Drupalterrasdomino.deputacionlugo.org/docs/conoce/fichas... · Published in 2001 by the United...

MAB Report Seville+5 page1(EN) 18/09/01 9:47 Page 1 (Noir/Process Black film)

Published in 2001

by

the United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization

7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP

France

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughoutthis publication do not imply the impression of any opinion on the partof UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city orarea of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. The opinions expressed in this digest are those of the authorsand are not necessarily those of UNESCO or the authors’ employers.

(SC-2001/WS/28)

1. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). First session. Paris, 9–19 November, 1971.

2. Expert panel on the role of systems analysis and modelling approaches in theProgramme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). Paris, 18–20 April, 1972.

3. Expert panel on Project 1: Ecological effects of increasing human activities ontropical and subtropical forest ecosystems. Paris, 16–18 May, 1972.

4. Expert panel on Project 12: Interactions between environmental transformationsand genetic and demographic changes. Paris, 23–25 May, 1972.

5. Expert panel on Project 5: Ecological effects of human activities on the value andresources of lakes, marshes, rivers, deltas, estuaries and coastal zones. London,19–22 September, 1972.

6. Expert panel on Project 3: Impact of human activities and land use practices ongrazing lands: savannah, grassland (from temperate to arid areas), tundra.Montpellier, 2–7 October, 1972.

7. Expert panel on educational activities under the Man and the BiosphereProgramme (MAB). Paris, 5–8 December, 1972.

8. Expert panel on Project 6: Impact of human activities on mountain ecosystems.Salzburg, 29 January–4 February, 1973.

9. Expert panel on Project 13: Perception of environmental quality. Paris,26–29 March, 1973.

10. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Second session. Paris, 10–19 April, 1973.

11. Expert panel on Project 7: Ecology and rational use of island ecosystems. Paris,26–28 June, 1973.

12. Expert panel on Project 8: Conservation of natural areas and of the genetic mate-rial they contain. Morges, 25–27 September, 1973.

13. Expert panel on Project 11: Ecological aspects of energy utilization in urban andindustrial systems. Bad Naukeim, 16–19 October, 1973.

14. Working group on Project 6: Impact of human activities on mountain and tundraecosystems. Lillehammer, 20–23 November, 1973.

15. Consultative group on Project 9: Ecological assessment of pest management andfertilizer use on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Part on fertilizers). Rome,7–9 January, 1974.

16. International working group on Project 1: Ecological effects of increasing humanactivities on tropical and subtropical forest ecosystems. Rio de Janeiro,11–15 February, 1974.

17. Task force on the contribution of the social sciences to the MAB Programme.Paris, 28 February–2 March, 1974.

18. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and training needs in theSahelian region. Niamey, 9–15 March, 1974.

19. Expert panel on Project 2: Ecological effects of different land use and manage-ment practices on temperate and mediterranean forest landscapes. Paris, l 6–19April, 1974.

20. Task force on pollution monitoring and research in the framework of the MABProgramme. Moscow, 23–26 April, 1974.

21. International working group on Project 5: Ecological effects of human activitieson the value and resources of lakes, marshes, rivers, deltas, estuaries and coastalzones. Paris, l 3–17 May, 1974.

22. Task force on criteria and guidelines for the choice and establishment of bios-phere reserves. Paris, 20–24 May, 1974.

23. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and training needs in theAndean region. La Paz, 10–15 June, 1974.

24. Expert consultations on Project 9: Ecological assessment of pest management andfertilizer use on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Part on pesticides).

25. International working group on Project 3: Impact of human activities and landuse practices on grazing lands: savanna and grassland (from temperate to aridareas). Hurley, 2–5 July, 1974.

26. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and training needs in theSouth East Asian Region. Kuala Lumpur, 19–22 August, 1974.

27. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Third session. Washington, D.C., 17–29 September, 1974.

28. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and training needs in LatinAmerica, with emphasis on tropical and subtropical forest ecosystems. MexicoCity, 30 September–5 October, 1974.

29. Expert panel on Project 4: Impact of human activities on the dynamics of arid andsemi-arid zones’ ecosystems, with particular attention to the effects of irrigation.Paris, 18–20 March, 197S.

30. Regional meeting on the establishment of co-operative programmes of interdisci-plinary ecological research, training and rangeland management for arid andsemi-arid zones of Northern Africa. Sfax, 3–12 April, 1975.

31. Task force on integrated ecological studies on human settlements, within theframework of Project 11. Paris, 2–6 June, 1975.

32. Task force on Project 14: Research on environmental pollution and its effects onthe biosphere. Ottawa, 5–8 August, 1975.

33. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and training needs in thehumid tropics of West and Central Africa. Kinshasa, 29 August–5 September,1975.

34. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and training needs in thesouthern Asian mountain systems, particularly the Hind u Kush-Himalayas.Kathmandu, 26 September–2 October, 1975.

35. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and training needs in tropicaldeciduous and semi-deciduous forest ecosystems of South Asia. Varanasi,5–11 October, 1975.

36. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and conservation activities inthe northern Mediterranean countries. Potenza, 27–31 October, 1975.

37. Expert consultations on Project 10: Effects on man and his environment of majorengineering works.

38. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Fourth session. Paris, 18–26 November, 1975.

39. Regional planning meeting of the MAB National Committees of Andeancountries, with particular attention to Project 6. Lima 2–5 December, 1975.

40. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research and training needs in NorthEast Africa and in the Near and Middle East, with emphasis on the ecologicaleffects of irrigation derived from large river basins. Alexandria, 24–27 February,1976.

41. Regional meeting on integrated ecological research in temperate zones of thenorthern hemisphere, in the framework of Project 2. Brno, 24–29 April, 1976.

42. Planning meeting for Project 11, with emphasis on industrialized settlements.Amsterdam, 8–12 June, 1976.

43. MAB Mediterranean Scientific Conference. Regional meeting for MAB NationalCommittees of countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Montpellier,26 September–2 October, 1976.

44. International workshop on tropical rainforest ecosystems. Hamburg-Reinbek,12–17 May, 1977.

45. Workshop on biosphere reserves in the Mediterranean region: development of aconceptual basis and a plan for the establishment of a regional network. Side,6–11 July, 1977.

46. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Fifth session. Vienna, 24 October–l November, 1977.

47. Expert consultations on Project 7: Ecology and rational use of island ecosystems.Khabarovsk, 24 August, 1979.

48. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Sixth session. Paris, 19–28 November, 1979.

49. Seminar on integrated and ecological approaches to rural development in arid andsemi-arid zones. Djerba, 4–12 December, 1979.

50. Séminaire interrégional sur les problèmes de recherche et de formation concer-nant les terres a paturages dans les pays du Sahel et du Maghreb. Dakar,23–31 octobre, l980.

51. Meeting on the creation of a Mediterranean Network of ecological informationsystems. Montpellier, 2–5 December, 1980.

52. Reconvened expert panel on the role of systems analysis and modelling approach-es in the Programme on Man and the Biophere (MAB). Paris, 24–27 March, 1981.

53. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Seventh session. Paris, 30 September–2 October, 1981.

54. International workshop on ecological problems of human settlements in aridlands. Khartoum, 7–12 March, 1981.

55. Task force on methods and concepts for studying man-environment interactions.Paris, 13–16 June, 1983.

56. Réunion de concertation des Comités nationaux du MAB des pays francophonesd’Afrique. Yamoussoukro, 27–30 août, l 984.

57. International experts’ meeting on ecological approaches to urban planning.Suzdal, 24–30 September, 1984.

58. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Eighth session. Paris, 3–8 December, 1984.

59. General Scientific Advisory Panel . Established in co-operation with ICSU.Banff/Calgary, 21–25 August, 1985. Paris, 21–24 April, 1986.

60. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Ninth session. Paris, 20–25 October, 1986.

61. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Tenth session. Paris, 14–18 November, 1988.

62. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Eleventh session. Paris, 12–16 November, 1990.

63. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Twelfth session. Paris, 25–29 January, 1993.

64. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Thirteenth session. Paris 12–16 June, 1995.

65. Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, International Conference onBiosphere Reserves. Seville (Spain) 20–25 March 1995

66. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Fourteenth session. Paris 19–22 November 1996.

67. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Fifteenth session. Paris, 7–11 December 1998.

68. International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere(MAB). Sixteenth session. Paris, 6–10 November 2000.

Previous reports in this series

In March 1995, the International Conference onBiosphere Reserves was organized by UNESCO in Seville (Spain). This Conference gave rise to the ‘SevilleStrategy’ recommending action to be taken for the development of biosphere reserves, and the ‘Statu-tory Framework’ setting out the conditions for the functioning of the World Network of BiosphereReserves. Both these documents were adopted under28C/Resolution 2.4 of the UNESCO General Conferencein November 1995.

In 1998, the MAB International Co-ordinatingCouncil at its 15th session, noting the numerous activi-ties being taken by countries all over the world inresponse to the ‘Seville Strategy’, called for a review ofthe first five years implementation under the title‘Seville + 5’, at the occasion of the 16th session of theMAB Council in 2000.

The ‘Seville + 5’ International Meeting of experts onthe implementation of the Seville Strategy for BiosphereReserves was held in Pamplona, Spain, from 23 to27 October 2000. It was generously hosted by theGeneral Secretariat for Environment (National ParksOrganization) of the Government of Spain, the Govern-ment of Navarra (Department of the Environment), andthe City Council of Pamplona.

The main objective of the meeting was to take stockof the implementation of the Seville Strategy for the first five years with a view to make recommendations to the MAB International Co-ordinating Council at its 16th session (6–10 November 2000, UNESCO Head-quarters, Paris).

Specific objectives were:• identifying priorities for attention in the overall

Seville Strategy;• identifying obstacles to implementation at the

international, site and national levels, and means toget around these;

• identifying emerging issues of importance for thefuture of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.The programme was based on the three levels of

implementation of the Seville Strategy (internationallevel, site level and national level). A review of theactions undertaken to implement each of the three levelswas prepared by the Secretariat on the basis of a ques-tionnaire. The results of this review were presented atthe opening of the respective plenary session for eachlevel. This was followed by introductory papers on anumber of specific topics related to these actions, whichwere then debated in simultaneous working group ses-sions until mid-afternoon. The working groups wereillustrated by examples highlighting the questions onhand.

The Seville + 5 meeting also provided the occasionfor a meeting of the ad hoc task force on transboundarybiosphere reserves.

The meeting was attended by 110 participants from46 countries, invited on the basis of their experience inestablishing and managing biosphere reserves. A list ofparticipants is given at the end of this volume.

The meeting was chaired by Mr Javier CastroviejoBolíbar, Chair of MAB Spain and Chair of the MAB Inter-national Co-ordinating Council. Mr Ignacio BallarínIribarren, Secretary of MAB Spain, served as Vice-Chair.The plenary sessions of the meeting for the three levelsof the Seville Strategy were chaired by Mr JesúsVozmediano Gómez, member of the Spanish MABCommittee and Miembro del Patronato de Doñana;Mr Emilio González-Capital Martínez, Consejería delMedio Ambiente of Andalucia; and Mr Antón AramburúAlbizuri, Departamento del Medio Ambiente of the BasqueGovernment.

At the opening session of the meeting, welcomingaddresses were given by Mr Javier Castroviejo, Mr BasilioRada, Director of Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacio-nales; Mr Miguel Sanz Sesma, President of theGovernment of Navarra; Mr Ignacio Elorrieta, DirectorGeneral del Medio Ambiente of the Government ofNavarra; Ms Yolanda Barcina Angulo, Mayor ofPamplona, and Mr Peter Bridgewater, Secretary of theMAB Programme.

Closing remarks were made by Mr Javier MarcóteguiRos, Consejero de Medio Ambiente, Ordenación delTerritorio y Vivienda of the Government of Navarra; byMs Carmen Martorell Pallas, Secretaria General de MedioAmbiente, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente of theGovernment of Spain, Mr Peter Bridgewater andMr Javier Castroviejo.

This MAB Report Series N° 69 is a multilingual compilation of the contributions to the meeting and the resulting recommendations, including therecommendations of the task force on transboundarybiosphere reserves. All these recommendations weresubmitted to the MAB International Co-ordinatingCouncil at its 16th session in November 2000 (see MAB Report Series N° 68). The recommendations of‘Seville + 5’ as amended by the MAB Council are avail-able on the MAB site in English, French and Spanish(http://www.unesco.org/mab).

UNESCO would like to take this opportunity to reiterate its thanks to Mr Javier Castroviejo and theSpanish authorities for their generous support to thismeeting, and also to Mr David Huertas and his team atHorizontes Ambientales for their assistance with the logistic arrangements.

F O R E W O R D

http://www.unesco.org/mab

En mars 1995 l’UNESCO a organisé la Conférence internationale sur les réserves de biosphère, à Séville(Espagne). Cette conférence a donné lieu à la « Stratégiede Séville », qui recommande des actions à entreprendrepour le développement des réserves de biosphère, et au « Cadre statutaire » fixant les conditions de fonction-nement du réseau mondial des réserves de biosphère.Ces deux documents ont été respectivement approuvéset adoptés au titre de la résolution 28 C/2.4 de laConférence générale de l’UNESCO en novembre 1995.

En 1998, le Conseil international de coordination duMAB, soulignant, lors de sa 15e session, les nombreusesactivités entreprises par les pays dans le monde entiersuite à la « Stratégie de Séville », a appelé à un examendes cinq premières années de mise en œuvre sous le titre« Séville + 5 » à l’occasion de la 16e session du Conseildu MAB en 2000.

La réunion internationale d’experts « Séville + 5 »relative à la mise en œuvre de la Stratégie de Séville pour les réserves de biosphère a eu lieu à Pampelune(Espagne) du 23 au 27 octobre 2000. Elle a bénéficié du généreux accueil du Secrétariat général à l’envi-ronnement (Service des Parcs nationaux) de l’Espagne,de l’administration autonome de la Navarre (Service de l’environnement) et du Conseil municipal dePampelune.

Le principal objectif de cette rencontre était de fairele point sur la mise en œuvre de la Stratégie de Sévillependant les cinq premières années en vue d’émettre desrecommandations à l’adresse du Conseil international decoordination du MAB à l’occasion de sa 16e session (du6 au 10 novembre 2000 au Siège de l’UNESCO à Paris).

Les objectifs spécifiques en étaient les suivants :• Cerner les thèmes prioritaires dans la Stratégie de

Séville de manière globale.• Cerner les obstacles à sa mise en œuvre sur les plans

international et national ainsi qu’au niveau du site etles moyens de les surmonter.

• Cerner les questions importantes qui vont se fairejour pour l’avenir du Réseau mondial des réserves debiosphère.Le programme était fondé sur les trois niveaux de

mise en œuvre de la Stratégie de Séville (niveau interna-tional, niveau du site et niveau national). Un examendes actions entreprises pour mettre en œuvre chacun destrois niveaux a été préparé par le Secrétariat à partir d’unquestionnaire. Les résultats de cet examen ont été com-muniqués à l’ouverture de chacune de sessions plénièrescorrespondant à chacun des niveaux, après quoi ont étéprésentés des exposés préliminaires portant sur un cer-tain nombre de sujets spécifiques en rapport avec ces ac-tions et qui ont ensuite fait l’objet de débats en séances degroupes de travail simultanées jusqu’en milieu d’après-midi. Au sein des groupes de travail, les questions à trai-ter ont été illustrées et mises en relief par des exemples.

La réunion « Séville + 5 » a également été l’occasiond’une réunion de l’équipe de travail ad hoc sur les ré-serves de biosphère transfrontières.

La réunion a rassemblé 110 participants venant de46 pays, qui ont été invités pour leur expérience dans lamise en place et la gestion des réserves de biosphère.Une liste des participants est jointe en fin de volume.

La réunion a été présidée par M. Javier CastroviejoBolíbar, président du MAB Espagne et président du Conseil international de coordination du MAB.M. Ignacio Ballarín Iribarren, secrétaire du MABEspagne a occupé les fonctions de vice-président. Lesséances plénières de la réunion pour les trois niveaux dela Stratégie de Séville ont été présidées par M. JesúsVozmediano Gómez, membre du Comité espagnol duMAB et membre du Patronato de Doñana (direction duparc naturel de Doñana), M. Emilio González-CapitalMartínez, de la Consejería del Medio Ambiente (office del’environnement) de la communauté autonome d’Anda-lousie et M. Antón Aramburú Albizuri, du Departamentodel Medio Ambiente (office de l’environnement) de l’ad-ministration autonome du Pays basque.

Lors de la séance d’ouverture de la réunion, les allo-cutions de bienvenue ont été prononcées par M. JavierCastroviejo, M. Basilio Rada, directeur de l’OrganismoAutónomo de Parques Nacionales, M. Miguel Sanz Sesma,président du gouvernement de l’administration autono-me de Navarre, Mme. Yolanda Barcina Angulo, maire dePampelune, et M. Peter Bridgewater, Secrétaire duProgramme MAB.

Les observations finales ont été prononcées parM. Javier Marcótegui, conseiller à l’environnement, à l’aménagement du territoire et au logement de l’adminis-tration autonome de Navarre, Mme. Carmen MartorellPallas, Secrétaire générale de l’environnement au Ministèreespagnol de l’environnement, M. Peter Bridgewater etM. Javier Castroviejo.

Cette série de rapports du MAB (N° 69) est unrecueil multilingue des contributions à la réunion et desrecommandations qui en sont l’émanation, dont les re-commandations de l’équipe de travail sur les réserves debiosphère transfrontières. Toutes ces recommandationsont été soumises au Conseil international de coordina-tion du MAB à sa 16e session en novembre 2000 (voir lasérie des rapports du MAB N° 68). Les recommandationsde « Séville + 5 » amendées par le Conseil du MAB sontconsultables sur le site Internet du MAB en anglais, fran-çais et espagnol (http://www.unesco.org/ mab).

L’UNESCO souhaite saisir cette occasion pour expri-mer de nouveau sa gratitude à M. Javier Castroviejo etaux autorités espagnoles pour le généreux soutien qu’ilsont apporté à cette réunion, ainsi qu’à M. David Huertaset à son équipe des Horizontes Ambientales pour leur aideen matière logistique.

A V A N T - P R O P O S

http://www.unesco.org/

En marzo de 1995 la UNESCO organizó en Sevilla(España) la Conferencia Internacional sobre Reservas deBiosfera; ésta aprobó la «Estrategia de Sevilla », que con-tiene recomendaciones sobre las medidas idóneas paradesarrollar las reservas de biosfera, y el «MarcoEstatutario», en el que se establecen las condicionespara el funcionamiento de la Red de Reservas deBiosfera. Ambos documentos fueron aprobados por laConferencia General de la UNESCO en noviembre de1995 (Resolución 28 C/2.4).

En 1998, el Consejo Internacional de Coordinacióndel Programa MAB en su 15ª reunión, instó a que, habida cuenta de las numerosas actividades que en elmundo entero estaban emprendiendo los países en res-puesta a la « Estrategia de Sevilla », se procediese a unaevaluación de los primeros cinco años de aplicación quese convenía como «Sevilla + 5», y tendría lugar conmotivo de la 16ª reunión del Consejo del MAB en 2000.

La reunión internacional de expertos «Sevilla + 5» secelebró en Pamplona (España) del 23 al 27 de octubre de 2000, gracias a la generosa acogida de la SecretaríaGeneral de Medio Ambiente (Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacionales) del Gobierno de España, elGobierno de Navarra (Departamento de MedioAmbiente) y el Consejo Municipal de Pamplona.

El principal objetivo de la reunión era hacer unbalance de los primeros cinco años de la aplicación de la Estrategia de Sevilla con miras a formular recomen-daciones al Consejo Internacional de Coordinación delPrograma MAB en su 16ª reunión (6-10 de noviembre de 2000, Sede de la UNESCO, París).

Sus objetivos específicos eran los siguientes:• Determinar las prioridades a que debía prestarse

atención en la Estrategia de Sevilla en general.• Definir los obstáculos con que tropieza la aplicación

en los planos internacional, nacional y en cada reser-va, y los medios para superarlos.

• Determinar las nuevas cuestiones que podrán reves-tir importancia para el futuro de la Red Mundial deReservas de Biosfera.El programa se constituyó en torno a los tres niveles

de aplicación de la Estrategia de Sevilla (internacional,en el de cada reserva, y nacional). Basándose en un cues-tionario la Secretaría preparó una recapitulación de lasactividades realizadas en cada uno de los tres niveles,cuyos resultados se presentaron en la inauguración delas respectivas sesiones plenarias dedicadas a los dife-rentes niveles. A continuación se presentaron documen-tos introductorios sobre una serie de temas relacionadoscon esas actividades, que se debatieron en reunionessimultáneas de los grupos de trabajo hasta la mediatarde. En los grupos de trabajo se presentaron ejemplosque ilustraban las cuestiones tratadas.

Durante Sevilla + 5 también se reunió el grupo de tra-

bajo especial sobre reservas de biosfera transfronterizas.Asistieron a la reunión 110 participantes de 46 paí-

ses, que habían sido invitados atendiendo a su experien-cia en la creación y gestión de reservas de biosfera. Lalista de participantes figura al final del presente volu-men.

Presidió la reunión el Sr. Javier Castroviejo Bolívar,Presidente del Comité Nacional español para el MAB ydel Consejo Internacional de Coordinación delPrograma MAB. El Sr. Ignacio Ballarín Iribarren, Secre-tario del Comité Nacional español para el MAB, actuócomo Vicepresidente. La sesiones plenarias de la reunióndedicadas a los tres niveles de la Estrategia de Sevillafueron presididas respectivamente por el Sr. JesúsVozmediano Gómez, miembro del Comité NacionalEspañol para el MAB y miembro del Patronato deDoñana, el Sr. Emilio González-Capital Martínez, de laConsejería del Medio Ambiente de Andalucía, y elSr. Antón Aramburú Albizuri, del Departamento delMedio Ambiente del Gobierno Vasco.

Pronunciaron discursos de bienvenida en la sesióninaugural el Sr. Javier Castroviejo, el Sr. Basilio Rada,Director del Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacio-nales, el Sr. Miguel Sanz Sesma, Presidente del Gobiernode Navarra, el Sr. Ignacio Elorrieta, Director General de Medio Ambiente del Gobierno de Navarra, laSra. Yolanda Barcina Angulo, Alcaldesa de Pamplona y elSr. Peter Bridgewater, Secretario del Programa MAB.

En la clausura de la reunión hicieron uso de la pala-bra el Sr. Javier Marcótegui Ros, Consejero de MedioAmbiente, Ordenación del Territorio y Vivienda delGobierno de Navarra, la Sra. Carmen Martorell Pallas,Secretaria General de Medio Ambiente, Ministerio deMedio Ambiente del Gobierno de España, el Sr. PeterBridgewater y el Sr. Javier Castroviejo.

Este número (69) de la Colección de Informes delMAB es una recopilación multilingüe de las ponenciaspresentadas a la reunión y de las recomendaciones resul-tantes, comprendidas las formuladas por el Grupo detrabajo sobre reservas de biosfera transfronterizas. Todasesas recomendaciones fueron presentadas al ConsejoInternacional de Coordinación del Programa MAB en su16ª reunión, celebrada en noviembre de 2000 (véase elNº 68 de la Colección de Informes del MAB). Las reco-mendaciones de «Sevilla + 5» en su forma enmendadapor el Consejo del MAB pueden consultarse en Interneten español, francés e inglés en la siguiente dirección:http://www.unesco.org/mab.

La UNESCO desea aprovechar esta oportunidad parareiterar su agradecimiento al Sr. Javier Castroviejo y a lasautoridades de España por el generoso apoyo que brin-daron a la reunión, y al Sr. David Huertas y su equipo deHorizontes Ambientales por la asistencia logística pres-tada.

P R Ó L O G O

http://www.unesco.org/mab

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL , SC IENTIF IC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

P R O C E E D I N G S / C O M P T E S R E N D U S / A C T A S

8

‘Sevil le + 5’ International Meeting of Experts, Pamplona, 23 –27 October 2000

Report Series No 69

8

T a b l e o f c o n t e n t s

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Biosphere reserves: A personal appraisal

Michel Batisse 11Statement by the Executive Secretary of the

Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity Hamdallah Zedan 17

Overview of five years’ implementation of the Seville Strategy at the international level 19

Survey on the implementation of the Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves: Analysis of results at the national level 28

Survey on the implementation of the Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves: Analysis of results at the site level 32

PROGRESS ON REGIONAL NETWORKS . . . . . .39Seminario EuroMAB: Coordinación y

cooperación entre EuroMAB y las restantes redes del Programa El Hombre y la Biosfera Javier Castroviejo (in Spanish) 39

EuroMAB: An outline 1978–2000 Martin Price 40EABRN: Towards consistent conservation policies,

genuine ecotourism and transboundaryconservation co-operation Han Qunli, Han Nianyong and Kim Kwi-gon 41

The development of biosphere reserves in South East Asia over the past five years in response to the Seville Strategy Effendy Sumardja and Nyguen Hoang Tri 43

Développement des reserves de biosphère dans le réseau ArabMAB Driss Fassi (in French) 47

Rapport AfriMAB Bonaventure Guédegbé(in French) 50

IberoMAB and REDBIOS Javier Castroviejo and Juan Antonio Menéndez Pidal 52

AD HOC TASK FORCE ON TRANSBOUNDARYBIOSPHERE RESERVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Report of the ad hoc task force on transboundary biosphere reserves 55

Transboundary biosphere reserves: An introduction Alicia Breymeyer 58

EABRN experience in Transboundary Biosphere Reserves Kim Kwi-gon 60

Transboundary Biosphere Reserves: The Africanexperience Hannington Oryem-Origa 63

Referencia de algunas nuevas iniciativas de reservas de biosfera transfronterizas(transboundary biosphere reserves) en América Latina Carlos F. Ponce (in Spanish) 65

The experience of the Ukraine MAB NationalCommittee concerning the organization andfunctioning of the Transboundary Danube DeltaBiosphere Reserve (Romania/Ukraine)Valentyn Voloshyn and Tetiana Poltoratska 68

WORKING GROUP 1: BIOSPHERE RESERVES AS SITES FOR INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFICRESEARCH AND MONITORING, ANDPROVIDING SCIENTIFIC UNDERPINNING OF MAIN CONSERVATION CONVENTIONS . .71

Biosphere reserves as sites for international scientific research and monitoring, and providing scientific underpinning of mainconservation conventions: Summary of interventions Marja Spierenburg 71

Recommendations 73

WORKING GROUP 2: RAISING VISIBILITY, MOBILIZING SUPPORT FOR THE WORLDNETWORK OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES . . . . . . .75

Réserve de biosphère de Mananara-Nord, Madagascar Baptiste Noël Randrianandianina(in French) 75

Belovezhskaya Pushcha Biosphere Reserve (Belarus) in co-operation with the BialowiezaBiosphere Reserve (Poland) Heorhi A. Kazulka 77

Proyección, movilización de apoyos y articulaciónintersectorial en Reservas de la Biosfera de laArgentina Claudio Daniele, Marcelo Acerbi y Sebastián Carenzo (in Spanish) 79

The Atalantic Forest Biosphere Reserve experience,Brazil João Lucilio Albuquerque 81

Recommendations 84

WORKING GROUP 3: BIOSPHERE RESERVES FOR IN SITU CONSERVATION OF GENETICRESOURCES AND REHABILITATION/REINTRODUCTION OF SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . .87

Experience from Mexican Biosphere Reserves Sergio Guevara Sada 87

In situ conservation of biological resources: Examples from Egypt Mohammed Ayyad 90

9




Report Series No 69

9

Scientific research as a key factor of successfulrehabilitation, restoration and management ofmangroves in Can Gio Mangrove BiosphereReserve, Ho Chi Minh City, VietnamNguyen Hoang Tri 91

Conserving ‘agrobiodiversity’ in the White Carpathians Biosphere Reserve, Czech Republic Ivana Jongepierova and Eva Jelinkova 92

Recommendations 93

WORKING GROUP 4: BIOSPHERE RESERVES AS MODELS OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

Experience in Spain Ignacio Ballarín Iribarren 95

Utilization of biosphere reserves as models of land management and approaches to sustainable development: A case study of Amboseli Biosphere Reserve, Kenya Joseph M. Mburugu 100

Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, Cambodia: Management and zonation challenges Neou Bonheur 103

Les reservas de biosfera argentinas como modelos de gestión del territorio y de desarrollo sostenible: potencialidades, obstáculos, tendencias Alicia E. Toribio (in Spanish) 107

Recommendations 108

WORKING GROUP 5: BIOSPHERE RESERVEMANAGER OR CO-ORDINATOR? . . . . . . . . . .111

EuroMAB experience Frédéric Bioret 111Sustainable use of ‘W’ Parks in Benin, Burkina

Faso and Niger: What is needed, management or co-ordination? Jean-Jacob Sahou 113

Promoting environmental health and stewardship of natural and cultural resources in Southern Appalachian Mountains,United States of America Robert Turner 117

Recommendations 118

WORKING GROUP 6: BIOSPHERE RESERVES FOR DEVELOPING QUALITY ECONOMIES . . .119

The Fitzgerald River Biosphere Reserve, Australia Giles West 119

Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve, Canada: New economic opportunities for different social groups Jim Birtch 123

Examples of the Rhön Biosphere Reserve, Germany Doris Pokorny 123

Ecotourism in Jiuzhangou Biosphere Reserve, China Han Nianyong 125

Amélioration des conditions socio-économiques des communautés dans la Réserve de Biosphère «W» au Niger Ahmed Oumarou 127

Income generating projects by local communities in Queen Elizabeth Biosphere Reserve in Uganda, supported by the BRAAF Project Hannington Oryem-Origa 128

Recommendations 130

WORKING GROUP 7: CO-ORDINATION OF NATIONAL NETWORKS OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Co-ordination of the Cuban National Network of Biosphere Reserves María Herrera Alvarez 131

Canadian Biosphere Reserve Association Charles Roberge 133

Chinese Biosphere Reserve Network (CBRN): An instrument for implementing the Seville Strategy in China Han Nianyong 135

Co-ordination of the French Network of Biosphere Reserves Catherine Cibien 136

Indian National Network of Biosphere Reserves and its future contribution to the World Network R. K. Rai 138

The National Network of UNESCO biosphere reserves in Ukraine V. Voloshyn and Tetiana Poltoratska 141

Recommendations 142

WORKING GROUP 8: IMPACT OF THE PERIODIC REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145

The impact of the Periodic Review of Biosphere Reserves: Towards ensuring a strong World Network Martin Price 145

Biosphere reserves in Switzerland Engelbert Ruoss 150

Impacto de la revisión periódica en Argentina Alicia E. Toribio (in Spanish) 151



10


Report Series No 69

1010

Short characteristics of four ‘old’ biosphere reserves in Poland Alicia Breymeyer, Feliks Kaczanowski, Czeslaw Okolow and Jerzy Kruszelnicki 152

Periodic review in Poland: A comment Czeslaw Okolow 153

Impact of the periodic review on the Omayed Biosphere Reserve, Egypt Mohammed Ayyad 154

Recommendations 155

WORKING GROUP 9: LINKING BIOSPHERE RESERVES TO DECISION MAKING AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

Vinculación entre las Reservas de la Biosfera y la toma de decisiones a nivel nacional: Legislación para el manejo de las zonascosteras/marinas María Herrera Alvarez(in Spanish) 157

Linking biosphere reserves with decision making in the Nordic countries Timo Hokkanen 159

Vinculación entre las reservas de biosfera y la toma de decisiones a nivel nacional en Ecuador Wilson Torres Espinosa (in Spanish) 160

Biosphere reserves, conservation policy and legal instruments in the Republic of Korea Jung Kyun Na 163

Recommendations 165

WORKING GROUP 10: EDUCATION,AWARENESS BUILDING AND TRAINING IN SUPPORT OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES . . . . .167

Education, awareness-building and training in support of Biosphere Reserves: Experience from Nigeria B. A. Ola-Adams 167

Partners in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development: First South African

biosphere reserve learning seminar Kallie Naude 170

Estrategias educativas en la Reserva de Biosfera del Montseny, Catalunya (España): Modelos y políticas de acción y comunicación Angel Miño Salinas (in Spanish) 171

La Réserve de Biosphère de Luki (République Démocratique du Congo): un laboratoire vivant pour l’École Régionale Post-Universitaire d’Aménagement et de Gestion Intégrés des Forêts Tropicales Jean Ngog-Nje (in French) 173

The CBD-UNESCO Global Initiative on education and public awareness: Formulating new paradigms Peter Bridgewater 177

Recommendations 178

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181Main results and thoughts for the future

of Biosphere Reserves, or From Bardenas Reales to Mata Atlântica Peter Bridgewater 181

Principaux résultats et réflexions sur l’avenir des réserves de biosphère, ou Des Bardenas Reales à Mata Atlântica Peter Bridgewater 183

Principales resultados y reflexiones para el futuro de las reservas de biosfera, o De Bardenas Reales a Mata Atlántica Peter Bridgewater 185

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

LIST OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

11




The organizers of the ‘Seville + 5’ Conference onBiosphere Reserves in Pamplona have asked me topresent a key note paper expressing my personalvision of this international project, to the devel-opment of which I have indeed been closely associatedfrom the beginning. For this very reason, it should bestressed in the first place that what follows isnecessarily somewhat subjective and therefore open to debate. In this short presentation, I shall merelyattempt to underline where we come from – a briefhistory of the project –, where I think we are, andwhere perhaps we are going and should do about it.

To do this now is the right moment for me sincethe time has come where I am rapidly loosing contactswith new developments. It is also appropriate foranother reason: the first biosphere reserves weredesignated in 1976. ‘Seville + 5’ in a way constitutes acelebration of their Silver Jubilee!

THE MAJOR MILESTONESThe Biosphere Reserves project is part of the

MAB Programme of UNESCO. MAB was recom-mended in the 1968 Biosphere Conference, organizedin close co-operation with the United Nations, FAO,WHO, WMO, IUCN and ICSU, and was to a certainextent meant to be a practical problem-oriented

follow-up of the International Biological Programme.The Biosphere Conference did not refer specifically tothe concept of biosphere reserves. Its broad objectivewas to reconcile the use and the conservation ofnatural resources, and among the recommendations toachieve this, it called for reinforcing the conservationof biological diversity, including genetic resources,through a world system of protected areas, and itstressed the need to ensure harmonious coexistence ofrural populations with the ecosystems from whichthey derive their subsistence and income (UNESCO,1970).

When MAB was formally launched in 1970, theidea of ‘Biosphere Reserves’ – a wording which cameout rather accidentally to show the relationship withthe Man and the Biosphere Programme – wasintroduced as a means to meet these two majorobjectives. At the same time, since MAB was basicallya research programme, some people felt that such siteswould be needed as permanent field research stationsand, because of my previous experience with the‘Decade stations’ of the International HydrologicalDecade, I was keen to see a number of sites on theground being clearly identified with the newprogramme.

Thus, the idea was there, when the first sessionof the MAB Council met in 1971 and included

11

Biosphere reserves: A personal appraisal

Michel Bat isse

I N T R O D U C T I O N

biosphere reserves as one of the themes to beimplemented under this international programme. Butit was still a somewhat general idea and the firstserious thoughts about biosphere reserves came out ofa task force organized jointly with UNEP in 1974,where indeed almost practically everything was saidabout the concept (UNESCO, 1974). The notions ofbuffer zones, of a zoning system, of restoration ofecosystems, of experimentation related to devel-opment, of a world network, were all mentioned.

Perhaps, too many such notions were mentionedin this founding effort since, when the first batch ofactual biosphere reserves were designated by the MABCouncil in 1976, most of them were not really inconformity with the key ideas expressed in 1974.They were essentially sites proposed by the MemberCountries, considering generally of an already existingprotected area (a national park in most cases) whereecological research was or would be conducted underthe MAB label. But the presence of buffer zones wasrarely included and the idea of co-operation with thelocal population conspicuously absent.

The MAB Research Programme however had tobe launched all over the world and it developed fairlywell without paying too much attention to thebiosphere reserves component. So that between 1976and the ‘Ecology in action’ Conference celebrating the10th Anniversary of the operational launching of MAB,in 1981, new biosphere reserves were added on the listbut only a limited number of them actually fulfilledtheir ‘development’ and ‘co-operation’ function.

Things began to change in some countries likeMexico, for instance, where attempts were made toassociate local populations with the creation of newprotected areas under the name of biosphere reserves(Halffter, 1984). An important step forward was the congress organized in Minsk (Belarus) in 1983,financed with roubles which UNEP could use only inthe Soviet Union and which was held at a moment of extreme international tension. The congress didhowever take place and formulated the elements of anAction Plan for Biosphere Reserves, which could befinalized and formally adopted by UNESCO, UNEPand IUCN in 1984. The principles and objectives ofthis Action Plan were correct. However, they enu-merated all the things that a biosphere reserve coulddo rather than putting emphasis on what a biospherereserve should do to deserve that title and how to doit… At any rate, the expected financial support fromUNEP for its implementation did not come and IUCNpaid only lip service to a new concept which did not correspond at the time to the conventional view of protected areas. In other words, the Action Planremained a Plan without action (UNESCO-UNEP,1984).

One of the difficulties for the proper devel-opment of the Biosphere Reserves project was that it

merely constituted one among 13 MAB themes whileit could not really progress without particularattention to its operational field character and theneed to constitute a world network of sites sharing aminimal amount of common characteristics. The MABCouncil had little time, and indeed only partialinterest to devote to such different theme in theProgramme. It however eventually felt the need for asmall group to focus specifically on the matter and in1985 asked for the establishment of an ad hocScientific Advisory Panel for Biosphere Reserves. Thissmall ad hoc Scientific Advisory Panel met in La Paz(Bolivia) in 1985, in Cancun (Mexico) in 1986, andhad the merit, not only of being able to reassess theentire project from the beginning and to reviewthoroughly proposals for new biosphere reserves, butto arrive at a clear definition of the concept, with itsthree complementary functions (conservation, devel-opment and logistic support), which would be clearand flexible enough to be applicable everywhere in theworld and thus permit the constitution of a truenetwork.

The message, as developed by this ScientificAdvisory Panel, was indeed a new message whereconservation and development must be combined inand around protected areas with the support ofresearch and training. Unfortunately, this long-awaited clarification came at a time that was not veryfavourable. IUCN was beginning to move in the samedirection but did not support biosphere reserves, stillconsidered as an unnecessary complication too closelyassociated with UNESCO. With other issues takingprecedence, UNEP no longer had funds and lessinterest in conservation. And above all, UNESCO itselfhad entered into a major crisis with the withdrawal ofthe United States and the United Kingdom.

It certainly took much faith and idealism for thesmall MAB Secretariat in Paris and a few strongsupporters in a number of countries – includingironically the United States – to keep the ball rollingduring these years where MAB itself was losing much of its earlier impetus. But a new paradigmappeared with the Brundtland Report, which advo-cated ‘sustainable development’ and called for new‘non-conventional protected areas’, with the Rio Con-ference moving strongly in the same direction(without unfortunately making any reference to bios-phere reserves), with the IUCN World ConservationStrategy, and many related statements. As a matter offact, sustainable development was first, advocated atintergovernmental level by the 1968 Biosphere Con-ference, but this historical fact has only been recog-nized recently. Everybody nowadays has accepted theconcept of associating conservation with developmentin protected areas, but still generally avoids referringto biosphere reserves for a variety of overt or covertreasons. One of the overt reasons which is often heard



12


Report Series No 69

is simply that biosphere reserves are a nice concept,but that they do not exist in the ground! Yet, theirrelevance was mentioned fairly often in the nego-tiations leading to the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, which insists on the links between protection, use and indigenouspeople.

The major step forwards in the implementationof the project and in the establishment of the WorldNetwork of Biosphere Reserves took place however in 1995 with the Seville Conference organized byUNESCO in co-operation with the Spanish author-ities. From a conceptual viewpoint, this conferencedid not modified what had been the outcome of thework of the ad hoc Scientific Advisory Panel in themid eighties, and indeed had already been consideredin 1974. But it achieved what the Minsk Congress hadonly started, namely to review the world situation inthe light of current developments (including theConvention on Biological Diversity), to formallyconfirm the definition and specificity of biospherereserves, underline why they were needed and adopt astrategy for further action, the ‘Seville Strategy’, andall this through a truly representative meeting ofscientists and managers from 102 countries. Inaddition, and perhaps most important, it formulated aStatutory Framework for the World Network, whichhad not so far from any legal status. This StatutoryFramework was formally adopted by the UNESCOGeneral Conference in that same year, providing thenetwork and its individual sites with an internationallegitimacy, visibility and credibility which had beensomewhat missing previously (UNESCO, 1996). Anessential feature about credibility is the provision inthe Statutory Framework of a periodic review pro-cedure every ten years after designation as a biospherereserve, with the possibility that those which do notcorrespond to the adopted criteria being removedfrom the World Network, after naturally everypossible efforts had been made to improve them andavoid such delisting.

The Statutory Framework for the World Net-work of Biosphere Reserves is now the yardstickagainst which the project will progress. It does notcarry the heavy weight of a Convention and maintainsthe flexibility of approach, which constitutes one ofthe main values of the biosphere reserves concept. Butit achieves three essential functions:• it fixes the ‘rules of the game’ which shall always

characterize biosphere reserves;• it emphasizes the existence and potential role of

the network which they now constitute;• it confirms the key role of a technical advisory

committee, whose statutes have now beenapproved by the UNESCO Executive Board, toensure the quality and progress of the entireproject.

THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRSIt could simply be stated in this respect that

much remains to be done but that things are nowworking. This can be seen through the followingpoints:� The Seville Strategy has become fairly well

known and constitutes a reference text explain-ing the project and offering a vision for itsdevelopment. Its drafting could certainly beimproved here and there but the main point is that it should not be forgotten by diluting it under too many new and not absolutelynecessary statements which might confusematters.

� The Statutory Framework, which is the result ofa true international negotiation, constitutes thelegal text governing the project in a ‘soft law’spirit. It has been adopted by all partiesconcerned, which is a major achievement ininternational co-operation. It should not bemodified but disseminated as largely as possible,not only among scientists and managers but also within administrative authorities, inter-national, national and local, and be strictlyimplemented.

� The Advisory Committee has the properstatutes to act as key mechanism ensuring thescientific and technical legitimacy of biospherereserves already designated as well as ofexamining new designations and encouragingthe actual functioning of the network inaccordance with the Statutory Framework. Ithowever should be more active, have sufficienttime for work before and during its sessions, usemore its members for regional promotionalactivities and field visits and ensure a morecritical participation of the World Commissionon Protected Areas of IUCN.

� The Periodic Review is now underway. Its firstyears of implementation were particularlydifficult since it had to deal with a large numberof sites designated between 1976 and 1985,many of which do not correspond properly tothe basic present criteria, as explained above.One of the consequences is that some sites havenot provided their periodic review report, thusin some ways excluding themselves from thenetwork, if they remain silent. However manysites which had not been in touch with theSecretariat for years have responded. The netresult is that more than 50% of the early siteshave shown interest in the periodic review, apercentage that will normally increase consid-erably when more recent sites are contacted.More important perhaps is the fact that a goodnumber of countries take advantage of theperiodic review to try to improve their older

13




Report Series No 69

sites, considering sometimes the possibility ofdelisting some of them as Norway already didand the United Kingdom is contemplating to do,in order to be present in the World Networkwith fully functioning biosphere reserves only.Equally important is the fact that a number ofcountries are taking steps to improve the extent, the zoning and the management of theirbiosphere reserves as a result of the reviewprocess.

� New proposals keep being put forward at asignificant rate. Thus at the time of thePamplona meeting, 25 new proposals have beenreceived, with generally speaking very wellpresented nomination files. At least two-thirds ofthese proposals appear to concern high qualitymultifunctional biosphere reserves, in closeconformity with the required criteria. From nowon, of course only very good sites should beadded to the network.

� Improvement of the network is clearly takingplace. Although the word ‘network’ was usedfrom the beginning of the project, it only meantfor a long time that the designated biospherereserves were put on a list and on a map. Thepublication of the Biosphere Reserves Bulletinnow constitutes the minimal liaison mechanismthat a network requires and the content of theBulletin is improving although its periodicity isstill uneven. The world coverage of ecosystemsis also improving with new countries taking partin the project such as South Africa and nowIndia. Some 100 biosphere reserves relate tocoastal regions (including coastal waters) andabout 40 of them concern islands (includingarchipelagos and entire islands like Menorca and Lanzarote in Spain or Palawan in thePhilippines). Besides bio-geographic coverage,the networking function has made significantprogress, particularly at the regional level, withregular meetings and exchanges of experience.Regional biosphere reserve networks exist nowwith EuroMAB (including the United States ofAmerica and Canada), as well as in AnglophoneAfrica, Francophone Africa, Latin America, andEastern Asia.

� The biosphere reserve concept is now acceptedvery widely, even in some quarters that wronglyfeared that it would not be sufficiently protectiveof biodiversity. The link with the basic principlesof the Convention on Biological Diversityappears now very clearly since it can easily beshown that biosphere reserves correspond quitewell with the twelve principles of the ‘EcosystemApproach’ advocated by the Convention. Thiswas eloquently exemplified in the brochureSolving the puzzle prepared by the MAB

Secretariat (UNESCO, 2000) and a number ofkey players in the IUCN Congress in Amman in2000 did not hesitate to state that ‘biospherereserves were the best illustration of theEcosystem Approach’ which some also call a‘Bioregional Approach’.

� Financial support is of course essential forsuccess, particularly in developing countries.The budgetary situation in UNESCO has alwaysbeen clearly below the minimal means, whichwould be required merely to ensure sufficientsecretariat services for such an importantproject. However, indirect financing has come ina number of field cases, either through bilateralprojects (for instance between the Netherlandsand Amboseli in Kenya), or through action ofNGOs like Conservation International (forinstance in the Maya Biosphere Reserve ofGuatemala), or through financing of large GEFprojects, either of a broad geographic scaleencompassing biosphere reserves like Buenavistain Cuba, or specifically oriented towards theirvery establishment like the Gulf of Mannar inIndia, the Seaflower project in Columbia, or theDana in Jordan.

SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE FUTUREWhile the above remarks are clearly encouraging

and perhaps somewhat optimistic – although withoutoptimism from the onset there would have been nosuch things as biosphere reserves today –, a number ofissues remain and new issues develop as the projectprogresses. Some of the main issues, in no particularlogical order, appear to me as the following:� Biosphere reserves in land development. It is

striking to note that, starting with the giganticMata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve of Brazil,which is a long strip of 3,000 kilometres spottedwith a large number of still fragile core areas, theaverage size of newly proposed biospherereserves has tended to grow considerably. Clearexamples include the Pantanal and the Cerrado,both also in Brazil, or Cape West Coast in SouthAfrica or the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve inColombia (which has very little land but covers 300,000 km2 of water), or the SouthernOasis in Morocco. In this process, the question arises whether the biosphere reserves should be considered as elements of ‘bioregions’ or asbioregions per se. This question has a number ofpractical consequences and it appears at any ratethat biosphere reserves have now become asignificant tool in regional planning (Batisse,1997).

� Small biosphere reserves. Besides the above-mentioned large biosphere reserves, a number of



14


Report Series No 69

small ones and even very small ones, areincluded in the network. This is partly due tothe historical development of the project, whereinitially small biological reserves or nationalparks were listed. When such sites cannot beimproved in extent, zoning and functions, thequestion arises as to whether they should bemaintained in the network. This is the case forinstance of a number of sites in the UnitedKingdom, which are now under review, or in thecase of Bulgaria where the national networkconsists essentially of small biological reserves.A number of other cases could be quoted such asthe Lobau Island in the Danube near Vienna orthe Miramare near Trieste in Italy or the fact thattwo contiguous sites in France, the MontVentoux and the Parc Regional du Lubéron areconsidered as distinct biosphere reserves. Yet,each situation has its specific features, from theviewpoint of biogeography, legal protection,management patterns, stakeholders interests,etc. and therefore flexibility in approach has tobe maintained. It remains that for the future, itmight be preferable to favour larger sizebiosphere reserves, it being understood that theymust in any case respond to their basicfunctions. In doing so, one might however recallthat land fragmentation in countries with longand dense human occupation like Europe cannotoffer open-spaces similar to those of theAmericas, Africa or Central Asia, while theconceptual model must remain universal.

� The question of governance is perhaps the mostdifficult issue for each individual biospherereserve fulfilling adequately its three basicfunctions. Very often, it has been considered thatthe manager of the core area would be the logicalleader in the management of the entire biospherereserve. The assumption resulted from the earlydevelopment of the programme where thedesignated sites were little more than alreadylegally protected areas. The present view is quitedifferent and although the manager of the corearea may well be given such a leading role inconsultation with other stakeholders, he/she hasgenerally no mandate, no authority and littlepractical interest in taking up this additionaltask. If he/she is to assume this role, he/she mustbe given the authority and the incentives to doso. The primary function of biosphere reservesremains the conservation of biodiversity– whether in the form of landscapes, ecosystems,species or varieties – but to achieve this, theyshould be seen as innovative tools for theresolution of land and water use conflicts, whichimplies negotiation and consent by all legitimatestakeholders, including the local populations. In

this respect, many institutional arrangementshave been experimented and each biospherereserve is probably unique. But the consultative,administrative, co-ordination and legal decision-making processes involved should be thoroughlyassessed so as to provide ideas and examplesworldwide. Clearly, the changes in size of thebiosphere reserves, whether they have one orseveral cores, whether corridors can be estab-lished between them or whether indigenouspeople have specific traditional rights, etc. willaffect the ad hoc governance and managementpattern to be followed.

� Public lands and private lands. Traditionally, inthe ‘old world’, the only guarantee that a givenpiece of land will remain protected in the long-term is through public ownership completed byappropriate legislation. However, in the ‘newworld’ of the Americas, but also in parts ofAfrica, it is sometime considered that weakadministrations are less capable than the privatesector, such as large land owners, enlightenedgroups of citizens or NGOs, to maintainprotected areas and some mechanisms are evendeveloped – such as forest conservationconcessions – to apply this idea. Here again,flexibility is probably necessary although onemight perhaps see here a difference between the‘Roman law’ and a more ‘Anglo-Saxon’ liberalapproach. The only important issue is to makesure that the core areas be protected in the long-term and it is also clear that they are usuallysurrounded by private lands, so that one comesback here to the issue of governance.

� Transboundary biosphere reserves. This repre-sents a new and most interesting development,which has been greatly favoured recently by thecollapse of the iron curtain in Europe and offersconsiderable potential in Africa and Asia andalso in parts of Latin America. The interest ofsuch bilateral sites is clear in ecological terms(particularly for protection of fauna), in man-agement terms (larger units with compatiblemethods) and of course as a symbol of peacewith great political visibility. The difficulties ofthis approach should not however be under-estimated (unwanted movements of people,language barriers, etc.) but its advantages foremulation in good management practices and forexchange of experience are significant. Thisdevelopment should therefore be stronglyencouraged.

� Relationships with the World Heritage. TheWorld Heritage Convention is meant to coverboth cultural and natural properties of out-standing interest and universal value. The raisond’être of this Convention is that such exceptional

15




Report Series No 69



16


Report Series No 69

sites constitute a kind of common heritage ofhumankind that all countries should help toprotect. Its philosophy is therefore clearly ethicaland cultural.

Because a number of biosphere reserves,particularly in the early days of the project, werein fact important national parks, they came to belisted also as World Heritage Sites. There isnothing wrong in this as long as the criteria forthe two designations are clearly met. Thisunfortunately is not always the case and amongsome three such designated dual sites, some donot appear to meet the biosphere reserve criteriain so far as they have no zonation system, or noco-operation with local populations outside theproperty, or little or no link with environmentalresearch. The prestige of the World Heritage List,particularly to attract tourists, may lead howeverto a multiplication of these dual designations.This risk is aggravated by the fact that amongcriteria for inscription of cultural properties onthe World Heritage List, the somewhat over-encompassing concept of ‘cultural landscapes’has been recently added, and that biodiversityrichness is also one of the criteria.

It should be underlined however that,whereas dual nomination on both lists may wellbe justified in a number of cases, a clear dis-tinction should always be maintained betweenthem; The World Heritage List should consist ofwhat has been called the ‘jewels of the crown’otherwise it would soon lose its prestige. Bios-phere reserve are designated as a tool to resolveconflicts in land use in all types of landscape inaccordance with the development concerns oflocal populations so as to protect all forms ofbiodiversity, whether spectacular or not, with ascientific objective in mind. In practical terms, avery reasonable approach, which has beenapplied already in a number of interesting cases,is to have a prestigious national park listed as aWorld Heritage site and constituting at the same time the core area of a broader biospherereserves. For instance, the Maya BiosphereReserve of Guatemala includes the Tikal WorldHeritage Site, or the Southern Appalachian Bios-phere Reserve in the United States includes theGreat Smoky Mountains National Park. But anyconfusion between the two types of designationshould be carefully avoided. Many nationalparks could indeed become core areas of bios-phere reserves, but most of them do not qualifyfor World Heritage listing without obviousdevaluation of the prestige of the Convention.Both programmes have equal importance, shouldreceive equal international support. They mustbe considered as complementary each other. The

fact that they are both placed under the aegis ofUNESCO should be used to ensure thiscomplementarity wherever appropriate.

� Development of the network. At a time when‘sustainable development’ has become the mottofor almost every human action, even today’sconservationists pay at least lip service to theneed to take care of local populations aroundprotected areas. From this viewpoint, this idea,which was pioneered by biosphere reserves, hasnow been adopted by almost everybody andeverybody attempts to follow it or claims thatthey do. But biosphere reserves not only havelong been striving in this direction but also aremeant to constitute a world representativenetwork for research, monitoring, informationexchange and training. This in a way constitutesnowadays their most original specificity. Thismeans, as already stated, that the world coverageof biosphere reserves should be furtherimproved, that they should be truly multi-functional, and that they actually participate inco-operative projects. Such projects may involvethe entire network but, from a more practicalstandpoint perhaps, should focus on sub-sets ofbiosphere reserves selected for their ecologicalcommonality or for thematic research of trainingefforts, or simply through regional grouping.The success of such projects, if properly com-municated in scientific journals and in the mediawould guarantee the permanent success of theWorld Network.

Many thematic activities could be conductedin co-operation with other research and moni-toring programmes, using biosphere reserves asalready well-documented and well-equippedfield sites. One can think of studies on hydrologyand experimental watersheds, of restoration ofdegraded ecosystems, of rural applications ofsolar energy, of development of micro-creditbusiness, of ecotourism practices, of environ-mental training, etc.

Concerning regional or continental sub-networks, considerable advantage could be takenfrom the shorter distances involved and fromcommon cultural and administrative practices to develop more intensive co-operation. Careshould however be taken here to avoid cen-trifugal effects whereby the various regionalnetworks would move off on their own, losingperspective of the fact that the World Networkhas to help protect the biodiversity of our ‘onlyone world’ and that many themes have toinvolve biosphere reserves from various conti-nents.

� Secretariat. The Secretariat of the WorldNetwork is the keystone of its continuous

functioning and development. This is a fact thatshould be obvious to everyone but which issometimes considered as improper to underline.The real question is whether the Secretariat,given the very rapid development of the WorldNetwork of Biosphere Reserves, has sufficientstaff and the necessary means to carry-out itstask in depth. It needs to ensure adequatemonitoring and support for the some 400 sitesand nearly 100 countries of the network, whilemaintaining co-operative links with institutionalpartners concerned. It appears to me that thepresent answer to this question is clearlynegative, both at Headquarters and in the mainregional offices of UNESCO. It is to be hopedthat, particularly though financial support fromsuch organisms as GEF or the UN Foundation,and with the co-operation of UNEP, FAO, IUCNand other NGOs, a more satisfactory set-up forthe World Network will eventually come about.In the meantime, the Secretariat has to concen-trate on its primary mission of being the drivingforce of the entire operation. It should thusavoid heavy operations concerning individualbiosphere reserves unless specific means are pro-vided to this effect. In this respect, the AdvisoryCommittee should make sure that only verypromising new sites, clearly able to fulfil ade-quately the required functions, be added to thenetwork and should make efforts to assist theSecretariat in the process of periodic review andimprovement of existing sites.

I would now simply like to conclude thesepersonal remarks in repeating that much remains to

be done for biosphere reserves and the WorldNetwork, but things have begun to work after a longincubation period. The time has come to reviewefforts vigorously to ensure the full success of a trulyinnovative and useful concept, which constitutes atangible step towards the much called for sustainabledevelopment of our planet.

REFERENCESBATISSE, M. 1997. Biosphere reserves: a challenge for

biodiversity conservation and regional develop-ment. Environment, Vol. 39, N° 5, pp. 7–15, 31–33.Washington, United States of America.

HALFFTER, G. 1984. Conservation, development andlocal participation. In di Castri, F.; Baker, F. W. G.;Hadley, M. (eds.), Ecology in Practice, Vol. 1,pp. 428–436. Tycooly International Publishing,Dublin.

UNESCO, 1970. Use and conservation of thebiosphere. Proceedings of the intergovernmentalconference of experts on the scientific basis forrational use and conservation of the biosphere.Natural resources research, Vol. X, UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO. 1974. Criteria and guidelines for the choiceand establishment of biosphere reserves. MABReport Series, N° 22, UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO. 1996. Biosphere reserves: The Seville Strat-egy and the Statutory Framework of the World Net-work of Biosphere reserves. UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO. 2000. Solving the Puzzle: The EcosystemApproach and Biosphere Reserves. UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO-UNEP 1984. Conservation, science andsociety. Natural Resources Research, Vol. XXI.UNESCO, Paris.

I very much welcome the convening of this expertmeeting. As you know, the Seville Strategy for theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves specifically pro-motes biosphere reserves as a means of implementingthe Convention on Biological Diversity, and this is alsoreflected in the Statutory Framework. This workshopprovides an opportunity to review the contribution ofthe Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) to the

Convention, and also to consider ho the Conventioncan promote the wider application of best practicesdeveloped through the MAB.

The Convention on Biological Diversity hasadopted an ecosystem approach as a primary frame-work for action under the Convention, and, at its fifthmeeting held in Nairobi, in May this year, the Con-ference of the Parties, endorsed a description of the

17




Report Series No 69

Statement by the Executive Secretary of the Secretariat of the Convention

on Biological Diversity

Hamdallah Zedan

ecosystem approach as well as guidance for its appli-cation. This is included in the documentation beforeyou.

The ecosystem approach is a strategy for theintegrated management of land, water and livingresources that promotes conservation and sustainableuse in an equitable way. It requires adaptive manage-ment to deal with the complex and dynamic nature ofecosystems and the absence of complete knowledge orunderstanding of their functioning. ‘Ecosystem man-agers’, in this context, include farmers, pastoralists,fisherfolk, forest dwellers and other stakeholders whomanage ecosystems in order to generate particulargoods and services. Therefore, ecosystem managementimplies the recognition of a diversity of social andcultural factors affecting natural-resource use.

It is obvious from this description, that the Manand the Biosphere Programme is fully consistent withthe ecosystem approach. While the MAB Programmepre-dates the Convention by some 20 years, itanticipated many important elements of the ecosystemapproach, that is:• The integration of conservation and use,• Recognition of the range of goods and services

provided by ecosystems; and• Putting people at the centre of protected areas

management.

The ecosystem approach includes a set of prin-ciples that can be applied in all the thematic pro-gramme under the Convention: in forest ecosystems,agroecosystems, inland water, dry and sub-humidlands, and marine and coastal environments. The Manand the Biosphere Programme – specifically its net-work of biosphere reserves, has the potential to offerto the Convention concrete cases of the ecosystemapproach in practice, including lessons learned fromits experience – both successes and limitations. Thiscontributes directly to the request of the COP inNairobi to identify case-studies, to implement pilotprojects, and to organize workshops to enhanceawareness, share experiences, and strengthen regional,national and local capacities on the ecosystemapproach.

Further, the MAB experience can contribute tothe in-depth consideration of protected areas by theConference of the Parties at the seventh meeting in2004. This would be in line with decision IV/15 of the Conference of the Parties which encourages theCBD Secretariat to develop relationships with otherprocesses with a view to fostering good managementpractices in areas such as:• Methods and approaches to deal with protected

areas;• Ecosystem and bioregional approaches to pro-

tected area management and the sustainable sueof biological diversity;

• Mechanisms to enhance stakeholder involve-ment;

• Methods of developing biodiversity consider-ations into sectoral strategies and action plans;and

• Transboundary protected areas.

In preparation for the consideration of protectedareas by the Conference of the Parties, the Conven-tion’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice will consider the subject at itseighth and/or ninth meetings in 2003. At the sametime, it will review the application of the ecosystemapproach and develop guidance and principles on sus-tainable use of biological diversity, in the light of prac-tical case-studies.

Consideration of these issues together offers anunprecedented opportunity to modernize strategiesfor the management of protected areas and theirintegration into wider area management, in line withthe ecosystem approach, also making use of incentivemeasures and other tools to promote sustainable use.

For the Man and the Biosphere Programme,there is an opportunity to foster the development ofappropriate tools such as standards, criteria andguidelines and the wider application of better prac-tices beyond the MAB reserves, as well as to promotethe development of true systems of protected areas, asenvisaged in Article 8 of the Convention.

This is a particularly important opportunitygiven that, according to the national reports sub-mitted, many Parties consider protected areas to bethe major component of their strategies for biodi-versity conservation. Since the entry into force of theConvention, protected area management, in one formor another, has received nearly US$400 millionthrough the Convention’s financial mechanismoperated by the Global Environment Facility.

Briefly, before closing, I would like to underlinethe importance of raising public awareness as to theimportance of biological diversity and full range of goods and services that it provides. With this inmind, UNESCO and the CBD have recently launcheda Global Initiative on Biological Diversity Educationand Public Awareness. In this respect, I would drawyour attention to the report of the first meeting of theconsultative working group for this initiative, which isavailable to you, here.

As you review your progress since Seville, Iinvite you to explore how the MAB network cancontribute further to the implementation of theConvention, and how the Convention can promote itsaims.

I wish you all a successful meeting.Thank you very much.



18


Report Series No 69

This document was prepared by the MAB Secretariat toprovide information on activities undertaken at the inter-national level since the Seville Conference. It follows thegoals and objectives of the Seville Strategy and served asa background document for the debates at the inter-national level during the Seville + 5 meeting.

GOAL I: USE BIOSPHERE RESERVES TO CONSERVE NATURAL AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Objective I.1: Improve the coverage of natural and cultural biodiversity by means of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves

At the international levels, one recommendationdeals with the implementation of the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity

UNESCO, mainly through the MAB programme,continues collaborating with the Parties to the Con-vention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Sec-retariat in the implementation of specific provisionsrelated to the Convention and its programme of work.The role of biosphere reserves in the implementationof the Convention on Biological Diversity was thetheme of a one day workshop organized by the SlovakMAB National Committee and the Slovak Academy ofSciences in Bratislava (Slovak Republic) on 1st May1998, just before the 4th Conference of Parties to theConvention on Biological Diversity. General presen-tations on the convention and biosphere reserveshighlighted how the biosphere reserve concept couldaddress the three concerns of the Convention, i.e.conservation of biological diversity (a core area func-tion), the sustainable use of biological resources (arole particularly for the buffer zone) and the sharingof benefits (through the transition area at the site leveland through the Network). The workshop concludedthat the biosphere reserve concept was tailor-made tocontribute to achieving the objectives of the Con-vention on Biological Diversity. CBD Conference par-ticipants were informed of the outcomes of the work-shop in the intervention of a Delegate who attendedthe workshop. The proceedings have been widely dis-tributed to MAB National Committees.

The main area in which MAB currently providesassistance to the Convention is the implementation ofthe cross-cutting theme ‘ecosystem approach’. The

ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integratedmanagement of land, water and living resources thatpromotes conservation and sustainable use in an equi-table way. Application of the ecosystem approach willhelp to reach a balance of the three objectives of theConvention. This strategy is based on the applicationof appropriate scientific methodologies focused onlevels of biological organization that encompass theessential processes, functions and interactions amongorganisms and their environment. It recognizes thathumans, with their cultural diversity, are an integralcomponent of ecosystems.

The Biosphere Reserve concept is consistentwith the Ecosystem Approach concept. Recently, theMAB Secretariat has produced a study in the form of abooklet entitled Solving the Puzzle: The EcosystemApproach and Biosphere Reserves. The Conference ofthe Parties to the CBD has been actively discussing the ecosystem approach since its fourth meeting in Bratislava, May 1998. In May 2000, at its fifth meeting, COP adopted a set of 12 principles andoperational points for the application of the ecosystemapproach, to which the MAB Secretariat contributedby organizing and hosting the meeting of the Liaison Group on the Ecosystem Approach (Paris,September 1999), as part of the preparations for theNairobi meeting. MAB is presently testing the appli-cability of such principles and operational guidance in selected biosphere reserves around the world, usinga regional approach. To this end, UNESCO and theCommission on Ecosystem Management of the WorldConservation Union (IUCN) have organized, in thesecond half of 2000, three regional workshops on the theme: ‘The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD:From Concept to Action’. Reports on the lessonsdrawn for the practical implementation of the eco-system approach in Southern Africa, Latin Americaand South-East Asia have been prepared, and a globalanalysis report is envisaged for production by the endof the current year. Based on experiences in selectedsites, many of which are part of the World Network ofBiosphere Reserves, it will be possible to review theoperational modalities of the ecosystem approach,which, as described by the Conference of the Partiesto the CBD, is the primary framework for action underthe Convention.

Other areas in which MAB currently provides ameans of implementing the goals of the CBD are theuse of biosphere reserves for the CBD global initiativeon education and awareness (see III.3) and the

Overview of f ive years’ implementation of the Seville Strategy at the international level

19




Report Series No 69

development of measures to counteract invasive alienspecies (through the provision of case studies to theSecretariat), which is related to the issue of ‘emergingecosystems’; the assistance in the implementation of the Global Taxonomic Initiative, and specific inputsto the CBD thematic programmes of work, namely the programmes of work on marine and coastal,mountain, forests, arid and sub-humid ecosystems.

A second recommendation aims at improving thecoverage of natural and cultural diversity by means ofthe World Network of Biosphere Reserves, and promotesa comprehensive approach to a biogeographical classi-fication system that takes into account such ideas asvulnerability analysis, in order to develop a systemencompassing socio-ecological factors.

Global biogeographical coverage was inherent inthe original biosphere reserve concept: the idea was tocreate at least one biosphere reserve representative ofeach of the 193 biogeographical provinces identifiedin the Udvardy biogeographical classification systemof 1975. However, this system is now somewhatoutdated, and focuses essentially on the conservationdimension of biosphere reserves.

Since the Seville Conference 48 new biospherereserves have been designated of which 9 are in ‘new’countries (Israel, Niger, Cambodia, Guinea Bissau,Latvia, Jordan, Morocco, South Africa, Vietnam),bringing the total to 368 in 91 countries. Several ofthese help to improve representation of arid lands(e.g. Dana, Jordan; Uvs Nuur Basin, Mongolia; Arga-neraie, Morocco; Aïr and Ténéré, Niger, and Ubsu-norskaya Kotlovina, Russian Federation) freshwaterwetlands (e.g. Tonle Sap in Cambodia) and coastalzones and islands (Nanji Islands, China; BalomasBijagos, Guinea Bissau; El Hierro, Spain; Ranong,Thailand; Can Gio, Vietnam).

However, if one looks at the map of the WorldNetwork of Biosphere Reserves, one can see that thereare still ‘gaps’ in the following regions: Amazon, Arabregion, Southern Africa, Indian sub-continent, CentralAsia, as well as for coral reef systems in general. It isto be noted that this year, there are new biospherereserve nominations from some of the countries con-cerned, notably from Brazil, Morocco, Malawi (firstnomination), Tanzania and South Africa, and, for thefirst time, India. However, much remains to be done.

As concerns a comprehensive approach to bio-geographical classification, going beyond the conser-vation function of biosphere reserves, in early 2000,UNESCO has suggested the organization of a smallworkshop under the aegis of Ecosystem ConservationGroup (ECG) on the general theme of biomes,hotspots and charismatic ecosystems. This ECG is aninter-agency co-ordination mechanism for UNEP (andUNEP-WCMC), FAO, UNESCO, UNDP, the WorldBank, the World Conservation Union and WRI. It cantherefore bring in the experience of these entities and,

if indeed such a workshop is organized, could be acomplement to the ‘Millennium Assessment’ ofecosystems which is currently being launched.

Objective I.2: Biosphere reserves into conservation planning

At the international level, the recommendationdeals with the establishment of transboundary biospherereserves.

As of October 2000, five Transboundary Bios-phere Reserves (TBR) have officially been designatedas such, three of them since the adoption of the SevilleStrategy. They are the following:• Tatra, Poland and Slovakia (1992);• Krkokonose /Karkonosze , Czech Republic and

Poland (1992);• Vosges du Nord /Pfälzerwald, France and

Germany (1998);• The Danube Delta, Romania and Ukraine

(1998); and• The Eastern Carpathians, the first and only tri-

lateral Biosphere Reserve, Poland, Slovakia andUkraine (1998).

These official TBR are all located in Europe, butmany initiatives are taking place in other regions. Thead hoc task force on the issue which is organizedduring the Pamplona meeting will provide, for thefirst time, an opportunity to exchange experienceamong regions and to discuss recommendations for the establishment and functioning of such TBR. Itis very interesting to note that, during the last fiveyear, at least 25 sites have been identified around theworld as potential TBR for which projects are beendeveloped.

For instance, the Afrimab technical workinggroup on TBR set up at the Dakar meeting for Frenchspeaking countries identified some 15 sites aspotential TBR: among them, one can mention NiokoloKoba /Badiar, in Senegal and Guinea, Mont Nimba, inGuinea, Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia, the Delta duSaloum /Niumi in Senegal and Gambia, or the ‘W’, inNiger, Benin, and Burkina Faso. More recently, theAfriMAB meeting held in Nairobi for lusophone andanglophone countries identified sites such asSerengeti/Masai Mara in Tanzania and Kenya.

At its 5th meeting in Mongolia (1997) theEABRN developed a procedure for establishing trans-boundary biosphere reserves in order to facilitate the designation of TBR. Several sites with potential forTBR exist in the region, including the Altai Mountainsin Russia, China, Kazakhstan and Mongolia, GreatGobi in China and Mongolia, Xilingol /Nornod inChina and Mongolia, Uvs Nuur Basin/UbsunorkayaKotlovina, in Mongolia in Russia. The China/



20


Report Series No 69

Mongolia /Russia Daurian International ProtectedArea should also be mentioned for its potential tobecome a tri-national biosphere reserve in the region.

In Latin America, several co-operation efforts areunder way, linking sites together and developingbiological corridors, such as the Meso-American corri-dor. Bilateral co-operation has developed for a longtime, such as in La Amistad between Costa Rica andPanama, or is being developed, with a view toestablish a TBR: this is for example the case in Argen-tina, Boli

Drupalterrasdomino.deputacionlugo.org/docs/conoce/fichas... · Published in 2001 by the United...

Documents

Transcript of Drupalterrasdomino.deputacionlugo.org/docs/conoce/fichas... · Published in 2001 by the United...