Launched in 1971 as an intergovernmental programme by UNESCO, the origins of the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MaB) go back to 1968, when the
‘Intergovernmental Conference of Experts on the Scientific Basis for the Rational Use and Conservation of the Resources of the Biosphere’ (shortened to ‘The Bio-sphere Conference’) was organised in collaboration with the Food and Agricul-ture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and IUCN.
The concept of Biosphere Reserves (BR) also appeared in 1971, when the idea was formalised of establishing a World Network of Biosphere Reserves as places where conservation and research would be combined. In accordance with the MaB Statutory Framework, BRs are defined as ‘areas of terrestrial and coastal ec-osystems or a combination thereof, which are internationally recognised within the framework of UNESCO’s programme on Man and Biosphere (MaB)’31. In contrast to the Word Heritage system, no Convention has been created in connection with MaB: in fact, the Statutory Framework adopted in combina-tion with the Seville Strategy in 1995 serves to define BRs’ guiding principles and ultimate goals. The concept of a World Network of Biosphere Reserves has been defined in order to enhance the effectiveness of individual BRs and to strengthen co-operation, understanding and communication at the regional and global level32.
During the first years of the Programme’s existence, proposed BRs largely corre-sponded to pre-existing protected areas, and the initial interpretation of MaB was primarily focused on conservation (mostly of genetic resources and biological diversity). In 1995, at the Seville Conference, a complete revision of MaB and its operational mechanisms was carried out: the adoption of the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework for the World Network marked a dividing line between the Programme’s first and second generations.
29 As recently reiterated by Mr Bandarin, World Heritage Centre Director, on the occasion of the meeting of repre-sentatives of Italian World Heritage cities (Florence, 2008).
30 Serial sites are those which link together various ‘core areas’ (which may be located in different countries) with-in the same designation. An with-interestwith-ing example is given by the transboundary with-initiative, currently with-in prepara-tion, to promote a network of serial mountain heritage sites in the Alps.
31 See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/, checked 8 April 2011.
32 The operation of the global Network is supported by regional and/or thematic networks such as AfriMAB, Arab-MAB, CYTED, EABRN, EuroArab-MAB, IberoArab-MAB, PacArab-MAB, REDBIOS, eaBRnet and SACAM, working mostly with the UNESCO Regional Offi ces.
35
Following the adoption of the Strategy, more attention has been paid to the two other core BR functions: fostering development and providing logistical support.
‘Biosphere Reserves are not just protected areas’ became the new slogan, signal-ling a need to put more emphasis on the ‘buffer zone’ and ‘transition zone’ ele-ments of the BR concept, and not to focus purely on the ‘core zone’33.Fostering economic and human development in ways that are socio-culturally and eco-logically sustainable became as important as identifying areas exclusively for na-ture conservation. The ‘logistics’ function refers to the provision of support for demonstration projects, environmental education and training, research and monitoring related to issues of local, regional, national and global importance.
Ultimately, BRs are designated as ‘learning sites’, which embody science’s origi-nal role in driving management innovations (Fall and Andrian, 2004).
In a process broadly equivalent to that for World Heritage sites (Fig. 1.4), UNESCO Member States propose potential BR territories (step 3): there is no particular time-frame within which proposals should be received by the MaB Secretariat (step 4).
Fig. 1.4 The MaB process for Biosphere Reserve designation.
Less well-known than the World Heritage Convention, the MaB Programme nonetheless represents a significant platform for activities concerning designated areas. The number of Biosphere Reserves has grown constantly, reaching 564 sites in 109 countries by 201034.
An increasingly important element of the work of UNESCO and its Ecological and Earth Sciences Division, which hosts the MaB Secretariat, involves co-ordinating its activities with those of MEAs and their Secretariats –within the five
33 Core, buffer and transition, the three components of BR zoning, convey a decreasing degree of formal protection.
34 See www.unesco.org/mab.
36
biodiversity-related Conventions, in particular– in order to ensure greater com-plementarities and synergies35.
The existence of two different UNESCO designations poses its own challenges for creating synergies. For example, the World Heritage site and Biosphere Re-serve systems each has a separate reporting mechanism, even though the same organisation is ultimately responsible for both. Several internal and external rea-sons have prevented a more substantial co-operation between the two Secretari-ats: On the internal (UNESCO) side, the fact that the MaB Secretariat depends on the ‘Science’ sector while the WHC is affiliated to the ‘Culture’ sector results in formal difficulties in developing joint initiatives36. Externally, there is often a lack of coherence in addressing UNESCO’s various governing bodies; for example, the activities related to the World Heritage Convention are often given more po-litical attention and financial support.
Conclusions
The brief overview provided in this paper highlights the importance of both the conceptual and operational framework provided by UNESCO to the internation-al community; for example, the inclusion of specific ‘naturinternation-al’ and ‘culturinternation-al’ crite-ria in the World Heritage Convention Operation Guidelines has contributed worldwide to fostering a proper consideration of these issues in the planning process of designated sites. The high international visibility of the UNESCO des-ignated sites does not in itself guarantee better protection, but it certainly contrib-utes to keeping the focus of the various stakeholders on the effective manage-ment of the inscribed sites. In the case of both World Heritage sites and Biosphere Reserves, the periodic reporting mechanism encourages Member States to pro-vide continuity in managing the ‘uniqueness’ that was initially inscribed.
Developing concepts, administrative frameworks and policy mandates through a body like UNESCO provides a political personality and source of authority for action by the international community; it also enhances negotiation between governments by providing a context that spotlights how issues can be scaled up from the local to the international level (Pocock, 1997).
In addition, the capacity provided by UNESCO for pulling together intellectual resources and activating well-structured and widespread operational mecha-nisms, guidance and governing frameworks (mainly in the form of conventions and treaties) shows an example of how multilateral systems can be efficient and effective in fostering good environmental governance (Musitelli, 2003).
35 As well as the World Heritage Convention, these are the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992); the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973); the Conven-tion on the ConservaConven-tion of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn ConvenConven-tion, 1979); and the Con-vention on Wetlands (Ramsar, 1971).
36 Despite constant attempts to encourage more collaboration and inter-sectoral activities, the existence of dif-ferent administrative compartments in the respective UNESCO sectors tends to discourage co-operation.
37
The specific role of UNESCO and its designated sites offers opportunities for the mutual reinforcement of the role of the Ramsar Convention in respect of wet-lands of international importance. Further co-ordination –e.g. through joint re-porting and assessments– could reduce the workload of the Contracting Parties and improve the international protection regimes concerned.
Table 1.3 Ramsar sites and World Heritage properties in Mediterranean countries.
A List of Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance that are also inscribed (all or partly) on the World Heritage List under the UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
An asterisk (*) denotes World Heritage Sites that are not fully contiguous with the Ramsar site.
The following points should be noted:
– All 25 Mediterranean countries have Ramsar sites (362 in total).
– Only eight of these 362 sites have been designated a World Heritage Property.
– Of these eight World Heritage Properties, four are designated for nature, three for culture and only one for both nature and culture.
– No new wetland site in the Mediterranean has been designated a World Heritage Property in the past twenty years.
State Ramsar Site World Heritage Property Albania Butrint, 2003 Butrint, 1992, 1999, Cultural site
Criteria: Testimony to cultural tradition Ref: 570bis
Algeria La Vallée d’Iherir, 2001
Tassili n’Ajjer, 1982*, Cultural and natural site Criteria: Human creative genius; Testimony to cultural tradition; Natural phenomena or beauty; Major stages of Earth’s history
Ref: 179
Bulgaria Srébarna, 1975 Srébarna Nature Reserve, 1983, Natural site Criteria: Significant natural habitat for biodiversity Ref: 219bis
France Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 1994
Mont Saint-Michel and its Bay, 1979, Cultural site
Criteria: Human creative genius; Testimony to cultural tra di-tion; Heritage associated with events of universal significance Ref: 80bis
Lebanon Tyre Beach, 1999
Tyre, 1984*, Cultural site
Criteria: Testimony to cultural tradition; Heritage associ-ated with events of universal significance
Ref: 299 Slovenia Škocjanske jame
[Škocjan Caves], 1999
Škocjan Caves, 1986, Natural site
Criteria: Natural phenomena or beauty; Major stages of Earth’s history
Ref: 390 Spain Parque Nacional
de Doñana, 1982
Doñana National Park, 1994, Natural site
Criteria: Natural phenomena or beauty; Significant ecologi-cal processes; Significant natural habitat for biodiversity Ref: 685bis
Tunisia Ichkeul, 1980 Ichkeul National Park, 1980, Natural site Criteria: Significant natural habitat for biodiversity Ref: 8
38
The ideas and idealsunderpinning the founding principles of UNESCO are an important basis for international co-operation on values-based integrated ap-proaches to the management of some of the world’s most important sites.
References
Andrian, G. (2006), Joining cultural and natural heritage along the Green Belt, in The Green Belt of Europe. From Vision to Reality, ed. Terry A. et al., Gland: IUCN.
Castoriadis, C. (1984), Crossroads in the Labyrinth, Hassocks: Harvester Press.
Fall, J. and Andrian, G. (2004), Experiment and adjust: tracing changes in the defi nition of boundaries in biosphere reserves, Gazzetta Ambiente, 4, 25-29.
Gaudry, K.H. (2007), Protected Areas Initiatives and Local Governments: Interpreting Discours-es and Development, Masters thDiscours-esis prDiscours-esented at the Faculty of ForDiscours-estry and Environmental Sci-ences, University of Freiburg, Germany.
Mayor, F. (1997), UNESCO, An Ideal in Action. The Continuing Relevance of a Visionary Text, Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Mason, R. (2002), Assessing values in conservation planning: methodological issues and choic-es, in Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, ed. De La Torre, Research Report, Los Angeles:
The Getty Conservation Institute.
Musitelli, J. (2003), World heritage, between universalism and globalization, International Jour-nal of Cultural Property, 11 (2), 323-336.
Pocock, D. (1997), Some refl ections on world heritage, Area, 29 (3), 260-268.
UNESCO (1972), Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Herit-age, adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session, Paris, 16 November 1972, http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext, checked 8 April 2011.
UNESCO (2007), UNESCO Biosphere reserves: model regions with a global reputation, UNESCO Today (2), Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2007), World Heritage. Challenges for the Millennium, Paris: World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO (2008), Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Con-vention, Paris: World Heritage Centre.
39