Final Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan for …Internal Oversight Service Evaluation Section...

Internal Oversight Service

Evaluation Section

IOS/EVS/

Original: English

Final Evaluation of the Madrid Action

Plan for Biosphere Reserves ---DRAFT---

Contributors: Lisa Popelier (IOS/EVS) Jos Vaessen (IOS/EVS)

May 2014

i

Abstract

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.

ii

Acknowledgements

The evaluators would like to thank all the respondents from biospheres reserves, MAB national committees and other institutions for their inputs to this evaluation. In addition, we would like to thank the Reference Group for their valuable feedback in different phases of the evaluation process. Special thanks go to all the UNESCO staff members at the MAB Secretariat in Paris and in Field Offices for their support and assistance throughout the evaluation process. In particular, our thanks go to the UNESCO staff members who as native speakers of the different official UN languages offered translation support. Finally, we would like to thank Peter Dogse, Sylvie Venter and Qunli Han of the MAB Secretariat who together with IOS made this evaluation possible.

iii

Table of contents Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... v

List of tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

List of figures .............................................................................................................................. vii

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background and rationale ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and scope ................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Methodology........................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Limitations of the evaluation .................................................................................................. 4

1.5 Challenges identified in previous studies .............................................................................. 6

2 Analysis of the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan .......................................... 12

2.1 Analysis of response rates................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Analysis of key topics of the MAP ....................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Management of biosphere reserves ...................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Partnerships and collaboration .............................................................................................. 19 2.2.3 Local community involvement and impact ............................................................................ 22 2.2.4 Alignment with conventions and multilateral agreements ..................................................... 25 2.2.5 Specific activities, themes and institutional collaboration ..................................................... 28 2.2.6 Zonation ................................................................................................................................. 35 2.2.7 Legislation ............................................................................................................................. 39 2.2.8 Information, communication and policy influence ................................................................. 41 2.2.9 MAB national committees ...................................................................................................... 44 2.2.10 Regional networks ................................................................................................................. 49 2.2.11 MAB Secretariat .................................................................................................................... 50 2.2.12 General assessment, priorities and the future ...................................................................... 53

3 Summary of findings and recommendations ................................................................. 63

3.1 Participation in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and the importance of the Biosphere Reserve designation ........................................................................................... 63

3.2 Institutionalization of the Biosphere Reserve model ........................................................... 64

3.3 The role of the MAB Secretariat .......................................................................................... 68

3.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 69

3.5 A note on the evaluability of a future strategy and action plan ........................................... 70

Annexes ....................................................................................................................................... 71

Annex 1: Stakeholders consulted within the framework of the evaluation .................................. 71

Annex 2: Documents reviewed within the framework of the evaluation ...................................... 72

Annex 3: Tentative assessment of the achievement of actions by the MAB Secretariat and tentative forward-looking prioritization exercise .................................................................. 74

Annex 4: Links between MAP actions and Figures and Tables in the evaluation report ............ 81

Annex 5: Links between Figures in the evaluation report and MAP actions ............................... 90

iv

Annex 6: Background information on the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and the Madrid Action Plan ......................................................................................................................... 100

Annex 7: Questionnaire for BR managers ................................................................................. 103

Annex 8: Questionnaire for members of MAB NCs ................................................................... 119

Annex 9: Questionnaire for regional or thematic networks ........................................................ 128

Annex 10: Self-assessment form MAB Secretariat .................................................................... 135

Annex 11: Priorities for evaluation of MAP as identified by the electronic working group ........ 140

Annex 12: Time schedule MAP Evaluation ................................................................................ 146

Annex 13: Rules for addressing multiple responses per BR/MAB national committee ............. 147

Annex 14: Graphs bi-variate analyses (Europe and North America – Other regions) .............. 148

Annex 15: Graphs bi-variate analyses (pre-Seville – post-Seville) ............................................ 151

v

Acronyms AfriMAB African Biosphere Reserve Network ArabMAB Arab Biosphere Reserve Network BR Biosphere Reserve CBD Convention on Biological Diversity EABRN East Asia Biosphere Reserve Network ESD Education for Sustainable Development EuroMAB European and North American Biosphere Reserve Network FO Field Office HQ Headquarters IberoMAB Latin American, Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Biosphere Reserve Network IBSP International Basic Sciences Programme ICC International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere Programme IGCP International Geoscience Programme IHP International Hydrological Programme IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission IOS Internal Oversight Service ISG International Support Group ISP Intergovernmental Scientific Programme IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LDC Least developed country MAB Man and the Biosphere Programme MAP Madrid Action Plan MOST Management of Social Transformations Programme MS Member State n Sample size N Population size NC (MAB) national committee NGO Non-governmental organization PA Protected Area PacMAB Pacific Man and the Biosphere Network REDBIOS East Atlantic Biosphere Reserve Network SACAM South and Central Asia MAB Network SD Sustainable development SeaBRnet Southeast Asian Biosphere Reserve Network SUMAMAD Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands TBR Transboundary Biosphere Reserve UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WNBR World Network of Biosphere Reserves

vi

WNICBR World Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves

vii

List of tables Table 1 Challenges identified in previous studies and their relevance based on the report ....... 10 Table 2 Response rate BRs and MAB NCs ................................................................................. 12 Table 3 Ranking (and ratings) of major action areas by BRs, MAB NCs and the reference group....................................................................................................................................................... 56 Table 4 Tentative assessment of achievement of MAP actions by the MAB Secretariat ........... 74 Table 5 Examples of activities undertaken by the MAB Secretariat (HQ and/or FOs) by UNESCO’s major function and level of intervention .................................................................... 78 Table 6 Tentative ratings of types of activities regarding their (relative) priority and level of achievement .................................................................................................................................. 79

List of figures Figure 1 Response rates to the BR and MAB NC survey by geographical region (nBR = 237, NBR = 621; nNC = 64, NNC = 117) .......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2 Response rates for pre- and post-Seville BRs .............................................................. 14 Figure 3 Origin management structure BR (nBR = 241) ................................................................ 15 Figure 4 Existence of a management committee or a structure including actors from all three zones of the BR (nBR = 241) .......................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5 Planning within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) ........................................................ 16 Figure 6 Principal actors involved in planning activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) .................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 7 Number of staff involved in managing the BR (nBR = 241) ............................................. 17 Figure 8 Purposes of centers established in/near BRs (nBR = 241) ............................................. 17 Figure 9 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (nBR = 241) ................................... 18 Figure 10 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (nNC = 64) ................................... 18 Figure 11 Funding sources of BRs (nBR = 241) ............................................................................ 18 Figure 12 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for BRs (nBR = 241) .................................. 19 Figure 13 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for MAB NCs (nNC = 64) ........................... 20 Figure 14 Modalities of cooperation between BRs (nBR = 241) ................................................... 20 Figure 15 Assistance of MAB NCs for transboundary BRs and other forms of transboundary cooperation (nNC = 64) .................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 16 Established partnership strategies between BRs and different institutional actors (nBR

= 241) ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 17 Involvement of local communities in the management and development of activities within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) ...................................................................................... 22 Figure 18 Principal ways in which local communities have been involved in the management and development of BR activities (“spontaneous responses”) (nBR = 241) ................................. 23 Figure 19 Local communities deriving benefits from the establishment of BRs and/or activities taking place within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) ................................................................. 24 Figure 20 Principal ways in which local communities have benefited from the establishment of BRs and/or activities within the framework of BRs (“spontaneous responses”) (nBR = 241) ....... 25 Figure 21 Activities of the BR explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (nBR = 241) ................................................................................ 26 Figure 22 Activities of the MAB NC explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (nNC = 64) ....................................................................... 26

viii

Figure 23 International Conventions to which activities conducted within the framework of BRs are linked (nBR = 241) .................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 24 Biosphere reserves with multiple designations (NBR = 621) ........................................ 27 Figure 25 Principal institutional actors that constitute the bridge between BRs and national and international policies, strategies and standard-setting instruments (nBR = 241) .......................... 28 Figure 26 Themes of activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) .................. 29 Figure 27 Themes of activities conducted within the framework of MAB NCs (nNC = 64) ........... 30 Figure 28 Research activities undertaken within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) .................. 30 Figure 29 Principal actors involved in research activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) .................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 30 Assistance of MAB NCs in mobilizing scientific and non-scientific actors within research programmes at BRs (nNC = 64) ..................................................................................... 31 Figure 31 Principal themes for research conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) ... 32 Figure 32 Education activities undertaken within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) .................. 32 Figure 33 Principal actors involved in education activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) ............................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 34 Principal themes for education activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 35 Principal themes for local development activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) ............................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 36 Activities related to fair trade BR products undertaken within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241) .................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 37 Principal actors involved in the identification, development and promotion of markets for (fair trade) goods and services deriving from BRs (nBR = 241)............................................... 35 Figure 38 Zonation of BRs (nBR = 241) ......................................................................................... 36 Figure 39 Zonation of pre- and post-Seville BRs (nBR = 237) ...................................................... 37 Figure 40 Actions undertaken to improve the zonation of the BR (nBR = 241) ............................ 38 Figure 41 Assistance of MAB NCs in BR zonation (nNC = 64) ..................................................... 38 Figure 42 Nature of assistance provided by MAB NCs to BRs on BR zonation (nNC = 64) ........ 39 Figure 43 BRs undertaken actions related to the recognition of BRs in national legislation (nBR = 241) ............................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 44 MAB NC playing a role in encouraging recognition of BRs in national legislation (nNC = 64) ................................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 45 Principal actors involved in encouraging the recognition/incorporation of BRs in national legislation, excluding MAB NCs (nBR = 241) ................................................................... 40 Figure 46 Recognition of BR zonation schemes as tools for planning (nBR = 241) ..................... 41 Figure 47 MAB NC playing a role in encouraging BR zonation schemes as tools for planning (nNC = 64) ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 48 BRs with communication strategy (nBR = 241) ............................................................. 42 Figure 49 Information and research products generated and disseminated within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241; nNC = 64) ......................................................................................................... 43 Figure 50 Influence of research conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241; nNC = 64) . 44 Figure 51 MAB NC exists in country of responding BR (nBR=241) .............................................. 45 Figure 52 Composition of MAB NCs (nNC = 64) ........................................................................... 45 Figure 53 Membership of BR managers in MAB NCs for those BRs located in countries with a MAB NC (nBR = 217) ...................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 54 MAB NC meets on a regular basis (nNC=64) ............................................................... 46 Figure 55 Frequency of MAB NC meetings (nNC=64) .................................................................. 47 Figure 56 MAB NC has a strategy or plan for assisting BRs (nNC = 64) ...................................... 48 Figure 57 Main purposes of MAB NCs (nNC = 64) ........................................................................ 48 Figure 58 BR-related monitoring and evaluation activities undertaken by MAB NCs (nNC = 64) 49

ix

Figure 59 Resource mobilization by MAB NCs from different institutional actors (nNC = 64) ...... 49 Figure 60 Extent to which BRs comply with the submission of periodic reviews (NBR = 621) ..... 52 Figure 61 Extent to which the Madrid Action Plan has been used by BRs and MAB NCs (nBR = 241; nNC = 64) ................................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 62 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to BR managers by main action area (nBR

= 241) ............................................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 63 Self-assessed progress on zonation according to BR managers stratified by pre- and post-Seville samples (nBR = 237) .................................................................................................. 55 Figure 64 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to MAB NCs by main action area (nNC = 64) ................................................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 65 MAB NCs with current proposals for new BRs (nNC = 70) ........................................... 57 Figure 66 Priorities for BRs according to BR managers (“spontaneous responses”) (nBR = 241)....................................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 67 Priorities for BRs according to the MAB NCs (“spontaneous responses”) (nNC = 64) 61 Figure 68 Priorities for MAB NCs (“spontaneous responses”) (nNC = 64) ................................... 62 Figure 69 Prioritization matrix of the MAB Secretariat's activities ............................................... 80 Figure 70 Self-assessed progress in cooperation, management and communication ............. 148 Figure 71 Self-assessed progress in zonation ........................................................................... 148 Figure 72 Self-assessed progress in science and capacity enhancement ................................ 148 Figure 73 Self-assessed progress in partnerships (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99) ........... 148 Figure 74 Prioritization cooperation, management and communication (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99) .................................................................................................................................. 149 Figure 75 Prioritization zonation ................................................................................................. 149 Figure 76 Prioritization science and capacity enhancement (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99)..................................................................................................................................................... 149 Figure 77 Prioritization partnerships ........................................................................................... 149 Figure 78 BRs with a communication strategy ........................................................................... 150 Figure 79 Involvement of local communities in the management and development of activities within the framework of BRs (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99) ............................................. 150 Figure 80 Local communities deriving benefits from the establishment of BRs and/or activities taking place within the framework of BRs (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99) ......................... 150 Figure 81 Actions undertaken to improve the zonation of the BR (nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125) ............................................................................................................................................. 151 Figure 82 Self-assessed progress in cooperation, management and communication ............. 152 Figure 83 Self-assessed progress in zonation (nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125) .................... 152 Figure 84 Self-assessed progress in science and capacity enhancement ................................ 152 Figure 85 Self-assessed progress in partnerships ..................................................................... 152 Figure 86 Prioritization cooperation, management and communication ................................... 153 Figure 87 Prioritization zonation ................................................................................................. 153 Figure 88 Prioritization science and capacity enhancement ...................................................... 153 Figure 89 Prioritization partnerships ........................................................................................... 153

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and rationale

The biosphere reserve (BR) concept was introduced by UNESCO and its Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme in 1974. At that time the programme had two primary goals: conservation and ecological research. In response to the proliferation of international policies promoting the combination of biodiversity conservation with sustainable use and benefit sharing from natural resources, the BR concept has been expanded. BRs are serving as testing grounds for innovative approaches to socially and culturally appropriate and environmentally sustainable development (SD) as highlighted in the Seville Strategy (UNESCO, 1995). In 2008, the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) was adopted in order to further elevate BRs as principal internationally designated areas and learning sites for sustainable development (UNESCO, 2008). The current mission of the MAB Programme is to maintain and develop ecological and cultural diversity while securing ecosystem services for human well-being through sound research and collaboration with a suitable range of actors, often including local communities and scientists (UNESCO, 2008). In the Rio+20 summit, BRs have been assigned a role to ‘contribute to the transition to green economies by experimenting with green development options, including sustainable tourism and training for green jobs’ (UNESCO, 2012). The World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) currently comprises 621 BRs located in 117 countries. The number of BRs has been steadily increasing as many countries seek opportunities to promote SD as a societal process and sustainability as the outcome. The MAP defines 4 main action areas, 31 target areas and 67 targeted actions. The scope of the plan is substantially broadened by the fact that it also encompasses effective implementation of the Seville Strategy, which in itself comprises a long list of action points. The institutional landscape of actors involved in the implementation of the MAP is extensive. The principal actors include the MAB Secretariat, 158 MAB national committees or focal points, 621 individual biosphere reserves, 8 regional networks and 7 thematic networks. Apart from these principal stakeholders, a range of other institutional actors from government, academic institutions, civil society and private sector can be involved in the implementation of activities within the framework of the MAP. A mid-term evaluation of the progress on the implementation of the MAP was carried out in 2010. After considering the findings of this evaluation, the MAB International Coordinating Council (ICC) decided at its 23rd session that an external evaluation on the accomplishments of the Madrid Action Plan be carried out towards the end of 2013/beginning of 2014, so that the results of the MAP can be submitted to the MAB ICC at its session in 2014. Moreover, the MAB ICC decided in its 24th and 25th sessions that: “[T]he evaluation should be considered as a strategic thinking tool to also evaluate the

Seville Strategy and to place the World Network of Biosphere Reserves into the context of the follow up to Rio+20, green economy, biodiversity conservation, combating desertification and the challenges imposed by climate change” (24th session).

“[A]n “internal”, rather than an “external” evaluation (as had been earlier decided at the 23rd session of the MAB Council) should be implemented so as to keep costs as low as possible” (24th session).

2

“MAB National Committees (and where they [do not] exist, UNESCO National Commissions or other appropriate national bodies) should take the lead role with regard to soliciting inputs from individual biosphere reserves needed for the evaluation of the MAP, supplemented by the work of relevant regional and thematic MAB networks” (24th session).

A reference group should be established for the evaluation composed of representatives of MAB Bureau members and managers of BRs (25th session).

Taking into account the above, an efficient evaluation approach is needed that is both retrospective (taking stock of progress on the MAP) and forward-looking (developing inputs to the future MAB strategy) in nature.

1.2 Purpose and scope

The purpose of the final evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan is twofold: 1) To assess overall progress on the implementation of the MAP; 2) To generate inputs for the formulation of the future strategy of the MAB Programme and the

WNBR 2014-2021. The evaluation covers the complete time span of the Madrid Action Plan (2008-2013). Due to the relatively modest resources available, it was not feasible to comprehensively cover all stakeholder groups. Consequently, it was decided that the evaluation would focus on the perspectives of biosphere reserve managers,1 representatives of MAB national committees, members of the MAB Secretariat and (to a lesser extent) members of regional and thematic networks. Key audiences of the evaluation are the MAB ICC, the MAB Bureau, and the international advisory committee for biosphere reserves. In addition, the evaluation is intended to provide some useful lessons for the work of the MAB Secretariat. Finally, in line with the evaluation’s focus, the findings and recommendations of the evaluation will also be of interest to members of the MAB national committees and biosphere reserve managers. Finally, it is expected that the current evaluation will feed into an external evaluation of the MAB Programme which is expected to be conducted in the near future.

1.3 Methodology

The evaluation was conducted by IOS in close collaboration with the MAB Secretariat. Given the fact that the evaluation was conducted internally, no formal ToR were elaborated. Instead, a concept note was developed and different presentations were given on the approach and methodology adopted for this evaluation. A timeframe which displays the different stages of this evaluation can be found in Annex 12. The data collected throughout the evaluation process have been triangulated as much as possible. The key building blocks of the evaluation are the following: Desk study to review the main challenges that have been identified in previous studies; An online survey targeting BR managers (see Annex 7), MAB national committees (see

Annex 8) and regional and thematic networks2 (see Annex 9);

1 The term BR manager will be used throughout the report to refer to managers, coordinators, focal points and other denominations used for representatives of individual BRs. 2 Given the small sample size, the data collected from respondents from this group will only be reported in qualitative terms.

3

Succinct self-assessment exercise by the MAB Secretariat3 (see Annex 10); Face to face conversations with the members of the MAB Secretariat. The survey constituted the main data source for the evaluation. As part of the survey process the following activities were undertaken: Development of questionnaires; Updating contact information from different respondent groups, through:

Compilation of information from different sources (i.e. online directory of the WNBR, recent publications, participation list from recent meetings, websites etc.)

Request sent to UNESCO’s National Commissions to provide updated contact information of MAB national committees;

Request sent to MAB national committees to provide updated contact information of the BRs in their country;

Follow-up actions in case of delivery failure messages; Translation of the survey into all six official United Nations languages; Dissemination of the survey through an online platform (via email); Making available soft copies of the survey (PDF and Word) where needed; Dissemination of information about the survey through regional/national networks of BRs; Dissemination of information about the survey through the UNESCO website; Several reminder e-mails; Extended response period amounting to a total of two months.4 The development of the questionnaires and other data collection instruments proved to be rather challenging due to the nature of the MAP. Several elements constrained the evaluability of the MAP (see 1.4.1.). The most important actions undertaken to deal with this issue were the following: Prioritization of the issues to be covered. An electronic working group constituted by

members of the MAB Bureau, MAB national committees and BR managers was set up to conduct a ranking exercise to prioritize the issues of the MAP to be covered by the evaluation (see Annex 10). This electronic working group later became the Reference Group of the evaluation. The prioritization of actions was not strictly followed during the data gathering process. During the process of developing the methodology it became clear that all actions could be covered by the evaluation (hence not making it necessary to prioritize actions in the evaluation), through a process of re-clustering some of the actions and targets.

Regrouping of the actions of the MAP. A concept mapping exercise was carried out to regroup the actions included in the MAP. 5 This was deemed necessary as several actions in the MAP show overlaps and others combine different elements within the same action. The structure that resulted from the concept mapping exercise provided the basis for the survey development. The table in Annex 4 demonstrates how all actions of the MAP have been covered by the present report, while Annex 5 illustrates how the figures incorporated in the report are linked to the MAP. The tables show that essentially all actions are covered by the

3 Given the small sample size, the data collected from these forms will only be reported upon through narratives. 4 The official response period for the survey was from December 9, 2013 until January 31, 2014. The survey remained accessible for another four weeks after the official deadline. 5 The actions were regrouped in the following overarching categories: cooperation/partnerships (including local participation, UNESCO partnerships, business partnerships, partnerships among BRs, and national and international funding), BR management (including monitoring and evaluation, and functions and themes), communication (including information and communication and incentive creation), zonation, science and capacity enhancement (including capacity enhancement at different level, and science-policy interaction).

4

evaluation. However, due to the fact that some actions can be subject to multiple interpretations, certain choices were made on the interpretation and incorporation of particular actions into the questionnaires.

Triangulation of the data. Targeting surveys to different stakeholders allowed for the triangulation of the obtained data and assessment of the consistency and robustness of the findings.

Recasting action statements into measurable variables. The evaluation has not systematically covered all success indicators included in the MAP due to evaluability issues. Rather, the focus was on recasting action statements into measurable variables.

1.4 Limitations of the evaluation

1.4.1 Evaluability of the Madrid 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 factors in fact significantly reduced the evaluability of the MAP: The broad scope of the MAP. The MAP covers a large number of actions and actors to be

tracked. There are significant resource implications for a comprehensive monitoring (and evaluation) exercise. Resources for monitoring and evaluation were modest in comparison to the scope and corresponding data requirements of the MAP.

The lack of clarity in formulation of particular elements of the MAP. There is a lack of clarity and consistency across the MAP that manifests itself in three dimensions, namely (1) the formulation of the actions6 (see for example Action 16.3), (2) the definition and designation of roles and responsibilities, and (3) the consistency between the action and the success indicator.

The lack of an intervention logic as a basis for the action plan. An intervention logic specifies 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. It reflects priorities and hierarchies in activities and constitutes the basis for the definition of output and outcome indicators. It presents an overall easy to understand picture of how different (groups of) activities fit together and under what assumptions they are expected to lead to change. The lack of an intervention logic is likely to result in constraints as described under the previous two bullet points.

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. A note on the evaluability of a future strategy and action plan is provided in section 3.5.

6 Some of the actions included in the MAP are formulated in an ambiguous manner and/or overlap with other actions.

5

1.4.2 Scope versus depth On several variables, the survey has yielded very rich qualitative data. Due to the scope of the evaluation and the aim to present findings that concern the entire WNBR, “spontaneous responses” were grouped into categories. Given the time and resource constraints of the evaluation, no further analyses were conducted on the rich qualitative information provided by survey respondents. 1.4.3 Response rate Previous surveys7 in the global network of biosphere reserves have generally resulted in a considerably low response rate. It is important to keep in mind that non-response is not random. Responding to the survey can be considered as a proxy for the importance that is attached by the respondent to the MAB Programme and its WNBR. In addition, it provides an indication of the perception that respondents have about the importance of the BR designation and the role of UNESCO. As a consequence, it is very probable that the BRs that have been reached are those that are the most active and the most connected to the WNBR, e.g. through their MAB national committee or through a regional network of BRs. The actions that were undertaken to anticipate potentially low response rates are listed in the methodology section (see 1.3). 1.4.4 Comparison with the mid-term evaluation It was not possible to compare the findings with those from the mid-term evaluation because of the following reasons: Differences in the formulation of the survey questions. The mid-term evaluation used literal

statements from the MAP despite the fact several action statements contain multiple components and/or may be susceptible to differences in interpretation.

Differences in the actions covered. The mid-term evaluation only reports on the targets and actions with deadlines for 2010 or earlier.

Differences in the type of responses. The mid-term evaluation allowed for considerable flexibility and consequently diversity in the level of quantitative and qualitative information provided by respondents.

Differences in respondent groups. In the mid-term evaluation it was less clear who filled out the questionnaire (e.g. representative from MAB national committee, BR manager, representative from UNESCO National Commission), from what perspective.

There was a high percentage of incomplete responses in the mid-term evaluation; Differences in response samples; Comparing two non-random minority (less than half of the

population) samples is not without problems (unknown margin of error). 1.4.5 Attribution and impact claims In general, it has proven to be a challenge to determine whether BRs have been effective for learning about and advancing conservation and sustainable development (Reed and Egunyu, 2013; UNESCO, 2010). This evaluation presents a (mostly) descriptive analysis of a number of variables that reflect the content of the MAP. However, the current state of a particular aspect relating to the MAP (e.g. percentage of BRs with a partnership strategy) or changes in aspects relating to the MAP (e.g. progress in zonation) should not and cannot be simply attributed to the existence of the MAP. There are many variables that affect processes of change in the context

7 Amongst others: Mid-term evaluation of the MAP (2010), Assessment of the Seville Strategy (2008-2009).

6

of BRs. For multiple reasons (limitations in resources and data) this evaluation has not been able to address this attribution challenge. Hence, assessing the impact of activities within the framework of the MAP is clearly beyond the mandate of this evaluation. 1.4.6 Coverage of relevant stakeholder groups This evaluation focused on a limited number of key stakeholder groups, excluding several others due to time and budget constraints. Informants that have not been solicited to provide input into the evaluation include amongst others the National Commissions for UNESCO (only indirectly via MAB national committees), civil society organizations, public and private sector organizations and the research community. In addition, a few countries which for diverse reasons have not participated in the MAP process were excluded from the sampling population. 1.4.7 Multiple responses for the same “case” There were several cases of multiple responses per BR (44) or MAB national committee (8). Rules (see Annex 11) were defined to either select a reference response (in case of BRs) or to consolidate the different responses into a single response. These cases as well as other cases that could be considered as less reliable were then labeled as “conflict” cases. The qualitative information provided by different respondents was retained so as not to lose the information. 1.4.7 Incomplete responses Some incomplete survey responses were received. Additionally, a few respondents filled out questionnaires which were not targeted to their stakeholder group.

1.5 Challenges identified in previous studies

This section summarizes the challenges that have been encountered at different levels within the WNBR based on existing studies. More particularly, many of the challenges mentioned below have been identified through a survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy which has been conducted in 2008-2009 (as a requirement of the MAP).8 Ensuring capacities and resources for the effective management of the BR. Limitations in

budget, equipment and staff available for BR management was mentioned by the respondents to the questionnaires on the assessment of the Seville Strategy as one of the main obstacles to the implementation of the Seville Strategy (SC-09/CONF.206/5 Rev). This assessment also revealed substantial disparity in available staff and technical and scientific expertise (SC-09/CONF.207/5). Other studies have also demonstrated that BRs have encountered difficulties with respect to the management of the transition zone, the establishment of dedicated authorities for BRs and the creation of a framework for cooperation among stakeholders (Elbakidze et al., 2013).

Safeguarding the financial sustainability of different institutional actors in the WNBR. The

availability of financial resources is often limited. As a consequence, concerns have been expressed regarding the financial sustainability, especially regional and thematic networks (SC-12/CONF.224/15). The establishment of partnerships and the mobilization of human and financial resources from the private sector require more attention. Additionally, financial sustainability also entails better estimates of the costs and funding requirements for the

8 SC-09/CONF.206/5 Rev and SC-09/CONF.207/5.

7

implementation of strategies and action plans. Such estimates have, for instance, not been undertaken with respect to the implementation of the MAP (SC-10/CONF.201/3).

Ensuring a multi-stakeholder, participatory approach to management and planning within the

framework of the BR. The inclusion of all relevant governmental and non-governmental interest groups in the planning, management and implementation of activities conducted within the framework of the BR is also one of the challenges (Canadian Commission, 2013; UNESCO, 2010). Few guidelines exist on multi-stakeholder management (UNESCO, 2010) and concerns have been raised about the compromised well-being and respect for the rights and responsibilities of rural and indigenous populations (Reed and Egunyu, 2013). A progress report from the IberoMAB network has revealed that many countries have legislation on multi-stakeholder management structures, but this legislation often refers to specific zones within the BR instead of considering the entire BR territory (SC-11/CONF.202/5).

Reconciling the three functions of the BR, especially conservation and (economic)

development. The implementation of the expanded mandate of biosphere reserves which now includes conservation, logistical support for knowledge generation and sustainable development has proven to be challenging (Coetzer et al., 2013). The assessment of the Seville Strategy demonstrated that many BRs have continued to focus on the core area and the conservation objective (SC-09/CONF.206/5). Moreover, sustainable development aspects seem to emphasize eco-tourism and sustainable natural resource use while it is questionable whether these economic activities will provide enough economic impetus to effectively protect core conservation areas in BRs. Poverty alleviation and rural development should therefore be better incorporated into the management of the BR (UNESCO, 2010).

Ensuring compliance with the updated criteria of the Statutory Framework, particularly

regarding zonation in “pre-Seville” sites. The assessment of the implementation of the Seville Strategy has revealed that the majority of the responding countries request the MAB Secretariat to provide operational guidelines for better implementation of the criteria and provide national supervision of the implementation process (SC-09/CONF.207/5; SC-09/CONF.206/5). BRs and especially those created before the Seville Strategy struggle to meet the zoning requirements (SC-11/CONF.202/5). During the World Congress of BRs held in 2008, it was revealed that only 23% of the sites designated from 1976 to 1984 had the required zonation scheme, while that was 65% for the sites designated from 1985 to 1994 (Price et al., 2010). The delay in the zonation adjustments can be explained by the bottom-up approach, the consensus-building processes and the zonation design in itself which all imply long-term processes (SC-12/CONF.224). Several BRs have already (voluntarily) withdrawn from the WNBR as a consequence of their inability to fulfill the criteria of the Statutory Framework. Reasons for the withdrawal might, for instance, be the lack of a resident human population or the unavailability of financial resources for the management and periodic review processes (Price et al., 2010; SC-11/CONF.202/5).

Monitoring and assessing the performance of BRs. Difficulties have been encountered in

assessing the performance of individual BRs, because of the lack of basic information on BR management and the limited efforts to consistently monitor performance (UNESCO, 2010). Additionally, the assessment of the Seville Strategy revealed that there is a large disparity in the use of indicators and the types of indicators that are used for monitoring and assessing the performance of BRs (SC-09/CONF.207/5). The periodic reviews cover a ten-year period and are therefore insufficient to effectively monitor changes and track progress.

8

A lack of understanding of the purpose and the benefits9 of conducting periodic reviews

might partly explain why some BRs have never submitted a periodic review (Price et al., 2010). Consequently, Member States have continued to call for the development of a monitoring and evaluation system in order to systematically measure management effectiveness and improve information availability (SC-12/CONF.224).

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

Discrepancies between the goals of BRs and national legislative frameworks on conservation and sustainable development hamper the effective implementation of the BR concept and enforcement of management decisions (SC-09/CONF.206/5), and prevent BRs from getting recognized nationally and/or internationally. This challenge requires differentiated, adapted, binding and non-binding policy responses informed by best practices (Elbakidze et al., 2013; UNESCO, 2010). However, the legal status of BRs is a challenge with a global dimension given the fact that the BR concept is not included in the categories of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). According to the latter’s categorization scheme, BRs fit best within the Category VI, i.e. “protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources”. This approach is less than optimal because it defines each category according to its principal management objective. It does not do justice to de facto all integrated approaches such as the BR concept which assigns three mutually reinforcing and equally important functions to the designated area, namely conservation, development and knowledge generation. In sum, the way in which IUCN categorizes BRs has been regarded as an impediment to the inclusion of BR issues in national legislation (SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4).

Ensuring government support to and endorsement of the BR model. Respondents to the

survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy have mentioned the lack of government support and commitment towards the WNBR as a major obstacle (SC-09/CONF.206/5). The ineffectiveness of national institutions to express their commitment to the MAB Programme and the WNBR may also explain why some countries have never submitted periodic review reports (Price et al., 2010). The development of best practices, economic valuations of ecosystem services and other policy-relevant publications that demonstrate the successfulness of the MAB Programme are needed to gain the support of policy makers (SC-09/CONF.206/5).

Ensuring collaboration and information sharing between BRs and other actors within the

WNBR. Respondents to the survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy have called for enhanced networking within the MAB Programme and within the WNBR. There is a demand for better and more (direct) communication, especially between headquarters and individual BRs (SC-09/CONF.207/5). In addition, there is need for better and more sharing of information and knowledge within the network. A majority of the respondents (62%) of the survey on the Seville Strategy, for instance, expressed their interest in sharing their periodic review process and reports with other BRs (SC-09/CONF.206/5). Studies have also shown that systematic documentation and analysis of reporting processes and their implementation remains rather limited (Price et al., 2010). As a consequence, the establishment of a clearing house for the MAB Programme is considered as essential to increase the flow of shared information (SC-09/CONF.207/5; SC-11/CONF.207/5). The lack of a full-time

9 The primary purpose of the periodic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of BR organizations in achieving the objectives related to their three functions (Reed and Egunyu, 2013). However, the periodic review has often been perceived simply as a hurdle to overcome rather than as an opportunity for assessment, reflection and strategic planning (Price et al., 2010).

9

dedicated staff and earmarked financial resources are reported as constraints when pursuing the establishment of an integrated information and communication strategy (SC-10/CONF.201/3).

Enhancing the awareness and understanding of the BR concept. The lack of clear branding

of BRs manifests itself in a significant lack of understanding about what BRs are and are not meant to do (UNESCO, 2010). Consequently, it might constitute on obstacle to the implementation of action plans and strategies (SC-09/CONF.206/5 Rev.). Insufficient information, communication and monitoring and evaluation are likely to constitute the root cause of this challenge (UNESCO, 2010). It must be acknowledged that the interdisciplinary and multifaceted approach of the MAB is a source of its strength, but has also proven to be a major difficulty when it comes to promotion and marketing (Nolte, 2005).

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

and conventions. The issue of strengthening the alignment and cooperation with international conventions (e.g. UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD),10 international initiatives (UN Forest Forum), events (e.g. World Parks Congress) and other programmes related to biodiversity conservation has been on the agenda for some time and continues to be a challenge (SC-12/CONF.224; SC-11/CONF.223).

Strengthening the collaboration with other UNESCO programmes. The survey on the

assessment of the Seville Strategy also revealed that respondents consider the lack of coordination between different UNESCO Sectors as an impediment to the implementation of the Seville Strategy (SC-09/CONF.206/5). There have been several calls for more collaboration with other UNESCO Programmes (e.g. MOST, ESD, IHP). In 2012, for instance, some delegates noted during the MAB-ICC that the current institutional structure for administering the MAB Programme and its WNBR might need to be reviewed in order to fully exploit the transdisciplinary and intersectoral contributions made towards sustainable development (learning).

Using the BR model as a conflict resolution mechanism. Through the assessment of the

Seville Strategy it became clear that conflict resolution mechanisms were not fully set in place yet (SC-09/CONF.206/5). This observation has been confirmed by a selection of case studies about good practices conducted by the German Commission for UNESCO which also argued that surprisingly few BRs tackle conflict situations in which nature conservation and climate change mitigation or adaptation seem to generate contradictory guidance (German Commission for UNESCO, 2011).

Addressing the potential tension between BRs as “sites of excellence” and “sites of

learning”. The dual role of BRs as “sites of excellence” and “sites of learning” may trigger an inherent tension as the former brings expectations of success while the latter implies experimentation and reflection on both successes and failures (Schultz and Lundholm, 2010; Ishwaran et al. 2008). Consequently, in case of the former practitioners may become more reluctant to critically reflect and report on failed management strategies and/or governing arrangements (Reed and Egunyu, 2013).

Strengthening the role of BRs in climate change research and policy debates. The topic of

climate change (adaptation and mitigation) is not receiving sufficient attention and projects

10 In those BRs where there is overlap between a biosphere and a natural (or cultural) World Heritage site, there is evidently a clear alignment with UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage convention (see section 2.2.4).

10

related to climate change are insufficiently incorporated into BR management plans (UNESCO, 2010). The capacities of BRs to develop activities related to climate change are limited and BR managers are often not aware of linkages BR-related activities and national climate change policy. Additionally, the extent to which the BRs participate in knowledge exchange about climate change is still not satisfactory (German Commission for UNESCO, 2011).

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

IberoMAB mid-term evaluation of the MAP indicated that several countries of the network have carried out a number of training activities, but very few have established an official training programme (SC-11/CONF.202/5).

The challenges described above are summarized in Table 1 below. Comparing these challenges with the findings of the present evaluation (see section 2.2) one can conclude that most of the challenges identified in previous studies are still highly relevant for the WNBR at the time of writing of this report.

Table 1 Challenges identified in previous studies 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

11

12 Strengthening the collaboration with other UNESCO programmes

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

12

2 Analysis of the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan

2.1 Analysis of response rates

In this section we discuss the response to the surveys (mainly the BR and MAC national committee surveys), which constitutes the foundation for the interpretation and analysis of survey findings. The table below shows a response rate of 39 % (n = 241) among biosphere reserves.11 At the country level, a total of 70 countries responded. However, six of these countries do not (yet) have biosphere reserves. Given the fact that the focus of this evaluation is (mostly) on the BR level, it was considered to be more realistic to use the sample of 64 countries with BRs as the primary reference sample for MAB national committees or national focal points. Accordingly, the response rate for MAB national committees was 55% (n = 64). Table 2 Response rate BRs and MAB NCs

Biosphere reserves*

MAB national committees**

MAB national committees countries with BRs***

All cases 241

(39%) 70

(45%) 64

(55%) * 621 Biosphere reserves ** 157 MAB national committees or national focal points *** 117 MAB national committees or national focal points in countries with biosphere reserves The response rate among MAB NCs can be considered as quite satisfactory. No major biases in response were found. The situation is different for the BR sample. The response rate as such can be considered satisfactory. However, some elements require particular attention.

As explained in the section on the limitations of the evaluation, non-response is not random (i.e. the group of non-respondents in many aspects is not similar to the group of respondents). Thus, this bias may result in an overestimation of the progress made in implementing the MAP.

One could argue for using a smaller reference population than the currently used total of 621 BRs. In particular, this would mean excluding most of the very recent BRs which did not yet have an opportunity to fully engage with the MAP, and other BRs which did not participate in the discussions on the MAP (e.g. USA). However, using such a reference population would also require excluding some of the BRs that have responded to the survey. Since the development of the MAP in 2008, 90 new BRs have received their designation, of which 37 have responded to the survey.

Given the overall response rate of 39% and taking into account all the efforts undertaken to boost response rates during a two-month response period (see section 1.3) as well as the observed deficiencies in the current contact information available at the Secretariat, it can be concluded that a significant number of non-responding BRs are not well-connected to the work that takes place within the framework of the WNBR and the MAB Programme. In addition, it is very likely that for a significant proportion of BRs of the network, the BR designation is not that important and/or there may not be a lot of activity that relates to the concept of a BR within the designated area.

11 For four of these responding BRs, the name could not be traced. Consequently, they could not be included in any of the bi-variate analyses (e.g. pre- versus post-Seville) or regional analyses.

13

The regional biases in response rates, as illustrated in Figure 1, seem to suggest that the BR designation and UNESCO’s work within the framework of the WNBR are more effective and relevant in some regions than in other. The response rates for the two surveys in the Arab States are considerably lower than the average response rates. In addition, the biosphere reserves located in Asia and the Pacific are also relatively underrepresented.

Figure 1 Response rates to the BR and MAB NC survey by geographical region (nBR = 237, NBR = 621;

nNC = 64, NNC = 117)

42%

19% 21%

48%

34%

61%

36%

48%

65%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Africa Arab States Asia and thePacific

Europe andNorth America

Latin Americaand the

Caribbean

Biosphere reserves MAB national committees

Note 1: For the BR survey, information on this variable was not available for 4 cases. Note 2: Africa (NBR = 64; NNC = 28), Arab States (NBR = 27; NNC = 11), Asia and the Pacific (NBR = 124; NNC = 23), Europe and North America (NBR = 289; NNC = 34), Latin America and the Caribbean (NBR = 117; NNC = 21) The response rates from pre- and post-Seville BRs are displayed in Figure 2. It can be observed that the response rate among BRs receiving their designation up until 1995 is slightly lower (35%) than amongst sites designated after 1995 (41%).

14

Figure 2 Response rates for pre- and post-Seville BRs

35%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Pre-Seville (incl.1995)

Post-Seville

Note 1: For the BR survey, information on this variable was not available for 4 cases. Note 2: pre-Seville (nPRE = 112, NPRE = 316), post-Seville (nPOST = 125, NPOST = 305)

2.2 Analysis of key topics of the MAP

In the first part of this section key topics of the MAP at the level of the biosphere reserve will be discussed. Most of the underlying information stems from the BR survey, sometimes complemented by the MAB national committee survey and/or other sources. Subsequently, we will discuss the roles, activities and results relevant to the MAP at the levels of the MAB national committees, the regional (and to a limited extent thematic) networks and the MAB Secretariat.

2.2.1 Management of biosphere reserves

In a majority of the BRs (56%) the management structure has been based on an existing management structure (see Figure 3). Based on the qualitative information provided by several respondents, it can be understood that the management structures of the protected areas which are comprised within the BR have often served or still serve as the basis for the BR management.

15

Figure 3 Origin management structure BR (nBR = 241)

56%31%

10%2%

Coincides with/is based upon analready existing management structureSpecifically set up for managing the BR

Other

No answer

As illustrated in Figure 4 and in line with action 10.2 from the MAP, a large majority of the responding BRs (70%) have defined an integrated management structure or committee including actors that are active in all three zones of the reserve. A significant proportion (27%) does not have such a structure which makes it less likely that a BR will fulfill its three core functions.

Figure 4 Existence of a management committee or a structure including actors from all three zones of the

BR (nBR = 241)

27%

70%

1% 2%

Yes No Do not know No answer

16

The survey results displayed in Figure 5 indicate that the majority of the BRs have developed joint strategies and/or action plans (72%).12 A similar number of BRs (69%) have engaged in the participatory planning of projects and activities, for instance within the framework of Local Agenda 21. Furthermore, 58% of the BRs have developed a research agenda which is linked to the management and zonation of the BR.

Figure 5 Planning within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

69%

58%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Participatory planning of projects and activities

Production of a research agenda linked to thedevelopment and implementation of the

management plan and zoning

Development of joint strategies and action plans

The principal actors involved in the three previously mentioned planning activities are the public sector, academic and research institutions and civil society organizations (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 Principal actors involved in planning activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

80%

75%

71%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Public sector

Academic and researchinstitutions

Civil society

Figure 7 reveals that more than half of the responding BRs (54%) are managed by a team of maximum five people. A considerable number of these biosphere reserves (16%) even have nobody assigned to manage the reserve. The limited staff involved in BR management is an indication of the restricted capacity of some BRs to implement the MAP.

12 These refer to action plans/strategies that were developed in close consultation with different stakeholder groups (local communities, local government, etc.).

17

Figure 7 Number of staff involved in managing the BR (nBR = 241)

16%

38%

44%

2%

None One to five

More than five No answer

BR managers have indicated that centers, especially those dedicated to the management of the reserve, are very common in or nearby biosphere reserves (see Figure 8). Most of these centers fulfill multiple purposes.

Figure 8 Purposes of centers established in/near BRs (nBR = 241)

88%

80%76%

70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Management Information Tourism Research

Moreover, training and capacity building activities targeted at the BR management staff (described under actions 17.1 and 17.2) have been organized and/or supported by 66% of the BRs and 64% of the MAB national committees.

18

Figure 9 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (nBR = 241)

66%

30%

2% 2%


Figure 10 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (nNC = 64)

64%

19%

6%

11%


Finally, Figure 11 below displays the main funding sources for the BR and its management. 80% of the responding BRs received funding from either national or local governments. Relatively few biosphere reserves are currently obtaining funds through payments for ecosystem services’ projects (12%) or through sales from biosphere reserve products (17%). In addition, a considerable amount of respondents have spontaneously mentioned that the funding received from these actors is (too) often project-based.

Figure 11 Funding sources of BRs (nBR = 241)

67%

46%

26%

36%

17%

37%

12%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

National government

Local government

Private sector

International organizations

Sales from biosphere reserve products

Tourism

Payment for ecosystem services projects

(Other) voluntary contributions directly transferredto the biosphere reserve management

19

2.2.2 Partnerships and collaboration

In this section, the connectivity of the different actors within the WNBR as well as the partnerships with other relevant stakeholders will be discussed. In the MAP these elements are mainly addressed through the first main action area, i.e. Cooperation, management and communication and the fourth action area, i.e. Partnerships. Figure 12 illustrates that BRs mainly cooperate with other BRs (83%) and with the MAB national committees (80%). There is limited direct collaboration between the MAB Secretariat and individual BRs (26%), which is logical given the high number of BRs. Additionally, 59% of the responding BRs collaborate within regional or thematic networks. This is likely to be an overestimation, given the fact that regional networks have been supporting the distribution of the survey. In line with the geographical distribution of the respondents, the most cited regional networks were EuroMAB (58 BRs) and IberoMAB (34 BRs). Furthermore, very few BRs seem to collaborate with UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (e.g. IHP, IOC, IGCP, MOST, IBSP). The limited collaboration with other UNESCO Programmes has also been raised as a challenge by several delegations during the 10th International Support Group meeting.

Figure 12 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for BRs (nBR = 241)

83%

80%

59%

26%

26%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Managers of other biosphere reserves

MAB national committees

MAB regional or thematic networks

MAB Secretariat

UNESCO field offices

UNESCO Intergovernmental ScientificProgrammes

Figure 13 shows that almost all responding MAB national committees cooperate with BRs (88%). Among MAB national committees, the percentage of direct collaboration with the MAB Secretariat is much higher (81%) than among BRs. This is logical given the function of MAB national committees (and regional networks) as intermediaries and information channels between the Secretariat and individual BRs. However, there is still a significant proportion of MAB NCs which are not directly in contact with the Secretariat. The level of cooperation between MAB national committees and UNESCO’s ISPs is rather limited (34%).

20

Figure 13 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for MAB NCs (nNC = 64)

88%

66%

81%

61%

34%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Biosphere reserve managers


MAB Secretariat


UNESCO Intergovernmental ScientificProgrammes

With respect to the cooperation between different BRs, survey results indicate that study tours or site visits are the main modality of cooperation (see Figure 14). Additionally, around one third of the BRs is involved in twinning programmes between BRs and only 8% is engaged in South-(North)-South cooperation activities.13

Figure 14 Modalities of cooperation between BRs (nBR = 241)

78%

32%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Study tours or site visits with differentstakeholder groups

Twinning programmes

Engagement in South-South cooperation ortriangular South-North-South cooperation

The principal actors involved in the previously mentioned types of cooperation between BRs are civil society organizations (63%), academic and research institutions (62%) and public sector (61%). Paradoxically, (other) BRs are not among the three most frequently mentioned actors involved in these activities. This demonstrates the role and importance of establishing partnerships with relevant stakeholders that provide support in organizing activities that fuel cooperation between BRs.

13 This low percentage can in part be attributed to language and interpretation issues. In fact, study tours and site visits is a form of South-South collaboration (if taking place in the ‘South’). For multiple reasons the term ‘South-(North)-South’ cooperation is subject to divergent interpretations.

21

Regarding transboundary cooperation, around half of the MAB national committees have provided support for transboundary BRs and other forms of transboundary cooperation (Figure 15). Moreover, since 2008 four areas14 have been designated as Transboundary Biosphere Reserves (TBR) of which three are located in Europe and one in Latin America. Figure 15 Assistance of MAB NCs for transboundary BRs and other forms of transboundary cooperation

(nNC = 64)

52%

30%

6%

13%


The extent to which BR managers have established collaboration plans or strategies on how to collaborate or develop partnerships with different stakeholders is shown in Figure 16. Many BR managers mentioned that they have some type of strategy or plan regarding collaboration with academic and research institutions (72%), civil society organizations (68%), and public sector organizations (68%). Only half of the respondents (49%) indicated that their BR has systematically partnered with the private sector. Furthermore, only 27% of the BRs have a collaboration plan or partnership strategy targeted at international organizations and even fewer BRs (10%) have such a plan or strategy for UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes.

14 Geres-Xures (2009), Trifinio Fraternidad (2011), West Polesie (2012), Mura Drava Danube (2012).

22

Figure 16 Established partnership strategies between BRs and different institutional actors (nBR = 241)

27%

68%

49%

68%

72%

62%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Civil society

Private sector organizations

Public sector organizations

Academic and research institutions

Other biosphere reserves

UNESCO’s intergovernmental ScientificProgrammes

2.2.3 Local community involvement and impact

The vision statement for the WNBR is to foster harmonious integration of people and nature for sustainable development (UNESCO, 2008). The objective of adopting a participatory approach has been translated into different targets (e.g. target 10 and 26). As illustrated in the pie chart below (Figure 17), local communities are in some way involved in the activities undertaken within the framework of BRs in the vast majority of BRs (83%). Figure 17 Involvement of local communities in the management and development of activities within the

framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

83%

10%

4%4%


23

Qualitative data provided by BR managers as part of an open-ended question allowed us to identify four principal types of community involvement (see Figure 18): Involvement in the implementation and development of projects and activities (46%). Local

communities are particularly active in activities related to the conservation and protection of the reserve (e.g. surveillance, clean-up and reforestation activities). Additionally, they also assist and participate in sensitization activities. Finally, local communities also participate in (livelihood generating) activities related to tourism, agriculture and crafts, research and (ecological) monitoring.

Involvement through direct or indirect representation in the governing and/or management body of the BR (42%). There appears to be a high level of heterogeneity in the institutional set up of biosphere reserves15, but in many cases local people are permanently included as members of the management body. Several BRs have also established separate “participation councils” where local inhabitants can express their ideas and opinions on the BR management.

Involvement through consultation processes for particular decisions (32%). Consultation mainly takes place through thematic workshops and through forums held to discuss particular decisions, such as the adoption of the management plan or the approval of investments.

Involvement in capacity-building and educational activities (12%).

Figure 18 Principal ways in which local communities have been involved in the management and development of BR activities (“spontaneous responses”) (nBR = 241)

4%

12%

32%

42%46%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Participation in theimplementation of

projects andactivities

Representation ingoverning andmanagement

bodies/councils

Consultationprocesses

Participation incapacity buildingand educational

activities (asbeneficiaries)

Other

Note: Information stems from open-ended questions which were categorized ex post.

15 Different types (or names for) institutional structures at the level of the BR: advisory committees, BR board, BR management committee, Advisory board, General Assemblee, coordinating committee, governing council etc.

24

Figure 19 illustrates that in 70% of the BRs local communities have reportedly derived benefits from the establishment of the BR. Nevertheless, this percentage has to be handled with caution, as one respondent rightly noted that this question should have been vetted by the local communities to be (more) accurate.16

Figure 19 Local communities deriving benefits from the establishment of BRs and/or activities taking place within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

70%

13%

13%

4%


BR managers which indicated that local communities derived benefits from their BR were provided with the opportunity to elaborate on this. The responses to the open-ended question on the nature of benefits could be categorized into four main categories (see Figure 20): Benefits derived from sustainable (economic) development activities (46%). The most stated

benefit relates to the development of income-generating activities, especially in the (eco-) tourism sector. As a result of the designation as a BR, in many cases there has been a growth in tourism and related activities, resulting in an increase in the number of employment opportunities, especially for women. Additionally, the designation also created direct employment opportunities related to surveillance, management, maintenance and (ecological) monitoring. Furthermore, the designation is also deemed to have added value to local products and services. Labels and certificates that indicate the origin of these products and services (or relate to some type of environmental certification) are regularly mentioned as instruments to benefit from BR designation status.

Benefits derived from sustainable resource use and conservation of biodiversity (29%). According to several respondents, the conservation of the biodiversity and the beautiful environment is a benefit in and by itself for the local community. Adequate management, governance and conflict resolution mechanisms are mentioned as tools that have helped the local population to maintain sustainable practices regarding the use of the resources provided by the biosphere reserve.

Benefits derived from capacity development and awareness raising activities (28%). The provision of environmental education and training to develop capacities that can be useful in productive activities are identified as being important. Moreover, many managers claim that community involvement in the management and decision-making processes has

16 A second constraint for inference (which applies to all variables) is the non-random response to the survey.

25

empowered the local population and increased its capacity to organize. Additionally, some managers believe that the local population has been successfully sensitized about its role within the biosphere reserve which has fostered civic pride and a sense of belonging.

Benefits through enhanced resource mobilization to the benefit of local communities (26%). BR managers mentioned that the promotion and education efforts have led to an increased recognition and perceived attractiveness of the reserve which has led to enhanced mobilization of financial resources (e.g. subsidies from government). In addition, the biosphere reserve designation is considered to facilitate networking and coordination between the different actors, including the private sector and the public authorities. In some cases this has brought about infrastructure investments such as the development of recreation areas and water facilities.

Figure 20 Principal ways in which local communities have benefited from the establishment of BRs

and/or activities within the framework of BRs (“spontaneous responses”) (nBR = 241)

46%

29% 28%26%

7%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Sustainable(economic)

development

Sustainable useand conservation

of biodiversity

Awarenessraising and

capacity buildingof local

communities

Resourcesmobilized to thebenefit of localcommunities

Other


2.2.4 Alignment with conventions and multilateral agreements

The objective of improving the BRs’ alignment with international policies, strategies and action plans and their implementation, in order to enable biosphere reserves to effectively serve as learning sites for sustainable development, is reflected in three actions of the MAP. Action 2.2: “Work closely with the authorities responsible for the implementation of relevant

biodiversity and environmental multilateral agreements to ensure coordination between international designations at the national level”.

Action 8.1: “Encourage and enable individual BRs to collaborate with UN-led policies, strategies and action plans towards sustainable development as well as other initiatives outside the UN-system”.

26

Action 15.3: “Develop actions to increase synergies among international regional and national programmes currently developed and executed in parallel, such as CBD, Agenda 21 and One-UN activities”.

We consider that these actions show considerable overlap. Even though questions on each of these actions have been included separately in the surveys, results show that respondents do not clearly differentiate between these three categories. As a consequence, they are treated jointly in this report. Between 51% (53%) and 62% (63%) of the responding BRs (MAB national committees) indicate that they align their activities with national, regional and/or international policies, strategies and standard-setting instruments. As shown in Figure 21, roughly half of the BR managers (51%) claim that the activities conducted within the framework of the BRs are explicitly linked to the activities conducted within the framework of International Conventions. Amongst MAB national committee, this percentage is slightly higher as illustrated in Figure 22. However, it is unclear whether this finding refers to awareness of alignment or actual alignment. Figure 21 Activities of the BR explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of

any of the International Conventions (nBR = 241)

51%

34%

12%


Figure 22 Activities of the MAB NC explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the

International Conventions (nNC = 64)

63%

22%

6%

9%


The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the most frequently mentioned by those BRs that reportedly align their work with international conventions (see Figure 23). In fact, a successful implementation of the biosphere concept is evidence of alignment to the objectives of for example the Convention on Biological Diversity. Alignment with other conventions occurs in significantly lower proportions of the population (10-26%).

27

Figure 23 International Conventions to which activities conducted within the framework of BRs are linked (nBR = 241)

20%

46%

10%

26%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

United NationsFramework

Convention onClimate Change

(UNFCCC)

United NationsConvention to

CombatDesertification

(UNCCD)

Convention onBiological Diversity

(CBD)

Convention on theConservation of

Migratory Species ofWild Animals (CMS)

Several respondents also spontaneously commented that their activities are also related to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Apart from the survey data, census data (covering all BRs) are available on the (possible) multiple designations of BRs. These data, compiled in Figure 24 below, demonstrate that 43% of the BRs have multiple international designations (Ramsar, World Heritage and/or BR). In particular, 139 BRs (22%) are also defined as Ramsar Wetland Sites and 97 BRs (16%) are also designated as Natural World Heritage Sites.

Figure 24 Biosphere reserves with multiple designations (NBR = 621)

5%

16%

22%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Biosphere reserve andRamsar wetland

Biosphere reserve andNatural World Heritage

site

Biosphere reserve,Ramsar wetland and

Natural World Heritagesite

Source: MAB Secretariat (October 2013). BR managers also indicated those actors that were involved in activities aligned with broader programmes, policies or conventions and/or other policy and normative frameworks (see Figure

28

25). The public sector (e.g. national government) constitutes the main partner for this type of activities. Academic and research institutions and civil society organizations are the other two stakeholder groups that are frequently mentioned as actors that enable alignment with higher level policies and standard setting instruments. The most remarkable finding is, however, that international organizations are only mentioned by 26% of the BR managers as actors involved in these activities.

Figure 25 Principal institutional actors that constitute the bridge between BRs and national and international policies, strategies and standard-setting instruments (nBR = 241)

64%

53%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Public sector


Civil society

2.2.5 Specific activities, themes and institutional collaboration

2.2.5.1 Themes in research, education and local development

The Madrid Action Plan was an attempt to formulate an adequate response to challenges that have emerged or intensified since the adoption of the Seville Strategy. According to the Madrid Action Plan, major challenges (affecting environmental resources but also poverty and inequality) include (1) accelerated climate change, (2) accelerated loss of biological and cultural diversity, and (3) rapid urbanization. Data have been collected regarding the nature of the activities conducted in relation to seven specific themes, namely: (1) sustainable development, (2) climate change, (3) ecosystem services, (4) urban-rural issues, (5) sustainable alternative livelihoods and poverty alleviation, (6) local BR products and product labeling, and (7) peace and security. It must be noted that these themes are not mutually exhaustive and that they may have been interpreted by the survey respondents in very different ways (especially sustainable development). As illustrated in Figure 26, activities conducted within the framework of BRs mostly relate to sustainable development (85%), climate change (66%) and ecosystem services (63%). In comparatively fewer BRs, there have been initiatives around urban-rural issues (55%) and even fewer on peace and security (22%).

29

Figure 26 Themes of activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

85%

66% 63%

55%

41%

56%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sustainabledevelopment

Climatechange

Ecosystemservices

Urban-ruralissues

Sustainablealternativelivelihoodsand povertyalleviation

Localbiosphere

reserveproducts and

productlabeling

Peace andsecurity

Within the framework of the MAB national committees, the substantive focus has been on sustainable development (77%), ecosystem services (63%) and climate change (58%) as shown in Figure 27. Again, comparatively few countries seem to be working on initiatives related to peace and security (27%).17 Furthermore, all six responding regional networks have stated that they carry out activities around sustainable development and sustainable alternative livelihoods and poverty alleviation. Five regional networks carry out initiatives relating to local biosphere reserve products and product labeling, while four regional networks have initiatives around climate change and eco-system services. Based on these observations, it can generally be stated that throughout the network considerable attention has been paid to climate change and the conservation of biodiversity. The picture is less clear regarding the extent to which the challenges emerging from urbanization processes have been addressed since the establishment of MAP.

17 Noting that these themes are open to multiple interpretations.

30

Figure 27 Themes of activities conducted within the framework of MAB NCs (nNC = 64)

77%

58%63%

41%

48% 50%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Climatechange

Ecosystemservices

Urban-ruralissues

Sustainablealternativelivelihoodsand povertyalleviation

Localbiosphere

reserveproducts and

productlabeling

Peace andsecurity

2.2.5.2 Research

As illustrated in Figure 28, almost all BR managers (93%) have reported research activities being undertaken within the framework of the BR.

Figure 28 Research activities undertaken within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

93%

4% 2%


Academic and research institutions are logically the principal actors involved in these activities (see Figure 29). The public sector and civil society constitute the other two principal stakeholder groups that are involved in research activities.

31

Figure 29 Principal actors involved in research activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR =

241)

90%

57%

56%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Public sector

Civil society

A shown in the figure below, a clear majority of MAB national committees (70%) reportedly organizes and/or provides support for (inclusive) research programmes within the framework of BRs.

Figure 30 Assistance of MAB NCs in mobilizing scientific and non-scientific actors within research programmes at BRs (nNC = 64)

70%

14%

8%

8%


The research themes set out in the MAP were reasonably well covered throughout the BR network. In 82% of the BRs, research activities have been conducted relating to at least one of the previously mentioned MAP themes. Research activities have been mainly centered on sustainable development, climate change, ecosystem services and urban-rural issues (see Figure 31).

32

Figure 31 Principal themes for research conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

26%

52%53%

61%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


Climate change Ecosystemservices

Urban-rural issues

2.2.5.3 Education

In a large majority of the responding BRs (86%) education-related activities have been undertaken within the framework of the BR, as shown in Figure 32.

Figure 32 Education activities undertaken within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

86%

6%

2%6%


33

The principal actors involved in education activities displayed in Figure 33 below are the same as for research activities, namely the academic and research institutions (66%), public sector organizations (65%) and civil society organizations (65%).

Figure 33 Principal actors involved in education activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR =

241)

66%

65%

65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Public sector

Civil society

In 80% of the BRs, education activities have been conducted relating to at least one of the themes mentioned in section 2.2.5.1. Education-related activities have been focused on the same principal themes as the research activities conducted within the framework of the BRs (see Figure 34).

Figure 34 Principal themes for education activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

32%

41%41%

67%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Climate change Ecosystemservices

Urban-rural issues

2.2.5.4 Local development

In 81% of the BRs, local development activities have been conducted relating to at least one of the themes mentioned in section 2.2.5.1. The principal (but non-exhaustive list of) themes for the activities related to local development are presented in the figure below. Roughly three quarters of the BRs also reported conducting local development activities related to sustainable

34

development. Given the fact that sustainable development is an umbrella concept which is particularly prone to different interpretations18 these responses are not displayed in the figure below. The category ‘local biosphere reserve products and product labeling’ is quite similar to the category ‘identification, development and promotion of markets for goods and services deriving from the biosphere reserve’. The latter was captured by a separate question in the survey and showed an almost identical percentage of BRs engaging in this type of activity. Figure 35 Principal themes for local development activities conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR =

241)

52%49%

36%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Local biospherereserve products

and product labeling

Urban-rural issues Sustainablealternative

livelihoods andpoverty alleviation

.

It is particularly noteworthy that a quarter of the responding BRs have been involved in activities related to the identification, development and promotion of fair trade products deriving from their biosphere reserve. Figure 36 Activities related to fair trade BR products undertaken within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241)

24%

69%

5% 2%


18 Respondents may associate “sustainable development” primarily with the word sustainable, or more generally with economic and/or human development.

35

As demonstrated in Figure 37, the private sector, public sector civil society organizations are the main partners in the implementation of activities that relate to markets for biosphere products and services.

Figure 37 Principal actors involved in the identification, development and promotion of markets for (fair trade) goods and services deriving from BRs (nBR = 241)

49%

47%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Private sectororganization

Public sector

Civil society

2.2.6 Zonation

According to the Statutory Framework of 1995, biosphere reserves should contain one or more core areas, buffer zones, and a transition area to accommodate their multiple functions (UNESCO, 1996). Survey results indicate that a majority (69%) of the responding BRs have a zonation scheme which is based on an existing protected area (see Figure 38). Relatively few biosphere reserves (15%) have specifically developed their zonation for the BR. Among the respondents which indicated that they have adopted another zonation scheme (13%), there are several that mention that their BR zonation scheme is a result of a combined approach, i.e. specifically developed for the BR while adopting the zonation of existing protected areas located within the BR territory.

36

Figure 38 Zonation of BRs (nBR = 241)

69%

15%

2%

13%

Based on an existing protected area

Developed specifically for the biosphere reserve

Other

No answer

The results from a comparison between zonation schemes of pre- and post-Seville BRs displayed in Figure 39 below seem to indicate that relatively more of the pre-Seville BRs have zonation schemes that are based on existing protected areas. The number of BRs that have specifically developed zonation schemes remains, however, limited within the group of post-Seville BRs.

37

Figure 39 Zonation of pre- and post-Seville BRs (nBR = 237)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pre-Seville Post-Seville

No answer

Other

Developed specifically for the biosphere reserve

Based on an existing protected area

Note: For the BR survey, information on this variable was not available for 4 cases. Figure 40 demonstrates which actions have been undertaken within the framework of BRs to clarify or optimize the zonation. Most of the BR managers answered that the boundaries have been clearly defined (74%) and that clear explanations of the rationale for these boundaries have been provided (72%). However, there is still room for improvement. In particular, only 57% of the biosphere reserves have stated that their biosphere reserve has defined performance standards for the different zones. Moreover, almost half of the biosphere reserves have spatially extended their biosphere reserves as a way to improve the zonation of the reserve. In general, no significant differences could be found between pre- and post-Seville BRs (see Annex 15).

38

Figure 40 Actions undertaken to improve the zonation of the BR (nBR = 241)

59%

45%

57%

70%

76%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Use of practical tools and guidelines forbiosphere zonation that are available at the

national level

Spatial extension of the biosphere reserve

Definition of performance standards for eachzone

Identification of the contribution of each zone tothe whole biosphere reserve

Clear definition of outer boundary, transition areaand buffer zones of the biosphere reserve

Clear explanation of the rationale for theboundaries

Regarding the role of the MAB national committees, Figure 41 below shows that 70% of the MAB national committees provides support to BRs for the establishment of suitable zonation schemes.

Figure 41 Assistance of MAB NCs in BR zonation (nNC = 64)

70%

11%

3%

16%


Particularly, Figure 42 illustrates that MAB national committees have mainly assisted BRs in the definition of their boundaries (52%). In 47% of the countries, the MAB national committees have also provided support in the spatial extension of BRs and in the development of practical tools and guidelines for biosphere reserve zonation. Finally, 45% of MAB NCs report having been active in the definition of performance standards for the three zones within BRs.

39

Figure 42 Nature of assistance provided by MAB NCs to BRs on BR zonation (nNC = 64)

47%

47%

52%

45%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Development of practical tools and guidelinesfor biosphere zonation

Spatial extension of existing biospherereserves

Definition of the boundaries of the zonesthrough stakeholder consultations

Definition of performance standards forbiosphere reserve zones and identification ofthe contribution of each zone to the biosphere

reserve

2.2.7 Legislation

The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the WNBR were both adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference. Even though neither of these texts are internationally as legally binding as a convention, the MS have committed to apply them while adopting the text. The fact remains, however, that MS do not have to – and consequently did not – transpose them into national law (SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4).19 Of all the responding BRs, 46% have undertaken activities related to the recognition/incorporation of BRs in national legislation (see Figure 43). Furthermore, Figure 44 shows that only a slight majority of the MAB national committees (56%) have been actively encouraging the inclusion of BRs into national legislation.

19 A study on the legal interpretation of the BR concept in the framework of legislation has been presented at the MAB-ICC meeting in Jeju (2009). However, the number of responses to the questionnaire was limited (30) and no overall figures have been provided in the report (extracts from legislation from 13 countries were included).

40

Figure 43 BRs undertaken actions related to the recognition of BRs in national legislation

(nBR = 241)

46%

42%

10%2%


Figure 44 MAB NC playing a role in encouraging recognition of BRs in national

legislation (nNC = 64)

56%

22%

5%

17%


BR managers indicated the public sector as their main partner in implementing the activities related to the national recognition of their biosphere reserves. As displayed in Figure 45 below, the participation of other actors, such as academic and research institutes and civil society organizations, is rather limited.

Figure 45 Principal actors involved in encouraging the recognition/incorporation of BRs in national legislation, excluding MAB NCs (nBR = 241)

43%

15%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Public sector


Civil society

More than half of the BRs (56%) have conducted activities to enhance the recognition of biosphere reserve zonation schemes as important planning tools (see Figure 46). Figure 47 illustrates that 72% of the MAB national committees have played a role in encouraging the use of BR zonation schemes for planning.

41

Figure 46 Recognition of BR zonation schemes as

tools for planning (nBR = 241)

56%32%

9%4%


Figure 47 MAB NC playing a role in encouraging BR zonation schemes as tools for planning (nNC =

64)

72%

8%

3%

17%


2.2.8 Information, communication and policy influence

Several targets of the MAP, namely Targets 3, 6 and 15, specifically address the need for improved information and communication (i.e. collection, dissemination and exchange of information) to ensure the use of BRs as the principal internationally-designated areas dedicated to sustainable development. Within the framework of the MAP, each BR was supposed to develop and launch a communication strategy. Figure 48 below shows, however, that only a slight majority of the BRs (57%) reports having a communication strategy20 to disseminate information products to specific audiences. This leaves a large proportion of BRs without any strategy. In addition, it is rather questionable that a given communication strategy will touch upon the variety of topics and stakeholders described in action 6.1 of the MAP.

20 Needless to say, opinions differ about what a communication strategy actually entails, let alone what a good communication strategy is. There is a complex reality behind these simple figures which are based on self-reported information. It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to provide a more in-depth and empirically rigorous perspective on most of the variables relating to the MAP.

42

Figure 48 BRs with communication strategy (nBR = 241)

57%

36%

4% 4%


According to BR managers, almost every BR has generated and disseminated information materials for the general public (88%) and for tourists in particular (87%). Furthermore, three quarters of the BR managers stated that academic publications (76%) and educational materials (75%) have been generated and disseminated within the framework of the BR. With respect to policy-oriented research publications, only half of the BR managers (51%) reported that these had been produced. The responses from representatives of the MAB national committees seem to confirm that relatively few policy-oriented research activities have been produced within the framework of BRs even though this element was addressed in several actions21 of the MAP (see Figure 49). Regarding the other types of information and research products, the MAB national committees do not seem to be aware of all the products that have been generated and disseminated within the framework of the BRs. Additionally, there are some examples of incentive programmes that recognize the efforts of communities, individuals, institutions, networks and nations in creating, managing and promoting BRs (Action 6.2) such as the UK-MAB Urban Wildlife Award for Excellence, the Michel Batisse Award and the MAB Young Scientist Award. However, there is no evidence that a journalism award directed at ‘mass communication media’ on promoting the importance of BRs has been created (Action 3.4).

21 Actions 15.2, 16.1, 16.3, 20.2.

43

Figure 49 Information and research products generated and disseminated within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241; nNC = 64)

76%

51%

75%

88% 87%

70%

56%

64%

72%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Academicpublications

Policy orientedresearch

publications

Educationalmaterials

Informationmaterials for thegeneral public

Touristinformation


In the vast majority of BRs, publications produced and disseminated within the framework of the BR are reported to have influenced the behavior of audiences (see Figure 50). The most frequently reported category of influence is awareness-raising. Research also seems to have stimulated the use of the reserves as learning and demonstration sites. On the other hand, relatively few respondents indicate that research has influenced the mobilization of resources and decision-making processes. This might be related to the previously mentioned limited production of policy-oriented research. Even though it is very likely that the respondents’ answers are not based on any empirical analysis, the fact that these percentages are consistent between BR managers and MAB national committees provides some confidence in this variable.

44

Figure 50 Influence of research conducted within the framework of BRs (nBR = 241; nNC = 64)

62%

47%

83%

65%

78%

41%

66%

53%

81%

68%74%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Decision-making

processes

Financialresource

mobilization

Awarenessand

knowledge

Capacitydevelopment

The use ofbiosphere

reserves aslearning and

demonstrationsites

Replication orscaling-up of

projects


The question of policy influence was raised with particular reference to BRs in mountain areas. 37 BRs located in mountain areas (out of an unknown total of BRs in mountain areas)22 indicated that the publications produced and disseminated within the framework of the BRs have influenced policies for sustainable mountain development through the use of the BR as an innovative example.

2.2.9 MAB national committees

Target seven of the Madrid Action Plan states that there should be “functional MAB national committees in each country, managed in a manner assuring adequate representation of biosphere reserve coordinators and other key stakeholders”. Three underlying aspects are comprised in this target, namely the creation, functioning and the composition of the MAB national committee. Figure 51 below demonstrates that almost all responding BR managers (90%) stated that their country had a MAB national committee in place. Only 7% of the respondents, coming from 12 different countries,23 indicated that this was not the case. 7 of these countries indicated considering the creation of a MAB national committee.

22 This variable was not introduced in the survey. If introduced, it would probably not have generated credible results. 23 Malawi, São Tomé e Príncipe, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru.

45

Figure 51 MAB NC exists in country of responding BR (nBR=241)

90%

7% 2%


On average, a MAB national committees consists of 14 members. However, several countries indicated that the MAB national committee has “zero” members. Based on the provided comments, we can reasonably assume that most of these countries have assigned a MAB national focal point who performs the tasks of the MAB national committee. Figure 52 below illustrates that MAB national committees consist of academics or members of the scientific community (73%), representatives of national governments (70%), biosphere reserve managers (67%) and representatives from nongovernmental organizations (64%). Nearly 70% of the responding MAB national committees are composed of representatives from at least three of the previously mentioned stakeholder groups.

Figure 52 Composition of MAB NCs (nNC = 64)

70% 67%73%

64%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Representativesof national

governments

Focalpoints/managers

of biospherereserves

Academics ormembers of the

scientificcommunity

Representativesfrom

nongovernmentalorganizations

Other

Figure 53 illustrates that almost half of the managers of BRs located in countries with a MAB national committee are members of that committee.

46

Figure 53 Membership of BR managers in MAB NCs for those BRs located in countries with a MAB NC

(nBR = 217)

47%53%

Yes No

Note: Percentages refer to the subsample of those BRs located in countries in which there has been an established MAB NC (see Figure 51) The representatives of national governments who are involved in the MAB national committee mostly stem from the ministries in charge of environmental issues (e.g. Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Water Affairs, etc.). Other regularly mentioned ministries are those related to local/rural development (incl. agriculture, forestry, fishery etc.), education, culture and tourism, science and technology, and foreign affairs. According to the respondents there are often different ministries represented which demonstrates that most countries attempt to adopt an interdisciplinary approach. Nonetheless, MAB national committees might function more effectively if one of these ministries is in charge of “sustainable development”. This representative could then potentially act as the custodian of the BR concept.

Figure 54 MAB NC meets on a regular basis (nNC=64)

67%

23%

2%8%


47

As shown in Figure 54, two-thirds of the MAB national committees (67%) claimed to meet on a regular basis. It is likely that this percentage overestimates the functioning of MAB national committees at the population level. Again there is an association between the willingness to participate in the survey and the level of activity of as well as the importance attributed to MAB national committees. Figure 55 below illustrates that almost half of the responding MAB national committees (48%) meet at least twice a year. On the other hand, there is still a considerable number of countries (25%) in which the MAB national committee gathers less than once a year.

Figure 55 Frequency of MAB NC meetings (nNC=64)

25%

14%

28%

20%

13%

Less than once a year Once a year

Twice a year More frequently

No answer

The pie chart (Figure 56) below indicates that 61% of the MAB national committees have developed a structure, strategy and/or action plan to assist BRs in meeting their responsibilities within the MAB Programme. Thus, a significant proportion of MAB national committees are active and providing contributions to individual BRs and the BR model in general. Taking into account the high non-response to the survey, the divergent activity levels and the fact that at least 28% of the responding MAB national committees have not undertaken this type of basic management activity one can surmise that a significant proportion of MAB national committees are likely to be inactive.

48

Figure 56 MAB NC has a strategy or plan for assisting BRs (nNC = 64)

61%

28%

11%


The representatives of MAB national committees identified “sharing of knowledge and discussing of good practices” as their principal purpose (see Figure 57). Furthermore, it is somewhat remarkable that only 56% of the respondents consider the mobilization of financial resources as one of the main purposes while the lack of funding has been cited by many BR managers as one of the major challenges and priorities for the future. Some representatives of the MAB national committees also ‘spontaneously’ commented that they consider the search for new biosphere reserves in their country as one of their main tasks.

Figure 57 Main purposes of MAB NCs (nNC = 64)

80%

63%

63%

56%

63%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sharing knowledge and discussing goodpractices

Developing a (joint) research agenda andactivities on biosphere reserves

Capacity development of biosphere reservesfocal points/managers

Mobilizing financial resources for (joint) activitieson biosphere reserves

Developing standards and guidelines forbiosphere reserves

Formulating and/or promoting biosphere reserverelated policies and legislation

49

In line with their main purposes, MAB national committees are most actively involved in the compilation and synthesis (77%) and the sharing (75%) of information on the functioning of BRs (see Figure 58).

Figure 58 BR-related monitoring and evaluation activities undertaken by MAB NCs (nNC = 64)

77%

75%

53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Compile and synthesize information on thefunctioning of biosphere reserves

Share information on the functioning of biospherereserves with MAB regional networks and the

MAB Secretariat

Support periodic review processes

Finally, the different institutional actors from which MAB national committees have mobilized resources for BRs in the country or for their own activities are presented in Figure 59. In line with the responses from BR managers, the MAB NC survey findings also reveal that national governments are the most frequently mentioned funding partner. International organizations (e.g. UN, bilateral donors, international nongovernmental organizations, World Bank) are the second funding source.

Figure 59 Resource mobilization by MAB NCs from different institutional actors (nNC = 64)

61%

34%

47%

14%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

National government

Local government



Private sector and/or local economy

2.2.10 Regional networks

As mentioned above, a separate survey was developed for representatives of the regional and thematic networks of biosphere reserves. Based on the information provided on the UNESCO website it appears that there are nine regional networks and seven thematic networks. However, further consultation with the members of the MAB Secretariat has revealed that the thematic networks are less institutionalized. They should rather be seen as general themes

50

around which (ecosystem-specific) activities can be organized (e.g. GLOCHAMOST for mountain regions). The only “institutionalized” thematic network is the World Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves (WNICBR). For the other “thematic networks” no particular person could even be identified to fill out the survey. The regional networks, on the other hand, are far more institutionalized. Five out of the six responding regional networks have developed a structure, strategy and/or action plan to assist biosphere reserves in meeting their responsibilities within the MAB Programme. Nonetheless, there are differences in the management/governing structures installed in the different regions. In the remaining of this section, some general findings will be presented in a narrative manner given the limited number of cases.24 According to the respondents the main purposes of the network are (1) sharing of knowledge and discussing good practices; (2) capacity development of biosphere reserve focal points/managers; and (3) developing standards and guidelines for biosphere reserves. Mobilizing financial resources for (joint) activities on biosphere reserves has also been indicated by several networks as an important purpose of the regional network. When the representatives of the regional networks were asked about the number of activities and events organized by the network, they either responded that this number has increased or remained stable in recent years. In addition, most of the respondents indicated that the demand for and participation in activities and events has increased over time in recent years. Nonetheless, additional communication with UNESCO staff at headquarters and the field prodded us to nuance these rather positive results. For example, the PacMAB meeting held in April 2014 was organized as an attempt to revitalize the network, as the last meeting (before April 2014) dated back to 2007. In the Arab region, the Arab Spring has created unstable conditions in certain Member States which has complicated the work of the ArabMAB network. With respect to the funding sources of the regional networks of biosphere reserves, it appears that most financial resources come from the national governments of Member States. In addition, some networks have found other sources of funding such as the private sector or international organizations. In addition, the responding regional networks have uniformly indicated that they compile and synthesize information on the functioning of biosphere reserves and share this information with the MAB Secretariat as required by action 1.2 of the MAP. The regional networks were also assigned the responsibility to undertake an assessment of the economic contribution of biosphere reserves to local economies in at least one pilot biosphere reserve in their region (action 26.1). Unfortunately, only one regional network has stated that they have carried out such an assessment. According to the MAP, regional networks should also provide support in the establishment of schemes to support periodic review processes (action 9.1). The survey results show that only two regional networks claim to have assisted periodic review processes.

2.2.11 MAB Secretariat

2.2.11.1 Key functions and structure of the MAB Secretariat

UNESCO’s activities can be broadly classified into five functions. First, UNESCO functions as a laboratory of ideas, producing innovative ideas supported by research and analysis. Second, UNESCO works as a clearing house through which information, knowledge, best practices and

24 There have been received responses from six regional networks, namely AfriMAB, EABRN, EuroMAB, IberoMAB, PacMAB and SACAM.

51

innovative solutions can be gathered, disseminated and shared. Third, UNESCO serves as a standard-setter by developing and facilitating the implementation of internationally endorsed standard setting instruments (e.g. conventions). Fourth, UNESCO serves as a catalyst for international cooperation, offering a platform to Member States to discuss and collaborate on issues of mutual interest under the neutral banner and the reputation of UNESCO. Finally, the Organization is a capacity builder by offering a variety of training, technical assistance and policy advisory services to Member States. The relationship between these functions and the role of the MAB Secretariat is explored in Annex 3. More particularly, the roles of UNESCO within the framework of the MAB Programme have been described in different documents. In particular, the tenth article of the Statutory Framework of the WNBR assigns the following tasks to the UNESCO (UNESCO, 1996): “UNESCO shall act as the secretariat of the Network and be responsible for its functioning

and promotion. The secretariat shall facilitate communication and interaction among biosphere reserves and among experts. UNESCO shall also develop and maintain a world-wide accessible information system on biosphere reserves, to be linked to other relevant initiatives.

In order to reinforce individual biosphere reserves and the functioning of the Network and subnetworks, UNESCO shall seek financial support from bilateral and multilateral sources.

The list of biosphere reserves forming part of the Network, their objectives and descriptive details, shall be updated, published and distributed by the secretariat periodically”.

Moreover, some guiding principles for projects on biosphere reserves have been formulated and endorsed by the MAB ICC in 2002 in response to the Seville+5 recommendation on the Secretariat’s role as an advisor and “broker” for projects on biosphere reserves (UNESCO, 2002). According to this document, UNESCO’s role is to offer technical guidance and scientific advice as to the orientation of projects within the framework of BRs, help identify suitable funding sources, provide supporting letters and in some cases even grant seed funds to aid countries and groups of countries in elaborating projects and/or secure counterpart contributions (UNESCO,,2002) The document with the guiding principles for projects on biosphere reserves also describes the roles that UNESCO field offices can play within the MAB Programme. UNESCO FOs should advise countries and help the regional networks to develop and apply for projects and to build synergistic links with relevant activities in the region. FOs also serve as a catalyst to build partnerships between national authorities, BR management, other projects and programmes, and the private sector. Finally, FOs are key actors in improving the information flow that comes from and goes to BRs (UNESCO, 2002). On the basis of self-assessment data, an inventory was made of the main roles and tasks of the MAB Secretariat. Examples of key activities and roles of the Secretariat are the following: coordinating the WNBR; facilitating the meetings of the MAB ICC, the MAB Bureau and other intergovernmental (expert) bodies (e.g. ISG,25 International Advisory Committee for biosphere reserves); facilitating the development of normative and guidance documents on the BR concept and their implementation; monitoring the evolution of BRs; promoting innovative research on BRs and related themes (e.g. sustainable development), and so on. A more detailed and comprehensive profile is presented in Annex 3.

25 At its 21st session the MAB ICC set up an International Support Group (ISG) to advise the MAB Secretariat on the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) and other relevant aspects of the MAB Programme. This group meets regularly once or twice per year and the MAB Secretariat provides first-hand information to the Member States.

52

The evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan provides an opportunity to reflect on the current division of tasks and the relative priorities of activities that are conducted by UNESCO staff, either in the field or at headquarters. Given the current financial situation, such a reflection should be undertaken. Annex 3 provides a framework on how such a reflection may be conducted in a systematic manner.

2.2.11.2 Implementation of specific actions of the MAP

The MAB Secretariat plays a pivotal role in the coordination and implementation of 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 (see Annex 3). The word tentative is purposely used here as the available data (e.g. survey, self-assessment, programme 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 (Figure 60).

Figure 60 Extent to which BRs comply with the submission of periodic reviews (NBR = 621)

6%

14%

43%

38%

Established more than 10 years ago, never done periodic review

Established more than 10 years ago, at least one periodic review but not in compliance

Established more than 10 years ago, at least one periodic review and in compliance

Established less than 10 years ago

53

Note: “In compliance” means that a BR has either submitted a periodic review in the last ten years if established more than 10 years ago, or the BR has been established in the last 10 years and therefore has not had to submit a periodic review yet. 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.

2.2.12 General assessment, priorities and the future

Respondents were asked about the extent to which they have used the Madrid Action plan to guide their work. As shown in Figure 61, a clear majority of BRs and MAB national committees report having used the MAP for guidance. The percentage of regular consultation is, however, higher among the representatives of the MAB national committees (44%) than among BR managers (33%). Figure 61 Extent to which the Madrid Action Plan has been used by BRs and MAB NCs (nBR = 241; nNC =

64)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Biosphere reserves

MAB national committees

Regularly consulted as guidance

Sometimes consulted as background reading and/or as guidance

Not at all

No answer

2.2.12.1 Assessment of progress and priority areas

As part of the survey, BR managers and representatives of MAB national committees were queried on the progress that has been achieved with regards to each of the main action areas of the MAP. The vast majority of BRs report some or substantial progress being achieved in all four main action areas of the MAP. Regarding zonation, the findings are mixed. Zonation has the highest percentage of substantial progress (43%) being reported, but also the highest percentage of no progress (13%). For the three other action areas, 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 (see Figure 62).

54

Figure 62 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to BR managers by main action area (nBR = 241)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cooperation,management and

communication

Zonation Science andcapacity

enhancement

Partnerships

Substantial progress Some progress No progress Do not know No answer

A comparison of these findings between pre-Seville and post-Seville BRs shows that the managers of pre-Seville BRs are more positive about the progress made regarding zonation (see Figure 63). No clear differences could be found for the other main action areas (see Annex 13). The large number of responses received from BRs located in Europe and North America made it also possible to compare the assessed progress within this region compared to other regions (see Annex 12). Managers of BRs located in Europe and North America were clearly more positive about the progress made regarding cooperation, management and communication, and partnerships. However, they were less positive than BR managers from other regions about the progress with respect to zonation.

55

Figure 63 Self-assessed progress on zonation according to BR managers stratified by pre- and post-Seville samples (nBR = 237)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pre-Seville (incl.1995)

Post-Seville

Substantial progress Some progress

No progress Do not know

No answer

Note: For the BR survey, information on this variable was not available for 4 cases. The findings from the MAB national committee survey are consistent with the BR perspective. Figure 64 shows that very few of the MAB national committee respondents stated that no progress has been made. In line with the results from the BR survey, the members of the MAB national committees are more outright positive about the progress made on the topic of zonation.

56

Figure 64 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to MAB NCs by main action area (nNC = 64)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cooperation,management and

communication

Zonation Science and capacityenhancement

Partnerships

Substantial progress Some progress No progress Do not know No answer

Respondents were also asked to rank the main action areas of the MAP according to the priority attributed to each of them. Based on the average priority score26 assigned to each action area (see Table 3), it can be concluded that “cooperation, management and communication” is considered to be the highest priority area by both BR managers and MAB national committees. In a ranking exercise conducted by the electronic working group, this action area had also been assigned the highest priority. The ranking (and rating) results for the remaining areas are less conclusive. The average priority scores appear to be not significantly different between action areas and the overall rankings differ between the three respondent groups.

Table 3 Ranking (and ratings) of major action areas by BRs, MAB NCs and the reference group

Ranking BRs Ranking MAB

NCs Ranking electronic

working group

Cooperation, management and communication 1 (1.75) 1 (1.79) 1 (21.5)

Zonation 3 (2.74) 2 (2.48) 4 (20.57)

Science and capacity enhancement 2 (2.46) 3 (2.53) 3 (20.62)

Partnerships 4 (2.87) 4 (2.87) 2 (20.75)

Note: In the case of BRs and MAB NCs, there is an inverse correlation between the rating and the priority attached to the action area. The reference group employed a different methodology; there is a positive correlation between rating and priority. 26 In case respondents had only partially assigned priority levels to the four action areas, the other action areas were arbitrarily assigned priority level four, i.e. least important. Conflicting responses from the same MAB national committee have been excluded from the sample. The lowest average rating corresponds to the highest ranking (BR reserve managers and MAB national committee members).

57

A comparison between the priority ratings of managers of pre- and post-Seville BRs indicated that post-Seville BRs assign a higher priority to cooperation, management and communication than pre-Seville BRs. On the other hand, pre-Seville BRs give more priority to zonation than post-Seville BRs. Additionally, European and North American BRs give lower priority to zonation than BRs from other regions.

2.2.12.2 Priorities for the future

The recent 37 C/5 (UNESCO, 2014) lists several performance indicators for the MAB programme and the WNBR. The first indicator, “Development of the UNESCO WNBR”, is linked to a benchmark of “creat[ing] at least 50 new biosphere reserves (BR), three of them transboundary, particularly in developing countries or LDC’s”. With respect to the number of biosphere reserves, the survey results reveal that 46 of the responding MAB national committees (66%)27 state that there are currently proposals for the establishment of new biosphere reserves in their country (see Figure 65). For three of these countries these proposals concern the establishment of the first biosphere reserve(s) in the country. The biosphere reserve network has experienced an average annual growth rate of roughly 3.7% between 1995 and 2013.28 Although attention needs to be paid to the geographical distribution of BRs given UNESCO’s ambition to expand the number of BRs in developing and least developed countries29, it seems probable that the quantitative target of 50 additional biosphere reserves will be achieved.

Figure 65 MAB NCs with current proposals for new BRs (nNC = 70)

66%

17%

4%

13%


Note: Sample refers to total sample of MAB NCs (including those countries that do not have BRs). The development and implementation of an Exit Strategy for BRs has been an important step in safeguarding the quality of the implementation of the BR concept within the network. While in the short term this has raised some concerns among Member States as well as increased the

27 Percentage calculated compared to all MAB national committees that have responded to this question (61 MAB NCs) regardless of the existence of biosphere reserves in the country. 28 Own calculations based on annual data of number of BRs. 29 The numbers of countries with BR proposals categorized by income group: 12 Low Income Countries (75% of responding LIC), 7 Lower Middle Income countries (58% of responding LMIC), 11 Upper Middle Income Countries (55% of responding UMIC), 16 High Income Countries (73% of responding HIC).

58

workload for the MAB Secretariat, overall the reaction appears to be positive. In time, the consistent application of the principles of the Exit Strategy can positively influence the clarity of the concept of a BR (in practice) and may even positively affect the brand value of BRs. For the MAB Secretariat, the challenge of managing the workload of assessing and monitoring the status of BRs remains. Notwithstanding the elements included in the 37 C/5, the present evaluation focused on the priorities as defined by stakeholders in BRs, MAB NCs (and other institutions in Member States). In order to gauge the main priorities for the future two open-ended questions were posed to respondents (especially BR managers and MAB national committee members), regarding the main challenges for the future and how to address these challenges. In the analysis these two aspects were analyzed together30 given the fact that the responses to the question on the challenges often implicitly contained information on how to address them and vice versa.

30 Measures were taken to avoid double counting.

59

Figure 66 Priorities for BRs according to BR managers (“spontaneous responses”) (nBR = 241)

12%

20%

24%

27%

38%

39%

43%

48%

51%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Strenghtening the capacity and resources formanaging and governing the biosphere reserve

Addressing threats to conservation and reconcilingsustainable economic development with

conservation

Effectively enshrining the biosphere reserve conceptin the national policy and legislative framework

Strengthening coordination, communication andcooperation within the framework of the WNBR and

with other relevant stakeholders

Strengthening the visibility and raising awarenessamong key stakeholders on the biosphere reserve

concept

Strenghtening participation and capacity developmentof local communities

Addressing through any or all of the biospherereserve functions the following themes: climatechange, population pressure and depopulation

Conducting and disseminating research

Other

Note: Information stems from open-ended questions which were categorized ex post. As illustrated in Figure 66, the main priority for BRs according to their managers is to strengthen the capacity and resources for effectively managing and governing the reserve (51%). Currently, a lot of BRs operate on a project-to-project basis with funds secured for individual projects. At the same time, the availability and continuity of core funding for the BR management is often limited. Raising awareness about the specific features and benefits of the BR concept will be fundamental in gaining the (financial) support from the public sector and other institutional actors. Relatedly, many BR managers referred to weaknesses in management capacities.31 BR managers argued that there is need for training, workshops and toolkits to build capacities. In addition, they stressed the importance of having a well-defined management and governance

31 One of the respondents, for instance, stated that the BR had a “poorly defined governance structure, insufficient permanent staff and lacking staff capacities.”

60

structure and a coherent management plan which should take into account any protected areas that comprised in the BR territory. The second broad category of priorities for BRs relates to the balance between conversation and sustainable development (48%). This category compiles statements that relate to: conservation and protection of biodiversity in BRs; poverty alleviation and sustainable alternative livelihoods; and possible tensions, trade-offs or win-win situations regarding the previous two points. From the responses it becomes clear that local communities need access to sustainable alternative livelihood options if they are to successfully collaborate in conservation activities (and refrain from unsustainable land use practices or the (unsustainable) exploitation of natural resources). More effective and sustainable responses are needed to address illegal activities such as poaching and the complex challenges relating to resource extraction by private sector companies. The third group of priorities for BRs relates to the integration of the BR concept into (inter)national policy and legislative frameworks (43%). The status of biosphere reserves within national environmental legislation is often unclear and unstable. BR managers therefore emphasize the importance of establishing normative and legal frameworks which clearly articulate the specifics of BRs. Furthermore, BRs need to be linked to national sustainable development programmes and policies. Many BR managers believe that enshrining the concept into policies and legislation is essential to facilitate resource mobilization. Regarding the status of BRs at the international level, some BR managers have drawn attention to the fact that the status of the BRs is not clear within the categorization of the IUCN (see also section 1.5).32 Adding BRs as a separate category to the IUCN list is one of the options to address this challenge. Another important finding is that 39% of the responding BRs call for better coordination, communication and cooperation within the WNBR and with other stakeholders. Experiences, best practices and lessons learned should be exchanged within the global network as well as among BRs within the same region or country. Several managers stated that they experience a lack of support from the MAB Programme and that they require a more (transparent) communication within the hierarchy. Partnerships with other stakeholders should also be further strengthened to allow for synergies and interdisciplinary collaboration. 38% of the BR managers point at the need to increase the visibility of BRs and enhance awareness among key stakeholders, particularly local communities and policy makers, about the BR concept. An increase in education, information and communication efforts on the societal and environmental benefits of the BR designation are required to foster an improved understanding and appreciation of the values and functions of BRs. In general, it can be concluded that representatives of the MAB national committees have identified very similar priorities for BRs (see Figure 67), even though the descriptions of the challenges were considerably less detailed.

32 This element has also been described in document SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4 on the “Legal interpretation of the BR concept in the framework of national legislation”.

61

Figure 67 Priorities for BRs according to the MAB NCs (“spontaneous responses”) (nNC = 64)

14%

20%

20%

27%

31%

38%

41%

44%

45%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strenghtening the capacity and resources formanaging and governing the biosphere reserve




concept

Addressing threats to conservation and reconcilingsustainable economic development with

conservation

Strenghtening participation and capacity developmentof local communities



Addressing through any or all of the biospherereserve functions the following themes: climatechange, population pressure and depopulation

Other


62

Figure 68 Priorities for MAB NCs (“spontaneous responses”) (nNC = 64)

16%

16%

36%

38%

44%

55%

58%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Strenghtening the capacity and resources to ensureeffective functioning of the MAB national committee





concept

Strengthen capacities at the level of the biospherereserves


Other

Note: Information stems from open-ended questions which were categorized ex post. Finally, members of national committees were queried on the priorities for their own committees. As shown in Figure 68 above, representatives of MAB national committees have generally identified similar priorities for the committees as for BRs. This pattern is quite logical given the fact that much of the work within the framework of MAB committees is about BRs. The lack of financial and human resources to ensure the effective functioning of MAB national committees is the most frequently mentioned challenge. There is a need for sustainable funding sources as well as specific actions address the high turnover in membership. In addition, more than half of the respondents (55%) called for enhanced partnerships with other stakeholders, especially with civil society, private sector and public sector and/or enhanced networking within the WNBR. Several countries have established (or are in the process of doing so) national networks in order to improve the exchange of experiences between BRs in the country. MAB national committees also clearly acknowledge the importance of enshrining the BR concept into national policies and legislative frameworks. finally, members of national committees underline their role in contributing to enhancing the visibility of BRs and strengthening the management capacities of BRs.

63

3 Summary of findings and recommendations

3.1 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),33 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).

33 55% non-response for the total population of MAB NCs.

64

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.

3.2 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 functions34 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.35

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).36

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

34 The three core functions, which are slightly differently presented below, are: conservation, development, logistic support. 35 Usually existing protected areas. 36 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.

65

Research and education activities within the framework of BRs are quite prevalent.37 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 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 concept38 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.39 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)40 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).

37 It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to assess (e.g.) the quality and impact of research. 38 This concept is particularly prone to different interpretations as respondents may associate it primarily with the word ‘sustainable’ or more generally to economic development. 39 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. 40 For example, the complex interlinkages between processes of urbanization and the use, quality and conservation of environmental resources.

66

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. 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%).

67

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 reported41 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. 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 resources42 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.

41 The majority of BRs have undertaken activities to clarify or improve the zonation of the BR. 42 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).

68

3.3 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 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 Annex 3.

69

3.4 Recommendations

On the basis of the key findings of the evaluative analysis, five main areas of improvement have been identified.43 The bullet points under each of the five areas of improvement constitute specific recommendations44 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 support45 for BRs and their support structures - Promote financial sustainability at the BR level through a diversification of the funding

base

43 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. 44 Some recommendations are based on ongoing initiatives and should receive priority attention. 45 Enshrined in supporting legislation.

70

3.5 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 factors46 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.

46 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).

71

Annexes

Annex 1: Stakeholders consulted within the framework of the evaluation

‐ BR managers ‐ Representatives of MAB national committees ‐ Staff of the MAB Secretariat ‐ Representatives of MAB regional networks ‐ Members of the Reference Group for the Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan ‐ Members of the MAB Bureau

72

Annex 2: Documents reviewed within the framework of the evaluation

1. Academic references Coetzer, K.L., Witkowski, E.T.F., Erasmus, B.F.N. (2013) “Reviewing Biosphere Reserves globally: effective conservation action or bureaucratic label?”, Biological Reviews, 89 (1): 82-104. Elbakidze, M., Hahn, T., Mauerhofer, V., Angelstam, P. and Axelsson, R. (2013) “Legal Framework for Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis of Ukraine and Sweden”, Ambio, 42: 174-187. Ishwaran, N., Persic, A. and Tri, N.H. (2008) “Concept and practice: the case of UNESCO biosphere reserves”, International Journal Environment and Sustainable Development, 7 (2): 118-131. Nolte, C. (2005) “Awareness of the ‘Man and the Biosphere’ program and its impact on visitor’s attitudes towards tourism services. A case study from Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan”, Bachelor thesis, Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus. Price, M.F., Park, J.J. and Bouamrane, M. (2010) “Reporting progress on internationally designated sites: The periodic review of biosphere reserves”, Environmental Science and Policy, 13: 549-557. Reed, M.G. and Egunyu, F. (2013) “Management effectiveness in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: Learning from Canadian periodic reviews”, Environmental Science and Policy, 25: 107-117. Schultz, L., Duit, A. and Folke, C. (2011) “Participation, adaptive co-management, and management performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves”, World Development, 39 (4): 662-671. Schultz, L. and Lundholm, C. (2010) “Learning for resilience? Exploring learning opportunities in Biosphere Reserves”, Environmental Education Research, 16 (5): 645-663. 2. Documents MAB ICC SC-09/CONF.207/24 Final Report 21st Session of the MAB-ICC (2009) SC-10/CONF.201/21 Final Report 22nd Session of the MAB-ICC (2010) SC-11/CONF.202/11 Final Report 23rd Session of the MAB-ICC (2011) SC-12/CONF.224/15 Final Report 24th Session of the MAB-ICC (2012) SC-13/CONF.225/11 Final Report 25th Session of the MAB-ICC (2013) SC-09/CONF.206/5 Assessment of the Seville Strategy - Meeting Bureau of MAB-ICC SC-09/CONF.206/X Legal interpretation of the biosphere reserve concept in the framework of national legislation (Bonnin and Jardin, 2009) SC-09/CONF.207/06 The biosphere reserve concept in the framework of national legislations – 21st Session MAB-ICC SC-09/CONF.207/7 Communication strategy and clearing house mechanism for biosphere reserves

73

SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4 The biosphere reserve concept in the framework of national legislations – 21st Session MAB-ICC SC-10/CONF.201/3 Report of the Secretary of the MAB Programme on the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP), decisions and recommendations of the 21st session of the MAB-ICC and other related matters SC-11/CONF.207/5 Assessment of the Seville Strategy – 21st Session MAB-ICC SC-11/CONF.202/5 Mid-term evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) SC-11/CONF.202/12 Support/Study sites for the MAB Programme – 23rd Session MAB-ICC SC-13/CONF.225/5 Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) – 25th Session MAB-ICC 3. Other UNESCO documents German Commission for UNESCO (2011) “For life, for the future. Biosphere reserves and climate change – A collection of good practice case studies”, 80 p. Rosas, P.A. (2011) “Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves: Report on the results and analysis of the evaluation performed by countries of IberoMAB Network, period 2008-2010”, Working Paper No. 42, South-South Cooperation Programme. Salem, B.B. and Ghabbour, S.I. (2013) “Synergies to Protect Sites: Joint Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites”, World Heritage, 70: 26-35. UNESCO (1996) “Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network”, UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO (2002) “Guiding Principles for projects on biosphere reserves”, UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO (2008) “Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves (2008-2013)”, UNESCO, Madrid (SC-2009/WS/36). UNESCO (2010) “Lessons from Biosphere Reserves in the Asia-Pacific Region, and a Way Forward: A regional review of biosphere reserves in Asia and the Pacific to achieve sustainable development”, UNESCO office, Jakarta. UNESCO (2014) “37 C/5: Approved Programme and Budget (2014-2017)”, UNESCO, Paris.

74

Annex 3: Tentative assessment of the achievement of actions by the MAB Secretariat and tentative forward-looking prioritization exercise

This section describes a tentative assessment of the achievement of actions included in the MAP by the MAB Secretariat and a tentative forward-looking exercise that should provide the basis for further reflection among MAB ICC Members, members of the MAB Secretariat and other stakeholders on the strategic issue of how the MAB Secretariat can optimally fulfill its coordinating role of the WNBR. Implementation of the MAP has been the responsibility of multiple stakeholders. However, this section focuses on the role of the MAB Secretariat given its pivotal role in the coordination, monitoring and implementation of key activities within the framework of the WNBR. The limited resources of the evaluation precluded an in-depth empirical inquiry of the performance and strategic roles of other stakeholders. The table below presents a tentative assessment of the achievement of the actions for which the MAB Secretariat is deemed to be the only responsible actor (KR) and for which there is a shared responsibility (SR). The assessment is mainly based on Programme documents (e.g. MAB-ICC meetings), self-assessment by and conversations with members of the MAB Secretariat in Paris (see Table 4). Table 4 Tentative assessment of achievement of MAP actions by the MAB Secretariat

Action Level of

achievement Description

KR Assess the achievements of the Seville Strategy (1.1)

Medium/High

A survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy has been conducted in 2008-2009. A first version of the report on this survey has been submitted to the Bureau of MAB ICC in February 2009 and a completed and refined version has been presented at the MAB ICC meeting in May 2009. The response rate to this survey was, however, relatively low (SC-09/CONF.207/5; SC-11/CONF.202/5).

SR Compile and synthesize first-hand information on the functioning of BRs, which should then be shared inter-regionally and globally (1.2)

Medium

The instruments or “toolbox” to implement the BR concept remain unclear. There is still a need for operational guidelines that provide a “technical menu” on how the transform the BR concept into local realities.

KR Create and implement a system of recognizing performance of the Seville Strategy (1.3)

Low

Based on the self-assessment undertaken by staff of the MAB Secretariat it can be concluded that no system has been put in place that systematically measures performance. Within the framework of the mid-term evaluation of the MAP several countries had indicated that the periodic review system provides information on the performance of the Seville Strategy (SC-11/CONF.202/5). However, periodic reviews cover a period of ten years and are therefore insufficient to effectively monitor changes and track progress (Price et al., 2010).

75

KR Update the nomination and periodic review forms for BRs (including transboundary BRs) (1.4+30.2)

High

As recommended by the 21st session of the MAB ICC, an electronic working group chaired by the chair of the French MAB national committee started to revise the nomination and periodic review forms (SC-11/CONF.202/5). As a result of this process, the nomination and periodic review forms for normal and transboundary BR are available on the UNESCO website in English, French and Spanish.

SR Utilize BRs in UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (ISPs) (2.2) Low

Only 8% of responding BR managers indicates that their BR cooperates with UNESCO ISPs. The UNESCO ISPs are also rarely mentioned as stakeholders involved in the different activities, including research activities. See sections 2.2.5.2 and 2.2.2 for more detailed information.

KR Creation of a web-based information clearinghouse and information centre, to exchange and share technology, research, training, education and cooperation opportunities, findings and experience, and to help to solve problems at local, regional and international levels (3.1)

Low

The creation of a clearing house mechanism has been discussed during the 21st session of the ICC in 2009. However, the lack of clearly earmarked financial and human resources for the development and implementation of the clearing house mechanism within the MAB Secretariat has constituted an impediment to the establishment of a high quality global web-based information clearing house. Nonetheless, a clearing house mechanism, i.e. a community platform, is currently being piloted for EuroMAB with the support from UNESCO’s External Relations and Public Information Sector (ERI).

KR Elaboration of a map presenting the WNBR according to ecosystem types, including human-impacted ecosystems such as rural and urban areas (3.3)

Medium

The MAB Secretariat, in collaboration with the National Commissions for UNESCO of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg has developed a map presenting the world network of biosphere reserves. The back side of the map presents basic information about the biosphere reserve concept in English, French, Spanish and German. However, the map does not present the BRs according to their ecosystem types. Budget reductions and the lack of available staff were mentioned as main reasons for the delay in the production of a WNBR map according to ecosystem types (SC-11/CONF.202/5).

KR Develop an integrated international promotion and communication strategy targeting the general public (3.5)

Medium

An integrated information and communication strategy has been presented at the 21st session of the MAB-ICC in Jeju (see SC-09/CONF.207/7). However, the lack of financial resources specifically earmarked for communication purposes have hindered the implementation of the proposed strategy. The BR designation has remained relatively invisible due to the complicated nature of the concept, especially compared to other designations such as World Heritage.

76

SR Create and strengthen existing regional and interregional Thematic Networks formed around key ecosystems such as mountains, freshwater, oceans, drylands, forests, urban areas, small islands (5.1)

Medium

As described in section 2.2.10, only the WNICBR can adequately be referred to as thematic network which had its third meeting in June 2013. “Networks” related to other ecosystems are less institutionalized. Nonetheless, important projects have been developed with respect to particular ecosystems (e.g. SUMAMAD project).

SR Screen new BR proposals as well as devise schemes to support periodic review processes in view of the evolution of the mission and vision contained in the MAP in particular through field-visits by teams of regional and national experts in cooperation with the UNESCO Regional, Cluster and National Offices as appropriate. (9.1)

Medium

During the 25th MAB-ICC session an Exit Strategy has been adopted. This three step process has been developed to ensure the quality and compliance of the BRs to the Statutory Framework. The main element of the Exit Strategy is the submission of periodic review reports. The Exit Strategy has proven to be a successful tool in stimulating members of the WNBR to submit periodic reviews. 20% of the BRs are currently not in compliance, i.e. they have not submitted any periodic review in the last 10 years even though they were already established more than ten years ago.

SR Encourage states to include BRs in their own legislation (11.1)

Medium/High

Based on an analysis of examples of legal translations of the BR concept at national level, a “model law” has been developed to promote the establishment of the BR concept at the national scale (see document SC-09/CONF.206/X). See section 2.2.7 for more information.

SR Carry out a survey on the present zoning system of the WNBR and investigate how well they fulfill the three functions in each zone (12.1)

Medium

The MAB Secretariat has carried out a study on the zonation of pre-Seville and post-Seville BRs (see SC-11/CONF.202/12). However, the emphasis of the survey was entirely on the zonation scheme rather than on the fulfillment of the functions within each of the zones.

SR Undertake a critical analysis and synthesis of existing data based on experience of implementing the management plans/cooperation plans of BRs around the world, including their relationship to ecosystem services (15.1)

Low (unclear)

No document available.

SR Coordinate with UNESCO ISPs and other relevant international, regional and national authorities to promote policy-relevant research (16.1)

Low See section 2.2.8

SR Improve access to information and new ways

Low/Medium (see action 3.1)

A Twitter discussion forum has been piloted in 2011, but this effort has not been sustained. A

77

to communicate knowledge to a large variety of non-scientific target groups (16.2)

Facebook page of the MAB Programme has been developed in the beginning of 2014. EuroMAB has partnered with Futerra (a sustainability communications agency) to develop a promotion video on BRs. See section 1.2.8 for more information on the type of products generated and disseminated within the framework of BRs.

SR Provide training to BR managers on science-policy-practice interaction and participatory management for science and other relevant areas (17.1)

Low

This is mainly done by regional networks, field offices and MAB national committees. The role of the MAB Secretariat is limited. See section 2.2.1

SR Seek national and international support for BRs and Regional Networks with the organizations responsible for projects on biodiversity conservation, international waters, climate change, poverty reduction etc. (25.3)

Medium

In general, the MAB Secretariat indicated to assist MAB national committees and regional networks in the mobilization of resources. The MAB Secretariat also supported AfriMAB to establish a legal trust fund instrument for fundraising purposes. Most of the BRs (67%) receive funding from the national government, while 36% receives funding from international organizations. Several BRs indicated that they have received funding from the EU or from other individual countries (e.g. Germany). The International Centre on Mediterranean Biosphere Reserves, inaugurated in 2014, is the first Category II center established through public engagement and private financial support.

SR Further the work of the Task Force on Quality Economies by creating or strengthening partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods using the BR brand (26.2)

Low/Medium

According to the mid-term evaluation, the work in support of private sector partnerships benefiting BRs has accelerated. See section 2.2.5 for more detailed information.

SR

Promote incentives for product labeling in BRs (27.2)

Low/Medium

A Task Force has considered ways in which excellence of BR goods and services could be recognized through a common logo. However, the idea was put on hold due to a potential liability issue; it was feared that UNESCO could be held responsible if problems eventually occurred with the labeled products.

SR Promote and use BRs as mechanisms for peace and security (31.1)

Medium/High

The MAB Secretariat has played an important advisory role in some specific cases, particularly regarding transboundary cooperation (e.g. Seaflower BR). However, previous experience is very limited and support from an international law expert might be needed.

Note: KR indicates the actions for which the MAB Secretariat is the only responsible actor. SR indicates the actions for which there is a shared responsibility.

78

Furthermore, in order to develop a useful structure for developing a strategic perspective on the types of activities implemented by the MAB Secretariat, activities have been classified into different categories based on a combination of two variables: UNESCO’s five main functions/roles47 and the level of intervention48 (see Table 5 for the different categories with examples of activities). For each type of activity conducted by the MAB Secretariat we assessed the relative priority and level of achievement. Both assessments are tentative. Priority is determined primarily by the potential comparative advantage of the Secretariat in carrying out a particular type of activity (how necessary and unique is the role of the MAB Secretariat?). Achievement is determined primarily by the scale of activity and comprehensiveness of coverage/outreach and not so much by successful output delivery and/or achievement of outcomes (see Box 1). An assessment of the latter is beyond the scope of this evaluation. The results of the tentative assessments are presented in Table 4. In the prioritization matrix (see Figure 69) we plotted achievement against priority. Both the priority and achievement assessments are based on data from desk study, succinct self-assessment and interviews. They should be considered as rough assessments and the starting point for further refinement and discussion using the prioritization matrix as a basis. Box 1 Explanatory note on the assessment ratings Priority ‐ LP (low priority) = activities that can be undertaken mostly by other actors in the MAB system

(MAB BR managers, representatives from MAB NCs or the MAB Reg NWs). The role of the MAB Secretariat can be catalytic but is not essential.

‐ MP (medium priority) = activities undertaken by other actors in the MAB system, participation of the MAB Secretariat is essential.

‐ HP (high priority) = the MAB Secretariat is the only institutional actor which can and should undertake this function/activity.

Achievement ‐ LA = low level of activity and/or not successful. Please note that low achievement does not

necessarily mean that the activities are not (potentially) successful. Most activities that score low on achievement do so because of the scale of implementation (limited outreach).

‐ MA = moderate level of activity and partly successful (or high level of activity with relatively low success).

‐ HA = moderate or high level of activity and successful. Table 5 Examples of activities undertaken by the MAB Secretariat (HQ and/or FOs) by UNESCO’s major function and level of intervention Through global

comprehensive activities

Through activities within the framework of regional and thematic networks

Through specific projects in countries (involving one or multiple BRs and country or countries)

Standard setter ad policy advisor

Develop and monitor implementation of the statutory framework for BRs; assess entry and exit of (potential) BRs; develop guidelines for policy and legislation on BRs

Develop guidelines regarding a particular theme (e.g. ecosystem management for particular ecosystems)

Develop guidelines for zonation of specific BR; Promote zonation as tool for land use planning

47 Standard setter, clearing house, capacity builder, catalyst of international cooperation, laboratory of ideas. 48 Roughly the BR or country (or even subregional) level, the regional and thematic network level, the global level.

79

Clearing house Collect, analyze and disseminate data on the WNBR; develop and implement a (targeted) communication strategy on BRs (using a variety of information channels, such as a high-quality website, publications, social media); synthesize research findings from innovative projects

Facilitate exchange of good practices; promote replication of successful ideas and activities

Organize seminars for different stakeholders at the level of a BR; collecting and disseminating (different types of) knowledge to different types of stakeholders

Laboratory of ideas

Conduct and/or facilitate (interdisciplinary) research at global level on key selected topics; develop flagship global publication(s)

Develop/facilitate joint (interdisciplinary) research activities in a particular region

Facilitate and conduct (interdisciplinary) research on specific (innovative) topics; develop pilot projects with strategies for dissemination and replication

Catalyst of international cooperation

Organize global conferences; raise funds for global, regional and national activities; strengthen the policy-research nexus at a global level; develop partnerships with key academic partners

Facilitate and coordinate network meetings and activities; raise funds for networks; facilitate partnerships on research, education, sustainable development activities; facilitate the institutionalization of (regional) networks

Facilitate study visits and exchanges between BRs; engage in conflict resolution and liaising with national political actors (e.g. in transboundary BRs); facilitate partnerships between different types of stakeholders (academia, communities, policymakers)

Capacity builder Organize courses with global coverage; Strengthening the institutional presence of the WNBR

Organize courses on specific topics for network members

Organize training courses for BR managers; provide specialized technical assistance to BRs

Table 6 Tentative ratings of types of activities regarding their (relative) priority and level of achievement

Through global comprehensive

activities

Through regional and thematic networks

Through specific projects in countries

(involving one or multiple BRs and

country or countries)

Rating Code (Fig 1)

Rating Code (Fig 1)

Rating Code (Fig 1)

Standard setter and policy advisor

HP – HA HP– MA

A, a MP – MA F MP – LA K

Clearing house HP – LA B HP – MA G LP – LA L

Laboratory of ideas HP – LA C HP – MA H HP – MA M

Catalyst of international cooperation

HP – MA D MP – MA I MP – MA N

Capacity builder MP – LA E MP – MA J LP – LA O

The prioritization matrix (Figure 69) shows the ‘strategic position’ of the different types of activities on the basis of the two variables, priority and achievement.

80

Figure 69 Prioritization matrix of the MAB Secretariat's activities

Ideally, the Secretariat’s activities should be positioned as much as possible in the upper right quadrant (high priority and high achievement). Currently, the standard setting functions of the Secretariat (e.g. guidelines, activities concerning the entry and exit of BRs) at the global level are positioned there.49 There is a substantial group of high priority activities with moderate levels of achievement. These should deserve more attention from the Secretariat in the future. The immediate focus should be on the lower right quadrant (high priority and low achievement). The MAB Secretariat’s role as a clearing house and laboratory of ideas at the global (WNBR) level needs to be strengthened, which requires a significant increase in attention and human and financial resources. This is all the more important given the fact that these activities cannot but be undertaken (coordinated, managed, implemented) by the MAB Secretariat. By contrast, all the activities in the centre quadrants and in the lower left quadrants are of a lower priority. The allocation of financial and human resources should reflect these priorities. To conclude, the above tentative assessment should constitute an invitation for further strategic reflection, where necessary refining some of the content, and eventually providing the basis for an applied prioritization exercise with strategic, organizational, financial and human resource allocation implications.

49 The actual monitoring function of the WNBR by the MAB Secretariat, i.e. collecting and processing information on key indicators at the level of the population of BRs, is quite weak. We have categorized this function as being part of the clearing house function.

81

Annex 4: Links between MAP actions and Figures and Tables in the evaluation report

Target Action Success indicator Figure

Action area 1: Cooperation, management and communication

1. Effective implementation of the Seville Strategy

1.1 Assess the achievements of the Seville Strategy

Assessment document of the Seville Strategy

Table 4

1.2 Compile and synthesize first-hand information on the functioning of BRs, which should then be shared inter-regionally and globally

Compiled information Figure 58 Table 4

1.3 Create and implement a system of recognizing performance of the Seville Strategy

Performance recognition system created, adopted by MAB-ICC, and disseminated

Table 4

1.4 Update the nomination and periodic review forms for BRs

Updated forms available Table 4

2. Increased cooperation and coordination of biosphere reserves with existing international programmes and initiatives

2.1 Utilize BRs in UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (ISPs)

Number of BRs working together with UNESCO programmes (IHP, DESD, IOC, IGCP, MOST, IBSP, etc.)

Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 16

2.2 Work closely with the authorities responsible for the implementation of relevant biodiversity and environmental multilateral agreements to ensure coordination between international designations at the national level

Number of BRs working with International initiatives (CBD, CMS, UNCCD, UNFCCC, IGBP, MA follow-up, etc.) Number of activities in UNESCO incorporating BRs as a tool for linking WH site conservation with sustainable development of the broader region; levels of financial and human resources to developing and implementing joint projects linking WH sites, Ramsar sites and BRs

Figure 23 Figure 25 Table 4

3. Integrated information and communication strategy

3.1 Creation of a web-based information clearinghouse and information centre, to exchange and share technology, research, training, education and cooperation opportunities, findings and experience, and to help to solve problems at local, regional and international levels

Functioning information clearing house mechanism Number and variety of publications (print, web-based, etc.) and communications in UN as well as other regional and nationally important languages Current template of WNBR map adapted to produce

Figure 49 Table 4

82

region and ecosystem specific maps as and when needed

3.2 Produce regional, sub-regional, country- and ecosystem-specific publications on BRs, MAB and other related themes

Number of publications Figure 49

3.3 Elaboration of a map presenting the WNBR according to ecosystem types, including human-impacted ecosystems such as rural and urban areas

World map Table 4

3.4 Creation of a journalism award directed at the mass communication media for their role on promoting the importance of BRs

Number of awards provided Narrative only

3.5 Develop an integrated international promotion and communication strategy targeting the general public

Number of publications Figure 49 Table 4

4. Participatory regional networks that are managed in a manner assuring adequate representation of biosphere reserve managers/ coordinators

4.1 Develop a structure, strategy and action plan for each regional network to meet their responsibilities within the MAB Programme and regularly report to MAB National Committees and individual BRs

Number of regions completing and implementing structure, strategy and action plan Number of individual BRs participating in regional network activities

Figure 12

4.2 Ensure that each network has partnerships and long-term financing mechanisms from within its membership to ensure sustainability of its operations and activities

Number of networks funded Narrative only

5. Enhanced cooperation between experts and practitioners in relevant key issues

5.1 Create and strengthen existing regional and interregional Thematic Networks formed around key ecosystems, such as mountains, freshwater, oceans, drylands, forests, urban areas, small islands

Number of networks and extent of regional and thematic coverage

Table 4

6. Communication strategies for each biosphere reserve, integrated with national and higher levels

6.1 Implement a communication strategy on environmental, economic, social, spiritual, cultural and political importance and benefits of BRs and the WNBR, directed to national governments, policy makers, journalists, local communities and other target groups

Number of BRs that have developed and launched a communication strategy

Figure 48

83

6.2 Create an incentive programme to recognize the efforts of communities, individuals, institutions, networks and nations in creating, managing and promoting BRs

Number of incentives created

Narrative only

7. Functional MAB National Committees in each country, managed in a manner assuring adequate representation of biosphere reserve coordinators and other key

7.1 Create or restructure MAB National Committees

Number of functioning MAB National Committees

Figure 51

7.2 Develop a structure, strategy and action plan for each MAB National Committee to assist BRs to meet their responsibilities within the MAB Programme, and support the planning phase for new nominations

Number of MAB National Committees restructured with strategies and action plans

Figure 56

8. Increased linkages between biosphere reserve activities and sustainable development initiatives at multiple scales

8.1 Encourage and enable individual BRs to collaborate with UN-led policies, strategies and action plans towards sustainable development, as well as other initiatives outside the UN-system

Number of BRs contributing to in-country UN and other initiatives on sustainable development

Figure 21 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26

9. All biosphere reserves undertake periodic review and related actions to update zonation, management and other changes to meet Seville and MAP requirements and recommendations

9.1 Screen new BR proposals as well as devise schemes to support periodic review processes in view of the evolution of the mission and vision contained in the MAP in particular through field visits by teams of regional and national experts, in cooperation with the UNESCO Regional, Cluster and National Offices as appropriate

Number of BRs that have undertaken necessary steps to update themselves to a post-Seville and MAP vision


10. Open and participatory procedures and processes in the designation, planning and implementation of biosphere reserves

10.1 Every BR should carry out a participatory planning process, such as Local Agenda 21, to guide BR implementation assuring “participatory management” especially for traditional, local and indigenous communities

Number of BRs with participatory approaches in place


10.2 Every BR should establish a management committee comprising stakeholders representing different activity sectors of all three zones

Number of functioning BR management committees

Figure 4

84

11. Enhanced legal recognition of biosphere reserves where appropriate

11.1 Encourage States to include BRs in their own legislation

Number of countries which have incorporated BRs into their legislation

Figure 43 Figure 44 Figure 45 Table 4

Action area 2: Zonation

12. Analysis of zonation of all biosphere reserves

12.1 Carry out a survey on the present zoning system of the WNBR (including the proportions of the different zones) and investigate how well they fulfill the three functions in each zone

Outcome of analysis submitted to ICC, and results and ICC recommendations published

Table 4

13. Functional zonation in all biosphere reserves established, particularly with regard to the transition area and the development function

13.1 Develop and apply practical tools and guidelines for zoning at the national level

100% sites have functional BR zonation


13.2 Use BRs to manage large biome as a BR system and for extensive terrestrial and marine areas as a series of units linking up relatively small protected core areas with significantly larger buffer zones and transition areas

Number of BRs spatially extended.

Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 42

13.3 Determine the most suitable zonation patterns and define performance standards for each zone. Ensure sufficient size of each zone for the BR functions and identify the contribution of each zone to the whole BR

Suitable zonation pattern for each BR defined


13.4 Clearly define the outer boundary of the BR in determining the transition area through stakeholder consultation. (Each BR should consider natural, e.g. watershed, ecosystem, etc., as well as political and administrative boundaries in defining its delimitation, and clearly explain the rationale behind that determination in the nomination/ periodic review forms)

Each BR has a clearly defined outer boundary

Figure 40 Figure 42

13.5 Encourage national recognition of BR zonation schemes as an important planning tool for programmes linked to protected areas in

Number of countries recognizing BR zonation scheme

Figure 46 Figure 47

85

production landscapes 14. Co-operative

conservation and development strategies for biosphere reserves

14.1 Use appropriate tools such as the Ecosystem Approach, gap analysis, the concept of corridors, ecological networks, etc. for (a) a better connectivity of ecologically important sites and elements in the landscape, (b) a better inter-linkage of areas/zones and enhanced buffering, and (c) a better consistency in planning

BRs have well-designed plans with sufficient conditions for assuring financial and operational sustainability

Figure 40 Figure 42

Action area 3: Science and capacity enhancement

15. Communication of biosphere reserve experiences on management and stakeholder participation of ecosystem services to relevant policy constituencies within the UN bodies, regional development banks, national governments and others

15.1 Undertake a critical analysis and synthesis of existing data based on experience of implementing the management plans/ cooperation plans of BRs around the world, including their relationship to ecosystem services

Number of BRs which participate in international programmes Analysis document on the implementation of BR management plans

Figure 58 Table 4

15.2 Promote the MAB Programme’s global network function through the systematic recording of policy-relevant case studies and ensuring their availability and dissemination

Document on case studies Figure 49

15.3 Develop actions to increase synergies among international, regional and national programmes currently developed and executed in parallel, such as CBD, Agenda 21 and One-UN Activities

Number of BRs involved in various international, regional and national programmes

Figure 25

16. Site-based policy-relevant research programmes

16.1 Coordinate with UNESCO ISPs and other relevant international, regional and national authorities to promote policy-relevant research

Numbers of scientific articles, books on sustainability referring to BR or using the concept Number of MS and PhDs on BRs or related topics

Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 16 Figure 28 Figure 29 Table 4

16.2 Improve access to information and new ways to communicate knowledge to a large variety of non-scientific target groups

Number of outreach publications including Internet-based information material


16.3 Strengthen the role of science in decision-making through problem-oriented,

Research projects established in all BRs


86

applied research in order to increase the availability of funding for both science and management, and ensure good science-informed participatory and collaborative management

17 Trained biosphere reserve managers and other relevant stakeholders

17.1 Provide training to BR managers on science-policy-practice interaction and participatory management for science and other relevant areas

Number of completed or active courses in the regions


17.2 Promote capacity enhancement programmes for BR administrators and managers, such as on adaptive management, including conflict resolution and negotiation skills

Training courses for BR managers in operation

Figure 9 Figure 10

18 Use of Biosphere Reserves by UNESCO Member States for their work with other ISPs, including IOC and MOST

18.1 Work with other ISPs to include the use of BRs as research and demonstration sites in their programmes

Number of UNESCO ISP activities and initiatives focusing on BRs


18.2 Enhance the widespread use of BRs by IHP, IOC, IGCP and MOST for research, information generation and policy advice

Number of BRs involved with other UNESCO ISP activities related to research, information generation and policy advice


19 Biosphere Reserves to have research programmes on analyses of ecosystem services and their management through stakeholder participation

19.1 Mobilize scientific and non-scientific actors combining all knowledge systems in order to strengthen the scientific functions of BRs

Number of BRs having research programmes


20. Biosphere reserves have research programmes linked to the development of the management plan and zoning

20.1 Ensure stakeholder involvement in the production of a research agenda to be incorporated in the management plan for the whole BR

Number of BRs with defined and operational research programmes

Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 28 Figure 29

20.2 Use BRs as sites for applied, problem-oriented research for sustainable development linked to the zoning and management plan. Incorporate the results of applied ecological and socio-economic research

Number of BRs with research agendas related to sustainable development

Figure 26 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 49

87

into ecosystem management of all areas and link educational activities to the different functions in all zones of BRs

Figure 50

21. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) programmes with educational and research institutions

21.1 Promote the BR as a learning site of excellence for sustainable development, for demonstrating trade-offs and balance amongst ecosystem services, human-environment interactions and well-being, in the framework of DESD

Number of schools associated with BRs through joint classes, school camps, curriculum development


22. Exchange of educational resources for widespread adaptation and application

22.1 Improve capacity of WNBR with the aim of building strong learning organizations, alliances and empowering all stakeholders at each BR

Number of education programmes; number and range of awareness and educational materials produced


22.2 Provide appropriate staff and funding (a) to enable BR managers/ coordinators to actively contribute to the WNBR, i.e. translation of best practices report into local languages, and (b) to feed this information into the Internet website of UNESCO-MAB

Number of best practices reports translated into local languages


23. A mechanism for biosphere reserves to address urban issues in a regional context

23.1 Facilitate the integration of urban areas into BRs

Number of BRs with interactions with urban areas


24. Use biosphere reserves as learning sites for research, adaptation, mitigation in relation to climate change

24.1 Use mountain BRs as field observatories of global change impacts on the environment, economy and human well-being, based on the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy

Number of mountain BRs with active research and capacity enhancement programmes

Figure 28 Figure 30 Figure 32 Figure 34 Figure 49 Figure 50

24.2 Use of research results to assist countries in developing and implementing policies for sustainable mountain development

Number of countries with policies for sustainable mountain development

Figure 50

24.3 Develop strategies for other ecosystems in collaboration with relevant national and

Number of strategies applied Figure 21 Figure 22

88

international organizations 24.4 Carry out training courses

for different ecosystem types related to climate change, in particular using the ERAIFT regional flagship project for tropical forests and certified forestry as a climate change mitigation approach

Number of training courses carried out


Action area 4: Partnerships

25. Improved financial mechanisms for biosphere reserves and regional networks

25.1 Establish partnership agreements with relevant institutions/ organizations to carry out Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) projects

Number of regions launching PES projects Number of BRs involved

Figure 11

25.2 Establish partnership agreements, such as for water, forest and carbon funds

Number of BRs with partnership agreements

Figure 11

25.3 Seek national and international support for BRs and regional networks with the organizations responsible for projects on biodiversity conservation, international waters, climate change, poverty reduction, etc.

Number of BRs and regional networks with national and international support


26. Improved generation of profits and livelihood benefits in Biosphere reserves through sustainable production, harvesting, processing and marketing of biosphere reserve products

26.1 At least one pilot BR in each regional network chosen to carry out an assessment of the economic contribution of BRs to local economies with the active involvement of local communities

Number of BRs developing assessments in each region

Narrative only

26.2 Further the work of the Task Force on Quality Economies by creating or strengthening partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods using the BR brand

Number of BRs involved with the work of the Task Force on Quality Economies

Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Table 4

26.3 Promotion of alternative and sustainable livelihoods primarily targeting vulnerable populations within BRs such as local communities, minorities, indigenous and ethnic groups

Number of BRs implementing sustainable alternative livelihoods to ensure ease of poverty


27. Increased involvement,

27.1 Create or strengthen partnerships with

Number of businesses actively involved in

Figure 16 Figure 36

89

support and buy-in of private sector

businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods and services in BRs and to support management and communication relating to BRs

implementing the BR idea/ BR management Number of businesses actively involved in supporting activities indirectly in BRs

Figure 37

27.2 Promote incentives for product labeling in BRs

Study available on local BR products


28 Exchanges between biosphere reserves

28.1 Support study tours/site visits between stakeholder groups in BRs

Number of exchanges Figure 14

28.2 Encourage and enable twinning programmes between BRs sharing specific issues

Number of twinning arrangements between BRs

Figure 14

28.3 Encourage South-South cooperation and triangular South-North-South cooperation

Number of cooperation agreements involving BRs

Figure 14

29 Promote partnerships

29.1 Establish cooperation plans including all sectors of society to champion cooperative activities ranging from education and research to sustainable use of environmental goods and services

Number of partnerships established Number of BRs involved in partnerships

Figure 6 Figure 11 Figure 16 Figure 25 Figure 29 Figure 33 Figure 37 Figure 45 Figure 59

29.2 Establish partnerships with regional economic and financial institutions

Number of cooperation plans established


30 Transboundary biosphere reserves

30.1 Support the development of new and strengthen existing transboundary BRs as well as other forms of transboundary cooperation

Number of transboundary BRs established

Figure 15

30.2 Update the nomination and periodic review forms for transboundary BRs

Number of new and existing transboundary BRs with active Transboundary cooperation; Use of updated forms

Table 4

31 Promote Biosphere reserves for peace, security and conflict management

31.1 Promote and use BRs as mechanisms for peace and security

Number of BRs with programmes that promote peace and security


90

Annex 5: Links between Figures in the evaluation report and MAP actions

Figure Action(s) from MAP

1 Response rates to the BR and MAB NC survey by geographical region

-

2 Response rates for pre- and post-Seville BRs - 3 Origin management structure BR - 4 Existence of a management committee or

structure including actors from all three zones of the BR

10.2

Every BR should establish a management committee comprising stakeholders representing different activity sectors of all three zones

5 Planning within the framework of BRs

10.1

Every BR should carry out a participatory planning process, such as Local Agenda 21, to guide BR implementation assuring “participatory management” especially for traditional, local and indigenous communities

16.3

Strengthen the role of science in decision-making through problem-oriented, applied research in order to increase the availability of funding for both science and management, and ensure good science-informed participatory and collaborative management

20.1

Ensure stakeholder involvement in the production of a research agenda to be incorporated in the management plan for the whole BR

24.3 Develop strategies for other ecosystems in collaboration with relevant national and international organizations

6 Principal actors involved in planning activities conducted within the framework of BRs

(same as for Figure 5)

7 Number of staff involved in managing the BR - 8 Purposes of centers established in/near the

BRs -

9 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (BR survey) 17.2

Provide training to BR managers on science-policy-practice interaction and participatory management for science and other relevant areas

17.2

Promote capacity enhancement programmes for BR administrators and managers, such as on adaptive management, including conflict resolution and negotiation skills

10 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (MAB NC survey)


11 Funding sources of BRs

25.1

Establish partnership agreements with relevant institutions/ organizations to carry out Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) projects

25.3 Seek national and international support

91

for BRs and regional networks with the organizations responsible for projects on biodiversity conservation, international waters, climate change, poverty reduction, etc.

26.2

Further the work of the Task Force on Quality Economies by creating or strengthening partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods using the BR brand

27.1

Create or strengthen partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods and services in BRs and to support management and communication relating to BRs


12

Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for BRs 2.1

Utilize BRs in UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (ISPs)

4.1

Develop a structure, strategy and action plan for each regional network to meet their responsibilities within the MAB Programme and regularly report to MAB National Committees and individual BRs

5.1

Create and strengthen existing regional and interregional Thematic Networks formed around key ecosystems, such as mountains, freshwater, oceans, drylands, forests, urban areas, small islands

16.1

Coordinate with UNESCO ISPs and other relevant international, regional and national authorities to promote policy-relevant research



28.1 Support study tours/site visits between stakeholder groups in BRs

28.2 Encourage and enable twinning programmes between BRs sharing specific issues


13 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for MAB NCs


14 Modalities of cooperation between BRs 28.1

Support study tours/site visits between stakeholder groups in BRs

28.2 Encourage and enable twinning programmes between BRs sharing

92

specific issues


15 Assistance of MAB NCs for transboundary and other forms of transboundary cooperation

30.1

Support the development of new and strengthen existing transboundary BRs as well as other forms of transboundary cooperation

16 Established partnership strategies between BRs and different institutional actors

29.1

Establish cooperation plans including all sectors of society to champion cooperative activities ranging from education and research to sustainable use of environmental goods and services

17 Involvement of local communities in the management and development of activities within the framework of BRs

10.1

Every BR should carry out a participatory planning process, such as Local Agenda 21, to guide BR implementation assuring “participatory management” especially for traditional, local and indigenous communities

10.2

Every BR should establish a management committee comprising stakeholders representing different activity sectors of all three zones

17.1

Provide training to BR managers on science-policy-practice interaction and participatory management for science and other relevant areas

19.1

Mobilize scientific and non-scientific actors combining all knowledge systems in order to strengthen the scientific functions of BRs

18 Principal ways in which local communities have been involved in the management and development of BR activities (“spontaneous responses”)


19 Local communities deriving benefits from the establishment of BRs and/or activities taking place within the framework of BRs

-

20 Principal ways in which local communities have benefited from the establishment of BRs and/or activities within the framework of BRs (“spontaneous responses”)

-

21 Activities of the BR explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions

2.2

Work closely with the authorities responsible for the implementation of relevant biodiversity and environmental multilateral agreements to ensure coordination between international designations at the national level

8.1

Encourage and enable individual BRs to collaborate with UN-led policies, strategies and action plans towards sustainable development, as well as other initiatives outside the UN-system

15.3 Develop actions to increase synergies among international, regional and national programmes currently developed and

93

executed in parallel, such as CBD, Agenda 21 and One-UN Activities

22 Activities of the MAB NC explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions


23 International Conventions to which activities conducted within the framework of BRs are linked


24 Biosphere reserves with multiple designations - 25 Principal institutional actors that constitute the

bridge between BRs and national and international policies, strategies and standard-setting instruments


26 Themes of activities conducted within the framework of BRs

20.2

Use BRs as sites for applied, problem-oriented research for sustainable development linked to the zoning and management plan. Incorporate the results of applied ecological and socio-economic research into ecosystem management of all areas and link educational activities to the different functions in all zones of BRs

21.1

Promote the BR as a learning site of excellence for sustainable development, for demonstrating trade-offs and balance amongst ecosystem services, human-environment interactions and well-being, in the framework of DESD

24.1

Use mountain BRs as field observatories of global change impacts on the environment, economy and human well-being, based on the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy

24.4

Carry out training courses for different ecosystem types related to climate change, in particular using the ERAIFT regional flagship project for tropical forests and certified forestry as a climate change mitigation approach

15.1

Undertake a critical analysis and synthesis of existing data based on experience of implementing the management plans/ cooperation plans of BRs around the world, including their relationship to ecosystem services

23.1 Facilitate the integration of urban areas into BRs

26.3

Promotion of alternative and sustainable livelihoods primarily targeting vulnerable populations within BRs such as local communities, minorities, indigenous and ethnic groups


31.1 Promote and use BRs as mechanisms for

94

peace and security27 Themes of activities conducted within the

framework of MAB NCs (same as for Figure 26)

28 Research activities undertaken within the framework of BRs

16.3

Strengthen the role of science in decision-making through problem-oriented, applied research in order to increase the availability of funding for both science and management, and ensure good science-informed participatory and collaborative management

19.1

Mobilize scientific and non-scientific actors combining all knowledge systems in order to strengthen the scientific functions of BRs

20.2


21.1

Promote the BR as a learning site of excellence for sustainable development, for demonstrating trade-offs and balance amongst ecosystem services, human-environment interactions and well-being, in the framework of DESD

24.1

Use mountain BRs as field observatories of global change impacts on the environment, economy and human well-being, based on the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy

29 Principal actors involved in research activities conducted within the framework of BRs


30 Assistance of MAB NCs in mobilizing scientific and non-scientific actors within research programmes at BRs

31 Principal themes for research conducted within the framework of BRs

(same as for Figure 28 and 26)

32 Education activities undertaken within the framework of BRs

20.2


21.1

Promote the BR as a learning site of excellence for sustainable development, for demonstrating trade-offs and balance amongst ecosystem services, human-

95

environment interactions and well-being, in the framework of DESD

33 Principal actors involved in education activities conducted within the framework of BRs


34 Principal themes for education activities conducted within the framework of BRs

(same as for Figure 31 and 26)

35 Principal themes for local development activities conducted within the framework of BRs


36 Activities related to fair trade BR products undertaken within the framework of BRs

26.2

Further the work of the Task Force on Quality Economies by creating or strengthening partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods using the BR brand

27.1

Create or strengthen partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods and services in BRs and to support management and communication relating to BRs


37 Principal actors involved in the identification development and promotion of markets for (fair trade) goods and services deriving from BRs


38 Zonation of BRs - 39 Zonation of pre- and post-Seville BRs - 40 Actions undertaken to improve the zonation of

the BR 13.1

Develop and apply practical tools and guidelines for zoning at the national level

13.2

Use BRs to manage large biome as a BR system and for extensive terrestrial and marine areas as a series of units linking up relatively small protected core areas with significantly larger buffer zones and transition areas

13.3

Determine the most suitable zonation patterns and define performance standards for each zone. Ensure sufficient size of each zone for the BR functions and identify the contribution of each zone to the whole BR

13.4

Clearly define the outer boundary of the BR in determining the transition area through stakeholder consultation. (Each BR should consider natural, e.g. watershed, ecosystem, etc., as well as political and administrative boundaries in defining its delimitation, and clearly explain the rationale behind that determination in the nomination/ periodic review forms)

14.1 Use appropriate tools such as the

96

Ecosystem Approach, gap analysis, the concept of corridors, ecological networks, etc. for (a) a better connectivity of ecologically-important sites and elements in the landscape, (b) a better inter-linkage of areas/zones and enhanced buffering, and (c) a better consistency in planning.

41 Assistance of MAB NCs in BR zonation (same as for Figure 39) 42 Nature of assistance provided by MAB NCs to

BRs on zonation (same as for Figure 39)

43 BRs undertaken actions related to the recognition of BRs in national legislation

11.1 Encourage States to include BRs in their own legislation

44 MAB NC playing a role in encouraging recognition of BRs in national legislation


45 Principal actors involved in encouraging the recognition/incorporation of BRs in national legislation, excluding MAB NCs


46 Recognition of BR zonation schemes as tools for planning

13.5 Encourage national recognition of BR zonation schemes as an important planning tool for programmes linked to protected areas in production landscapes

47 MAB NC playing a role in encouraging BR zonation schemes as tools for planning


48 BRs with communication strategy 3.5 Develop an integrated international promotion and communication strategy targeting the general public

6.1 Implement a communication strategy on environmental, economic, social, spiritual, cultural and political importance and benefits of BRs and the WNBR, directed to national governments, policy makers, journalists, local communities and other target groups

16.2 Improve access to information and new ways to communicate knowledge to a large variety of non-scientific target groups


49 Information and research products generated and disseminated within the framework of BRs

3.2 Produce regional, sub-regional, country- and ecosystem-specific publications on BRs, MAB and other related themes

15.2 Promote the MAB Programme’s global network function through the systematic recording of policy-relevant case studies and ensuring their availability and dissemination

16.1 Coordinate with UNESCO ISPs and other relevant international, regional and national authorities to promote policy-

97

relevant research16.2 Improve access to information and new

ways to communicate knowledge to a large variety of non-scientific target groups





50 Influence of research conducted within the framework of BRs

16.3 Strengthen the role of science in decision-making through problem-oriented, applied research in order to increase the availability of funding for both science and management, and ensure good science-informed participatory and collaborative management


21.1 Promote the BR as a learning site of excellence for sustainable development, for demonstrating trade-offs and balance amongst ecosystem services, human-environment interactions and well-being, in the framework of DESD


51 MAB NC exists in country of responding BR 7.1 Create or restructure MAB National Committees

52 Composition of MAB NCs - 53 Membership of BR managers in MAB NCs for

those BRs located in countries with a MAB NC

-

54 MAB NC meets on a regular basis - 55 Frequency of MAB NC meetings - 56 MAB NC has a strategy or plan for assisting

BRs 7.2 Develop a structure, strategy and action

plan for each MAB National Committee to assist BRs to meet their responsibilities within the MAB Programme, and support the planning phase for new nominations

98

57 Main purposes of MAB NCs - 58 59

BR-related monitoring and evaluation activities undertaken by MAB NCs

1.2 Compile and synthesize first-hand information on the functioning of BRs, which should then be shared inter-regionally and globally


15.1 Undertake a critical analysis and synthesis of existing data based on experience of implementing the management plans/ cooperation plans of BRs around the world, including their relationship to ecosystem services

60

Resource mobilization by MAB NCs from different institutional actors

25.1 Establish partnership agreements with relevant institutions/organizations to carry out Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) projects

25.3 Seek national and international support for BRs and regional networks with the organizations responsible for projects on biodiversity conservation, international waters, climate change, poverty reduction, etc.


Extent to which BRs comply with the submission of periodic reviews


61 Extent to which the Madrid Action Plan has been used by BRs and MAB NCs

-

62 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to BR managers by main action area

-

63 Self-assessed progress on zonation according to BR managers stratified by pre- and post-Seville samples

-

64 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to MAB NCs

-

65 MAB NCs with current proposals for new BRs - 66 Priorities for BRs according to BR managers

(“spontaneous responses”)

-

67 Priorities for BRs according to the MAB NCs (“spontaneous responses”)

-

99

68 Priorities for MAB NCs (“spontaneous responses”)

-

100

Annex 6: Background information on the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and the Madrid Action Plan

The WNBR currently comprises 621 Biosphere Reserves in 117 countries. Potential BRs are nominated by national governments and must meet a minimal set of criteria and conditions before being designated BR status. Since the Seville Statutory Framework, all BRs are expected to fulfill three interconnected functions, namely (1) Conservation and protection of cultural diversity and biodiversity, (2) Fostering environmentally and socially sustainable human and economic development; and (3) Logistic support for knowledge generation. The interconnected functions of biosphere reserves make that they can be differentiated from national parks or protected areas which are usually primarily concerned with conservation, and not (necessarily) with research and sustainable development. In addition, BRs should have an appropriate zonation scheme which distinguishes between core areas, buffer zones and transition areas. Apart from the BR designation there are other legal and/or formal designations for site-based conservation and/or sustainable development. Geoparks, Ramsar Sites, World Heritage Sites, and national parks, are examples of designations which may overlap with areas designated as BRs. These alternative designations may offer different approaches to the challenges encountered within the territory. For instance, the focus of the World Heritage Convention is to identify and conserve sites of outstanding universal value. While this objective might lead to synergies with the BR concept, especially regarding the conservation of the core zones of BRs, it might also lead to conflicting recommendations as BRs attempt to harmonize conservation with development objectives. Additionally, these designations are enshrined in different legal frameworks. For example, in contrast to the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar Convention, the MAB Programme is not governed by any international convention. The fact that the MAB Programme only has the Statutory Framework as a “soft legal” framework is supposed to encourage true believers to implement and adopt the concept independently of any pressure from an international commitment. The site-specific institutional structures that can be found at the level of the individual biosphere reserves can take different forms, ranging from one single director to a physical space with researchers, managers and information personnel (Schultz et al., 2011). In addition, the BR management authority can be composed of several related organs that work in concert (SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4). The International Coordinating Council (ICC) is the main MAB governing body and consists of 34 Member States elected by UNESCO's biennial General Conference. The MAB ICC is responsible for guiding and supervising the MAB Programme. The ICC initially met every two years, but has met annually in most recent years. In between ICC meetings, the authority is delegated to the MAB Bureau which comprises six members from each of UNESCO’s geopolitical regions. The MAB Secretariat (“managers of MAB”) is located in UNESCO’s Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences. UNESCO, through its MAB Secretariat is responsible for the functioning and promotion of the network. According to the Statutory Framework of 1995, the MAB Secretariat should act as a “neutral broker” that mobilizes (financial) support from bilateral and multilateral sources and facilitates communication and interaction among different entities involved in the MAB Programme. Furthermore, it is required to periodically update, publish and distribute the list of BRs, with descriptive information on each BR. UNESCO Field Offices also assist in the design

101

and implementation of projects and activities and the establishment of synergistic links with relevant ongoing and planned activities in the region. They act as catalysts for building partnerships between national authorities, BR management, the private sector and others. In addition, Field Offices help to improve the information flows between the different levels of the MAB Programme. MAB national committees play a pivotal role in the relation between the Secretariat and Member States. The decision to create a MAB national committee and the means for its establishment depend on context-specific factors (in each Member State). Hence, the composition of MAB national committees varies from one country to another (SC-97/CONF.222/110). MAB national committees are constituted by representatives from various research institutions and public sector institutions, including national focal points for MAB activities. In the absence of a MAB national committee, a MAB Focal Point can be designated to carry out some of the functions that are otherwise performed by the MAB national committee. The functions that are intended to be performed by the MAB national committees are summarized below (SC-97/CONF.222/110):

Organize periodic meetings and prepare a report on national activities which has to be addressed to the MAB Secretariat at least every two years;

Ensure exchanges of information and expertise and the development of communication systems and databases;

Make up the national contribution of a country promoting the biosphere reserve concept; Serve as a relay between the different institutions and ministries concerned by the MAB

Programme and UNESCO; Ensure national participation in the sessions of the MAB ICC; Be associated with decisions concerning research on and conservation of natural

resources at the national level; Be consulted on the participation of the Member State as appropriate in other

international programmes in the field of ecology and the main conventions. A key feature of the MAB Programme is its international, regional, sub-regional and ecosystem-specific network-building. The regional and sub-regional networks have a key role to play in the exchange of information and experience. The MAB relies on these networks and partnerships for the facilitation of knowledge-sharing, research and monitoring, (environmental) education and training, and participatory decision-making for the implementation of (interdisciplinary) work in the field. The Madrid Action Plan (MAP) builds on the Seville Strategy and aims to capitalize on the strategic advantages of the Seville instruments and raise the profile of BRs to become the principal internationally designated areas and learning sites dedicated to sustainable development in the 21st century. The MAP is an attempt to address three identified global issues and problems that have emerged or intensified in the last decades and which are deemed to affect poverty and inequality, namely (1) accelerated climate change; (2) accelerated loss of biological and cultural diversity; and (3) rapid urbanization as a driver of environmental change. Moreover, the MAP is expected to ensure the enhanced functioning of Biosphere Reserves with regard to issues such as conservation and management of individual sites, outreach to local communities, visibility of sites at the country level and the international arena, and the promotion of research and other collaborative arrangements and partnerships.

102

The MAP includes 31 target areas of intervention with 67 targeted actions. The scope of the plan is substantially broadened by the fact that it also encompasses effective implementation of the Seville Strategy, which in itself includes an impressive list of action points. The institutional landscape of actors involved in the implementation of the MAP is extensive. The number of BRs has been steadily increasing as many countries seek opportunities to promote sustainable development as a societal process and sustainability as the outcome. There are at least over 700 actors involved in the implementation of the MAP and Seville Strategy, including: the MAB Secretariat, regional or sub-regional MAB networks, MAB national committees (connected to UNESCO national commissions), and individual biosphere reserves (with their own management structures).

103

Annex 7: Questionnaire for BR managers

1. What is the name of the Biosphere Reserve for which you are a focal point/manager?

2. How long have you been a focal point/manager of your Biosphere Reserve?

Less than one year

One to five years

More than five years

3. To what extent has the Madrid Action Plan been used to guide the work carried out within the framework of your Biosphere Reserve?

Not at all



4. Is there a national MAB committee in your country?

Yes

No

Do not know

If yes, are you a member of the national MAB committee?

Yes

No

If no, is the creation of a national MAB committee currently being considered?

Yes

No

Do not know

5. Is there an office/center dedicated to any of the following purposes within (or close to) your Biosphere Reserve?

Yes No Do not know

Management of your Biosphere Reserve

Introductory questions

104

Information

Tourism

Research

6. How many people are employed for the specific purpose of managing your Biosphere Reserve?

None

One to five

More than five

7. Does your Biosphere Reserve have a management structure that:

Coincides with/is based upon an already existing management structure such as a protected area management structure

Is specifically set up for managing your biosphere reserve

Other (please specify):

8. Which of the following actions have been undertaken to improve the management of your Biosphere Reserve?

Yes No Do not know

Establishment of a Biosphere Reserve management committee or other structure including actors which are active in all three zones of your Biosphere Reserve

Training and capacity building activities for staff involved in the management of your Biosphere Reserve (e.g. on adaptive management, science-policy-practice interaction, conflict resolution)

9. Does your Biosphere Reserve, including its management, receive funding from the following sources?

Yes No Do not know

National government

Local government

Private sector (e.g. utility companies, economic and financial institutions)

International organizations (e.g. UN, bilateral donors, international nongovernmental organizations, World Bank)

Sales from Biosphere Reserve products (e.g. fair trade)

105

Tourism


(Other) voluntary contributions directly transferred to your Biosphere Reserve management


10. Does the national MAB committee collaborate with the following (UNESCO-related) actors?

Yes No Do not know

Focal points/managers of Biosphere Reserves in your country

National MAB committees


MAB Secretariat (in Paris)


UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (e.g. IHP, IOC, MOST, IGCP, IBSP)


11. Does your Biosphere Reserve have a plan or strategy on how to collaborate or develop partnerships with any of the following actors?

Yes No Do not know


Civil society

Private sector organizations

Public sector organizations

Academic and research institutions

Other Biosphere Reserves

UNESCO’s intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (ISPs)

Partnerships

106

12. Do you (or any other member of the biosphere management team) participate in MAB regional or thematic network activities?

Yes

No

Do not know

If yes, please specify:

AfriMAB (African Network of Biosphere Reserves)

ArabMAB (Arab Network of Biosphere Reserves)

EABRN (East Asian Biosphere Reserve Network)

EuroMAB (Europe and North America Man and the Biosphere Network)

IberoMAB (Iberoamerican Man and the Biosphere Network)

PacMAB (Pacific Man and the Biosphere Network)

REDBIOS (East Atlantic Biosphere Reserve Network)

SACAM (South and Central Asia MAB Network)

SeaBRnet (Southeast Asian Biosphere Reserve Network)

WNICBR (World Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves


13. Do the activities of your Biosphere Reserve link explicitly to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (e.g. UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD, CMS)?

Yes

No

Do not know


United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)


107

14. Which of the following activities have been taking place within the framework of your Biosphere Reserve?

Yes No Do not know

Research

If yes, please specify which of the following stakeholders have been involved in this activity


Civil society (e.g. community-based organizations, nongovernmental organizations)

Private sector organizations (e.g. businesses)

Public sector organizations (e.g. local or national government)

Academic and research institutions (e.g. universities)





Yes No Do not know

Education









Activities

108



Yes No Do not know

Participatory planning of projects and activities (e.g. Local Agenda 21)











Yes No Do not know

Production of a research agenda linked to the development and implementation of the management plan and zoning









109



Yes No Do not know












Yes No Do not know

Alignment of Biosphere Reserve strategies and action plans with existing international, regional and national programmes, policies, strategies and action plans (e.g. One UN)








110




Yes No Do not know

Implementation of biodiversity and environmental multilateral agreements











Yes No Do not know

Identification, development and promotion of markets for goods and services deriving from your Biosphere Reserve








111




Yes No Do not know

Identification, development and promotion of fair trade products deriving from your Biosphere Reserve











Yes No Do not know

Study tours or site visits with different stakeholder groups








112




Yes No Do not know

Twinning programmes with biosphere reserves that share specific issues with your biosphere reserve











Yes No Do not know

Engagement in South-South cooperation or triangular South-North-South cooperation








113




Yes No Do not know

Recognition/incorporation of Biosphere Reserves in national legislation










27. The zonation and/or geographical delimitation of your Biosphere Reserve

Is based on an existing protected area (with possible subsequent changes in zonation/delimitation over time)

Has been developed specifically for your Biosphere Reserve as the area did not encompass any existing protected areas

Other (please specify)

28. Which of the following actions have been undertaken to clarify or optimize the zonation of your Biosphere Reserve?

Yes No Do not know

Use of practical tools and guidelines for biosphere zonation that are available at the national level (e.g. ecosystem approach, gap analysis)

Zonation

114

Spatial extension of existing Biosphere Reserve to link up relatively small protected core areas with significantly larger buffer zones and transition areas

Definition of performance standards for each zone

Identification of the contribution of each zone to the whole Biosphere Reserve

Clear definition of outer boundary, transition area and buffer zones of your Biosphere Reserve

Clear explanation of the rationale for the boundaries (e.g. in nomination or periodic review)

Recognition at national level of Biosphere Reserve zonation schemes as important planning tools


29. Within the framework of your Biosphere Reserve, are there any initiatives around the following themes?

Yes No Do not know

Sustainable development

If yes, what is the nature of these initiatives?

Research

Education

Local development



Yes No Do not know

Climate change


Research

Functions and themes

115

Education

Local development



Yes No Do not know

Ecosystem services


Research

Education

Local development



Yes No Do not know

Urban-rural issues


Research

Education

Local development



Yes No Do not know

Sustainable alternative livelihoods and poverty alleviation


Research

Education

116

Local development



Yes No Do not know

Local Biosphere Reserve products and product labeling


Research

Education

Local development



Yes No Do not know

Peace and security


Research

Education

Local development


36. Does your Biosphere Reserve have a communication strategy?

Yes

No

Do not know

37. Within the framework of your Biosphere Reserve, have any of the following products been generated and disseminated?

Research and information products

117

Yes No Do not know

Academic research (e.g. books, journal articles)

Policy oriented research publications (e.g. policy briefs, reports)

Educational materials (e.g. for primary or secondary schools)

Information materials for the general public (e.g. website, newsletters and social media)

Tourist information (e.g. brochures)


38. Has research carried out within the framework of the Biosphere Reserve(s) in your country influenced:

Yes No Do not know

Decision-making processes at local, national or international levels

Financial resource mobilization for research or other purposes

Awareness and knowledge of biodiversity or other issues among different stakeholder groups

Capacity development of stakeholders

The use of Biosphere Reserves as learning and demonstration sites

Replication or scaling-up of projects carried out within the framework of Biosphere Reserves

For mountain Biosphere Reserves only: Policies for sustainable mountain development through the use of Biosphere Reserves as an innovative example


39. Have local communities been involved in the management and development of activities within the framework of your Biosphere Reserve?

Yes

No

Participation local community

118

Do not know

If yes, please specify in what ways local communities are involved in the management and development of activities within the framework of your Biosphere Reserve:

40. Have local communities benefited from the establishment of your Biosphere Reserve and/or the activities taking place within the framework of your Biosphere Reserve?

Yes

No

Do not know

If yes, please specify in what ways local communities have benefited from the establishment of your Biosphere Reserve and/or the activities taking place within the framework of your Biosphere Reserve:

41. To what extent do you think your Biosphere Reserve has made progress in terms of meeting the targets of the Madrid Action Plan for the four main action areas?

No progress

Some progress

Substantial progress

Do not know

Cooperation, management and communication

Zonation

Science and capacity enhancement

Partnerships

42. Please rank the main action areas of the Madrid Action Plan according to their priority (with 1 being the highest priority and 4 the lowest).

1 2 3 4


Zonation


Partnerships

43. What do you consider to be the main challenges for Biosphere Reserves in the future?

44. What should be done to address these challenges?

Local impact

Learning for the future

119

Annex 8: Questionnaire for members of MAB NCs

1. What is the name of your country?

2. How long have you been involved in the national MAB committee?

Less than one year

One to five years


3. Does your country's national MAB committee meet on a regular basis?

Yes

No

Do not know

4. How frequently does the national MAB committee meet?

Less than once a year

Once a year

Twice a year

More frequently (please specify):

5. How many members does the national MAB committee have?

6. Who are the members of the national MAB committee?

Representatives of national governments

Focal points/managers of Biosphere Reserves

Academics or members of the scientific community

Representatives from nongovernmental organizations


7. Please specify which ministries are represented in the national MAB committee?

8. Has the national MAB committee defined a structure, strategy and/or action plan to assist Biosphere Reserves in meeting their responsibilities within the MAB Programme?

Yes

No

Do not know

120

9. What are the main purposes of the national MAB committee?

Sharing knowledge and discussing good practices

Developing a (joint) research agenda and activities on biosphere reserves

Capacity development of biosphere reserves focal points/managers

Mobilizing financial resources for (joint) activities on biosphere reserves

Developing standards and guidelines for biosphere reserves (zonation, management, functions, etc.)

Formulating and/or promoting biosphere reserve related policies and legislation


10. To what extent has the Madrid Action Plan been used to guide the work regarding the national MAB committee?

Not at all



11. How many biosphere reserves are there in your country?

12. Are there currently any proposals for establishing new biosphere reserves in your country?

Yes

No

Do not know

13. Which of the following monitoring and evaluation activities have been taking place within the framework of the national MAB committee?

Yes No Do not know

Compile and synthesize information on the functioning of Biosphere Reserves

Share information on the functioning of Biosphere Reserves with MAB regional networks and the MAB Secretariat

Devise schemes to support periodic review processes


Management and capacity

121

14. Which of the following actions have been undertaken to promote biosphere reserves at the national level?

Yes No Do not know

Encourage the government to include biosphere reserves in the national legislation

Encourage the government to recognize biosphere reserve zonation schemes as important planning tools


15. Has the national MAB committee mobilized financial resources for biosphere reserves in your country or its own activities from the following sources?

Yes No Do not know

National government

Local government




Local economy (e.g. fair trade, tourism)


16. Does the national MAB committee collaborate with the following (UNESCO-related) actors?

Yes No Do not know

Focal points/managers of biosphere reserves in your country




UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (e.g. IHP, IOC, MOST, IGCP, IBSP)

Partnerships

122


17. Do the activities of the national MAB committee link explicitly to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (e.g. UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD, CMS)?

Yes

No

Do not know

18. Which of the following activities have been supported or organized by the national MAB committee?

Yes No Do not know

Training and capacity development activities targeted at staff involved in the management of Biosphere Reserves (e.g. on adaptive management, science-policy- practice interaction, conflict resolution)


Alignment of Biosphere Reserve strategies and action plans with existing international, regional and national programmes, policies, strategies and action plans (e.g. One UN)


Identification, development and promotion of fair trade products deriving from biosphere reserves

Identification, development and promotion of markets for goods and services deriving from biosphere reserves

Mobilization of scientific and nonscientific actors within research programmes at biosphere reserves

Support transboundary biosphere reserves and other forms of transboundary cooperation

19. Has the national MAB committee assisted biosphere reserves in defining a suitable zonation scheme?

Yes

Activities

Zonation

123

No

Do not know

If yes, please specify the nature of the assistance:

Yes No Do not know

Assistance in the development of practical tools and guidelines for biosphere zonation (e.g. ecosystem approach, gap analysis)

Assistance in the spatial extension of existing biosphere reserves

Assistance in defining the boundaries of the zones through stakeholder consultations

Assistance in defining performance standards for biosphere reserve zones and identification of the contribution of each zone to the biosphere reserve


20. Within the framework of the national MAB committee, are there any initiatives around the following themes?

Yes No Do not know



Research

Education

Capacity development



Yes No Do not know

Climate change


Research


124

Education




Yes No Do not know

Ecosystem services


Research

Education




Yes No Do not know

Urban-rural issues


Research

Education




Yes No Do not know



Research

Education

125




Yes No Do not know



Research

Education




Yes No Do not know

Peace and security


Research

Education



27. Within the framework of the biosphere reserve(s) in your country, have any of the following products been generated and disseminated?

Yes No Do not know





126


Tourist information (e.g. brochures)


28. Has research carried out within the framework of the biosphere reserve(s) in your country influenced:

Yes No Do not know





The use of biosphere reserves as learning and demonstration sites

Replication or scaling-up of projects carried out within the framework of biosphere reserves

For mountain biosphere reserves only: Policies for sustainable mountain development through the use of biosphere reserves as an innovative example


29. To what extent do you think biosphere reserves in your country have made progress in terms of meeting the targets of the Madrid Action Plan for the four main action areas?

No progress

Some progress


Do not know


Zonation


Partnerships

30. Please rank the main action areas of the Madrid Action Plan according to their priority (with 1 being the highest priority and 4 the lowest).


127

31. What do you consider to be the main challenges for the national MAB committee in the future?


33. What do you consider to be the main challenges for your country's biosphere reserves in the future?


1 2 3 4


Zonation


Partnerships

128

Annex 9: Questionnaire for regional or thematic networks

1. What is the name of the regional or thematic network of which you are coordinator/focal point?

2. How long have you been involved in the coordination/management of the network?

Less than one year

One to five years


3. Has the network developed a structure, strategy and/or action plan to meet the network’s responsibilities within the MAB Programme and the World Network of Biosphere Reserves?

Yes

No

Do not know

4. What are the main purposes of the network?

Sharing knowledge and discussing good practices

Developing a (joint) research agenda and activities on biosphere reserves

Capacity development of biosphere reserves focal points/managers

Mobilizing financial resources for (joint) activities on biosphere reserves

Developing standards and guidelines for biosphere reserves (zonation, management, functions, etc.)

Formulating and/or promoting biosphere reserve related policies and legislation


5. To what extent has the Madrid Action Plan been used to guide the work of the network?

Not at all



6. Since its establishment, the number of activities and events organized by the network over the years has:

Increased

Introductory questions

129

Remained stable

Decreased

7. Since its establishment, demand for/participation in activities and events organized by the network over the years has:

Increased

Remained stable

Decreased

8. Which of the following monitoring and evaluation activities have been taking place within the framework of the network?

Yes No Do not know

Compile and synthesize information on the functioning of biosphere reserves

Share information on the functioning of biosphere reserves with the MAB Secretariat

Devise schemes to support periodic review processes

Assess the economic contribution to the local economy of at least one biosphere reserve from the network


9. Has the network mobilized financial resources from the following sources?

Yes No Do not know

National government of Member States

Local government




Local economy (e.g. fair trade, tourism)

Management and capacity

130

(Other) voluntary contributions


10. Does the network collaborate with the following (UNESCO-related) actors?

Yes No Do not know

Focal points/managers of biosphere reserves

National MAB committees



UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (e.g. IHP, IOC, IGCP, MOST, IBSP)


11. Do the activities of the network link explicitly to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (e.g. UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD, CMS)?

Yes

No

Do not know

12. Which of the following activities have been supported or organized by the network?

Yes No Do not know

Training and capacity development activities targeted at staff involved in the management of biosphere reserves (e.g. on adaptive management, science-policy- practice interaction, conflict resolution)


Alignment of biosphere reserve strategies and action plans with existing international, regional and national programmes, policies, strategies and action plans (e.g. One UN)

Partnerships

Activities

131


Identification, development and promotion of fair trade products deriving from biosphere reserves

Identification, development and promotion of markets for goods and services deriving from biosphere reserves

Mobilization of scientific and nonscientific actors within research programmes at biosphere reserves


13. Within the framework of the network, are there any initiatives around the following themes?

Yes No Do not know



Research

Education




Yes No Do not know

Climate change


Research

Education





132

Yes No Do not know

Ecosystem services


Research

Education




Yes No Do not know

Urban-rural issues


Research

Education




Yes No Do not know



Research

Education




Yes No Do not know


133


Research

Education




Yes No Do not know

Peace and security


Research

Education



20. Within the framework of the network, have any of the following products been generated and disseminated?

Yes No Do not know





Website (of the network)


21. Has research carried out within the framework of the network influenced:


134

Yes No Do not know





The use of biosphere reserves as learning and demonstration sites

Replication or scaling-up of projects carried out within the framework of biosphere reserves

For mountain biosphere reserves only: Policies for sustainable mountain development through the use of biosphere reserves as an innovative example


22. Have the activities and outputs generated within the framework of the network influenced debates

and activities beyond the intended audiences (e.g. in other regions or thematic areas)? If yes, please specify:

23. What do you consider to be the main challenges for the network in the future? 24. What should be done to address these challenges? 25. What do you consider to be the main challenges for biosphere reserves in the future? 26. What should be done to address these challenges?


135

Annex 10: Self-assessment form MAB Secretariat

Management of the network

1. In which of the following activities has the MAB Secretariat been involved and/or provided guidance:

Yes No Do not know

Creation or restructuring of MAB National Committees

Development of a structure, strategy and/or action plan for MAB National Committees

Creation and strengthening of regional and thematic networks

Development of a structure, strategy and/or action plan for regional networks

Update of the nomination forms for biosphere reserves (including transboundary biosphere reserves)

Update of periodic review forms for biosphere reserves (including transboundary biosphere reserves)

Development of schemes to support periodic review processes

Screening of new biosphere reserve proposals

Elaboration of a map presenting the WNBR according to ecosystem types

Please add any comments:

2. Which of the following monitoring and evaluation activities have been undertaken or supported by the

MAB Secretariat?

Yes No Do not know

Assessment of the achievements of the Seville Strategy

Creation and implementation of a system of recognizing performance of the Seville Strategy

Compilation and synthesis of information on the functioning of biosphere reserves

Survey on the present zoning system of the world network of biosphere reserves and investigate how well they fulfill the three functions in each zone

Analysis of information on the functioning of biosphere reserves (especially regarding implementation of management/cooperation plans)

Please add any comments:

136

3. As a staff member of the MAB Secretariat, what are your key responsibilities (excluding

administrative tasks not directly related to biosphere reserves, WNBR, etc.)?

1: 2: 3: 4: 5:

Partnerships 4. As a staff member of the MAB Secretariat, do you collaborate with other UNESCO Intergovernmental

Programmes (e.g. IHP, IOC, IGCP, MOST, IBSP)?

Yes

No

If yes, please briefly provide some examples (programme and topic):

5. As a staff member of the MAB Secretariat, do you coordinate/align the activities in your region with

international initiatives/conventions in order to increase synergies?

Yes

No


6. As a staff member of the MAB Secretariat, which institutional actors do you consider to be key

partners in your work in the context of biosphere reserves (please rank them in order of importance, with 1 being the most important): 1: 2: 3: 4: 5:

Functions, themes and activities

7. Which of the following activities have been organized or supported by the MAB Secretariat?

Yes No Do not know


137

Provide training and capacity development activities targeted at staff involved in the management of biosphere reserves

Strengthen the scientific functions of biosphere reserves (e.g. through development of research programmes)

Develop education programmes and training courses related to biosphere reserves

8. To what extent are the following themes incorporated in the work of the MAB Secretariat:

Regularly Sometimes Not at all


Climate change

Eco-system services

Markets/funds for ecosystem services (e.g. carbon, biodiversity, water)

Urban-rural issues


Local biosphere reserve products and product labeling

Peace and security

Communication and information

9. Which of the following actions have been undertaken by the MAB Secretariat to improve the access

to information and to develop new ways to communicate knowledge?

Yes No Do not know

Generation and dissemination of academic publications

Generation and dissemination of policy oriented research publications

Creation of a web-based information clearing house mechanism

Other (please specify): 10. Has the MAB Secretariat developed a communication strategy aimed at various audiences (e.g.

general public, policy makers, journalists, academic and scientific institutions)?

Yes

No

Do not know

Please add any comments

138

11. Which of the following actions have been undertaken or supported by the MAB Secretariat to promote

biosphere reserves? Yes No Do not know

Develop an integrated international promotion strategy targeting the general public

Create a journalism award directed at the mass communication media for their role on promoting the importance of biosphere reserves

Create an incentive programme to recognize the efforts of communities, individuals, institutions, networks and nations in creating, managing and promoting biosphere reserves.

Encourage states to include biosphere reserves in their own legislation

Encourage national recognition and use of biosphere reserve zonation schemes as a planning tool


The role of the MAB Secretariat in the geographic regions

12. Please indicate for which geographic region you are responsible within the MAB Secretariat:

Africa

Arab States

Asia and the Pacific

Europe and North America

Latin America and the Caribbean

13. Since its establishment, the number of activities and events organized by the regional network over

the years has:

Increased

Remained stable

Decreased

14. Since its establishment, demand for/participation in activities and events organized by the regional

network over the years has:

Increased

Remained stable

Decreased

139

15. Has the MAB Secretariat assisted in mobilizing financial resources for the functioning/operations of the network(s) in your region?

Yes

No

16. Has the MAB Secretariat mobilized financial resources for the functioning/operations of the national

MAB committees in your region?

Yes

No


17. To what extent do you think biosphere reserves have made progress in terms of meeting the targets

of the Madrid Action Plan for the four main action areas? No

progress Some

progress Substantial progress

Do not know


Zonation


Partnerships

18. Please rank the main action areas of the Madrid Action Plan according to their priority with 1 being

the highest priority and 4 the lowest priority.

1 2 3 4


Zonation


Partnerships

19. What do you consider to be the main challenges for the WNBR and the role of biosphere reserves in

the future? 20. What should be done to address these challenges? What should be the role of the MAB Secretariat?

140

Annex 11: Priorities for evaluation of MAP as identified by the electronic working group

1) High priority actions

Actions Ranking Responsibility for

Action

Action 1.2: Compile and synthesize first-hand information on the functioning of BRs, which should then be shared inter-regionally and globally

22 Secretariat, Networks,

Committees

Action 2.1: Utilize BRs in UNESCO’s intergovernmental programmes


Committees, Commissions

Action 2.2: Work closely with the authorities responsible for the implementation of relevant biodiversity and environmental multilateral agreements to ensure coordination between international designations at the national level

25 Committees, Commissions

Action 3.1: Creation of a web-based information clearing house and information centre, to exchange and share technology, research, training, education and cooperation opportunities, findings and experience, and to help to solve problems at local, regional and international levels

26 Secretariat

Action 4.2: Ensure that each network has partnerships and long-term financing mechanisms from within its membership to ensure sustainability of its operations and activities

26 Networks, Committees,

Commissions

Action 5.1: Create and strengthen existing regional and inter-regional Thematic Networks formed around key ecosystems, such as mountains, freshwater, oceans, dry-lands, forests, urban areas, small islands


BRs

Action 6.1: Implement a communication strategy on environmental, economic, social, spiritual, cultural and political importance and benefits of BRs and the WNBR directed to national governments, policy makers, journalists, local communities and other target groups

27 Networks, BRs

Action 7.1: Functional MAB National Committees in each country, managed in a manner assuring adequate representation of biosphere reserve coordinators and other key stakeholders


Action 7.2: Create or restructure MAB National Committees 24 Committees, Commissions

Action 8.1: Encourage and enable individual BRs to collaborate with UN-led policies, strategies and action plans towards sustainable development, as well as other initiatives outside the UN system.

22 Committees, BRs

Action 10.1: Every BR should carry out a participatory planning process, such as Local Agenda 21, to guide BR implementation assuring “participatory management” especially for traditional, local and indigenous communities

24 BRs

141

Action 10.2: Every BR should establish a management committee comprising stakeholders representing different activity sectors in all three zones

25

BRs

Action 13.5: Encourage national recognition of BR zonation schemes as an important tolls for programmes linked to protected areas in production landscapes

22 BRs, Committees

Action 14.1: Use appropriate tools such as the Ecosystem Approach, gap analysis, the concept of corridors, ecological networks, etc. for (a) a better connectivity of ecologically important sites and elements in the landscape, (b) a better inter-linkage of areas/zones and enhanced buffering, and (c) a better consistency in planning

24 BRs

Action 15.3: Develop actions to increase synergies among international, regional and national programmes currently developed and executed in parallel, such as CBD, Agenda 21 and One-UN activities

22 BRs, Networks

Action 16.2: Improve access to information and new ways to communicate knowledge to a large variety of non-scientific target groups

22 Secretariat, BRs,

Committees, Commissions

Action 16.3: Strengthen the role of science in decision-making through problem oriented, applied research in order to increase the availability of funding for both science and management, and ensure good science-informed participatory and collaborative management

22 BRs, Committees,

Commissions

Action 17.2: Promote capacity enhancement programmes for BR administrators and managers, such as on adaptive management, including conflict resolution and negotiation skills

23 Committees

Action 19.1: Mobilize scientific and non-scientific actors combining all knowledge systems in order to strengthen the scientific functions of BRs

22 BRs, Committees,

Networks

Action 20.1: Ensure stakeholder involvement in the production of a research agenda to be incorporated in the management plan for the whole BR

22 BRs

Action 20.2: Use BRs as sites for applied, problem oriented research for sustainable development linked to the zoning and management plan. Incorporate the results of applied ecological and socio-economic research into ecosystem management of all areas and link educational activities to the different functions in all zones of BRs

25 BRs

Action 21.1: Promote the BR as a learning site of excellence for sustainable development, for demonstrating trade-offs and balance amongst ecosystem services, human environment interactions and well-being, in the framework of DESD

25 BRs, Networks,

142

Action 22.2: Provide appropriate staff and funding (a) to enable BR managers/coordinators to actively contribute to the WNBR, i.e. translation of best practices report into local languages, and (b) to feed this information into the Internet website of UNESCO-MAB

23 BRs, Committees

Action 25.2: Establish partnership agreements, such as for water, forest and carbon funds

22 Committees, Networks

Action 25.3: Seek national and international support for BRs and Regional Networks with the organizations responsible for projects on biodiversity conservation, international waters, climate change, poverty reduction, etc.

23 Secretariat,

Committees, Networks

Action 27.1: Create or strengthen partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods and services in BRs and to support management and communication relating to BRs

23 BRs, Committees

Action 28.2: Encourage and enable twinning programmes between BRs sharing specific issues

22 Networks,

BR

Action 31.1: Promote and use BRs as mechanisms for peace and security

22 Secretariat, Networks

2) Medium priority actions


Action

Action 1.1: Assess the achievements of the Seville Strategy 18 Secretariat

Action 1.3: Create and implement a system of recognizing performance of the Seville Strategy


Committees

Action 3.2: Produce regional, sub-regional, country- and ecosystem specific publications on BRs, MAB and other related themes.

21 Secretariat, Committees,

BRs

Action 3.3: Elaboration of a map presenting the WNBR according to ecosystem types, including human-impacted ecosystems such as rural and urban areas

18 Secretariat

Action 3.5: Develop an integrated international promotion and communication strategy targeting the general public

21 Secretariat

Action 4.1: Develop a structure, strategy and action plan for each regional network to meet their responsibilities within the MAB programme and regularly report to MAB National Committees and individual BR’s.

19 Networks

Action 6.2: Create an incentive programme to recognize the efforts of communities, individuals, institutions, networks and nations in creating, managing and promoting BRs


143

Action 9.1: Screen new BR proposals as well as devise schemes to support periodic review processes in the view of the evolution of the mission and vision contained in the MAP in particular through field visits by teams of regional and national experts in co-operation with the UNESCO Regional, Cluster and National Offices as appropriate


Action 11.1: Encourage States to include BRs in their own legislation

20 Secretariat, Committees

Action 12.1: Carry out a survey on the present zoning system of the WNBR (including the proportions of the different zones) and investigate how well they fulfill the three functions in each zone


Action 13.1: Develop and apply practical tools and guidelines for zoning at the national level

18 Committees, Networks,

BRs

Action 13.2: Use BRs to manage large biome as a BR system and for extensive terrestrial and marine areas as a series of units linking up relatively small protected areas with significant larger buffer and transition zones

19 BRs, Committees

Action 13.3: Determine the most suitable zonation patters and define performance standards for each zone. Ensure sufficient size of each zone for the BR functions and identify contribution of each zone to the whole BR

21 BRs, Committees

Action 13.4: Clearly identify the outer boundary of the BR in determining the transition areas through stakeholder consultation. (Each BR should consider natural, e.g. watershed, ecosystem, etc. as well as political and administrative boundaries in defining its delimitation, and clearly explain the rationale behind the determination in the nomination/periodic review forms)

20 BRs, Committees

Action 15.1: Undertake a critical analysis and synthesis of existing data based on experience of implementing the management plans/cooperation plans of BRs around the world, including their relationship to ecosystem services

20 Commissions, Committees

Action 16.1: Coordinate with UNESCO ISPs and other relevant international, regional and national authorities to promote policy relevant research


Action 17.1: Provide training to BR managers on science-policy practice interaction and participatory management for science and other relevant areas


Action 18.1: Work with other ISPs to include the use of BRs as research and demonstration sites in their programmes

19 Networks, Committees,

Secretariat

Action 18.2: Enhance the widespread use of BRs by IHP, IOC, IGCP and MOST for research, information generation and policy advice

18 UNESCO ISPs, BRs

Action 22.1: Improve capacity of WNBR with the aim of building strong learning organizations, alliances and empowering all stakeholders at each BR

21 BRs, Networks

Action 23.1: Facilitate the integration of urban areas into BRs 17 Urban group,

144

Networks

Action 24.1: Use mountain BRs as field observatories of global change impacts on the environment, economy and human well-being, based on the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy

20 BRs, Committees,

Networks

Action 24.2: Use of research results to assist countries in developing and implementing policies for sustainable mountain development

21 BRs, Committees,

Commissions, Networks

Action 24.3: Develop strategies for other ecosystems in collaboration with relevant national and international organizations

18 BRs, Committees,


Action 24.4: Carry out training courses for different ecosystem types related to climate change, in particular using the ERAIFT regional flagship project for tropical forests and certified forestry as a climate change mitigation approach

20 BRs, Committees,


Action 25.1: Establish partnership agreements with relevant institutions/organizations to carry out Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) projects

20 MAB ICC, Networks

Action 26.1: At least one pilot BR in each Regional Network chosen to carry out an assessment of the economic contribution of BRs to local economies with the active involvement of local communities

21 Networks

Action 26.2: Further the work of the Task Force on Quality Economies by creating or strengthening partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods using the BR brand

21 Secretariat, BRs,

Committees

Action 26.3: Promotion of alternative and sustainable livelihoods primarily targeting vulnerable populations within BRs such as local communities, minorities, indigenous and ethnic groups

20 Member States, BRs

Action 27.2: Promote incentives for product labeling in BRs 20 Secretariat, BRs

Action 28.1: Support study tours/site visits between stakeholder groups in BRs

20 Networks, BRs

Action 28.3: Encourage South-South cooperation and triangular South-North-South cooperation

18 Networks, BRs

Action 29.1: Establish cooperation plans including all sectors of society to champion cooperative activities ranging from education and research to sustainable use of environmental goods and services

21 BRs

Action 29.2: Establish partnerships with regional economic and financial institutions

19 BRs

Action 30.1: Support the development of new and strengthen existing transboundary BRs as well as other forms of transboundary cooperation


Action 30.2: Update the nomination and periodic review forms for transboundary BRs

19 (Committees, Networks)

Secretariat

145

3) Low priority actions


Action

Action 1.4: Update the nomination and periodic review forms for BRs

accomplished

Secretariat

Action 3.4: Creation of journalism award directed at the mass communication media for their role on promoting the importance of BRs

11 Member States

Action 15.2: Promote the MAB Programme’s global network function through the systematic recording of policy relevant case studies and ensuring their availability and dissemination

15 BRs, Committees,

Commissions, Secretariat

146

Annex 12: Time schedule MAP Evaluation

Mid 2013 Ranking exercise and identification of priority areas by the electronic working group

September 2013 Desk study and ToR

October – November 2013 Development of questionnaires with a focus on previously identified priority areas

December 2013 Launch of the surveys

December 2013 – January 2014 Response period

January 2014 – March 2014 Data analysis of survey results Additional data collection

April 2014 Draft report

May 2014 Final report

June 2014 Presentation of findings and recommendations to the 26th session of the MAB-ICC

147

Annex 13: Rules for addressing multiple responses per BR/MAB national committee

For the biosphere survey, the adopted rules were the following: 1) Delete very incomplete responses; 2) In case there are still a lot of conflicting answers among the remaining responses, indicate

the case as a “conflict” case. Two answers are not considered conflicting when one of those answers is “do not know”;

3) In case there is a difference in the indicated number of years active as a manager or focal point, take the respondent with the most experience as a reference;

4) In case there is no difference in the level of experience, take the most recently completed survey as a reference;

5) In case different entities have filled out the survey for the same (transboundary) biosphere reserve, recode the conflicting answers into “unclear”.

For the MAB national committee survey, the adopted rules were the following: 1) Delete very incomplete responses; 2) In case there are still a lot of conflicting answers among the remaining responses, indicate

the case as a “conflict” case. Two answers are not considered conflicting when one of those answers is “do not know”;

3) Select the most credible cases through the application of the majority perspective for factual questions (e.g. number of biosphere reserves in the country);

4) In case there is a difference in the indicated number of years involved in the MAB national committee, take the respondent with the most experience as a reference;

5) In case there is no difference in the level of experience, take the most recently completed survey as a reference;

6) Consolidate the case by recoding conflicting answers into “unclear”. These responses are included in the “no answer” category displayed in the Figures included in the report.

148

Annex 14: Graphs bi-variate analyses (Europe and North America – Other regions)

Figure 70 Self-assessed progress in cooperation, management and communication

(nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other regions Europe andNorth America



No answer

Figure 71 Self-assessed progress in zonation


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




No answer

Figure 72 Self-assessed progress in science and capacity enhancement


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




No answer

Figure 73 Self-assessed progress in partnerships (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




No answer

149

Figure 74 Prioritization cooperation, management and communication (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA

= 99)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


1 (Highest priority) 2

3 4 (Lowest priority)

Figure 75 Prioritization zonation (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Figure 76 Prioritization science and capacity enhancement (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Figure 77 Prioritization partnerships (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




150

Figure 78 BRs with a communication strategy (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99)

51%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Figure 79 Involvement of local communities in the management and development of activities within

the framework of BRs (nBR = 237, nother = 138, nEurNA = 99)

87%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Figure 80 Local communities deriving benefits from the establishment of BRs and/or activities taking

place within the framework of BRs (nBR = 237, nother

= 138, nEurNA = 99)

67%73%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Note for all graphs: For the BR survey, information was not available for 4 cases.

151

Annex 15: Graphs bi-variate analyses (pre-Seville – post-Seville)

Figure 81 Actions undertaken to improve the zonation of the BR (nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

56%

46%

62%

71%

76%

71%

55%

62%

46%

54%

71%

78%

75%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Use of practical tools and guidelines forbiosphere zonation that are available at the

national level

Spatial extension of the biosphere reserve

Definition of performance standards for eachzone

Identification of the contribution of each zone tothe whole biosphere reserve

Clear definition of outer boundary, transitionarea and buffer zones

Clear explanation of the rationale for theboundaries

Recognition at national level of biospherereserve zonation schemes as important

planning tools

Pre-Seville (incl. 1995) Post-Seville

152

Figure 82 Self-assessed progress in cooperation, management and communication (nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Post-Seville Pre-Seville

No answer

Do not know

No progress

Some progress


Figure 83 Self-assessed progress in zonation (nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


No answer

Do not know

No progress

Some progress


Figure 84 Self-assessed progress in science and capacity enhancement

(nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


No answer

Do not know

No progress

Some progress


Figure 85 Self-assessed progress in partnerships (nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


No answer

Do not know

No progress

Some progress


153

Figure 86 Prioritization cooperation, management and communication

(nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




c

Figure 87 Prioritization zonation (nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Figure 88 Prioritization science and capacity enhancement

(nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Figure 89 Prioritization partnerships (nBR = 237, npre = 112, npost = 125)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Note for all graphs: For the BR survey, information was not available for 4 cases.

Final Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan for …Internal Oversight Service Evaluation Section...

Documents

Transcript of Final Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan for …Internal Oversight Service Evaluation Section...