Perspectives for South-South cooperation between UNU...

Perspectives for South-South Cooperationbetween UNU and UNESCO:

Lessons from the past and views for the future

by Libor Jansky

SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION PROGRAMMEWORKING PAPER

No. 41, 2010

WORKING PAPERSNº 1 (1995): The Mata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve (Brazil): An Overview, by Antonio Carlos DIEGUES.

Nº 2 (1995): The Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve (China): A Tropical Land of Natural and Cultural Diversity, by Zhaolu WU, Xiaokun OU.

Nº 3 (1995): The Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve (Thailand), by Benjavan RERKASEM, Kanok RERKASEM.

Nº 4 (1995): La Réserve de la Biosphère de Dimonika (Congo), par Jean DIAMOUANGANA.

Nº 5 (1995): Le parc national de Taï (Côte d’Ivoire): un maillon essentiel du programme de conservation de la nature, par Yaya SANGARÉ.

Nº 6 (1995): La Réserve de la Biosphère de Mananara-Nord (Madagascar) 1988-1994: bilan et perspectives, par Noëline RAONDRY, Martha KLEIN, Victor Solo RAKOTONIRINA.

Nº 7 (1995): A Study on the Home garden Ecosystem in the Mekong River Delta and the Hochiminh City (Viet Nam), by Nguyen Thi Ngoc AN.

Nº 8 (1995): The Manu Biosphere Reserve (Peru), by Luis YALLICO, Gustavo SUAREZ DE FREITAS.

Nº 9 (1995): The Beni Biosphere Reserve (Bolivia), by Carmen MIRANDA L..

Nº 10 (1995): La Reserva de la biosfera Sierra del Rosario (Cuba), par Maria HERRERA ALVAREZ, Maritza GARCIA GARCIA.

Nº 11 (1995): The Omo Biosphere Reserve (Nigeria): Current status, utilization of biological resources and sustainable management, by Augustine O. ISICHEI.

Nº 12 (1995): Environnement naturel et socio-économique de la forêt classé de la Lama (Bénin), par Marcel A. BAGLO, P. COUBEOU, B. GUEDEGBE, B. SINSIN.

Nº 13 (1995): The Calakmul Biosphere Reserve (Mexico), by Eckart BOEGE.

Nº 14 (1996): Conservation de la biodiversité aux Comores: le Parc national de Mohéli, par A. S. ALI; A. YOUSSOUF.

Nº 15 (1996): Resource-Use Patterns: The Case of Coconut-Based Agrosystems in the Coastal Zones of Kerala (India) and Alagoas (Brazil), by Vinicius NOBRE LAGES.

Nº 16 (1996): The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: A Review of Conservation Status with Recommendations for a Holistic Approach to Management (India), by R.J. RANJIT DANIELS.

Nº 17 (1996): Kinabalu Park and the Surrounding Indigenous Communities (Malaysia), by Jamili NAIS.

Nº 18 (1997): Puerto Galera (Philippines) : A Lost Biosphere Reserve?, by M. D. FORTES.

Nº 19 (1997): The Palawan Biosphere Reserve (Philippines), by Ricardo M. SANDALO, Teodoro BALTAZAR.

Nº 20 (1997): Le Parc national de Kahuzi Biega, future Réserve de la biosphère (République démocratique du Congo), par Bihini won wa MUSITI, Germain Mansoto ma OYISENZÔO, Georg DÖRKEN.

Nº 21 (1997): Biodiversity Conservation through Ecodevelopment Planning and Implementation Lessons from India, by Shekhar SINGH.

Nº 22 (1997): The Tanjung Puting National Park and Biosphere Reserve (Indonesia), by Herry DJOKO SUSILO.

Nº 23 (1997): Biodiversity Conservation in Mozambique and Brazil, by Maria Teresa RUFAI MENDEZ.

Nº 24 (1998): Social Sciences and Environment in Brazil: a state-of-the-art report (Brazil), by Paulo FREIRE VIEIRA.

Nº 25 (1998): La implementación de Reservas de Biosfera: La experiencia latinoamericana (Argentina), by Claudio DANIELE, Marcelo ACERBI and Sebastián CARENZO.

Nº 26 (1998): Preservation of Sacred Groves in Ghana: Esukawkaw Forest Reserve and its Anwean Sacred Grove, by Boakye AMOAKO-ATTA.

WORKING PAPERSNº 27 (1998): Environmentally Sound Agricultural Development in Rural Societies: A Comparative View from

Papua New Guinea and South China, by Ryutaro OHTSUKA, Taku ABE and Masahiro UMEZAKI.

Nº 28 (1999): Reunión internacional para la Promoción del desarrollo sostenible en los Países Africanos de Lengua oficial Portuguesa (PALOP) mediante la cooperación internacional, por M. T. R. PITÉ, E. MÜLLER.

Nº 29 (2000): La Reserva de la biosfera Los Tuxtlas (México), por S. GUEVARA SADA, J. LABORDE DOVALI, G. SÁNCHEZ RÍOS.

Nº 30 (1999): The Biosphere Reserve of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta: A Pioneer Experience of a Shared and Co-ordinated Management of a Bioregion (Colombia), by M. C. D. G. TRIBIN, G. E. RODRÍGUEZ N., M. VALDERRAMA.

Nº 31 (2000): A participatory study of the wood harvesting industry of Charawe and Ukongoroni (United Republic of Tanzania), by A. V. ELY, A. B. OMAR, A. U. BASHA, S. A. FAKIH, R. WILD.

Nº 32 (2001): Nature Reserve Network Planning of Hainan Province (China), by Z. OUYANG, Y. HAN, H. XIAO, X. WANG, Y. XIAO, H. MIAO.

Nº 33 (2002): Género, poder y cambio. El caso de la Reserva de Biosfera Ñacuñán, Argentina, por L. TORRES

Nº 34 (2005): Águas da Mata Atlântica - Programa Àguas e Florestas da Mata Atlântica por C. FERREIRA LINO e H. DIAS

Nº 35 (2006): Nuevas perspectivas para el programa MAB y las reservas de biosfera - Lecciones aprendidas en América Latina y el Caribe, por Tilman JAEGER / New prospects for the MAB programme and biosphere reserves - Lessons learned from Latin America and the Caribbean by Tilman JAEGER

Nº 36 (2006): Impact of the Tsunami on the Tourism Industry and Ecosystem of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India by Maharaj VIJAY REDDY. R., Gareth SHAW and Allan WILIAMS

Nº 37 (2007): Reservas de la Biosfera Bañados del Este, Uruguay, por Fabiana PEZZANI

Nº 38 (2008): Reserva de biosfera del bosque Mbaracayú, Paraguay, por Ing. Agr. (MSc) María del Carmen FLEYTAS

Nº 39 (2009): El modelo de reserva de biosfera e instrumentos para su utilización sostenible: El caso de Chile Pedro ARAYA ROSAS

Nº 40 (2010): The Mata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve: review and update of the limits and the zoning of the Mata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve in digital carthographic base: phase VI 2008, by Clayton FERREIRA LINO, Heloisa DIAS and João Lucílio R. ALBUQUERQUE

N° 41 (2010): Perspectives for South-South Cooperation between UNU and UNESCO: Lessons from the past and views for the future, by Libor JANSKY

The Working Papers series is a publication of the South-South Co-operation Programme. The series aims to disseminate the results of research carried out in Biosphere Reserves on such topics as: (i) the prevailing conservation and resource-use patterns and, (ii) the ways of improving the traditional practices and orientations for applied research aimed to a more intensive use of the biodiversity and provide a better livelihood to the local populations in the buffer and transition areas. On more general issues the Working Papers are also an attempt to identify key problems that will become areas of concentration for international co-operation.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this book are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of UNESCO.

The Working Papers series is published in English, French or Spanish in function of the language used by the author.

© Permission to reproduce any material of the Working Papers series will be given without any authorization, provided that full references to the author, title, title of volume, date, institution, editor and place of publication are given.

Published and distributed in 2010UNESCO HeadquartersParis – France

All correspondence should be addressed to the Administrative Editor.

Edited by: UNESCODivision of Ecological and Earth Sciences Phone.: +33 1 45 68 41 46South-South Co-operation Programme Telefax: +33 1 45 68 58 047, Place de Fontenoy E-mail: [email protected] PARIS (FRANCE)

South-South Co-operation Programme is also available in INTERNET:http://www.unesco.org/mab/south-south/index.htm

Scientific Editor Administrative Editor

Ignacy SACHSECOLE DES HAUTESETUDES EN SCIENCESSOCIALES (EHESS)

Centre de Recherches sur leBrésil Contemporain (CRBC)54 Bd. Raspail75270 PARIS Cedex 06FRANCEPhone.: +33 1 49 54 20 85Telefax: +33 1 45 48 83 53

Miguel CLÜSENER-GODTUNITED NATIONSEDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFICAND CULTURALORGANIZATION (UNESCO)

Division of Ecologicaland Earth SciencesSouth-South Co-operationProgramme1, rue Miollis75732 Paris Cedex 15FRANCEPhone.: +33 1 45 68 41 46Telefax: +33 1 45 68 58 04

SC-2010/WS/23

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.unesco.org/mab/south-south/index.htm









Working Papers No. 41, 2010, UNESCO (South-South Co-operation Programme), Paris (France)

1

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to:

Libor JanskyFaculty of Natural SciencesComenius UniversityMlynska dolina842 15 BratislavaSlovak Republic,Tel.: +421 2 60296 574E-mail: [email protected]



2 Working Papers

ContentsContents

Introduction 3

Background 3

From the joint activities of the South-South Co-operation Programme 4

New priorities of UNU 5

UNU Thematic Dimensions 6

Importance of Mountain Projectsfor the South-South Cooperation 7

Land Use and Land Degradation in Mountains 7

Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia (PALM project) 10

About project pilot study and demonstration sites 14

Current project activities and achievements 16

Conclusions 21

© Luohui Liang


3

Introduction

Background

Introduction

T he relationship between United Nations University (UNU), which was established in

1973, and United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is stated in the Charter of United Nations University. Further importance of cooperation and joint initiatives with UNESCO is described in the UNU Strategic Plan 2009-2012. One of such collaborative initiatives is the South-South Cooperation Programme submitted by UNESCO-MAB, UNU, and the Third World Academy

of Sciences (TWAS). The Programme, which started in 1992, fi rst focused only on the humid tropics. Since the Mexico-meeting in 1995, the Programme was handling cooperation between all developing countries, especially considering coastal areas and mangroves. The Programme has supported a large set of international meetings, publications, individual research, training projects and training grants.

Background

The main mission of this Programme is to follow up the recommendations of the Conference on Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics, which was held in June 1992 in Manaus, Brazil (Uitto, J. I. & M. Clüsener-Godt, 1993). It’s second job is to put into action the recommendations of Agenda 21 adopted in Rio de Janeiro, particularly the Convention on Biodiversity proposing priority areas for collaborative research. Many of these areas could still be suitable for further cooperation between UNESCO and UNU today. Special attention is placed on the strengthening of capacity building and research in natural resources management for sustainable socio-economic development. The Programme aimed to develop collaboration between

selected sites in Latin America, Africa and Asia more effi cient. Research, monitoring and collaboration between these sites focused on testing hypotheses in the fi eld of sustainable use of biodiversity and identifi ed the relevant technologies (Clüsener-Godt, M. & I. Sachs 1994, 1995). The purpose was to make better use of existing capacities rather than building new institutions, as well as increasing the local capacity for carrying out management, research and training. Finally, the Programme aimed at strengthening the economic dimension within an environmentally sound sustainable development and improving the use of economic instruments for achieving sustainable development by enhancing management structures of protected areas with regard to fi nancial autonomy.


4 Working Papers

From the joint activitiesFrom the joint activities of theSouth-South Co-operation Programme

T here is a number of collaborative initiatives of various nature between UNESCO and the

UNU’s institutes. With regard to the South-South Co-operation Programme specifi cally, one of the new activities was an exchange of professionals between the UNESCO’s Division of Natural Sciences in Paris and, at that time, the UNU’s Environment and Sustainable Development Programme in Tokyo during 2001-2005. Several project proposals, some of which were successfully funded, resulted from this exchange of specialists. For example the most successful was the Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD) project, that was implemented as a joint initiative of UNU-INWEH, UNESCO-MAB Programme, and ICARDA during the years of 2003-2007; this project was primarily funded by the Flemish Government of Belgium (Adeel et al. 2008). The project investigated community based strategies to combat desertifi cation in nine study sites from North Africa to East Asia – in China, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria, Tunisia and Uzbekistan. Expertise was provided from two Belgian universities. The second phase of this project – Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD-2) – was launched in 2009.

Other results of the exchange scheme included a number of workshops and conferences in the fi eld of sustainable development, which were almost always organized in developing countries. For example ”Management of Fragile Ecosystems and Water Crisis in Relation to Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Amazon Basin with Particular Attention to Biosphere Reserves and Similarly Managed Areas“ was held in February 2006 at the

University of Georgetown in Georgetown, Guyana (Bernard et al. 2007). The conference was organized by UNESCO/MAB, UNU/ESD, Federal University of Para, Brazil (UFPA/NAEA), University of Georgetown, Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) and some other organizations.

Another typical example of the South-South Cooperation project is the case study of the “UNU research network on sustainable land management in the Mountainous Mainland Southeast Asia (MMSEA)” . UNU Institute for Sustainability and Peace has established this research network of country partners in the mountainous region of mainland Southeast Asia and Japanese partners to address the challenge and knowledge gap lies between scientifi c and policy levels globally and locally (UNU ISP 2010, Liang et al., 2009).

The MMSEA region, home to diverse ethnic minority cultures, provides one of the best regions to study interactions between culture and environment in the context of global change. The project outputs will include documentation of best practices, training of young professionals and empowering of ethnic communities in adapting to global changes. The second phase of the project was launched on 1 August 2009. Research study in Nothern Laos just concluded that several policy interventions have restricted land use and land availability for the shifting cultivation and in response, local farmers have gradually transformed land use to tree plantation and expanded off-farm livelihoods, but the transition resulted in mixed consequences on ecology, economy and society.

© N

evel

ina

I. P

acho

va

5

New priorities of UNUNew priorities of UNU

The UNU functions as a decentralized “network of networks”. In principle the UNU system comprises of the UNU Centre in Tokyo and a worldwide network of Institutes (Research and Training Centres and Programmes) assisted by number of associated and cooperating institutions. Some of them have active external collaboration with numerous divisions at UNESCO in Paris and with their independent institutes elsewhere. These include co-sponsored training courses, various projects and conferences, some of which could be associated with the South-South cooperation but have not been considered yet. The list of activities of UNU Training Centres & Programmes worldwide is available at the website http://www.unu.edu/system/centres.html.

In 2009 the UNU has introduced a new strategy towards sustainable solutions for global problems for 2009-2012 (UNU, 2009). As specifi ed in this UNU Strategy Plan the emphasis is placed on the following university-wide goals: enhancing core activities, which include research, teaching and capacity development; dis semination and sharing of knowledge; strengthening collaboration, communications and outreach; renewing structures

and improving overall quality (UNU Strategic Plan 2009-2012).

Within these goals the empahsis was placed on strenghtening the UNU’s presence in developing and transitional countries through introducing the concept of “twin institutes”, i.e. to create a partner institute to the existing UNU institutes. Important was also to initiate new joint degree programmes with good universities that are globally recognized, on the basis of already existing joint Master’s and Ph.D. programmes run by the UNU instuitutes. Further focus is on improving linkages with other UN organizations especially with UNESCO and UNITAR, to improve the quality of research and teaching, and mobilizing additional resources for the UNU (UNU, 2009).

The UNU’s mission is “...to contribute, through collaborative research, capacity development and advisory services, to efforts to resolve the pressing global problems of human survival, development and welfare that are the concern of the United Nations, its Peoples and Member States”. Therefore the academic programme of UNU has its main topics summarized in the following fi ve interlinked and inter-dependent clusters where “sustainability” is the key theme (UNU Strategic Plan 2009-2012):

http://www.unu.edu/system/centres.html


6 Working Papers

UNU Thematic Dimensions

Peace, Security and Human Rights: �Peace building and peace keeping −Confl ict resolution and human security −Fostering dialogue among civilizations, religions and cultures −Human rights and ethics −Gender equality and mainstreaming −

Human and Socio-economic Development and Good Governance: �Growth, economic development and innovation −Alleviating poverty and inequalities −Good governance −Enhancing educational capacities −Fair trade −Processes and consequences of regional integration and cooperation −Leadership, management and entrepreneurship −

Global Health, Population and Sustainable Livelihoods: �Global health −Safe water and sanitation −Food and nutrition for human and social development −Combating HIV/AIDS −Population changes and migration −

Global Change and Sustainable Development: �Climate change — adaptation and mitigation −Ecological health and biodiversity −New risk and vulnerabilities −Sustainable land, agriculture and natural resources management −Green economy −

Science, Technology, Innovation and Society: �Science, technology and innovation −Sustainable energy futures −Sustainable urban futures −Sustainable housing and construction −


7

Land Use and Land Degr

Importance of MountainImportance of Mountain Projects for the South-South Cooperation

Firstly, what is the importance of mountain projects? The degradation of mountain ecosystems – home to 600 million people and the source of water for more than half the world’s population – threatens to seriously worsen global environmental problems including floods, landslides and famine. Climate change, pollution, armed conflict, population growth, deforestation and exploitative agricultural, mining and tourism practices are among a growing list of problems. Furthermore, poverty and inequality, in

combination with other socio-economic and political conditions characteristic for mountain regions make it difficult for local populations to ensure the sustainable use and management of natural resources. While several of the world’s mountain areas are in a relatively good ecological shape, many face accelerating environmental and cultural decline, such as the Pamir-Alai ranges. (Jansky L., Ives J.D. & K. Furuyashiki. 2002).

Land Use and Land Degradation in Mountains

Land is the primary resource base, on which mountain communities build their livelihoods. At the same time, however, it provides the structural and nutritional basis for the development and maintenance of mountain ecosystems, whose goods and services in turn are significant determinants of human well-being and security, both in the mountain areas and in the adjacent lowlands. The high exposure and sensitivity and limited resilience of land in mountains to both environmental and anthropogenic pressures makes it a fragile link in the delicate balance between man and nature in mountain environments.

The high exposure of mountain ecosystems and land to environmental pressures is coupled with a high sensitivity and limited resilience to stress. Soils on sloping lands, as are most lands in the mountains, are inherently prone to erosive degradation from water, wind, glaciers melting and gravitation, among other natural phenomena. The ability of mountain soils to recover from erosion is limited by the slower rates of soil formation processes in mountains, relative to

the natural rates of different types of environmental degradation to which they are subjected, due to various soil profile forming factors, such as climate, geomorphology, parent material, soil organisms, time, etc. Furthermore, changes in soil structure and content, as a result of erosion, reduce its water holding capacity and nutrient content, and make it more prone to further degradation through various soil mass movements (Sidle, 1985). Forests and other vegetative cover provide mountain soils with valuable protection. The generally shallow soils and low soil fertility, coupled with a short growing season for vegetation and characteristic variations in precipitation associated with mountain climates, however, make vegetation, particularly in high mountain areas, a scarce resource and one which is slow to recover and resume its ecological functions once degraded, thus leaving mountain soils both more exposed to pressures but also less resilient to them due to associated changes in their water retention capacities, bio-chemical composition and structure.


8 Working Papers

Poverty and inequality, in combination with other socio-economic and political conditions characteristics for mountain regions make it diffi cult for local populations to ensure the sustainable use and management of natural resources. As a result overgrazing, deforestation and in some regions salinization, have become widespread phenomena in many mountain ranges. Given the fragility of mountain soils, land degradation further reduces their inherently low productivity through loss in depth, nutrients and water holding capacity among other factors. At the same time, the reduction and destruction of mountain vegetation makes mountain communities more vulnerable to increased in frequency and intensity fl oods and mass wasting hazards. As a result, mountain communities are often enclosed in a vicious cycle of further impoverishment and insecurity which in turn beget more degradation.

The consequences of land degradation in mountains, however, are not limited to the local level. At the national and regional level its impacts are felt through increased costs for infrastructure maintenance and resettlements of people affected by the exacerbated effects of natural disasters, reduced quantity and quality of water supply for drinking and irrigation, and thus reduced health and food security of lowland populations, as well as increased out-migration to urban centers and neighboring states with broader socio-economic and political security implications. The cumulative effects of land degradation are also increasingly recognized at the global level through the reduction and loss of signifi cant carbon sinks, i.e. mountain pastures and forests, and globally important biodiversity gene pools, ecosystems and landscapes, threatening the resource base of both current and future generations.

Land degradation in mountains, however, is not an inevitable process. In the course of time mountain communities have developed successful adaptation mechanisms that have allowed them to establish and maintain their livelihoods in a sustainable manner, despite the harsh environmental conditions and the limited available fi nancial, physical and natural resources. Innovation has allowed for the development of ingenious technical solutions for increasing marginally the productivity of the scarce

land resources, while maintaining the integrity and resilience of local ecosystems by capitalizing on the characteristics and resources of mountain environments (Brookfi eld, 2001).

Past attempts to address the problem of land degradation in mountains have focused on the development and implementation of exogenous, technical and primarily sectoral solutions that have often exacerbated rather than alleviated human and environmental pressures in mountains. Well-guided development interventions e.g. supporting the improvement of transportation and other infrastructure are well-known for their direct and indirect deleterious human and environmental security impacts in mountain regions. Similarly, policy interventions, such as the designation of valuable mountain ecosystems as conservation areas, have resulted in adverse effects, e.g. increased degradation of the land resources in the surrounding settlement areas, due to the disruption of traditional land use practices without appropriate consideration of their implications and corresponding provisions. The failure to recognize the complex nature and multiple interrelated processes and factors that give rise to land degradation in mountains is increasingly noted as a major cause of past intervention failures thus the development and implementation of integrated resource use and management strategies is seen as a promising solution.

Years of trials and errors, have also led to the recognition that the multi-level and multi-faceted causes of land degradation most often do not coincide with their impacts, and thus give rise to situations in which the costs and the benefi ts of land degradation are not justly shared among the different stakeholders (Stocking & Murnaghan, 2001). The interplay of interests among winners and losers from land degradation can hinder the successful design and implementation of relevant policy measures and development interventions for mitigating the causes and consequences of land degradation if confl icts of interests are not openly recognized and resolved. Mountain communities, given their physical and informational isolation, and policy marginality, especially during the early stages of economic development, when

governance is usually characterized by a high level of centralization, have been particularly susceptible to exclusion from decision-making in response to land degradation in the past. Participatory land use planning and management have thus emerged as essential elements of the process of mainstreaming sustainable land management in an integrated resource use framework in mountain areas.

Building upon the accumulated knowledge and experience the Global Environment Facility (GEF), through its new Operational Programme (OP#15) on Land Degradation, has supported the initiation and development of a several pioneering initiatives for mainstreaming sustainable land management in mountain areas in an integrated framework and based on participatory research, planning and implementation. One of them focuses on the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains in Central Asia. It is aimed at mainstreaming sustainable land management as a basis for improving human well-being and reducing the environmental security threats to the fragile mountain region, and generating a programmatic model replicable in similar mountain ranges. The results from the integrated and participatory assessment of land degradation and of possible intervention strategies for achieving the above objectives conducted in the course of the development of the overall project concept are presented below.

The above ‘Land Use and Land Degradation in Mountains’ section is cited from Jansky & Pachova, 2006.

© Nevelina I. Pachova

10 Working Papers

Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia (PALM project)

The mountains in Central Asia are among the world’s major centers of unique cultural (Badenkov, 1992) and biological diversity. The Pamir Mountains in Tajikistan and the adjacent Alai and Chon-Alai mountain ranges in neighboring Kyrgyzstan represent a signifi cant proportion of the mountains of Central Asia and are a notable example of the challenges facing mountain areas in the region.

The consequences of climate change is already felt at the local level, through increased frequencies and intensities of natural disasters, such as avalanches, glacier lake outbursts, fl oods, mudfl ows, landslides and rock falls, and secondary impacts such as water-logging and salinization. Since the melt-water peak in summer coincides with the growing period of cotton in the Tajik and Uzbek lowlands, and with the driest season in this region, however,

changes in the storage capacity and seasonal regulation of stream-fl ow in the High Pamir and Alai mountains are likely to affect not only local security and land use systems, but also the ecological and socio-economic welfare of downstream users. The currently observed initial increase in glacier melt rates has increased stream fl ow in some rivers, partially compensating for the decrease of stream fl ow in others. In the mid- and long-term, however, a signifi cant reduction of water fl ow in many rivers should be anticipated. The crucial role of water in the arid and semi-arid areas of the region, combined with the geopolitical location of the Pamir and Alai mountain ranges at the meeting point of seven countries (Afghanistan, China, India, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), thus makes the sustainable use and management of water and ecosystems resources in the uplands a critical



11

prerequisite for ensuring socio-economic stability and political security in the volatile region.

Isolated from the capital centres by high mountainous ranges, limited and dilapidated transportation infrastructure, as well as by ethnic boundaries and corresponding political power divisions, the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO) in Tajikistan, where the major part of the High Pamirs is situated, and the southern provinces of Kyrgyzstan, which host the Alai range, are among the regions that have been most seriously affected by the growing poverty and inequality in the two countries. Their marginalization, coupled with the harsh living conditions at an elevation of 1,200m to 3,500m, gave rise to a humanitarian crisis in some parts of the mountainous regions, in the early years of the transition.

Over thirty years ago, a research project on highland-lowland interactive systems was initiated, which focused on mountain regions in developing countries. The United Nations University’s research on sustainable mountain development has gradually expanded to examine a vast geographical area, while creating a strong and extensive network of mountain experts and institutions all over the world.

In recognition of the gap between mountain research and development work and building upon the accumulated knowledge and networks of inter-disciplinary expertise. UNU has been engaged in developing and testing alternative approaches to bringing scientifi c expertise. This was organized in order to manage the critical challenges facing mountain environments and communities. One of UNU’s South-South type of initiatives is the project on Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains (PALM) – an integrated and trans-boundary initiative of the governments of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. It constitutes an attempt to develop and test an innovative approach to generate knowledge, motivate commitments and catalyze actions aimed at addressing the inter-linked problems of poverty and land degradation in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai mountains. The project aims to reduce anthropogenic pressures on the fragile mountain

forest, pasture and agricultural land resources in the Pamir-Alai region. At the same time it aims to improve the well-being of the mountain inhabitants through a trans-boundary and integrated approach entailing policy development, capacity building and targeted fi eld level activities at selected pilot sites (Fig. 1), identifi ed through a process of community-based land use planning.

The idea of a joint initiative between the govern-ments of the two mountain states emerged as early as 2000. In support of its implementation, the UNU, together with the continued support of the National Center for Mountain Regions Devel-opment in Kyrgyzstan, the Center for Support and Development of Protected Areas in Tajikistan and the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) at the University of Berne in Switzerland, brought together a strong network of more than 15 na-tional and international partners whose shared interest in and commitment to the transboundary initiative allowed for leveraging external funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in September 2007.

The PALM project went through an extended development and an inception phase. Changing individuals, institutional realities and political dynamics in the project countries, as well as at UNU, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the GEF Implementing Agency, and at GEF itself, added to the challenges of establishing a common understanding of the problems at hand. Eventually, project implementation arrangements were fi nalized and project management structures were established in February 2009. Key national and international experts were recruited and started their work in March 2009. Additionally, the PALM project fi eld offi ce in Osh hosted the fi rst fi eld training of trainers on land degradation assessment for experts from both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in April 2009.

The major challenge of the project, however, still lies ahead. It entails engaging individual land users in each of the ten pilot site communities in working together towards developing a new future. It also exacts that capacity building and adaptive research activities are targeted to address issues that the


12 Working Papers

pilot communities have identifi ed as important in the processes of community-based land use planning. Finally, sustaining and scaling-up successful community-based land use planning processes and sustainable land use and management practices

initiated at the project pilot sites requires the development of enabling policy, legislative and strategic planning environment.

www.ehs.unu.edu/palm/

Fig.1. PALM project area with pilot sites

Indeed, the project concept for addressing the inter-linked challenges of poverty and land degradation in Pamir-Alai region is an innovative one. This means that its implementation requires the development of new ways of thinking and approaches. The team of national and international partners and experts that the PALM project has brought together try to fi nd a way of bringing the project concept to successful fruition over the next three-four years and beyond.

The project has two main objectives, which are defi ned as following:

Development Objective:

To address the link between poverty, vulnerability and land degradation through the promotion of sustainable land management practices that contribute to improving the livelihoods and economic well-being of the inhabitants of the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains.

Environmental Objective

To mitigate the causes and negative impacts of land degradation on the structure and functional integrity of the ecosystems of the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai

http://www.ehs.unu.edu/palm


13

Mountains through mainstreaming sustainable land management tools and practices from household, community, local government, national and regional levels.

In view of the project goal and objectives, project activities are designed to lead to the realization of the following expected outcomes:

Outcome 1: Enhanced regional cooperation between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan creating the enabling regional strategic planning, and national legislative, policy, institutional, technical, and economic incentive, environment, for the sustainable management of the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai mountain ecosystems.

Outcome 2: Improved capacity of Tajikistan’s and Kyrgyzstan’s public and private sector agency research and advisory support service providers to

promote sustainable land management within the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains.

Outcome 3: Reduction in rural poverty and economic vulnerability through restoration and enhancement of the productive and protective functions (ecological goods and services) of the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai mountain ecosystems.

Outcome 4: Generic guidelines developed for up-scaling and replication of the lessons learnt, from the project‘s experience with sustainable land management, within comparable transboundary mountain regions within Asia and elsewhere.

More detailed information about the overall framework and implementation time frame of the PALM Project Components are schematically described in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: GEF/UNEP/UNU PALM Project Components (Pachova, 2010)


14 Working Papers

About project pilot studyAbout project pilot study and demonstration sites

The synthesis report for PALM Project prepared by CDE (Breu & Hurni, 2005) based on the pilot field studies broadly summarizes the status of the region’s land resources as follows:

1) Vegetation is the land resource most affected by degradation. Particularly forest and pasture land as well as dwarf-shrub plant communities, suffer badly from high pressure and unsustainable land use, and show signs of severe degradation.

2) Areas of agricultural soils are very scarce and although they form an essential resource for sustaining rural livelihoods, they have experienced high use intensity, unadapted land use practices and a moderate degree of degradation.

3) Although concrete figures on wildlife are unavailable, continuous hunting activities and habitat destruction is believed to have caused a considerable decrease in animal populations.

4) It is changes in the seasonal availability and distribution of water within the region, rather than its quality which is a major concern, although there are local exceptions.

These pilot sites are used for detailed assessment of local level land use and land degradation within the project area. Local assessment became the part of the regional, national and village level capacity building component of the entire project. According to McDonagh & Bunning (2009) the objective with the detailed site assessments is to generate an in-depth understanding of each of the main types of land degradation or sustainable land management in the study area, on which land use type they occur and an analysis of their drivers and impacts. It is likely that there will be several or perhaps many distinct land-use types present within a study area.

A critical task in such project is to determine the geographic location, and geographic boundaries, of each of the proposed pilot study or demonstration

areas (Douglas, 2004). The project has a dual strategy of promoting both sustainable land management as well as improved rural livelihoods within the High Pamir and the Alai Mountains. Therefore each pilot study or demonstration area has to correspond to the area of land within which a rural community exploits the local natural resources (soils, vegetation, water etc.) for the purpose of meeting its livelihood needs. The pilot study and/or demonstration areas therefore excluded land that falls entirely within a designated protected area (e.g. a National Park, or State Forest Reserve), and which is managed solely by the State for wildlife protection or forest preservation and production purposes.

Then each project country selected a minimum of 4-5 pilot study/demonstration areas that can be considered broadly representative of the constraints and opportunities for sustainable land management within the High Pamir Mountains (Tajikistan) and Pamir-Alai Mountains (Kyrgyzstan). This is to ensure that whatever lessons are learnt from working with the pilot communities, can be subsequently scaled-up over a wider geographic area, and replicated within those neighbouring communities facing similar environmental and socio-economic circumstances.

For each country the selected pilot study and/or demonstration areas are covering the dominant mountain ecosystems, the typical range of land use systems pursued by the mountain communities, the type and severity of land degradation processes occurring, and

major socio-economic differences. In order to cover the diversity within the High Pamir Mountains (Tajikistan) and Alai Mountains (Kyrgyzstan) it was considered that each pilot study/demonstration area was different from each other with regard to: (i) the specific mountain ecosystems used by the pilot community; (ii) the particular types and combinations of land use systems pursued; (iii) the nature of the land degradation present; and/or (iv) key socio-economic differences. At least one

15

of the pilot study/demonstration areas corresponds to a local “bright spot” (i.e. an area where land degradation control measures have been successful). While the remaining areas contain representative examples of local “hot spots” (i.e. areas with severe land degradation). However when selecting “hot spots” it is important that the identifi ed land degradation problems in each area are ones that could be overcome through the development and adoption of improved land management practices. Therefore very severely degraded areas should not be selected, as these could not be restored to a productive condition within the time and resources available to the project.

For practical reasons the size of each pilot study/demonstration area is not too large, as the larger the area the more time and resources required to complete the base line studies and identify the

options for improved land management. However it always depends on a variety of factors that can only be determined locally and the site is large enough to include all of the land used by the pilot community, including areas of land that might be used at different times of the year (e.g. winter, spring and summer pasture/grazing areas). When choosing between pilot study/demonstration areas with broadly similar characteristics the fi nal choice was based on additional criteria related to the interest and accessibility of the pilot community(ies). Especially, with the communities which were interested and willing to cooperate with the project. Likewise they should be located in areas that can be reached relatively easily by the project study teams, consultants and visiting experts. The sites are not selected in very remote areas, and are reachable by a car.



16 Working Papers

Current project activities Current project activities and achievements

The project activities involve a series of meetings, workshop, trainings of trainers, including the community level briefi ng meetings, participatory planning workshops, and discovery-based field learning exercises. Technical experts from the project countries, as well as other experts from central and local government level support service providers, and international and national co-fi nancing agencies, are acting as consultants to provide advise and assistance with the project implementation and execution. The project management encompasses

over one hundred persons working in regional, national and fi eld level project offi ces and working groups, and as the international consultants and co-fi nancing partners (Fig. 3, 4, 5). For example, by summer 2010, there were 6 regional and 4 national trainings and workshops, more than 70 village resource-use planning workshops, over 160 village level trainings on 6 sustainable land management topics and over 10 fi eld research trips and surveys conducted.

Fig. 3: PALM Project Management Structure (http://www.ehs.unu.edu/palm/)

http://www.ehs.unu.edu/palm


17

and achievements

Fig. 4. GEF PALM Project Implementation Structure in Tajikistan (Pachova, 2010)

Fig. 5. GEF PALM Project Implementation Structure in Kyrgyzstan (Pachova, 2010)


18 Working Papers

Emphasis is also placed on undertake adaptive research and participatory technology development by national research institutes through competitive grants. The adaptive research grants are envisioned to cover the costs of investigating innovative and sustainable agronomic, animal husbandry and mountain ecosystem resource management practices, with the potential to improve and sustain the preservation and restoration of mountain ecosystem stability, functions and services. It

In KyrgyzstanMaintenance and rational use of �biodiversity of medical and useful herbs in the Pamir and Alai region, and introduction of new species into cultivation to enhance socio-economic development in KyrgyzstanAssessment of regional water and small �hydropower potentials in the Pamir-AlaiAssessment of landslide hazards in a �changing climate based on geological, geo-morphological, dendro-chronological and satellite dataAssessment of market value chain of �mountainous products in the Pamir-AlaiAssessment of the capacities of the �legal, policy and institutional frameworks in Kyrgyzstan to support SLMAssessment of key issues and strategic �options for sustainable resource use and management in the Pamir-Alai

also aims to address the economic well-being and livelihood needs of the inhabitants of the High Pamir and Pamir Alai Mountains. Research proposals for accessing the grants should address problems identifi ed in consultation with local technical experts and land user groups and should contribute to a jointly identifi ed solution. For example, the following adaptive/targeted research activities are being implemented during 2009-2010 period (Pachova, 2010):

In TajikistanAssessing the impact of sustainable land �use systems for enhancing food security and mitigating climate changeSoil health assessment using fallout �radionuclideInvestigation of approaches for �increasing the productivity of highland pastures with community participation in the context of climate changeInvestigation of the technical and cost �effectiveness of inter-seasonally stored solar thermal energy for indoor heatingMarket Based incentives for sustainable �management of indigenous goatsAssessment of the capacities of the �legal, policy and institutional frameworks in Tajikistan to support SLMAssessment of the key issues and �strategic options for sustainable resource use and management in the Pamir-Alai

And of trans-boundary natureExploration of the economic potential for sustainable agriculture through �selected case studiesHerders’ Manual: Managing Pastures and Livestock in Kyrgyzstan and �Tajik PamirsExploration of the linkages between energy and land management in the �Pamir-Alai regionRegional hazard risk assessment and mapping �Exploration of geological sites of interest and development of maps for eco-geo �tourism in the Pamir-AlaiDevelopment of Recommendations for the establishment of a regional natural �resource use and management governance regime for the Pamir-AlaiDevelopment of Pamir-Alai Transboundary Strategy and Action Plan for Natural �Resources Management

19

Furthermore, the project was planning to include a number of micro-project proposals that are priority component activities but which require external investment funding. The aim was to provide the sub-district units with the skills to prepare such proposals themselves, not solely to meet the needs of the PALM project. Learning process would empower them to be able to seek further technical and fi nancial support for other micro-projects, from other local, national and international level sources, both now and in the future.

For each unit/village land use plan there is one micro-project portfolio containing all of the proposed micro-projects. The portfolio is required to show an equitable sharing of the costs and benefi ts of the proposed micro-projects amongst all of the units’

constituent communities/villages. To be eligible for fi nancial support from the project, each micro-project within the portfolio must be one whose need has been identifi ed through the community-based land use planning process. It also has to be one whose implementation would be expected to make a positive contribution to reducing poverty while restoring, sustaining and enhancing the productive capacity, and protective functions, of the ecosystem resources of the High Pamir and Pamir Alai Mountains. The investment funds required for individual micro-projects vary from project to project depending on the specifi c local circumstances and needs. By now there were over 120 micro-project proposals received on sustainable land management from the pilot communities.

© Luohui Liang

20 Working Papers

In terms of capacity development the trainings covering the wide range of topics were organized during 2009-2010, including (Pachova, 2010):

At the national level are:

Land degradation and soil fertility �managementSustainable pasture use and management �

Veterinary norms for livestock breeding �

Cultivation of medicinal herbs �

Regional Water and Small Hydropower �Potentials in the Pamir-Alai MountainsDisaster risk preparedness �

Field assessment of soil, water, vegetation �and biodiversity resourcesMicro-project proposal writing �

Alternative income generation �

Accessing Markets for Mountainous �Products (wool, wild berries, med. herbs)Agro-technical rules in crop-development �

Cultivation of vegetables in greenhouses �

Cultivation and planting of fodder crops �

Fodder crops resistant to climate change �

Alternative energy technologies �

Demonstration of the potential of inter- �seasonally stored solar thermal energyCommunity-based resource assessment �and village development planningEcological balance in nature �

Market Based incentives for sustainable �management of indigenous goats

At the regional level are:

Participatory fi eld assessment of land �degradation and land use planningAssessing the impact of sustainable land �use and managementAssessing legal, policy and institutional �capacities for sustainable land management Developing Skills in to Undertake Legal and Policy Reform for sustainable land managementMillennium Development Assessment �and Participatory Mapping for Strategic Development Planning


21

ConclusionsIn conclusion it is safe to say that there are good prospects for South-South cooperation between UNU and UNESCO especially in research, teaching, dissemination and sharing of knowledge and improving overall quality of such activities. New period for strengthening the UNU – UNESCO ties through South-South Cooperation type of initiatives that will mostly depend on developing closer collaboration at the unit level through developing

© Luohui Liang

joint proposals for collaborative projects that will attract external funds. The PALM project described in this work as an example of South-South cooperation presents the results of such an applied participatory study aimed at integrating scientifi c expertise in mountains with the knowledge and views of the key stakeholders in the development of the Pamir and Alai Mountains in Central Asia.

Conclusions


23

Literature usedLiterature used

Adeel, Z., King, C., Schaaf, T., Thomas, R. and Schuster B. 2008. People in Marginal Drylands – Managing Natural Resources to Improve Human Well-being. A policy brief based on the Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD) project. UNU.

Badenkov, Y. (1992) “Mountains of the Former Soviet Union” in Stone, B. Ed. The State of the World’s Mountains: A Global Report, London and New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd.

Bernard, D. (Eds.); Aragon, L.E. (Eds.); Clüsener-Godt, M. (Eds.), 2007. Biosphere reserves in the Amazon. UNESCO, Paris (France); UFPA/NAEA , Belem (Brazil), 148 p.

Breu T., and H. Hurni Eds.(2005) Baseline Survey on Sustainable Land Management in the Pamir-Alai Mountains: Synthesis Report, Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland.

Brookfi eld, H. (2001) Exploring Agrodiversity: Issues, Cases and Methods in Biodiversity Conservation, New York: Columbia University Press.

Clüsener-Godt, M.; Sachs, I. (Eds.), 1994. Extractivism in the Brazilian Amazon: Perspectives on regional Development. MAB Digest 18. (English, Spanish, Portuguese) UNESCO, Paris, 89 pp.

Clüsener-Godt, M.; Sachs, I. (Eds.), 1995. Brazilian Perspectives on Sustainable Development of the Amazon Region. MAB Book 15 UNESCO, Paris, 311 pp.

Douglas, M. 2004. Suggested Criteria for the Selection of the GEF PDF-B Pilot Study/Demonstration Areas. Communication to UNU.

Ives, J, Messerli, B, Jansky L. 2002. Mountain Research in South-Central Asia: An Overview of 25 Years of UNU’s Mountain Project. Global Environmental Research 6(1): 59-71.

Jansky L., Ives J.D. & K. Furuyashiki. 2002. Mountain momentum: Agenda for today and policy beyond IYM2002. UNU/ESD. 27 p.

Jansky, L. & N.I.Pachova. 2006. Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia. Global Environmental Research, 10(1): 99-115.

Liang, L., Shenb, W. Yang, X. Yang, Y. Zhang, 2009. Building on traditional shifting cultivation for rotational agroforestry: Experiences from Yunnan, China. Forest Ecology and Management Vol. 257, Issue 10.

McDonagh J. & S. Bunning, 2009. Field Manual for Local Level - Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands, Part 1, Methodological Approach, Planning and Analysis, edited for the PALM project.

Pachova, N.I., 2010. Introduction of the PALM Project. Roundtable Discussion: Pasture Use and Management in the Pamir-Alai Mountains, 8 May 2010, Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

Sidle, R.C., A. J. Pearce and C.L. O’Loughlin, 1985. Hillslope Stability and Land Use American Geophysical Union, Water Resources Monograph 11, Washington, D.C.: American Geographic Union.

Stocking, M.A. & Murnaghan, N.,2001. Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. London, Earthscan, 169 pp.

Uitto, J. I.; Clüsener-Godt, M. (Eds.), 1993. Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics: Asia and Africa, United Nations University (UNU) Tokyo, 180 pp.

UNU 2008 Annual Report. 2009 UNU Tokyo. 53 pp. http://www.unu.edu/publications/annualreports/index.htm

UNU 2009. Strategic Plan 2009-2012. 17pp.

http://www.unu.edu/about/files/UNU_Strategic_Plan_2009-2012_en.pdf

UNU Insitute for Sustainability and Peace. 2010. Agrodiversity and the MMSEA Network http://isp.unu.edu/research/projects/agrodiversity/index.html


http://www.unu.edu/publications/annualreports

http://www.unu.edu/about/files/UNU_Strategic_

http://isp.unu

WORKING PAPERSNº 27 (1998): Environmentally Sound Agricultural Development in Rural Societies: A Comparative View from

Papua New Guinea and South China, by Ryutaro OHTSUKA, Taku ABE and Masahiro UMEZAKI.

Nº 28 (1999): Reunión internacional para la Promoción del desarrollo sostenible en los Países Africanos de Lengua oficial Portuguesa (PALOP) mediante la cooperación internacional, por M. T. R. PITÉ, E. MÜLLER.

Nº 29 (2000): La Reserva de la biosfera Los Tuxtlas (México), por S. GUEVARA SADA, J. LABORDE DOVALI, G. SÁNCHEZ RÍOS.

Nº 30 (1999): The Biosphere Reserve of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta: A Pioneer Experience of a Shared and Co-ordinated Management of a Bioregion (Colombia), by M. C. D. G. TRIBIN, G. E. RODRÍGUEZ N., M. VALDERRAMA.

Nº 31 (2000): A participatory study of the wood harvesting industry of Charawe and Ukongoroni (United Republic of Tanzania), by A. V. ELY, A. B. OMAR, A. U. BASHA, S. A. FAKIH, R. WILD.

Nº 32 (2001): Nature Reserve Network Planning of Hainan Province (China), by Z. OUYANG, Y. HAN, H. XIAO, X. WANG, Y. XIAO, H. MIAO.

Nº 33 (2002): Género, poder y cambio. El caso de la Reserva de Biosfera Ñacuñán, Argentina, por L. TORRES

Nº 34 (2005): Águas da Mata Atlântica - Programa Àguas e Florestas da Mata Atlântica por C. FERREIRA LINO e H. DIAS

Nº 35 (2006): Nuevas perspectivas para el programa MAB y las reservas de biosfera - Lecciones aprendidas en América Latina y el Caribe, por Tilman JAEGER / New prospects for the MAB programme and biosphere reserves - Lessons learned from Latin America and the Caribbean by Tilman JAEGER

Nº 36 (2006): Impact of the Tsunami on the Tourism Industry and Ecosystem of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India by Maharaj VIJAY REDDY. R., Gareth SHAW and Allan WILIAMS

Nº 37 (2007): Reservas de la Biosfera Bañados del Este, Uruguay, por Fabiana PEZZANI

Nº 38 (2008): Reserva de biosfera del bosque Mbaracayú, Paraguay, por Ing. Agr. (MSc) María del Carmen FLEYTAS

Nº 39 (2009): El modelo de reserva de biosfera e instrumentos para su utilización sostenible: El caso de Chile Pedro ARAYA ROSAS

Nº 40 (2010): The Mata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve: review and update of the limits and the zoning of the Mata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve in digital carthographic base: phase VI 2008, by Clayton FERREIRA LINO, Heloisa DIAS and João Lucílio R. ALBUQUERQUE

N° 41 (2010): Perspectives for South-South Cooperation between UNU and UNESCO: Lessons from the past and views for the future, by Libor JANSKY

The Working Papers series is a publication of the South-South Co-operation Programme. The series aims to disseminate the results of research carried out in Biosphere Reserves on such topics as: (i) the prevailing conservation and resource-use patterns and, (ii) the ways of improving the traditional practices and orientations for applied research aimed to a more intensive use of the biodiversity and provide a better livelihood to the local populations in the buffer and transition areas. On more general issues the Working Papers are also an attempt to identify key problems that will become areas of concentration for international co-operation.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this book are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of UNESCO.

The Working Papers series is published in English, French or Spanish in function of the language used by the author.

© Permission to reproduce any material of the Working Papers series will be given without any authorization, provided that full references to the author, title, title of volume, date, institution, editor and place of publication are given.

Published and distributed in 2010UNESCO HeadquartersParis – France

All correspondence should be addressed to the Administrative Editor.

Edited by: UNESCODivision of Ecological and Earth Sciences Phone.: +33 1 45 68 41 46South-South Co-operation Programme Telefax: +33 1 45 68 58 047, Place de Fontenoy E-mail: [email protected] PARIS (FRANCE)

South-South Co-operation Programme is also available in INTERNET:http://www.unesco.org/mab/south-south/index.htm

Scientific Editor Administrative Editor

Ignacy SACHSECOLE DES HAUTESETUDES EN SCIENCESSOCIALES (EHESS)

Centre de Recherches sur leBrésil Contemporain (CRBC)54 Bd. Raspail75270 PARIS Cedex 06FRANCEPhone.: +33 1 49 54 20 85Telefax: +33 1 45 48 83 53

Miguel CLÜSENER-GODTUNITED NATIONSEDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFICAND CULTURALORGANIZATION (UNESCO)

Division of Ecologicaland Earth SciencesSouth-South Co-operationProgramme1, rue Miollis75732 Paris Cedex 15FRANCEPhone.: +33 1 45 68 41 46Telefax: +33 1 45 68 58 04

SC-2010/WS/23

Perspectives for South-South Cooperationbetween UNU and UNESCO:

Lessons from the past and views for the future

by Libor Jansky

SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION PROGRAMMEWORKING PAPER

No. 41, 2010

WORKING PAPERSNº 1 (1995): The Mata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve (Brazil): An Overview, by Antonio Carlos DIEGUES.

Nº 2 (1995): The Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve (China): A Tropical Land of Natural and Cultural Diversity, by Zhaolu WU, Xiaokun OU.

Nº 3 (1995): The Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve (Thailand), by Benjavan RERKASEM, Kanok RERKASEM.

Nº 4 (1995): La Réserve de la Biosphère de Dimonika (Congo), par Jean DIAMOUANGANA.

Nº 5 (1995): Le parc national de Taï (Côte d’Ivoire): un maillon essentiel du programme de conservation de la nature, par Yaya SANGARÉ.

Nº 6 (1995): La Réserve de la Biosphère de Mananara-Nord (Madagascar) 1988-1994: bilan et perspectives, par Noëline RAONDRY, Martha KLEIN, Victor Solo RAKOTONIRINA.

Nº 7 (1995): A Study on the Home garden Ecosystem in the Mekong River Delta and the Hochiminh City (Viet Nam), by Nguyen Thi Ngoc AN.

Nº 8 (1995): The Manu Biosphere Reserve (Peru), by Luis YALLICO, Gustavo SUAREZ DE FREITAS.

Nº 9 (1995): The Beni Biosphere Reserve (Bolivia), by Carmen MIRANDA L..

Nº 10 (1995): La Reserva de la biosfera Sierra del Rosario (Cuba), par Maria HERRERA ALVAREZ, Maritza GARCIA GARCIA.

Nº 11 (1995): The Omo Biosphere Reserve (Nigeria): Current status, utilization of biological resources and sustainable management, by Augustine O. ISICHEI.

Nº 12 (1995): Environnement naturel et socio-économique de la forêt classé de la Lama (Bénin), par Marcel A. BAGLO, P. COUBEOU, B. GUEDEGBE, B. SINSIN.

Nº 13 (1995): The Calakmul Biosphere Reserve (Mexico), by Eckart BOEGE.

Nº 14 (1996): Conservation de la biodiversité aux Comores: le Parc national de Mohéli, par A. S. ALI; A. YOUSSOUF.

Nº 15 (1996): Resource-Use Patterns: The Case of Coconut-Based Agrosystems in the Coastal Zones of Kerala (India) and Alagoas (Brazil), by Vinicius NOBRE LAGES.

Nº 16 (1996): The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: A Review of Conservation Status with Recommendations for a Holistic Approach to Management (India), by R.J. RANJIT DANIELS.

Nº 17 (1996): Kinabalu Park and the Surrounding Indigenous Communities (Malaysia), by Jamili NAIS.

Nº 18 (1997): Puerto Galera (Philippines) : A Lost Biosphere Reserve?, by M. D. FORTES.

Nº 19 (1997): The Palawan Biosphere Reserve (Philippines), by Ricardo M. SANDALO, Teodoro BALTAZAR.

Nº 20 (1997): Le Parc national de Kahuzi Biega, future Réserve de la biosphère (République démocratique du Congo), par Bihini won wa MUSITI, Germain Mansoto ma OYISENZÔO, Georg DÖRKEN.

Nº 21 (1997): Biodiversity Conservation through Ecodevelopment Planning and Implementation Lessons from India, by Shekhar SINGH.

Nº 22 (1997): The Tanjung Puting National Park and Biosphere Reserve (Indonesia), by Herry DJOKO SUSILO.

Nº 23 (1997): Biodiversity Conservation in Mozambique and Brazil, by Maria Teresa RUFAI MENDEZ.

Nº 24 (1998): Social Sciences and Environment in Brazil: a state-of-the-art report (Brazil), by Paulo FREIRE VIEIRA.

Nº 25 (1998): La implementación de Reservas de Biosfera: La experiencia latinoamericana (Argentina), by Claudio DANIELE, Marcelo ACERBI and Sebastián CARENZO.

Nº 26 (1998): Preservation of Sacred Groves in Ghana: Esukawkaw Forest Reserve and its Anwean Sacred Grove, by Boakye AMOAKO-ATTA.

Perspectives for South-South cooperation between UNU...

Documents

Transcript of Perspectives for South-South cooperation between UNU...