Final Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves

Transcription

1 Internal Oversight Service Evaluation Section IOS/EVS/ Original: English Final Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves ---DRAFT--- Contributors: Lisa Popelier (IOS/EVS) Jos Vaessen (IOS/EVS) May 2014

2 Abstract The World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) constitutes a unique platform for promoting and developing new ideas on the complex relations between people and the environment. The Madrid Action Plan (MAP), endorsed at the 3 rd World Congress of Biosphere Reserves in 2008, was developed in order to further elevate biosphere reserves as principal internationally designated areas and learning sites for sustainable development. The present evaluation concludes that progress has been achieved in all four action areas of the MAP. More than half of the biosphere reserves report activities related to the MAP priority themes of climate change, ecosystem services and urbanization. Finally, there is some evidence of biosphere reserves serving as learning and demonstration sites. However, progress has been uneven across the network and across areas of interest, and significant challenges remain with regard to all of the issues mentioned above. The evaluation highlights five areas of improvement: strengthen the value of the WNBR for BRs and the active involvement of the latter in the network s activities; strengthen the clearing house function of the WNBR; develop the WNBR s global role as a laboratory of ideas; raise the profile of the WNBR; strengthen the financial and human resource base of the WNBR. i

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

4 Table of contents Acronyms... v List of tables... vii List of figures... vii 1 Introduction Background and rationale Purpose and scope Methodology Limitations of the evaluation Challenges identified in previous studies Analysis of the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan Analysis of response rates Analysis of key topics of the MAP Management of biosphere reserves Partnerships and collaboration Local community involvement and impact Alignment with conventions and multilateral agreements Specific activities, themes and institutional collaboration Zonation Legislation Information, communication and policy influence MAB national committees Regional networks MAB Secretariat General assessment, priorities and the future Summary of findings and recommendations Participation in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and the importance of the Biosphere Reserve designation Institutionalization of the Biosphere Reserve model The role of the MAB Secretariat Recommendations A note on the evaluability of a future strategy and action plan Annexes Annex 1: Stakeholders consulted within the framework of the evaluation Annex 2: Documents reviewed within the framework of the evaluation Annex 3: Tentative assessment of the achievement of actions by the MAB Secretariat and tentative forward-looking prioritization exercise Annex 4: Links between MAP actions and Figures and Tables in the evaluation report Annex 5: Links between Figures in the evaluation report and MAP actions iii

5 Annex 6: Background information on the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and the Madrid Action Plan Annex 7: Questionnaire for BR managers Annex 8: Questionnaire for members of MAB NCs Annex 9: Questionnaire for regional or thematic networks Annex 10: Self-assessment form MAB Secretariat Annex 11: Priorities for evaluation of MAP as identified by the electronic working group Annex 12: Time schedule MAP Evaluation Annex 13: Rules for addressing multiple responses per BR/MAB national committee Annex 14: Graphs bi-variate analyses (Europe and North America Other regions) Annex 15: Graphs bi-variate analyses (pre-seville post-seville) iv

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

7 WNICBR World Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves vi

8 List of tables Table 1 Challenges identified in previous studies and their relevance based on the report Table 2 Response rate BRs and MAB NCs Table 3 Ranking (and ratings) of major action areas by BRs, MAB NCs and the reference group Table 4 Tentative assessment of achievement of MAP actions by the MAB Secretariat Table 5 Examples of activities undertaken by the MAB Secretariat (HQ and/or FOs) by UNESCO s major function and level of intervention Table 6 Tentative ratings of types of activities regarding their (relative) priority and level of achievement List of figures Figure 1 Response rates to the BR and MAB NC survey by geographical region (n BR = 237, N BR = 621; n NC = 64, N NC = 117) Figure 2 Response rates for pre- and post-seville BRs Figure 3 Origin management structure BR (n BR = 241) Figure 4 Existence of a management committee or a structure including actors from all three zones of the BR (n BR = 241) Figure 5 Planning within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 6 Principal actors involved in planning activities conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 7 Number of staff involved in managing the BR (n BR = 241) Figure 8 Purposes of centers established in/near BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 9 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 10 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (n NC = 64) Figure 11 Funding sources of BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 12 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 13 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for MAB NCs (n NC = 64) Figure 14 Modalities of cooperation between BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 15 Assistance of MAB NCs for transboundary BRs and other forms of transboundary cooperation (n NC = 64) Figure 16 Established partnership strategies between BRs and different institutional actors (n BR = 241) Figure 17 Involvement of local communities in the management and development of activities within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 18 Principal ways in which local communities have been involved in the management and development of BR activities ( spontaneous responses ) (n BR = 241) Figure 19 Local communities deriving benefits from the establishment of BRs and/or activities taking place within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) Figure 20 Principal ways in which local communities have benefited from the establishment of BRs and/or activities within the framework of BRs ( spontaneous responses ) (n BR = 241) Figure 21 Activities of the BR explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (n BR = 241) Figure 22 Activities of the MAB NC explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (n NC = 64) vii

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

10 Figure 59 Resource mobilization by MAB NCs from different institutional actors (n NC = 64) Figure 60 Extent to which BRs comply with the submission of periodic reviews (N BR = 621) Figure 61 Extent to which the Madrid Action Plan has been used by BRs and MAB NCs (n BR = 241; n NC = 64) Figure 62 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to BR managers by main action area (n BR = 241) Figure 63 Self-assessed progress on zonation according to BR managers stratified by pre- and post-seville samples (n BR = 237) Figure 64 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to MAB NCs by main action area (n NC = 64) Figure 65 MAB NCs with current proposals for new BRs (n NC = 70) Figure 66 Priorities for BRs according to BR managers ( spontaneous responses ) (n BR = 241) Figure 67 Priorities for BRs according to the MAB NCs ( spontaneous responses ) (n NC = 64) 61 Figure 68 Priorities for MAB NCs ( spontaneous responses ) (n NC = 64) Figure 69 Prioritization matrix of the MAB Secretariat's activities Figure 70 Self-assessed progress in cooperation, management and communication Figure 71 Self-assessed progress in zonation Figure 72 Self-assessed progress in science and capacity enhancement Figure 73 Self-assessed progress in partnerships (n BR = 237, n other = 138, n EurNA = 99) Figure 74 Prioritization cooperation, management and communication (n BR = 237, n other = 138, n EurNA = 99) Figure 75 Prioritization zonation Figure 76 Prioritization science and capacity enhancement (n BR = 237, n other = 138, n EurNA = 99) Figure 77 Prioritization partnerships Figure 78 BRs with a communication strategy Figure 79 Involvement of local communities in the management and development of activities within the framework of BRs (n BR = 237, n other = 138, n EurNA = 99) Figure 80 Local communities deriving benefits from the establishment of BRs and/or activities taking place within the framework of BRs (n BR = 237, n other = 138, n EurNA = 99) Figure 81 Actions undertaken to improve the zonation of the BR (n BR = 237, n pre = 112, n post = 125) Figure 82 Self-assessed progress in cooperation, management and communication Figure 83 Self-assessed progress in zonation (n BR = 237, n pre = 112, n post = 125) Figure 84 Self-assessed progress in science and capacity enhancement Figure 85 Self-assessed progress in partnerships Figure 86 Prioritization cooperation, management and communication Figure 87 Prioritization zonation Figure 88 Prioritization science and capacity enhancement Figure 89 Prioritization partnerships ix

11 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and rationale The biosphere reserve (BR) concept was introduced by UNESCO and its Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme in At that time the programme had two primary goals: conservation and ecological research. In response to the proliferation of international policies promoting the combination of biodiversity conservation with sustainable use and benefit sharing from natural resources, the BR concept has been expanded. BRs are serving as testing grounds for innovative approaches to socially and culturally appropriate and environmentally sustainable development (SD) as highlighted in the Seville Strategy (UNESCO, 1995). In 2008, the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) was adopted in order to further elevate BRs as principal internationally designated areas and learning sites for sustainable development (UNESCO, 2008). The current mission of the MAB Programme is to maintain and develop ecological and cultural diversity while securing ecosystem services for human well-being through sound research and collaboration with a suitable range of actors, often including local communities and scientists (UNESCO, 2008). In the Rio+20 summit, BRs have been assigned a role to contribute to the transition to green economies by experimenting with green development options, including sustainable tourism and training for green jobs (UNESCO, 2012). The World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) currently comprises 621 BRs located in 117 countries. The number of BRs has been steadily increasing as many countries seek opportunities to promote SD as a societal process and sustainability as the outcome. The MAP defines 4 main action areas, 31 target areas and 67 targeted actions. The scope of the plan is substantially broadened by the fact that it also encompasses effective implementation of the Seville Strategy, which in itself comprises a long list of action points. The institutional landscape of actors involved in the implementation of the MAP is extensive. The principal actors include the MAB Secretariat, 158 MAB national committees or focal points, 621 individual biosphere reserves, 8 regional networks and 7 thematic networks. Apart from these principal stakeholders, a range of other institutional actors from government, academic institutions, civil society and private sector can be involved in the implementation of activities within the framework of the MAP. A mid-term evaluation of the progress on the implementation of the MAP was carried out in After considering the findings of this evaluation, the MAB International Coordinating Council (ICC) decided at its 23 rd session that an external evaluation on the accomplishments of the Madrid Action Plan be carried out towards the end of 2013/beginning of 2014, so that the results of the MAP can be submitted to the MAB ICC at its session in Moreover, the MAB ICC decided in its 24 th and 25 th sessions that: [T]he evaluation should be considered as a strategic thinking tool to also evaluate the Seville Strategy and to place the World Network of Biosphere Reserves into the context of the follow up to Rio+20, green economy, biodiversity conservation, combating desertification and the challenges imposed by climate change (24 th session). [A]n internal, rather than an external evaluation (as had been earlier decided at the 23rd session of the MAB Council) should be implemented so as to keep costs as low as possible (24 th session). 1

12 MAB National Committees (and where they [do not] exist, UNESCO National Commissions or other appropriate national bodies) should take the lead role with regard to soliciting inputs from individual biosphere reserves needed for the evaluation of the MAP, supplemented by the work of relevant regional and thematic MAB networks (24 th session). A reference group should be established for the evaluation composed of representatives of MAB Bureau members and managers of BRs (25 th session). Taking into account the above, an efficient evaluation approach is needed that is both retrospective (taking stock of progress on the MAP) and forward-looking (developing inputs to the future MAB strategy) in nature. 1.2 Purpose and scope The purpose of the final evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan is twofold: 1) To assess overall progress on the implementation of the MAP; 2) To generate inputs for the formulation of the future strategy of the MAB Programme and the WNBR The evaluation covers the complete time span of the Madrid Action Plan ( ). Due to the relatively modest resources available, it was not feasible to comprehensively cover all stakeholder groups. Consequently, it was decided that the evaluation would focus on the perspectives of biosphere reserve managers, 1 representatives of MAB national committees, members of the MAB Secretariat and (to a lesser extent) members of regional and thematic networks. Key audiences of the evaluation are the MAB ICC, the MAB Bureau, and the international advisory committee for biosphere reserves. In addition, the evaluation is intended to provide some useful lessons for the work of the MAB Secretariat. Finally, in line with the evaluation s focus, the findings and recommendations of the evaluation will also be of interest to members of the MAB national committees and biosphere reserve managers. Finally, it is expected that the current evaluation will feed into an external evaluation of the MAB Programme which is expected to be conducted in the near future. 1.3 Methodology The evaluation was conducted by IOS in close collaboration with the MAB Secretariat. Given the fact that the evaluation was conducted internally, no formal ToR were elaborated. Instead, a concept note was developed and different presentations were given on the approach and methodology adopted for this evaluation. A timeframe which displays the different stages of this evaluation can be found in Annex 12. The data collected throughout the evaluation process have been triangulated as much as possible. The key building blocks of the evaluation are the following: Desk study to review the main challenges that have been identified in previous studies; An online survey targeting BR managers (see Annex 7), MAB national committees (see Annex 8) and regional and thematic networks 2 (see Annex 9); 1 The term BR manager will be used throughout the report to refer to managers, coordinators, focal points and other denominations used for representatives of individual BRs. 2 Given the small sample size, the data collected from respondents from this group will only be reported in qualitative terms. 2

13 Succinct self-assessment exercise by the MAB Secretariat 3 (see Annex 10); Face to face conversations with the members of the MAB Secretariat. The survey constituted the main data source for the evaluation. As part of the survey process the following activities were undertaken: Development of questionnaires; Updating contact information from different respondent groups, through: Compilation of information from different sources (i.e. online directory of the WNBR, recent publications, participation list from recent meetings, websites etc.) Request sent to UNESCO s National Commissions to provide updated contact information of MAB national committees; Request sent to MAB national committees to provide updated contact information of the BRs in their country; Follow-up actions in case of delivery failure messages; Translation of the survey into all six official United Nations languages; Dissemination of the survey through an online platform (via ); Making available soft copies of the survey (PDF and Word) where needed; Dissemination of information about the survey through regional/national networks of BRs; Dissemination of information about the survey through the UNESCO website; Several reminder s; Extended response period amounting to a total of two months. 4 The development of the questionnaires and other data collection instruments proved to be rather challenging due to the nature of the MAP. Several elements constrained the evaluability of the MAP (see ). The most important actions undertaken to deal with this issue were the following: Prioritization of the issues to be covered. An electronic working group constituted by members of the MAB Bureau, MAB national committees and BR managers was set up to conduct a ranking exercise to prioritize the issues of the MAP to be covered by the evaluation (see Annex 10). This electronic working group later became the Reference Group of the evaluation. The prioritization of actions was not strictly followed during the data gathering process. During the process of developing the methodology it became clear that all actions could be covered by the evaluation (hence not making it necessary to prioritize actions in the evaluation), through a process of re-clustering some of the actions and targets. Regrouping of the actions of the MAP. A concept mapping exercise was carried out to regroup the actions included in the MAP. 5 This was deemed necessary as several actions in the MAP show overlaps and others combine different elements within the same action. The structure that resulted from the concept mapping exercise provided the basis for the survey development. The table in Annex 4 demonstrates how all actions of the MAP have been covered by the present report, while Annex 5 illustrates how the figures incorporated in the report are linked to the MAP. The tables show that essentially all actions are covered by the 3 Given the small sample size, the data collected from these forms will only be reported upon through narratives. 4 The official response period for the survey was from December 9, 2013 until January 31, The survey remained accessible for another four weeks after the official deadline. 5 The actions were regrouped in the following overarching categories: cooperation/partnerships (including local participation, UNESCO partnerships, business partnerships, partnerships among BRs, and national and international funding), BR management (including monitoring and evaluation, and functions and themes), communication (including information and communication and incentive creation), zonation, science and capacity enhancement (including capacity enhancement at different level, and science-policy interaction). 3

14 evaluation. However, due to the fact that some actions can be subject to multiple interpretations, certain choices were made on the interpretation and incorporation of particular actions into the questionnaires. Triangulation of the data. Targeting surveys to different stakeholders allowed for the triangulation of the obtained data and assessment of the consistency and robustness of the findings. Recasting action statements into measurable variables. The evaluation has not systematically covered all success indicators included in the MAP due to evaluability issues. Rather, the focus was on recasting action statements into measurable variables. 1.4 Limitations of the evaluation Evaluability of the Madrid Action Plan The MAP was defined with clear provisions for evaluation (mid-term and ex post). To facilitate monitoring and evaluation, the plan was presented in matrix format, indicating the key targets, actions, timeframes, success indicators and responsible actors. Despite this in principle helpful framework, a number of factors in fact significantly reduced the evaluability of the MAP: The broad scope of the MAP. The MAP covers a large number of actions and actors to be tracked. There are significant resource implications for a comprehensive monitoring (and evaluation) exercise. Resources for monitoring and evaluation were modest in comparison to the scope and corresponding data requirements of the MAP. The lack of clarity in formulation of particular elements of the MAP. There is a lack of clarity and consistency across the MAP that manifests itself in three dimensions, namely (1) the formulation of the actions 6 (see for example Action 16.3), (2) the definition and designation of roles and responsibilities, and (3) the consistency between the action and the success indicator. The lack of an intervention logic as a basis for the action plan. An intervention logic specifies how major strategic lines of action can be broken down into different types of activities (at different levels) generating specific outputs for particular (institutional) actors which are intended to bring about specific changes in the behavior of these actors, eventually contributing to achieving the overall objectives of the strategy. It reflects priorities and hierarchies in activities and constitutes the basis for the definition of output and outcome indicators. It presents an overall easy to understand picture of how different (groups of) activities fit together and under what assumptions they are expected to lead to change. The lack of an intervention logic is likely to result in constraints as described under the previous two bullet points. One of the explanations for the abovementioned constraints is the fact that the MAP targets and actions were formulated on the basis of a consensus-seeking process. While stakeholder consensus is a crucial element in the development of a strategy and action plan within the context of an intergovernmental program, such consensus should be established at the level of strategic directions and high-level priorities. The development of specific actions and corresponding indicators is first and foremost a technical exercise, subject to principles of coherence and logic. A note on the evaluability of a future strategy and action plan is provided in section Some of the actions included in the MAP are formulated in an ambiguous manner and/or overlap with other actions. 4

15 1.4.2 Scope versus depth On several variables, the survey has yielded very rich qualitative data. Due to the scope of the evaluation and the aim to present findings that concern the entire WNBR, spontaneous responses were grouped into categories. Given the time and resource constraints of the evaluation, no further analyses were conducted on the rich qualitative information provided by survey respondents Response rate Previous surveys 7 in the global network of biosphere reserves have generally resulted in a considerably low response rate. It is important to keep in mind that non-response is not random. Responding to the survey can be considered as a proxy for the importance that is attached by the respondent to the MAB Programme and its WNBR. In addition, it provides an indication of the perception that respondents have about the importance of the BR designation and the role of UNESCO. As a consequence, it is very probable that the BRs that have been reached are those that are the most active and the most connected to the WNBR, e.g. through their MAB national committee or through a regional network of BRs. The actions that were undertaken to anticipate potentially low response rates are listed in the methodology section (see 1.3) Comparison with the mid-term evaluation It was not possible to compare the findings with those from the mid-term evaluation because of the following reasons: Differences in the formulation of the survey questions. The mid-term evaluation used literal statements from the MAP despite the fact several action statements contain multiple components and/or may be susceptible to differences in interpretation. Differences in the actions covered. The mid-term evaluation only reports on the targets and actions with deadlines for 2010 or earlier. Differences in the type of responses. The mid-term evaluation allowed for considerable flexibility and consequently diversity in the level of quantitative and qualitative information provided by respondents. Differences in respondent groups. In the mid-term evaluation it was less clear who filled out the questionnaire (e.g. representative from MAB national committee, BR manager, representative from UNESCO National Commission), from what perspective. There was a high percentage of incomplete responses in the mid-term evaluation; Differences in response samples; Comparing two non-random minority (less than half of the population) samples is not without problems (unknown margin of error) Attribution and impact claims In general, it has proven to be a challenge to determine whether BRs have been effective for learning about and advancing conservation and sustainable development (Reed and Egunyu, 2013; UNESCO, 2010). This evaluation presents a (mostly) descriptive analysis of a number of variables that reflect the content of the MAP. However, the current state of a particular aspect relating to the MAP (e.g. percentage of BRs with a partnership strategy) or changes in aspects relating to the MAP (e.g. progress in zonation) should not and cannot be simply attributed to the existence of the MAP. There are many variables that affect processes of change in the context 7 Amongst others: Mid-term evaluation of the MAP (2010), Assessment of the Seville Strategy ( ). 5

16 of BRs. For multiple reasons (limitations in resources and data) this evaluation has not been able to address this attribution challenge. Hence, assessing the impact of activities within the framework of the MAP is clearly beyond the mandate of this evaluation Coverage of relevant stakeholder groups This evaluation focused on a limited number of key stakeholder groups, excluding several others due to time and budget constraints. Informants that have not been solicited to provide input into the evaluation include amongst others the National Commissions for UNESCO (only indirectly via MAB national committees), civil society organizations, public and private sector organizations and the research community. In addition, a few countries which for diverse reasons have not participated in the MAP process were excluded from the sampling population Multiple responses for the same case There were several cases of multiple responses per BR (44) or MAB national committee (8). Rules (see Annex 11) were defined to either select a reference response (in case of BRs) or to consolidate the different responses into a single response. These cases as well as other cases that could be considered as less reliable were then labeled as conflict cases. The qualitative information provided by different respondents was retained so as not to lose the information Incomplete responses Some incomplete survey responses were received. Additionally, a few respondents filled out questionnaires which were not targeted to their stakeholder group. 1.5 Challenges identified in previous studies This section summarizes the challenges that have been encountered at different levels within the WNBR based on existing studies. More particularly, many of the challenges mentioned below have been identified through a survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy which has been conducted in (as a requirement of the MAP). 8 Ensuring capacities and resources for the effective management of the BR. Limitations in budget, equipment and staff available for BR management was mentioned by the respondents to the questionnaires on the assessment of the Seville Strategy as one of the main obstacles to the implementation of the Seville Strategy (SC-09/CONF.206/5 Rev). This assessment also revealed substantial disparity in available staff and technical and scientific expertise (SC-09/CONF.207/5). Other studies have also demonstrated that BRs have encountered difficulties with respect to the management of the transition zone, the establishment of dedicated authorities for BRs and the creation of a framework for cooperation among stakeholders (Elbakidze et al., 2013). Safeguarding the financial sustainability of different institutional actors in the WNBR. The availability of financial resources is often limited. As a consequence, concerns have been expressed regarding the financial sustainability, especially regional and thematic networks (SC-12/CONF.224/15). The establishment of partnerships and the mobilization of human and financial resources from the private sector require more attention. Additionally, financial sustainability also entails better estimates of the costs and funding requirements for the 8 SC-09/CONF.206/5 Rev and SC-09/CONF.207/5. 6

17 implementation of strategies and action plans. Such estimates have, for instance, not been undertaken with respect to the implementation of the MAP (SC-10/CONF.201/3). Ensuring a multi-stakeholder, participatory approach to management and planning within the framework of the BR. The inclusion of all relevant governmental and non-governmental interest groups in the planning, management and implementation of activities conducted within the framework of the BR is also one of the challenges (Canadian Commission, 2013; UNESCO, 2010). Few guidelines exist on multi-stakeholder management (UNESCO, 2010) and concerns have been raised about the compromised well-being and respect for the rights and responsibilities of rural and indigenous populations (Reed and Egunyu, 2013). A progress report from the IberoMAB network has revealed that many countries have legislation on multi-stakeholder management structures, but this legislation often refers to specific zones within the BR instead of considering the entire BR territory (SC- 11/CONF.202/5). Reconciling the three functions of the BR, especially conservation and (economic) development. The implementation of the expanded mandate of biosphere reserves which now includes conservation, logistical support for knowledge generation and sustainable development has proven to be challenging (Coetzer et al., 2013). The assessment of the Seville Strategy demonstrated that many BRs have continued to focus on the core area and the conservation objective (SC-09/CONF.206/5). Moreover, sustainable development aspects seem to emphasize eco-tourism and sustainable natural resource use while it is questionable whether these economic activities will provide enough economic impetus to effectively protect core conservation areas in BRs. Poverty alleviation and rural development should therefore be better incorporated into the management of the BR (UNESCO, 2010). Ensuring compliance with the updated criteria of the Statutory Framework, particularly regarding zonation in pre-seville sites. The assessment of the implementation of the Seville Strategy has revealed that the majority of the responding countries request the MAB Secretariat to provide operational guidelines for better implementation of the criteria and provide national supervision of the implementation process (SC-09/CONF.207/5; SC- 09/CONF.206/5). BRs and especially those created before the Seville Strategy struggle to meet the zoning requirements (SC-11/CONF.202/5). During the World Congress of BRs held in 2008, it was revealed that only 23% of the sites designated from 1976 to 1984 had the required zonation scheme, while that was 65% for the sites designated from 1985 to 1994 (Price et al., 2010). The delay in the zonation adjustments can be explained by the bottom-up approach, the consensus-building processes and the zonation design in itself which all imply long-term processes (SC-12/CONF.224). Several BRs have already (voluntarily) withdrawn from the WNBR as a consequence of their inability to fulfill the criteria of the Statutory Framework. Reasons for the withdrawal might, for instance, be the lack of a resident human population or the unavailability of financial resources for the management and periodic review processes (Price et al., 2010; SC-11/CONF.202/5). Monitoring and assessing the performance of BRs. Difficulties have been encountered in assessing the performance of individual BRs, because of the lack of basic information on BR management and the limited efforts to consistently monitor performance (UNESCO, 2010). Additionally, the assessment of the Seville Strategy revealed that there is a large disparity in the use of indicators and the types of indicators that are used for monitoring and assessing the performance of BRs (SC-09/CONF.207/5). The periodic reviews cover a tenyear period and are therefore insufficient to effectively monitor changes and track progress. 7

18 A lack of understanding of the purpose and the benefits 9 of conducting periodic reviews might partly explain why some BRs have never submitted a periodic review (Price et al., 2010). Consequently, Member States have continued to call for the development of a monitoring and evaluation system in order to systematically measure management effectiveness and improve information availability (SC-12/CONF.224). Incorporating the BR concept in (inter)national legislation and standard-setting instruments. Discrepancies between the goals of BRs and national legislative frameworks on conservation and sustainable development hamper the effective implementation of the BR concept and enforcement of management decisions (SC-09/CONF.206/5), and prevent BRs from getting recognized nationally and/or internationally. This challenge requires differentiated, adapted, binding and non-binding policy responses informed by best practices (Elbakidze et al., 2013; UNESCO, 2010). However, the legal status of BRs is a challenge with a global dimension given the fact that the BR concept is not included in the categories of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). According to the latter s categorization scheme, BRs fit best within the Category VI, i.e. protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources. This approach is less than optimal because it defines each category according to its principal management objective. It does not do justice to de facto all integrated approaches such as the BR concept which assigns three mutually reinforcing and equally important functions to the designated area, namely conservation, development and knowledge generation. In sum, the way in which IUCN categorizes BRs has been regarded as an impediment to the inclusion of BR issues in national legislation (SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4). Ensuring government support to and endorsement of the BR model. Respondents to the survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy have mentioned the lack of government support and commitment towards the WNBR as a major obstacle (SC-09/CONF.206/5). The ineffectiveness of national institutions to express their commitment to the MAB Programme and the WNBR may also explain why some countries have never submitted periodic review reports (Price et al., 2010). The development of best practices, economic valuations of ecosystem services and other policy-relevant publications that demonstrate the successfulness of the MAB Programme are needed to gain the support of policy makers (SC-09/CONF.206/5). Ensuring collaboration and information sharing between BRs and other actors within the WNBR. Respondents to the survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy have called for enhanced networking within the MAB Programme and within the WNBR. There is a demand for better and more (direct) communication, especially between headquarters and individual BRs (SC-09/CONF.207/5). In addition, there is need for better and more sharing of information and knowledge within the network. A majority of the respondents (62%) of the survey on the Seville Strategy, for instance, expressed their interest in sharing their periodic review process and reports with other BRs (SC-09/CONF.206/5). Studies have also shown that systematic documentation and analysis of reporting processes and their implementation remains rather limited (Price et al., 2010). As a consequence, the establishment of a clearing house for the MAB Programme is considered as essential to increase the flow of shared information (SC-09/CONF.207/5; SC-11/CONF.207/5). The lack of a full-time 9 The primary purpose of the periodic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of BR organizations in achieving the objectives related to their three functions (Reed and Egunyu, 2013). However, the periodic review has often been perceived simply as a hurdle to overcome rather than as an opportunity for assessment, reflection and strategic planning (Price et al., 2010). 8

19 dedicated staff and earmarked financial resources are reported as constraints when pursuing the establishment of an integrated information and communication strategy (SC- 10/CONF.201/3). Enhancing the awareness and understanding of the BR concept. The lack of clear branding of BRs manifests itself in a significant lack of understanding about what BRs are and are not meant to do (UNESCO, 2010). Consequently, it might constitute on obstacle to the implementation of action plans and strategies (SC-09/CONF.206/5 Rev.). Insufficient information, communication and monitoring and evaluation are likely to constitute the root cause of this challenge (UNESCO, 2010). It must be acknowledged that the interdisciplinary and multifaceted approach of the MAB is a source of its strength, but has also proven to be a major difficulty when it comes to promotion and marketing (Nolte, 2005). Aligning the work conducted within the framework of BRs with other international initiatives and conventions. The issue of strengthening the alignment and cooperation with international conventions (e.g. UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD), 10 international initiatives (UN Forest Forum), events (e.g. World Parks Congress) and other programmes related to biodiversity conservation has been on the agenda for some time and continues to be a challenge (SC-12/CONF.224; SC-11/CONF.223). Strengthening the collaboration with other UNESCO programmes. The survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy also revealed that respondents consider the lack of coordination between different UNESCO Sectors as an impediment to the implementation of the Seville Strategy (SC-09/CONF.206/5). There have been several calls for more collaboration with other UNESCO Programmes (e.g. MOST, ESD, IHP). In 2012, for instance, some delegates noted during the MAB-ICC that the current institutional structure for administering the MAB Programme and its WNBR might need to be reviewed in order to fully exploit the transdisciplinary and intersectoral contributions made towards sustainable development (learning). Using the BR model as a conflict resolution mechanism. Through the assessment of the Seville Strategy it became clear that conflict resolution mechanisms were not fully set in place yet (SC-09/CONF.206/5). This observation has been confirmed by a selection of case studies about good practices conducted by the German Commission for UNESCO which also argued that surprisingly few BRs tackle conflict situations in which nature conservation and climate change mitigation or adaptation seem to generate contradictory guidance (German Commission for UNESCO, 2011). Addressing the potential tension between BRs as sites of excellence and sites of learning. The dual role of BRs as sites of excellence and sites of learning may trigger an inherent tension as the former brings expectations of success while the latter implies experimentation and reflection on both successes and failures (Schultz and Lundholm, 2010; Ishwaran et al. 2008). Consequently, in case of the former practitioners may become more reluctant to critically reflect and report on failed management strategies and/or governing arrangements (Reed and Egunyu, 2013). Strengthening the role of BRs in climate change research and policy debates. The topic of climate change (adaptation and mitigation) is not receiving sufficient attention and projects 10 In those BRs where there is overlap between a biosphere and a natural (or cultural) World Heritage site, there is evidently a clear alignment with UNESCO s 1972 World Heritage convention (see section 2.2.4). 9

20 related to climate change are insufficiently incorporated into BR management plans (UNESCO, 2010). The capacities of BRs to develop activities related to climate change are limited and BR managers are often not aware of linkages BR-related activities and national climate change policy. Additionally, the extent to which the BRs participate in knowledge exchange about climate change is still not satisfactory (German Commission for UNESCO, 2011). Using the BR concept as a platform for (regional/global) training programmes. The IberoMAB mid-term evaluation of the MAP indicated that several countries of the network have carried out a number of training activities, but very few have established an official training programme (SC-11/CONF.202/5). The challenges described above are summarized in Table 1 below. Comparing these challenges with the findings of the present evaluation (see section 2.2) one can conclude that most of the challenges identified in previous studies are still highly relevant for the WNBR at the time of writing of this report Table 1 Challenges identified in previous studies and their relevance based on the report Challenge Covered in the report (yes /partly/no) Current (and future) relevance (high /moderate) Ensuring capacities and resources for the effective management of the biosphere reserve Safeguarding the financial sustainability of different institutional actors in the WNBR Ensuring a multi-stakeholder, participatory approach to management and planning within the framework of the biosphere reserve Reconciling the three functions of the biosphere reserve, especially conservation and (economic) development Ensuring compliance with the updated criteria of the Statutory Framework, particularly regarding zonation in pre-seville sites yes partly partly partly yes high high moderate high high 6 Monitoring and assessing the performance of BRs yes high 7 Incorporating the BR concept in (inter)national legislation and standard-setting instruments partly high 8 9 Ensuring government support to and endorsement of the BR model Ensuring collaboration and information-sharing between BRs and other actors within the WNBR partly yes high high 10 Enhancing the awareness and understanding of the BR concept (branding) partly high 11 Aligning the work conducted within the framework of BRs with other international initiatives and conventions partly high 10

21 12 Strengthening the collaboration with other UNESCO programmes partly high 13 Using the BR model as a conflict resolution mechanism partly high 14 Addressing the potential tradeoffs between BRs as sites of excellence and sites of learning no moderate 15 Strengthening the role of BRs in climate change research and policy debates partly high 16 Using the BR concept as a platform for (regional/global) training programmes no moderate 11

22 2 Analysis of the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan 2.1 Analysis of response rates In this section we discuss the response to the surveys (mainly the BR and MAC national committee surveys), which constitutes the foundation for the interpretation and analysis of survey findings. The table below shows a response rate of 39 % (n = 241) among biosphere reserves. 11 At the country level, a total of 70 countries responded. However, six of these countries do not (yet) have biosphere reserves. Given the fact that the focus of this evaluation is (mostly) on the BR level, it was considered to be more realistic to use the sample of 64 countries with BRs as the primary reference sample for MAB national committees or national focal points. Accordingly, the response rate for MAB national committees was 55% (n = 64). Table 2 Response rate BRs and MAB NCs Biosphere reserves* MAB national committees** MAB national committees countries with BRs*** All cases 241 (39%) 70 (45%) * 621 Biosphere reserves ** 157 MAB national committees or national focal points *** 117 MAB national committees or national focal points in countries with biosphere reserves 64 (55%) The response rate among MAB NCs can be considered as quite satisfactory. No major biases in response were found. The situation is different for the BR sample. The response rate as such can be considered satisfactory. However, some elements require particular attention. As explained in the section on the limitations of the evaluation, non-response is not random (i.e. the group of non-respondents in many aspects is not similar to the group of respondents). Thus, this bias may result in an overestimation of the progress made in implementing the MAP. One could argue for using a smaller reference population than the currently used total of 621 BRs. In particular, this would mean excluding most of the very recent BRs which did not yet have an opportunity to fully engage with the MAP, and other BRs which did not participate in the discussions on the MAP (e.g. USA). However, using such a reference population would also require excluding some of the BRs that have responded to the survey. Since the development of the MAP in 2008, 90 new BRs have received their designation, of which 37 have responded to the survey. Given the overall response rate of 39% and taking into account all the efforts undertaken to boost response rates during a two-month response period (see section 1.3) as well as the observed deficiencies in the current contact information available at the Secretariat, it can be concluded that a significant number of non-responding BRs are not well-connected to the work that takes place within the framework of the WNBR and the MAB Programme. In addition, it is very likely that for a significant proportion of BRs of the network, the BR designation is not that important and/or there may not be a lot of activity that relates to the concept of a BR within the designated area. 11 For four of these responding BRs, the name could not be traced. Consequently, they could not be included in any of the bi-variate analyses (e.g. pre- versus post-seville) or regional analyses. 12

23 The regional biases in response rates, as illustrated in Figure 1, seem to suggest that the BR designation and UNESCO s work within the framework of the WNBR are more effective and relevant in some regions than in other. The response rates for the two surveys in the Arab States are considerably lower than the average response rates. In addition, the biosphere reserves located in Asia and the Pacific are also relatively underrepresented. Figure 1 Response rates to the BR and MAB NC survey by geographical region (n BR = 237, N BR = 621; n NC = 64, N NC = 117) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 42% 61% 36% 48% 48% 65% 34% 48% 30% 20% 19% 21% 10% 0% Africa Arab States Asia and the Pacific Europe and North America Latin America and the Caribbean Biosphere reserves MAB national committees Note 1: For the BR survey, information on this variable was not available for 4 cases. Note 2: Africa (N BR = 64; N NC = 28), Arab States (N BR = 27; N NC = 11), Asia and the Pacific (N BR = 124; N NC = 23), Europe and North America (N BR = 289; N NC = 34), Latin America and the Caribbean (N BR = 117; N NC = 21) The response rates from pre- and post-seville BRs are displayed in Figure 2. It can be observed that the response rate among BRs receiving their designation up until 1995 is slightly lower (35%) than amongst sites designated after 1995 (41%). 13

24 Figure 2 Response rates for pre- and post-seville BRs 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 35% 41% 20% 10% 0% Pre-Seville (incl. 1995) Post-Seville Note 1: For the BR survey, information on this variable was not available for 4 cases. Note 2: pre-seville (n PRE = 112, N PRE = 316), post-seville (n POST = 125, N POST = 305) 2.2 Analysis of key topics of the MAP In the first part of this section key topics of the MAP at the level of the biosphere reserve will be discussed. Most of the underlying information stems from the BR survey, sometimes complemented by the MAB national committee survey and/or other sources. Subsequently, we will discuss the roles, activities and results relevant to the MAP at the levels of the MAB national committees, the regional (and to a limited extent thematic) networks and the MAB Secretariat Management of biosphere reserves In a majority of the BRs (56%) the management structure has been based on an existing management structure (see Figure 3). Based on the qualitative information provided by several respondents, it can be understood that the management structures of the protected areas which are comprised within the BR have often served or still serve as the basis for the BR management. 14

25 Figure 3 Origin management structure BR (n BR = 241) 10% 2% 31% 56% Coincides with/is based upon an already existing management structure Specifically set up for managing the BR Other No answer As illustrated in Figure 4 and in line with action 10.2 from the MAP, a large majority of the responding BRs (70%) have defined an integrated management structure or committee including actors that are active in all three zones of the reserve. A significant proportion (27%) does not have such a structure which makes it less likely that a BR will fulfill its three core functions. Figure 4 Existence of a management committee or a structure including actors from all three zones of the BR (n BR = 241) 1% 2% 27% 70% Yes No Do not know No answer 15

26 The survey results displayed in Figure 5 indicate that the majority of the BRs have developed joint strategies and/or action plans (72%). 12 A similar number of BRs (69%) have engaged in the participatory planning of projects and activities, for instance within the framework of Local Agenda 21. Furthermore, 58% of the BRs have developed a research agenda which is linked to the management and zonation of the BR. Figure 5 Planning within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) Development of joint strategies and action plans 72% Production of a research agenda linked to the development and implementation of the management plan and zoning 58% Participatory planning of projects and activities 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% The principal actors involved in the three previously mentioned planning activities are the public sector, academic and research institutions and civil society organizations (see Figure 6). Figure 6 Principal actors involved in planning activities conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) Civil society 71% Academic and research institutions 75% Public sector 80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 7 reveals that more than half of the responding BRs (54%) are managed by a team of maximum five people. A considerable number of these biosphere reserves (16%) even have nobody assigned to manage the reserve. The limited staff involved in BR management is an indication of the restricted capacity of some BRs to implement the MAP. 12 These refer to action plans/strategies that were developed in close consultation with different stakeholder groups (local communities, local government, etc.). 16

27 Figure 7 Number of staff involved in managing the BR (n BR = 241) 2% 16% 44% 38% None More than five One to five No answer BR managers have indicated that centers, especially those dedicated to the management of the reserve, are very common in or nearby biosphere reserves (see Figure 8). Most of these centers fulfill multiple purposes. Figure 8 Purposes of centers established in/near BRs (n BR = 241) 100% 90% 80% 70% 88% 80% 76% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Management Information Tourism Research Moreover, training and capacity building activities targeted at the BR management staff (described under actions 17.1 and 17.2) have been organized and/or supported by 66% of the BRs and 64% of the MAB national committees. 17

28 Figure 9 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (n BR = 241) 2% 2% Figure 10 Capacity development or training of staff from BRs (n NC = 64) 11% 6% 30% 19% 66% 64% Yes No Do not know No answer Yes No Do not know No answer Finally, Figure 11 below displays the main funding sources for the BR and its management. 80% of the responding BRs received funding from either national or local governments. Relatively few biosphere reserves are currently obtaining funds through payments for ecosystem services projects (12%) or through sales from biosphere reserve products (17%). In addition, a considerable amount of respondents have spontaneously mentioned that the funding received from these actors is (too) often project-based. Figure 11 Funding sources of BRs (n BR = 241) (Other) voluntary contributions directly transferred to the biosphere reserve management Payment for ecosystem services projects 12% 21% Tourism 37% Sales from biosphere reserve products 17% International organizations 36% Private sector 26% Local government 46% National government 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 18

29 2.2.2 Partnerships and collaboration In this section, the connectivity of the different actors within the WNBR as well as the partnerships with other relevant stakeholders will be discussed. In the MAP these elements are mainly addressed through the first main action area, i.e. Cooperation, management and communication and the fourth action area, i.e. Partnerships. Figure 12 illustrates that BRs mainly cooperate with other BRs (83%) and with the MAB national committees (80%). There is limited direct collaboration between the MAB Secretariat and individual BRs (26%), which is logical given the high number of BRs. Additionally, 59% of the responding BRs collaborate within regional or thematic networks. This is likely to be an overestimation, given the fact that regional networks have been supporting the distribution of the survey. In line with the geographical distribution of the respondents, the most cited regional networks were EuroMAB (58 BRs) and IberoMAB (34 BRs). Furthermore, very few BRs seem to collaborate with UNESCO s Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (e.g. IHP, IOC, IGCP, MOST, IBSP). The limited collaboration with other UNESCO Programmes has also been raised as a challenge by several delegations during the 10 th International Support Group meeting. Figure 12 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for BRs (n BR = 241) UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes 8% UNESCO field offices 26% MAB Secretariat 26% MAB regional or thematic networks 59% MAB national committees 80% Managers of other biosphere reserves 83% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 13 shows that almost all responding MAB national committees cooperate with BRs (88%). Among MAB national committees, the percentage of direct collaboration with the MAB Secretariat is much higher (81%) than among BRs. This is logical given the function of MAB national committees (and regional networks) as intermediaries and information channels between the Secretariat and individual BRs. However, there is still a significant proportion of MAB NCs which are not directly in contact with the Secretariat. The level of cooperation between MAB national committees and UNESCO s ISPs is rather limited (34%). 19

30 Figure 13 Cooperation with UNESCO related actors for MAB NCs (n NC = 64) UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes 34% UNESCO field offices 61% MAB Secretariat 81% MAB regional or thematic networks 66% Biosphere reserve managers 88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% With respect to the cooperation between different BRs, survey results indicate that study tours or site visits are the main modality of cooperation (see Figure 14). Additionally, around one third of the BRs is involved in twinning programmes between BRs and only 8% is engaged in South- (North)-South cooperation activities. 13 Figure 14 Modalities of cooperation between BRs (n BR = 241) Engagement in South-South cooperation or triangular South-North-South cooperation 8% Twinning programmes 32% Study tours or site visits with different stakeholder groups 78% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% The principal actors involved in the previously mentioned types of cooperation between BRs are civil society organizations (63%), academic and research institutions (62%) and public sector (61%). Paradoxically, (other) BRs are not among the three most frequently mentioned actors involved in these activities. This demonstrates the role and importance of establishing partnerships with relevant stakeholders that provide support in organizing activities that fuel cooperation between BRs. 13 This low percentage can in part be attributed to language and interpretation issues. In fact, study tours and site visits is a form of South-South collaboration (if taking place in the South ). For multiple reasons the term South- (North)-South cooperation is subject to divergent interpretations. 20

31 Regarding transboundary cooperation, around half of the MAB national committees have provided support for transboundary BRs and other forms of transboundary cooperation (Figure 15). Moreover, since 2008 four areas 14 have been designated as Transboundary Biosphere Reserves (TBR) of which three are located in Europe and one in Latin America. Figure 15 Assistance of MAB NCs for transboundary BRs and other forms of transboundary cooperation (n NC = 64) 13% 6% 52% 30% Yes No Do not know No answer The extent to which BR managers have established collaboration plans or strategies on how to collaborate or develop partnerships with different stakeholders is shown in Figure 16. Many BR managers mentioned that they have some type of strategy or plan regarding collaboration with academic and research institutions (72%), civil society organizations (68%), and public sector organizations (68%). Only half of the respondents (49%) indicated that their BR has systematically partnered with the private sector. Furthermore, only 27% of the BRs have a collaboration plan or partnership strategy targeted at international organizations and even fewer BRs (10%) have such a plan or strategy for UNESCO s Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes. 14 Geres-Xures (2009), Trifinio Fraternidad (2011), West Polesie (2012), Mura Drava Danube (2012). 21

32 Figure 16 Established partnership strategies between BRs and different institutional actors (n BR = 241) UNESCO s intergovernmental Scientific Programmes 10% Other biosphere reserves 62% Academic and research institutions 72% Public sector organizations 68% Private sector organizations 49% Civil society 68% International organizations 27% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Local community involvement and impact The vision statement for the WNBR is to foster harmonious integration of people and nature for sustainable development (UNESCO, 2008). The objective of adopting a participatory approach has been translated into different targets (e.g. target 10 and 26). As illustrated in the pie chart below (Figure 17), local communities are in some way involved in the activities undertaken within the framework of BRs in the vast majority of BRs (83%). Figure 17 Involvement of local communities in the management and development of activities within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) 4% 4% 10% 83% Yes No Do not know No answer 22

33 Qualitative data provided by BR managers as part of an open-ended question allowed us to identify four principal types of community involvement (see Figure 18): Involvement in the implementation and development of projects and activities (46%). Local communities are particularly active in activities related to the conservation and protection of the reserve (e.g. surveillance, clean-up and reforestation activities). Additionally, they also assist and participate in sensitization activities. Finally, local communities also participate in (livelihood generating) activities related to tourism, agriculture and crafts, research and (ecological) monitoring. Involvement through direct or indirect representation in the governing and/or management body of the BR (42%). There appears to be a high level of heterogeneity in the institutional set up of biosphere reserves 15, but in many cases local people are permanently included as members of the management body. Several BRs have also established separate participation councils where local inhabitants can express their ideas and opinions on the BR management. Involvement through consultation processes for particular decisions (32%). Consultation mainly takes place through thematic workshops and through forums held to discuss particular decisions, such as the adoption of the management plan or the approval of investments. Involvement in capacity-building and educational activities (12%). Figure 18 Principal ways in which local communities have been involved in the management and development of BR activities ( spontaneous responses ) (n BR = 241) % 42% 80 32% % 20 4% 0 Participation in the implementation of projects and activities Representation in governing and management bodies/councils Consultation processes Participation in capacity building and educational activities (as beneficiaries) Other Note: Information stems from open-ended questions which were categorized ex post. 15 Different types (or names for) institutional structures at the level of the BR: advisory committees, BR board, BR management committee, Advisory board, General Assemblee, coordinating committee, governing council etc. 23

34 Figure 19 illustrates that in 70% of the BRs local communities have reportedly derived benefits from the establishment of the BR. Nevertheless, this percentage has to be handled with caution, as one respondent rightly noted that this question should have been vetted by the local communities to be (more) accurate. 16 Figure 19 Local communities deriving benefits from the establishment of BRs and/or activities taking place within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) 13% 4% 13% 70% Yes No Do not know No answer BR managers which indicated that local communities derived benefits from their BR were provided with the opportunity to elaborate on this. The responses to the open-ended question on the nature of benefits could be categorized into four main categories (see Figure 20): Benefits derived from sustainable (economic) development activities (46%). The most stated benefit relates to the development of income-generating activities, especially in the (eco-) tourism sector. As a result of the designation as a BR, in many cases there has been a growth in tourism and related activities, resulting in an increase in the number of employment opportunities, especially for women. Additionally, the designation also created direct employment opportunities related to surveillance, management, maintenance and (ecological) monitoring. Furthermore, the designation is also deemed to have added value to local products and services. Labels and certificates that indicate the origin of these products and services (or relate to some type of environmental certification) are regularly mentioned as instruments to benefit from BR designation status. Benefits derived from sustainable resource use and conservation of biodiversity (29%). According to several respondents, the conservation of the biodiversity and the beautiful environment is a benefit in and by itself for the local community. Adequate management, governance and conflict resolution mechanisms are mentioned as tools that have helped the local population to maintain sustainable practices regarding the use of the resources provided by the biosphere reserve. Benefits derived from capacity development and awareness raising activities (28%). The provision of environmental education and training to develop capacities that can be useful in productive activities are identified as being important. Moreover, many managers claim that community involvement in the management and decision-making processes has 16 A second constraint for inference (which applies to all variables) is the non-random response to the survey. 24

35 empowered the local population and increased its capacity to organize. Additionally, some managers believe that the local population has been successfully sensitized about its role within the biosphere reserve which has fostered civic pride and a sense of belonging. Benefits through enhanced resource mobilization to the benefit of local communities (26%). BR managers mentioned that the promotion and education efforts have led to an increased recognition and perceived attractiveness of the reserve which has led to enhanced mobilization of financial resources (e.g. subsidies from government). In addition, the biosphere reserve designation is considered to facilitate networking and coordination between the different actors, including the private sector and the public authorities. In some cases this has brought about infrastructure investments such as the development of recreation areas and water facilities. Figure 20 Principal ways in which local communities have benefited from the establishment of BRs and/or activities within the framework of BRs ( spontaneous responses ) (n BR = 241) % % 28% 26% % 0 Sustainable (economic) development Sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity Awareness raising and capacity building of local communities Resources mobilized to the benefit of local communities Other Note: Information stems from open-ended questions which were categorized ex post Alignment with conventions and multilateral agreements The objective of improving the BRs alignment with international policies, strategies and action plans and their implementation, in order to enable biosphere reserves to effectively serve as learning sites for sustainable development, is reflected in three actions of the MAP. Action 2.2: Work closely with the authorities responsible for the implementation of relevant biodiversity and environmental multilateral agreements to ensure coordination between international designations at the national level. Action 8.1: Encourage and enable individual BRs to collaborate with UN-led policies, strategies and action plans towards sustainable development as well as other initiatives outside the UN-system. 25

36 Action 15.3: Develop actions to increase synergies among international regional and national programmes currently developed and executed in parallel, such as CBD, Agenda 21 and One-UN activities. We consider that these actions show considerable overlap. Even though questions on each of these actions have been included separately in the surveys, results show that respondents do not clearly differentiate between these three categories. As a consequence, they are treated jointly in this report. Between 51% (53%) and 62% (63%) of the responding BRs (MAB national committees) indicate that they align their activities with national, regional and/or international policies, strategies and standard-setting instruments. As shown in Figure 21, roughly half of the BR managers (51%) claim that the activities conducted within the framework of the BRs are explicitly linked to the activities conducted within the framework of International Conventions. Amongst MAB national committee, this percentage is slightly higher as illustrated in Figure 22. However, it is unclear whether this finding refers to awareness of alignment or actual alignment. Figure 21 Activities of the BR explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (n BR = 241) Figure 22 Activities of the MAB NC explicitly linked to activities conducted within the framework of any of the International Conventions (n NC = 64) 12% 6% 9% 51% 22% 34% 63% Yes No Do not know No answer Yes No Do not know No answer The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the most frequently mentioned by those BRs that reportedly align their work with international conventions (see Figure 23). In fact, a successful implementation of the biosphere concept is evidence of alignment to the objectives of for example the Convention on Biological Diversity. Alignment with other conventions occurs in significantly lower proportions of the population (10-26%). 26

37 Figure 23 International Conventions to which activities conducted within the framework of BRs are linked (n BR = 241) % % 20% United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 10% United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Several respondents also spontaneously commented that their activities are also related to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Apart from the survey data, census data (covering all BRs) are available on the (possible) multiple designations of BRs. These data, compiled in Figure 24 below, demonstrate that 43% of the BRs have multiple international designations (Ramsar, World Heritage and/or BR). In particular, 139 BRs (22%) are also defined as Ramsar Wetland Sites and 97 BRs (16%) are also designated as Natural World Heritage Sites. Figure 24 Biosphere reserves with multiple designations (N BR = 621) % Biosphere reserve and Ramsar wetland 16% Biosphere reserve and Natural World Heritage site 5% Biosphere reserve, Ramsar wetland and Natural World Heritage site Source: MAB Secretariat (October 2013). BR managers also indicated those actors that were involved in activities aligned with broader programmes, policies or conventions and/or other policy and normative frameworks (see Figure 27

38 25). The public sector (e.g. national government) constitutes the main partner for this type of activities. Academic and research institutions and civil society organizations are the other two stakeholder groups that are frequently mentioned as actors that enable alignment with higher level policies and standard setting instruments. The most remarkable finding is, however, that international organizations are only mentioned by 26% of the BR managers as actors involved in these activities. Figure 25 Principal institutional actors that constitute the bridge between BRs and national and international policies, strategies and standard-setting instruments (n BR = 241) Civil society 47% Academic and research institutions 53% Public sector 64% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Specific activities, themes and institutional collaboration Themes in research, education and local development The Madrid Action Plan was an attempt to formulate an adequate response to challenges that have emerged or intensified since the adoption of the Seville Strategy. According to the Madrid Action Plan, major challenges (affecting environmental resources but also poverty and inequality) include (1) accelerated climate change, (2) accelerated loss of biological and cultural diversity, and (3) rapid urbanization. Data have been collected regarding the nature of the activities conducted in relation to seven specific themes, namely: (1) sustainable development, (2) climate change, (3) ecosystem services, (4) urban-rural issues, (5) sustainable alternative livelihoods and poverty alleviation, (6) local BR products and product labeling, and (7) peace and security. It must be noted that these themes are not mutually exhaustive and that they may have been interpreted by the survey respondents in very different ways (especially sustainable development). As illustrated in Figure 26, activities conducted within the framework of BRs mostly relate to sustainable development (85%), climate change (66%) and ecosystem services (63%). In comparatively fewer BRs, there have been initiatives around urban-rural issues (55%) and even fewer on peace and security (22%). 28

39 Figure 26 Themes of activities conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) 100% 90% 85% 80% 70% 60% 66% 63% 55% 56% 50% 40% 41% 30% 20% 22% 10% 0% Sustainable development Climate change Ecosystem services Urban-rural issues Sustainable Local alternative biosphere livelihoods reserve and poverty products and alleviation product labeling Peace and security Within the framework of the MAB national committees, the substantive focus has been on sustainable development (77%), ecosystem services (63%) and climate change (58%) as shown in Figure 27. Again, comparatively few countries seem to be working on initiatives related to peace and security (27%). 17 Furthermore, all six responding regional networks have stated that they carry out activities around sustainable development and sustainable alternative livelihoods and poverty alleviation. Five regional networks carry out initiatives relating to local biosphere reserve products and product labeling, while four regional networks have initiatives around climate change and ecosystem services. Based on these observations, it can generally be stated that throughout the network considerable attention has been paid to climate change and the conservation of biodiversity. The picture is less clear regarding the extent to which the challenges emerging from urbanization processes have been addressed since the establishment of MAP. 17 Noting that these themes are open to multiple interpretations. 29

40 Figure 27 Themes of activities conducted within the framework of MAB NCs (n NC = 64) 100% 90% 80% 77% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 58% 63% 41% 48% 50% 27% 20% 10% 0% Sustainable development Climate change Ecosystem services Urban-rural issues Sustainable Local alternative biosphere livelihoods reserve and poverty products and alleviation product labeling Peace and security Research As illustrated in Figure 28, almost all BR managers (93%) have reported research activities being undertaken within the framework of the BR. Figure 28 Research activities undertaken within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) 4% 2% 93% Yes No Do not know No answer Academic and research institutions are logically the principal actors involved in these activities (see Figure 29). The public sector and civil society constitute the other two principal stakeholder groups that are involved in research activities. 30

41 Figure 29 Principal actors involved in research activities conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) Civil society 56% Public sector 57% Academic and research institutions 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A shown in the figure below, a clear majority of MAB national committees (70%) reportedly organizes and/or provides support for (inclusive) research programmes within the framework of BRs. Figure 30 Assistance of MAB NCs in mobilizing scientific and non-scientific actors within research programmes at BRs (n NC = 64) 8% 8% 14% 70% Yes No Do not know No answer The research themes set out in the MAP were reasonably well covered throughout the BR network. In 82% of the BRs, research activities have been conducted relating to at least one of the previously mentioned MAP themes. Research activities have been mainly centered on sustainable development, climate change, ecosystem services and urban-rural issues (see Figure 31). 31

42 Figure 31 Principal themes for research conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) % 53% 52% % Sustainable development Climate change Ecosystem services Urban-rural issues Education In a large majority of the responding BRs (86%) education-related activities have been undertaken within the framework of the BR, as shown in Figure 32. Figure 32 Education activities undertaken within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) 6% 2% 6% 86% Yes No Do not know No answer 32

43 The principal actors involved in education activities displayed in Figure 33 below are the same as for research activities, namely the academic and research institutions (66%), public sector organizations (65%) and civil society organizations (65%). Figure 33 Principal actors involved in education activities conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) Civil society 65% Public sector 65% Academic and research institutions 66% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In 80% of the BRs, education activities have been conducted relating to at least one of the themes mentioned in section Education-related activities have been focused on the same principal themes as the research activities conducted within the framework of the BRs (see Figure 34). Figure 34 Principal themes for education activities conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) % % 41% 32% Sustainable development Climate change Ecosystem services Urban-rural issues Local development In 81% of the BRs, local development activities have been conducted relating to at least one of the themes mentioned in section The principal (but non-exhaustive list of) themes for the activities related to local development are presented in the figure below. Roughly three quarters of the BRs also reported conducting local development activities related to sustainable 33

44 development. Given the fact that sustainable development is an umbrella concept which is particularly prone to different interpretations 18 these responses are not displayed in the figure below. The category local biosphere reserve products and product labeling is quite similar to the category identification, development and promotion of markets for goods and services deriving from the biosphere reserve. The latter was captured by a separate question in the survey and showed an almost identical percentage of BRs engaging in this type of activity. Figure 35 Principal themes for local development activities conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) % 49% % Local biosphere reserve products and product labeling Urban-rural issues Sustainable alternative livelihoods and poverty alleviation It is particularly noteworthy that a quarter of the responding BRs have been involved in activities related to the identification, development and promotion of fair trade products deriving from their biosphere reserve. Figure 36 Activities related to fair trade BR products undertaken within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241) 5% 2% 24% 69% Yes No Do not know No answer 18 Respondents may associate sustainable development primarily with the word sustainable, or more generally with economic and/or human development. 34

45 As demonstrated in Figure 37, the private sector, public sector civil society organizations are the main partners in the implementation of activities that relate to markets for biosphere products and services. Figure 37 Principal actors involved in the identification, development and promotion of markets for (fair trade) goods and services deriving from BRs (n BR = 241) Civil society 43% Public sector 47% Private sector organization 49% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Zonation According to the Statutory Framework of 1995, biosphere reserves should contain one or more core areas, buffer zones, and a transition area to accommodate their multiple functions (UNESCO, 1996). Survey results indicate that a majority (69%) of the responding BRs have a zonation scheme which is based on an existing protected area (see Figure 38). Relatively few biosphere reserves (15%) have specifically developed their zonation for the BR. Among the respondents which indicated that they have adopted another zonation scheme (13%), there are several that mention that their BR zonation scheme is a result of a combined approach, i.e. specifically developed for the BR while adopting the zonation of existing protected areas located within the BR territory. 35

46 Figure 38 Zonation of BRs (n BR = 241) 13% 2% 15% 69% Based on an existing protected area Developed specifically for the biosphere reserve Other No answer The results from a comparison between zonation schemes of pre- and post-seville BRs displayed in Figure 39 below seem to indicate that relatively more of the pre-seville BRs have zonation schemes that are based on existing protected areas. The number of BRs that have specifically developed zonation schemes remains, however, limited within the group of post- Seville BRs. 36

47 Figure 39 Zonation of pre- and post-seville BRs (n BR = 237) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% No answer Other Pre-Seville Post-Seville Developed specifically for the biosphere reserve Based on an existing protected area Note: For the BR survey, information on this variable was not available for 4 cases. Figure 40 demonstrates which actions have been undertaken within the framework of BRs to clarify or optimize the zonation. Most of the BR managers answered that the boundaries have been clearly defined (74%) and that clear explanations of the rationale for these boundaries have been provided (72%). However, there is still room for improvement. In particular, only 57% of the biosphere reserves have stated that their biosphere reserve has defined performance standards for the different zones. Moreover, almost half of the biosphere reserves have spatially extended their biosphere reserves as a way to improve the zonation of the reserve. In general, no significant differences could be found between pre- and post-seville BRs (see Annex 15). 37

48 Figure 40 Actions undertaken to improve the zonation of the BR (n BR = 241) Clear explanation of the rationale for the boundaries Clear definition of outer boundary, transition area and buffer zones of the biosphere reserve Identification of the contribution of each zone to the whole biosphere reserve 72% 70% 76% Definition of performance standards for each zone 57% Spatial extension of the biosphere reserve 45% Use of practical tools and guidelines for biosphere zonation that are available at the national level 59% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Regarding the role of the MAB national committees, Figure 41 below shows that 70% of the MAB national committees provides support to BRs for the establishment of suitable zonation schemes. Figure 41 Assistance of MAB NCs in BR zonation (n NC = 64) 16% 3% 11% 70% Yes No Do not know No answer Particularly, Figure 42 illustrates that MAB national committees have mainly assisted BRs in the definition of their boundaries (52%). In 47% of the countries, the MAB national committees have also provided support in the spatial extension of BRs and in the development of practical tools and guidelines for biosphere reserve zonation. Finally, 45% of MAB NCs report having been active in the definition of performance standards for the three zones within BRs. 38

49 Figure 42 Nature of assistance provided by MAB NCs to BRs on BR zonation (n NC = 64) Definition of performance standards for biosphere reserve zones and identification of the contribution of each zone to the biosphere reserve Definition of the boundaries of the zones through stakeholder consultations 45% 52% Spatial extension of existing biosphere reserves 47% Development of practical tools and guidelines for biosphere zonation 47% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Legislation The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the WNBR were both adopted by UNESCO s General Conference. Even though neither of these texts are internationally as legally binding as a convention, the MS have committed to apply them while adopting the text. The fact remains, however, that MS do not have to and consequently did not transpose them into national law (SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4). 19 Of all the responding BRs, 46% have undertaken activities related to the recognition/incorporation of BRs in national legislation (see Figure 43). Furthermore, Figure 44 shows that only a slight majority of the MAB national committees (56%) have been actively encouraging the inclusion of BRs into national legislation. 19 A study on the legal interpretation of the BR concept in the framework of legislation has been presented at the MAB-ICC meeting in Jeju (2009). However, the number of responses to the questionnaire was limited (30) and no overall figures have been provided in the report (extracts from legislation from 13 countries were included). 39

50 Figure 43 BRs undertaken actions related to the recognition of BRs in national legislation (n BR = 241) Figure 44 MAB NC playing a role in encouraging recognition of BRs in national legislation (n NC = 64) 10% 2% 17% 5% 46% 56% 42% 22% Yes No Do not know No answer Yes No Do not know No answer BR managers indicated the public sector as their main partner in implementing the activities related to the national recognition of their biosphere reserves. As displayed in Figure 45 below, the participation of other actors, such as academic and research institutes and civil society organizations, is rather limited. Figure 45 Principal actors involved in encouraging the recognition/incorporation of BRs in national legislation, excluding MAB NCs (n BR = 241) Civil society 14% Academic and research institutions 15% Public sector 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% More than half of the BRs (56%) have conducted activities to enhance the recognition of biosphere reserve zonation schemes as important planning tools (see Figure 46). Figure 47 illustrates that 72% of the MAB national committees have played a role in encouraging the use of BR zonation schemes for planning. 40

51 Figure 46 Recognition of BR zonation schemes as tools for planning (n BR = 241) Figure 47 MAB NC playing a role in encouraging BR zonation schemes as tools for planning (n NC = 64) 9% 4% 17% 3% 8% 32% 56% 72% Yes No Do not know No answer Yes No Do not know No answer Information, communication and policy influence Several targets of the MAP, namely Targets 3, 6 and 15, specifically address the need for improved information and communication (i.e. collection, dissemination and exchange of information) to ensure the use of BRs as the principal internationally-designated areas dedicated to sustainable development. Within the framework of the MAP, each BR was supposed to develop and launch a communication strategy. Figure 48 below shows, however, that only a slight majority of the BRs (57%) reports having a communication strategy 20 to disseminate information products to specific audiences. This leaves a large proportion of BRs without any strategy. In addition, it is rather questionable that a given communication strategy will touch upon the variety of topics and stakeholders described in action 6.1 of the MAP. 20 Needless to say, opinions differ about what a communication strategy actually entails, let alone what a good communication strategy is. There is a complex reality behind these simple figures which are based on self-reported information. It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to provide a more in-depth and empirically rigorous perspective on most of the variables relating to the MAP. 41

52 Figure 48 BRs with communication strategy (n BR = 241) 4% 4% 36% 57% Yes No Do not know No answer According to BR managers, almost every BR has generated and disseminated information materials for the general public (88%) and for tourists in particular (87%). Furthermore, three quarters of the BR managers stated that academic publications (76%) and educational materials (75%) have been generated and disseminated within the framework of the BR. With respect to policy-oriented research publications, only half of the BR managers (51%) reported that these had been produced. The responses from representatives of the MAB national committees seem to confirm that relatively few policy-oriented research activities have been produced within the framework of BRs even though this element was addressed in several actions 21 of the MAP (see Figure 49). Regarding the other types of information and research products, the MAB national committees do not seem to be aware of all the products that have been generated and disseminated within the framework of the BRs. Additionally, there are some examples of incentive programmes that recognize the efforts of communities, individuals, institutions, networks and nations in creating, managing and promoting BRs (Action 6.2) such as the UK-MAB Urban Wildlife Award for Excellence, the Michel Batisse Award and the MAB Young Scientist Award. However, there is no evidence that a journalism award directed at mass communication media on promoting the importance of BRs has been created (Action 3.4). 21 Actions 15.2, 16.1, 16.3,

53 Figure 49 Information and research products generated and disseminated within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241; n NC = 64) 100% 90% 88% 87% 80% 70% 60% 50% 76% 70% 56% 51% 75% 64% 72% 59% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Academic publications Policy oriented research publications Educational materials Information materials for the general public Tourist information Biosphere reserves MAB national committees In the vast majority of BRs, publications produced and disseminated within the framework of the BR are reported to have influenced the behavior of audiences (see Figure 50). The most frequently reported category of influence is awareness-raising. Research also seems to have stimulated the use of the reserves as learning and demonstration sites. On the other hand, relatively few respondents indicate that research has influenced the mobilization of resources and decision-making processes. This might be related to the previously mentioned limited production of policy-oriented research. Even though it is very likely that the respondents answers are not based on any empirical analysis, the fact that these percentages are consistent between BR managers and MAB national committees provides some confidence in this variable. 43

54 Figure 50 Influence of research conducted within the framework of BRs (n BR = 241; n NC = 64) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 66% 62% 53% 47% 83% 81% 68% 65% 78% 74% 41% 43% 30% 20% 10% 0% Decisionmaking processes Financial resource mobilization Awareness and knowledge Capacity development The use of biosphere reserves as learning and demonstration sites Replication or scaling-up of projects Biosphere reserves MAB national committees The question of policy influence was raised with particular reference to BRs in mountain areas. 37 BRs located in mountain areas (out of an unknown total of BRs in mountain areas) 22 indicated that the publications produced and disseminated within the framework of the BRs have influenced policies for sustainable mountain development through the use of the BR as an innovative example MAB national committees Target seven of the Madrid Action Plan states that there should be functional MAB national committees in each country, managed in a manner assuring adequate representation of biosphere reserve coordinators and other key stakeholders. Three underlying aspects are comprised in this target, namely the creation, functioning and the composition of the MAB national committee. Figure 51 below demonstrates that almost all responding BR managers (90%) stated that their country had a MAB national committee in place. Only 7% of the respondents, coming from 12 different countries, 23 indicated that this was not the case. 7 of these countries indicated considering the creation of a MAB national committee. 22 This variable was not introduced in the survey. If introduced, it would probably not have generated credible results. 23 Malawi, São Tomé e Príncipe, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru. 44

55 Figure 51 MAB NC exists in country of responding BR (n BR =241) 7% 2% 90% Yes No Do not know No answer On average, a MAB national committees consists of 14 members. However, several countries indicated that the MAB national committee has zero members. Based on the provided comments, we can reasonably assume that most of these countries have assigned a MAB national focal point who performs the tasks of the MAB national committee. Figure 52 below illustrates that MAB national committees consist of academics or members of the scientific community (73%), representatives of national governments (70%), biosphere reserve managers (67%) and representatives from nongovernmental organizations (64%). Nearly 70% of the responding MAB national committees are composed of representatives from at least three of the previously mentioned stakeholder groups. Figure 52 Composition of MAB NCs (n NC = 64) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 70% 67% 73% 64% 50% 40% 30% 20% 25% 10% 0% Representatives of national governments Focal points/managers of biosphere reserves Academics or members of the scientific community Representatives from nongovernmental organizations Other Figure 53 illustrates that almost half of the managers of BRs located in countries with a MAB national committee are members of that committee. 45

56 Figure 53 Membership of BR managers in MAB NCs for those BRs located in countries with a MAB NC (n BR = 217) 53% 47% Yes No Note: Percentages refer to the subsample of those BRs located in countries in which there has been an established MAB NC (see Figure 51) The representatives of national governments who are involved in the MAB national committee mostly stem from the ministries in charge of environmental issues (e.g. Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Water Affairs, etc.). Other regularly mentioned ministries are those related to local/rural development (incl. agriculture, forestry, fishery etc.), education, culture and tourism, science and technology, and foreign affairs. According to the respondents there are often different ministries represented which demonstrates that most countries attempt to adopt an interdisciplinary approach. Nonetheless, MAB national committees might function more effectively if one of these ministries is in charge of sustainable development. This representative could then potentially act as the custodian of the BR concept. Figure 54 MAB NC meets on a regular basis (n NC =64) 2% 8% 23% 67% Yes No Do not know No answer 46

57 As shown in Figure 54, two-thirds of the MAB national committees (67%) claimed to meet on a regular basis. It is likely that this percentage overestimates the functioning of MAB national committees at the population level. Again there is an association between the willingness to participate in the survey and the level of activity of as well as the importance attributed to MAB national committees. Figure 55 below illustrates that almost half of the responding MAB national committees (48%) meet at least twice a year. On the other hand, there is still a considerable number of countries (25%) in which the MAB national committee gathers less than once a year. Figure 55 Frequency of MAB NC meetings (n NC =64) 13% 25% 20% 14% 28% Less than once a year Twice a year Once a year More frequently No answer The pie chart (Figure 56) below indicates that 61% of the MAB national committees have developed a structure, strategy and/or action plan to assist BRs in meeting their responsibilities within the MAB Programme. Thus, a significant proportion of MAB national committees are active and providing contributions to individual BRs and the BR model in general. Taking into account the high non-response to the survey, the divergent activity levels and the fact that at least 28% of the responding MAB national committees have not undertaken this type of basic management activity one can surmise that a significant proportion of MAB national committees are likely to be inactive. 47

58 Figure 56 MAB NC has a strategy or plan for assisting BRs (n NC = 64) 11% 28% 61% Yes No Do not know No answer The representatives of MAB national committees identified sharing of knowledge and discussing of good practices as their principal purpose (see Figure 57). Furthermore, it is somewhat remarkable that only 56% of the respondents consider the mobilization of financial resources as one of the main purposes while the lack of funding has been cited by many BR managers as one of the major challenges and priorities for the future. Some representatives of the MAB national committees also spontaneously commented that they consider the search for new biosphere reserves in their country as one of their main tasks. Figure 57 Main purposes of MAB NCs (n NC = 64) Formulating and/or promoting biosphere reserve related policies and legislation 66% Developing standards and guidelines for biosphere reserves 63% Mobilizing financial resources for (joint) activities on biosphere reserves 56% Capacity development of biosphere reserves focal points/managers 63% Developing a (joint) research agenda and activities on biosphere reserves 63% Sharing knowledge and discussing good practices 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 48

59 In line with their main purposes, MAB national committees are most actively involved in the compilation and synthesis (77%) and the sharing (75%) of information on the functioning of BRs (see Figure 58). Figure 58 BR-related monitoring and evaluation activities undertaken by MAB NCs (n NC = 64) Support periodic review processes 53% Share information on the functioning of biosphere reserves with MAB regional networks and the MAB Secretariat Compile and synthesize information on the functioning of biosphere reserves 75% 77% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Finally, the different institutional actors from which MAB national committees have mobilized resources for BRs in the country or for their own activities are presented in Figure 59. In line with the responses from BR managers, the MAB NC survey findings also reveal that national governments are the most frequently mentioned funding partner. International organizations (e.g. UN, bilateral donors, international nongovernmental organizations, World Bank) are the second funding source. Figure 59 Resource mobilization by MAB NCs from different institutional actors (n NC = 64) Private sector and/or local economy 42% Payment for ecosystem services projects 14% International organizations 47% Local government 34% National government 61% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Regional networks As mentioned above, a separate survey was developed for representatives of the regional and thematic networks of biosphere reserves. Based on the information provided on the UNESCO website it appears that there are nine regional networks and seven thematic networks. However, further consultation with the members of the MAB Secretariat has revealed that the thematic networks are less institutionalized. They should rather be seen as general themes 49

60 around which (ecosystem-specific) activities can be organized (e.g. GLOCHAMOST for mountain regions). The only institutionalized thematic network is the World Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves (WNICBR). For the other thematic networks no particular person could even be identified to fill out the survey. The regional networks, on the other hand, are far more institutionalized. Five out of the six responding regional networks have developed a structure, strategy and/or action plan to assist biosphere reserves in meeting their responsibilities within the MAB Programme. Nonetheless, there are differences in the management/governing structures installed in the different regions. In the remaining of this section, some general findings will be presented in a narrative manner given the limited number of cases. 24 According to the respondents the main purposes of the network are (1) sharing of knowledge and discussing good practices; (2) capacity development of biosphere reserve focal points/managers; and (3) developing standards and guidelines for biosphere reserves. Mobilizing financial resources for (joint) activities on biosphere reserves has also been indicated by several networks as an important purpose of the regional network. When the representatives of the regional networks were asked about the number of activities and events organized by the network, they either responded that this number has increased or remained stable in recent years. In addition, most of the respondents indicated that the demand for and participation in activities and events has increased over time in recent years. Nonetheless, additional communication with UNESCO staff at headquarters and the field prodded us to nuance these rather positive results. For example, the PacMAB meeting held in April 2014 was organized as an attempt to revitalize the network, as the last meeting (before April 2014) dated back to In the Arab region, the Arab Spring has created unstable conditions in certain Member States which has complicated the work of the ArabMAB network. With respect to the funding sources of the regional networks of biosphere reserves, it appears that most financial resources come from the national governments of Member States. In addition, some networks have found other sources of funding such as the private sector or international organizations. In addition, the responding regional networks have uniformly indicated that they compile and synthesize information on the functioning of biosphere reserves and share this information with the MAB Secretariat as required by action 1.2 of the MAP. The regional networks were also assigned the responsibility to undertake an assessment of the economic contribution of biosphere reserves to local economies in at least one pilot biosphere reserve in their region (action 26.1). Unfortunately, only one regional network has stated that they have carried out such an assessment. According to the MAP, regional networks should also provide support in the establishment of schemes to support periodic review processes (action 9.1). The survey results show that only two regional networks claim to have assisted periodic review processes MAB Secretariat Key functions and structure of the MAB Secretariat UNESCO s activities can be broadly classified into five functions. First, UNESCO functions as a laboratory of ideas, producing innovative ideas supported by research and analysis. Second, UNESCO works as a clearing house through which information, knowledge, best practices and 24 There have been received responses from six regional networks, namely AfriMAB, EABRN, EuroMAB, IberoMAB, PacMAB and SACAM. 50

61 innovative solutions can be gathered, disseminated and shared. Third, UNESCO serves as a standard-setter by developing and facilitating the implementation of internationally endorsed standard setting instruments (e.g. conventions). Fourth, UNESCO serves as a catalyst for international cooperation, offering a platform to Member States to discuss and collaborate on issues of mutual interest under the neutral banner and the reputation of UNESCO. Finally, the Organization is a capacity builder by offering a variety of training, technical assistance and policy advisory services to Member States. The relationship between these functions and the role of the MAB Secretariat is explored in Annex 3. More particularly, the roles of UNESCO within the framework of the MAB Programme have been described in different documents. In particular, the tenth article of the Statutory Framework of the WNBR assigns the following tasks to the UNESCO (UNESCO, 1996): UNESCO shall act as the secretariat of the Network and be responsible for its functioning and promotion. The secretariat shall facilitate communication and interaction among biosphere reserves and among experts. UNESCO shall also develop and maintain a worldwide accessible information system on biosphere reserves, to be linked to other relevant initiatives. In order to reinforce individual biosphere reserves and the functioning of the Network and subnetworks, UNESCO shall seek financial support from bilateral and multilateral sources. The list of biosphere reserves forming part of the Network, their objectives and descriptive details, shall be updated, published and distributed by the secretariat periodically. Moreover, some guiding principles for projects on biosphere reserves have been formulated and endorsed by the MAB ICC in 2002 in response to the Seville+5 recommendation on the Secretariat s role as an advisor and broker for projects on biosphere reserves (UNESCO, 2002). According to this document, UNESCO s role is to offer technical guidance and scientific advice as to the orientation of projects within the framework of BRs, help identify suitable funding sources, provide supporting letters and in some cases even grant seed funds to aid countries and groups of countries in elaborating projects and/or secure counterpart contributions (UNESCO,,2002) The document with the guiding principles for projects on biosphere reserves also describes the roles that UNESCO field offices can play within the MAB Programme. UNESCO FOs should advise countries and help the regional networks to develop and apply for projects and to build synergistic links with relevant activities in the region. FOs also serve as a catalyst to build partnerships between national authorities, BR management, other projects and programmes, and the private sector. Finally, FOs are key actors in improving the information flow that comes from and goes to BRs (UNESCO, 2002). On the basis of self-assessment data, an inventory was made of the main roles and tasks of the MAB Secretariat. Examples of key activities and roles of the Secretariat are the following: coordinating the WNBR; facilitating the meetings of the MAB ICC, the MAB Bureau and other intergovernmental (expert) bodies (e.g. ISG, 25 International Advisory Committee for biosphere reserves); facilitating the development of normative and guidance documents on the BR concept and their implementation; monitoring the evolution of BRs; promoting innovative research on BRs and related themes (e.g. sustainable development), and so on. A more detailed and comprehensive profile is presented in Annex At its 21st session the MAB ICC set up an International Support Group (ISG) to advise the MAB Secretariat on the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) and other relevant aspects of the MAB Programme. This group meets regularly once or twice per year and the MAB Secretariat provides first-hand information to the Member States. 51

62 The evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan provides an opportunity to reflect on the current division of tasks and the relative priorities of activities that are conducted by UNESCO staff, either in the field or at headquarters. Given the current financial situation, such a reflection should be undertaken. Annex 3 provides a framework on how such a reflection may be conducted in a systematic manner Implementation of specific actions of the MAP The MAB Secretariat plays a pivotal role in the coordination and implementation of activities within the framework of the WNBR and by implication the MAP. A tentative assessment of the achievement of specific MAP actions for which the responsibility lies (partially) with the MAB Secretariat was undertaken (see Annex 3). The word tentative is purposely used here as the available data (e.g. survey, self-assessment, programme documents, interview data) do not always provide conclusive evidence. Nonetheless, overall patterns of achievement are quite clear. Overall, despite resource constraints and increased workloads, the MAB Secretariat has maintained its key functions within the framework of the WNBR and the broader MAB Programme. The Secretariat has been especially successful in its standard-setting role. The effective implementation and follow-up of the Exit Strategy has, for instance, boosted compliance among BRs with periodic review requirements. 80 % of all BRs is currently in compliance with the rules on period review (Figure 60). Figure 60 Extent to which BRs comply with the submission of periodic reviews (N BR = 621) 6% 14% 38% 43% Established more than 10 years ago, never done periodic review Established more than 10 years ago, at least one periodic review but not in compliance Established more than 10 years ago, at least one periodic review and in compliance Established less than 10 years ago 52

63 Note: In compliance means that a BR has either submitted a periodic review in the last ten years if established more than 10 years ago, or the BR has been established in the last 10 years and therefore has not had to submit a periodic review yet. Nevertheless, the MAB Secretariat has been considerably less successful in some of the other key roles, notably in the area of the branding, communication and visibility of the BR concept. There is no integrated communication strategy and there are insufficient capacities and resources to implement an effective communication strategy. Additionally, the MAB Secretariat has not been very successful in carrying out its clearing house function. Web sites and publications do not provide an up to date state of the art knowledge repository with knowledge products for specific audiences General assessment, priorities and the future Respondents were asked about the extent to which they have used the Madrid Action plan to guide their work. As shown in Figure 61, a clear majority of BRs and MAB national committees report having used the MAP for guidance. The percentage of regular consultation is, however, higher among the representatives of the MAB national committees (44%) than among BR managers (33%). Figure 61 Extent to which the Madrid Action Plan has been used by BRs and MAB NCs (n BR = 241; n NC = 64) MAB national committees Biosphere reserves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Regularly consulted as guidance Sometimes consulted as background reading and/or as guidance Not at all No answer Assessment of progress and priority areas As part of the survey, BR managers and representatives of MAB national committees were queried on the progress that has been achieved with regards to each of the main action areas of the MAP. The vast majority of BRs report some or substantial progress being achieved in all four main action areas of the MAP. Regarding zonation, the findings are mixed. Zonation has the highest percentage of substantial progress (43%) being reported, but also the highest percentage of no progress (13%). For the three other action areas, roughly one third of the BRs report substantial progress being achieved. Correspondingly, roughly half to two thirds of the respondents report some progress being achieved and are thus not outright positive of the achievements in each of the four main areas of action (see Figure 62). 53

64 Figure 62 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to BR managers by main action area (n BR = 241) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cooperation, management and communication Zonation Science and capacity enhancement Partnerships Substantial progress Some progress No progress Do not know No answer A comparison of these findings between pre-seville and post-seville BRs shows that the managers of pre-seville BRs are more positive about the progress made regarding zonation (see Figure 63). No clear differences could be found for the other main action areas (see Annex 13). The large number of responses received from BRs located in Europe and North America made it also possible to compare the assessed progress within this region compared to other regions (see Annex 12). Managers of BRs located in Europe and North America were clearly more positive about the progress made regarding cooperation, management and communication, and partnerships. However, they were less positive than BR managers from other regions about the progress with respect to zonation. 54

65 Figure 63 Self-assessed progress on zonation according to BR managers stratified by pre- and post- Seville samples (n BR = 237) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pre-Seville (incl. 1995) Post-Seville Substantial progress No progress No answer Some progress Do not know Note: For the BR survey, information on this variable was not available for 4 cases. The findings from the MAB national committee survey are consistent with the BR perspective. Figure 64 shows that very few of the MAB national committee respondents stated that no progress has been made. In line with the results from the BR survey, the members of the MAB national committees are more outright positive about the progress made on the topic of zonation. 55

66 Figure 64 Self-assessed progress on MAP according to MAB NCs by main action area (n NC = 64) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cooperation, management and communication Zonation Science and capacity enhancement Partnerships Substantial progress Some progress No progress Do not know No answer Respondents were also asked to rank the main action areas of the MAP according to the priority attributed to each of them. Based on the average priority score 26 assigned to each action area (see Table 3), it can be concluded that cooperation, management and communication is considered to be the highest priority area by both BR managers and MAB national committees. In a ranking exercise conducted by the electronic working group, this action area had also been assigned the highest priority. The ranking (and rating) results for the remaining areas are less conclusive. The average priority scores appear to be not significantly different between action areas and the overall rankings differ between the three respondent groups. Table 3 Ranking (and ratings) of major action areas by BRs, MAB NCs and the reference group Ranking MAB Ranking electronic Ranking BRs NCs working group Cooperation, management and communication 1 (1.75) 1 (1.79) 1 (21.5) Zonation 3 (2.74) 2 (2.48) 4 (20.57) Science and capacity enhancement 2 (2.46) 3 (2.53) 3 (20.62) Partnerships 4 (2.87) 4 (2.87) 2 (20.75) Note: In the case of BRs and MAB NCs, there is an inverse correlation between the rating and the priority attached to the action area. The reference group employed a different methodology; there is a positive correlation between rating and priority. 26 In case respondents had only partially assigned priority levels to the four action areas, the other action areas were arbitrarily assigned priority level four, i.e. least important. Conflicting responses from the same MAB national committee have been excluded from the sample. The lowest average rating corresponds to the highest ranking (BR reserve managers and MAB national committee members). 56

67 A comparison between the priority ratings of managers of pre- and post-seville BRs indicated that post-seville BRs assign a higher priority to cooperation, management and communication than pre-seville BRs. On the other hand, pre-seville BRs give more priority to zonation than post-seville BRs. Additionally, European and North American BRs give lower priority to zonation than BRs from other regions Priorities for the future The recent 37 C/5 (UNESCO, 2014) lists several performance indicators for the MAB programme and the WNBR. The first indicator, Development of the UNESCO WNBR, is linked to a benchmark of creat[ing] at least 50 new biosphere reserves (BR), three of them transboundary, particularly in developing countries or LDC s. With respect to the number of biosphere reserves, the survey results reveal that 46 of the responding MAB national committees (66%) 27 state that there are currently proposals for the establishment of new biosphere reserves in their country (see Figure 65). For three of these countries these proposals concern the establishment of the first biosphere reserve(s) in the country. The biosphere reserve network has experienced an average annual growth rate of roughly 3.7% between 1995 and Although attention needs to be paid to the geographical distribution of BRs given UNESCO s ambition to expand the number of BRs in developing and least developed countries 29, it seems probable that the quantitative target of 50 additional biosphere reserves will be achieved. Figure 65 MAB NCs with current proposals for new BRs (n NC = 70) 13% 4% 17% 66% Yes No Do not know No answer Note: Sample refers to total sample of MAB NCs (including those countries that do not have BRs). The development and implementation of an Exit Strategy for BRs has been an important step in safeguarding the quality of the implementation of the BR concept within the network. While in the short term this has raised some concerns among Member States as well as increased the 27 Percentage calculated compared to all MAB national committees that have responded to this question (61 MAB NCs) regardless of the existence of biosphere reserves in the country. 28 Own calculations based on annual data of number of BRs. 29 The numbers of countries with BR proposals categorized by income group: 12 Low Income Countries (75% of responding LIC), 7 Lower Middle Income countries (58% of responding LMIC), 11 Upper Middle Income Countries (55% of responding UMIC), 16 High Income Countries (73% of responding HIC). 57

68 workload for the MAB Secretariat, overall the reaction appears to be positive. In time, the consistent application of the principles of the Exit Strategy can positively influence the clarity of the concept of a BR (in practice) and may even positively affect the brand value of BRs. For the MAB Secretariat, the challenge of managing the workload of assessing and monitoring the status of BRs remains. Notwithstanding the elements included in the 37 C/5, the present evaluation focused on the priorities as defined by stakeholders in BRs, MAB NCs (and other institutions in Member States). In order to gauge the main priorities for the future two open-ended questions were posed to respondents (especially BR managers and MAB national committee members), regarding the main challenges for the future and how to address these challenges. In the analysis these two aspects were analyzed together 30 given the fact that the responses to the question on the challenges often implicitly contained information on how to address them and vice versa. 30 Measures were taken to avoid double counting. 58

69 Figure 66 Priorities for BRs according to BR managers ( spontaneous responses ) (n BR = 241) Strenghtening the capacity and resources for managing and governing the biosphere reserve Addressing threats to conservation and reconciling sustainable economic development with conservation 48% 51% Effectively enshrining the biosphere reserve concept in the national policy and legislative framework Strengthening coordination, communication and cooperation within the framework of the WNBR and with other relevant stakeholders Strengthening the visibility and raising awareness among key stakeholders on the biosphere reserve concept 39% 38% 43% Strenghtening participation and capacity development of local communities Addressing through any or all of the biosphere reserve functions the following themes: climate change, population pressure and depopulation 27% 24% Conducting and disseminating research 20% Other 12% Note: Information stems from open-ended questions which were categorized ex post. As illustrated in Figure 66, the main priority for BRs according to their managers is to strengthen the capacity and resources for effectively managing and governing the reserve (51%). Currently, a lot of BRs operate on a project-to-project basis with funds secured for individual projects. At the same time, the availability and continuity of core funding for the BR management is often limited. Raising awareness about the specific features and benefits of the BR concept will be fundamental in gaining the (financial) support from the public sector and other institutional actors. Relatedly, many BR managers referred to weaknesses in management capacities. 31 BR managers argued that there is need for training, workshops and toolkits to build capacities. In addition, they stressed the importance of having a well-defined management and governance 31 One of the respondents, for instance, stated that the BR had a poorly defined governance structure, insufficient permanent staff and lacking staff capacities. 59

70 structure and a coherent management plan which should take into account any protected areas that comprised in the BR territory. The second broad category of priorities for BRs relates to the balance between conversation and sustainable development (48%). This category compiles statements that relate to: conservation and protection of biodiversity in BRs; poverty alleviation and sustainable alternative livelihoods; and possible tensions, trade-offs or win-win situations regarding the previous two points. From the responses it becomes clear that local communities need access to sustainable alternative livelihood options if they are to successfully collaborate in conservation activities (and refrain from unsustainable land use practices or the (unsustainable) exploitation of natural resources). More effective and sustainable responses are needed to address illegal activities such as poaching and the complex challenges relating to resource extraction by private sector companies. The third group of priorities for BRs relates to the integration of the BR concept into (inter)national policy and legislative frameworks (43%). The status of biosphere reserves within national environmental legislation is often unclear and unstable. BR managers therefore emphasize the importance of establishing normative and legal frameworks which clearly articulate the specifics of BRs. Furthermore, BRs need to be linked to national sustainable development programmes and policies. Many BR managers believe that enshrining the concept into policies and legislation is essential to facilitate resource mobilization. Regarding the status of BRs at the international level, some BR managers have drawn attention to the fact that the status of the BRs is not clear within the categorization of the IUCN (see also section 1.5). 32 Adding BRs as a separate category to the IUCN list is one of the options to address this challenge. Another important finding is that 39% of the responding BRs call for better coordination, communication and cooperation within the WNBR and with other stakeholders. Experiences, best practices and lessons learned should be exchanged within the global network as well as among BRs within the same region or country. Several managers stated that they experience a lack of support from the MAB Programme and that they require a more (transparent) communication within the hierarchy. Partnerships with other stakeholders should also be further strengthened to allow for synergies and interdisciplinary collaboration. 38% of the BR managers point at the need to increase the visibility of BRs and enhance awareness among key stakeholders, particularly local communities and policy makers, about the BR concept. An increase in education, information and communication efforts on the societal and environmental benefits of the BR designation are required to foster an improved understanding and appreciation of the values and functions of BRs. In general, it can be concluded that representatives of the MAB national committees have identified very similar priorities for BRs (see Figure 67), even though the descriptions of the challenges were considerably less detailed. 32 This element has also been described in document SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4 on the Legal interpretation of the BR concept in the framework of national legislation. 60

71 Figure 67 Priorities for BRs according to the MAB NCs ( spontaneous responses ) (n NC = 64) Strenghtening the capacity and resources for managing and governing the biosphere reserve Strengthening coordination, communication and cooperation within the framework of the WNBR and with other relevant stakeholders Strengthening the visibility and raising awareness among key stakeholders on the biosphere reserve concept Addressing threats to conservation and reconciling sustainable economic development with conservation 45% 44% 41% 38% Strenghtening participation and capacity development of local communities 31% Conducting and disseminating research 27% Effectively enshrining the biosphere reserve concept in the national policy and legislative framework Addressing through any or all of the biosphere reserve functions the following themes: climate change, population pressure and depopulation 20% 20% Other 14% Note: Information stems from open-ended questions which were categorized ex post. 61

72 Figure 68 Priorities for MAB NCs ( spontaneous responses ) (n NC = 64) Strenghtening the capacity and resources to ensure effective functioning of the MAB national committee 58% Strengthening coordination, communication and cooperation within the framework of the WNBR and with other relevant stakeholders 55% Effectively enshrining the biosphere reserve concept in the national policy and legislative framework 44% Strengthening the visibility and raising awareness among key stakeholders on the biosphere reserve concept 38% Strengthen capacities at the level of the biosphere reserves 36% Conducting and disseminating research 16% Other 16% Note: Information stems from open-ended questions which were categorized ex post. Finally, members of national committees were queried on the priorities for their own committees. As shown in Figure 68 above, representatives of MAB national committees have generally identified similar priorities for the committees as for BRs. This pattern is quite logical given the fact that much of the work within the framework of MAB committees is about BRs. The lack of financial and human resources to ensure the effective functioning of MAB national committees is the most frequently mentioned challenge. There is a need for sustainable funding sources as well as specific actions address the high turnover in membership. In addition, more than half of the respondents (55%) called for enhanced partnerships with other stakeholders, especially with civil society, private sector and public sector and/or enhanced networking within the WNBR. Several countries have established (or are in the process of doing so) national networks in order to improve the exchange of experiences between BRs in the country. MAB national committees also clearly acknowledge the importance of enshrining the BR concept into national policies and legislative frameworks. finally, members of national committees underline their role in contributing to enhancing the visibility of BRs and strengthening the management capacities of BRs. 62

73 3 Summary of findings and recommendations 3.1 Participation in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and the importance of the Biosphere Reserve designation Key finding 1 A significant proportion of biosphere reserves and MAB national committees are disconnected from the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. There are clear indications of significant levels of activity within the framework of BRs and resulting benefits from these activities in the three core areas of the BR concept: conservation and sustainable use, research and sustainable development (see next section). However, it has also become evident that the levels of activity and the corresponding benefits are quite uneven across the WNBR. More specifically, there are clear signs that a significant proportion of BRs are disconnected from activities undertaken within the framework of the WNBR. This claim is supported by the following findings. The non-response rates to the survey of 61% among BRs and 45% among MAB NCs (with BRs in the country), 33 despite the long response period and multiple measures taken to increase response, can be explained by multiple reasons. Non-response is not random (the group of non-respondents in many aspects is not similar to the group of respondents). An important reason for non-participation in the survey is the level of activity under the banner of the BR concept in a particular country or BR and/or the value attributed to the BR designation. The contact information list of the Secretariat was not up to date. Despite multiple efforts to update the information, there are still gaps in information. To some extent, the incomplete contact information available at the MAB Secretariat reflects the turnover of staff among national counterparts responsible for a particular BR. This situation points at the limited importance of the BR concept and the relationship with UNESCO for some stakeholders (of some BRs). In addition, it points at the low levels of communication between the Secretariat and parts of the network. There are clear differences in activity levels within the WNBR between regions. The Regional Networks of EuroMAB, IberoMAB and AfriMAB are relatively active and have a relatively high membership ratio from BRs and/or MAB NCs (and other stakeholders) within the region. In other regions these networks are less active and have lower participation rates of stakeholders related to BRs in the region. There is limited direct collaboration between the MAB Secretariat and individual BRs, which is logical given the high number of BRs. Among MAB NCs the percentage of direct collaboration with the MAB Secretariat is much higher (81%). This is logical given the function of regional networks and MAB NCs as intermediaries and information channels between the Secretariat and individual BRs. However, there is a significant proportion of MAB NCs in the sample which are not directly in contact with the Secretariat. Given the high non-response rate to the survey, this proportion is likely to be much higher in reality (at population level) % non-response for the total population of MAB NCs. 63

74 A significant proportion of MAB NCs are active and providing important contributions to individual BRs and the BR model in general. At the same time, taking into account the high non-response to the survey and the divergent activity levels as expressed in the survey, a significant proportion of MAB NCs are likely to be inactive. 3.2 Institutionalization of the Biosphere Reserve model Key finding 2 The majority of biosphere reserves report some level of activity on all three of the major functions of a biosphere reserve. There are clear indications of benefits resulting from these activities. However, a significant proportion of biosphere reserves are not active in one or more of the functions. The data analysis revealed that most BRs have some type of management structure, but there is still a significant proportion of BRs that do not have such a structure. It is unlikely that a BR fulfills its three core functions without the existence of a management structure. Further evidence on the different levels of activity with respect to the three core functions 34 of BRs is provided below. The following findings relate to the dimension of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The findings show that there is no convincing evidence that the BR concept has had a significant effect on conservation and sustainable use. This does not necessarily imply that there has been no effect (in particular cases or across BR network). It simply cannot be determined from MAP-related variables. In just over half of the BRs, the zonation scheme constitutes a basis for planning (e.g. land use planning). Two thirds of MAB NCs reported that they promote this issue. Around 70% of MAB NCs reported to have assisted BRs on the issue of zonation. 43% of BRs have multiple international designations (Ramsar, World Heritage, BR). Moreover, the zonation of most BRs is based on existing protected areas (69 %). However, there are proportionally less post-seville than pre-seville BRs based on existing zonation schemes. 35 Roughly half of the BRs report that their activities are aligned to international conventions. However, it is unclear whether this finding refers to awareness of alignment or actual alignment. In fact, a successful implementation of the biosphere concept is evidence of alignment to the objectives of for example the Convention on Biological Diversity. In over half of the countries (participating in the survey) activities have been undertaken by MAB NCs (and in most cases BRs) to promote the incorporation of the BR concept in national legislation. However, in reality the proportion of countries with BRs that also have legislation on BRs appears to be less than 50% (no exact estimation can be given). 36 Ecosystem services and climate change are key topics of education and research activities (see below). 34 The three core functions, which are slightly differently presented below, are: conservation, development, logistic support. 35 Usually existing protected areas. 36 A study on the legal interpretation of the BR concept in the framework of national legislation was presented at the MAB-ICC meeting in Jeju in The number of responses to the questionnaire was limited to 30 countries. Excerpts from legislation from 13 countries were included in the report. No overall figures on biosphere-related legislation across the network were presented in this report. 64

75 Research and education activities within the framework of BRs are quite prevalent. 37 Almost all BRs (93%) reported research activities being undertaken within the framework of the BR. A slightly lower (86%) percentage reported the occurrence of education activities. The research themes set out in the MAP were reasonably well covered throughout the BR network, with the following proportion of BRs reporting research activities on these themes: sustainable development (61%), climate change (53%), ecosystem services (52%), rural urban issues (26%). Local development activities have been implemented within the framework of 81% of BRs. Sustainable development is an umbrella concept 38 which is most often mentioned as the theme of BR-related activities. A relatively high percentage of BRs (56%) reported that activities have been undertaken regarding the marketing of BR related goods and services. 39 In the majority of BRs (70%), local communities have reportedly benefited from activities undertaken within the framework of BRs. Key finding 3 The most important themes of biosphere reserve-related activities are sustainable development, climate change and ecosystem services. The five most important themes (in declining order of importance) dominating BR-related activities are the following: Sustainable development: 85% (local development, education and research) Climate change: 66% (mostly research and education) Ecosystem services: 63% (mostly research and education) BR-related products and marketing: 56% (mostly local development) Urban-rural interface: 55% (mostly local development) 40 Key finding 4 There is some evidence of biosphere reserves serving as learning and demonstration sites. Evidence of biosphere reserves serving as learning and demonstration sites is the following. 78% of BRs report that research activities conducted within the framework of the BR were in line with the principle of BRs as demonstration and learning sites. However, the percentage of BRs reporting replication or scaling-up effects of research is substantially lower. The high prevalence of research activities undertaken within the framework of biosphere reserves (see above). The influence of research outputs on awareness-raising and (to a limited extent) on policy processes (see below). 37 It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to assess (e.g.) the quality and impact of research. 38 This concept is particularly prone to different interpretations as respondents may associate it primarily with the word sustainable or more generally to economic development. 39 As is the case with most themes, there is room for interpretation here as this category may or may not (depending on the interpretation of the respondent) include for example tourism activities. In general, the different themes can be interpreted differently by respondents, which affects the responses. 40 For example, the complex interlinkages between processes of urbanization and the use, quality and conservation of environmental resources. 65

76 Key finding 5 The biosphere reserve concept lacks visibility and clear branding. Visibility and branding of the BR concept can result from several channels of information (web sites, social media) as well as associated information outputs (policy briefs, academic publications). Despite different activities and outputs at the level of the Secretariat and at more decentralized levels within the WNBR (regional networks, BRs), the challenge of increasing the visibility of BRs remains. Some underlying findings are the following. The MAB Secretariat currently lacks the capacity and resources to implement an effective communication and knowledge-sharing strategy. 57% of BRs report having a communication strategy to disseminate different information products to specific audiences. This leaves a large proportion of BRs without any strategy. The most frequently produced information materials are targeted at the general public and tourists (around 85%). Research and education materials are being produced within the framework of activities in two-thirds of the BRs and policy-oriented research publications in just over half of the BRs. In the vast majority of BRs, publications produced within the framework of the BR are reported to have influenced the behavior of audiences. The most frequently reported category of influence is awareness-raising. It is very likely that the respondents answers are not based on any empirical analysis. However, the fact that awareness-raising scores better than influence on decision-making processes, and the fact that these percentages are consistent between BR focal points and MAB NC representatives, provide some confidence on this variable. The three functions of BRs are not always well-understood by external audiences. Key finding 6 The majority of biosphere reserves systematically collaborate with different institutional actors. Principal elements supporting this finding are the following. The majority of BRs (61%) have some type of collaboration agreement with more than three different types of institutional actors. A small yet significant percentage of BRs (12%) reports no systematic collaboration with external actors. The majority of BRs cooperate with academic institutions and public and civil society organizations. By contrast, the proportion of BRs collaborating with the private sector, UNESCO programmes and other international organizations is markedly lower. Local communities are in some way involved in the activities undertaken within the framework of BRs in the vast majority of BRs (83%). Key finding 7 For each main area of action of the MAP, a significant proportion of survey respondents (roughly one third) report substantial progress being achieved. At the same time a higher proportion of respondents report some progress. A clear majority of BRs and MAB NCs report having used the MAP for guidance. The percentage of regular consultation of the MAP is higher among the MAB NCs (44%) than among the BRs (33%). 66

77 The vast majority of BRs report some or substantial progress being achieved in all four major areas of action of the MAP. Zonation has the highest percentage of substantial progress being reported 41 but also the highest percentage of no progress. For each main area of action, roughly one third of the BRs report substantial progress being achieved. Correspondingly, roughly half to two thirds of the respondents report some progress being achieved and are thus not outright positive of the achievements in each of the four main areas of action. The results are more or less consistent with the responses from the MAB NC survey. Key finding 8 Cooperation, management and communication has been consistently rated as the highest priority action area for the future. Within this action area, strengthening the capacities and resources for managing and governing biosphere reserves is consistently reported as the highest priority for the future. Cooperation, management and communication (which is a rather heterogeneous category of actions) has been rated as the highest priority for the future by BR managers, representatives of MAB NCs and members of the electronic working group. More specifically, the most important priorities for the future according to BR managers based on spontaneous qualitative responses are the following: Strengthening the capacities and resources 42 for managing and governing the BR (51%) Addressing threats to conservation and reconciling sustainable economic development with conservation (48%) Effectively enshrining the BR concept in national policy and legislation (43%) Strengthening coordination, communication and cooperation within the framework of the WNBR and with other relevant stakeholders (39%) Increasing the visibility and enhancing the awareness of the BR concept among key stakeholders (38%) In addition, the most important priorities for the future according to representatives of MAB NCs based on spontaneous qualitative responses are the following: Strengthening the capacities and resources for managing and governing the BR (45%) Strengthening coordination, communication and cooperation within the framework of the WNBR and with other relevant stakeholders (44%) Increasing the visibility and enhancing the awareness of the BR concept among key stakeholders (41%) Addressing threats to conservation and reconciling sustainable economic development with conservation (38%) In sum, BR managers and representatives of MAB NCs largely agree on priorities, with the most important one being the strengthening of capacities and resources for managing and governing BRs. 41 The majority of BRs have undertaken activities to clarify or improve the zonation of the BR % of the responding BRs received funding from either national or local governments. However, funding is mostly project-based and not sustainable. A key reason is the lack of research evidence that has direct policy relevance (which would facilitate the mobilization of resources from donors). 67

78 3.3 The role of the MAB Secretariat Key finding 9 The MAB Secretariat has been partially successful in fulfilling its role in the implementation of the MAP. The MAB Secretariat plays a pivotal role in the coordination, monitoring and implementation of key activities within the framework of the WNBR and by implication the MAP. A tentative assessment of the achievement of specific MAP actions for which the responsibility lies (partially) with the MAB Secretariat was undertaken. The word tentative is purposely used here as the available data (e.g. survey, self-assessment, programme documents, interview data) do not always provide conclusive evidence. Nonetheless, overall patterns of achievement are quite clear. Overall, despite resource constraints and increased workloads, the MAB Secretariat has maintained its key functions within the framework of the WNBR and the broader MAB programme. The Secretariat has been especially successful in its standard-setting role. The effective implementation and follow-up of the Exit Strategy has, for instance, boosted compliance among BRs with periodic review requirements. 80 % of all BRs is currently in compliance with the rules on period review. Nevertheless, the MAB Secretariat has been considerably less successful in some of the other key roles, notably in the area of the branding, communication and visibility of the BR concept. There is no integrated communication strategy and there are insufficient capacities and resources to implement an effective communication strategy. Additionally, the MAB Secretariat has not been very successful in carrying out its clearing house function. Web sites and publications do not provide an up to date state of the art knowledge repository with knowledge products for specific audiences. A comprehensive assessment of the levels of achievement of MAP actions under the (partial) responsibility of the MAB Secretariat as well as a forward-looking analysis on the priorities for the Secretariat are presented in Annex 3. 68

79 3.4 Recommendations On the basis of the key findings of the evaluative analysis, five main areas of improvement have been identified. 43 The bullet points under each of the five areas of improvement constitute specific recommendations 44 for improvement but should not be considered as an exhaustive list. Strengthen the value of the WNBR for BRs and the active involvement of the latter in the network s activities - Increase the outreach and inclusiveness of (regional and thematic) network activities, especially in particular areas the world - Strengthen internal communication processes and tools (e.g. newsletters, websites) - Organize a fourth World Congress of Biosphere Reserves - Strengthen the Secretariat s information management capacities Strengthen the clearing house function of the WNBR - Develop an online repository of knowledge with (references to) key publications on BRrelated priority themes - Develop an online database of information on BRs targeting different types of audiences Develop the WNBR s global role as a laboratory of ideas - Consider developing a flagship synthesis publication on BRs - Establish partnerships with academic institutions for long-term research within the framework of BRs - Create a global research platform, bringing together academic researchers for research internships or sabbaticals to work on BR-related priority themes Raise the profile of the WNBR - Improve the MAB website - Promote a clear and shared vision of the BR concept to different audiences - Consider hiring a professional communication specialist - Clearly position the WNBR (e.g. through the Secretariat) in international debates on sustainable development and related themes Strengthen the financial and human resource base of the WNBR - Consider establishing a multidonor trust fund - Promote the BR concept at the appropriate national policy and political levels to obtain adequate financial support 45 for BRs and their support structures - Promote financial sustainability at the BR level through a diversification of the funding base 43 Specific actions and roles and responsibilities are not included here for multiple reasons and should be defined by the MAB Governing Bodies in collaboration with the Secretariat. 44 Some recommendations are based on ongoing initiatives and should receive priority attention. 45 Enshrined in supporting legislation. 69

80 3.5 A note on the evaluability of a future strategy and action plan The MAP was defined with clear provisions for evaluation (mid-term and ex post). To facilitate monitoring and evaluation, the plan was presented in matrix format, indicating the key targets, actions, timeframes, success indicators and responsible actors. Despite this in principle helpful framework, a number of factors 46 in fact significantly reduced the evaluability of the MAP. One of the explanations for the abovementioned constraints is the fact that the MAP targets and actions were formulated on the basis of a consensus-seeking process. While stakeholder consensus is a crucial element in the development of a strategy and action plan within the context of an intergovernmental program, such consensus should be established at the level of strategic directions and high-level priorities. The development of specific actions and corresponding indicators is first and foremost a technical exercise, subject to principles of coherence and logic. As a result of these constraints, the evaluation has identified the following guiding principles for a future strategy and action plan. Basic ingredients for a future strategy: A strategy should preferably be limited to a number of key challenges/areas of concern, strategic objective and strategic lines of action that logically flow from the objectives. An action plan (e.g. a separate document building on the strategy) should present: o An overall intervention logic of how major strategic lines of action can be broken down into different types of activities (at different levels) generating specific outputs for particular (institutional) actors which are intended to bring about specific changes in the behavior of these actors, eventually contributing to achieving the overall objectives of the strategy. o A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders responsible for implementing the plan, for all types of activities. o Identification of key assumptions that underlie each causal step in the intervention logic (from activity to output to outcome). o Identification of indicators of key outputs generated at different levels, and indicators of outcomes (changes in society). o Development of a monitoring matrix which lists the output and outcome indicators, the sources of information/verification, and the responsibilities for data collection (including periodicity). Overall, the strategy should abide as much as possible to the principles of coherence (the logical coherence between strategic objectives and lines of action and activities, outputs, outcomes) and simplicity. The number of key activities (actions) should be limited. With an increasing number of proposed activities the need for defining a clear hierarchy of activities (research versus specific research activities) becomes more important. Intended activities (actions) should be as clear as possible (only one action element per activity statement) and there should be no overlap between types of activities in different parts of the intervention logic. 46 The broad scope of the MAP, the lack of clarity in formulation of particular elements of the MAP, the lack of a clear definition of roles and responsibilities, the lack of an intervention logic as a basis for the action plan (see section 1.4. of the main report for further discussion). 70

81 Annexes Annex 1: Stakeholders consulted within the framework of the evaluation BR managers Representatives of MAB national committees Staff of the MAB Secretariat Representatives of MAB regional networks Members of the Reference Group for the Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan Members of the MAB Bureau 71

82 Annex 2: Documents reviewed within the framework of the evaluation 1. Academic references Coetzer, K.L., Witkowski, E.T.F., Erasmus, B.F.N. (2013) Reviewing Biosphere Reserves globally: effective conservation action or bureaucratic label?, Biological Reviews, 89 (1): Elbakidze, M., Hahn, T., Mauerhofer, V., Angelstam, P. and Axelsson, R. (2013) Legal Framework for Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis of Ukraine and Sweden, Ambio, 42: Ishwaran, N., Persic, A. and Tri, N.H. (2008) Concept and practice: the case of UNESCO biosphere reserves, International Journal Environment and Sustainable Development, 7 (2): Nolte, C. (2005) Awareness of the Man and the Biosphere program and its impact on visitor s attitudes towards tourism services. A case study from Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan, Bachelor thesis, Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus. Price, M.F., Park, J.J. and Bouamrane, M. (2010) Reporting progress on internationally designated sites: The periodic review of biosphere reserves, Environmental Science and Policy, 13: Reed, M.G. and Egunyu, F. (2013) Management effectiveness in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: Learning from Canadian periodic reviews, Environmental Science and Policy, 25: Schultz, L., Duit, A. and Folke, C. (2011) Participation, adaptive co-management, and management performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, World Development, 39 (4): Schultz, L. and Lundholm, C. (2010) Learning for resilience? Exploring learning opportunities in Biosphere Reserves, Environmental Education Research, 16 (5): Documents MAB ICC SC-09/CONF.207/24 Final Report 21 st Session of the MAB-ICC (2009) SC-10/CONF.201/21 Final Report 22 nd Session of the MAB-ICC (2010) SC-11/CONF.202/11 Final Report 23 rd Session of the MAB-ICC (2011) SC-12/CONF.224/15 Final Report 24 th Session of the MAB-ICC (2012) SC-13/CONF.225/11 Final Report 25 th Session of the MAB-ICC (2013) SC-09/CONF.206/5 Assessment of the Seville Strategy - Meeting Bureau of MAB-ICC SC-09/CONF.206/X Legal interpretation of the biosphere reserve concept in the framework of national legislation (Bonnin and Jardin, 2009) SC-09/CONF.207/06 The biosphere reserve concept in the framework of national legislations 21 st Session MAB-ICC SC-09/CONF.207/7 Communication strategy and clearing house mechanism for biosphere reserves 72

83 SC-09/CONF.207/INF.4 The biosphere reserve concept in the framework of national legislations 21 st Session MAB-ICC SC-10/CONF.201/3 Report of the Secretary of the MAB Programme on the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP), decisions and recommendations of the 21st session of the MAB-ICC and other related matters SC-11/CONF.207/5 Assessment of the Seville Strategy 21 st Session MAB-ICC SC-11/CONF.202/5 Mid-term evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) SC-11/CONF.202/12 Support/Study sites for the MAB Programme 23 rd Session MAB-ICC SC-13/CONF.225/5 Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) 25 th Session MAB-ICC 3. Other UNESCO documents German Commission for UNESCO (2011) For life, for the future. Biosphere reserves and climate change A collection of good practice case studies, 80 p. Rosas, P.A. (2011) Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves: Report on the results and analysis of the evaluation performed by countries of IberoMAB Network, period , Working Paper No. 42, South-South Cooperation Programme. Salem, B.B. and Ghabbour, S.I. (2013) Synergies to Protect Sites: Joint Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, World Heritage, 70: UNESCO (1996) Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network, UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO (2002) Guiding Principles for projects on biosphere reserves, UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO (2008) Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves ( ), UNESCO, Madrid (SC-2009/WS/36). UNESCO (2010) Lessons from Biosphere Reserves in the Asia-Pacific Region, and a Way Forward: A regional review of biosphere reserves in Asia and the Pacific to achieve sustainable development, UNESCO office, Jakarta. UNESCO (2014) 37 C/5: Approved Programme and Budget ( ), UNESCO, Paris. 73

84 Annex 3: Tentative assessment of the achievement of actions by the MAB Secretariat and tentative forward-looking prioritization exercise This section describes a tentative assessment of the achievement of actions included in the MAP by the MAB Secretariat and a tentative forward-looking exercise that should provide the basis for further reflection among MAB ICC Members, members of the MAB Secretariat and other stakeholders on the strategic issue of how the MAB Secretariat can optimally fulfill its coordinating role of the WNBR. Implementation of the MAP has been the responsibility of multiple stakeholders. However, this section focuses on the role of the MAB Secretariat given its pivotal role in the coordination, monitoring and implementation of key activities within the framework of the WNBR. The limited resources of the evaluation precluded an in-depth empirical inquiry of the performance and strategic roles of other stakeholders. The table below presents a tentative assessment of the achievement of the actions for which the MAB Secretariat is deemed to be the only responsible actor (KR) and for which there is a shared responsibility (SR). The assessment is mainly based on Programme documents (e.g. MAB-ICC meetings), self-assessment by and conversations with members of the MAB Secretariat in Paris (see Table 4). Table 4 Tentative assessment of achievement of MAP actions by the MAB Secretariat Level of Action Description achievement KR SR KR Assess the achievements of the Seville Strategy (1.1) Compile and synthesize first-hand information on the functioning of BRs, which should then be shared inter-regionally and globally (1.2) Create and implement a system of recognizing performance of the Seville Strategy (1.3) Medium/High Medium Low A survey on the assessment of the Seville Strategy has been conducted in A first version of the report on this survey has been submitted to the Bureau of MAB ICC in February 2009 and a completed and refined version has been presented at the MAB ICC meeting in May The response rate to this survey was, however, relatively low (SC- 09/CONF.207/5; SC-11/CONF.202/5). The instruments or toolbox to implement the BR concept remain unclear. There is still a need for operational guidelines that provide a technical menu on how the transform the BR concept into local realities. Based on the self-assessment undertaken by staff of the MAB Secretariat it can be concluded that no system has been put in place that systematically measures performance. Within the framework of the mid-term evaluation of the MAP several countries had indicated that the periodic review system provides information on the performance of the Seville Strategy (SC- 11/CONF.202/5). However, periodic reviews cover a period of ten years and are therefore insufficient to effectively monitor changes and track progress (Price et al., 2010). 74

85 KR SR KR KR KR Update the nomination and periodic review forms for BRs (including transboundary BRs) ( ) High Utilize BRs in UNESCO Intergovernmental Scientific Programmes (ISPs) (2.2) Low Creation of a web-based information clearinghouse and information centre, to exchange and share technology, research, training, education and cooperation opportunities, findings and experience, and to help to solve problems at local, regional and international levels (3.1) Elaboration of a map presenting the WNBR according to ecosystem types, including humanimpacted ecosystems such as rural and urban areas (3.3) Develop an integrated international promotion and communication strategy targeting the general public (3.5) Low Medium Medium As recommended by the 21 st session of the MAB ICC, an electronic working group chaired by the chair of the French MAB national committee started to revise the nomination and periodic review forms (SC-11/CONF.202/5). As a result of this process, the nomination and periodic review forms for normal and transboundary BR are available on the UNESCO website in English, French and Spanish. Only 8% of responding BR managers indicates that their BR cooperates with UNESCO ISPs. The UNESCO ISPs are also rarely mentioned as stakeholders involved in the different activities, including research activities. See sections and for more detailed information. The creation of a clearing house mechanism has been discussed during the 21 st session of the ICC in However, the lack of clearly earmarked financial and human resources for the development and implementation of the clearing house mechanism within the MAB Secretariat has constituted an impediment to the establishment of a high quality global webbased information clearing house. Nonetheless, a clearing house mechanism, i.e. a community platform, is currently being piloted for EuroMAB with the support from UNESCO s External Relations and Public Information Sector (ERI). The MAB Secretariat, in collaboration with the National Commissions for UNESCO of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg has developed a map presenting the world network of biosphere reserves. The back side of the map presents basic information about the biosphere reserve concept in English, French, Spanish and German. However, the map does not present the BRs according to their ecosystem types. Budget reductions and the lack of available staff were mentioned as main reasons for the delay in the production of a WNBR map according to ecosystem types (SC- 11/CONF.202/5). An integrated information and communication strategy has been presented at the 21 st session of the MAB-ICC in Jeju (see SC- 09/CONF.207/7). However, the lack of financial resources specifically earmarked for communication purposes have hindered the implementation of the proposed strategy. The BR designation has remained relatively invisible due to the complicated nature of the concept, especially compared to other designations such as World Heritage. 75

86 SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Create and strengthen existing regional and interregional Thematic Networks formed around key ecosystems such as mountains, freshwater, oceans, drylands, forests, urban areas, small islands (5.1) Screen new BR proposals as well as devise schemes to support periodic review processes in view of the evolution of the mission and vision contained in the MAP in particular through fieldvisits by teams of regional and national experts in cooperation with the UNESCO Regional, Cluster and National Offices as appropriate. (9.1) Encourage states to include BRs in their own legislation (11.1) Carry out a survey on the present zoning system of the WNBR and investigate how well they fulfill the three functions in each zone (12.1) Undertake a critical analysis and synthesis of existing data based on experience of implementing the management plans/cooperation plans of BRs around the world, including their relationship to ecosystem services (15.1) Coordinate with UNESCO ISPs and other relevant international, regional and national authorities to promote policy-relevant research (16.1) Improve access to information and new ways Medium Medium Medium/High Medium Low (unclear) As described in section , only the WNICBR can adequately be referred to as thematic network which had its third meeting in June Networks related to other ecosystems are less institutionalized. Nonetheless, important projects have been developed with respect to particular ecosystems (e.g. SUMAMAD project). During the 25 th MAB-ICC session an Exit Strategy has been adopted. This three step process has been developed to ensure the quality and compliance of the BRs to the Statutory Framework. The main element of the Exit Strategy is the submission of periodic review reports. The Exit Strategy has proven to be a successful tool in stimulating members of the WNBR to submit periodic reviews. 20% of the BRs are currently not in compliance, i.e. they have not submitted any periodic review in the last 10 years even though they were already established more than ten years ago. Based on an analysis of examples of legal translations of the BR concept at national level, a model law has been developed to promote the establishment of the BR concept at the national scale (see document SC- 09/CONF.206/X). See section for more information. The MAB Secretariat has carried out a study on the zonation of pre-seville and post-seville BRs (see SC-11/CONF.202/12). However, the emphasis of the survey was entirely on the zonation scheme rather than on the fulfillment of the functions within each of the zones. No document available. Low See section Low/Medium (see action 3.1) A Twitter discussion forum has been piloted in 2011, but this effort has not been sustained. A 76

87 SR SR SR SR SR to communicate knowledge to a large variety of nonscientific target groups (16.2) Provide training to BR managers on sciencepolicy-practice interaction and participatory management for science and other relevant areas (17.1) Seek national and international support for BRs and Regional Networks with the organizations responsible for projects on biodiversity conservation, international waters, climate change, poverty reduction etc. (25.3) Further the work of the Task Force on Quality Economies by creating or strengthening partnerships with businesses to identify, develop and promote markets and fair trade for goods using the BR brand (26.2) Promote incentives for product labeling in BRs (27.2) Promote and use BRs as mechanisms for peace and security (31.1) Low Medium Low/Medium Low/Medium Medium/High Facebook page of the MAB Programme has been developed in the beginning of EuroMAB has partnered with Futerra (a sustainability communications agency) to develop a promotion video on BRs. See section for more information on the type of products generated and disseminated within the framework of BRs. This is mainly done by regional networks, field offices and MAB national committees. The role of the MAB Secretariat is limited. See section In general, the MAB Secretariat indicated to assist MAB national committees and regional networks in the mobilization of resources. The MAB Secretariat also supported AfriMAB to establish a legal trust fund instrument for fundraising purposes. Most of the BRs (67%) receive funding from the national government, while 36% receives funding from international organizations. Several BRs indicated that they have received funding from the EU or from other individual countries (e.g. Germany). The International Centre on Mediterranean Biosphere Reserves, inaugurated in 2014, is the first Category II center established through public engagement and private financial support. According to the mid-term evaluation, the work in support of private sector partnerships benefiting BRs has accelerated. See section for more detailed information. A Task Force has considered ways in which excellence of BR goods and services could be recognized through a common logo. However, the idea was put on hold due to a potential liability issue; it was feared that UNESCO could be held responsible if problems eventually occurred with the labeled products. The MAB Secretariat has played an important advisory role in some specific cases, particularly regarding transboundary cooperation (e.g. Seaflower BR). However, previous experience is very limited and support from an international law expert might be needed. Note: KR indicates the actions for which the MAB Secretariat is the only responsible actor. SR indicates the actions for which there is a shared responsibility. 77

88 Furthermore, in order to develop a useful structure for developing a strategic perspective on the types of activities implemented by the MAB Secretariat, activities have been classified into different categories based on a combination of two variables: UNESCO s five main functions/roles 47 and the level of intervention 48 (see Table 5 for the different categories with examples of activities). For each type of activity conducted by the MAB Secretariat we assessed the relative priority and level of achievement. Both assessments are tentative. Priority is determined primarily by the potential comparative advantage of the Secretariat in carrying out a particular type of activity (how necessary and unique is the role of the MAB Secretariat?). Achievement is determined primarily by the scale of activity and comprehensiveness of coverage/outreach and not so much by successful output delivery and/or achievement of outcomes (see Box 1). An assessment of the latter is beyond the scope of this evaluation. The results of the tentative assessments are presented in Table 4. In the prioritization matrix (see Figure 69) we plotted achievement against priority. Both the priority and achievement assessments are based on data from desk study, succinct selfassessment and interviews. They should be considered as rough assessments and the starting point for further refinement and discussion using the prioritization matrix as a basis. Box 1 Explanatory note on the assessment ratings Priority LP (low priority) = activities that can be undertaken mostly by other actors in the MAB system (MAB BR managers, representatives from MAB NCs or the MAB Reg NWs). The role of the MAB Secretariat can be catalytic but is not essential. MP (medium priority) = activities undertaken by other actors in the MAB system, participation of the MAB Secretariat is essential. HP (high priority) = the MAB Secretariat is the only institutional actor which can and should undertake this function/activity. Achievement LA = low level of activity and/or not successful. Please note that low achievement does not necessarily mean that the activities are not (potentially) successful. Most activities that score low on achievement do so because of the scale of implementation (limited outreach). MA = moderate level of activity and partly successful (or high level of activity with relatively low success). HA = moderate or high level of activity and successful. Table 5 Examples of activities undertaken by the MAB Secretariat (HQ and/or FOs) by UNESCO s major function and level of intervention Through global comprehensive activities Standard setter ad policy advisor Develop and monitor implementation of the statutory framework for BRs; assess entry and exit of (potential) BRs; develop guidelines for policy and legislation on BRs Through activities within the framework of regional and thematic networks Develop guidelines regarding a particular theme (e.g. ecosystem management for particular ecosystems) Through specific projects in countries (involving one or multiple BRs and country or countries) Develop guidelines for zonation of specific BR; Promote zonation as tool for land use planning 47 Standard setter, clearing house, capacity builder, catalyst of international cooperation, laboratory of ideas. 48 Roughly the BR or country (or even subregional) level, the regional and thematic network level, the global level. 78

89 Clearing house Laboratory of ideas Catalyst of international cooperation Capacity builder Collect, analyze and disseminate data on the WNBR; develop and implement a (targeted) communication strategy on BRs (using a variety of information channels, such as a high-quality website, publications, social media); synthesize research findings from innovative projects Conduct and/or facilitate (interdisciplinary) research at global level on key selected topics; develop flagship global publication(s) Organize global conferences; raise funds for global, regional and national activities; strengthen the policy-research nexus at a global level; develop partnerships with key academic partners Organize courses with global coverage; Strengthening the institutional presence of the WNBR Facilitate exchange of good practices; promote replication of successful ideas and activities Develop/facilitate joint (interdisciplinary) research activities in a particular region Facilitate and coordinate network meetings and activities; raise funds for networks; facilitate partnerships on research, education, sustainable development activities; facilitate the institutionalization of (regional) networks Organize courses on specific topics for network members Organize seminars for different stakeholders at the level of a BR; collecting and disseminating (different types of) knowledge to different types of stakeholders Facilitate and conduct (interdisciplinary) research on specific (innovative) topics; develop pilot projects with strategies for dissemination and replication Facilitate study visits and exchanges between BRs; engage in conflict resolution and liaising with national political actors (e.g. in transboundary BRs); facilitate partnerships between different types of stakeholders (academia, communities, policymakers) Organize training courses for BR managers; provide specialized technical assistance to BRs Table 6 Tentative ratings of types of activities regarding their (relative) priority and level of achievement Through specific Through global projects in countries Through regional and comprehensive (involving one or thematic networks activities multiple BRs and country or countries) Standard setter and policy advisor Rating HP HA HP MA Code (Fig 1) Rating Code (Fig 1) Rating A, a MP MA F MP LA K Clearing house HP LA B HP MA G LP LA L Laboratory of ideas HP LA C HP MA H HP MA M Catalyst of international cooperation HP MA D MP MA I MP MA N Capacity builder MP LA E MP MA J LP LA O Code (Fig 1) The prioritization matrix (Figure 69) shows the strategic position of the different types of activities on the basis of the two variables, priority and achievement. 79

90 Figure 69 Prioritization matrix of the MAB Secretariat's activities Ideally, the Secretariat s activities should be positioned as much as possible in the upper right quadrant (high priority and high achievement). Currently, the standard setting functions of the Secretariat (e.g. guidelines, activities concerning the entry and exit of BRs) at the global level are positioned there. 49 There is a substantial group of high priority activities with moderate levels of achievement. These should deserve more attention from the Secretariat in the future. The immediate focus should be on the lower right quadrant (high priority and low achievement). The MAB Secretariat s role as a clearing house and laboratory of ideas at the global (WNBR) level needs to be strengthened, which requires a significant increase in attention and human and financial resources. This is all the more important given the fact that these activities cannot but be undertaken (coordinated, managed, implemented) by the MAB Secretariat. By contrast, all the activities in the centre quadrants and in the lower left quadrants are of a lower priority. The allocation of financial and human resources should reflect these priorities. To conclude, the above tentative assessment should constitute an invitation for further strategic reflection, where necessary refining some of the content, and eventually providing the basis for an applied prioritization exercise with strategic, organizational, financial and human resource allocation implications. 49 The actual monitoring function of the WNBR by the MAB Secretariat, i.e. collecting and processing information on key indicators at the level of the population of BRs, is quite weak. We have categorized this function as being part of the clearing house function. 80