Side Event: “Synergies between Multi-designations in Biosphere Reserves”
In many places around the world, Biosphere Reserves (BRs) are also
designated under other international designation regimes: World Heritage Sites,
Ramsar Sites, UNESCO Global Geoparks, and Global Important Agricultural
Heritage Systems (GIAHS). All of these programmes and conventions have similar
goals related to conservation and sustainable development. However, these frameworks
sometimes compete with each other for funding, authority, and human resources
because of the lack of communication and coordination among them. Keeping in
mind that IUCN is preparing a guidance publication called “Multiple
Internationally Designated Areas - Guidance for harmonizing the integrated
management of overlapping Ramsar Sites, World Heritage Sites, Biosphere
Reserves and Global Geoparks” to be launched at the IUCN World Conservation
Congress in 2016, this event discussed possible solutions for synergy between these
international frameworks from the perspective of strengthening synergies and
opportunities for cooperation under framework of activities under the World
network of Biosphere Reserves..
The event was chaired by Mr. Hiroyuki Matsuda from the Japan MAB
Committee. Messrs William
Dunber and Toshonori Tanaka served as rapporteurs. Eight speakers, from
international, national and site levels, spoke at the event: Mr. Do-Soon Cho
from ROK MAB spoke on “Jeju Island with 4 international protected area
designation”; Mr. Thomas Schaaf from Terra-Sana Environmental Consultancy spoke on “Progress on IUCN Guidance on multiple internationally
designated areas: Ramsar Sites, World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves and
Global Geoparks”; Mr. Toshinori Tanaka from University of Tokyo spoke on
“Building national-level network for synergizing internationally designated
areas”; Mr. Andrew Bell from UNESCO UK spoke on “Experience of interactions
between designations from the UK and Vietnam”; Mr. Shinsuke Nakamura from Mt.
Hakusan BR, Japan spoke on “Synergy between Geoparks and BR through Hakusan as
a focal point”; Mr. Yoshihiko Iida from UNU-IAS spoke on “Possibility of
synergy between GIAHS and BR for generating biocultural diversity”; Mr. William
Dunbar from UNU-IAS spoke on “Environmental, economic and social sustainability
in the landscape: Synergy between MAB and the Satoyama Initiative”; and Mr.
Natarajan Ishwaran from HIST spoke on “Labels and Performances: the case of
UNESCO sites”.
Speakers working in BRs that either overlap with, are concurrently
designated as, or in some cases are adjacent to, areas designated under other
designations, identified a number of the benefits and challenges they have
faced. Some benefits were that the different designations are often well-known
in different sectors, so multiple designation can benefit each of these in
terms of gaining promoting
inter-sectoral collaboration for conservation and sustainable development. People responsible for each designation can learn valuable lessons from
each others’ experiences. One challenge faced was that each designation demands time-consuming monitoring and
reporting requirements that are independent of one another which are difficult to comply with; multiple designations compound
this problem when they are not coordinated. However, probably the biggest
challenge identified was that responsible authorities for each designation
often do not communicate well with each other.
The main common recommendation from the speakers’ experience was
therefore the need for some kind of “integrated management” encompassing the
various designations. In the case of Jeju Island in the Republic of Korea – the
only site with all four designations in one place – one authority has been
created to oversee coordination between all of the designations. It was also
pointed out that it would be very helpful to coordinate and streamline the
reporting requirements for each. In this way, it can be possible to ensure that
the designations are strengthened from each other, rather than working in
competition.
Co-operation between actors responsible for different designations at the site
and land and seascape levels are critical if individual biosphere reserves are
to contribute to attaining global goals and targets linked sustainable
development, climate change and conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity.
.
The 4WCBR organizer asked the following 3 questions.
1.What is your priority of action? – To encourage cooperation between IDAs
and to enable BRs to contribute to implementation of Lima Action Plan (LAP) in
a manner that supports international cooperation agenda for 2016-2030. .
2. What is your main commitment? – Promote cooperation between different
IDAs within the same, overlapping and
adjacent territories in the implementation of the Lima Action Plan
3. What will be new in coming years? -- "Integrated management
system" for
cooperation amongst the different IDAs will be launched at
the World Conservation Congress in Hawa’I (USA) in 2016 within the context of the
follow-up to an IUCN WCC Resolution in September 2012. Synergistic
approaches between BRs, Geoparks and WH and other IDAs could also be promoted at national and local levels..
Lima Action Plan (LAP) recognizes the MAB Programme as a key partner
within UNESCO (WH, Geopark, Ramsar) for cooperation with other international initiatives (GIAHS, Satoyama Initiative Partnership) and conventions (C2). LAP encourages to create and
realize opportunities for collaboration and partnerships within UNESCO (C2.1)
and with international programmes and relevant conventions (C2.2).
