Biosphere Reserves as
‘sites of excellence’ EuroMAB 2013 Conference
Brockville, Canada
October 17, 2013 Long‐term objective for the WNBR
A network consisting entirely of
“Sites of excellence for conservation and development at the regional scale”
Some history (1)
• BRs have been designated since 1976
• Initial concept (1973/4)
– Strong emphasis on conservation and research
– No requirement to have all zones
• Revised concept (1986)
– Increased emphasis on involvement of local people
• “demonstration sites of harmonious relationships between man and the natural environment”
– Outer zone = ‘transition area’/’zone of cooperation’
Some history (2)
• 1995:
– c. 50% of BRs = national park + buffer zone
– limited involvement of stakeholders
• 1996: Seville Congress
‐> Statutory Framework
– “Sites of excellence for conservation and development at the regional scale”
• All three zones
• Management policy/plan
• Stakeholder engagement
 Periodic review process
12
20
06
20
00
20
94
19
88
19
82
19
76
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
19
Nu m b er o f BRs
Dynamics: setting up BR in EuroMAB
Number of BRs
Dynamics: setting up BRs in EuroMAB:
266 BRs and 10 TBRs
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Years
Key questions
• Why do we have a Periodic Review
process?
• How does it work?
• What have the results been?
• How could it become more effective?
Periodic Review processes
• ‘Quality control’: to ensure that sites in networks
– continue to exhibit the characteristics for which they were designated
– contribute to other goals
• sustainable development
• aims of the network
• Reporting period varies
– European Diploma: annual, field visit every 5 years
– Ramsar sites: 3 years
– World Heritage Sites: 6 years
Periodic Review of BRs (1)
Statutory Framework of the WNBR
Article 9
• the status of each biosphere reserve should be
subject to a periodic review every 10 years
1. report prepared by the concerned authority,
on the basis of the criteria of Article 4
2. forwarded to the secretariat by the State
concerned
3. considered by the Advisory Committee for
Biosphere Reserves
4. recommendation to International Coordinating Council (ICC)
Periodic Review of BRs (2)
Statutory Framework of the WNBR
Article 9
5. ICC
– Either recognises satisfactory status
– Or recommends measures to be taken
 Can notify Director-General that an area is
removed from the Network
Withdrawal
Statutory Framework of the WNBR
Article 9, paragraph 8
• Should a State wish to remove a BR under its
jurisdiction, it notifies the Secretariat
• This notification shall be transmitted to the ICC
for information
• The area will then no longer be referred to as a
BR which is part of the Network
EuroMAB: Biosphere Reserves withdrawn
Year of withdrawal Country Name of BR Approval Number of BRs
1997
2002
2007
2010
2012
2013
Norway Northeast Svalbard UK
Caerlaverock UK
Isle of Rhum
UK
St. Kilda UK
Claish Moss
Bulgaria Maritchini Ezera
Germany Bayerischer Wald UK
Taynish
Sweden
Lake Torne UK Moor House / Upper
Teesdale
UK
Loch Druidibeg
1976
1976
1976
1976
1977
1977
1981
1977
1986
1976
1
5
1976
1
1
2
1
TOTAL
11
Assessments of extent that biosphere reserves meet Statutory Framework criteria based on examination of their Periodic Reviews (287)
2%
2%
19%
28%
49%
•
•
•
•
•
2% (6 BRs) ‐ model
28% (80 BRs) ‐ meet
49% (141 BRs) ‐ partly
19% (55 BRs) ‐ not
2% (6 BRs) – not: SUGGEST WITHDRAWAL
Positive outcomes
Overall
• Compilation of information
– Better knowledge of status
• Strengthening of concept and BR identity
• A few sites withdrawn
At BRs
• Improved zonation / expansion
– Some via proposals for ‘new’ BRs
• Integration of functions
• Involvement of stakeholders
– Collective learning
Challenges
• No periodic review yet for 112 BRs
– including 9 countries with 60 BRs
• Lack of response to letters from MAB Secretariat
– October 2012 letter: 119 99 • Variable quality of reports
• Actions proposed after periodic review are often not followed up & information is not provided
– October 2012 letter: 31 32
2013 ICC: Exit strategy (1)
1. Request for submission of periodic review
2. If no response after 3 months
– reminder letter
3. If no response after 6 months
– recommendation to ICC Bureau for ‘last warning’
4. If no response after 3 more months
– Bureau recommends to ICC that site should be withdrawn from WNBR
2013 ICC: Exit strategy (2)
2a: if response is received
– MAB Secretariat puts BR on ‘pending list’, with deadline of 1 year to submit report
– Guidance/help from MAB Secretariat, UNESCO field offices, MAB regional networks
– After one year, recognition of willingness to comply with BR criteria
– Removal from ‘pending list’
2013 ICC: Exit strategy (3)
• If site not able to fully comply with criteria after 30 months: ICC decision:
– site no longer a BR which is part of the WNBR
• If report or information is provided, but criteria are not met
– Request for report by end of 2015
• If criteria are still not met
– Advisory Committee recommends withdrawal
– ICC may then decide that site is no longer a BR
Long‐term objective for the WNBR
A network consisting entirely of
“Sites of excellence for conservation and development at the regional scale”
PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT for BR
2 PARTS – SUMMARY AND MAIN REPORT
• Report should include information on: (1) involvement of stakeholders and partners
(2) significant changes in the Biosphere Reserve
over the past 10 years
– Updating on conservation function, development function,
logistic support function
– Updating on governance management and coordination
– Updating to cooperation/management policy/plan, for the next 5‐10 years
– Strategies (communication, networking, socio‐cultural aspect, using traditional local knowledge etc.), participation of different groups
PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT for BR
(3) ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
• Update on the ecosystem services provided by each ecosystem of the BR and the beneficiaries of these services
• Any changes regarding the indicators of ecosystem services used to evaluate the three functions of BR
• Update description on biodiversity involved in providing ecosystem services in the BR
• Any recent/updated ecosystem services assessment for the BR since its nomination/last report
PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT for BR
(4‐6): Trends over the past decade in
– conservation function
• changes, if any, in the main habitat types, ecosystems, species or varieties of traditional or economic importance; conservation programmes
– development function
• agriculture and forest activities, renewable resources, non‐renewable resources, manufacturing and construction, tourism and other service industries), other sectors of economy, cultural services etc. – logistic support function
• institutional structure, internal and external communication, collaboration with other WNBR sites
PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT for BR
(7) GOVERNANCE, BIOSPHERE RESERVE MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
• technical and logistic resources, framework for governance, means for conflict resolutions, management/cooperation plan
(8) CRITERIA AND PROGRESS MADE
• brief justification of the how the BR fulfills each criterion of article 4 of the Statutory Framework
(9) Supporting documents
• maps: location, zonation, vegetation/or land cover
• legal documents
PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT for TBR
2 PARTS – SUMMARY AND MAIN REPORT
Report should include information on: (1) description of the TBR (2) zonation
(3) Significant Progress and Changes in the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve During the Past Ten Years
(4) Goals I: Use Biosphere Reserves to Conserve Natural and Cultural Diversity
(5) Goal II: Utilize Biosphere Reserves as Models of Land Management and of Approaches for Sustainable Development
(6) Goal III: Use Biosphere Reserves for Research, Monitoring, Education and Training
(7) Institutional and financial Aspects of the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve
(8) Conclusion: Progress Made
(9) Supporting documents
Paras 4‐6 should reflect progress and achievements on cooperative programs
(4) to protect biodiversity at landscape and site levels and/or ecological functions that provide ecosystem goods and services in the transboundary biosphere reserve
(5) sustainability issues at the individual livelihood and community levels, including:
– economic trends in different sectors that drive the need to innovate and/or adapt
– the main adaptive strategies being implemented within the TBR
– initiatives to develop new sectors to compensate for losses in others, employment, and community well‐being over the past 10 years
Paras 4‐6 should reflect progress and achievements on cooperative programs
(6) enhance the capacity of people and organizations in the TBR to address
• conservation and development issues for sustainable development
• research, monitoring, demonstration projects and education needed to deal with the specific context and conditions of the TBR
(4‐6) Strategies (communication, networking, socio‐
cultural aspects, using traditional local knowledge etc.), participation of different groups of population
PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT for TBR
(7) INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE TRANSBOUNDARY BIOSPHERE RESERVE
‐ Update on the validity of the official agreement between the governmental authorities, regarding the TBR
‐ Coordinating structure of the TBR
‐ Financial source(s) and yearly budget of the coordinating structure of the TBR and of workplan and common programmes, shared staff respectively
‐ Cooperative activity with other TBRs
PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT for TBR
(8) Conclusion: Progress Made (lessons learnt, achievements, progress made)
(9) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
‐ Updated location and zonation map with coordinates
‐ Updated cooperation plans and common workplan(s)
‐ Updated official agreement between the governmental authorities, if appropriate