UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

Transcription

1 SC-17/CONF.229/ 6 Paris, 1 May 2017 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION Meeting of the International Co-ordinating Council (ICC) of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room IV (FONTENOY Building) June 2017 Item 7 of Provisional Agenda: Implementation of the Exit Strategy 1. In May 2013, the MAB International Co-ordinating Council adopted the exit strategy (see annex 2). The purpose of the exit strategy is to improve the credibility and the quality of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and to help Member States to meet the required standards for their biosphere reserve to become fully functional in conformity with the criteria of the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves and the Pamplona recommendations for transboundary sites. The exit strategy concerned 270 sites in 75 countries when adopted in 2013, including 4 transboundary sites. Five withdrawals of sites by two countries (UK and Austria) took place since the adoption of the exit strategy. 2. Under the guidance of the MAB Council, the Secretariat implemented all the three steps of the exit strategy (para 65. b) of the exit strategy) with all actions required, by sending the first letters in October The duration of the exit strategy was set to 30 months since the periodic review process started (para 65. g of the exit strategy). 3. At its 28 th session in Lima, Peru, in March 2016, the MAB Council agreed that countries and sites which submitted their reports in 2015, by the deadline and for which the recommendations indicate that they are still not meeting the criteria would have until 30 September 2016 at the latest to address and reply to recommendations made by the MAB Council at its 2016 session. The MAB Bureau at its meeting in September 2016 further requested the Secretariat to be in contact with the Member States concerned to ensure that information be provided for the Advisory Committee examination, at its meeting in January Consequently, the Advisory Committee examined reports and the follow-up information received at its last meeting, which took place in Paris from 23 to 26 January 2017 (184 reports in total including 134 reports as implementation of the exit strategy). 5. Upon instruction by the MAB Bureau, the MAB Secretariat compiled synthesis of information received for all sites concerned by the exit strategy as of May 2013 (270 sites in 75 countries) and presented this data in a table with results provided region by region to the MAB Bureau at its March 2017 meeting (document Rev SC-17/CONF.228C/Bureau.5, 3 March 2017).). To facilitate the discussions of the MAB Bureau and based on previous practices of the MAB Council during examination of periodic review and follow-up recommendations, a color code was used. The color code was as follows: green color for sites that do meet the criteria; red color for sites that do not meet the criteria; blue color for sites that were requested to send additional information by 15 th of May 2017; white color for sites which did not send any report, pink color for sites that self-withdrawn or are recommended to withdraw from the WNBR.

2 SC-17/CONF.229/6 page 2 6. This color table was annexed to the document for review by the MAB Bureau. In the comments column, further information was provided for sites which did not reply and/or requested a delay to submit the report (white color), for sites for which the recommendations indicates that it does not meet the criteria (red color), for sites which were asked to provide further information by 15 May 2017 (blue color). There are 21 recommendations that consider that the site should be withdrawn (including 5 self-withdrawal from Austria, UK already considered by the MAB Council and three sites from the USA which sent a letter indicated that they wish to withdraw from the WNBR last September 2016). The comments column refers to the seven criteria of article 4 of the Statutory Framework (see evaluation grid in Annex 3). 7. The overall response rate has been very high: all countries did send a response as of today. Out of the 270 sites concerned, in March 2017, after the advisory committee meeting, 127 sites were meeting the criteria including 3 transboundary sites fulfilling the Pamplona recommendations. 8. The exit strategy has generated several encouraging results, leading to large number of biosphere reserves improving the zonation, governance and management aspects. Three national workshops were held to discuss the periodic review process and reporting in concerned countries (Bulgaria, USA, Russian Federation) as direct action to the implementation of the exit strategy as well as one capacity building workshop (Democratic Republic of Congo). Several technical missions at the request of Members States were held with support from the UNESCO MAB Secretariat and Field Offices (Algeria, Bulgaria, Cameroun, Congo, Gabon, Greece, Russian Federation, Serbia, Tunisia, USA). A technical mission is scheduled before the next MAB Council (Rwanda). 9. The main reasons for not meeting the criteria are because of zonation (Article 4 criteria 5) and governance (Article 4 criteria 6) issues. Several sites are not meeting the statutory framework criteria of Article 4 due to a combination of several criteria not operational. 10. The MAB Bureau requested the Secretariat to present some reflection on how the World Network of Biosphere Reserves could support the sites that are not meeting the criteria or have difficulties in reporting the results of their periodic review process. Some preliminary suggestions were presented below, that would need to be further discussed at the MAB Council meeting: a) Organizing specific technical workshops targeting the difficulties such as zonation and governance. Host countries should cover the costs of such workshops. Such workshops could also be systematically be organized and facilitated at the regional networks meetings (such as the EuroMAB Network with a support desk workshop being organized for new biosphere reserve proposals and periodic review reports); b) Encouraging eligible UNESCO National Commissions and MAB national Committees to apply for financial support through the UNESCO Participation Programme; c) Requesting existing UNESCO Chairs and Centers (such as ERAIFT, the MAB Chair in France, UNESCO Centre in Spain) to provide courses and training facilities to requesting sites and countries; d) Mobilizing the existing expertise and human resources for technical and support missions, including inviting experts of the International Advisory Committee (active and from previous mandate), other biosphere reserves staff, the UNESCO Secretariat and UNESCO field Offices; whenever possible the costs of travel and lodging should be supported by the host countries, with support from UNESCO, and no fees should be provided as per common practice in the MAB Programme; e) Using the operational guidelines (in process) to share typical issues faced by biosphere reserves and solutions, using the diversity of the WNBR; f) Using peer periodic review support. A biosphere reserve that meets the criteria can support and guide a site that is having difficulties to undertake the periodic review report and meeting the criteria. This peer process should be done on a voluntary basis. g) Member States could be invited to contribute to donate on the MAB Fund to support some of the activities mentioned above, in order for the World Network to be used as a powerful

3 SC-17/CONF.229/6 page 3 tool for enhancing the credibility and quality of its sites and for demonstrating cooperation and solidarity in action. 11. The Bureau indicated that the peer support was crucial and enhancing the World Network. It also suggested that for the sites that are not meeting the criteria to clearly identify if the issues are linked to time, logistics, means, methodological and technical aspects, and to try to address the issues with the solutions presented in the above paragraphs. The possibility to establish a help desk for example, within the Secretariat - was mentioned. 12. The Bureau asked the Secretariat to prepare for the MAB Council data and graphics such as the ones presented to highlight the positive effects and results, and possibly to present these by regions. The Bureau also asked that the data be presented at the deadline of the Exit strategy of December 2015 (where all requested reports were to be submitted) and at the date of 15 May 2017 (deadline set-up by the Advisory Committee at its last meeting to receive additional information by Member states to be considered by the MAB Council in June 2017), so as to reflect the 18 months additional time provided for countries to improve their sites. 13. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to compile data in a table so the MAB Council can take its decision in June 2017, for countries requesting time extension for submitting a report, sites not meeting the criteria, sites which did not respond, as well as the specific case of sites in conflict zones. This data is compiled in the table of annex 1 of this document. 14. The Bureau requested that the Secretariat sends a letter to concerned countries, with copy to the Vice-Chair of the Bureau concerned, recalling the final recommendation of the MAB Council as well as the 2017 Advisory Committee recommendations for the sites not meeting the criteria and to remind the Member State of the Exit strategy process, including the possibility of self withdrawal. It was further decided that members of the Bureau would directly contact countries who did not send any reply to make sure they are made aware of the Council decision on this item in June The Secretariat will also contact the permanent delegations of the concerned countries in this regard. 15. The MAB Bureau stated that it was important to implement this exit strategy and pursue it as a quality assurance process and proposed the following decisions to be considered by the MAB Council : a) The MAB Council considers separately the biosphere reserves under conflicts (2 countries, 3 sites). These sites would remain in the WNBR as long as these sites are located in conflicts zones. These sites should not be obliged to send a report. In the given circumstances the sites will be therefore excluded from the Exit strategy. b) Concerning transboundary biosphere reserves, due to the more complex work to fulfill both the criteria of the statutory framework and Pamplona recommendations, the MAB Council gives to the concerned countries an extended deadline for submitting the missing national reports by 30 September 2017, so that the MAB Council can make its decision in the 2018 session. c) As regards the sites not meeting the criteria, the MAB Council decides that if the site does not meet the criteria by 15 May 2017, it will no longer be referred to as a biosphere reserve

4 SC-17/CONF.229/6 page 4 as a part of the World Network with the effective date of the MAB Council session of The MAB Council will invite the Member State to submit a new biosphere reserve nomination form in conformity with the Statutory Framework of the WNBR at its earliest convenience and before the 30 September 2018 latest, to avoid its removal from the World Network by the 2019 effective date. Sites for which the MAB Council made a specific recommendation with a clear deadline after 15 May 2017 are not concerned by this decision as long as they provide the information requested in the deadline decided by the Council, and that such information is sufficient for the Advisory Committee to recommend that the site meets the criteria. d) The MAB Council establishes a deadline for submission of the periodic review report, with a maximum of one year extension to submit the periodic review report once the statutory report request has been sent by the Secretariat (report to be submitted by 30 September). In the cases that the report has not been submitted after this additional one year extension period (by 30 th September + one year), that the first recommendation issued by the MAB Council is indicating that the site is not meeting the criteria, and that the second recommendation made by the MAB Council indicates that the site is still not meeting the criteria, then the area will no longer be referred to as biosphere reserve of the WNBR. In specific cases, this deadline could be flexible upon an advice of the Advisory Committee. e) The MAB Council reflects on an alert process for sites having difficulties, and thus on the criteria and mechanisms to be considered.

5 SC-17/CONF.229/6 page 5 Annexes Annex 1: List of countries and sites not meeting the criteria, requesting time extension, not responding, as well as the specific case of sites in conflict zones Annex 2: Exit strategy, extract from the MAB Council 2013 final report Annex 3: Evaluation Grid Article 4 of the statutory framework