041 ha and the transition area is 417,980 ha. The Inlay Lake wetland ecosystem is home to 267 species of birds, out of which 82 are wetland birds, 43 species of freshwater fishes, otters and turtles. In addition, fresh water fish from the inland wetland constitute the major protein food source of the people of Inlay. In addition to its ecological importance, Inlay Lake is also unique for the socio-cultural aspects of local inhabitants, in the way they have adapted their lifestyle and livelihoods to their biophysical environment. Most of them earn their income by traditional methods of hydroponic farming, fishing and shifting cultivation. The farmers practice one of the most famous types of agriculture in the world, floating island agriculture, locally called ‘Yechan’, which is a form of hydroponic farming. Inlay Lake and it watershed provides several ecosystem services on which local people depend directly or indirectly; they include: clean air, clean water, cooler climate, tranquility and serenity, fish stokes, ecotourism resources and tourism destinations, part of water supply system for hydropower plant, sustainable livelihoods and community support. There is a significant population of people (60,000) residing in the core area of the proposed Inlay Lake Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee noted with concern the significant human population in the core area and recommended limiting the visitation of tourists to this area in order to maintain its conservation and protection objectives. The Advisory Committee further urged the authorities to strictly maintain the livelihood activities of the population within the core area at the traditional level. The Advisory Committee recommended that this site be approved. Brighton & Hove and Lewes Downs (United Kingdom). The Advisory Committee welcomed this proposal by United Kingdom, the first since 1977, which is located in the south-eastern coast of England and includes the city of Brighton. The proposed site covers an area of 38,921 ha. It comprises part of the South Downs National Park and is home to 371,500 permanent inhabitants. Chalkdown land makes up the principal terrestrial landscape of the area, with a coastline dominated by impressive chalk cliffs in the east and an urbanized plain in the west. The Advisory Committee recognized the ecological value of this site which supports more than 200 species that are on international conservation lists (IUCN and EC CITES) and more than one thousand locally rare species. Due to its variety of rare wildlife habitats, rich heritage and proximity to London, tourism is a particularly important sector with up to 12 million visitors per year. Other economic activities are farming and commercial sea fishing. The Advisory Committee commended the efforts made to promote sustainable development in the area as well as the involvement of a diversity of stakeholders from different backgrounds and knowledge in its management and particularly highlighted the active work of The Brighton & Hove and Lewes Downs Biosphere Partnership encouraging local cooperation with initiatives like the ‘HERE HERE’ campaign. This partnership was created specifically to apply for the status of UNESCO biosphere reserve and it is composed of an extensive spectrum of public, educational, community, voluntary and private sector organizations.


6

The Advisory Committee acknowledged the high quality of this proposal and recommended that Brighton & Hove and Lewes Downs be approved as a biosphere reserve. Bioma Pampa-Quebradas del Norte (Uruguay). The Advisory Committee welcomed the re-submission of this proposal by Uruguayan authorities. The proposed Biosphere Reserve covers an area of 110,882 ha and comprises a mosaic of different ecosystems. They include a primary forest with subtropical jungle, which represents the southernmost vestige of the ‘Atlantic Forest’ environment. The pampa biome is rich in temperate grasslands and is an important nesting area for many bird species. At present, however, only 0.7% of the grasslands are protected and the ecosystem faces significant threats to its conservation. Rare species of amphibians and reptiles in the area include the Uruguayan frog (Hyla uruguaya), the Toad of Devincenzi (Melanophryniscus devincenzii) and the South American rattlesnake (Crotalus durissus terrificus). The proposed biosphere reserve is also inhabited by a small number of people living in settlements of ten to fifty houses amid a rural environment. The villagers are predominantly smallholder farmers who engage in agricultural activities. Socio-cultural development of the biosphere reserve will be linked to the promotion and enhancement of gaucho traditions. The Advisory Committee recommended the following to the national authorities:

Submission of a map with more detailed zonation; Provision of a management plan; Consider greater coordination with the Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve.

The Advisory Committee recommended that this site be approved and added that there was a great potential to create a transboundary biosphere reserve with the Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve in Brazil. Nominations recommended for approval pending the submission of specific information Ohrid-Prespa Watershed Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Republic of Albania/the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The Advisory Committee welcomed this proposal for a transboundary biosphere reserve (TBR) by Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, located in the Ohrid and Prespa regions. The landscape of the proposed transboundary area is a balanced combination of water bodies (the Ohrid and Prespa Lakes) and surrounding mountain reliefs while flat areas border the external limits of the territories (stretching across three countries: Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece). With a total surface area of 446,244 ha and an estimated total of 455,000 inhabitants, the proposed area includes part of Lake Ohrid and its surroundings in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that is currently inscribed on the World Heritage List, as well as part of Lake Ohrid in Albania which is currently being considered as a possible extension of the existing natural and cultural heritage of the Ohrid Region World Heritage Site. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the strong involvement of local institutions during the nomination process and welcomed the plan to establish a platform for exchanging experiences of protected areas between experts, practitioners and the local population. The Advisory Committee noted with appreciation the decision to adopt a two-step approach in the transboundary biosphere reserve nomination process, ‘leaving the doors open’ to Greece to join at its earliest convenience.


7

The Advisory Committee recommended that the individual national biosphere reserves of Ohrid-Prespa Watershed in both the Republic of Albania and in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia be approved pending receiving the detailed description of the national coordination and management structure, involving a diversity of stakeholders, which will be managing the national biosphere reserves in respective countries. The Advisory Committee strongly recommended to both countries to continue the cooperation and joint work between the two biosphere reserves. With regards to the designation of the area as a Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, the Advisory Committee recommended that this proposal be deferred until Greece is willing to join in, as the watershed and ecosystem management approach would benefit from all countries sharing this ecosystem to cooperate and work together from the start. Sila (Italy). The Advisory Committee welcomed the resubmission of this proposal, which was deferred in 2013. It recognized that the site contains a wide variety of natural environments and habitats and, due to its morphological and geographical characteristics, hosts approximately 1 000 types of vascular plants and over 210 species of vertebrates. It is a hotspot of great importance for the Mediterranean Biogeographical Region, selected by IUCN and WWF as a centre of plant diversity in the world. The proposed biosphere reserve is located in Calabria, in southern Italy, and comprises 357,294 ha, including 71 municipalities, with almost 230,000 permanent residents. Agriculture has been the traditional activity but, recently, nature tourism has been playing a fundamental role in the local economy, with more than 500,000 visitors per year. The Advisory Committee commended the initiatives to involve stakeholders during the nomination preparatory phase as well as the creation of the partnership assembly. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the progress made in terms of harmonization of existing planning tools, the development of a Long Term Economic and Social Plan of Sila National Park and contiguous area (PPES) and the implementation of the MaB-Sila Observatory. The Advisory Committee congratulated the Italian authorities for the quality information communicated and recommended the site for approval pending receipt of the following elements:

Clarification on the zonation, specifically the rationale for the western and eastern white spots not belonging to the proposed biosphere reserve, as well as the difference between the buffer zone and core areas as regards Natura 2000 regulations;

Detailed information about land use in the surrounding area, including possible human pressures on the proposed biosphere reserve;

More detailed information on the involvement of social scientists as well as how the scientific production/knowledge will benefit the biosphere reserve management;

More detailed information on how the coordination structure led by the national park authority will practically engage the community living beyond the boundaries of the national park and how the coordination of the activities will be carried out in the entire proposed biosphere reserve.

Tadami (Japan). The Advisory Committee welcomed this proposal which encompasses a site with a total area of 78,032 ha consisting of 3,557 ha as core area, 51,333 ha as buffer zone and 23,142 ha as transition area. The Tadami site is located at the eastern edge of the Echigo Mountains, the western edge of Fukushima Prefecture, and the southern part of the Tohoku region in Honshu. Geographically, it consists of large relief mountains of more than 600m, middle relief mountains of 400-600m, low relief Mountains of 200m-400m, a gravel plateau and the floodplains of the Tadami River and Ina River basins.


8

In terms of flora, 140 families and 1,109 species of tracheophytes are confirmed in Tadami Town which is about 96% of the proposed Tadami site. Records for fauna in about 96% of the site includes 15 families and 32 species for Mammals, 44 families and 145 species for Aves, 6 families and 13 species for Amphibian and 4 families and 10 reptile species. More than 2,000 species are confirmed for insects. In 2007, Tadami Town announced an initiative “The Capital of Mother Nature” targeting local residents to re-recognize the value of the large natural environment of the Tadami area, as the inheritance of the next generation. This announcement was publicized both inside and outside the town, and Tadami Town is working on implementing each proposed measure. The Advisory Committee observed that there are two categorizations of the buffer zone in this nomination. The Committee therefore recommended that the zonation be revised such that buffer zone A (identified as the yellow portions) be incorporated as part of the core area. Alternatively, buffer zones A and B could be merged into one categorization of buffer zone. The Advisory Committee recommended that this site be approved pending the implementation of the above recommendation. Ak-Zhayik (Kazakhstan). The Advisory Committee welcomed this new nomination from Kazakstan. The proposed site occupies mainly wetlands of the Ural River delta and adjacent territories along the Caspian Sea coast, which are located on one of the largest migration routes, stretching from Eurasia −, across the Caspian and Black Seas − to Eastern Africa. The total area is 396,346 ha consisting of 36,577 ha as core area, 129,769 ha as buffer zone and 230,000 ha as transition area. The proposed area is included in the Ramsar Convention's List of wetlands of international importance and is a concentration site for more than 240 migrating bird species, about 110 of which are waterbirds, including 18 specially protected species. Besides, this area is a nesting site for about 70 waterbirds, eight of which are specially protected natural objects. It is also a haven for a rare bird – Dalmatian Pelican (Pelicanus crispus, VU) – with population of the colony reaching more than 600 nesting pairs (12% of the global population). The proposed site is located on the lands of Makhambet district and Atyrau city of Atyrau oblast. The population of its 11 settlements is more than 17,000 people, 98% of them are Kazakh and 2% are Russian, Tatar and other ethnicities; population density is 23 people in 1km2. The economic orientation of the region is fishery and animal stock production. The area has productive landscapes that are good for cattle breeding as well as fisheries and hunting. The Advisory Committees requested the national authorities to submit a management plan covering the transition zone and emphasizing sustainable development. The national authorities are encouraged to consider merging the two clusters by creating an ecological corridor between them. The Advisory Committee recommended that this site be approved pending the implementation of these recommendations. Aksu-Zhabagly (Kazakhstan). This proposed site is located in the Western end of Talasskiy Alatau and Southern part of Karatau in Western Tien Shan. The total area of the site is 357,734 ha. The core area is 131,934 ha, the buffer zone 25,800 ha and the transition area is 200,000 ha. It has 48% of the total diversity of birds in the region, 72.5% of vertebrates, 221 out of 254 fungi species, 63 out of 80 moss species and 15 out of 17 of the vegetation types of Western Tien Shan and 114 out of 180 plant formations. Major land use of the region is agriculture. There are several crops growing on agricultural land: on the rain-fed area – cereal cultures (wheat and barley); on irrigated arable lands – forage cultures (corn, clover, alfalfa). Local people usually breed cattle, sheep (South-


9

Kazakh Merino), goats, horses (trotters and Donskaya breed) and poultry (chicken and turkey). At present, the territory of the buffer zone is visited by scientists and amateurs interested in flora and fauna, as well as ordinary sightseers. In accordance with ten routes for scientific and educational tourism, visitors move through the reserve on trails and roads, and for the rest-stops they use previously constructed field bases and traditional camping sites. Currently, the potential of eco-tourism for educational purposes is still insufficiently developed, although Aksu Zhabagly is one of the famous tourist spots for birdwatchers from all over the world. The Advisory Committee recommended that this site be approved pending the implementation of the following:

Enlarging the buffer zone for the protection of the core area; Undertaking activities that would enhance sustainable development functions of the

site; Preparing and submitting a management plan which is inclusive of the core area,

buffer zone and transition area. Mura-Drava-Danube (Serbia). The Advisory Committee welcomed this submission from Serbia, as a part of the future proposal of the Mura Drava Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve spanning five countries: Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia, and which constitutes a second step after the designation in 2012 of the Mura Drava Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve shared by Hungary and Croatia. The proposal is located in the northwestern part of Serbia and comprises 176,635 ha. Situated mainly in recent and historical alluvial zones of the central Danube plain, the proposed biosphere reserve is a mosaic composed mainly of remnants of historic floodplains and human-made landscapes influenced by agriculture and human settlements. The floodplain includes alluvial forests, marshes, reed beds, freshwater habitats, alluvial wetlands, as well as flood-protected forests with significantly changed hydrology dynamics. The area of the proposed biosphere reserve is home to 147,405 inhabitants located in 26 settlements with main activities are agriculture, forestry and industry. The Advisory Committee commended the Serbian authorities for the quality of the proposal. The Advisory Committee acknowledged that the Mura Drava Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve proposal is an initiative from the five countries which signed a ministerial declaration in 2011, stating that nothing in the Declaration or its subsequent document shall prejudice in any manner the delimitation between the State signatories. The Advisory Committee took note of the boundaries discussion being held at the international level between Croatia and Serbia. The Advisory Committee considered that the transboundary biosphere reserve was a unique tool for translating the mission and vision of the MAB Programme into a cooperation programme which promotes peace, scientific exchange and shared ecosystem management. The Advisory Committee strongly encouraged the scientific and technical cooperation in the field between the five countries to continue and the coordinating council established by the five countries to hold regular meetings. It also acknowledged support from WWF in the nomination process. The Advisory Committee recommended that the site be approved pending receipt of the following information:

The joint zonation map for the entire future transboundary biosphere reserve, designed by all five countries;

The joint transboundary biosphere reserve nomination form filled in by all five countries;


10

Clarification of the role of the scientific panel within the coordinating council of the proposed biosphere reserve;

Clarification on how the various projects and research outcomes will be integrated in the functioning of the proposed biosphere reserve.

Gouritz Cluster Biosphere Reserve (South Africa). The Advisory Committee welcomed this very well prepared and documented proposal of a relatively large cluster biosphere reserve (3 184 723.5 ha). The Advisory committee acknowledged its unicity at global level as it is the only place in the world where three recognized biodiversity hotspots (Fynbos, Succulent Karoo and Maputoland-Tongoland-Albany) converge. The area also includes a coastal/marine component (0.1% of core area) which serves as a nursery for marine species. It encompasses three units of UNESCO World Heritage site. The biosphere reserve nomination process which started in 2005 has been highly participative. The proposed biosphere reserve is facing deep rooted socio economic challenges (high unemployment, wide-spread poverty, sprawling informal settlements with inadequate services, rising HIV and crime rates) that the biosphere reserve will contribute to solve in building grassroots models of pro-poor enterprise and employment development connected to biodiversity. The number of formal and published research that has been conducted in the Gouritz region in recent years is growing. The proposed biosphere reserve will have a vital role to play in the compilation of a database and set up of a monitoring system. Environmental awareness raising and training activities targeting schools, communities and associations have been implemented throughout the years. The governance structure has been established since the last submission, but more information is needed. However, the advisory committee noted that the zonation pattern should be improved in order to avoid transition area included in buffer zones. The budget refers to one single source and does not explain how additional resources will be mobilized. Therefore, the Advisory Committee recommended that the site be approved pending the receipt of the following information:

Clarification and justification of zonation with regards to the function of biosphere reserve;

Further information on sustainable financing scheme; Further information on the functioning of the governance structure.

Nominations recommended for deferral Algeria (general recommendation) The Advisory Committee welcomed the nomination of Belezma Biosphere Reserve, Tlemcen Biosphere Reserve and Theniet El Had Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee commended the country’s effort in preparing these three dossiers. Having examined these nominations, the Advisory Committee strongly recommended that the Algerian authorities review the concordance of their national parks with biosphere reserves, especially with regard to the zonation. The authorities are encouraged to seek support from the MAB Secretariat and the UNESCO Cairo Office to organize a capacity-building workshop on biosphere reserves and improve their nomination files. Belezma (Algeria). The Advisory Committee welcomed this proposal covering the existing Belezma National Park situated in the province of Batna on the slopes of the Belezma


11

mountain range. Covering some 26,250 ha, Belezma is host to a rich flora and fauna, several species of which are endemic and/or threatened, and provide opportunities for traditional land use, tourism and recreation. However, the Advisory Committee concluded that the complete overlap of the national park with the zoning of the future biosphere reserve was sub-optimal and not entirely in line with the Seville Strategy. Therefore, the Advisory Committee recommended that the proposal be deferred and that the Algerian authorities consider submitting a revised nomination based on the following suggestions:

The proposed biosphere reserve should extend outside the national park, in order to better engage with economic and urban development issues and stakeholders, including public and private bodies;

Maps should be improved for readability, especially in respect of the zonation; Additional information on the participation of local communities in the management of

the proposed Belezma Biosphere Reserve should be provided; A management plan for a large biosphere reserve should be prepared, together with

a management effectiveness evaluation monitoring system. Tlemcen Mountains (Algeria). The Advisory Committee welcomed this proposal covering the existing Tlemcen National Park situated in the Tlemcen Province, encompassing rich biodiversity, valuable archeological sites, cultural landmarks and caves receiving large numbers of visitors. However, the Advisory Committee concluded that the complete overlap of the national park with the zoning of the future biosphere reserve was sub-optimal and not entirely in line with the Seville Strategy. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the proposal be deferred and that the Algerian authorities consider submitting a revised nomination based on the following suggestions:


Maps should be improved for readability, especially in respect of the zonation; Additional information on the participation of local communities in the management of

the proposed Tlemcen Biosphere Reserve should be provided; A management plan for a large biosphere reserve should be prepared, together with

a management effectiveness evaluation monitoring system, with special emphasis on the tourism sector.

Theniet El Had (Algeria). The Advisory Committee welcomed this proposal covering the existing Theniet El Had National Park situated in the Ouarsenis mountain range located in the west central Atlas of Algeria. This site includes several plants of regional or national and international interest. However, the Advisory Committee concluded that the complete overlap of the national park with the zoning of the future biosphere reserve was sub-optimal and not entirely in line with the Seville Strategy. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the proposal be deferred and that the Algerian authorities consider submitting a revised nomination based on the following suggestions:


Maps should be improved for readability, especially in respect of the zonation, as well as in terms of biophysical, geological and vegetation data;

Additional information on the participation of local communities in the management of the proposed Theniet El Had Biosphere Reserve should be provided;


12

A management plan for a large biosphere reserve should be prepared, together with a management effectiveness evaluation monitoring system.

Valdes (Argentina). The Advisory Committee took note of this nomination from Argentina. The proposed site encompasses the Patagonian Steppe, Hill Plains and Plateaus and Argentine Sea eco-regions. It is home to significant biodiversity, including highly fragile terrestrial and marine ecosystems, the conservation of which is crucial for addressing the vulnerabilities of key species. Both the Patagonian steppe eco-region and the Argentine Sea have been recognized as important sites and inscribed on WWF’s Global 200 list. The marine coastal areas are suitable habitats for the feeding and reproduction of many bird and marine mammal species. Particular bodies of water, such as the Golfo Nuevo and San José, function as crucial sites for the reproduction of species like the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis). The Valdes Biosphere Reserve will incorporate the Peninsula Valdés Natural Protected Area, designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1999; San Jose and Playa Fracaso, nominated Ramsar sites in 2012; the El Doradillo municipal protected area and the natural protected areas of Punta Loma and Punta León. According to the 2010 National Census, 214,196 inhabitants in the Viedma and Rawson departments will benefit from the creation of this biosphere reserve. The most important economic activities in the region are livestock rearing, tourism, fisheries, industry (aluminium, porphyry), the port movement and, more recently, wind power generation. The Advisory Committee pointed out that there was no marine transition area and only a very small terrestrial transition area. The Advisory Committee further noted that there was no clear composition of the management committee for the biosphere reserve. Lastly, the Advisory Committee noted that only a small-scale map of the biosphere reserve had been provided. The Advisory Committee recommended that this proposal be deferred, as the zonation has to be re-defined, including the transition area surrounding the buffer zone in both the terrestrial and marine areas. In addition, the national authorities are requested to re-define clearly the composition of the management committee and to provide a larger-scale map. Hanma National Nature Reserve (China). The proposed site covers a total surface area of 107,348ha, which consists of a core area of 46,510ha, a buffer zone of 37,250ha and a transition area of 23,588ha. This site located in Inner Mongolia is described as the core part of the Taiga distributed in China. The natural vegetation is intact, owing to very limited interaction with humankind. The cold temperate coniferous forest is the most well- preserved forest type in China and is of high scientific value. The vegetation plays a significant role in protecting water resources, performing water purification, maintaining the ecological safety (balance/equilibrium) in the Heilongjiang area and along the Jiliuhe River, as well as supporting the rare wildlife. Forest products from this site, such as bilberry, blueberry and other wild fruit, contribute to the socio-economic development of the communities in the area. With the development of tourism, Hanma Nature Reserve has been searching for a path to build tourism as the pillar industry. Authorities believe that development of ecological tourism in Hanma Nature Reserve will not only be beneficial economically but also environmentally and socially. By way of logistic support, it is planned that the proposed site will cooperate with universities, colleges and research institutions to study jointly the structural functions and succession process of forest ecological systems and wetland ecosystems at the proposed site. Another aim of the logistic support is to help determine a practical plan for the reasonable


13

development and sustainable utilization on the premise that the various ecological system structures are not damaged. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the conservation value of this site. However, it observed that its zonation did not conform to the zonation criteria prescribed in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It also noted that the participation of local communities had not been well demonstrated. The Advisory Committee therefore recommended that this nomination be deferred. The Advisory Committee encouraged the national authorities to re-submit this nomination with a new zonation that had a buffer zone surrounding the core area and to expand the transition area to include a permanent human population. Samothraki (Greece).The Advisory Committee welcomed the re-submission of this proposal, which was deferred in 2012. The proposed site is located within the Aegean Sea and comprises the entire island of Samothraki, with a total surface area of 22,853 ha. The site is a mountainous island with its highest peak culminating at 1,611m above sea level, making it the second-highest island in the Aegean Sea. The mountainous terrain creates a variety of habitats that host a large number of species thanks to two distinct microclimates: a northern side that is more humid with related vegetation cover and a drier southern side with a typical Mediterranean climate. The human presence on the island since prehistoric times has created cultural landscapes and left many monuments of international interest on the island, making it a highly valued tourist destination nowadays. The main activities of the total permanent population of 2,860 are agriculture, settlements and trade. The Advisory Committee expressed its appreciation of the involvement of local associations in designing the proposed site. However, the Advisory Committee considered that the zonation was still not meeting the criteria, with the legal status of the core area still being unclear and the governance and funding of the proposed area yet to be defined. It further encouraged the Greek authorities to address these issues and work on the zonation, governance and budgetary aspects and to seek support from the MAB Secretariat and the EuroMAB Regional Network. The Advisory Committee recommended that the site be deferred. Po Delta (Italy).The Advisory Committee welcomed this nomination proposal located in northern Italy, which comprises 139,398 ha, covering 16 municipalities populated by 120,000 inhabitants. The proposed area represents a plain morphology, the current structure of which is produced by the Po River’s action and recent human activities. The proposed area is the only delta in Italy, created by the confluence of the main branches of the river; coastal dune systems and sand formations, lagoons, fishing ponds, marshes, fossil dunes, canals and coastal pine forests, vast brackish wetlands and cultivated lands dominated par rice farming. These landscapes provide a unique identity and an extremely significant heritage of biodiversity due to their range of habitats. The proposed Po Delta Biosphere Reserve is an important tourist destination. Together with agriculture and fish farming, tourism is the main economic activity of local communities. The Advisory Committee noted with appreciation the efforts to involve local stakeholders in the consultation process. However, the Advisory Committee considered that the status and management of the core area needed clarifying and that the decision-making process within the Institutional Coordination Board was unclear, even though the board was supported by Thematic Technical Roundtables. It further noted that the governance structure was very complex and did not seem manageable; nor had any common vision for the proposed area been defined. The added value of the proposed biosphere reserve was not clear, as most of the actions


14

included in the Action Plan referred to existing, binding management plans (Natura 2000, Environmental Plan of the Veneto Regional Po Delta Park, Area Plan of Po Delta “Piano d’Area–Regione Veneto”). Concerning research projects, the Advisory Committee considered that the social science studies in the whole area were missing, especially taking into account the fact that most of the proposed area was composed of farming systems. Lastly, the committee noted the lack of information on water management issues and challenges, as well as the lack of discussion on water quality, despite the fact that the proposed biosphere reserve area is mainly composed of wetlands or irrigated cultivated lands. The Advisory Committee recommended that this site be deferred. Ledro Alps and Judicaria (Italy). The Advisory Committee welcomed this proposal by the Italian authorities. The proposed area is located in the Trento region in northern Italy, between the Dolomite World heritage Site and the famous Lake Garda, with a total surface area of 47,427 ha. The site is representative of the southern slopes of the central-eastern Alps, comprising different healthy habitats (Alpine meadows, forest, grasslands, moorlands) alternating with traditional crops. Its strategic location contributes to a rich and varied biodiversity and to creating a corridor running north−south across the Alps, establishing territorial continuity between protected areas from the Po valley to the northern Alps. The proposed area includes two settlements around Lake Ledro and Lake Carera recognized as UNESCO World Heritage sites. It is also a high valued tourist destination, with tourism representing the main source of income for a permanent population of 15,845. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the existence of a research network and the numerous promotional and communication efforts carried out in the proposed area; it did, however, note with concerns the petition transmitted to the UNESCO MAB Secretariat by numerous citizens of the municipalities and cities in the proposed area. The Advisory Committee questioned the relevance of the zonation, including the protection status of the core areas, and also the role of the transition area as an ecological corridor between the two core areas. It also considered that the main scientific research described focused on conservation aspects and that there seemed to be conflicts with the hunters in the proposed area. It also noted that there was no clear description of the governance and decision-making system of the proposed area, nor any comprehensive information on how the governance would work. It also questioned how tourism would be managed and how the new plan for the park would be integrated in the proposed site. The Advisory Committee recommended that Ledro Alps and Judicaria be deferred. The Advisory Committee encouraged the Italian authorities to address the above issues and to engage in full consultation with local stakeholders, in order to get full support for the designation of the proposed area as a biosphere reserve. Karakoram Pamir (Pakistan). This proposed site is characterized by steep and jagged peaks, glaciers stretching for miles, alpine meadows and pastures, scattered patches of coniferous and birch forests, lush green high valleys and deep narrow gorges. It contains the largest ice mass outside the poles in the form of the world’s longest glacier system, including 40 large and many small glaciers. Among the famous glaciers of Karakoram are Siachen, Batura, Baltoro, Biafo, Hisper, Hoper, Kuksil, Yazghil, Momhil and Malanguti. It covers a total surface area of 2,569,000 ha of which 1,132,700 ha occupy the core area, 671,800 ha the buffer zone and 764,800 ha the transition area. The rich biodiversity of the typical mountain ecosystem of Karakoram Range is of immense socio-ecological significance and value for biodiversity conservation on local, national, regional and global scales.


15

Biologically, the area falls in the Central Asian phytogeographical region, with over 400 flora species ranging from endemic herbs and Poa sp. grasses to coniferous forests. Among the fauna species, mammals are of great importance and the proposed biosphere reserve area is known to have significant populations of 33 globally important mammalian species including species which are threatened and/ or endemic to Karakoram region. The Advisory Committee noted the submission of this nomination and acknowledged the continuous effort of Pakistan to increase the number of its biosphere reserves. Whilst appreciating its rich fauna and flora and immense socio-ecological significance and value for biodiversity conservation at all levels, the Advisory Committee found that the northern and eastern sides of the core area were not surrounded by a buffer zone and a transition area, contrary to the recommendations of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In addition, the management plan for the two national parks forming the core area may not be tailored for the core area of the proposed biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee recommended that the management plan of the proposed biosphere reserve consider integrating the management of these three zones. The Advisory Committee therefore concluded that this nomination should be deferred. Daghestansky (Russian Federation). The Advisory Committee welcomed this submission, which is located in Daghestan Republic and comprises 207,600 ha. The proposed site is composed of two clusters: Kizlyar Bay and Sarykum Barchans, containing rich biodiversity in marine, coastal, desert-steppe and arid foothill ecosystems. The Advisory Committee acknowledged that this area contained one of the largest migratory routes of birds in Eurasia, as well as large number of flora and fauna species. The total permanent population living in the proposed biosphere reserve is 1,200 whose main activities are agriculture, stock-raising and fishing. The Advisory Committee considered that the proposed zonation with the two clusters was inadequate for fulfilling the criteria and ensuring proper functioning of the proposed biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee encouraged the Russian authorities to resubmit a proposal with a zonation that could join the two clusters and including evidence of the implementation of scientific research in management, education and awareness-raising, as well as evidence of the participatory process and governance for the entire area. The Advisory Committee recommended that the proposal be deferred. Magaliesberg (South Africa).The Advisory Committee welcomed the re-submission of this very consistent and well-documented proposal covering an area located between the cities of Pretoria and Johannesburg in the east and Rustenburg in the west. This area is endowed with scenic beauty, unique natural features, rich natural and cultural heritage value, significant biodiversity and archaeological interest. This biosphere reserve encompasses the Cradle of Humankind, which is part of a World heritage site with 4 million years of history. The proposed site’s primary activities are agriculture, mining and tourism. It is adjacent to major urban infrastructure, the impacts of which will be reduced through the biosphere reserve management plan. The Advisory Committee noted with appreciation that the consultation process for delimiting the biosphere reserve’s contours has been completed since the last submission. However, the zonation scheme still needs improvement. In particular, with regards to the Pelindaba nuclear research centre, even though it has been defined under the category of “highly disturbed area or areas with high impacts” and removed from the biosphere reserve area, it still remains physically in the middle of the proposed site.


16

With regard to the logistic function, research coordination and a monitoring programme for biosphere reserve should be put in place. Therefore, the Advisory Committee recommended that the site be deferred. The Advisory Committee strongly encouraged the authorities to resubmit a nomination that will address the following elements:

Improvement in the zonation pattern, namely the core area and buffer zone, in order to fulfill the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves;

Exclusion of Pelindaba and the surrounding area from the biosphere reserve proposal, possibly by using natural boundaries, for example rivers.

Macizo de Anaga (Spain). The Advisory Committee acknowledged this nomination submission by Spain. This site is located in the northeastern part of Tenerife, Canary Islands. It represents the island’s oldest geological formation with a peak of 1,024 m. This area is an ecological unit separated from the rest of the island. It features a diverse geographical space that ranges from urban areas located on the coast to the summit. In terms of environmental value, its remarkable cultural uniqueness is of local, regional, national and international interest. The proposal is an example of collaboration, primarily between different municipal governing bodies (Cabildo Insular de Tenerife, the councils of the three municipalities of the Canary Islands and Sustainable Holy Cross Foundation). In addition, the proposal has also been supported by a local community. However, the Advisory Committee strongly recommended that the marine and coastal areas be included in this biosphere reserve proposal to highlight the connection between marine/coastal and inland ecosystems. Furthermore, the Advisory Committee requested the submission of the official approval by the national authorities. Therefore, the Advisory Committee recommended that this proposal be deferred. Nominations recommended for rejection Corridor Milan – Ticino (Italy). The Advisory Committee acknowledged this proposal, which is located in the southwestern plain surrounding the city of Milan in northern Italy. The total surface area proposed is 15,755 ha, mainly composed of cultivated fields intercalated with farmhouses, typical of the Po Valley landscape. The extended cultivated plains mixed with traditional farmhouses, urban nuclei and woodlands represent the main features of the landscape. The network of canals and springs is also a fascinating human-made system that today presents a cultural landscape rich in biodiversity. There are about 130,000 permanent inhabitants, whose livelihoods depend mainly on the industrial and services sectors. The Advisory Committee noted with appreciation that the proposed biosphere reserve management aimed to reduce the urbanization process and develop ecotourism and sustainable farming systems. The proposed biosphere reserve would constitute an example of the implementation of sustainable development applied to an agro-ecosystem. However the Advisory Committee considered that the lack of legal protection status of the core area, the insufficient justification of the buffer zone and transition area delineation, the absence of stakeholder involvement, and the deficiency in the governance concept and decision-making process weakened the overall project. Therefore, the Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the Statutory Framework criteria and recommended that this proposal be rejected.


17

It recommended that the Italian authorities investigate whether other designations, such as the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems of the FAO, may fit better with their aims. Extension, renaming or changes in the zonation of biosphere reserves Laguna Oca del Río Paraguay Biosphere Reserve (Argentina), extension and renaming. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the extension proposal from Argentina. This proposal follows recommendations made by the International Coordinating Council in 2000 to extend the core area, buffer zone and transition area, as their present dimensions do not allow the area to fulfill the three functions of a biosphere reserve. The proposed new area will integrate the city of Formosa, the Laguna de Herradura and the Riacho Salado as far as Mision Laishi, through a biodiversity and cultural corridor named ‘The Way of Water’, which will pass through the Paraguay River and its tributaries. The total area will be extended from around 12,000 ha to 61,763.39 ha. The proposed new name for the biosphere reserve is Laguna Oca y Herraduras del Río Paraguay. The Advisory Committee recommended that this extension and the new name be approved. The Advisory Committee recommended that the national authorities:

Submit clearer maps about the actual extension of the areas and the proposed extension;

Re-evaluate the importance of the buffer zone along the river as an element connecting different landscapes and contributing to maintaining biodiversity and ecological restoration in the urban, rural and natural environments;

Elaborate a management plan for the modified biosphere reserve. Rhön Biosphere Reserve (Germany), extension. The Advisory Committee welcomed this extension submitted by the German authorities to the site designated in 1991. As part of the German central upland range, the Rhön Biosphere Reserve comprises an upland region formed as a result of volcanic activity in the Tertiary period. With the extension of 58,113 ha, the biosphere reserve will comprise a total surface area of 243,323 ha (with an altitudinal gradient of 770 m between approximately 180 m and 950 m above mean sea level). Its uniqueness and beauty results in a diversity of landscapes, hosting endemic spcies such as Rhönquellschnecke (Bythinella compressa), the wild cat (Felis silvestris), black grouse (Tetrao tetrix) and red kite (Milvus milvus). As of October 2010, the biosphere reserve counted a population of 135,285, the majority of whom live in rural settlements. As a result of the extension and inclusion of some small towns, the population across the three federal states will increase to 225,768 and the population density of the entire area from an average of 71.6 inhabitants/km² to 87.7 inhabitants/km², the main economic activities of whom are forestry, agriculture and tourism. The Advisory Committee congratulated the German authorities for the well-prepared proposal for extension and considered that the extension met the Statutory framework criteria. Therefore, the Advisory Committee recommended that the extension be approved.

Shiga Highland Biosphere Reserve (Japan), extension. The Advisory Committee noted the submission of the extension application for this biosphere reserve, which was designated in 1980. The size of the core area is the same as when this biosphere reserve was first designated; the buffer zone covers 17,569 ha, which is an increment of 58%, and the new delineated transition area 12,021 ha.


18

The International Advisory Committee commended the national authorities for demarcating a transition area for the site and recommended that this application for extension be approved. The Advisory Committee requested the national authorities to indicate how the core area is protected, as it is not protected by a buffer zone, and to submit a revised management plan covering the extended areas. Montseny Biosphere Reserve (Spain), extension. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the proposal for the extension of the Montseny Biosphere Reserve in Spain. This site is a first-generation biosphere reserve that was nominated in 1978. The extended core area and buffer zones follow the zonation of the National Park Montseny revised in 2008. The extension incorporates also the transition areas not previously included. The Advisory Committee noted that this extension proposal is a follow-up to two previous periodic reviews, the last one received in 2011. In 2011, the Advisory Committee encouraged the national authorities to provide additional information on the management plan for the biosphere reserve and its implementation. This detailed proposal for extension describes the harmonization process of the different management structures and plans in line with the Committee’s recommendations. Additionally, the extension has been made in close consultation with local communities and with the municipality’s support. The Advisory Committee recommended that the extension be approved pending the submission of the official approval by the national authorities and the identification of the biosphere reserve’s management authorities before the next MAB-ICC to be held in June 2014. Mancha Humeda Biosphere Reserve (Spain), extension. The site encompasses a gently rolling plain located between 600 m and 700 m above sea level, rich in Tertiary deposits and scattered with a great number of wetlands arising from the seasonal flooding of rivers and from the numerous upwellings of the Manchego aquifer in the depressions, known in the area as “eyes”. The Advisory Committee welcomed this extension proposal from Spain. This biosphere reserve was designated in 1980 and in 2002 submitted a periodic review. After the assessment of that periodic review, it was concluded that this biosphere reserve was not fully functioning according to the criteria of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and that it suffered from overexploitation of water resources. The Advisory Committee was of the opinion that the integrated approach of a biosphere reserve was nevertheless the best way to combat the threats to water resources and also recommended that the Spanish authorities improve the global management plan for the whole biosphere reserve, in order to integrate conservation and sustainable use, paying particular attention to sustainable use of water resources and the development of a coordinating structure to bring all stakeholders together. The extension enlarges considerably the transition area and includes some readjustment to the buffer zones and core areas, increasing the size of the biosphere reserve from 25,000 ha to 418,087 ha. This extension proposal and re-zoning are a significant improvement, as they will provide disconnected wetlands areas with better protection. Moreover, their designation as core areas surrounded by buffer zones is homogeneously encompassed by a transition area integrating areas set aside for urban development. The Advisory Committee recommended that this extension be approved with the provision that a transition area in the southern part of the biosphere reserve be delineated.


Original: English


International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme Twenty-sixth Session


10-13 June 2014

ITEM 11 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: UPDATE ON THE EXIT STRATEGY

1. The purpose of the exit strategy is to improve the credibility and the quality of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and to help Member States to set the required standards for their biosphere reserve to become fully functional and to conform with the criteria according to the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves. As regards the exit strategy, 266 sites are concerned in 76 countries. 2. As a follow-up to the adoption of the exit strategy at its last session in May 2013, the Secretariat implemented Step 1 of the exit strategy for the sites which never submitted a periodic review nor replied to the recommendation received by the MAB ICC (Category A):

• The Secretariat sent 41 letters to 41 countries for sites which have never submitted a

periodic review report and 14 letters concerning 14 countries for sites which never replied to the recommendation. 104 replies (82%) from 30 countries were received for sites which never submitted periodic review reports. The replies included 54 periodic review reports but also countries indicating that they will send the report within the year (5 countries).

• The Secretariat also sent 43 letters for 43 countries that need to send a report by the end of 2015 to demonstrate that the site meets the criteria (Category B).

3. The Secretariat has also implemented step 2 of the Exit strategy for the countries who did not reply to the letters sent as step 1 for Category A.

• The Secretariat has sent 17 letters as the first reminder for the countries who did not reply under Category A.

4. In total, as to date, 467 periodic review reports have been received by the MAB Secretariat and a total of 456 reports were examined by the Advisory Committee. 13 countries have never submitted a periodic review report for any of their 36 sites. The Secretariat has received an additional 11 periodic review reports as a direct reply to the exit strategy after the twentieth session of the Advisory committee was held last March. 43 out of 88 periodic review reports that have been received and were examined by the Advisory Committee at its last twentieth session were reports sent as replies to the exit strategy letters sent by the MAB Secretariat.

2

5. At its last session, the Advisory Committee made efforts that each recommendation state clearly if the site is or is not meeting the criteria of the Statutory Framework. At its twentieth session, the percentage of recommendations issued by the Advisory Committee that stated that the site is meeting the criteria is 43.2% for periodic review and 53.7% for the follow-up of recommendation. In total, out of the 88 periodic review reports examined, 38 are meeting the criteria. As regards the sites that are not meeting the criteria, the Advisory Committee made effort to say clearly why they do not meet the criteria in the recommendations.

6. In total, out of the 368 periodic review reports received and examined by the MAB ICC, 42.6% of the sites are meeting the criteria according to the recommendation.

7. Several Member states have requested support from the MAB Secretariat, UNESCO Offices and regional Networks to assist them in the periodic review process and any advice from the MAB ICC on how to efficiently support the requested countries would be appreciated.

8. The MAB Council is invited to comment on the progress made as regards the implementation of the exit strategy and provide guidance on future implementation.

3

Exit strategy 56. The representative of the Secretariat introduced document SC-12/CONF.224/7. She indicated that 287 biosphere reserves had submitted a periodic review report so far. Out of these 287 biosphere reserves, 78 biosphere reserves are due to undertake a second or third periodic review. There are 112 biosphere reserves that have never done a periodic review. She further specified that nine countries have never done any periodic review for any of their biosphere reserves (concerning 60 biosphere reserves).

57. She informed the Council that to date, 357 periodic review reports had been submitted within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. 219 biosphere reserves had submitted one report, 65 biosphere reserves submitted two reports and three biosphere reserves submitted three reports. She explained that out of 287 biosphere reserves that have done a periodic review, 6 biosphere reserves are fully meeting the criteria and are considered as model to be shared within the WNBR. 80 biosphere reserves are meeting the criteria, 138 are partly meeting the criteria, 55 biosphere reserves are not meeting the criteria and for six biosphere reserves withdrawal was recommended.

58. She informed the Council that 102 letters were sent out in October 2012 to request the periodic review reports as well as follow-up information to the recommendations issued by the MAB Council.

59. These 102 letters requested 256 biosphere reserves in 73 countries to submit a periodic review report. Following the letters, 34 biosphere reserves submitted a periodic review report. She also indicated that 21 additional reports were received. In total, 55 periodic review reports were received by the Secretariat and were examined by the Advisory Committee in 2013.

60. 119 biosphere reserves provided answers and information on when they plan to deliver a periodic review report. 99 biosphere reserves did not answer to the letters sent out in October 2012. In addition she stated that four biosphere reserves sent a periodic review after the deadline and these will be examined by the Advisory Committee at its next meeting in 2014.

61. The letters for the follow-up of the recommendation concerned 60 biosphere reserves in 28 countries. 26 biosphere reserves provided information on the implementation of the recommendations. Five spontaneous follow-up responses were received in addition. 32 biosphere reserves did not answer to the letters sent out in October 2012. She also informed delegates that some follow-up information were received after the deadline for one site and that one biosphere reserve sent a full periodic review report as a follow-up. She indicated that a total of 31 follow-up responses had been received before the deadline so that they could be examined by the Advisory Committee in 2013.

62. After this presentation, she introduced the exit strategy proposed by the Advisory Committee.

63. After the introduction by the Secretariat, numerous delegates commended the Advisory Committee for the proposed exit strategy and the Secretariat for its comprehensive and detailed presentation. Delegates underlined that the WNBR should remain a network of excellence. Several delegates expressed disappointment about the lack of response from countries and sites. While the majority of delegates supported the exit strategy, discussion focused on (a) recipients of letters so as to ensure an improved response rate including by writing directly to Permanent Delegations and concerned ministries; (b) the number of years to be allocated to sites which do not meet the criteria; (c) the need for sites to receive adequate support from the Secretariat as well as from UNESCO field offices and MAB regional networks; (d) the need to remain flexible as regards the capacity of sites to upgrade so as to meet the criteria; (e) the need to ensure a good cultural and ecosystem representativity of the WNBR; (f) to need to have sufficient time to reach out to local communities including into languages that are not working languages of UNESCO. In addition two Observers referred to training support available for

4

countries for conducting the periodic review process (i.e. manual guide for managers of biosphere reserves supported by Germany and a training course for practitioners at the University of Goteborg, Sweden).

64. In her response the representative of the Secretariat confirmed that the models of good periodic review reports from all regions would be made available on the Internet after agreement by concerned countries. She also confirmed that a site that has withdrawn from the WNBR could resubmit a proposal in the future. She warmly thanked the French and Spanish MAB national Committees for their support in translating the new nomination and periodic review forms and indicated that the transboundary forms for nomination and periodic review should be online very shortly.

65. In the light of the above discussion, the Council decided to adopt an “exit strategy” as indicated below:

(a) A biosphere reserve of the MAB Programme is an attractive designation that not only serves to enhance conservation but also sustainable development and research throughout the world. As a consequence, the number of biosphere reserves has increased considerably from 391 sites in 94 countries in the year 2000 to 621 biosphere reserves in 117 countries (including 12 transboundary sites) in 2013. The MAB Programme as a scientific programme has also evolved since its inception in 1971, and so have methods, competencies, experience, and knowledge developed on how to apply the biosphere reserve concept in practice. In this context the MAB Programme has started a process to ensure the continued adherence of the sites established as biosphere reserves to the objectives of their establishment and to ensure the credibility and coherence of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, and to meet Targets 9 and 10 of the Madrid Action Plan.

(b) Therefore, the Council decided on a three step process to manage the periodic review process as a tool to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves:

1st step: The MAB Secretariat sends a letter to the relevant MAB National Committees with a copy to the individual biosphere reserve concerned, the UNESCO National Commission and the Permanent Delegation requesting submission of periodic review reports for those sites that have not yet submitted a periodic review report. In a similar manner, the MAB Secretariat sends a letter with regard to those sites which have not yet submitted information on the actions taken as recommended by the MAB-ICC on periodic review reports submitted earlier;

2nd step: If no periodic review reports or comprehensive reports on the implementation of the recommendations are received after three months, the MAB Secretariat sends a reminder letter to the relevant MAB National Committees with a copy to individual biosphere reserves, the UNESCO National Commission and the Permanent Delegation of the country concerned stating the consequences of non-action. If appropriate, the MAB Secretariat sends the reminder letter directly to the Permanent Delegation and Ministry concerned;

3rd step: If a reply has still not been received after an additional period of three months by the MAB Secretariat, the Secretariat will recommend to the MAB-ICC Bureau that its Chair should issue a last “warning” to the MAB National Committee and the biosphere reserve concerned with copies to the UNESCO National Commission, concerned ministries and the Permanent Delegation of the country concerned consisting of a request for an official statement whether the biosphere reserve wishes to remain in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and if so, accompanied with a clear statement which actions, including timeframe, will be taken.

5

(c) In case a reply is still not received from the MAB National Committee or the UNESCO National Commission concerned within a further period of three months, the MAB-ICC Bureau shall recommend to the MAB ICC that the biosphere reserve in question be withdrawn from the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The MAB-ICC may then decide to remove the site from the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

(d) In case a reply is received from the MAB National Committee or the UNESCO National Commission, the MAB Secretariat puts the biosphere reserve concerned on an internal pending list of “Biosphere Reserves which do not fulfill the criteria” and provides a new deadline of one year for the submission of a periodic review report, and/or additional information.

(e) If the respective national authorities wish to retain the site as a member of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves but if the site is not fulfilling the criteria of the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves and its Statutory Framework, or if the site only partially fulfils the criteria, the MAB Secretariat, UNESCO field offices and MAB regional networks should offer guidance and help (e.g. by providing examples of “model periodic review reports” on the MAB website).

(f) One year after a site has been put on the list mentioned in paragraph (d) above and then every year, the MAB Secretariat should identify and reward the willingness of biosphere reserves to comply with the criteria of the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework so that the biosphere reserves concerned will be removed from this list.

(g) In case a biosphere reserve is not able to fully comply with the criteria within a period of thirty months since the periodic review process was started (i.e. first step – first demand of periodic review report), the MAB-ICC should consider that the area will then no longer be referred to as a biosphere reserve which is part of the Network (as per Article 9, para 6 of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves).

(h) For the sites that have provided periodic review reports and/or follow up information on the recommendation on the report by the MAB-ICC prior to this exit strategy and that are not meeting the criteria, the Secretariat sends a letter to the relevant MAB National Committees with a copy to the individual biosphere reserve concerned, the UNESCO National Commission and the Permanent Delegation, indicating that a report must be submitted by the end of 2015 clearly indicating how the site is fulfilling the criteria. In case, the site is still not meeting the criteria after examination of the report by the Advisory Committee, the Bureau shall recommend to the MAB-ICC that the biosphere reserve in question be withdrawn from the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The MAB-ICC may then decide that the area will then no longer be referred to as a biosphere reserve which is part of the Network (as per Article 9, para 6 of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves).

(i) The Council also recommends that the MAB Secretariat, UNESCO field offices and MAB regional networks provide guidance such as additional information on training for biosphere reserve managers, and functioning biosphere reserves that may help other biosphere reserves to comply with biosphere reserve criteria.


Original: English


International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme Twenty-sixth Session


10-13 June 2014

ITEM 12 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: PERIODIC REVIEW OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES AND FOLLOW-UP

OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Secretariat received 88 periodic review reports from 31 countries for examination this

year as well as 41 follow-up of recommendation from 19 countries. 2. During its meeting held from 17 to 20 March 2014 in Paris, the Members of the Advisory

Committee reviewed these 88 periodic review reports of 93 sites, including 3 joint transboundary periodic review reports. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee on each of these sites are included in the Annex I of this document. These recommendations have been transmitted to the concerned countries for follow-up and any additional information provided will be examined by the MAB ICC Bureau. The Secretariat has also sent to the concerned countries the comments and additional information requested as regards the follow-up on recommendations.

3. 43 reports are replies from the implementation of the exit strategy adopted by the MAB ICC

at its 25th session. This item will be covered in document SC-14/CONF.226/9.

4. The MAB Council is invited to comment on the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

2

ANNEX I Periodic Review Reports considered by the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere

Reserves during its 20th meeting held at UNESCO Headquarters, 17-20 March 2014

Country Name of the Site

ALGERIA Tassili n’Ajjer Chréa

ARGENTINA

Riacho Teuquito Las Yungas Laguna Oca y Herraduras del Río Paraguay (extension and renaming, former Laguna Oca del Río Paraguay)

BURKINA FASO/BENIN/NIGER W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (TBR)

CANADA Niagara Escarpment

CHINA Dalai Lake Wudalianchi Yading

CZECH REPUBLIC Lower Morava DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Mount Paektu

FRANCE Archipel de la Guadeloupe

GERMANY

Rhön Pfälzerwald/Vosges du Nord Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (TBR) South-East Rügen

GREECE Samaria

HUNGARY

Aggtelek Lake Fertö Hortobágy Kiskunság Pilis

IRELAND North Bull Island

ITALY Islands of Tuscany

JORDAN Dana

MALAWI Mt Mulanje

MEXICO

Alto Golfo de California y El Pinacate (renaming, former Alto Golfo de California) Islas del Golfo de California Sierra La Laguna

NETHERLANDS Waddensea Area

PAKISTAN Lal Suhanra

PHILIPPINES Puerto Galera

POLAND Bialowieza Puszcza Kampinoska Luknajno Lake

POLAND/SLOVAKIA Tatras TBR

POLAND/SLOVAKIA/UKRAINE East Carpathians TBR

PORTUGAL Paul do Boquilobo

RUSSIAN FEDERATION Nerussa-Desnyanskoye Polesye Far East Marine Visimskiy

SC-14/CONF.226/10

3

Commander Islands Katunsky Nizhegorodskoe Zavolzhye

SLOVENIA Julian Alps

SPAIN

La Palma Monfragüe Picos de Europa Terras do Miño Valles del Leza, Jubera, Cidacos y Alhama Dehesas de Sierra Morena Valle de Laciana Muniellos

SRI LANKA Kanneliya-Dediyagala-Nakiyadeniya Hurulu Sinharaja

THAILAND Hauy Tak Teak Ranong

UKRAINE

Askania nova Chernomorskiy (Black Sea) Shatskyi Carpathian

USA

Big Bend National Park California Coast Ranges Carolinian-South Atlantic Central Gulf Coastal Plain Channel Islands Denali Glacier National Park Glacier Bay and Admiralty Island Golden Gate Hawaiian Islands Jornada Experimental Range Konza Prairie Research Natural Area Mammoth Cave Area Mojave and Colorado Deserts New Jersey Pinelands Niwot Ridge Noatak Olympic National Park Rocky Mountain National Park San Joaquin Experimental Range Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks South Atlantic Coastal Plain Southern Appalachian University of Michigan Biological Station Virgin Islands National Park Yellowstone National Park

SC-14/CONF.226/10

4

ANNEX II Follow-up considered by the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves

during its 20th meeting held at UNESCO Headquarters, 17-20 March 2014

Country Name of the Site

ALGERIA Parc du Djurdjura

BELARUS Berezinsky

CANADA

Clayoquot Sound Long Point Mount Arrowsmith Riding Mountain Southwest Nova Waterton

COLOMBIA

Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta Cinturon Andino El Tuparro Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta

COTE D’IVOIRE Taï

CZECH REPUBLIC Bile Karpathy

CZECH REPUBLIC/POLAND Krkonose/Karkonosze TBR

INDIA Gulf of Mannar

ISRAEL Mount Carmel

ITALY

Cilento and Vallo di Diano Circeo Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo Alto Molise (former

Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo) Miramare Somma-Vesuvio and Miglio D’Oro Ticino Valley

LATVIA North Vidzeme

MADAGASCAR Sahamalaza-Iles Radama Mananara Nord

MEXICO

Mapimí Montes Azules Sierra Gorda Sierra de Manantlán

POLAND Babia Gora Slowinski

RUSSIAN FEDERATION Darwinsky Smolensk Lakeland Ugra

SLOVAKIA Slovak Karst

SOUTH AFRICA Kruger to Canyons

SWITZERLAND Reservat da Biosfera Val Müstair – Parc Naziunal

THAILAND Mae Sa-Kong Ma Sakaerat

URUGUAY Bañados del Este

SC-14/CONF.226/10

5

Tassili n’Ajjer Biosphere Reserve (Algeria)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report from the Tassili n’Ajjer Biosphere Reserve, established in 1986. This biosphere reserve is located in the southeastern part of the Algerian Sahara. While being important for biodiversity conservation, the reserve is particularly well known for its archaeological, historical, cultural and geological features - the reason for its designation as a national park and World Heritage site. Ancient rock engravings and cave paintings of large fauna such as hippopotamus and buffalo are of international importance and tourism is an important source of income.

While recognizing all the good work undertaken over the years in the biosphere reserve, the Advisory Committee concluded that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework. In order to meet these criteria, the Algerian authorities are invited to consider enlarging the biosphere reserve to extend it beyond the national park, with clearly a delimited buffer zone and transition area. A map should clearly indicate the three zones comprising the biosphere reserve. The extended biosphere reserve should be accompanied by an integrated biosphere reserve management plan involving local communities and the private sector that would seek synergies among the reserve’s various conservation designations.

Chréa Biosphere Reserve (Algeria)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report from the Chréa Biosphere Reserve, established in 2002. Located some 50 km southwest of the capital, Algiers, in the Atlas Mountains, the reserve plays a key role as a water reservoir for urban areas, in addition to hosting several rare and endangered ecosystems specific to the northern Atlas Mountains. Superimposed on the Chréa National Park, the Chréa Biosphere Reserve is also host to a diversity of cultures (Arab, Andalusian and Berber cultures).

While recognizing the good work undertaken over the years in the Chréa Biosphere Reserve, as outlined in the periodic review, the Advisory Committee concluded that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework. In order to meet these criteria, the Algerian authorities are invited to consider enlarging the biosphere reserve to extend it beyond the national park, with clearly a delimited buffer zone and transition area. A map should clearly indicate the three zones of the biosphere reserve. The extended biosphere reserve should be accompanied by an integrated biosphere reserve management plan involving local communities and the private sector.

Riacho Teuquito Biosphere Reserve (Argentina)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of the “Riacho” Teuquito Biosphere Reserve, established in 2000. The biosphere reserve has followed an Indirect Control System, through the operational management areas and the reporting of the national park administration in the core area. The biosphere reserve has been successful in obtaining cooperation and support from the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Ibero-American Model Forest Network, Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and other programmes. Integral Management and Sustainable Development are applied to reduce social, economic, and environmental degradation in the Great American Chaco.

The Advisory Committee noted that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the national authorities elaborate a management plan that integrates the landscape of the core area, buffer zone and transition area (Chaco and riparian vegetation) with that of the agricultural areas and the

SC-14/CONF.226/10

6

commercial forestry. The Advisory Committee also recommended that a fixed budget for the activities of the biosphere reserve be secured and that its coordinators be defined.

Las Yungas Biosphere Reserve (Argentina)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of the Las Yungas Biosphere Reserve, established in 2002. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction that the review process had included different actors: municipalities, provincial and national governments, indigenous representatives, universities, NGOs, private sector. It commended the national authorities for the activities undertaken, which were in concordance with the Seville Strategy (1995), and contributed to the implementation of Madrid Action Plan (2008−2013), and the IberoMAB Action Plan (2010-2020). It also appreciated that the biosphere reserve collaborates with the Noroeste Biosphere Reserve (Argentina) and Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve (Brazil). The Advisory Committee concluded that the Biosphere Reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of Biosphere Reserves and encouraged the authorities to:

Elaborate a Management Plan for the entire reserve. Define a buffer zone and transition area for Barilu. Define a buffer zone or a transition area to protect the core area of Potrero de Yala. Integrate a landscape vision for the three zones (core area, buffer zone and transition

area) permitting the identification of adequate measures to conserve the biological and cultural diversity of natural, agricultural and urban sites.

Laguna Oca y Herraduras del Río Paraguay (Argentina) (extension and renaming, former Laguna Oca del Río Paraguay Biosphere Reserve)

The Advisory Committee acknowledged the extension proposal from Argentina. This proposal follows recommendations made by the International Coordinating Council in 2000 to extend the core area, buffer zone and transition area, as their present dimensions do not allow the area to fulfill the three functions of a biosphere reserve. The proposed new area will integrate the city of Formosa, the Laguna de Herradura and the Riacho Salado as far as Mision Laishi, through a biodiversity and cultural corridor named ‘The Way of Water’, which will pass through the Paraguay River and its tributaries. The total area will be extended from around 12,000 ha to 61,763.39 ha. The proposed new name for the biosphere reserve is Laguna Oca y Herraduras del Río Paraguay. The Advisory Committee recommended that this extension and the new name be approved. The Advisory Committee recommended that the national authorities:

Submit clearer maps about the actual extension of the areas and the proposed extension.

Re-evaluate the importance of the buffer zone along the river as an element connecting different landscapes and contributing to maintaining biodiversity and ecological restoration in the urban, rural and natural environments.

Elaborate a management plan for the modified biosphere reserve.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

7

W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Burkina Faso/Benin/Niger)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of W transboundary Biosphere Reserve, established in 2002. It noted with appreciation that this comprehensive report, based on the outcome of a national multistakeholder consultation process, had been jointly elaborated by the administrative authorities in charge of the respective protected areas in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the international, regional and national cooperation framework, which provides substantial financial and human resources as well as scientific collaboration for the functioning of the transboundary biosphere reserve. However, the establishment of sustainable financing mechanisms should be foreseen to ensure sustainability of the results of the current international support. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the proposed extension of the buffer zone from 99,500 ha to 409,000 ha. The Advisory Committee congratulated the authorities for the establishment of transboundary joint patrol staff teams under one single command, which improves the conservation function of the biosphere reserve. It also noted the various programmes benefitting the population (green job creation, infrastructure, benefit-sharing scheme) and the establishment of a development advisory committee for the biosphere reserve. In addition to biological studies, cultural and archaeological aspects are the subject of extensive work. However, the Advisory Committee considered that the integration of the three functions at transboundary level still needed improvement for the recommendations of Pamplona on transboundary biosphere reserves to be applied. Therefore, it recommended that the authorities:

Establish a coordinating structure representative of various administrations and the scientific community, as well as the authorities in charge of the protected areas, representatives of local communities, NGOs, interested and affected groups, including youth, and of the private sector, with a permanent secretariat and a budget to cover running costs of the structure.

Finalize the updated management plan at transboundary level and forward a copy to the MAB Secretariat.

These elements should reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2015.

Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve (Canada)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review report of this biosphere reserve, designated in 1990.The Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee requested that the biosphere reserve refrain from modifying the status of the “escarpment protection” areas from the buffer zone to core area until the legal status of this latter new core area was secured in 2015. Concerning the transition area, the Advisory Committee recommended that the biosphere reserve consider the possibility of extending its boundaries beyond the present Niagara Escarpment Park area, in order to explore cooperation with adjacent watersheds authorities. The Advisory Committee further recommended that the Canadian authorities:

Promote the sustainable development function of the biosphere reserve based on a more balanced vision between human needs and nature conservation;

Clarify the leadership in term of sustainable development planning; Encourage stakeholders to work together more collaboratively;

SC-14/CONF.226/10

8

Develop a collaborative network of municipalities, private businesses, public agencies, first-nation communities, NGOs and landowners;

Increase collaboration with other Canadian biosphere reserves but also with international biosphere reserves, especially those in the EuroMAB Network;

Promote understanding of the function of biosphere reserves to neighboring local communities and institutions in charge of development and nature conservation.

Dalai Lake Biosphere Reserve (China)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review report on Dalai Lake Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 2002. The Advisory Committee commended the national authorities for their commitment to managing this biosphere reserve, as demonstrated through the consistent dedication of funds to ensuring its management. The major economic activities in this biosphere reserve are animal husbandry and fishing. However, fish-farming has declined in the area, whereas ecotourism has increased. The Advisory Committee noted the reduction in the human population in the area and requested that the national authorities explain this decrease. The Advisory Committee also recommended that the local communities participate actively in the management of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee commended the authorities for a well-documented periodic review report. The Advisory Committee concluded that this area met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Wudalianchi Biosphere Reserve (China)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this periodic review report for the Wudalianchi biosphere reserve, which was designated in 2003. This biosphere reserve is located in the northeastern part of China, very close to Russia. The site is part of the Global Geoparks Network. The Advisory Committee commended the national authorities for improving the management and coordination of the biosphere reserve. It noted the setting-up of the Wudalianchi Scenic Spot Management Committee, which is responsible for planning, protection, monitoring, scientific research, tourism, development, construction and management of the reserve. It also noted that a coordination committee had been set up in 2006 which consists of representatives of all stakeholders. The Advisory Committee also noted the relocation of the human settlements from the core area and buffer zones to the transition area. The major economic activities in the transition area are mineral water production, ecotourism and green agriculture. The Advisory Committee commended the authorities for a well-prepared periodic review report. It concluded that this site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Yading Biosphere Reserve (China)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, which was designated in 2003. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the well-prepared report, which was done through extensive consultations with scientists, local practitioners and local communities. The Advisory Committee noted the increment in the rate of ecotourism. The national authorities are commended for completing the biosphere reserve’s management plan in 2005.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

9

The Committee was pleased to note that, over the ten years since the reserve was established, there had been no forest fires, no significant accident causing environmental pollution or any serious disturbance to resources within the reserve; rare animals and endangered plants have been protected effectively, such as gnus, leopards, dwarf musk deer, serows, lesser pandas, black bears, gorals, samba deer and Sichuan deer. In addition, the ecosystems have remained stable, with a significant increase in vegetation cover. The Advisory Committee recommended that the local population participate in decision-making processes with regard to managing the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve (Czech Republic)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve, designated in 2003. The Advisory Committee commended the Czech authorities for the very well-prepared periodic report. The Advisory Committee took note of the fact that the site was managed by a stakeholder-based NGO, the Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve, which is a public benefit company. It welcomed this innovative stakeholder-based biosphere reserve management structure with direct participation and balanced decision-making. It noted with appreciation the cooperation among various stakeholders, based on partnerships. It also welcomed the various projects targeted towards biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, tourism promotion and habitat restoration. The Advisory Committee also acknowledged the intensive networking and sharing of knowledge and experiences with other biosphere reserves at international level. Among the successful projects, the Advisory Committee noted the interactive web page, the establishment and restoration of biocentres and a territorial system of ecological stability, as well as projects for the “Elimination of Environmental Burdens” which may be shared with other biosphere reserves.

The Advisory Committee acknowledged the change in the surface area of the biosphere reserve, due to the use of modernized GIS technology, and noted that the zonation was in place and that the biosphere reserve was in the process of improving zonation as part of an international project for information exchange. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee encouraged cooperation with other biosphere reserves that are also multi international designated sites. It also recommended initiating future research to include socio-economic studies and tourism impact assessments. The Advisory Committee recommended that Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve be used as a model stakeholder-based management structure.

Mount Paektu Biosphere Reserve (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic report on the Mount Paektu Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1989. Mt Paektu Biosphere Reserve is located on the Paektu lava land surrounding Mt Paektu in the northern part of the country. As a volcanic landscape, it is ecologically characterized by the clear vertical distribution of alpine and forest ecosystems and

SC-14/CONF.226/10

10

its destruction is characterized by volcanic eruptions and processes allowing for restoration, soil formation and natural ecosystem processes. The Advisory Committee noted that the first periodic review was submitted in 2001. The Advisory Committee commended the efforts of the authorities in addressing past recommendations from the MAB-ICC and acknowledged the submission of a work plan for the biosphere reserve. The authorities are requested to elaborate a comprehensive management plan and to improve local community participation. The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to increase scientific cooperation and educational activities. The Committee noted that this site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Archipel de la Guadeloupe Biosphere Reserve (France)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic report for the Archipel de la Guadeloupe Biosphere Reserve since its establishment in 1992. The site comprises terrestrial and marine areas and has the same borders as the National Park of Guadeloupe. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the extension of the biosphere reserve, which now includes a core area of 21,850 ha, a buffer zone of 94 065 ha supporting the conservation function and a transition area of 130,000 ha. The governing body is composed of 21 municipalities, a regional council, county council and state departments. It is supported by a Scientific Council and a Social and Economic Council which advise and guide it concerning conservation and development-related issues within the framework of a Territory Charter. The latter is the result of a long in-depth consultative process and aims to reconcile tourism, agriculture, fisheries and forestry. On the basis of the information received, the Advisory Committee concluded that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves but recommended that the authorities implement the following:

Finalize the update of the management plan for the biosphere reserve and send a copy to the Secretariat for consideration at the next Advisory Committee meeting;

Improve and pursue the involvement of local actors (citizens, tour operators) in managing the reserve;

Develop a tool to measure the effectiveness of annual management and report to the governing bodies of the biosphere reserve;

Foster the visibility of the biosphere reserve within and beyond the limits of the National Park of Guadeloupe;

Explore the conditions for the future extension of the transition area to include the few remaining counties, in order to apply a sustainable development approach to the entire island territory.

Rhön Biosphere Reserve (Germany)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, designated in 1991. It noted with satisfaction the implementation of the recommendations issued in 2004 by the International Co-ordinating Council, including the revision of the zonation; the continuous work on updating the framework concept with broad public participation; the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan, through intensive cooperation within the Rhön Regional Working Group (ARGE Rhön) and the Biosphere Reserve’s Advisory Board; the

SC-14/CONF.226/10

11

establishment and continued expansion of the Rhön label as a regional brand, in cooperation with the tourism sector; and the positive developments in the agriculture industry as regards organic farming and efforts promoting sustainable nature conservation. The Advisory Committee supported the German MAB National Committee’s recommendation encouraging greater involvement in the biosphere reserve’s related agenda by the other Land government departments, in addition to the three lead Ministries of the Environment. The Advisory Committee requested further clarification of the influence of the military training facility Wildflecken, located in the buffer zone and core area, in terms of access and the possible environmental impact on the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee commended the German authorities for the high quality of the periodic review report and considered that the biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It further encouraged the authorities to share this periodic review report as a model for the WNBR and to make it available on the UNESCO-MAB website. It also welcomed the extension of the area.

Pfälzerwald/Vosges du Nord Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Germany)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review of Pfälzerwald biosphere reserve (established in 1992) as the German part of Pfälzerwald / Vosges du Nord Transboundary Biosphere Reserve established between France and Germany in 1998. The biosphere reserve is characterized by intensive viticulture, economic forestry, hunting and conservation of outstanding natural areas for recreation which are promoting sustainable practices. The sound spatial management of urbanization, infrastructure and tourism facilities is remarkable. The biosphere reserve implements a strong education, training and environmental awareness programme, with special topics being proposed targeting children and young people. Research programmes are implemented in partnership with universities and research institutions. The Advisory Committee considered that the Pfälzerwald Biosphere Reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee looks forward to receiving the complete zonation of the transboundary biosphere reserve with its transboundary periodic review report.

South-East Rügen Biosphere Reserve (Germany)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review of South-East Rügen, established in 1991. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the governance structure of the biosphere reserve and commended the sustainable tourism model put in place, the on-practice oriented research and the implementation of the Education for Sustainable Development programme targeting children and youth. The Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee suggested to the authorities that they improve the representation of civil society and the local community on the advisory board and take the opportunity of extending the core area up to 600 ha to elaborate and update the biosphere reserve’s management plan.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

12

Samaria Biosphere Reserve (Greece)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review report for Samaria Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1981. The Advisory Committee noted with appreciation the actions taken to address the recommendation of the first report with regard to the zonation, the governance structure and research and monitoring. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the extension of the core area (4,387 ha to 4,887 ha) and the addition of a buffer zone of 15,768 ha and a transition area of 37,829 ha. However, there was still room for improvement and thus the Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It recommended that the authorities:

Revise the zonation in order to protect the core area entirely by a buffer zone; Send to the Secretariat a copy of the revised management plan with a zonation in

concordance with the criteria set by the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves and the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserve;

Consider the participation of representatives of local communities and the private sector in the coordination and management structure of the biosphere reserve;

Finalize the establishment of a research and monitoring programme for the habitats and landscapes of the biosphere reserve.

It requested that all these elements be sent to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September of 2015.

General recommendation for Hungary

The Advisory Committee welcomed the voluntary reports and acknowledged the work done, which was well prepared and structured, describing the process for improving the functioning of Aggtelek Biosphere Reserve (designated 1979), Lake Fertő Biosphere Reserve (designated 1979), Hortobágy Biosphere Reserve (designated 1979), Kiskunság Biosphere Reserve (designated 1979) and Pilis Biosphere Reserve (designated 1980). The Advisory Committee took note of the fact that the zonation of the five biosphere reserves was in the process of modification and that zonation already existed for the national parks. The Advisory Committee also took note of the zonation map received for the Hungarian part of the Mura-Drava-Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, designated in 2012. It also noted that there was a national monitoring programme in place in all these biosphere reserves in relation to nature protection and conservation measures, that efforts had been made to support farming through the High Nature Value Areas (HNV) programme of the European Union’s Agri-environmental Scheme and there were good educational and training programmes.

However, the Advisory Committee considered that the explanation and methodology that led to the new zonation system was unclear and needed further explanation, especially as regards the IUCN reference to zones A, B, C. Therefore, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Hungarian authorities:

Review the zonation and ensure that it meets the Statutory Framework criteria to enable implementation of the three functions. Special emphasis needed placing on joining clusters, providing connectivity between zones and making the transition area an appropriate size.

Prepare a management plan according to the Seville Strategy and Statutory Framework;

SC-14/CONF.226/10

13

Involve local communities in management, conservation and establish partnerships with stakeholders.

Aggtelek Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the voluntary report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 1979. The Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities improve the zonation, in order to meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework and to fulfill the three functions. The Advisory Committee also recommended that the authorities design a management structure to make the reserve more inclusive of stakeholders and to ensure the direct participation of stakeholders in managing the biosphere reserve. Lastly, they recommended that the authorities develop a management plan in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework.

Lake Fertö Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this voluntary report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 1979. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, it recommended that the site further develop the participatory process for engaging communities in the area’s management. It also welcomed the cooperation with Austria and further encouraged the authorities to explore a collaborative approach to lake ecosystem management, as well as the possibility of establishing a transboundary biosphere reserve.

Hortobágy Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this voluntary report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 1979. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It encouraged the authorities to pursue the participatory approach to coordinating and managing the biosphere reserve. It also requested that the management plan be finalized in accordance with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework.

Kiskunság Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this voluntary report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 1979. The Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It requested that the authorities provide a zonation map and explore the possibilities for connecting the patches of the biosphere reserve in order to unite the different clusters into one entity. It also requested that a management plan for the entire area be designed, once the new zonation is in place.

Pilis Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this voluntary report of this biosphere reserve designated in 1980.The Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It further encouraged the authorities to work on the zonation and to provide a zonation map with clear boundaries for the biosphere

SC-14/CONF.226/10

14

reserve. It also requested that the authorities provide a management plan and suggested they conduct assessments of the impact of tourism on the area and explain better how tourism was managed in the area.

North Bull Island Biosphere Reserve (Ireland)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the draft of this first periodic review of North Bull Island Biosphere Reserve, established in 1981. The Advisory Committee welcomed the inclusive participatory approach put in place to extending the area and strongly encouraged the authorities to implement these changes and the extension, in order for the site to have an appropriate zonation that fulfilled the three functions and met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It requested that the Irish authorities finalize the periodic review report and submit it by the end of September 2014. It encouraged the development of a more inclusive management structure, based on the direct involvement of wider range of stakeholders in the planning and management of the proposed biosphere reserve.

Islands of Tuscany Biosphere Reserve (Italy)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 2003. The Advisory Committee considered that the zonation was unclear and did not reflect delineations that enabled it to fulfill the functions of a biosphere reserve. It also noted that no management plan had been prepared for the biosphere reserve, only a Park Plan adopted by national law, and that the ecosystem services were not properly explained. The Advisory Committee also considered inadequate the participation of local communities in management, research activities, the sustainable development project and monitoring activities and regretted that it could not find any evidence of stakeholders’ involvement in joint projects. It also noted that communication was lacking on the strategy and targeted public awareness-raising actions. It further noted the absence of evaluation of the impact of tourism on the area and could find no evidence of monitoring, nor any information on how the biosphere reserve was involved in the supervision and regulation of tourism. It also noted that research was oriented towards conservation schemes implemented in the national park. There was no evidence how research findings were implicated in fostering sustainable development. The Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Within the context of the implementation of the exit strategy, the Advisory Committee considered that evidence concerning all the missing elements described above needed to be provided by 30 September 2015. Should this not be possible, the Italian authorities might wish to consider the withdrawal of the site from the WNBR.

Dana Biosphere Reserve (Jordan)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report of the Dana Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1998, the biosphere reserve encompasses four biogeographic zones and seven vegetation types with a rich flora and fauna. Whereas, traditionally, people in the area lived a nomadic lifestyle, and some still do, the majority are settled in villages around the reserve. With 40,000 visitors per year, tourism is an important income and job generator for the reserve. The scientific research programme managed at central level (Royal Society for Conservation of Nature - RSCN) includes ecological monitoring and more applied research, including on socio-

SC-14/CONF.226/10

15

economic factors, as well as archeological research. The RSCN also has an environmental education programme targeting schoolchildren and cooperatives around the reserve. The management plan has been developed in accordance with the IUCN criteria and is valid for five years. RSCN is the only authority managing the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee concluded that the Dana Biosphere Reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, the Committee invited the Jordanian authorities to seek to involve further local communities, civil society - including the private sector - in the region to become closer partners in the coordination and management structures of the biosphere reserve. Lastly, the Advisory Committee also recommended that the many good experiences gained in the Dana Biosphere Reserve be shared with other biosphere reserves in the region and with the WNBR at large.

Mt Mulanje Biosphere Reserve (Malawi)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of Mt Mulanje Biosphere Reserve, established in 2000. Mt Mulanje is a Priority One Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) within the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot; it has the highest endemic terrestrial biodiversity in Malawi and the second-highest in the region after the Chimanimani Mountains (Zimbabwe). The three zones of the biosphere reserve are protected under the Forestry Act (1996) as part of the Mulanje Mountain Forest Reserve. The Committee appreciated the effort of authorities to conserve biodiversity, to promote research and education and to control illegal activities within the biosphere reserve. It also acknowledged with appreciation the existence of the Mont Mulanje Conservation Trust (MMCT), which is a sustainable source of income that supports the biosphere reserve concept. Indeed, the Committee noted that, beyond the boundaries of the current biosphere reserve (which has no residents inside), MMCT had a specific agenda to assist many development activities with local community groups based upon opportunities of interest, local skills, natural resources availability and innovative payment schemes for ecosystem services to foster conservation. However, the Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, despite a strong conservation function, good activities related to the logistic function and some promising development functions. There is an obvious need to expand the biosphere reserve area to enable a larger transition area that encompasses the neighboring community villages where a variety of sustainable development activities have been facilitated over the past decade. The Committee was confident that the authorities were on the way to meeting the zonation criteria and encouraged the authorities to go ahead. The Committee also noted the biosphere reserve authority's willingness to improve the participation of local stakeholders. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities:

Review the zonation of Mt Mulanje Biosphere Reserve, in order to incorporate the above-mentioned expansion requirement.

Take advantage of the Coordination structure (MMCT) as a basis for establishing a multistakeholder management structure for the future enlarged biosphere reserve.

Assess the pros and cons of the various possibilities for (i) enlarging the transition area and (ii) reclassifying the Chambe basin transition area as the buffer zone and seeking its legal protection

Clarify the social and economic impact of the biosphere reserve Provide information on how local communities and settlements will be involved in the

different projects and in the management of the future enlarged biosphere reserve.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

16

The Advisory Committee strongly encouraged the biosphere reserve to use the World Network of Biosphere Reserves to share experience and practices and requested that it receive all information related to the above-mentioned clarifications by 30 September 2014. The Advisory Committee strongly suggests exploring the possibility of adding a transboundary extension to the Milange area of Mozambique. For this purpose, the Committee recommends (i) developing a collaborative process with the Mozambique authorities and (ii) requesting the MAB Secretariat’s support and that of the South African MAB colleagues in implementing the process.

Alto Golfo de California y El Pinacate Biosphere Reserve (former Alto Golfo de California Biosphere Reserve) (Mexico)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of the Alto Golfo de California y El Pinacate Biosphere Reserve. This biosphere was established in 1993 then extended in 1995 and renamed Alto Golfo de California. Given its relevance and the need to maintain the identity of both areas, the proposed new name is Alto Golfo de California y El Pinacate Biosphere Reserve. A core area of this biosphere reserve was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2013. The biosphere reserve has regular fiscal funds and has received support from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and from the Natural Protected Areas Fund (FANP). A project on conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity in the Gulf of California was started jointly with Germany in 2013. The Advisory Committee welcomed the renaming of this biosphere reserve and concluded that this site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Islas del Golfo de California Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of the Islas del Golfo de California Biosphere Reserve, established in 1995. Part of this biosphere reserve was also designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2005. The biosphere reserve has carried out different campaigns relating to sustainable fishing, sustainable tourism, waste management and the eradication of invasive species. A climate change strategy is being defined and monitoring campaigns for sea lions, brown pelicans, sea turtles and whale sharks are being carried out. Since 2012, the island has been part of the World Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the excellent management of this biosphere reserve. However, it was concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The authorities are therefore requested to define better the buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) for all the islands and the coast, and to engage more with the local population.

Sierra La Laguna Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of the Sierra La Laguna Biosphere Reserve, established in 2003. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the great work done in this biosphere reserve in the last ten years and the important scientific work done in the reserve, in order to have a better knowledge of the mountain ecosystems, the effect of human

SC-14/CONF.226/10

17

activities on vegetation and the current and potential use of the natural resources of the area. Part of the area was designated a Ramsar site in 2008. The Advisory Committee also noted with satisfaction that, after ten years, the management plan will be evaluated, in order to improve it. The Advisory Committee congratulated the authorities for implementing a Global Environmental Facility-funded project to improve the quality life of farmers. The Advisory Committee considered that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Waddensea Area Biosphere Reserve (the Netherlands)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review report of this biosphere reserve designated in 1986. It recognized the importance of the site for wetlands and acknowledged the active participation of the site as a World Heritage site. However, it noted that no appropriate zonation of the site was in place. In addition, it was difficult to evaluate how the site was indeed managed as a biosphere reserve, since the governance seemed complex. Moreover, the connection amongst the various regulations and institutions was unclear. Lastly, it noted that there were some military activities in the area but lacked details on the possible impact.

The Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In the context of the implementation of the exit strategy, the Advisory Committee considered that all missing elements described above should be evidenced and provided by 30 September 2015, using the new periodic review form. If this were not possible, the Dutch authorities might wish to consider the withdrawal of the site from the WNBR.

Lal Suhanra Biosphere Reserve (Pakistan)

The Advisory Committee acknowledged the submission of this second periodic review report for the Lal Suhanra Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1977. The Committee was concerned by the absence of a resident population and a dedicated management team for this biosphere reserve. The non-existence of a management plan for the site since its designation as a biosphere reserve was also noted. The Advisory Committee noted that this periodic review was prepared using the services of a consultant who relied on literature rather than current information on the ground. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the importance of this site for biodiversity conservation. However, it was concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The authorities are therefore requested to:

Inform the MAB Secretariat whether there is a resident population in the biosphere reserve and, if, describe its involvement in managing the site.

Submit a map with proper zonation. Provide clarification of the zonation of the biosphere reserve in relation to the national

park. Elaborate a clear management plan and provide information on the biosphere reserve’s

management team.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

18

Puerto Galera Biosphere Reserve (Philippines)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review submission for this biosphere reserve, which was designated in 1977. Economic activities include aquaculture, quarrying of marbles and gold mining. The resident population in the biosphere reserve amounts to approximately 20,000. The Advisory Committee noted that the zonation of this site did not conform to the zonation system prescribed for biosphere reserves and that it focused only on the marine protected areas. The Advisory Committee also pointed out that there were different acts regulating the different zones of the biosphere reserve and that the available management plan only concerned the marine protected areas, not the entire biosphere reserve. Although the conservation function was being met, the development and logistic functions were not being fulfilled. The Committee acknowledged the importance of this site for biodiversity conservation. However, it was concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In order to meet the criteria, it is recommended that the authorities implement the following:

Re-zone the area to conform to the zonation criteria for biosphere reserves. Provide information on the management structure for the biosphere reserve, as well as a

management plan. Lastly, the authorities are encouraged to seek technical support from other biosphere reserve experts in the Philippines, the Southeast Asian Biosphere Reserve Network and from the MAB Secretariat.

Bialowieza Biosphere Reserve (Poland)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the third periodic review of Bialowieza Biosphere Reserve, established in 1976 and extended in 2005. This report also comes in response to the recommendations made in 2013. The Advisory Committee recognized the high biodiversity value of Bialowieza Biosphere Reserve and its importance within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, the Advisory Committee noted with concern that the 2013 recommendations had not been addressed and therefore considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Therefore, the Advisory Committee strongly recommended that the authorities:

Establish an institution with a coordinating function for the entire biosphere reserve that will involve participation of stakeholders and inhabitants;

Provide a copy of the biosphere management plan or a detailed outline thereof; Describe activities related to the biosphere reserve and how the recommendation on the

management plan of the previous periodic review have been taken into account; Clarify how the development and logistic functions of the biosphere reserve would be

strengthened.

Puszcza Kampinoska Biosphere Reserve (Poland)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review report of this biosphere reserve, designated in 2000, as a follow-up to the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2013. It

SC-14/CONF.226/10

19

welcomed the information on how the Puszcza Kampinoska Biosphere Reserve was involved in international activities and how consultations with local communities were held on matters regarding the national park. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the commitment from the Puszcza Kampinoska Biosphere Reserve to address the issues raised in the previous recommendations. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, it encouraged the authorities to prepare, in cooperation with local stakeholders, a management plan for the biosphere reserve that would be broader than the national park management plan; it also recommended that the local authorities build on existing local community-based institutions and local action groups, as well as the private sector, to ensure the participation of these stakeholders in the activities of the area promoting sustainable development and in the biosphere reserve management.

Luknajno Lake Biosphere Reserve (Poland)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review report for the biosphere reserve, designated in 1976. The Advisory Committee noted that the biosphere reserve has only core area and buffer zones and that the activities described are mainly focused on nature conservation. It also acknowledged that the area is of very small size (14 km2) with a very low population. While the conservation and logistics functions are fully implemented, the development function is rather weak and local public participation in the biosphere reserve management or partnership network for the overall governance of the biosphere reserve has been concluded. All activities are conducted in relation to the Luknajno Lake Nature Reserve. The Advisory Committee further noted that there is a vision for the creation of a larger the biosphere reserve in the area. The Advisory Committee therefore considered that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and invited the authority to consider withdrawing the Luknajno Biosphere Reserve from the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, with regard to the high biodiversity of Luknajno Lake, the Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to consider a possible future proposal for a new biosphere reserve that would be larger, with Luknajno Lake as part of the core area and which would fully comply with the Statutory Framework criteria.

Tatra Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Poland/Slovakia)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first joint periodic review report for this transboundary biosphere reserve, established in 1993. It acknowledged the efforts made by both countries in preparing this joint report using the updated transboundary periodic review form. It also considered that both sites were working mainly on conservation aspects and mainly fulfilling the mission of national parks. The Advisory Committee also noted that several joint projects were focusing on conservation, such as the common strategies for the conservation of large carnivores, including creating a Tatra management unit of cross-border populations of large carnivores; the standardization of protocols for dead animals and collecting samples for further study. It also noted activities related to education, curricula for young people on both sides of the border, as well as the joint organization of conferences. However, the Advisory Committee noted that there was no clear evidence of cooperation as regards the sustainable development function. The Advisory Committee considered that the

SC-14/CONF.226/10

20

transboundary site was addressing the Pamplona recommendations but recommended the following:

That the authorities provide clarification on changes in human population; That the authorities provide a joint management plan in accordance with the Seville

Strategy and Pamplona recommendations for the transboundary biosphere reserve, using a participatory process and in close cooperation with local communities and strategic partners, including the private sector;

That the authorities ensure the proper involvement of local people in management and activities fostering sustainable development;

That the authorities of both countries provide their national periodic review forms at the same time as the joint transboundary periodic review form.

The Advisory Committee also requested that the MAB Secretariat contact the Slovak MAB National Committee concerning a letter that has been received which is challenging some information contained in the periodic review form.

East Carpathians Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Poland/Slovakia/Ukraine)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first joint periodic review report for this transboundary biosphere reserve, established in 1998. It acknowledged with satisfaction that a cooperation agreement had been prepared, that there were prospects for joint future activities and that efforts had been made towards fostering development. It also took note of the information provided on scientific research, confirming the large amount of research studies done in the area in flora and fauna, but also the lack of social studies. The Advisory Committee welcomed the information that local participation had started during the preparation of the periodic review form. The Advisory Committee pointed out that there was still no management plan for the entire area and that no person/group or entity had yet been appointed coordinator of the transboundary biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee concluded that the transboundary biosphere reserve was not addressing the Pamplona recommendations for transboundary biosphere reserves and recommended the national authorities to:

Establish a coordination structure for the transboundary biosphere reserve to facilitate activities public awareness-raising activities, partners and projects among all six entities involved in the transboundary biosphere reserve;

Operationalize the cooperation agreement and extend it to activities fostering development, encourage local involvement in joint actions and projects, including tourism management;

Promote some applied research projects to address local issues related to tourism, culture conservation and promotion, as well as local knowledge conservation;

Prepare programmes and activities enabling the active participation of local communities; Implement joint initiatives listed in the joint periodic review.

Paul do Boquilobo Biosphere Reserve (Portugal)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review report for the Paul do Boquilobo Biosphere Reserve. The total surface area comes to 55, 400 ha. This biosphere reserve was designated in 1981 and enlarged in 2005 to include a transition area. The Committee noted,

SC-14/CONF.226/10

21

however, that the map provided did not include a transition area. There is also no human population in the transition area. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In order to meet the criteria, it is recommended that the authorities implement the following recommendations:

Provide a map with proper zonation. Provide information on the governance of the biosphere reserve. Provide information on the involvement of local people in management and in decision-

making processes concerning the biosphere reserve.

Nerussa-Desnyanskoye Polesye Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, designated in 2001. The Advisory Committee noted that, whereas the conservation function was fully implemented, the logistics function was weak and the development function non-existent. It also noted that the activities and management described in the report focused mainly on the Bryansk Forest State Nature Reserve. The Advisory Committee further pointed out that there was no overall management plan for the biosphere reserve, no participation of local communities in the biosphere reserve management and no vision for the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee could not find appropriate measures to address these weaknesses and problems. The Advisory Committee therefore concluded that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee requested that the authorities provide the following documents and clarifications:

Resubmit the periodic review on the updated periodic review form; Design a management plan for the overall biosphere reserve with clear proposals for

action to enhance the logistic and development functions; Design a mechanism for the biosphere reserve coordination body that would include

local communities in management through participation; Provide an explanation for the absence of a buffer zone around the Skripkinsky core

area; Clarify how the various projects and research outcomes are integrated in the functioning

of the biosphere reserve.

Far East Marine Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, designated in 2003. The Advisory Committee noted that, whereas the conservation function and the logistic function (namely research) were of a very high standard, the development function was weak, partly due to the absence of any settlements on the reserve. It was also noted that participatory management, which includes local stakeholders in the biosphere reserve, was also non-existent. The Advisory Committee therefore considered that, whereas the site was doing excellent work in the fields of nature protection area and research, it did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee invited the authorities to consider withdrawing the Far East Marina Biosphere Reserve from the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

22

Visimskiy Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of Visimskiy Biosphere Reserve, established in 2001. The Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, through a strong conservation function and good logistics with improving education, despite a weaker development function. The Advisory Committee noted with appreciation that the biosphere reserve authorities planned to improve the work of the biosphere reserve by involving a certain number of partners, civic organizations, educational departments and entrepreneurs, who would collaborate on activities related to environmental education and the development of tourism at the site. Also noted was the will to get local authorities interested in engaging with the local community in the biosphere reserve when it came to events, actions and festivities and the provision of environmental education and tourist services. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities:

Provide an updated zonation map; Clarify how the development and logistic functions of the biosphere reserve will be

strengthened; Provide information about the representation and consultation of local communities and

their participation in the life of the biosphere reserve through proposals for a more participative and inclusive approach to biosphere reserve management and provide supporting evidence of the creation of a supervisory board, as indicated in the report, where stakeholders and inhabitants of the closest municipal districts could be represented.

Commander Islands Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review from this biosphere reserve, designated in 2002. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It noted that the conservation function was being implemented, as well as the logistic function; however, it considered that the development function, despite a sparse population, should be strengthened. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the focus on work with indigenous communities and encouraged the authorities to promote participatory approaches in decision-making processes further. It also welcomed the dissemination of information on the biosphere reserve (e.g. the use of resources is beneficial) but encouraged the direct involvement of local communities in the joint management plan and the preparation of a strategy for sustainable use of natural resources. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities of the Russian Federation:

Integrate all the workplans in an integrated biosphere reserve management plan with the involvement of stakeholders in all processes;

Document examples of projects completed in the biosphere reserve; Design a more inclusive biosphere reserve management structure, based on the model

of the existing Commander Islands Nature and Biosphere Reserve Scientific and Technical Council, composed of representatives of the indigenous population and the district authorities.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

23

Katunsky Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, designated in 2000. It noted with satisfaction the implemented changes, especially those in the field of participative management and coordination of the biosphere reserve through the establishment of the multistakeholder Public Council of Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve. The work focusing on sustainable development and in helping to create alternative sources of income for local communities and to reduce the human impact on the environment was also noted with high satisfaction, as this work could serve as a model for other biosphere reserves. The Advisory Committee commended the representatives of the Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve for the high quality of the periodic review report. It considered, however, that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the zonation be revised, with the buffer zones surrounding entirely the core areas. This revision should reach the MAB Secretariat by 30 September 2015 at the latest.

Nizhegorodskoe Zavolzhye Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of Nizhegorodskoy Zavolzhye Reserve, established in 2002. The Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The site has a strong conservation function but considerably weak logistics and development functions. It was noted that there was no permanent or temporary population living in the biosphere reserve and that the biosphere reserve only interacted with settlements, some of them fairly large, beyond its borders. However, the Advisory Committee noted with appreciation the efforts made by the biosphere reserve authority to include stakeholders in the process of participatory management, even though this concerned special occasions or temporary working groups. The Advisory Committee requested that the Russian Federation authorities:

Consider extending the biosphere reserve to include settlements and their populations, as already suggested in the periodic review.

Propose establishing an institution with a coordinating function for the entire biosphere reserve that would involve stakeholders and inhabitants on a permanent basis.

Design a comprehensive management plan for the entire biosphere reserve. Clarify how the development and logistic functions of the biosphere reserve will be

strengthened. Clarify how the various projects and research outcomes are integrated in the functioning

of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee strongly encouraged the biosphere reserve to use the World Network of Biosphere Reserves to share experience and practices and requested that the Secretariat receive all information related to the above-mentioned clarifications by 30 September 2015.

Julian Alps Biosphere Reserve (Slovenia)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of Julian Alps Biosphere Reserve, established in 2003. The Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, having a strong conservation function and a good logistics function but a weak development function. The

SC-14/CONF.226/10

24

Advisory Committee took note of the biosphere reserve authority's willingness to improve the participation of local stakeholders in the process of elaborating a management plan. The Advisory Committee recommended that the Slovenian authorities:

Clarify how the development and logistic functions of the biosphere reserve will be improved

Clarify the social and ecological impacts of tourism development (i.e. ski resort); Provide the management plan for the Triglav National Park once validated; Provide information on how local communities and municipalities are involved in the

different projects and management of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee strongly encouraged the biosphere reserve to use the World Network of Biosphere Reserves for sharing experience and practices and requested to receive all information requested above by 30 September 2015.

La Palma Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

This biosphere reserve had been originally designated as El Canal y Los Tiles in 1983 then extended in 1998. The entire island was included as a biosphere reserve in 2002 and renamed La Palma, including marine areas. This revision also provides an adjustment to the zonation to include the new protected areas that were declared when it was first designated as a biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee congratulated the local authorities for the detailed information provided and for the continued adaptation of the biosphere reserve concept to the local situation. It serves as a model of participatory management. The Advisory Committee noted that more information was also provided in the 2013-2022 Biosphere Reserve Action Plan entitled From protected area to area of protection. The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to consider including sky protection under the Starlight Initiative, as well as the creation of a local production label. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and provided a model for insular biosphere reserves.

Monfragüe Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

This biosphere reserve was designated in 2003. During that session, the Advisory Committee had requested that further information be provided on the protected status of the core area and buffer zone lying within the biosphere reserve but which are not part of the national park. In line with this request, the Advisory Committee noted that, in 2007, the previous national park had been designated as the Monfragüe National Park, which covers almost the whole core area and buffer zone of the biosphere reserve. The national authorities also elaborated an action plan for the entire biosphere reserve which integrates the national park management plan and other protected areas, such as those within Natura 2000, all of which are reflected in the zonation. The Monfragüe Biosphere Reserve is also engaged in achieving the MAB objectives in collaboration with local communities. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

25

Picos de Europa Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review of this biosphere reserve, nominated in 2003. This biosphere reserve conforms to the surface area of the Picos de Europa National Park. They share a common management structure and action plan. This partnership helps the biosphere reserve to achieve its objectives. The biosphere reserve is also part of the Asturian Biosphere Reserve network, which is a platform for tourism promotion and local income generation. The Advisory Committee suggested that the local authorities extend the area of the biosphere reserve and encouraged them to explore this possibility. This would include more urban areas in the biosphere reserve, as already proposed in the periodic report. This suggestion follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in 2003. The Advisory Committee concluded that this Biosphere Reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Frame work of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Terras do Miño Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of his biosphere reserve, nominated in 2002. During that session, the Advisory Committee had requested clarification of the protected core areas. The biosphere reserve has several categories of protected area like the Natura 2000 sites and regional ones that ensure the protection of the core areas. Since 2011, its management structure and action plan have been developed in consultation with local communities; this helps guarantee the active functioning of the biosphere reserve. Activities in education and communication are being implemented to promote the area’s environmental and cultural values. The Advisory Committee also noted the peculiarity of the zoning system, which is complementary with the Cantabrian mountain chain. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves but requested more information on the unification process of the Cantabrian mountain chain.

Valles del Leza, Jubera, Cidacos y Alhama Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

This biosphere reserve had been nominated in 2003. During that session, the Advisory Committee had requested confirmation of this proposal’s endorsement by the appropriate local representatives and more information on the establishment and role of the management board of the biosphere reserve. In line with this request, the Advisory Committee noted that the biosphere reserve had a proposed action plan for 2014-2023 that is coordinated by the manager of the biosphere reserve. The biosphere reserve is an active member of the Spanish Biosphere Reserve Network, in particular, as concerns the “label” thematic working group, which is an example of its activities promoting cooperation. It is also working on educational and communication programmes to engage local authorities and communities. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the zoning proposal to readjust the borders of the biosphere reserve to integrate some communities in the transition area. It welcomed this initiative as an example of local community involvement. It also suggested standardizing the name of the biosphere reserve to avoid confusion.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

26

The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the national authorities implement the following:

Include the readjustment proposal for the borders of the biosphere reserve and resend the proposal with the support of the national authorities before the MAB-ICC meets in June 2014.

Standardize the name of the biosphere reserve.

Dehesas de Sierra Morena Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of this biosphere reserve, nominated in 2002. During that session, the Advisory Committee had recommended that the biosphere reserve:

Develop an integrated management plan for the entire area, paying attention to improving the level of participation of all stakeholders;

Step up environmental education in areas other than the three national parks located in the biosphere reserve; and

Explore cooperation related to the study and management of Dehesas cultural landscapes in other parts of Spain and Portugal.

In line with this request, the Advisory Committee noted the use of a management plan to coordinate the biosphere reserve in the three national parks (Sierra de Aracena y Picos de Aroche, Sierra Norte de Sevilla, Sierra de Hornachuelos). These plans ensure the participation of local communities surrounding the national parks and promote environmental education. The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to continue working on the completion of a biosphere reserve management plan and noted that the designation of a coordinator of the Dehesas de Sierra Morena Biosphere Reserve had been initiated. This biosphere reserve is a member of the Andaluzia regional committee of biosphere reserves and therefore benefits from the experiences of other biosphere reserves in this part of Spain. The Advisory Committee concluded that this Biosphere Reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee encouraged the national authorities to:

Finalize the management plan specifically for the biosphere reserve. Pay attention to monitoring the regulation of hunting activities, in order to ensure an

ecological equilibrium.

Valle de Laciana Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of this biosphere reserve, designated in 2003. It is managed by the “Fundacion de la Laciana Reserva de Biosfera”. In spite of its slow start, in 2008/2009 an action plan was established for it promoting activities on conservation of the cultural and natural values, sustainable development, communication, research and management. The Advisory Committee also noted the creation of the Association of Castilla y Leon Biosphere Reserves in 2012 (that includes four of the eight biosphere reserves from this province). However, some challenges exist with regard to mining, forest fires and preservation of the habitat for bears. The Advisory Committee encouraged the biosphere reserve authorities to continue pursuing their activities.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

27

The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and urged the national authorities to take the following actions:

To elaborate a management plan; To integrate the transition area (cities and mines) with the buffer zone; To promote the research and inventory of biodiversity; To promote ecological restoration of the environment near the carbon mines; To create a plan to guarantee the connectivity in the landscape.

Muniellos Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review of this biosphere reserve nominated in 2000 and extended in 2003 following the proposed Gran Cantabrica Biosphere Reserve nominated by the autonomous provinces. This biosphere reserve also fits the delineation of the Fuentes de Narcea, Degaña e Ibias National Park. They share a common management structure and action plan. The biosphere reserve is part of the Asturian Biosphere Reserve network, which is a platform for promoting tourism and local income generation, in line with the previous Gran Cantabrica concept. However, the similar naming of the Muniellos Biosphere Reserve and the Reserva Natural Integral de Muniellos (for conservation issues only) has created some confusion. In addition, the Advisory Committee noted a potential zoning conflict with the authorization for mineral extraction, hunting areas and the biosphere reserve limits. The Advisory Committee encouraged the local authorities to consider the possibility of extending the area of the biosphere reserve and including more urban areas, as proposed in this periodic report. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and encouraged the national authorities to consider revising the zonation of the biosphere reserve, in order to increase the protection of the western part of the core area.

Kanneliya-Dediyagala-Nakiyadeniya Biosphere Reserve (Sri Lanka)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review report of the biosphere reserve, designated in 2004. This biosphere reserve has been active with respect to the three biosphere reserve functions. The Advisory Committee noted the proposed changes in the zonation of the biosphere reserve. It is proposed to extend the core area, buffer zone and transition area with the aim of incorporating an adjacent forest area. The Committee concluded that this site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves Biosphere Reserves. The Committee encouraged the national authorities to consider connecting this biosphere reserve with the Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee also recommended that the proposed extension be approved.

Hurulu Biosphere Reserve (Sri Lanka)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the Hurulu Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1977. The original total surface area was 25,500 ha without a transition area. The new total surface area will be 69,641 ha, comprised of 512 ha of core area, 40,670 ha of buffer zone and 28,459ha of transition area. For the first 30 years following its designation, the

SC-14/CONF.226/10

28

authorities could not undertake any significant activities in the biosphere reserve owing to civil unrest in the area. The current human population in the area is 14,654. The Advisory Committee commended the authorities for this well-prepared report. The Advisory Committee concluded that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the extension be approved. The authorities are also encouraged to consider increasing the size of the core area.

Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve (Sri Lanka)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1978. It is the largest rainforest in Sri Lanka. The first periodic review report for this site was submitted in 2003. The Committee noted that the authorities had implemented well the MAB-ICC’s past recommendations. At the time of its designation, this site only had a core area of 11,187 ha. Currently, there is a buffer zone of 16,316 ha and a transition area of 2,087 ha, which were demarcated in 2014, in addition to a core area of 11,427ha. The Advisory Committee congratulated the national authorities for this improved zonation. There are permanent local communities living in the biosphere reserve who are actively involved in managing the site. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the extension be approved. It is also recommended that the national authorities consider re-zoning to avoid direct contact between the core and transition areas, especially in the location indicated as Lankagama on the zonation map.

Hauy Tak Teak Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review of the Huay Tak Teak Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1977. The committee commended the authorities for setting up a coordinating centre in 2012 which is responsible for facilitating collaboration among various stakeholders. The Advisory Committee recommended greater involvement by the local government and community in managing the biosphere reserve, a task which should not be restricted to the central government only. The governance structure also needs improving, with a detailed management plan. The Advisory Committee noted an error in the legend of the map (the buffer zone had been given as the transition area). The authorities are, therefore, requested to send the MAB Secretariat a new zonation map with the correct legend. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Ranong Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this second periodic review report for the Ranong Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1997. Mangroves constitute the predominant ecosystem of this biosphere reserve. The site remains largely unchanged and the mangrove forest conditions are reported to have improved considerably. The Advisory Committee noted that the zonation was the same as when the biosphere reserve was designated. The Advisory Committee also

SC-14/CONF.226/10

29

acknowledged the information provided on the management structure of the biosphere reserve and local stakeholder participation. The Advisory Committee was concerned, however, that local communities had very little knowledge about the biosphere reserve concept. The authorities are, therefore, encouraged to embark on building awareness and educating local communities about biosphere reserves. The authorities are requested to submit a comprehensive management plan taking into consideration local community participation. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Askania nova Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, which was designated in 1983. The first periodic review report was done in 1998. The total area remains the same. It is also a Ramsar site. The predominant ecosystem is lowland steppe. Economic activities in the buffer zone include agriculture and sheep-grazing. Animal husbandry and agriculture are practiced in the transition area. There are seven villages in the transition area. There is a dedicated management team and a functional management plan. The Advisory Committee noted that an updated map had not been submitted together with the periodic review report, despite being required on the form. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site generally met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, to enable the Advisory Committee to confirm this conclusion, it requested that the national authorities submit an updated map by 30 September 2014 showing the zonation clearly.

Chernomorskiy (Black Sea) Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this fourth periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, designated in 1984. The Advisory Committee welcomed this report as a follow-up on the implementation status of the 2012 recommendations made by the MAB-ICC. The Advisory Committee took note with satisfaction of the information provided and the measures taken on the ground to create a new zonation and to improve management of the entire biosphere reserve. However, the Advisory Committee considered that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The terrestrial core area is not surrounded by a buffer zone. The committee requested that the authorities provide a new zoning, enlarging the transition area to encompass farmland, and creating a buffer zone around the terrestrial core area. In addition, the Advisory Committee took note of the management policy aimed at preserving the typical and unique socio-ecological system, as well as the study of change processes. It requested that the Ukrainian authorities provide additional information on: (i) the involvement of local communities in the coordination council and how they participate to the decision-making process; (ii) how research studies contributed to management design and implementation; (iii) the conservation status of rare species within the biosphere reserve and on the regional scale; (iv) how wind power was taken into account in the management plan. The Advisory Committee requested that the MAB Secretariat be provided with the afore-mentioned information by 30 September 2015 at the latest.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

30

Shatskyi Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review of this biosphere reserve, designated in 2002. The total surface area, as reported in this periodic review report, comes to 48,977 ha. However, it is not clear whether this was before or after the reported extension of the biosphere reserve in 2011. Nor is it clear whether the MAB Secretariat has been informed of this extension. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve generally met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, to enable the Advisory Committee to confirm this conclusion, it requested that the national authorities submit an updated map with clear zonation and clarify the reported extension by 30 September 2014.

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review of this biosphere reserve, designated in 1992. The Advisory Committee commended the national authorities for this second submission of a periodic review report for this site since its designation. The ecosystem is characterized by foothill oak-groves, mountain beech, mixed and spruce forests, pine-alder alpine elfin woodland, subalpine and alpine meadows and upland rocky-lichen landscapes. The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to submit a transboundary biosphere reserve nomination together with Romania. The national authorities are requested to clarify how, where and why the extension mentioned in the periodic review report occurred. The national authorities are also requested to review the zonation of the biosphere reserve, in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

General recommendation for United States of America

The International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves welcomed the positive and unprecedented response of the US biosphere reserve authorities to the MAB Secretariat’s request to submit periodic review reports for the relevant biosphere reserves under US jurisdiction. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the significance of this action in demonstrating the US authorities’ commitment to promoting the goals and objectives of MAB and the concept of biosphere reserves within their country. In this spirit, the Advisory Committee wished to reiterate further the importance of ensuring that biosphere reserves are designated, structured and managed in order to fulfill the inter-connected objectives of reconciling biodiversity conservation with its sustainable use while also supporting initiatives to advance research, scientific cooperation and education. To this end, the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves are the primary reference for all biosphere reserves. Accordingly, while noting with great appreciation the progress made by many US biosphere reserves that have submitted the periodic review reports, particularly with regard to their important contribution to conservation, promotion of education, research and science, the Advisory Committee wished to express its concern at the lack of emphasis given to fostering sustainable development with the participation and involvement of local communities in the

SC-14/CONF.226/10

31

current frameworks and structures of the majority of the US biosphere reserves for which periodic review reports have been recently received. In light of the foregoing, and in line with the exit strategy adopted by the MAB Council, the Advisory Committee recommended that a further review be considered by the US biosphere reserve authorities, in order to:

1. Incorporate a development function component aimed at fostering sustainable economic and human development of the local communities in each of the biosphere reserves,

2. Consider a re-design of the biosphere reserves, in order to ensure a zonation of the core area, buffer zone and transition area to facilitate the three functions of conservation, sustainable development and logistic support for science and education for each biosphere reserve.

3. Integrate the various plans managing the areas within each biosphere reserve in one overall biosphere reserve management plan.

The Advisory Committee considered that one possible way forward for the US authorities to address the above recommendations may be through technical workshops, dialogue, consultation and technical visits involving all stakeholders in each biosphere reserve.

Big Bend National Park Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the submission of this first periodic review report for the Big Bend National Park Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1976. The Advisory Committee noted that the zonation of the biosphere reserve remained the same as when it was designated. The Advisory Committee noted the quality of the numerous conservation and tourism development activities and actions. The Advisory Committee considered that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, since there were strong conservation and good logistics functions but a weak development function. It also noted the lack of local communities’ involvement in activities promoting sustainable development. The Advisory Committee noted the long existence of cooperative projects. It recommended that the size of the transition area be increased and invited the US authorities to explore the possibility of creating a transboundary biosphere reserve with the Maderas del Carmen Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, as the Big Bend Biosphere Reserve is part of a cluster of an international area of huge conservation interest. The Advisory Committee also recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:

A new periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Land use maps and zonation maps with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and

transition area.

California Coast Ranges Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the submission of this first periodic review report for the California Coast Ranges Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1983, and the reports on some units of this site. With regard to the Heath and Marjorie Angelo Coast Range Reserve Unit, the Advisory Committee noted that the zonation remained unchanged since its designation. The Advisory Committee noted the quality of the numerous actions to promote conservation and

SC-14/CONF.226/10

32

develop tourism. It noted the strong conservation and good logistic functions but regretted the weak development function, as well as the lack of involvement of local communities in activities promoting sustainable development. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site and the importance of the conservation function and high standard of research, education and training programmes and stewardship activities. As regards the unit of Landels Hill Big Creek, the Advisory Committee noted that the zonation remained unchanged since its designation. The Advisory Committee noted the quality of the numerous actions to promote conservation and develop tourism. It noted the strong conservation function and good logistic function but regretted the weak development function, as well as the lack of involvement of local communities in activities promoting sustainable development. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site and the importance of the conservation function and high standard of research, education and training programmes and stewardship activities. As regards the Redwood National and State Parks Unit, the Advisory Committee noted that the zonation remained unchanged since its designation. The Advisory Committee noted the quality of the numerous actions to promote conservation and develop tourism. It noted the strong conservation function and good logistic function but regretted the weak development function, as well as the lack of involvement of local communities in activities promoting sustainable development. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site and the importance of the conservation function and high standard of research, education and training programmes and stewardship activities. Based on the above information, the Advisory Committee considered that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:

A new periodic review report using the official periodic review form for the 11 units of the biosphere reserve.

Land use maps and a zonation map with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.

Evidence of engagement with the surrounding local communities.

Carolinian-South Atlantic Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this periodic review from the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary unit, which is part of the biosphere reserve designated in 1986. From the limited information provided, the Advisory Committee considered that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, the Advisory Committee acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site, the importance of the conservation function and high standard of research, education and training programmes and stewardship activities. The committee also noted the creation of the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council to enable a participatory process and public involvement. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:

Updated periodic review report using the official form for all the units of this biosphere reserve;

A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

33

Central Gulf Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this periodic review from the biosphere reserve, designated in 1983. From the limited information provided, the Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, the Advisory Committee acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site, the importance of the conservation function and high standard of research, education and training programmes. The committee also noted that the biosphere reserve staff cooperated with many stakeholders but that the stakeholders had no mechanism for participating directly in the biosphere reserve management and planning. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:

Updated periodic review report using the official form ; A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.

Channel Islands Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the Channel Islands Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1976, the Channel Islands Biosphere Reserve is located west of Los Angeles, covering the Channel Islands National Park and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Over the years, the park and sanctuary, in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, have played an important role in ensuring biodiversity conservation, restoration and recovery, through a rich portfolio of management, protection, research, monitoring, education and public awareness-raising programmes and projects. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the Channel Islands Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Denali Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the Denali Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1976, Denali Biosphere Reserve is situated in south-central Alaska, centred on the Alaska Range in the vicinity of the Denali National Park and Biosphere Reserve. Since its inception, the reserve has contributed to the protection and management of the ecosystems and wildlife found in Denali. A large number of institutions are carrying out a wide range of important research projects in the area. The national park and biosphere reserve are also successfully involved in activities related to education, public awareness-raising and traditional ecological knowledge. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the Denali Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the

SC-14/CONF.226/10

34

sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Glacier National Park Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the Glacier Biosphere Reserve and National Park. Designated in 1976, Glacier Biosphere Reserve and National Park is located in north-western Montana in the northern Rocky Mountains and adjacent to the Canadian Waterton Biosphere Reserve, with which there is transboundary cooperation and a joint Peace Park, designated in 1995 as a World Heritage site (Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park). As a unique wilderness area with a very rich geological past, including mountain formation and glaciation processes, this biosphere reserve has successfully provided vital contributions to science, research, education, recreation and transboundary cooperation over the years. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the Glacier Biosphere Reserve and National Park did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Glacier Bay and Admiralty Island Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomes the submission of the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, which was designated in 1986. This biosphere reserve represents an outstanding example of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem of the Sitkan Biogeographical Province of North America. This biosphere reserve is reported to be a protected area. It is a large oceanic island well-buffered from the effects of development on other islands off the mainland. In addition, the Admiralty Island unit is not only a national forest but also a national monument and largely designated wilderness. The Advisory Committee noted that the management structure emphasized protection and preservation of biodiversity, providing for only modest development and extraction activities. Economic activities at this site are recreation tourism, a resumption and expansion in mining, a decline in commercial logging and investment in infrastructure. The committee acknowledged the submission of a location and vegetation map for this biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve was functioning well with respect to conservation, logistic support and development. It noted, however, the lack of proper zonation with respect to what is prescribed in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:

An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

35

Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the submission of this periodic review report for the Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1988. The riparian habitat in the park has been reported to support many wildlife species, including federally threatened Coho salmon and federally endangered California freshwater shrimp. Economic activities in the biosphere reserve include tourism and agriculture (wine grapes, silage and apples). The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:


Hawaiian Islands Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the submission of this periodic review report for the Hawaiian Islands Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1980. The committee noted the reported increase in the size of this park since 2003, although this new area is not included in the biosphere reserve. This biosphere reserve provides a refuge for over 100 endangered plant and animal species. The majority of these species are endemic and globally unique to the islands. About 90% of plants are endemic species, which makes this site very significant for biodiversity conservation. The description provided for this site was done in detail. Opportunities to encourage sustainable development are focusing on lands adjacent to the biosphere reserve, through collaborative partnerships with landowners and public outreach to surrounding communities. The Advisory Committee acknowledged that this biosphere reserve contributed immensely to conservation and also noted with appreciation the involvement of local communities. It noted, however, the lack of proper zonation and concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of Biosphere Reserves; it therefore recommended that the biosphere reserve authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:


Jornada Experimental Range Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the submission of this periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, which was designated in 1976. It noted that, in terms of conservation values, no significant changes had been reported. This biosphere reserve fulfills its logistic function by collaborating with numerous universities, including New Mexico State University. It also noted that there had been collaborations with the USDA Agricultural Research Service. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities implement the following:

Provide an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Provide a zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition

area.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

36

Explore opportunities for economic activities in the biosphere reserve and the involvement of local communities in decision-making processes with regard to its management.

Konza Prairie Research Natural Area Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report submission for the Konza Prairie Research Natural Area Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1978. This biosphere reserve is reported as being operated as a field research station by the Kansas State University Division of Biology. It is a unique outdoor laboratory that provides opportunities for the study of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem and for basic biological research on a large range of taxa processes. The Advisory Committee noted with appreciation that there had been increased emphasis on ecotourism in the Flint Hills and enhanced efforts to build public awareness and educate. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:


Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report submission for the Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1990. This biosphere reserve consists of a core area (52,830 acres) a zone of cooperation (94,365 acres) and a transition area (762,133 acres). The Advisory Committee noted that a variety of agricultural activities continued within the biosphere reserve outside the core area. This biosphere reserve was expanded in 1996 to include 909,328 acres in six counties. Along with promoting sustainable development, there continues to be a strong effort to promote awareness of the importance of water quality to protect the internationally recognized cave and karst landscape throughout the Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and requested that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following:

A zonation map with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area. An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Mojave and Colorado Deserts Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report submission for two units of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1984. This area conserves large landscapes and areas of biodiversity. Topographical features and climatic conditions serve to isolate populations.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

37

The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:

A zonation map with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area. An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form for all units of

the biosphere reserve.

New Jersey Pinelands Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the submission of this first periodic review report for the New Jersey Pinelands Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1983. The Advisory Committee noted the high quality of the numerous actions promoting conservation and the development of tourism. The committee considered that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves the criteria. It noted the strong conservation and good logistic functions of this biosphere reserve. However, the development function was weak and there was a lack of local community involvement in activities promoting sustainable development. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:

An updated periodic review report using the official form. A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area. Evidence of engagement with the neighbouring local communities.

Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1979, the Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve is located 65 km northwest of Denver in north-central Colorado. Niwot Ridge has successfully been used by the University of Colorado and its Mountain Research Station for science and environmental education for more than 80 years and the site is today one of the best-studied subalpine and alpine ecosystems. Globally, offering excellent opportunities to detect the impact of climate change and atmospheric pollution on biodiversity, notably through the Mountain Research Station and Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) programme. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation and limited focus on development aspects, the Advisory Committee concluded that the Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Noatak Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the detailed periodic review report for the Noatak Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1976, the Noatak Biosphere Reserve is located in northwestern Alaska in the Arctic Range. The biosphere reserve is largely situated in the Noatak National Park and the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Reserve; its main function is to promote nature

SC-14/CONF.226/10

38

conservation and related research and monitoring, including as concerns the unregulated Noatak River and the rich wildlife found throughout the area. Economic activities within the site are limited to subsistence hunting and fishing among local residents and some tourism and recreation. However, there are important mining operations adjacent to the reserve. However, due to its zonation, the focus on the development aspects of the biosphere reserve is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the Noatak Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Olympic National Park Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review report presented by the US authorities. It appreciated the quality of the report on activities implemented since the site was designated in 1976. It noted the success of the Elwha River Restoration project conducted with the national park. This demonstrated the importance of providing technical authorities and policy-makers, who share a common concern for ecological, economic and social sustainability, with detailed scientific information. Moreover, the research also highlighted the economic importance of service sectors other than tourism, especially in the transition area, which lies beyond the national park. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:


Rocky Mountain National Park Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review report presented by the US authorities. It took note of the report on the activities implemented since the site was designated in 1977. The Advisory Committee welcomed the sharing of experiences organized through the “sister park agreement,” which they rather understand as a “sister biosphere reserves agreement”. Indeed, mountainous areas are the most sensitive to climate change, making the Rocky Mountain National Biosphere Reserve an important site for monitoring and experiencing mitigation and adaptation measures. The Advisory Committee suggested that the authorities delineate the most sensitive areas as core areas and buffer zones. The Advisory Committee also added that the logistic function of the transition area would contribute to mitigating the impact of tourist flows. In this regard, the Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:


SC-14/CONF.226/10

39

A revised management plan reflecting the integration of these zones in the biosphere reserve.

San Joaquin Experimental Range Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report of the San Joaquin Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1976, the San Joaquin Biosphere Reserve is located on the western slopes of the central Sierra Nevada Mountains. Established in 1934 by the US Forest Service as an experimental range to investigate resource and animal husbandry management issues on the foothill rangelands, San Joaquin Biosphere Reserve contributes in particular to research and educational activities on these issues through a vast network of state and federal agencies, universities and organizations. However, due to its zonation, the focus on the development aspects of the biosphere reserve is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the San Joaquin Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the Sequoia and Kings Canyon Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1976, the Sequoia and Kings Canyon Biosphere Reserve is located in the southern Sierra Nevada (California) and comprises the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Based on two prominent national parks, it is clear that the biosphere reserve is managed primarily for biodiversity conservation, research, monitoring, education and public awareness-raising. Biodiversity changes detected in the reserve over the years, including due to global warming, have been recorded in the parks’ 2013 Natural Resources Condition Assessment. However, due to its zonation, the focus on the development aspects of the biosphere reserve is limited to tourism and recreation. The Advisory Committee concluded that the Sequoia–Kings Canyon Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report concerning the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1983, the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve is located in the flat floodplain of the Congaree River in the eastern United States encompassing the Congaree National Park. Through the good work of the national park, important inventories, research and educational programmes have been undertaken and

SC-14/CONF.226/10

40

supported in partnership with a large number of academic institutions and organizations. Work is also under way to discuss development issues, as the overall population in the State of South Carolina is growing rapidly. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the detailed and comprehensive periodic review report for the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1988, the biosphere reserve is located in the Southern Appalachian Mountains shared among six states. Encompassing several units, including the National Great Smoky Mountains National Park, based on an innovative cluster approach, the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve engages successfully with a wide range of community, federal, state and academic institutions to foster biodiversity conservation, research, monitoring, environmental education, sustainable tourism and recreation. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review forms.

University of Michigan Biological Station Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the University of Michigan Biological Station Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1979, the University of Michigan Biological Station Biosphere Reserve is located at the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan on the southern shore of Douglas Lake. The reserve is renowned for its piping plover recovery programme. Teams from the University of Michigan, as well as from a large number of other universities, are successfully conducting biodiversity research in and around the Great Lakes, as well as research on carbon flows in temperate forest ecosystems. The site also has an impressive educational programme. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the University of Michigan Biological Station Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

41

Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Virgin Islands National Park Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the periodic review report for the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1979, Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve is located on and around the volcanic island of St John and based on the Virgin Islands National Park. Climate change caused the loss of 52% of the live coral cover in one bleaching event in 2005. Tourism, notably cruise visits, have increased rapidly and pose a management challenge. The reserve makes highly important and appreciated contributions to biodiversity conservation, research, monitoring, education and public awareness-raising. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects is limited. The Advisory Committee concluded that the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit the zonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can cater for the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.

Yellowstone National Park Biosphere Reserve (USA)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this first periodic review of the Yellowstone Biosphere Reserve, established in 1976. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the major efforts in the areas of scientific research and environmental education. It noted that this national park had gained important national recognition, with 3 million visitors per year. It is one of the best-preserved ecosystems in the northern hemisphere, with comprehensive reports on, and inventories of, the biosphere reserve’s biodiversity. While welcoming the periodic review report, the Advisory Committee regretted that no maps had been submitted. The Advisory Committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:

A zonation map with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area. An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. A management plan developed taking into consideration the Seville Strategy and park

management strategies.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

42

Follow-up recommendations

Parc du Djurdjura Biosphere Reserve (Algeria)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report submitted by the Djurdjura Biosphere Reserve in response to recommendations from 2011. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the development efforts in support of local populations. It also noted the challenges encountered in managing tourism and related activities in the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee also recognized that the Djurdjura Biosphere Reserve did not derive any substantive direct benefits from tourism and that this should be possible, as it would help the reserve recover its operating costs. The committee concluded that the Djurdjura Biosphere Reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and requested that the authorities:

Clarify the biosphere reserve zoning, which includes one national park, to facilitate the inclusion of human populations ;

Systematically conduct impact studies for new infrastructure developments and for important existing installations;

Identify legal and regulatory means for enabling the biosphere reserve and national park to engage in, or benefit from, commercial activities to meet their operating expenses.

Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve (Belarus)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the additional information from Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve. It noted that the proposed extension of the biosphere reserve included an enlargement of the transition area only. It also noted that the reason for extension was to further promote sustainable forestry, hunting fishing and tourism. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the description of all these activities as joint actions between the administration of the biosphere reserve and active community groups. It also welcomed the incentives to increase interest among local youth in the region’s development and to create new jobs and social conditions that would attract young professionals. The Advisory Committee also welcomed the information on the involvement of local communities in the implementation of the European Union International Assistance Project “Water, nature and people in disappearing landscape - Development of sustainable tourism in Russia and Republic of Belarus” in Lepel district. The Advisory Committee requested the authorities to provide an updated map with topographic layers showing the precise location and delimitation of the three zones of the biosphere reserve, in electronic copy, together with the shape files (also in WGS 84 projection system) used to produce the map. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

43

Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve (Canada)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report by the Canadian authorities on the implementation status of the MAB-ICC’s recommendation of 2012. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the monitoring for conservation in the core areas and the involvement of First Nation members in managing the site. It acknowledged that the zonation and size of the biosphere reserve seemed functional. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the measures taken to address the sustainable development function and concluded that this site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It also noted that the monitoring and the involvement of local communities were satisfactory.

Long Point Biosphere Reserve (Canada)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Canadian authorities on the implementation status of the 2012 recommendation by the MAB-ICC regarding this site. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the information provided and measures taken on the ground to explain the zonation of the biosphere reserve, especially the core area and buffer zone and the additional Bacchus wood core area. The Advisory Committee considered that the additional Bacchus Wood core area was surrounded by land properties owned by Nature Conservancy Canada that could be easily included with some farmland to constitute a buffer area surrounding the entire new core area, eventually in connection with the major buffer zone, if possible. The Advisory Committee requested that this new core area be surrounded by a buffer zone, in order for the zonation to meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee requested that the zonation be updated by the end of September 2014 and that a new zonation map be sent to the MAB Secretariat by the end of September 2014, in order to confirm that the site meets the Statutory Framework criteria.

Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve (Canada)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the explanation and strategic plan, as well as the involvement plan elaborated since the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2011. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the information provided and measures taken on the ground. The Advisory Committee noted the efforts by the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Foundation (MABF) to support initiatives limiting urban sprawl. The Advisory Committee appreciated the new actions that had been developed and the action plan relating to active participation by local communities and First Nation members. The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to pursue the fundraising process, as well as awareness-raising on socio-ecological issues, and to implement the planned actions outlined in the new strategic plan (2013-2018). The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve (Canada)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Canadian authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation by the MAB-ICC in 2012 regarding this site. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the information provided and measures taken on the ground. The

SC-14/CONF.226/10

44

Advisory Committee appreciated the updated information relating to efforts made to reinforce the biosphere reserve management committee by extending its membership to include, in particular, provincial government agencies and First Nation members. The Advisory Committee noted the progress made towards the design of a coordination plan. The Advisory Committee noticed the difficulties concerning the buffer zone delineation, especially as concerned conflicts with local landowners, but considered that without a clear delineation of a functional zoning, the biosphere reserve did not meet the Statutory Framework criteria. The Advisory Committee noted that the local biosphere reserve authority preferred to name the buffer zone a cooperation zone or to use existing perimeters (health system or national park boundaries) to design the buffer zone and the rest as a transition area. The Advisory Committee requested clear zonation maps showing all suggested zoning options, as well as clarification of their impact on implementation of the biosphere reserve’s three functions, by the end of September 2015.The Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Southwest Nova Biosphere Reserve (Canada)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the information provided by the biosphere reserve further to the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2012. It noted with satisfaction that an executive committee had been established with several sub-committees (tourism, education, science and resource management) and that their task was to facilitate and coordinate planning and project implementation. It also appreciated the participation process, through meetings with municipalities and supporting agencies. It pointed out, however, that there was not enough information on the engagement with local communities and First Nation members. It also acknowledged that numerous communication and educational activities had been implemented. The Advisory Committee further encouraged the authorities to implement the biosphere reserve’s 15 local recommendations for future activities and requested that they:

Provide a management plan for the biosphere reserve adapted to its current financial and management status.

Provide evidence of a participatory process in the biosphere reserve’s activities and engagement with First Nation and coastal communities.

Foster conservation of nature and cultural heritage and provide evidence of activities performed and proper strategies.

Provide an updated zonation map. The Advisory Committee requested that the authorities send all these elements to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September 2015 at the latest, so that the committee could consider if the site was meeting the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Waterton Biosphere Reserve (Canada)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the follow-up information with regard to the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2009. The Advisory Committee noted that the formalization of zonation, especially regarding the transition area, was not yet finalized. It appreciated the plan to elaborate

SC-14/CONF.226/10

45

delineation and prepare a cooperation plan using a participatory process. It also acknowledged that the communication plan had been completed in 2010. The Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities:

Provide updated zonation, with a high-quality map giving a clear explanation of the functions for each zone, to meet the criteria

Provide the management plan for the biosphere reserve by 30 September 2015

Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta Biosphere Reserve (Colombia)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the follow-up information provided by the Colombian authorities with regard to the recommendations it had made in 2011.The Advisory Committee noted that the transition area was still being defined and that the map sent did not include the zonation of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee also pointed out that the list of sustainable development projects to be implemented had not been sent. The Advisory Committee recommended that the Colombian authorities provide a clear zonation map, a management plan for the entire biosphere reserve and guidelines for a research agenda. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Cinturon Andino Biosphere Reserve (Colombia)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the follow-up information provided by the Colombian authorities with regard to the recommendations it had made in 2011. The Advisory Committee noted that the transition area was still being defined and that the map sent did not include the zonation of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee also pointed out that the list of sustainable development projects to be implemented had not been sent. The Advisory Committee recommended that the Colombian authorities provide a clear zonation map, a management plan for the entire biosphere reserve and guidelines for a research agenda. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

El Tuparro Biosphere Reserve (Colombia)


SC-14/CONF.226/10

46

Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Biosphere Reserve (Colombia)


Taï Biosphere Reserve (Côte d’Ivoire)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report for Taï Biosphere Reserve, which follows up the recommendations provided in 1999 by the Advisory Committee, following submission of the first periodic review in 1998. Taï Biosphere Reserve was established in 1978. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the response to the recommendations related to transboundary management of the forest with Liberia, the establishment of a foundation providing sustainable financial resources and completion of the management plan of the Tai National Park structured around conservation, research, development, education and institutional marketing. The Advisory Committee noted with concern that neither the zonation nor the management plan addressed the specific issues related to the refugee problems facing the biosphere reserve and that the report did not provide enough information on actions taken. The Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and requested that the authorities:

Improve the zonation and management of the site, taking into account the need to reduce the impact of settlement and that of the influx of refugees from Liberia.

Develop a management plan for the whole area as a biosphere reserve and implement it with the involvement of the local population.

Provide additional information on the settlement policy in the region and its impact on the site.

Explore the possibility of enhancing cooperation with the Liberian authorities, in order to improve the management of the whole transboundary ecosystem.

Bile Karpathy Biosphere Reserve (Czech Republic)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this updated information. It noted that the biosphere reserve had established cooperation with the authorities at the municipal level with most of the mayors and farmers. It appreciated that a regional trademark had been created in cooperation with an NGO to support local craftsmen. It also took note that a LIFE project had started in 2011 to improve grassland management in the area, involving the local population and scientists.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

47

The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to:

Ensure participation of all mayors in their respective areas in managing the biosphere reserve.

Support actions, projects and events that would enable joint work between managers of the biosphere reserve and the local population, in addition to farming.

Participate in the WNBR and share with it the results of the ongoing LIFE project. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Krkonose/Karkonosze Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Czech Republic/Poland)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the information provided as a follow-up to the MAB-ICC recommendation made in 2012. It noted that the biosphere reserve had designed a Management Plan for the Krkonoše Mts National Park for 2010 – 2020, with chapters describing possible development activities. The Advisory Committee appreciated the short list of joint activities, which provided an insight into the cooperation between the two countries. It acknowledged the ongoing work related to the preparation of a common logo, the many joint projects focusing on nature management, environmental education and raising public awareness. The Advisory Committee recommended that the authorities ensure that the management plan included goals and activities related to sustainable development, research, communication and local community engagement in the activities of the transboundary biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee considered that the site followed the Pamplona recommendations for transboundary sites.

Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (India)

The Advisory Committee acknowledged the responses provided by the national authorities concerning the MAB-ICC recommendations made in 2013. The Advisory Committee noted that the national authorities had not implemented the recommendations of the past year. The authorities are encouraged to reconsider extending the biosphere reserve and to explore opportunities for a transboundary biosphere reserve initiative in the Gulf of Mannar region. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve (Israel)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this report of the Israeli authorities further to the submission of the periodic review of Mount Carmel in 2007. The Advisory Committee noted that land issues and the establishment of settlements in the biosphere reserve prevented the appropriation by the local communities of the vision of the biosphere reserve and their participation in the coordination structure. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the measures foreseen by the authorities to redynamise (renegotiation of limits, hiring of a coordinator) the biosphere reserve and their intention to share their experience with EuroMAB.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

48

However, the Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It recommended that the authorities pursue:

Redefinition of the limits of the biosphere reserve with the support of the State authorities, in close collaboration with all the communities and the relevant actors. Development of a management plan which would be the result of the new collaboration arrangements with local communities. Inclusion of representatives of the communities in the new management structure of the biosphere reserve.

The Advisory Committee requested that the Israeli authorities send a report on progress made by 30 September 2015.

Cilento and Vallo di Diano Biosphere Reserve (Italy)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requesting the Italian authorities to: provide additional information on the education and sustainable development functions of the biosphere reserve; develop the management plan for the biosphere reserve with integration of tourism; clarify the coordination between the National Park and the transition area regarding implementation of activities and involvement of stakeholders; reinforce the participation of local communities in the management and governance of the biosphere reserve; improve the monitoring of the impacts of economic activities on the biosphere reserve; clarify how the various projects and research activities contribute to the functioning of the biosphere reserve; share experiences and practices among the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, for example during regional meetings such as EuroMAB. The Advisory Committee acknowledged with satisfaction the information provided by the Italian authorities in response to the above recommendation. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Circeo Biosphere Reserve (Italy)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requesting the Italian authorities to: enlarge the buffer zone to encompass farmland; enlarge transition areas to cover the rest of the plain where the national park authorities have developed monitoring with other organizations; secure the participation of local stakeholders in managing the biosphere reserve and in the decision-making process of the governance structure; develop co-management and socio-economic action plans for the biosphere reserve and integrate these into the regional master plans; provide explicit and detailed information on how these action plans address the issues of tourism and farming; improve monitoring of the impact of economic activities and raise awareness among the inhabitants, including those from different social and ethnic groups. The Advisory Committee acknowledged with satisfaction the additional information provided by the Italian authorities in response to the above recommendations, including the information

SC-14/CONF.226/10

49

concerning the extension of the buffer zone and transition areas, and concluded that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo Alto Molise Biosphere Reserve (change of name, former Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo Biosphere Reserve) (Italy)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2012 requesting that the Italian authorities provide information on the implementation of the zonation, as well as elaborate a management plan for the whole area. Further to this recommendation, the Italian authorities decided to propose an extension to the biosphere reserve and to change its name to Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo Alto Molise Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee took note of the information provided by the Italian authorities in response to the above recommendation, notably the detailed extension proposal and the overall management plan and renaming of the site. The Advisory Committee concluded that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the extension and new name be approved by the MAB-ICC.

Miramare Biosphere Reserve (Italy)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requesting that the Italian authorities: develop a co-management plan for the biosphere reserve and support its integration into the regional master plans; clarify and reinforce the participation of local communities in managing the biosphere reserve and in its governance bodies; clarify how the various scientific research outcomes are contributing to the functioning of the biosphere reserve; improve the integration of the social science-based studies within the research monitoring function of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee took note of the information provided by the Italian authorities in response to the above recommendation and concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Somma-Vesuvio and Miglio D’Oro Biosphere Reserve (Italy)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the additional information provided by this biosphere reserve. The Committee noted that the biosphere reserve had put mechanisms in place to deal with illegal dumping and construction through cooperation with several relevant authorities. It also appreciated the fact that information on coordination between the authorities in charge of the different zones had been provided. The Advisory Committee welcomed the plan of the Park Authority to establish a specific framework agreement between various stakeholders for participatory management of the biosphere reserve. It also appreciated the information provided on education and capacity-building of local communities with a focus on better resource management. The Advisory Committee requested that the biosphere reserve authority design a biosphere reserve management structure which would involve all stakeholders, separate from the national park. It also requested that the authorities further describe the activities planned to reinforce the

SC-14/CONF.226/10

50

participation of local communities in the biosphere reserve management. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the work on monitoring the ecological and social impact of economic activities, especially as concerns tourism and urbanization, funded by the Ministry of Environment. The Advisory Committee appreciated the explanation of how the various projects and research outcomes would be integrated within the functioning of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Ticino Valley Biosphere Reserve (Italy)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the additional information provided by the authorities and the explanation concerning the delineation and extension of the biosphere reserve with support from the cities of Belgirate, Meina, Lesa and Stresa.

The Advisory Committee acknowledged that clarification had been provided about the coordination of activities between the authorities, including the signed Memorandum of Understanding between the Parco Ticino Lombardo and the Parco Ticino Piemontese, concerning the promotion and implementation of cooperative actions, including the coordinated management of the biosphere reserve itself. The management structure is constituted by the Consultative Assembly, Executive Committee and MAB Bureau. Regione Lombardia and Regione Piemonte are about to approve a Protocol of Agreement, in order to identify areas for collaboration specifically regarding significant topics, such as the local sustainable development, tourism and culture. The Advisory Committee further took note of the information provided on local and regional management and planning, strengthening of participation by local communities in the management of the biosphere reserve, the improvements in monitoring the impact of economic activities like agriculture and networking within the WNBR. It welcomed the possible future establishment of a transboundary biosphere reserve with the neighboring part of Ticino River in Switzerland. The Advisory Committee recommended that the Italian authorities provide a monitoring strategy for economic activity (especially agriculture) in terms of impact assessment. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (Latvia)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the information provided on the governance of the biosphere reserve, further to the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2013. It appreciated the recruitment of a new employee in charge of coordinating the site but questioned whether a part-time assignment was sufficient to implement the biosphere reserve functions effectively and ensure appropriate management. The Advisory Committee expressed concern about the ongoing biosphere reserve management and financial status and congratulated the authorities on the efforts made to address these issues in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Regional Development. The Advisory Committee requested that updated information on the management and financial situation be sent to the MAB Secretariat by the end of September 2014.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

51

The Advisory Committee suggested that the authorities consider the creation of an institution with a coordinating function for the entire biosphere reserve that would involve stakeholders and inhabitants on a permanent basis, where authorities in charge of nature conservation would be only one of the stakeholders and the biosphere reserve management, staffing and budget would be secured in a collective manner. The Advisory Committee considered that the site met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves but requested that the following information be sent to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September 2014:

Updated information on the management and financial situation. Updated information on the creation of an institution with a coordinating function for the

entire biosphere reserve that would involve stakeholders and inhabitants on a permanent basis, where authorities in charge of nature conservation would be only one of the stakeholders and the biosphere reserve management, staffing and budget would be secured in a collective manner.

Sahamalaza-Iles Radama Biosphere Reserve (Madagascar)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Madagascar authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2012 regarding the Sahamalaza-Iles Radama Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the information provided and the measures taken on the ground to address these recommendations. The Advisory Committee appreciated the improved zonation of the biosphere reserve, which clarifies the core area and buffer zone delineation; however, the transition area is still unclear. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the integration of the management plan of the national park and of the biosphere reserve within a regional master plan. The committee took note of the involvement of local communities and traditional chiefs in a co-management process based on local park committees. The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to pursue the implementation of such participatory land planning and management, which is compliant with the biosphere reserve concept. The Advisory Committee considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide a new zonation map clarifying the limit of the dedicated biosphere reserve zones: core area, buffer zones and transition area, by 30 September 2014.

Mananara Nord Biosphere Reserve (Madagascar)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Madagascar authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2012 regarding the Mananara Nord Biosphere Reserve. The Committee received with appreciation the information provided and the measures taken on the ground. The Advisory Committee acknowledged the improvement in the community-based management of forests located in the surroundings of the national park and the clarification of the zonation. The committee noted and approved the efforts by the authorities to reinforce the control of illegal logging and build the capacity of rangers and local communities in charge of managing the forests.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

52

The committee considered that the biosphere reserve did not meet criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities:

Provide a new zonation map of the terrestrial part, clarifying the limits of the dedicated biosphere reserve zones: core area, buffer zone and transition area.

Provide a map on an adequate scale of the marine part of the biosphere reserve showing the three zones.

Clarify the status of the zonation function of the enclave (buffer zone/transition area). This information should be submitted to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September December 2014. The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to develop a strategy to address the issue of the enclave and to minimize its impact on biosphere reserve management.

Mapimí Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Mexican authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2013 regarding the Mapimi Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction that the maps and the list of sustainable development projects to be implemented had been sent. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Mexican authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2013 regarding the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction that the transition area was clearly defined and that the map and the list of sustainable development projects to be implemented had been sent. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Mexican authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2013 regarding the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction that the maps and the list of sustainable development projects to be implemented had been sent. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Mexican authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2013 regarding the Sierra Manantlán Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction that the transition area was clearly defined and that the map and the list of sustainable development projects to be implemented had been sent. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

53

Babia Gora Biosphere Reserve (Poland)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the additional information provided on the Babia Gora Biosphere Reserve as a follow-up to the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2013. It noted that the satellite core areas were temporary (interim status only) and that the connection of the remote core area to the main core area was planned within the enlargement of protected areas to be approved by the Ministry of Environment in 2015. The Advisory Committee appreciated that the forestry activities in the buffer zones and transition areas were managed sustainably, in accordance with Polish legislation and the international nature conservation agreement Natura 2000. It also welcomed the information on participation by private landowners in the biosphere reserve management, including through the Scientific Council of the National Park. The Advisory Committee encouraged the authorities to design a biosphere reserve coordinating management structure that would be inclusive and involve stakeholders and inhabitants on a permanent basis (where the nature conservation authorities would be on an equal footing with other stakeholders). The Advisory Committee recommended using the WNBR to find an inspiring model for such inclusive and participatory management of the site. The Advisory Committee requested that the authorities prepare an integrative biosphere reserve management plan based on the park's management plan by the end of 2014. The Advisory Committee welcomed the possible creation of a transboundary biosphere reserve with Slovakia and encouraged the establishment of such a site and preparation of the joint nomination form. The Advisory Committee considered that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Slowinski Biosphere Reserve (Poland)

The Advisory Committee noted the responses submitted by the Slowinski Biosphere Reserve further to the MAB-ICC recommendations of 2013. The Advisory Committee encouraged the national authorities to continue engaging in constructive efforts towards achieving sustainable development in the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee also welcomed any additional information on the state of, and future plans for, sustainable use of renewable energy. The Advisory Committee requested that the national authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with links to relevant management plans covering the integrated management of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Darwinsky Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this follow-up to the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2013 requesting that the Russian authorities provide: all documents having a bearing on the report in one the working languages of UNESCO (English or French); a clear zonation for the three zones, including a zonation map, rationale, description of activities in each zone, exact number of people living in each zone, maps with locations of towns and settlements and a clear delineation of the transition area; a description of industrial activities in Cherepovets and

SC-14/CONF.226/10

54

monitoring of their impact; the management plan for the biosphere reserve with a description of its governance; information on strategies for sustainable development, communication and public awareness-raising, and the participatory process for involving the local population; identify key stakeholders and the process for cooperation with the managers of the Rybinski reservoir hydropower station; information on how it was promoting (or planned to promote) greater participation in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and international cooperation in climate change research and environmental impact assessments of water accumulation. The Advisory Committee examined the information provided by the Russian authorities in response to the above recommendations and concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Smolensk Lakeland Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this follow-up to the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2013 requesting that the Russian authorities provide information on: the activities in each biosphere reserve zone and areas; and the radiation monitoring and data linked to the possible establishment of a nuclear plant facility in the vicinity of the biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee examined the information provided by the Russian authorities in response to the above recommendation and concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Ugra Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)

The Advisory Committee welcomed this follow-up to the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2013 requesting that the Russian authorities provide a description of the current status and monitoring of indicators of the state of the environment, specifically with regard to the electromagnetic field levels, the possible health hazards these represented for people and their impact on nature. The Advisory Committee examined the information provided by the Russian authorities in response to the above recommendation and concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Slovak Karst Biosphere Reserve (Slovakia)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the additional information provided by the Slovak authorities regarding the MAB-ICC recommendation of 2013. It acknowledged the efforts made recently. However, it considered that the issues raised had not yet been addressed and requested that the Slovakian authorities address all issues by 30 September 2015. The Advisory Committee considered that the site did not meet the criteria the criteria in the Statutory Framework of Biosphere Reserves.

SC-14/CONF.226/10

55

Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve (South Africa)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the South Africa authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2013 regarding the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve. The Advisory Committee noted with great satisfaction the information provided. It appreciated the efforts made to develop a participatory process and integrate mining and agricultural activities within the management process. The committee noted the involvement of local communities and local authorities within management structures, such as the biosphere reserve board and the network coordinating unit. The Advisory Committee also appreciated the development of an environmental monitoring project based on local communities’ empowerment. The committee also acknowledged the establishment of the K2C Environmental Education Forum for co-learning and the standardization of monitoring of interventions in the biosphere reserve. The committee noted the clarification of ecological and social issues related to land claims and the consequences of rezoning. The decisions ensconced in national regulations and the Memorandum of Agreement provide an efficient operational framework for dealing with these key issues. The Advisory Committee commended the South African authorities for the high quality of the report and considered that the biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Reservat da Biosfera Val Müstair – Parc Naziunal (Switzerland)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Swiss authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2010 regarding this site. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction the information provided and the measures taken on the ground to create a new buffer zone around the core areas and develop an integrated management plan for the entire biosphere reserve. The Advisory Committee appreciated the democratic process adopted to this end and noted the potential difficulties and willingness of the biosphere reserve authorities to conclude before the end of 2014. In order to evaluate whether the site is meeting the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and implement the exit strategy, the Advisory Committee requested that the MAB Secretariat be provided with information on the rezoning and management of the biosphere reserve by the end of September 2015.

Mae Sa-Kong Ma Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)

The Advisory Committee acknowledged the map sent by the authorities for this biosphere reserve, which was designated in 1977. The Advisory Committee recalled that the first periodic review of this biosphere reserve had been submitted in 1999 and that the second periodic review was now due. Therefore, the Advisory committee requested that the report, including a proper zonation map for this biosphere reserve clearly showing the core area, buffer zone and transition area, reach the MAB Secretariat by 30 September 2015 at the latest. The authorities are requested to address the recommendations below that were endorsed by the MAB-ICC in 1999 by the time they submit their second periodic review report:

SC-14/CONF.226/10

56

The Advisory Committee noted that several national bodies were involved in research and management activities at Mae Sa-Kog Ma and that, among the recommendations of South-South Working Paper 3 on the site, there was the need to improve co-ordination among the many government policies, objectives and implementing offices involve in the area. With this as background, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Thai authorities:

Establish a transition area, in consultation with relevant government agencies and the local population, and provide a map for the entire biosphere reserve;

Examine the management structure and responsibilities of the agencies concerned with the Biosphere reserve, with regard to improving co-ordination and leading to a management policy/plan for the whole area as a biosphere reserve;

Consider launching and implementing a study on conservation policies similar to that undertaken within the East Asian Biosphere reserve Network, in co-operation with UNESCO field offices;

Encourage further community involvement in reserve management. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserve.

Sakaerat Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)

The Advisory Committee acknowledged the map sent by the authorities for this biosphere reserve, which was designated in 1976. The Advisory Committee recalled that the first periodic review of this biosphere reserve had been submitted in 1999. The Advisory Committee requested that the authorities undertake the second periodic review and submit the report to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September 2015 at the latest. They are also requested that the authorities submit a zonation map for the biosphere reserve showing clearly the core area(s), buffer zone(s) and transition area(s). The Advisory committee concluded that this site did not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserve.

Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve (Uruguay)

The Advisory Committee welcomed the report of the Uruguayan authorities on the implementation status of the recommendation made by the MAB-ICC in 2012 regarding this site. The Advisory Committee had recommended in 2012 that a management structure be designated to coordinate the activities of the biosphere reserve and that information thereon be submitted to the MAB Secretariat by the end of December 2013, together with a clear zonation map for the biosphere reserve, as well as information on how the sustainable development function of the biosphere reserve could be strengthened. The Advisory Committee noted with satisfaction that the maps with a preliminary zonation had been submitted. The authorities are still defining a management structure and working on how the sustainable development function of the biosphere reserve could be strengthened. The Advisory Committee concluded that this biosphere reserve met the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserve.

SC-14/CONF.226/11 Paris, 12 May 2014

Original: English

1




10 - 13 June 2014

ITEM 13 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: UNESCO MAB POLICY ON OPEN ACCESS TO MAB AND BIOSPHERE RESERVE DOCUMENTATION 1. The purpose of this document is to introduce a policy on open access to MAB and biosphere reserve documentation. The objective of the proposed policy is to enhance transparency and the public’s access to MAB and biosphere reserve information, data, documents and multimedia materials, including complete biosphere reserve nomination files, biosphere reserve periodic review reports and associated items. 2. At its meeting in March 2014, the Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves recommended the adoption of the attached draft policy. 3. The MAB Council is invited to examine and adopt the attached policy on open access to MAB and biosphere reserve documentation.

SC-14/CONF.226/11 Paris, 12 May 2014

Original: English

2

Draft UNESCO MAB Policy on Open Access to MAB and Biosphere Reserve

Documentation I. Introduction 1. The purpose of this policy, in-line with UNESCO’s overarching open access policy, is to enhance the public’s access to information, data, documents and multimedia material related to the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme, biosphere reserves and the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR), notably complete biosphere reserve nomination documents, biosphere reserve periodic review reports and related recommendations, but also reports from MAB meetings, including regional and thematic networks, as well as multimedia materials. 2. In addition to promote transparency, open access to MAB documentation will benefit academia, policy makers, teachers, students, media and the general public and it will help promote global knowledge flow and information exchange for the benefit of research, innovation, socio-economic development and international cooperation. 3. Open access can also produce important multiplier effects through enhanced information and data sharing with other organizations, programmes and conventions, such as the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), UNEP, UNDP, FAO, IUCN, the World Heritage Convention (WHC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Rio+20 process. II. Items covered by this policy 4. Items covered by this policy include, but are not limited to:

Biosphere reserve nomination and periodic review documents received from Member States, including text, data, maps and images;

Recommendations and conclusions of the UNESCO Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves and of the of the Bureau of the MAB-ICC related to biosphere reserve nominations and periodic reviews;

Annual MAB and biosphere reserve reports [when available]; Documents prepared for and reports from meetings with the MAB ICC, MAB Bureau,

Biosphere Reserve Advisory Committee, regional and thematic networks and national MAB Committees;

Technical meeting reports; Project documents; Images, sound and other multimedia materials, including web casts; MAB and WNBR contact and address lists.

SC-14/CONF.226/11 Paris, 12 May 2014

Original: English

3

III. Principles 5. While recognizing that there could be instances where information might have to be treated as confidential, as a general principle, all MAB and biosphere reserve related documents, data, media and information items shall be considered open for free public access, with due consideration to any relevant copy right provisions. If Member States provide the MAB Secretariat with items the contents of which in their view should be kept confidential, this should be made clear when the items are shared with the MAB Secretariat (all UNESCO material becomes open access after 20 years, or 50 years in exceptional cases). This said, in order to allow the MAB Secretariat to give the public at large full access to important items such as complete biosphere reserve nomination and periodic review dossiers, Member States should in principle avoid including any confidential information into the relevant forms, or in items attached thereto. IV. Roles and responsibilities

IV.I. UNESCO MAB Secretariat

6. The UNESCO MAB Secretariat shall undertake to make available on the section on the UNESCO web site (www.unesco.org) dedicated to MAB, i.e. the “MABnet” (www.unesco.org/mab) items covered under this policy (in the language(s) received by the MAB Secretariat). Following the principles set forth in this Policy and relevant records transfer procedures, original hard copy items shall be transferred to UNESCO Archives for on-site public consultation in conformity with relevant UNESCO provisions1. 7. In order to inform Member States about the open access policy, the MAB Secretariat shall include a reference to the open access policy on the MABnet, as well as in communications calling for inputs from Member States, including on all relevant official UNESCO MAB forms used for providing the MAB Secretariat with information, such as the biosphere reserve nomination and periodic review forms. 8. The MAB Secretariat shall issue a MAB Circular Letter addressed to all MAB National Committees and Focal Points, inviting Member States to provide the UNESCO MAB Secretariat with the right to make available to the public, including through posting on the UNESCO MABnet, relevant items submitted to the MAB Secretariat prior to the adoption of the open access policy, notably complete biosphere reserve nomination dossiers and periodic review reports and items attached thereto. 9. The MAB Secretariat shall also seek to establish information and data sharing arrangements, as appropriate, with other organizations, programmes and conventions, such as those mentioned in paragraph 3. 10. The MAB Secretariat shall seek to facilitate and engage in an open dialogue with and among the public at large, MAB National Committees, biosphere reserve Managers and Focal Points, including through social media, on matters related to MAB and the WNBR.

IV.II. MAB National Committees and Focal Points 11. MAB National Committees and Focal Points shall promote open access to items covered under this policy.

1 UNESCO Administrative Manual Item 9.5 and Appendix 9.5A.

SC-14/CONF.226/11 Paris, 12 May 2014

Original: English

4

12. MAB National Committees and Focal Points shall seek to make MAB and biosphere reserve related documentation, data, information and multimedia materials, including preliminary proposals for new biosphere reserves, readily available to the public, including through their own dedicated web pages, newsletters and through social media. 13. MAB National Committees and Focal Points should seek to make available core MAB materials in national language(s) and key national publications in the working languages of UNESCO, if and when feasible. MAB National Committees are also encouraged to produce and share annual reports concerning their activities and their associated results. 14. MAB National Committees and Focal Points shall promote information exchange and data sharing with other MAB National Committees, the WNBR, and with regional and thematic MAB and biosphere reserve networks. 15. MAB National Committees and Focal Points, in cooperation with relevant national entities, as appropriate, shall provide the UNESCO MAB Secretariat with regularly updated contact information regarding their respective Committee Members, Focal Points and biosphere reserve managers and Focal Points. This information should also be made readily available by the MAB National Committees and Focal Points nationally.

IV.III. Biosphere Reserve Managers and Focal Points 16. Biosphere reserve Managers and Focal Points shall promote open access to items covered under this policy, including through their own dedicated web sites. 17. Biosphere reserve Managers and Focal Points shall seek to issue newsletters, and annual reports addressed to the public at large and the media and to share these items with the MAB Secretariat. 18. Biosphere reserve Managers and Focal Points shall promote information exchange and data sharing with other biosphere reserves, MAB National Committees, the WNBR at large, and with regional and thematic MAB and biosphere reserve networks. 19. Biosphere reserve Managers and Focal Points shall seek to facilitate and engage in an open dialogue with key stakeholders, and the public at large, including through social media, on matters related to their biosphere reserve and MAB in general. 20. Biosphere reserve Managers and Focal Points, in cooperation with the MAB National Committees and other relevant entities, shall provide the UNESCO MAB Secretariat and the public at large with contact information to the members of eventual institutional structures established for their governance, administration, outreach and general activities.

IV.IV. Regional and Thematic MAB and Biosphere Reserve Networks 21. Regional and thematic MAB and Biosphere Reserve Networks shall promote open access to items covered under this policy, including through their own dedicated web sites. 22. Regional and thematic MAB and Biosphere Reserve Networks shall seek to issue newsletters, and annual reports addressed to the public at large and the media and to share these items with the MAB Secretariat.

SC-14/CONF.226/11 Paris, 12 May 2014

Original: English

5

23. Regional and thematic MAB and Biosphere Reserve Networks shall promote information exchange and data sharing with other similar networks. 24. Regional and thematic MAB and Biosphere Reserve Networks shall, in cooperation with the MAB National Committees and other relevant entities, provide the UNESCO MAB Secretariat and the public at large with contact information regarding their members and their eventual respective secretariats. V. Copy rights and disclaimers 25. Materials shared with the MAB Secretariat as part of formal submissions (e.g. biosphere reserve nomination dossiers and biosphere reserve periodic review reports) should not be subject to copy right or confidentiality provisions that would prevent the MAB Secretariat from making the materials in their entirety available on-line, such as on the MABnet. In cases where UNESCO is not the copy right owner of the items posted, UNESCO will attach a disclaimer with the item as follows: “All persons reproducing, redistributing, or making commercial use of this item are expected to adhere to the terms and conditions asserted by the copyright holder. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use (PDF http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html) as defined in the copyright laws requires the written permission of the copyright owners.” 26. Items received by the MAB Secretariat from Member States, such as biosphere reserve nomination dossiers and periodic review materials and made available to the public by the MAB Secretariat, such as on the MABnet shall, when relevant, be accompanied with the following disclaimer: The items you are about to consult were prepared by the concerned Member State. The information included and the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. The cartographic material presented do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. VI. Financing 27. While materials already available in electronic format typically can be made available on-line by the MAB Secretariat without additional costs, this is not the case for non-digital materials which require scanning etc. The MAB Secretariat will seek to secure extrabudgetary financial resources for this purpose, including from Member States that provided the materials in question. VII. Policy review 28. This policy and its implementation shall be reviewed by the MAB Council at its 27th session. VIII. Policy implementation timeline 29. This policy is expected to be implemented according to the timeline contained in Annex I.

SC-14/CONF.226/11 Paris, 12 May 2014

Original: English

6

Annex I. Policy implementation timeline

Action Actor Dates

Posting of the UNESCO MAB Policy on the UNESCO MABNet

MAB Secretariat Directly after the adoption of the policy (26th MAB ICC) and clearance of UNESCO’s Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs.

Updating of MAB forms including the biosphere reserve nomination and periodic review forms to include clear and consistent language on open access

MAB Secretariat Directly after the 26th MAB ICC and clearance of UNESCO’s Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs.

Issuing of MAB circular letter to and feedback from all MAB National Committees on providing open access to relevant items, including all biosphere reserve nomination dossiers and periodic review reports received prior to the adoption of the open access policy

MAB Secretariat; and MAB National Committees and Focal Points

1 July 2014: MAB Secretariat sends out letters 31 December 2014: deadline for Member States to respond.

Posting on the MABnet of relevant items, including nomination dossiers and periodic review reports received from Member States prior to the adoption of the open access policy

MAB Secretariat January 2015 – January 2016 (subject to financial, technical and human resources for scanning of materials).

MAB and biosphere reserve documents, reports and multimedia items, available on the MABnet, national, regional and thematic MAB and biosphere reserves web sites, and social media outlets.

MAB Secretariat; MAB National Committees and Focal Points; Biosphere reserve Managers and Focal Points; Regional and Thematic MAB and biosphere reserve networks

Ongoing.

Updating of MAB and biosphere reserve contact lists on the MABnet and on national MAB and biosphere reserve web sites

MAB National Committees and Focal Points; Biosphere reserve Managers and Focal Points; Regional and Thematic MAB and biosphere reserve networks, in cooperation with relevant national entities.

End of December each year: Annual submission of lists to the MAB Secretariat (or as and when required due to changes).

SC-14/CONF.226/12

Paris, 9 April 2014 Original: English


International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme

Twenty-sixth Session

Jönkoping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden 10-13 June 2014

ITEM 14 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: MICHEL BATISSE AWARD FOR BIOSPHERE RESERVE

MANAGEMENT 1. Following the decision of the MAB-ICC Bureau (25-29 June 2005) on the setting up of an award scheme in memory of Mr Michel Batisse, the Secretariat sent a MAB Circular Letter (N° 4, 28 June 2013, attached) and received 7 eligible case studies by 31 October 2013. 2. In total, the Secretariat received 7 files from 7 countries. All files are meeting the criteria for consideration (criteria attached). 3. At its twentieth session held at UNESCO Headquarters from 17-20 March 2014, the members of the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves recommended Ms Ana Luisa R. Figueroa (Mexico) for the 2014 Michel Batisse Award for her case study on the San Pedro Martir Island Biosphere Reserve, which received the highest score with 84 points. 4. The Members of the Bureau of the MAB Council have endorsed the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. 5. Ms Ana Luisa R. Figueroa (Mexico), Director of Islands of the Gulf of California Flora and Fauna Protection, is therefore deemed the winner of the 2014 Michel Batisse Award for her case study on “A group of fishermen and fishing families became guardians of the San Pedro Martir Island, which is part of the Islas del Golfo de California Biosphere Reserve”. The Secretariat is making arrangements for the winner to be present at the time of 26th session of the MAB Council and to present her case study and receive her award from the Chair of the MAB Council.

Criteria for selecting the Michel Batisse Award winner

• award for achievement (completed work and demonstrated results) and not for an application for proposed future actions to be taken;

• subject/issue specific to biosphere reserves and not to 'simple traditional' protected areas;

• project focusing on biosphere reserve management issues (as in the name of the award) and not 'purely' on scientific research;

• complex project/actions integrating the three biosphere reserve functions;

• innovative approach contributing to the further development of the biosphere reserve concept;

• tangible/measurable outcomes promoting the biosphere reserve concept;

• demonstration projects/'best practice' examples;

• potential for application of the solutions and recommendations in other biosphere reserves;

• the Advisory Committee members are not eligible for applying for the award.


Original: English




10 to 13 June 2014

ITEM 15 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: MAB YOUNG SCIENTISTS AWARDS

1. The Bureau of the MAB Council will review the applications received by the MAB

Secretariat through the respective MAB National Committees and National Commissions for UNESCO, and select the six (6) winners of the 2014 MAB Young Scientists Awards funded by UNESCO.

2. The MAB Council is invited to consider endorsing the award winners as selected by the Bureau of the ICC.


Original: English


Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme

International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere Programme

Twenty-sixth session

Jönköping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden 10- 13 June 2014

Item 16 of the provisional agenda: Information on Seaflower Biosphere Reserve case

1. Following a ruling of the International Court of Justice on Monday, 19 November 2012, the maritime border between Colombia and Nicaragua was changed. This ruling affects the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve, which has been designated by UNESCO in 2000 as a site within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves following a decision by the International Coordinating Council of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme (see map attached in Fig 1).

2. Biosphere reserves are sites of excellence where new and optimal practices to conserve the environment are demonstrated and where sustainable development for people is put into practise. The Seaflower Biosphere Reserve is situated at the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, at the south-western area of the Caribbean, halfway between Colombia and Jamaica. As a marine biosphere reserve, it covers a substantial part of the Caribbean Sea, with three main islands, surrounded by coastal mangroves, swamps and highly intact and productive associated coral reef ecosystems. It is identified internationally as a major site of coral and fish diversity and is considered a biodiversity “hotspot” at the global level with very high conservation value.

3. The Director-General appealed in November 2013 to the authorities of Colombia and

Nicaragua to continue to respect the protected areas of the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve, in particular its marine areas for the long-term conservation of biological diversity. Moreover, the Director-General encouraged Colombia and Nicaragua to work together in the peaceful management of the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve and to evaluate the possibility to establish a transboundary biosphere reserve. Transboundary biosphere reserves are jointly managed by two or more countries to ensure the conservation of the environment, sustainable development and joint research on issues of relevance of the countries concerned. If the authorities of the two countries so wish, UNESCO will assist in the designation of a transboundary biosphere reserve with all stakeholders concerned.

4. The International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves considered during its last meeting held in Paris 17-20 March 2014, document SC-14/CONF.620/2 and listened to further explanations provided by the Secretariat. The Committee listened as well to experts sent by both the respective Member States, i.e. Colombia and Nicaragua.

5. Taking into account the decisions of the Judgment of the territorial and maritime dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) of 19 November 2012 and its possible implications for the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve of Colombia, the Advisory Committee recommended the

following possible actions to be taken by both Member States and the Secretariat in order to tackle this issue: Colombia: Reconsider a new zonation scheme for the Seaflower biosphere reserve

corresponding to the new territorial boundaries between Colombia and Nicaragua established by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice on 19 November 2012.

Colombia and Nicaragua: Following the appeal of the Director-General in November 2013 to the authorities of Colombia and Nicaragua to continue to respect the protected areas of the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve, in particular its marine areas for the long-term conservation of biological diversity, the Advisory Committee encouraged Colombia and Nicaragua to work together in the peaceful management of the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve.

Colombia and Nicaragua: Evaluate the possibilities to establish a transboundary biosphere reserve. Transboundary biosphere reserves are jointly managed by two or more countries to ensure the conservation of the environment, sustainable development and joint research on issues of relevance of the countries concerned. If the authorities of the two countries so wish, UNESCO can assist in the designation of a transboundary biosphere reserve with all stakeholders concerned.

MAB Secretariat: Update all information presented on the UNESCO website and submit an updated version of document SC-14/CONF.620/2 for consideration by the 26th Session of the MAB International Co-ordinating Council (ICC), to be held 10 - 13 June 2014, Jönköping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden, taking into account above-mentioned recommendations.

6. The Secretariat has already updated all information presented in the UNESCO website.

Proposed Action by the International Coordination Council

7. The Council is invited to consider the above background, the ideas expressed, directions

outlined and proposals suggested in this document and recommend possible actions for both the respective Member States, i.e. Colombia and Nicaragua, and the MAB Secretariat.

Fig. 1 Map of the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve Area