Development of Japanese Biosphere Reserve Network
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:19:17 +0900

Dear all,
I welcome to create this new line of action for scientists. We need to establish/develop nation-wide network for scientists, as well as international network.
At least in Japan, scientsis contributes a variety of sectors:(sorry in Japanese)
1) Natoinal Commission for UNESCO. it consists of scientists and secretariats from Minitsry of Educatoin. Education experts and scientists from a variety of UNESCO activities. It [usually] approves decisions by the National MAB Committee.
2) National MAB Committee. It consists of 3 scientists from the National Commission and 9 experts of MAB (biologists and socieal scientists). It determines nomination of each new or extension proposal of BR, and any other policy for Japanese MAB activities.
3) "Japanese Coordinating Committｒe for MAB". It consists of scientists that support/advise activities in each BR and Japan BR Network. Since it was established in 1990s until 2009 (I became a member of Japanese MAB Committee in 2007), National MAB Committee was "dormant" and National Commission did not work well for MAB. It is independent and voluntary organization made by a past chair of Japanese MAB committee ("coordinating" and "committee" sound misleading. Therefore I hereafter call it "Science Committee for Japanese [Biosphere Reserve] network (JBRN)"). Roles differs between National MAB Committe and "Science Committee for JBRN", reviewers and advisors respectively.
I am a member of National MAB Committe and the chair of "Science Committee for JBRN", called by the former MAB Committee chair (Dr. Suzuki).
4) Each BR has some local scientists, including members of "Science Committee for JBRN".
Therefore, now we are making a mail-list of Japanese MAB Committee, "Science Committee for JBRN" and scientists for each BR (called "Japan MAB Scientists"). []

[]Budget of geopark network is maintained by membership fees from each geopark. I think it is stronger than external funding. If the funding does not continue, the network cannot continue. We welcome starting-up funding and need a long-term vision for each network, or strategy for sunset clause.  I think a typical developing process of networks is, (1) virtually (2) voluntary and (3) well established by membership fee.
Twining partnership between 2 BRs from 2 nations is much more hopeful. It is usually maintained by twinned BRs. It could be developed to more than 2 BRs. The meaning of twining BRs is different from transouboundary BR. It is rather similar to thematic network.

Japan BR network is now under reformation. In 2010 I invited municipality officers, citizens and scientists of each BR as a mail-list members. This mailing network is called Japan BR network. In 2013, the first [face-to-face (off-line) meeting was held in Tadami "BR" (that was under nomination process), and participants agreed with importance of exchanging information and activities. There is no budget for JBRN []. In 2015, the reformed JBRN meeting will be held in Shiga Highland, on the same days as the EABRN meeting there. Since 2016, JBRN has a member fee from each BR  and "research member" that like to become BR. "Science Committee for JBRN" becomes an advisory sector for JBRN and each BR. We got some starting-up grants []:
http://risk.kan.ynu.ac.jp/gcoe/MAB-Acknowledgment.html