SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONInternational Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme
Twenty-sixth session
Jönköping, East Vättern Scarp Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden
10 - 13 June 2014
FINAL REPORTThe Secretariat of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) does
not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other informationor documentation provided by States to the Secretariat of UNESCO.
The publication of any such advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation on
UNESCO’s website and/or on working documents also does not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory,
city or area or of its boundaries.

I.

Introduction and Opening by the outgoing Chair of the MAB International
Coordinating Council

1.

The twenty-sixth session of the International Coordinating Council (ICC) of the Man and the
Biosphere (MAB) Programme was held in Jönköping, East Vättern Scarp Landscape
Biosphere Reserve, Sweden, from 10 to 13 June 2014.

2.

A total of 140 participants included representatives of the following Members of the ICC aselected by the UNESCO General Conference at its 36th and 37th sessions: Algeria, Arab
Republic of Egypt, Burkina Faso, Chile, Cote d’Ivoire, Estonia, France, Germany, Ghana,
Haiti, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Republicof Korea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand,
Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United Republic of
Tanzania.

3.

Observers from the following Member States were present: Albania, Argentina, Austria,
Canada, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Italy,
Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Peru, Serbia, Switzerland, The former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, and United States of America.

4.

Representatives from the Scientific Committee on Problems of Environment (SCOPE), theStockholm Resilience Center and Terra-Sana Environmental Consulting were present.

5.

The full list of participants is presented as annex 1 to this report.

6.

Prof Boshra Salem, the outgoing Chair of the MAB Council, officially opened the meeting.
She welcomed all members of the MAB Council and Observer delegations. She thanked
the host country Sweden, the Swedish National Commission for UNESCO, the University of
Jönköping and the team from the East Vättern Scarp Landscape Biosphere Reserve for
their warm welcome. She acknowledged that their efforts would contribute to the success ofthe meeting.
1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
II.

Opening Remarks

7.

Mr Magnus Kindbom, Swedish State Secretary for Rural Affairs, welcomed all thedelegates. He informed participants that Jönköping is the tenth largest municipality in
Sweden. He mentioned that Jönköping has many nature reserves and most of its forests
are protected. These forests are models of how one can live with and from natural
resources without depleting them. He added that historically these forests were a source forthe production of raw materials. He informed that during the past decade Sweden has
established five biosphere reserves which are in good compliance to the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and the Seville Strategy.

8.

He added that creating opportunities for the youth and engaging them to shape their future
is central to the goals of the East Vättern Scarp Landscape Biosphere Reserve. In view ofthis, initiatives with a focus on education like nature schools and incorporation of thebiosphere reserve concept and sustainability in education have been launched. In closing,
he wished participants a successful meeting.

9.

Ms Anita Hansbo, the Vice Chancellor of Jönköping University, also welcomed participants
to the University of Jönköping. She informed participants that the university prepares its
students as global citizens to enable them develop conditions for cooperation andunderstanding between nations and also to help solve global future challenges andproblems. She added that these visions go hand in hand with what UNESCO stands for andwas pleased that the University had been chosen as the venue for the Twenty-sixth sessionof the MAB ICC.

10. Three University of Jönköping students made a statement on behalf of the other students
who had volunteered to assist at the MAB ICC. They recalled their experiences as interns
at the East Vättern Scarp Landscape Biosphere Reserve. They added that their experience
had made them realize the importance of conveying the message of sustainability to young
people. In closing, they thanked all participants and wished them a fruitful meeting.
11. The Director-General of UNESCO, Ms Irina Bokova, through a video message welcomed
all participants. She thanked the Swedish MAB National Committee and the Swedish
National Commission for UNESCO for their leadership. She recalled the adoption of the“Exit Strategy” during last year’s MAB ICC and was pleased that this has generated positive
response from many Member States. She also mentioned last year’s decision to develop a
new MAB Strategy based on lessons learnt from the review of the Madrid Action Plan. She
wished participants success in deliberation to craft a new vision for the future of MAB,
including a new research agenda that will contribute to the Future Earth Initiative and theIntergovernmental Sciences Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES). She added that biosphere reserves connect the dots between green societies,
biodiversity, climate change mitigation and sustainable local development. In view of this,the MAB Programme and the WNBR stand at the heart of UNESCO’s contribution tosustainable development and the shaping of an ambitious post-2015 development agenda.
She concluded by wishing participants fruitful deliberations.

2

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
III. Report by outgoing Chair of the MAB International Coordinating Council
12. In her report, Prof. Salem recalled the final evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) for
Biosphere Reserves. She stated that the MAP has been a key document in thedevelopment of the MAB Programme and the World Network of Biosphere Reserves for theperiod 2008-2013. She stressed that she is convinced the MAP evaluation emphasizes thestrength and wisdom contained in the MAP and that it has served the programme andnetwork well.
13. She thanked all MAB National Committees and Focal Points, Biosphere Reserve Managers
and network representatives for their contributions and inputs towards the success of the
MAP evaluation process. She highlighted briefly some of the evaluation results, such as
the evidence that several biosphere reserves function as learning and demonstration sites
and that the majority of biosphere reserves systematically collaborate with different
institutional actors. She added that cooperation, management and communication are
consistently rated as the highest priority action areas for the future.
14. Prof. Salem also talked about the future MAB Strategy. She mentioned in particular that thevolume and quantity of inputs received was impressive after the open invitation sent by the
Secretariat in collaboration with the MAB Bureau and a Reference Group to all MAB
National Committees and Focal Points, through a MAB Circular Letter requesting inputs
and suggestions for the new MAB Strategy.
15. She acknowledged that the international community is faced with challenging issues thatform the basis and rationale for the existence of MAB and the WNBR through a number of
UN conventions, as well as in the context of the elaboration of the Sustainable
Development Goals. In view of this, MAB and WNBR are more than ever challenged todeliver services that make a real difference to Member States and all stakeholders.
16. In terms of partnerships, she informed that MAB is developing or has developed mutually
beneficial links with bodies and international programmes such as IPBES and Future Earth.
She acknowledged the continuous effort of the MAB Programme in reaching out to young
researchers through the MAB Young Scientist Awards. She added that through the Michel
Batisse Award for Biosphere Reserve Management and the Sultan Qaboos Prize forEnvironmental Preservation, MAB recognizes the good efforts of already well-establishedinstitutions, researches and biosphere reserve managers. She informed participants that
the MAB Programme’s outreach and dissemination of information has improved
significantly through the use of MABnet and the social media. She encouraged participants
to use social media such as Facebook and Twitter to communicate good and honest stories
about MAB and the WNBR.
17. In her concluding remarks, she stated that though the future looks challenging there arealso opportunities. Though expectations of MAB and the WNBR are high, she is confident
that by working together the MAB Programme can deliver.

3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
IV. Election of the Chair, Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur
18. The Council elected its bureau as follows:
Chair: Mexico (Mr Sergio Guevara Sada)
Vice-Chairs:•
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Mr Martin Price as Rapporteur)•
Ukraine•Ghana•
Kazakhstan•
Arab Republic of Egypt

V. Adoption of the Agenda
19. A couple of delegates proposed that under agenda item 18, the issue of the selfassessment of the MAB Programme should be discussed. The Council subsequently
adopted the agenda and time table.

VI. Report of the MAB Secretary
20. The Secretary of the MAB Programme, Mr Han Qunli introduced document SC14/CONF.226/4. He highlighted activities undertaken at the regional, national andinternational levels since the 25th Session of the MAB ICC.
21. In broadly highlighting the overall situation of the MAB Programme, he informed participants
about the strong support the Programme has received from Member States, which has
resulted in demonstrating and maintaining its relevance in UNESCO’s new Medium-Term
Strategy (2014-2021). The MAB Programme has been assigned to implement one of the six
Main Lines of Action under the Natural Sciences programme. He informed participants thatthe governing bodies of UNESCO have given ecological sciences and the MAB Programme
about 79% of the total Regular Budget proposed, which has ensured the basis for the
implementation of the MAB Programme. He also mentioned the current staffing situation in
the field offices and at Headquarters.
22. In highlighting the added value of biosphere reserves, the Secretary presented two
examples. The first was the Marais Audomarois Biosphere Reserve in the northern part ofFrance, a very productive wetland recognized under the Ramsar Convention. This
biosphere reserve includes the historical city of Saint Omer and its socio-economic
activities include traditional vegetable production and a highly valued site for leisure andtourism. He also talked about the Gochang Biosphere Reserve located in the south-west of
the Republic of Korea. It is composed of forests and wetlands and it is an important site for
migratory birds. Economic activities in this site include vegetable and fruit farming,
ecotourism and salt production.
23. The Secretary outlined the implementation of some decisions adopted at the 25th session of
the MAB ICC. He informed participants that the Exit Strategy has been initiated and that it
had generated some level of positive response from Member States. He added that thisdemonstrates the willingness of Member States to support the goal of ensuring the4SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
credibility of the MAB Programme and the WNBR. He mentioned the evaluation of the MAP
by UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Service. He assured delegates that an extensive
presentation would be made by the representative from the Internal Oversight Service on
the evaluation results.
24. The Secretary highlighted actions and activities undertaken such as the completion of the
Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands project. This project had run for 10 years
with funding by the Flemish Government of Belgium. Beneficiary countries included: Bolivia,
Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan and Tunisia. He was pleased to
inform participants about the first MAB Category II Center which was officially inaugurated
in April 2014. This center will focus on scientific cooperation between the two shores andbiosphere reserves of the Mediterranean. Other projects mentioned include the BarefootSolar Engineer Programme in the Volcans Biosphere Reserve in Rwanda. This project
concerns the use of renewable energy and solar panels in biosphere reserves in Africa. In
addition, the Secretary talked about the Trifinio Fraternidad Biosphere Reserve which links
El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and is a significant tri-national transboundary
biosphere reserve in Latin America. Due to the relevance of this designation not only toconservation values but also for local economic development for the three countries andcommunities concerned, Germany is providing a 11 million euros package to help promote
this transboundary cooperation.
25. He recalled actions that had been undertaken by the various regional and thematic
networks. Notable among these were the REDBIOS network meeting in Democratic
Republic of Sao Tome and Principe; the AfriMAB meeting in Ghana; EuroMAB meeting in
Canada; EABRN meeting in Mongolia; a training course on Island and Coastal Biosphere
Reserve Management in Jeju Island, Republic of Korea; SeaBRnet meeting in Palawan
Island Biosphere Reserve, Philippines and the SACAM meeting in Islamabad.
26. Several Member States congratulated the MAB Secretariat for the detailed report and thepresentation made by the Secretary. They clearly underscored the need for projects,
especially in relation to capacity building of MAB National Committees and managers ofbiosphere reserves, on the implementation of the new MAB Strategy and the Exit Strategy.
A delegate called for capacity building in the Caribbean to ensure the successful
implementation of the biosphere reserve concept in this region. One delegate requested
that the Secretariat provide contact information on the staff in the UNESCO field offices forthe purpose of collaboration at the field level.
27. The Secretariat was commended for the development of partnerships with organizations
and initiatives such as Springer and Future Earth. One delegate requested that the
Secretariat look into the possibility of negotiating with Springer to give Member States andother stakeholders free access to any publications which might result from an agreementwith Springer.
28. A couple of delegates also talked about the need to support the creation of moretransboundary biosphere reserves. The issue of climate change mitigation was highlighted
by one delegate and the importance of biosphere reserves to work on renewable energy
was mentioned.
29. The Secretary thanked delegates for their comments and questions and also for theircontinued support. He assured delegates that the Secretariat will take on board their5SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
comments and work to address them in particular on the capacity building for the MAB
programme at the national level.

VII. Reports on actions undertaken by Member States/ Regional and thematic MAB
Networks in the context of MAB and discussion on collaborative thematic andresearch projects
30. The Chair of the MAB ICC invited Member States to highlight activities which they had
implemented both at the national, regional and international level since the 25th session of
the MAB ICC. Detailed reports submitted by Member States have been published on the
MABnet and submissions that have been made during this session will be added. Oralpresentations were made by Japan, France, Germany, Egypt, Malaysia, South Africa,
Algeria, Thailand, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republicof Korea, Tanzania, Estonia, Haiti, Burkina Faso, Israel, Mexico, Ghana, USA, Argentina,
Italy, Austria, Canada Indonesia and Switzerland.
31. A number of delegates reported on the preparation of the periodic review reports for theirbiosphere reserves and proposals for new biosphere reserves. Reinforcement of some
MAB National Committees was also mentioned, especially to include collaboration between
biosphere reserve managers and research scientists, in line with the Decade on Educationfor Sustainable Development.
32. Several countries highlighted their activities with regard to their participation in the various
thematic networks and on collaborations with other Member States. Germany reported on
their capacity building workshops held for biosphere reserves from some African Member
States. France reported on joint work with the German MAB National Committee ontransboundary issues. Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland informed participants about the biosphere reserves their respective countries had
withdrawn from the WNBR due to their non-conformity to the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves.
33. Three networks - AfriMAB, EABRN and Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves Network gave overviews of their activities in the past year. They mentioned meetings and training
organized by and for members of the network. AfriMAB also mentioned the sub-regional
project Green Economy in Biosphere Reserves.

VIII. Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP)
34. The UNESCO Internal Oversight Service (IOS) Office introduced the results of the
Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan. The methodology and limitations of the evaluation,some of the key findings and the recommendations were summarized. In addition, IOS
indicated that the draft report of the evaluation is available online and any comments fromdelegates submitted by the end of June will be welcome and will be considered in the
finalization of the report.
35. Following the introduction, delegates asked questions and made comments welcoming thework of IOS in cooperation with the MAB Bureau/Reference Group and the MAB
Secretariat.
6SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
36. Germany stressed that their biosphere reserves appreciate the MAP and often refer to it intheir activities. Noting that it is apparently not always necessarily clear to Member States
what the benefits are of having biosphere reserves and of being part of the WNBR,
Germany inquired about the finding in the MAP evaluation that several biosphere reserves
are disconnected from the WNBR and what the reasons for this could be.
37. The UK commented that the response rate to the MAP survey was not very good, andasked whether it might be possible to look at the responses in conjunction with the
responses to the periodic review in order to see which countries are active and those thatare not. Thanking IOS for their good work, the UK said the evaluation had produced
valuable insights, which would inform development of the new MAB Strategy.
38. Egypt suggested that the regional networks can perhaps help reinforce MAB and biospherereserve in places where their visibility and engagement with processes like the MAP
evaluation are low.
39. Estonia asked if there was a correlation between the age of the biosphere reserves andtheir response rates.
40. Israel commented that the MAP evaluation had resulted in an interesting and timely report
and that it highlighted the need to consider the meaning of the network. Early in the MAB
Programme, the network was more of a collection of sites representative of different
ecosystems, today the WNBR is seen as a network where more active engagement andnetworking is sought.
41. IOS thanked the delegates for their pertinent questions and comments. IOS briefly
commented on the issue of the value of the biosphere reserve designation at the local level
and in terms of being part of a global network. In practice, the two levels reinforce eachother. The other main issue that was raised is that a significant proportion of biospherereserves and national committees are disconnected from the WNBR. IOS had explained inits presentation that there is an association between non-response and not being
connected to the network. There are multiple reasons for non-response, including theimportance of the biosphere reserve designation and/or the WNBR’s activities for aparticular biosphere reserve or MAB National Committee. There is probably also an
association between non-response to the survey and non-compliance with the periodic
review which can be verified. IOS did not look into the question of why some biospherereserves or MAB National Committees are disconnected from the WNBR, this is a questionthat merits further inquiry.
42. IOS in its summary report to the upcoming session of UNESCO’s Executive Board, will
include the following statement:« The MAB ICC in the development of the future action plan for the WNBR and the MAB
Programme, which will emanate from its new strategy 2015-2025, will take into
consideration the recommendations of the evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan. »7

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
IX. MAB and World Network of Biosphere Reserve - post Rio+20 opportunities andtowards a strategy for 2014-2021
43. The MAB Secretariat made a short introduction to document SC-14/CONF.226/7/REV that
contained the ‘zero’ draft of the new MAB strategy together with a suggested timeframe andworking method for its finalization. In the introduction, the MAB Secretariat extended its
appreciation to all those MAB National Committees, Focal Points, regional networks andbiosphere reserves that had made suggestions for strategic elements (all of which areavailable on the MABnet as a reference document for the 26th MAB ICC) that usefully could
be included in the strategy, as well as to the MAB Bureau and the Reference Group for theircollaboration in the preparation of the zero draft strategy.
44. Several delegates and observers took the floor. While encouraged by the richness of thesubmissions made as reflected in the zero draft, members of the Council were conscious of
the need to prepare a short and well-focused strategy complemented by a more detailed
action plan and noted that the zero draft included ample information for both such
documents.
45. Japan emphasized the importance of including sustainable science in the next strategy, andpointed out that (1) the benefit of linking BRs with UNESCO Associated Schools, (2) theneed to make a distinction among BRs, World Heritage Site and Global Geoparks, and (3)the necessity to study how to deal with secondary nature in BR should be also reflected in
the next strategy.
46. France stressed the strong support in submissions towards the continued validity of theSeville Strategy and suggested it could be updated with complementary strategic elements,
such as on ecological transitions of societies, ecosystem services and climate change. In
order to enhance implementation, France stressed the importance of including the periodic
review, branding and networking, transboundary cooperation and partnerships in thestrategy.
47. Germany inquired about the level at which the new strategy would be examined andeventually approved in UNESCO (i.e. MAB ICC, UNESCO Executive Board, General
Conference).
48. Egypt made the point that there has to be a clear and consistent differentiation between thevision and mission statements. Egypt suggested that the action plan could include a column
with the financial resources required for implementing specific actions.
49. Hungary welcomed the proposed working methodology contained in section I of the
document and the fact that the process so far had been transparent. Hungary proposed thatthe time frame for the new strategy usefully could be 2015-2025.
50. The Republic of Korea, while welcoming the zero draft, regretted not having received the
MAB Circular Letter and therefore not being able to make a submission. The Republic ofKorea stressed the importance of enhanced visibility of MAB and the WNBR. The newstrategy should not necessarily contain more than 5-6 strategic elements. Indicators fromBRs could be used to help Member States implement relevant conventions. Research on
sustainable development in BRs should be encouraged.
8SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
51. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland also endorsed the need for a
succinct strategy text backed-up with a more detailed action plan that preferably would be‘populated’ with concrete actions submitted through a bottom-up process. The MAB
Secretariat could perhaps develop a template form to be distributed widely for this purpose.
The UK emphasized the necessity that BRs should be what they are said to be and for the
strategy to be in line with the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021. The UK alsostressed the need for strong research elements and information on and networking among
researchers active in and on BRs, including the social sciences. An international WNBR
Conference in 2016 could perhaps have this as its focus.
52. Germany suggested that the MAB Secretariat could examine existing rosters of experts
established by relevant conventions, programmes and bodies that could include information
on individuals with BR expertise. Germany wondered if the potential partner organizations
identified in the zero draft had been approached for this purpose, and offered to makeconnections with the IPBES, and expressed the wish that the main UNESCO contributions
towards this typically would originate and be anchored at the UNESCO MAB Secretariat.
Germany hoped that the first draft of the new strategy could be shared with all BRs so thatthey could make meaningful contributions.
53. Sweden supported the notion that the vision statement had to focus on what we like to do
and achieve and not on what we are, and that there would be a shorter strategy and a moredetailed action plan. Stressing the importance of an open and transparent process todevelop the strategy, Sweden emphasized the important role of universities and researchand the need to facilitate MAB and WNBR networking among them.
54. Estonia made the point that the strategy and the action plan should be understandable bythose that are expected to implement them. In addition to a strategy and action plan, MAB
should have a set of guidelines on implementation modalities.
55. Israel cautioned that MAB and the WNBR have to focus and cannot address everything foreverybody, and that the WNBR should be true to its original mandate, i.e. that a relevant
vision statement would focus on bottom-up conservation of nature motivated by local
communities´ awareness of the benefits of ecosystem services underpinned by biodiversity.
References to issues like sustainable development and climate change would therefore not
be necessary.
56. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines asked for clarification concerning the relationshipbetween the Seville Strategy and the new strategy, notably if the new strategy would build
on and form an addendum to the Seville Strategy. The new strategy would have to be clear
and concise. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines also wondered how the strategy
development process would be financed, recalling that the MAB budget is so limited.
57. France recalled that during 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) would be
finalized and also hopefully the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 21) in Paris would witness
important decisions. The adoption of a new MAB action plan in 2016 would be an
appropriate schedule.

9SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
58. The USA thanked the MAB Secretariat for the document and appreciated the inputs made,and offered to participate actively in the future strategy development process. The USA
supported the proposal that the strategy could be for the period 2015-2025.
59. Canada appreciated the opportunity to work with EuroMAB on a strategy submission andemphasized the importance of concise vision and mission statements. Canada also
referred to an ongoing discussion in Canada on time-limited BR designations.
60. Côte d'Ivoire appreciated the document, stressing key points that should be well reflected in
the strategy: dialogue and communication; equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use in BRs; legal BR aspects; and sustainable financing.
61. Algeria welcomed the document, stressing that if MAB worked on supporting theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and sustainable development it would remain true
to its initial mandate. Algeria also stressed the importance of providing support to biospherereserves so that they could become true sites of excellence.
62. The MAB Secretary recalled that sustainability science is included in the zero draft and isincluded in the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy, and that it would be good to give further
attention to how to best implement the concept. In terms of level of adoption of the newstrategy, the Secretary stated that the new strategy could be adopted by the MAB ICC thatwould then inform the UNESCO Executive Board about its content. In terms of timing, if the
new strategy is adopted in 2015, it could be envisaged that the new action plan could be
finalized in 2016 at a possible international WNBR conference, allowing for reference to thefinalized SDGs.
63. In terms of potential partners, the Secretary would welcome partnerships with all thoseorganizations included in the zero draft, and mentioned that he already had shared this with
Future Earth for their information and possible feed-back. The Secretary agreed about theimportance of a new MAB research agenda as well as the need for guidelines, or
operational manual. He said the new strategy would build on the Seville Strategy, notreplace or amend it. The Seville Strategy had been adopted for the long-term, the newstrategy, like the MAP, was for the mid-term.
64. In discussing the future process and timeline, the Council supported the proposals
contained in the document suggesting that the MAB Bureau together with 6 experts would
form the Strategy Group. The MAB Secretariat would draft terms of reference for theStrategy Group and for the selection of the 6 experts.
65. It was agreed that the new MAB Strategy should be ready for adoption at the 27th MAB ICC
in 2015. For this purpose, the ICC agreed that following the deliberations at the 26th MAB
ICC on the zero draft strategy, the MAB Secretariat should produce a more condensed draft
which brings together common statements made by the ICC and takes into account thefindings of the evaluation of the MAP and distributes this to the Strategy Group (i.e. MAB
Bureau with 6 Experts).
66. A two-day working meeting will be organized by the MAB Secretariat in October-November
2014 in order to prepare the first draft of the new strategy that should be widely circulated
for consultation and comment in November-December 2014. Subsequently, an iterative
process, which will take place through electronic communication, including through the10SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
MABnet, to engage all MAB stakeholders, including the regional and thematic networks, willproduce several drafts. The almost-final version of the strategy should be ready in time forfinal review and adoption at the 27th session of the MAB ICC.
67. The Secretary noted that the MAB budget included limited but sufficient funds for thispurpose.

X. Proposal for new biosphere reserves and the extensions/modifications to biospherereserves that are part of the WNBR
68. Some discussions took place during this agenda item. Several delegates pointed out
certain discrepancies between recommendations made by the Advisory Committee and the
Bureau and comments and inputs were made with regard to the process of evaluating
proposals.
69. The procedure of approving proposals and the meaning of each type of recommendation
was clarified. The Secretary of the MAB programme explained that a deferral was not anegative decision but it is rather an opportunity for the country to improve their proposal inline with the technical recommendations. It was also recalled that the Bureau (which iselected by the Council) as well as the Advisory Committee provide recommendations to theCouncil which then take final decisions. Some delegates commended the professionalism,
the expertise and dedication of the members of the Advisory Committee who thoroughly
review all proposals on a tight schedule.
70. While it was recognized that the Bureau has authority to make recommendations which canbe in contradiction with those of the Advisory Committee, it was proposed that in suchcases, the Bureau should inform the concerned country before announcing therecommendation to the Council. Therefore it was proposed that the timeframe of futuresessions of the Bureau and Council be modified, so that the Bureau may examine
proposals prior to the Council meeting and any recommendations of the Bureau that are
different from those of the Advisory Committee will be included in the documents to beprovided to the Council. Some countries raised the issue of the short deadlines between thetime the Secretariat notifies them of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee andthe deadline for submission of the requested information for the next session of the ICC. It
was also stressed that additional information provided beyond the deadline stated in letterssent by the Secretariat, and especially during the Council session, will not be considered by
the Bureau or the Council. As countries often need more time to respond to therecommendations of the Advisory Committee, it was proposed that it should meet as soon
as possible after the deadline for countries to submit proposals (30 September). With
regard to the request from some delegates to access nomination and periodic review files
online, other delegates said that it might be difficult for some delegations to have access tothem due to the huge amount of documents involved. Other delegates proposed that, atfuture sessions of the Council, the Secretariat should provide computers containing all
proposals and periodic reviews, as well as hard copies, for delegates to consult.
71. Taking into account the recommendations of the Advisory Committee for Biosphere
Reserves (17 to 20 March 2014) and the Council’s further deliberations thereon on 10 to 12
June, the Council took the following decisions concerning approval and deferral of new11

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
proposals as well as approval of a selected number of extensions and name changes tobiosphere reserves that are already part of the WNBR:

Nominations approved
72. Valdés (Argentina). The Council took note of this nomination from Argentina. The
proposed site encompasses the Patagonian Steppe, Hill Plains and Plateaus and Argentine
Sea eco-regions. It is home to significant biodiversity, including highly fragile terrestrial andmarine ecosystems, the conservation of which is crucial for addressing the vulnerabilities ofkey species. Both the Patagonian steppe eco-region and the Argentine Sea have beenrecognized as important sites and inscribed on WWF’s Global 200 list. The marine coastal
areas are suitable habitats for the feeding and reproduction of many bird and marine
mammal species. Particular bodies of water, such as the Golfo Nuevo and San José,
function as crucial sites for the reproduction of species like the southern right whale(Eubalaena australis).
73. The Valdés Biosphere Reserve will incorporate the Peninsula Valdés Natural Protected
Area, designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1999; San Jose and Playa Fracaso,
nominated Ramsar sites in 2012; the El Doradillo municipal protected area and the naturalprotected areas of Punta Loma and Punta León. According to the 2010 National Census,
214,196 inhabitants in the Viedma and Rawson departments will benefit from the creationof this biosphere reserve. The most important economic activities in the region are livestock
rearing, tourism, fisheries, industry (aluminium, porphyry), the port and, more recently, wind
power generation.
74. The Advisory Committee had pointed out that there was no marine transition area and only
a very small terrestrial transition area. The Advisory Committee had further noted that there
was no clear composition of the management council for the biosphere reserve. Lastly, theAdvisory Committee had noted that only a small-scale map of the biosphere reserve had
been provided.
75. The council examined the additional information provided by the national authorities withregard to the zonation and the composition of the management council. The Council also
acknowledged the submission of a larger scale map by the national authorities. The Council
concluded that the information provided was satisfactory and approved the site.
76. Mt. Chilbo (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). The Council took note of this sitewhich covers a total surface area of 50,340 ha consisting of 2,930ha as core area,
26,500ha as buffer zone and 20,910ha as transition area. The site was formed in theeastern coast of the Korea Peninsula by fault movement and volcanic eruption during theperiod of the late Neogene and the early Quaternary. It is of great significance inbiodiversity conservation for its distribution of 16 species of plants endemic to Korea and 30
species of nationally and globally threatened plants and animals. This site is described as avery important storehouse of genetic diversity with 132 species of medical herbs, 67
species of wild vegetables, 16 species of wild fruits, and notably a specialty mushroom
Tricholoma matsutake (pine mushroom, highly priced due to its distinct spicy-aromaticodour) which is of great economic and scientific value.

12SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
77. Tourism in the buffer zone and agriculture and fishery in the transition area are the maineconomic activities in the proposed biosphere reserve. It has 160 tourist attraction sites andhas a developed infrastructure for tourism and handles myriad visitors every year. The
site’s potential to develop and implement an ecotourism industry is mentioned in thenomination file. Many historical remains and relics have been well preserved in the site: forexample, Kaesim temple built in 826 and about 11 natural monuments. It is envisaged that
this and other assets which attract people to the site will help it fully implement the functionof logistic support through the promotion of public awareness on biodiversity conservationand sustainable development. It is reported that plans are underway to create ademonstration site for conservation and suitable development in the transition area andorganize regular field training and lectures for land management staff.
78. Local community and public authorities’ participation is described. However, no cultural andsocial impact assessment has been conducted yet. The Council noted that no management
policy or plan for the biosphere reserve has been established. The Council approved thesite and recommended that a proposed management plan for the biosphere reserve be
developed and submitted one year from the notification of approval.
79. Bosque Seco (Ecuador). The Council welcomed the proposed biosphere reserve by
Ecuador. The area is located in south-western Ecuador, and covers approximately
501,040ha of which 317,600ha comprises dry forests and scrub similar to that of the
Noroeste Biosphere Reserve in Peru. The dry forests located within the proposed
biosphere reserve are the most extensive and best preserved in the country. Their rarity
makes them a conservation priority as 97% of dry forest ecosystems are on the verge ofextinction. The proposed biosphere reserve is also home to one of the highest
concentrations of endemic birds in South America. Fifty-one species have been identified inaddition to fifteen endemic species of trees and shrubs, and three endemic species ofmammals. The area has been classified as the Tumbesino Endemism Centre and forms
part of the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena biodiversity hotspot. It also includes a significant
population of flagship species, such as the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) andmantled howler (Alouatta palliata).
80. The proposed area covers eight counties in the provinces of Loja and El Oro, inhabited by
106,000 people. The main economic activities are livestock rearing and agriculture (coffee,
fruit and corn). Numerous manifestations of culture and identity are expressed throughregional productive systems (e.g. bordered systems, livestock management andalbarradas) and local crafts. The area also encompasses more than 100 heritage sites,
including the Puyango Petrified Forest – the largest of its kind in the world – and the city of
Catacocha, an Ecuadorian national heritage site. The proposed biosphere reserve would
guarantee ecosystem services of water regulation for the Catamayo-Chira and Puyango
Tumbes bi-national basins.
81. The Council concluded that this proposal meets the criteria for biosphere reserves andapproved the site. The Council stated that there is a great potential to create atransboundary biosphere reserve with Peru.
82. Mont-Viso Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (France/Italy). The Council
acknowledged the receipt of the signed political agreement between the two countries toestablish the Mont-Viso transboundary biosphere reserve, as a follow up of therecommendation of the 25th session of the MAB ICC.
13

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
83. The Council approved the site and recommended that this proposal be used as a model fortransboundary biosphere reserve proposals.
84. Minami-Alps (Japan). The total surface area for this site is 302,474ha consisting of 24,970
ha as core area, 72,389 ha as buffer zone and 205,115 ha as transition area. This site isformed from the Mountain area, enclosed on two sides by the south-flowing Fuji and Tenryu
Rivers.
85. It includes the Koma Mountains, the Akaishi Mountains (hereafter termed the “Minami
Alps”) and the Ina Mountains. Recorded plants growing at altitudes above 800 meters in the
Minami Alps include 138 families and 1,635 species of tracheophytes, 51 families and 248
species of mosses, and 15 families and 98 species of lichens. The flora of the Minami Alpsis characterized by a relict distribution of plants that migrated south along the Japanesearchipelago in the Ice Age when it was connected by land to the continent. The fauna in thisarea include 15 families and 39 species of mammals, 35 families and 102 species of birds,
4 families and 9 species of reptiles, 4 families and 9 species of amphibians, 4 families and
10 species of fish, 16 families and 45 species of shellfish, and 179 families and 2,871
species of insects.
86. The great mountains, which are the main attraction of the Minami Alps, have hinderedinteractions among the areas in the Minami-Alps foothills, and so, as a shared asset ofthese mountains, interactions among the regions will be expanded, protection andsustainable use of this superb natural environment will be fostered jointly, and an attractive
region will be created which draws on the natural beauty of the Minami Alps.
87. The Council acknowledged the good quality of the proposal. The Council approved the siteand encouraged the national authorities to elaborate sustainable development programmes
in order to enhance the objectives of the biosphere reserve.
88. Ak-Zhayik (Kazakhstan). The Council welcomed this nomination from Kazakhstan. The
proposed site mainly occupies wetlands of the Ural River delta and adjacent territories
along the Caspian Sea coast, which are located on one of the largest bird migration routes,
stretching from Eurasia across the Caspian and Black Seas to Eastern Africa. The total
area is 396,346ha consisting of 36,577ha as core area, 129,769ha as buffer zone and230,000ha as transition area. The proposed area is included in the Ramsar Convention's
List of wetlands of international importance and is a concentration site for more than 240
migrating bird species, about 110 of which are waterbirds, including 18 specially protected
species. Besides, this area is a nesting site for about 70 waterbirds, eight of which are
specially protected natural objects. It is also a haven for a rare bird – Dalmatian Pelican(Pelicanus crispus, VU) – with a population of more than 600 nesting pairs (12% of the
global population).
89. The proposed site is located on the lands of Makhambet district and Atyrau city of Atyrauoblast. The population of its 11 settlements is more than 17,000 people, 98% Kazakh and
2% Russian, Tatar and other ethnicities; the population density is 23 people per km2. The
economic orientation of the region is fishery and animal stock production. The area has
productive landscapes that are good for cattle breeding as well as fisheries and hunting.
90. The Council acknowledged the submission of a management plan covering the transitionarea and emphasizing sustainable development, and approved the site. The national
14

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
authorities are encouraged to consider merging the two clusters by creating an ecologicalcorridor between them.
91. Katon-Karagay (Kazakhstan). The proposed Katon-Karagay Biosphere Reserve issituated in the upper part of Bukhtarma, Belaya Berel and Chyornaya Berel Rivers,
including the southern slopes of Listvyaga and Katunskiy Ridges (with the eastern summitof Belukha mountain), ridges of Bukhtarma river's left bank: Sarymsakty, Tarbagatay(Southern Altai part) and Southern Altai. The northern section includes part of the Katunskiy
Ridge at altitudes ranging from 2000m to 4506m (Belukha Mountain); the southern partstretches from 850m (Bukhtarma River Valley) to 3487m (Southern Altai Ridge). The
abundance of meadow herbs and flowers comprises more than 1000 species of higher
vascular plants, as well as mosses, lichens and fungi. The total surface area amounts to
1,631,940 ha consisting of 126,432 ha as core area; 855,508 ha as buffer zone and
650,000 ha as transition area.
92. Local people, living in the transition area of the proposed biosphere reserve, mainly breed
cattle, sheep, deer, horses and Siberian stags. Plant production is an additional activity,
mainly for fodder, perennial and annual herbs and cereal fodder cultures (barley, oats) for
feeding cows, Siberian stags, horses and sheep in winter. Private farms dominate thecattle-breeding sector of the region. The majority of those farms have small numbers ofanimals – less than 40 sheep. In the structure of land use the largest agricultural territories
are located in Belovskiy rural district (39.6%), slightly smaller in Korobikhinskiy (14.5%) andBelkaragay (12.2%) rural districts, and the smallest in Urylskiy, Zhambylskiy,
Chernovinskiy, Katon- Karagayskiy rural districts (7.9 to 9%).
93. The Council acknowledged the development of a comprehensive and detailed management
plan that is inclusive of the core area, buffer zone and transition area. The Council
approved the site.
94. Crocker Range (Malaysia). The proposed site covers an area of 350,584 ha and it islocated in the south of Mount Kinabalu (a World Heritage Site) in Sabah. Some 144,492 ha
make up the core area, which consists of 139,919 ha of Crocker Range Park (CRP) andthree forest reserves totalling 4,573 ha that are legally protected. An area of 60,313 ha isdemarcated as the buffer zone and 145,779 ha for the transition area. The core area as
described in the nomination form is covered by natural vegetation which is ecologicallyconnected. Limited studies on flora have been conducted; however, six permanent plots
dedicated to ecological monitoring have been established and more than 300 plant species
had been recorded as of August 2011.
95. Two endemic Rafflesia sp. are found in the Crocker Range. A total of 737 plant species
have been recorded in the Trus Madi in the eastern vicinity of the Crocker Range. With
regard to fauna, the number of species recorded in CRP and its surrounding area includes:
101 mammals, 259 birds, 47 reptiles, 63 amphibians, 42 freshwater fishes. CRP is also a
habitat for some endangered species, e.g. orangutan, sun bear and clouded leopard. The
development and logistic function of this proposed biosphere reserve was clearly described.
Community and local authority participation and involvement in the design andmanagement of a biosphere reserve were also described. The issue of the existence of a
local community in the core area was mentioned and described as contentious. The
authorities, however, believe that sustainable human activities are important even withinparks; therefore, the Enactment has been modified to accommodate the community in the15

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
CRP with some conditions (Section 59(1)(g), Park Enactment 1984, Amendment 2007). A
local non-statutory regulation called the “Tagal system” is used as a “cultural tool” topractice sustainable fishing. Approximately 76 villages (19% of all the villages) in the
proposed site are currently practicing the Tagal system and this non-statutory regulation
has been incorporated into the Sabah Inland Fisheries and Agriculture Enactment 2003.
96. The Council commended the national authorities for a well-prepared nomination andapproved the site. The Council noted the importance of this site for biodiversity
conservation. The Council congratulated the national authorities for extensively involving
the local communities in the nomination process for this site. They are encouraged tocontinue monitoring the activities of the inhabitants in the core area to ensure that theconservation functions are not compromised.
97. Brighton and Lewes Downs (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
The Council welcomed this proposal by United Kingdom, the first in a new part of the State
since 1977, which is located in the south-eastern coast of England and includes the city of
Brighton. The proposed site covers an area of 38,921 ha. It comprises part of the South
Downs National Park and is home to 371,500 permanent inhabitants. Chalkdown land
makes up the principal terrestrial landscape of the area, with a coastline dominated byimpressive chalk cliffs in the east and an urbanized plain in the west. The Council
recognized the ecological value of this site which supports more than 200 species that are
on international conservation lists (IUCN and EC CITES) and more than one thousand
locally rare species. Due to its variety of rare wildlife habitats, rich heritage and proximity to
London, tourism is a particularly important sector with up to 12 million visitors per year.
Other economic activities are farming and commercial sea fishing.
98. The Council commended the efforts made to promote sustainable development in the area
as well as the involvement of a diversity of stakeholders from different backgrounds andknowledge in its management and particularly highlighted the active work of The Brighton &Hove and Lewes Downs Biosphere Partnership encouraging local cooperation withinitiatives like the ‘HERE HERE’ campaign. This partnership was created specifically toapply for the status of UNESCO biosphere reserve and is composed of an extensive
spectrum of public, educational, community, voluntary and private sector organizations.
99. The Council acknowledged the high quality of this proposal and approved the site.
100. Bioma Pampa - Quebradas del Norte (Uruguay). The Council welcomed the resubmission of this proposal by the Uruguayan authorities. The proposed Biosphere
Reserve covers an area of 110,882 ha and comprises a mosaic of different ecosystems.
They include a primary forest with subtropical jungle, which represents the southernmost
vestige of the ‘Atlantic Forest’ environment. The pampa biome is rich in temperate
grasslands and is an important nesting area for many bird species. At present, however,
only 0.7% of the grasslands are protected and the ecosystem faces significant threats to
its conservation.
101. Rare species of amphibians and reptiles in the area include the Uruguayan frog (Hylauruguaya), the Devincenzi Toad (Melanophryniscus devincenzii) and the South American
rattlesnake (Crotalus durissus terrificus). The proposed biosphere reserve is also
inhabited by a small number of people living in settlements of ten to fifty houses amid arural environment. The villagers are predominantly smallholder farmers who engage in16

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
agricultural activities. Socio-cultural development of the proposed biosphere reserve will
be linked to the promotion and enhancement of gaucho traditions.
102. The Council approved the site and requested the following from the national authorities:• Submission of a map with more detailed zonation• Provision of a management plan one year from the notification of the approval• Consider greater coordination with the Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve.
103. The Council added that there was a great potential to create a transboundary biospherereserve with the Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve in Brazil.
104. Ohrid-Prespa (Republic of Albania/The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia).
The Council welcomed this proposal for a transboundary biosphere reserve (TBR) by
Albania and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, located in the Ohrid and Prespa
regions. The landscape of the proposed transboundary area is a combination of water
bodies (the Ohrid and Prespa Lakes) and surrounding mountain reliefs while flat areas
border the external limits of the territories (stretching across three countries: Albania, The
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece). With a total surface area of 446,244
ha and an estimated total of 455,000 inhabitants, the proposed area includes part of Lake
Ohrid and its surroundings in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that is currently
inscribed on the World Heritage List, as well as part of Lake Ohrid in Albania which iscurrently being considered as a possible extension of the existing natural and cultural
heritage of the Ohrid Region World Heritage Site.
105. The Council acknowledged the strong involvement of local institutions during thenomination process and welcomed the plan to establish a platform for exchanging
experiences of protected areas between experts, practitioners and the local population.
The Council noted with appreciation the decision to adopt a two-step approach in thetransboundary biosphere reserve nomination process, “leaving the doors open” to Greece
to join at its earliest convenience.
106. The Council approved this nomination as the first phase of a Transboundary Biosphere
Reserve, and further encouraged the countries to continue the dialogue with Greece, inorder to consider as a second phase the watershed TBR between the three countries, as
the watershed and ecosystem management approach it would benefit all countries sharing
this ecosystem to cooperate and work together.
107. Sila (Italy). The Council welcomed the resubmission of this proposal, which was deferredin 2013. It recognized that the site contains a wide variety of natural environments andhabitats and, due to its morphological and geographical characteristics, hosts
approximately 1,000 types of vascular plants and over 210 species of vertebrates. It is a
hotspot of great importance for the Mediterranean Biogeographical Region, selected by
IUCN and WWF as a global centre of plant diversity. The proposed biosphere reserve islocated in Calabria, in southern Italy, and comprises 357,294 ha, including 71
municipalities, with almost 230,000 permanent residents. Agriculture has been the
traditional activity but, recently, nature tourism has been playing a fundamental role in thelocal economy, with more than 500,000 visitors per year.
108. The Council commended the initiatives to involve stakeholders during the nomination
preparatory phase as well as the creation of the partnership assembly. The Council
acknowledged the progress made in terms of harmonization of existing planning tools, the17SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
development of a Long Term Economic and Social Plan of Sila National Park andcontiguous area (PPES) and the implementation of the MaB-Sila Observatory.
109. The Council acknowledged receipt of additional information requested by the Advisory
Committee and congratulated the Italian authorities for the quality of the information
communicated. The Council approved the site.
110. Tadami (Japan). The Council welcomed this proposal which encompasses a site with a
total area of 78,032ha consisting of 3,557ha as core area, 51,333ha as buffer zone and23,142ha as transition area. The site is located at the eastern edge of the Echigo
Mountains, the western edge of Fukushima Prefecture, and the southern part of the
Tohoku region in Honshu. Geographically, it consists of high relief mountains of more than
600m, middle relief mountains of 400-600m, low relief mountains of 200m-400m, a gravel
plateau and the floodplains of the Tadami River and Ina River basins.
111. In terms of flora, 140 families and 1,109 species of tracheophytes are confirmed in Tadami
Town which is about 96% of the proposed site. Records for fauna in about 96% of the site
include 15 families and 32 species of Mammals, 44 families and 145 species of birds, 6families and 13 species of Amphibians and 4 families and 10 species of reptiles. Morethan 2,000 insect species are confirmed.
112. In 2007, Tadami Town announced an initiative “The Capital of Mother Nature,” targeting
local residents to re-recognize the value of the large natural environment of the Tadamiarea, as the inheritance of the next generation. This announcement was publicized both
inside and outside the town, and Tadami Town is working on implementing each proposed
measure.
113. The Council acknowledged the revised zonation received in response to therecommendation of the Advisory Committee and approved the site.

Nominations defered
114. General recommendation for Algeria. The Council welcomed the nomination ofBelezma Biosphere Reserve, Tlemcen Biosphere Reserve and Theniet El Had Biosphere
Reserve. The Council commended the country’s effort in preparing these three dossiers.
Having examined these nominations, the Council strongly recommended that the Algerianauthorities review the concordance of their national parks with biosphere reserves,especially with regard to the zonation. The authorities are encouraged to seek support
from the MAB Secretariat and the UNESCO Cairo Office to organize a capacity-building
workshop on biosphere reserves and improve their nomination files.
115. Belezma (Algeria). The Council welcomed this proposal covering the existing Belezma
National Park situated in the province of Batna on the slopes of the Belezma mountain
range. Covering some 26,250 ha, Belezma is host to a rich flora and fauna, several
species of which are endemic and/or threatened, and provide opportunities for traditional
land use, tourism and recreation. However, the Council concluded that the complete
overlap of the national park with the zoning of the future biosphere reserve was suboptimal and not entirely in line with the Statutory Framework.
18

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
116. Therefore, the Council deferred the proposal and recommended that the Algerianauthorities consider submitting a revised nomination based on the following suggestions:•
The proposed biosphere reserve should extend outside the national park, in order tobetter engage with economic and urban development issues and stakeholders,
including public and private bodies;•
Maps should be improved for readability, especially in respect of the zonation;•
Additional information on the participation of local communities in the management of
the site should be provided;•
A management plan for a large biosphere reserve should be prepared, together with amanagement effectiveness evaluation monitoring system.
117. Tlemcen Mountains (Algeria). The Council welcomed this proposal covering the existing
Tlemcen National Park situated in the Tlemcen Province, encompassing rich biodiversity,
valuable archeological sites, cultural landmarks and caves receiving large numbers ofvisitors. However, the Council concluded that the complete overlap of the national parkwith the zoning of the future biosphere reserve was sub-optimal and not entirely in linewith the Statutory Framework.
118. Therefore, the Council deferred the proposal and recommended that the Algerianauthorities consider submitting a revised nomination based on the following suggestions:•
The proposed biosphere reserve should extend outside the national park, in order tobetter engage with economic and urban development issues and stakeholders,
including public and private bodies;•
Maps should be improved for readability, especially in respect of the zonation;•
Additional information on the participation of local communities in the management of
the site should be provided;•
A management plan for a large biosphere reserve should be prepared, together with amanagement effectiveness evaluation monitoring system, with special emphasis on
the tourism sector.
119. Theniet El Had (Algeria). The Council welcomed this proposal covering the existing
Theniet El Had National Park situated in the Ouarsenis mountain range located in thewest central Atlas of Algeria. This site includes several plants of regional or national andinternational interest. However, the Council concluded that the complete overlap of thenational park with the zoning of the future biosphere reserve was sub-optimal and notentirely in line with the Statutory Framework.
120. Therefore, the Council deferred the proposal and recommended that the Algerianauthorities consider submitting a revised nomination based on the following suggestions:•
The proposed biosphere reserve should extend outside the national park, in order tobetter engage with economic and urban development issues and stakeholders,
including public and private bodies;•
Maps should be improved for readability, especially in respect of the zonation, as wellas in terms of biophysical, geological and vegetation data;•
Additional information on the participation of local communities in the management of
the site should be provided;•
A management plan for a large biosphere reserve should be prepared, together with amanagement effectiveness evaluation monitoring system.

19

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
121. Hanma National Nature Reserve (China). The proposed site covers a total surface areaof 107,348 ha, which consists of a core area of 46,510 ha, a buffer zone of 37,250 ha anda transition area of 23,588 ha. This site located in Inner Mongolia is described as the core
part of the Taiga distributed in China. The natural vegetation is intact, owing to very limited
interaction with humankind. The cold temperate coniferous forest is the best preserved
forest type in China and is of high scientific value. The vegetation plays a significant role inprotecting water resources, performing water purification, maintaining the ecological safety(balance/equilibrium) in the Heilongjiang area and along the Jiliuhe River, as well as
supporting the rare wildlife.
122. Forest products from this site, such as bilberry, blueberry and other wild fruit, contribute to
the socio-economic development of the communities in the area. With the development of
tourism, Hanma Nature Reserve has been searching for a path to build tourism as thepillar industry. The authorities believe that the development of ecological tourism inHanma Nature Reserve will be beneficial not only economically but also environmentallyand socially. By way of logistic support, it is planned that the proposed site will cooperatewith universities, colleges and research institutions to study jointly the structural functions
and succession process of forest ecological systems and wetland ecosystems at the
proposed site. Another aim of the logistic support is to help determine a practical plan for
the reasonable development and sustainable utilization on the premise that the various
ecological system structures are not damaged.
123. The Council examined the additional information provided by the national authorities. It
also noted that the local community participation has been demonstrated. However it
observed that its zonation scheme, especially concerning the functions of the buffer andthe transition zone needs further improvement in accordance with the zonation criteriaprescribed in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The
Council therefore deferred this proposal and strongly encouraged the authorities tosubmit a new proposal which addresses the issues above.
124. Samothraki (Greece). The Council welcomed the re-submission of this proposal, which
was deferred in 2012. The proposed site is located within the Aegean Sea and comprises
the entire island of Samothraki, with a total surface area of 22,853 ha. The site is a
mountainous island with its highest peak culminating at 1,611m above sea level, making it
the second-highest island in the Aegean Sea. The mountainous terrain creates a varietyof habitats that host a large number of species thanks to two distinct microclimates: anorthern side that is more humid with related vegetation cover and a drier southern sidewith a typical Mediterranean climate. The human presence on the island since prehistoric
times has created cultural landscapes and left many monuments of international intereston the island, making it a highly valued tourist destination nowadays. The main activitiesof the total permanent population of 2,860 are agriculture, settlements and trade. The
Council expressed its appreciation of the involvement of local associations in designing
the proposed site.
125. However, the Council considered that the zonation still does not meet the criteria, with thelegal status of the core area still being unclear and the governance and funding of the
proposed area yet to be defined. The Council therefore deferred the proposal. It further
encouraged the Greek authorities to address these issues and work on the zonation,
governance and budgetary aspects and to seek support from the MAB Secretariat and theEuroMAB Regional Network.
20SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
126. Po Delta (Italy). The Council welcomed this nomination proposal located in northern Italy,
which comprises 139,398 ha, covering 16 municipalities populated by 120,000
inhabitants. The proposed area is a plain produced by the Po River’s action and recent
human activities. The proposed area is the only delta in Italy, created by the confluence ofthe main branches of the river; coastal dune systems and sand formations, lagoons,fishing ponds, marshes, fossil dunes, canals and coastal pine forests, vast brackish
wetlands and cultivated lands dominated by rice farming. These landscapes provide a
unique identity and an extremely significant heritage of biodiversity due to their range of
habitats. The proposed Po Delta Biosphere Reserve is an important tourist destination.
Together with agriculture and fish farming, tourism is the main economic activity of local
communities. The Council noted with appreciation the efforts to involve local stakeholders
in the consultation process.
127. However, the Council considered that the status and management of the core area
needed clarifying and that the decision-making process within the Institutional
Coordination Board was unclear, even though the board was supported by ThematicTechnical Roundtables. It further noted that the governance structure was very complex
and did not seem manageable; nor had any common vision for the proposed area been
defined. The added value of the proposed biosphere reserve was not clear, as most of theactions included in the Action Plan referred to existing, binding management plans (Natura
2000, Environmental Plan of the Veneto Regional Po Delta Park, Area Plan of Po Delta“Piano d’Area – Regione Veneto”). Concerning research projects, the Council consideredthat the social science studies in the whole area were missing, especially taking into
account the fact that most of the proposed area was composed of farming systems.
Lastly, the Council noted the lack of information on water management issues andchallenges, as well as the lack of discussion on water quality, despite the fact that the
proposed biosphere reserve area is mainly composed of wetlands or irrigated cultivatedlands.
128. The Council therefore deferred the proposal and strongly encouraged the authorities tosubmit a new proposal which addresses the issues above.
129. Ledro Alps and Judicaria (Italy). The Council welcomed this proposal by the Italianauthorities. The proposed area is located in the Trento region in northern Italy, between
the Dolomite World Heritage Site and the famous Lake Garda, with a total surface area of
47,427 ha. The site is representative of the southern slopes of the central-eastern Alps,
comprising different habitats (Alpine meadows, forest, grasslands, moorlands) alternatingwith traditional crops. Its strategic location contributes to a rich and varied biodiversity andto creating a corridor running north−south across the Alps, establishing territorial
continuity between protected areas from the Po valley to the northern Alps. The proposedarea includes two settlements around Lake Ledro and Lake Carera recognized as
UNESCO World Heritage sites. It is also a high valued tourist destination, with tourism
representing the main source of income for a permanent population of 15,845. The
Council acknowledged the existence of a research network and the numerous promotionaland communication efforts carried out in the proposed area; it did, however, note withconcerns the petition transmitted to the UNESCO MAB Secretariat by numerous citizensof the municipalities and cities in the proposed area.

21

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
130. The Council questioned the relevance of the zonation, including the protection status of
the core areas, and also the role of the transition area as an ecological corridor between
the two core areas. It also considered that the main scientific research described focusedon conservation aspects and that there seemed to be conflicts with the hunters in the
proposed area. It also noted that there was no clear description of the governance anddecision-making system of the proposed site, nor any comprehensive information on how
the governance would work. It also questioned how tourism would be managed and how
the new plan for the park would be integrated in the proposed site.
131. The Council therefore deferred the proposal and encouraged the Italian authorities toaddress the above issues and to engage in full consultation with local stakeholders, inorder to get full support for the designation of the proposed area as a biosphere reserve.
132. Aksu-Zhabagly (Kazakhstan). This proposed site is located in the Western end of
Talasskiy Alatau and Southern part of Karatau in Western Tien Shan. The total area of thesite is 357,734ha. The core area is 131,934ha, the buffer zone 25,800ha and thetransition area is 200,000ha. It has 48% of the total diversity of birds in the region, 72.5%
of vertebrates, 221 out of 254 fungi species, 63 out of 80 moss species and 15 out of 17
of the vegetation types and 114 out of 180 plant formations of the Western Tien Shan.
133. The major land use of the region is agriculture. There are several crops growing on
agricultural land: on the rain-fed area – cereal cultures (wheat and barley); on irrigatedarable lands – forage cultures (corn, clover, alfalfa). Local people usually breed cattle,
sheep (South-Kazakh Merino), goats, horses (trotters and Donskaya breed) and poultry(chicken and turkey). At present, the territory of the buffer zone is visited by scientists andamateurs interested in flora and fauna, as well as ordinary sightseers. In accordance withten routes for scientific and educational tourism, visitors move through the reserve on
trails and roads, and for the rest-stops they use previously constructed field bases andtraditional camping sites. Currently, the potential of eco-tourism for educational purposesis still insufficiently developed, although Aksu Zhabagly is one of the famous tourist spots
for birdwatchers from all over the world.
134. The authorities provided additional information as requested by the Advisory Committee.
The Council deferred the proposal and requested the authorities to resubmit a proposal
with the core zone entirely surrounded by a buffer zone. It also requested the following:•
Enlarging the buffer zone to protect the core area.
•
Undertaking activities that would enhance sustainable development functions of thesite.
•
Exploring the possibility of creating a transboundary biosphere reserve with theneighbouring countries.
135. Inlay Lake (Myanmar). The Council welcomed this first biosphere reserve nomination in
Myanmar. Covering a total area of 561,199ha the site is situated in Taunggyi District,
Southern Shan State. The core area is 29,178 ha, the buffer zone covers 114,041 ha andthe transition area is 417,980 ha. The Inlay Lake wetland ecosystem is home to 267
species of birds, out of which 82 are wetland birds, 43 species of freshwater fishes, ottersand turtles. In addition, fresh water fish from the inland wetland constitute the major
protein food source of the people of Inlay.

22

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
136. In addition to its ecological importance, Inlay Lake is also unique for the socio-cultural
aspects of local inhabitants, in the way they have adapted their lifestyle and livelihoods totheir biophysical environment. Most of them earn their income by traditional methods ofhydroponic farming, fishing and shifting cultivation. The farmers practice one of the most
famous types of agriculture in the world, floating island agriculture, locally called ‘Yechan”,
which is a form of hydroponic farming.
137. Inlay Lake and its watershed provides several ecosystem services on which local people
depend directly or indirectly; they include: clean air, clean water, cooler climate, tranquility
and serenity, fish stokes, ecotourism resources and tourism destinations, part of watersupply system for hydropower plant, sustainable livelihoods and community support.
There is a significant population of people (60,000) residing in the core area of the
proposed Inlay Lake Biosphere Reserve.
138. The Council noted with concern the significant human population in the core area. The
Council pointed out that with regards to the specification of a core area, the number of
inhabitants should be kept to a minimum. Therefore, the Council requested the authorities
to reclassify inhabited core areas under buffer zone category whenever possible. The
Council recommended limiting the visitation of tourists to this area in order to maintain its
conservation and protection objectives. The Council further urged the authorities to strictly
maintain the livelihood activities of the population within the core area, if any, at thetraditional level.
139. The council deferred the proposal and strongly encouraged the authorities to resubmit a
proposal in accordance with its recommendations.
140. Karakoram Pamir (Pakistan). This proposed site is characterized by steep and jagged
peaks, glaciers stretching for miles, alpine meadows and pastures, scattered patches ofconiferous and birch forests, lush green high valleys and deep narrow gorges. It contains
the largest ice mass outside the poles in the form of the world’s longest glacier system,
including 40 large and many small glaciers. Among the famous glaciers of Karakoram are
Siachen, Batura, Baltoro, Biafo, Hisper, Hoper, Kuksil, Yazghil, Momhil and Malanguti.
141. It covers a total surface area of 2,569,000 ha of which 1,132,700 ha occupy the core area,
671,800 ha the buffer zone and 764,800 ha the transition area. The rich biodiversity of thetypical mountain ecosystem of Karakoram Range is of immense socio-ecologicalsignificance and value for biodiversity conservation on local, national, regional and global
scales. Biologically, the area falls in the Central Asian phytogeographical region, with over
400 flora species ranging from endemic herbs and Poa sp. grasses to coniferous forests.
Among the fauna species, mammals are of great importance and the proposed biospherereserve area is known to have significant populations of 33 globally important mammalian
species including species which are threatened and/or endemic to the Karakoram region.
142. The Council noted the submission of this nomination and acknowledged the continuous
effort of Pakistan to increase the number of its biosphere reserves. Whilst appreciating its
rich fauna and flora and immense socio-ecological significance and value for biodiversity
conservation at all levels, the Council found that the northern and eastern sides of thecore area were not surrounded by a buffer zone and a transition area, contrary to therecommendations of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves. In addition, the management plan for the two national parks forming the core23

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
area may not be tailored for the core area of the proposed biosphere reserve. The Council
recommended that the management plan of the proposed biosphere reserve consider
integrating the management of these three zones.
143. The Council therefore deferred the proposal and requested the authorities to submit a
new proposal which addresses the issues above.
144. Daghestansky (Russian Federation). The Council welcomed this submission, which islocated in Daghestan Republic and comprises 207,600 ha. The proposed site iscomposed of two clusters: Kizlyar Bay and Sarykum Barchans, containing rich biodiversity
in marine, coastal, desert-steppe and arid foothill ecosystems. The Council acknowledgedthat this area contained one of the largest migratory routes of birds in Eurasia, as well aslarge number of flora and fauna species. The total permanent population living in the
proposed biosphere reserve is 1,200 whose main activities are agriculture, stock-raisingand fishing.
145. The Council considered that the proposed zonation with the two clusters was inadequate
for fulfilling the criteria and ensuring proper functioning of the proposed biosphere reserve.
The Council therefore deferred the proposal and encouraged the Russian authorities toresubmit a proposal with a zonation that could join the two clusters and including evidenceof the implementation of scientific research in management, education and awarenessraising, as well as evidence of the participatory process and governance for the entirearea.
146. Mura-Drava-Danube (Serbia). The Council welcomed this submission from Serbia, as apart of the future proposal of the Mura Drava Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve
spanning five countries: Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia, and whichconstitutes a second step after the designation in 2012 of the Mura Drava Danube
Transboundary Biosphere Reserve shared by Hungary and Croatia. The proposed site is
located in the northwestern part of Serbia and comprises 176,635 ha. Situated mainly inrecent and historical alluvial zones of the central Danube plain, the proposed biospherereserve is a mosaic composed mainly of remnants of historic floodplains and human-madelandscapes influenced by agriculture and human settlements. The floodplain includes
alluvial forests, marshes, reed beds, freshwater habitats, alluvial wetlands, as well as
flood-protected forests with significantly changed hydrology dynamics. The area of the
proposed biosphere reserve is home to 147,405 inhabitants located in 26 settlements withmain activities are agriculture, forestry and industry.
147. The Council commended the Serbian authorities for the quality of the proposal. The
Council acknowledged that the Mura Drava Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve
proposal is an initiative from the five countries which signed a ministerial declaration in
2011, stating that nothing in the Declaration or its subsequent document shall prejudice inany manner the delimitation between the State signatories.
148. The Council took note of the discussion on national boundaries being held at theinternational level between Croatia and Serbia. The Council considered that thetransboundary biosphere reserve was a unique tool for translating the mission and visionof the MAB Programme into a cooperation programme which promotes peace, scientificexchange and shared ecosystem management. The Council strongly encouraged thescientific and technical cooperation in the field between the five countries to continue and24SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
the coordinating council established by the five countries to hold regular meetings. It also
acknowledged support from WWF in the nomination process.
149. The Council acknowledged receipt of the information provided by the Serbian authorities
upon request of the advisory committee on the role of the scientific panel within thecoordinating council of the proposed biosphere reserve and how the various projects andresearch outcomes will be integrated in the functioning of the proposed biosphere reserve.
150. The Council deferred the proposal and requested resubmission of a proposal using thetransboundary biosphere reserve nomination form and including the joint zonation map forthe entire future transboundary biosphere reserve, agreed by all five countries.
151. Gouritz Cluster (South Africa). The Council welcomed this very well prepared anddocumented proposal of a relatively large cluster biosphere reserve (3 184 723.5 ha). The
Council acknowledged its uniqueness at the global level as it is the only place in the world
where three recognized biodiversity hotspots (Fynbos, Succulent Karoo and MaputolandTongoland-Albany) converge. The area also includes a coastal/marine component (0.1%of core area) which serves as a nursery for marine species. It encompasses three units ofa UNESCO World Heritage site.
152. The biosphere reserve nomination process which started in 2005 has been highly
participative. The proposed biosphere reserve is facing deep rooted socio-economic
challenges (high unemployment, wide-spread poverty, sprawling informal settlements withinadequate services, rising HIV and crime rates) that the biosphere reserve will contributeto solve in building grassroots models of pro-poor enterprise and employment
development connected to biodiversity.
153. The number of formal and published research that has been conducted in the Gouritz
region in recent years is growing. The proposed biosphere reserve will have a vital role toplay in the compilation of a database and set up of a monitoring system. Environmental
awareness raising and training activities targeting schools, communities and associations
have been implemented throughout the years. The governance structure has been
established since the last submission, but more information is needed.
154. The Council acknowledged receipt of satisfactory additional information with regards tothe sustainable financing scheme and the governance structure as recommended by theAdvisory Committee. However, the Council noted that the very complex zonation patterndoes not conform to the requirements of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves.
155. The Council therefore deferred the proposal and strongly encouraged the authorities to
re-submit a proposal with a functional zonation pattern that conformed to the requirementsof the Statutory Framework.
156. Magaliesberg (South Africa). The Council welcomed the re-submission of this very
consistent and well-documented proposal covering an area located between the cities ofPretoria and Johannesburg in the east and Rustenburg in the west. This area is endowedwith scenic beauty, unique natural features, rich natural and cultural heritage value,
significant biodiversity and archaeological interest. The proposed biosphere reserve
encompasses the Cradle of Humankind, which is part of a World Heritage site with 4
million years of history.
25

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
157. The proposed site’s primary activities are agriculture, mining and tourism. It is adjacent tomajor urban infrastructure, the impacts of which will be reduced through the biospherereserve management plan. The Council noted with appreciation that the consultation
process for delimiting the biosphere reserve’s contours has been completed since the last
submission.
158. The Council acknowledged with appreciation the additional information provided withregards to its previous recommendation with regards to the Pelinbada area. The Council
congratulated the authorities for revising the zonation which now excludes Pelinbada
nuclear center and the surrounding area from the biosphere reserve proposal.
159. However, there has been no update of the zonation pattern of buffer and transition zone ofthe proposed biosphere reserve. Therefore, the Council deferred the proposal. The
Council strongly encouraged the authorities to resubmit a proposal with an improved
zonation pattern with regard to the core areas and buffer zones, in order to fulfill thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
160. Macizo de Anaga (Spain). The Council acknowledged this nomination by Spain. This site
is located in the northeastern part of Tenerife, Canary Islands. It represents the island’s
oldest geological formation with a peak of 1,024 m. This area is an ecological unit
separated from the rest of the island. It features a diverse geographical space that ranges
from urban areas located on the coast to the summit. In terms of environmental value, its
remarkable cultural uniqueness is of local, regional, national and international interest.
161. The proposal is an example of collaboration, primarily between different municipal
governing bodies (Cabildo Insular de Tenerife, the councils of the three municipalities of
the Canary Islands and Sustainable Holy Cross Foundation). In addition, the proposal has
also been supported by a local community. However, the Advisory Committee strongly
recommended that the marine and coastal areas be included in this biosphere reserve
proposal to highlight the connection between marine/coastal and inland ecosystems.
Furthermore, the Advisory Committee requested the submission of the official approval by
the national authorities.
162. The national authorities did not submit the additional information recommended by theAdvisory Committee. The Council therefore decided to defer the proposal. The Council
strongly encouraged a resubmission of the proposal with an official approval by thenational authorities.

Nomination rejected
163. Corridor Milan – Ticino (Italy). The Council acknowledged this proposal, which is locatedin the southwestern plain surrounding the city of Milan in northern Italy. The total surface
area proposed is 15,755 ha, mainly composed of cultivated fields intercalated with
farmhouses, typical of the Po Valley landscape. The extended cultivated plains mixed withtraditional farmhouses, urban nuclei and woodlands represent the main features of thelandscape. The network of canals and springs is also a fascinating human-made systemthat today presents a cultural landscape rich in biodiversity. There are about 130,000
permanent inhabitants, whose livelihoods depend mainly on the industrial and services
sectors.
26

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
164. The Council noted with appreciation that the proposed biosphere reserve management
aimed to reduce the urbanization process and develop ecotourism and sustainable
farming systems. The proposed biosphere reserve would constitute an example of theimplementation of sustainable development applied to an agro-ecosystem. However theCouncil considered that the lack of legal protection status of the core area, the insufficientjustification of the buffer zone and transition area delineation, the absence of stakeholder
involvement, and the deficiency in the governance concept and decision-making process
weakened the overall project.
165. Therefore, the Council considered that the site does not meet the Statutory Framework
criteria and rejected the proposal.
166. The Council recommended that the Italian authorities investigate whether otherdesignations, such as the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems of the FAO,
may fit better with their aims.

Extensions, renaming or changes in the zonation of Biosphere reserves approved by theCouncil
167. Laguna Oca del Río Paraguay Biosphere Reserve (Argentina), extension andrenaming. The Council acknowledged the extension proposal from Argentina. This
proposal follows recommendations made by the International Coordinating Council in2000 to extend the core area, buffer zone and transition area, as their present dimensions
do not allow the area to fulfill the three functions of a biosphere reserve.
168. The proposed new area will integrate the city of Formosa, the Laguna de Herradura andthe Riacho Salado as far as Mision Laishi, through a biodiversity and cultural corridor
named ‘The Way of Water’, which will pass through the Paraguay River and its tributaries.
The total area will be extended from around 12,000 ha to 61,763.39 ha. The proposed
new name for the biosphere reserve is Laguna Oca y Herraduras del Río Paraguay.
169. The Council approved the extension and the new name. The Council requested that thenational authorities:• Submit clearer maps about the current extent of the zones and the proposed
extension.
• Re-evaluate the importance of the buffer zone along the river as an element
connecting different landscapes and contributing to maintaining biodiversity andecological restoration in the urban, rural and natural environments.
• Elaborate a management plan for the modified biosphere reserve.
170. Rhön Biosphere Reserve (Germany), extension. The Council welcomed this extension
to the site designated in 1991, submitted by the German authorities. As part of theGerman central upland range, the Rhön Biosphere Reserve comprises an upland region
formed as a result of volcanic activity in the Tertiary period. With the extension of 58,113
ha, the biosphere reserve will comprise a total surface area of 243,323 ha (with analtitudinal gradient of 770 m between approximately 180 m and 950 m above mean sea
level). Its uniqueness and beauty results in a diversity of landscapes, hosting endemic
spcies such as Rhönquellschnecke (Bythinella compressa), the wild cat (Felis silvestris),
black grouse (Tetrao tetrix) and red kite (Milvus milvus). As of October 2010, the27

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
biosphere reserve had a population of 135,285, the majority of whom live in rural
settlements.
171. The Council congratulated the German authorities for the well-prepared proposal for
extension and considered that the extension meets the Statutory Framework criteria.
Therefore, the Council approved the extension.
172. Shiga Highland Biosphere Reserve (Japan), extension. The Council noted thesubmission of the extension application for this biosphere reserve, which was designatedin 1980. The size of the core area is the same as when this biosphere reserve was first
designated; the buffer zone covers 17,569 ha, which is an increment of 58%, and the newdelineated transition area 12,021 ha.
173. The Council commended the national authorities for demarcating a transition area for thesite and approved the extension. The Council requested the national authorities to submit
a revised management plan covering the expanded site.
174. La Mancha Húmeda Biosphere Reserve (Spain), extension. The site encompasses a
gently rolling plain located between 600 m and 700 m above sea level, rich in Tertiary
deposits and scattered with a great number of wetlands arising from the seasonal floodingof rivers and from the numerous upwellings of the Manchego aquifer in the depressions,known in the area as “eyes”.
175. The Council welcomed this extension proposal from Spain. This biosphere reserve wasdesignated in 1980 and in 2002 submitted a periodic review. After the assessment of that
periodic review, it was concluded that this biosphere reserve was not fully functioning
according to the criteria of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves and that it suffered from overexploitation of water resources. The Council was ofthe opinion that the integrated approach of a biosphere reserve was nevertheless the best
way to combat the threats to water resources and also recommended that the Spanish
authorities improve the overall management plan for the whole biosphere reserve, in order
to integrate conservation and sustainable use, paying particular attention to sustainable
use of water resources and the development of a coordinating structure to bring all
stakeholders together.
176. The extension enlarges considerably the transition area and includes some readjustment
to the buffer zones and core areas, increasing the size of the biosphere reserve from25,000ha to 418,087ha. This extension proposal and re-zoning are a significant
improvement, as they will provide disconnected wetland areas with better protection.
Moreover, their designation as core areas surrounded by buffer zones is encompassed bya transition area integrating areas set aside for urban development. The Council
approved this extension and recommended that the transition area should be expandedin the south-east part of the site.
177. Montseny Biosphere Reserve (Spain), extension. The Council acknowledged the
proposal for the extension of the Montseny Biosphere Reserve in Spain. This site is a firstgeneration biosphere reserve that was designated in 1978. The extended core area andbuffer zones follow the zonation of the National Park Montseny revised in 2008. The
extension incorporates also the transition areas not previously included. The Council
noted that this extension proposal is a follow-up to two previous periodic reviews, the last28

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
one received in 2011. In 2011, the Council encouraged the national authorities to provide
additional information on the management plan for the biosphere reserve and its
implementation. This detailed proposal for extension describes the harmonization processof the different management structures and plans in line with previous recommendations.
Additionally, the extension has been made in close consultation with local communities
and with the municipality’s support.
178. The council acknowledged receipt of the official approval by the national authorities andthe identification of the biosphere reserve’s management authorities, as recommended by
the Advisory Committee, and approved the extension.

Withdrawal of sites
179. The Chair informed the MAB ICC that, following periodic reviews and consultations withstakeholders, two countries decided to withdraw sites from the World Network of
biosphere reserves as these sites do not meet the criteria stated in Article 4 of the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
180. United Kingdom has withdrawn the North Norfolk Coast Biosphere Reserve (approved in1976) and Austria has withdrawn Gossenköllersee Biosphere reserve (approved in 1977)
and Gurgler Kamm Biosphere reserve (approved in 1977) from the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves.
181. With 13 new biosphere reserves including 2 transboundary biosphere reserves being
added to the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR), and 3 being withdrawn, the
WNBR is now composed of 631 Biosphere Reserves including 14 transboundary
biosphere reserves in 119 countries and the first sites in two new members of the WNBR,
Albania and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

XI. Update on the Exit Strategy
182. The Secretariat introduced this item by recalling the decision of the MAB ICC taken during
its 25th session in 2013. She recalled that the main objective was to improve the credibility
and the quality of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. She indicated that the Exit
Strategy concerns 266 sites in 76 countries. She reported on the implementation of step 1
and step 2 of the Exit Strategy for the sites that had never submitted a periodic review
report nor replied to recommendations received by the MAB ICC (Category A). The
Secretariat had sent 41 letters to 41 countries for sites which have never submitted aperiodic review report and 14 letters to 14 countries for sites which never replied torecommendations. The Secretariat sent 17 letters as the first reminder for the countries
which did not reply. The Secretariat also sent 43 letters to 43 countries that need to senda report by the end of 2015 to demonstrate that the site meets the criteria (Category B).
She provided indications on the regional distribution and recalled the clear timeline. She
also mentioned the support available, if necessary, from the MAB Secretariat and the
UNESCO regional offices as well as the regional Networks.
183. Every Member State that took the floor expressed support towards the implementation of
the Exit Strategy, its very detailed process and timeline and thanked the Secretariat for the29SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
work achieved so far. Questions were raised on the link between the Exit Strategy and theevaluation of the Madrid Action Plan, specifically as regards the reason of non-response
from some countries and the disconnect between some sites and the WNBR as
mentioned in the evaluation report. It was recalled that each step of the Exit Strategy
explicitly states that the different stakeholders will be informed and contacted, including
the Permanent Delegation to UNESCO, the UNESCO national commission and the MAB
national committee. The Secretariat also indicated that it is in close contact with the
UNESCO Delegations to ensure that the Exit Strategy process is known and that
information is transmitted to the appropriate contacts. Some delegates commented on thevery limited time (30 months) for the Exit Strategy process from the time that the first letteris sent from the MAB Secretariat. They requested some flexibility and adaptability linked to
specific social and cultural contexts and for Member States that demonstrate good will andcommitment towards meeting the criteria. Some delegates recalled that the Statutory
Framework was approved in 1996 and the Madrid Action Plan in 2008 and that these
represent a long-term commitment by all countries participating in the MAB programme. It
was agreed that the time frame described in the Exit Strategy should not be modified at
this stage. It was also agreed that the MAB ICC would review the progress made on the
Exit Strategy at its next meeting, based on periodic reviews and other information
provided by countries. As regards questions on the kind of support that the MAB
Secretariat could provide, the MAB Secretariat as well as colleagues in the UNESCO
regional offices are available to assist countries and sites with technical support andexpertise.

XII. Periodic review of biosphere reserves and follow-up of recommendations
184. The Secretariat introduced the item by indicating that 88 periodic review reports were
examined by the Advisory Committee on Biosphere Reserves at its last session as well as
41 follow-up reports. This considerable amount of work is unusual and is related to thereplies from countries to the letters sent by the MAB Secretariat for the implementation of
the Exit Strategy. 43 periodic review reports which had been examined were direct replies
from the countries contacted.
185. The Secretariat reminded the delegates that the periodic review is a self-evaluation
process and that the Advisory Committee made its recommendations on the basis of theinformation provided by the countries. She also mentioned that many countries used the
updated forms for periodic review, including the transboundary periodic review form, whichfacilitated the evaluation of the criteria for the concerned site. In this context she paid
tribute to Robert Barbault, former Chair of the French MAB National Committee, whochaired the working group for updating the nomination and periodic review forms, andsadly passed away last December 2013. She informed the Delegates that the Advisory
Committee at its last session ensured that each recommendation stated clearly whether asite does or does not meet the criteria of the Statutory Framework, within the context of
the Exit Strategy.
186. The rapporteur of the MAB ICC Bureau then presented the results of the deliberations of
the Bureau which showed the recommendations by category highlighted in different
colours in the tables of annex 1 and 2 of the document to facilitate the discussions. These
categories included: a) sites which meet the criteria, to be formally recognized by theCouncil, according to paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Statutory Framework; b) sites which30SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
do not meet the criteria, so that further measures are required (paragraph 5 of Article 9 of
the Statutory Framework); c) and three sites for which the MAB ICC Bureau did not agreewith the Advisory Committee recommendations and proposed a revised text forendorsement by the MAB Council. Two recommendations were for sites which are in theprocess of finalizing their reports and/or updating their sites.
187. The Council formally recognized the sites that fulfill the criteria of the Statutory
Framework. Several countries took the floor after the adoption of recommendations
regarding specific sites which the Council identified as not meeting the criteria, in order toexpress their concerns and clarify some elements. Concerns included the tight deadlines
for submitting additional information and clarification regarding the receipt of the letterfrom the Secretariat transmitting the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. All
countries indicated their commitment to meet the criteria and the need for some flexibility
in the application of the criteria according to specific contexts and the complexity of legal
and governance issues. One Observer Delegation expressed its disagreement with thesome recommendations made for some of its sites.
188. It was recalled that the deadline for submission of reports to demonstrate that a site meetsthe criteria in Article 4 of the Statutory Framework was common to all and that the date
was the 30 September 2015 as per the implementation of the Exit Strategy. It was also
confirmed that the periodic review is an interactive dialogue process and that countries areencouraged to send to the MAB Secretariat any additional information and clarifications
they find necessary, so that this can be shared with the Advisory Committee so that theycan effectively assess the site and consider any specific constraints. It was also recalledthat the Secretariat is available to help countries in the implementation of therecommendation. Egypt offered its support to assist any country within the ArabMAB
network with technical support needed in the periodic review process.
Tassili n’Ajjer Biosphere Reserve (Algeria)
189. The Council welcomed the periodic review report from the Tassili n’Ajjer Biosphere
Reserve, established in 1986. This biosphere reserve is located in the southeastern partof the Algerian Sahara. While being important for biodiversity conservation, the reserve isparticularly well known for its archaeological, historical, cultural and geological features the reason for its designation as a national park and World Heritage site. Ancient rockengravings and cave paintings of large fauna such as hippopotamus and buffalo are ofinternational importance and tourism is an important source of income.
190. While recognizing all the good work undertaken over the years in the biosphere reserve,
the Council concluded that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework.
In order to meet these criteria, the Algerian authorities are invited to consider enlarging thebiosphere reserve to extend it beyond the national park, with clearly a delimited bufferzone and transition area. A map should clearly indicate the three zones comprising thebiosphere reserve. The extended biosphere reserve should have an integrated biospherereserve management plan involving local communities and the private sector that would
seek synergies among the reserve’s various conservation designations. Having
implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.

31

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Chréa Biosphere Reserve (Algeria)
191. The Council welcomed the periodic review report from the Chréa Biosphere Reserve,
established in 2002. Located some 50 km southwest of the capital, Algiers, in the Atlas
Mountains, the reserve plays a key role as a water reservoir for urban areas, in addition tohosting several rare and endangered ecosystems specific to the northern Atlas Mountains.
Superimposed on the Chréa National Park, the Chréa Biosphere Reserve is also host to adiversity of cultures (Arab, Andalusian and Berber cultures).
192. While recognizing the good work undertaken over the years in the Chréa Biosphere
Reserve, as outlined in the periodic review, the Council concluded that the site does notmeet the criteria in the Statutory Framework. In order to meet these criteria, the Algerianauthorities are invited to consider enlarging the biosphere reserve to extend it beyond thenational park, with clearly a delimited buffer zone and transition area. A map should
clearly indicate the three zones of the biosphere reserve. The extended biosphere reserve
should have an integrated biosphere reserve management plan involving local
communities and the private sector. Having implemented the necessary actions, therequested information should reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2015.
Riacho Teuquito Biosphere Reserve (Argentina)
193. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of the “Riacho” Teuquito Biosphere
Reserve, established in 2000. The biosphere reserve has followed an Indirect Control
System, through the operational management areas and the reporting of the national parkadministration in the core area. The biosphere reserve has been successful in obtaining
cooperation and support from the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA),
Ibero-American Model Forest Network, Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and otherprogrammes. Integral Management and Sustainable Development are applied to reducesocial, economic, and environmental degradation in the Great American Chaco.
194. The Council noted that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that thenational authorities elaborate a management plan that integrates the landscape of thecore area, buffer zone and transition area (Chaco and riparian vegetation) with that of the
agricultural areas and the commercial forestry. The Council also recommended that afixed budget for the activities of the biosphere reserve be secured and that its coordinators
be defined.
Las Yungas Biosphere Reserve (Argentina)
195. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of the Las Yungas Biosphere Reserve,
established in 2002. The Council noted with satisfaction that the review process had
included different actors: municipalities, provincial and national governments, indigenous
representatives, universities, NGOs, private sector. It commended the national authorities
for the activities undertaken, which were in concordance with the Seville Strategy (1995),
and contributed to the implementation of Madrid Action Plan (2008−2013), and the
IberoMAB Action Plan (2010-2020). It also appreciated that the biosphere reserve
collaborates with the Noroeste Biosphere Reserve (Argentina) and Mata Atlantica
Biosphere Reserve (Brazil).
196. The Council concluded that the Biosphere Reserve does not meet the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities32

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
implement the necessary actions and provide the following information to the Secretariat
by 30 September 2015:• Elaborate a Management Plan for the entire reserve.
• Define a buffer zone and transition area for Barilu.
• Define a buffer zone or a transition area to protect the core area of Potrero de Yala.
• Integrate a landscape vision for the three zones (core area, buffer zone andtransition area) permitting the identification of adequate measures to conserve thebiological and cultural diversity of natural, agricultural and urban sites.
W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Burkina Faso/Benin/Niger)
197. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of W transboundary Biosphere Reserve,
established in 2002. It noted with appreciation that this comprehensive report, based on
the outcome of a national multistakeholder consultation process, had been jointly
elaborated by the administrative authorities in charge of the respective protected areas in
Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger. The Council acknowledged the international, regional andnational cooperation framework, which provides substantial financial and humanresources as well as scientific collaboration for the functioning of the transboundary
biosphere reserve. However, the establishment of sustainable financing mechanisms
should be foreseen to ensure sustainability of the results of the current international
support.
198. The Council acknowledged the proposed extension of the buffer zone from 99,500ha to409,000ha. The Council congratulated the authorities for the establishment oftransboundary joint patrol staff teams under one single command, which improves theconservation function of the biosphere reserve. It also noted the various programmes
benefitting the population (green job creation, infrastructure, benefit-sharing scheme) andthe establishment of a development Council for the biosphere reserve. In addition tobiological studies, cultural and archaeological aspects are the subject of extensive work.
199. However, the Council considered that the integration of the three functions attransboundary level still needed improvement for the recommendations of Pamplona ontransboundary biosphere reserves to be applied. Therefore, it recommended that theauthorities:• Establish a coordinating structure representative of various administrations and thescientific community, as well as the authorities in charge of the protected areas,
representatives of local communities, NGOs, interested and affected groups,
including youth, and of the private sector, with a permanent secretariat and a budget
to cover running costs of the structure.
• Finalize the updated management plan at transboundary level and forward a copy to
the MAB Secretariat.
200. These elements should reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2015.
Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve (Canada)201. The Council welcomed the second periodic review report of this biosphere reserve,
designated in 1990.The Council considered that the biosphere reserve meets the criteria
in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
202. The Council requested that the biosphere reserve refrain from modifying the status of the“escarpment protection” areas from the buffer zone to core area until the legal status of33SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
this latter new core area was secured in 2015. Concerning the transition area, the Council
recommended that the biosphere reserve consider the possibility of extending its
boundaries beyond the present Niagara Escarpment Park area, in order to explore
cooperation with adjacent watershed authorities. The Council further recommended that
the Canadian authorities:• Promote the sustainable development function of the biosphere reserve based on amore balanced vision between human needs and nature conservation;• Clarify the leadership in term of sustainable development planning;• Encourage stakeholders to work together more collaboratively;• Develop a collaborative network of municipalities, private businesses, publicagencies, first-nation communities, NGOs and landowners;• Increase collaboration with other Canadian biosphere reserves but also with
biosphere reserves in other countries, especially those in the EuroMAB Network;• Promote understanding of the function of biosphere reserves to neighboring local
communities and institutions in charge of development and nature conservation.
203. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Dalai Lake Biosphere Reserve (China)
204. The Council welcomed this first periodic review report on Dalai Lake Biosphere Reserve,
which was designated in 2002. The Council commended the national authorities for theircommitment to managing this biosphere reserve, as demonstrated through the consistentdedication of funds to ensuring its management. The major economic activities in thisbiosphere reserve are animal husbandry and fishing. However, fish-farming has declinedin the area, whereas ecotourism has increased. The Council noted the reduction in thehuman population in the area and requested that the national authorities explain thisdecrease. The Council also recommended that the local communities participate actively
in the management of the biosphere reserve. The Council commended the authorities fora well-documented periodic review report.
205. The Council concluded that this area meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Wudalianchi Biosphere Reserve (China)
206. The Council welcomed this periodic review report for the Wudalianchi biosphere reserve,
which was designated in 2003. This biosphere reserve is located in the northeastern partof China, very close to Russia. The site is part of the Global Geoparks Network. The
Council commended the national authorities for improving the management andcoordination of the biosphere reserve. It noted the setting-up of the Wudalianchi Scenic
Spot Management Committee, which is responsible for planning, protection, monitoring,scientific research, tourism, development, construction and management of the reserve. It
also noted that a coordination committee had been set up in 2006 which consists ofrepresentatives of all stakeholders. The Council also noted the relocation of the humansettlements from the core area and buffer zones to the transition area. The major
economic activities in the transition area are mineral water production, ecotourism andgreen agriculture.

34

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
207. The Council commended the authorities for a well-prepared periodic review report. It
concluded that this site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Yading Biosphere Reserve (China)
208. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, which was
designated in 2003. The Council acknowledged the well-prepared report, which was done
through extensive consultations with scientists, local practitioners and local communities.
The Council noted the increment in the rate of ecotourism. The national authorities arecommended for completing the biosphere reserve’s management plan in 2005.
209. The Council was pleased to note that, over the ten years since the reserve wasestablished, there had been no forest fires, no significant accident causing environmental
pollution or any serious disturbance to resources within the reserve; rare animals andendangered plants have been protected effectively, such as gnus, leopards, dwarf musk
deer, serows, lesser pandas, black bears, gorals, samba deer and Sichuan deer. In
addition, the ecosystems have remained stable, with a significant increase in vegetation
cover.
210. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the local
population participate in decision-making processes with regard to managing thebiosphere reserve.
Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve (Czech Republic)
211. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve,
designated in 2003. The Council commended the Czech authorities for the very wellprepared periodic report. The Council took note of the fact that the site was managed by astakeholder-based NGO, the Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve, which is a public benefit
company. It welcomed this innovative stakeholder-based biosphere reserve management
structure with direct participation and balanced decision-making.
212. It noted with appreciation the cooperation among various stakeholders, based on
partnerships. It also welcomed the various projects targeted towards biodiversity
conservation, sustainable development, tourism promotion and habitat restoration. The
Council also acknowledged the intensive networking and sharing of knowledge andexperiences with other biosphere reserves at international level.
213. Among the successful projects, the Council noted the interactive web page, theestablishment and restoration of biocentres and a territorial system of ecological stability,
as well as projects for the “Elimination of Environmental Burdens” which may be sharedwith other biosphere reserves.
214. The Council acknowledged the change in the surface area of the biosphere reserve, due
to the use of modernized GIS technology, and noted that the zonation was in place andthat the biosphere reserve was in the process of improving zonation as part of aninternational project for information exchange.
215. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves.
35

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
216. The Council encouraged cooperation with other biosphere reserves that are also multiinternational designated sites. It also recommended initiating future research to include
socio-economic studies and tourism impact assessments. The Council recommended that
Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve be used as a model stakeholder-based management
structure.
Mount Paektu Biosphere Reserve (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea)
217. The Council welcomed this second periodic report on the Mount Paektu Biosphere
Reserve, which was designated in 1989. Mt Paektu Biosphere Reserve is located on the
Paektu lava land surrounding Mt Paektu in the northern part of the country. As a volcanic
landscape, it is ecologically characterized by the clear vertical distribution of alpine andforest ecosystems and its destruction is characterized by volcanic eruptions andprocesses allowing for restoration, soil formation and natural ecosystem processes.
218. The Council noted that the first periodic review was submitted in 2001. The Councilcommended the efforts of the authorities in addressing past recommendations from theMAB ICC and acknowledged the submission of a work plan for the biosphere reserve. The
authorities are requested to elaborate a comprehensive management plan and to improve
local community participation.
219. The Council concluded that this site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves and encouraged the authorities to increasescientific cooperation and educational activities.
Archipel de la Guadeloupe Biosphere Reserve (France)
220. The Council welcomed this first periodic report for the Archipel de la Guadeloupe
Biosphere Reserve since its establishment in 1992. The site comprises terrestrial andmarine areas and has the same borders as the National Park of Guadeloupe. The Council
acknowledged the extension of the biosphere reserve, which now includes a core area of
21,850 ha, a buffer zone of 94 065 ha supporting the conservation function and atransition area of 130,000 ha.
221. The governing body is composed of 21 municipalities, a regional council, county council
and state departments. It is supported by a Scientific Council and a Social and Economic
Council which advise and guide it concerning conservation and development-related
issues within the framework of a Territory Charter. The latter is the result of a long indepth consultative process and aims to reconcile tourism, agriculture, fisheries andforestry.
222. On the basis of the information received, the Council concluded that the site meets thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves but
recommended that the authorities implement the following:• Finalize the update of the management plan for the biosphere reserve and send a
copy to the Secretariat for consideration at the next Council meeting;• Improve and pursue the involvement of local actors (citizens, tour operators) inmanaging the reserve;• Develop a tool to measure the effectiveness of annual management and report to thegoverning bodies of the biosphere reserve;36SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English••

Foster the visibility of the biosphere reserve within and beyond the limits of the
National Park of Guadeloupe;
Explore the conditions for the future extension of the transition area to include thefew remaining counties, in order to apply a sustainable development approach to theentire island territory.

Rhön Biosphere Reserve (Germany)
223. The Council welcomed the second periodic review report for this biosphere reserve,
designated in 1991. It noted with satisfaction the implementation of the recommendations
issued in 2004 by the International Co-ordinating Council, including the revision of thezonation; the continuous work on updating the framework concept with broad public
participation; the implementation of the Madrid Action Plan, through intensive cooperation
within the Rhön Regional Working Group (ARGE Rhön) and the Biosphere Reserve’s
Advisory Board; the establishment and continued expansion of the Rhön label as aregional brand, in cooperation with the tourism sector; and the positive developments inthe agriculture industry as regards organic farming and efforts promoting sustainable
nature conservation.
224. The Council supported the German MAB National Committee’s recommendationencouraging greater involvement in the biosphere reserve’s related agenda by the otherLand government departments, in addition to the three lead Ministries of the Environment.
225. The Council requested further clarification of the influence of the military training facility
Wildflecken, located in the buffer zone and core area, in terms of access and the possible
environmental impact on the biosphere reserve.
226. The Council commended the German authorities for the high quality of the periodic review
report and considered that the biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It further encouraged theauthorities to share this periodic review report as a model for the WNBR and to make itavailable on the UNESCO-MAB website. It also welcomed the extension of the site.
Pfälzerwald/Vosges Biosphere Reserve (Germany)
227. The Council welcomed this second periodic review of Pfälzerwald biosphere reserve(established in 1992) as the German part of Pfälzerwald / Vosges du Nord Transboundary
Biosphere Reserve established between France and Germany in 1998.
228. The biosphere reserve is characterized by intensive viticulture, economic forestry, hunting
and conservation of outstanding natural areas for recreation which are promoting
sustainable practices. The sound spatial management of urbanization, infrastructure andtourism facilities is remarkable. The biosphere reserve implements a strong education,
training and environmental awareness programme, with special topics being proposed
targeting children and young people. Research programmes are implemented inpartnership with universities and research institutions.
229. The Council considered that the Pfälzerwald Biosphere Reserve meets the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council looks
forward to receiving the complete zonation of the transboundary biosphere reserve with its
transboundary periodic review report.

37SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
South-East Rügen Biosphere Reserve (Germany)
230. The Council welcomed this second periodic review of South-East Rügen, established in1991. The Council acknowledged the governance structure of the biosphere reserve andcommended the sustainable tourism model put in place, the practice-oriented researchand the implementation of the Education for Sustainable Development programme
targeting children and youth.
231. The Council considered that the biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council suggested to theauthorities that they improve the representation of civil society and the local community on
the advisory board and take the opportunity of extending the core area up to 600 ha toelaborate and update the biosphere reserve’s management plan.
Samaria Biosphere Reserve (Greece)232. The Council welcomed this second periodic review report for Samaria Biosphere Reserve,
designated in 1981. The Council noted with appreciation the actions taken to address therecommendation of the first report with regard to the zonation, the governance structure
and research and monitoring. The Council acknowledged the extension of the core area
(4,387ha to 4,887ha) and the addition of a buffer zone of 15,768 ha and a transition areaof 37,829ha. However, there was still room for improvement and thus the Council
considered that the biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It recommended that theauthorities:• Revise the zonation in order to protect the core area entirely by a buffer zone;• Send to the Secretariat a copy of the revised management plan with a zonation inconcordance with the criteria set by the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves andthe Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserve;• Consider the participation of representatives of local communities and the private
sector in the coordination and management structure of the biosphere reserve;• Finalize the establishment of a research and monitoring programme for the habitats
and landscapes of the biosphere reserve.
233. It requested that all these elements be sent to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September
2015.
General recommendation for Hungary
234. The Council welcomed the voluntary reports and acknowledged the work done, which waswell prepared and structured, describing the process for improving the functioning ofAggtelek Biosphere Reserve (designated 1979), Lake Fertő Biosphere Reserve(designated 1979), Hortobágy Biosphere Reserve (designated 1979), Kiskunság
Biosphere Reserve (designated 1979) and Pilis Biosphere Reserve (designated 1980).
235. The Council took note of the fact that the zonation of the five biosphere reserves was in
the process of modification and that zonation already existed for the national parks. The
Council also took note of the zonation map received for the Hungarian part of the MuraDrava-Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, designated in 2012.
236. It also noted that there was a national monitoring programme in place in all thesebiosphere reserves in relation to nature protection and conservation measures, that efforts
had been made to support farming through the High Nature Value (HNV) Areas
38

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
programme of the European Union’s Agri-environmental Scheme and there were goodeducational and training programmes.
237. However, the Council considered that the explanation and methodology that led to the
new zonation system was unclear and needed further explanation, especially as regards
the IUCN reference to zones A, B, C.
238. Therefore, the Council recommended that, for each site, the Hungarian authorities:• Review the zonation and ensure that it meets the Statutory Framework criteria toenable implementation of the three functions. Special emphasis needed placing on
joining clusters, providing connectivity between zones and making the transition area
an appropriate size.
• Prepare a management plan according to the Seville Strategy and Statutory
Framework;• Involve local communities in management, conservation and establish partnerships
with stakeholders.
Aggtelek Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)
239. The Council welcomed the voluntary report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 1979.
The Council considered that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council recommended that theauthorities improve the zonation, in order to meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkand to fulfill the three functions. The Council also recommended that the authorities design
a management structure to make the reserve more inclusive of stakeholders and toensure the direct participation of stakeholders in managing the biosphere reserve. Lastly,
they recommended that the authorities develop a management plan in line with the Seville
Strategy and the Statutory Framework.
Lake Fertö Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)240. The Council welcomed the voluntary report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 1979.
The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, it recommended that the site further
develop the participatory process for engaging communities in the area’s management. It
also welcomed the cooperation with Austria and further encouraged the authorities to
explore a collaborative approach to lake ecosystem management, as well as thepossibility of establishing a transboundary biosphere reserve.
Hortobágy Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)
241. The Council welcomed the voluntary report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 1979.
The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves. It encouraged the authorities to pursue theparticipatory approach to coordinating and managing the biosphere reserve. It also
requested that the management plan be finalized in accordance with the Seville Strategy
and the Statutory Framework.
Kiskunság Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)
242. The Council welcomed the voluntary report on this biosphere reserve, designated in 1979.
The Council considered that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It requested that the authorities provide azonation map and explore the possibilities for connecting the patches of the biosphere39SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
reserve in order to unite the different clusters into one entity. It also requested that amanagement plan for the entire area be designed, once the new zonation is in place.
Pilis Biosphere Reserve (Hungary)
243. The Council welcomed the voluntary report of this biosphere reserve designated in
1980.The Council considered that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It further encouraged theauthorities to work on the zonation and to provide a zonation map with clear boundaries
for the biosphere reserve. It also requested that the authorities provide a management
plan and suggested they conduct assessments of the impact of tourism on the area andexplain better how tourism was managed in the area.
North Bull Island Biosphere Reserve (Ireland)
244. The Council welcomed the draft of this first periodic review of North Bull Island Biosphere
Reserve, established in 1981. The Council welcomed the inclusive participatory approach
put in place to extending the area and strongly encouraged the authorities to implement
these changes and the extension, in order for the site to have an appropriate zonation that
fulfilled the three functions and meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves. It requested that the Irish authorities finalize the periodic
review report and submit it by the end of September 2014. It encouraged the developmentof a more inclusive management structure, based on the direct involvement of wider rangeof stakeholders in the planning and management of the proposed biosphere reserve.
Islands of Tuscany Biosphere Reserve (Italy)
245. The Council welcomed this first periodic review report on this biosphere reserve,
designated in 2003. The Council considered that the zonation was unclear and does notreflect delineations that enabled it to fulfill the functions of a biosphere reserve. It also
noted that no management plan had been prepared for the biosphere reserve, only a Park
Plan adopted by national law, and that the ecosystem services were not properly
explained.
246. The Council also considered inadequate the participation of local communities inmanagement, research activities, the sustainable development project and monitoring
activities and regretted that it could not find any evidence of stakeholders’ involvement injoint projects. It also noted that communication was lacking on the strategy and targeted
public awareness-raising actions. It further noted the absence of evaluation of the impact
of tourism on the area and could find no evidence of monitoring, nor any information on
how the biosphere reserve was involved in the supervision and regulation of tourism. It
also noted that research was oriented towards conservation schemes implemented in thenational park. There was no evidence how research findings were implicated in fostering
sustainable development.
247. The Council considered that the biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Within the context of
the implementation of the exit strategy, the Council considered that evidence concerning
all the missing elements described above needed to be provided by 30 September 2015.
Dana Biosphere Reserve (Jordan)
248. The Council welcomed the periodic review report of the Dana Biosphere Reserve.
Designated in 1998, the biosphere reserve encompasses four biogeographic zones and40SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
seven vegetation types with a rich flora and fauna. Whereas, traditionally, people in thearea lived a nomadic lifestyle, and some still do, the majority are settled in villages aroundthe reserve. With 40,000 visitors per year, tourism is an important income and job
generator for the reserve. The scientific research programme managed at central level(Royal Society for Conservation of Nature - RSCN) includes ecological monitoring andmore applied research, including on socio-economic factors, as well as archeologicalresearch. The RSCN also has an environmental education programme targeting
schoolchildren and cooperatives around the reserve.
249. The management plan has been developed in accordance with the IUCN criteria and isvalid for five years. RSCN is the only authority managing the biosphere reserve. The
Council concluded that the Dana Biosphere Reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, the Committee invitedthe Jordanian authorities to seek to involve further local communities, civil society including the private sector - in the region to become closer partners in the coordinationand management structures of the biosphere reserve. Lastly, the Council also
recommended that the many good experiences gained in the Dana Biosphere Reserve beshared with other biosphere reserves in the region and with the WNBR at large.
Mt Mulanje Biosphere Reserve (Malawi)
250. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of Mt Mulanje Biosphere Reserve,
established in 2000. Mt Mulanje is a Priority One Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) within the
Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot; it has the highest endemic terrestrial
biodiversity in Malawi and the second highest in the region after the Chimanimani
Mountains (Zimbabwe). The three zones of the biosphere reserve are protected under theForestry Act (1996) as part of the Mulanje Mountain Forest Reserve.
251. The Committee appreciated the effort of authorities to conserve biodiversity, to promoteresearch and education and to control illegal activities within the biosphere reserve. It also
acknowledged with appreciation the existence of the Mont Mulanje Conservation Trust(MMCT), which is a sustainable source of income that supports the biosphere reserve
concept. Indeed, the Committee noted that, beyond the boundaries of the current
biosphere reserve (which has no residents inside), MMCT had a specific agenda to assist
many development activities with local community groups based upon opportunities ofinterest, local skills, natural resources availability and innovative payment schemes forecosystem services to foster conservation.
252. However, the Council considered that the biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in
the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, despite a strong
conservation function, good activities related to the logistic function and some promisingdevelopment functions. There is an obvious need to expand the biosphere reserve area toenable a larger transition area that encompasses the neighboring community villages
where a variety of sustainable development activities have been facilitated over the past
decade. The Committee was confident that the authorities were on the way to meeting thezonation criteria and encouraged the authorities to go ahead. The Committee also noted
the biosphere reserve authority's willingness to improve the participation of local
stakeholders. The Council recommended that the authorities:• Review the zonation of the Biosphere Reserve, in order to incorporate the abovementioned expansion requirement.
41

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English••••

Take advantage of the Coordination structure (MMCT) as a basis for establishing a
multistakeholder management structure for the future enlarged biosphere reserve.
Assess the pros and cons of the various possibilities for (i) enlarging the transitionarea and (ii) reclassifying the Chambe basin transition area as the buffer zone andseeking its legal protection
Clarify the social and economic impact of the biosphere reserve
Provide information on how local communities and settlements will be involved in the
different projects and in the management of the future enlarged biosphere reserve.

253. The Council strongly encouraged the biosphere reserve to use the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves to share experience and practices and requested that it receive all
information related to the above-mentioned clarifications by 30 September 2014. The
Council strongly suggests exploring the possibility of adding a transboundary extension to
the Milange area of Mozambique. For this purpose, the Committee recommends (i)developing a collaborative process with the Mozambique authorities and (ii) requesting the
MAB Secretariat’s support and that of the South African MAB colleagues in implementing
the process.
Alto Golfo de California y El Pinacate Biosphere Reserve (former Alto Golfo de California
Biosphere Reserve) (Mexico)254. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of the Alto Golfo de California y El
Pinacate Biosphere Reserve. This biosphere was established in 1993 as El Pinacate,Gran Desierto de Altar y Alto Golfo de California. It was then extended in 1995 andrenamed Alto Golfo de California. Given its relevance and the need to maintain the identityof both areas, the proposed new name is Alto Golfo de California y El Pinacate Biosphere
Reserve.
255. A core area of this biosphere reserve was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site
in 2013. The biosphere reserve has regular fiscal funds and has received support from the
Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and from the Natural Protected Areas Fund (FANP).
A project on conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity in the
Gulf of California was started jointly with Germany in 2013.
256. The Council welcomed the renaming of this biosphere reserve and concluded that this site
meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves.
Islas del Golfo de California Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)257. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of the Islas del Golfo de California
Biosphere Reserve, established in 1995. Part of this biosphere reserve was also
designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2005. The biosphere reserve has carriedout different campaigns relating to sustainable fishing, sustainable tourism, waste
management and the eradication of invasive species. A climate change strategy is being
defined and monitoring campaigns for sea lions, brown pelicans, sea turtles and whale
sharks are being carried out. Since 2012, the island has been part of the World Network ofIsland and Coastal Biosphere Reserves.
258. The Council acknowledged the excellent management of this biosphere reserve.
However, it was concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The authorities are therefore42SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
requested to define better the buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) for all the islands andthe coast, and to engage more with the local population.
Sierra La Laguna Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)259. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of the Sierra La Laguna Biosphere
Reserve, established in 2003. The Council noted with satisfaction the great work done inthis biosphere reserve in the last ten years and the important scientific work done in thereserve, in order to have a better knowledge of the mountain ecosystems, the effect ofhuman activities on vegetation and the current and potential use of the natural resourcesof the area. Part of the area was designated a Ramsar site in 2008.
260. The Council also noted with satisfaction that, after ten years, the management plan will be
evaluated, in order to improve it. The Council congratulated the authorities for
implementing a Global Environmental Facility-funded project to improve the quality life of
farmers.
261. The Council considered that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Waddensea Area Biosphere Reserve (the Netherlands)
262. The Council welcomed the second periodic review report of this biosphere reserve
designated in 1986. It recognized the importance of the site for wetlands andacknowledged the active participation of the site as a World Heritage site. However, it
noted that no appropriate zonation of the site was in place. In addition, it was difficult toevaluate how the site was indeed managed as a biosphere reserve, since the governanceseemed complex. Moreover, the connection amongst the various regulations andinstitutions was unclear. Lastly, it noted that there were some military activities in the area
but lacked details on the possible impact.
263. The Council considered that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In the context of the implementation of theexit strategy, the Council considered that all missing elements described above should be
evidenced and provided by 30 September 2015, using the new periodic review form.
Lal Suhanra Biosphere Reserve (Pakistan)
264. The Council acknowledged the submission of this second periodic review report for the Lal
Suhanra Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1977. The Committee wasconcerned by the absence of a resident population and a dedicated management team forthis biosphere reserve. The non-existence of a management plan for the site since its
designation as a biosphere reserve was also noted.
265. The Council noted that this periodic review was prepared using the services of aconsultant who relied on literature rather than current information on the ground.
266. The Council acknowledged the importance of this site for biodiversity conservation.
However, it was concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The authorities are therefore
requested to:• Inform the MAB Secretariat whether there is a resident population in the biospherereserve and, if, describe its involvement in managing the site.
43

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English•••

Submit a map with proper zonation.
Provide clarification of the zonation of the biosphere reserve in relation to thenational park.
Elaborate a clear management plan and provide information on the biospherereserve’s management team.

267. The requested information should reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2015.
Puerto Galera Biosphere Reserve (Philippines)
268. The Council welcomed the periodic review submission for this biosphere reserve, which
was designated in 1977. Economic activities include aquaculture, quarrying of marble andgold mining. The resident population in the biosphere reserve amounts to approximately
20,000.
269. The Council noted that the zonation of this site does not conform to the zonation systemprescribed for biosphere reserves and that it focused only on the marine protected areas.
The Council also pointed out that there were different acts regulating the different zones ofthe biosphere reserve and that the available management plan only concerned the marine
protected areas, not the entire biosphere reserve. Although the conservation function was
being met, the development and logistic functions were not being fulfilled.
270. The Council acknowledged the importance of this site for biodiversity conservation.
However, it concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In order to meet the criteria, it isrecommended that the authorities implement the following:• Re-zone the area to conform to the zonation criteria for biosphere reserves.
• Provide information on the management structure for the biosphere reserve, as well
as a management plan.
271. Having implemented the necessary action, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
272. The Council encouraged the authorities to seek technical support from other biospherereserve experts in the Philippines, the Southeast Asian Biosphere Reserve Network andthe MAB Secretariat.
Bialowieza Biosphere Reserve (Poland)
273. The Council welcomed the third periodic review of Bialowieza Biosphere Reserve,
established in 1976 and extended in 2005. This report also comes in response to therecommendations made in 2013. The Council recognized the high biodiversity value of
Bialowieza Biosphere Reserve and its importance within the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves. However, the Council noted with concern that the 2013 recommendations had
not been addressed and therefore considered that the biosphere reserve does not meetthe criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
274. Therefore, the Council strongly recommended that the authorities:• Establish an institution with a coordinating function for the entire biosphere reservethat will involve participation of stakeholders and inhabitants;• Provide a copy of the biosphere management plan or a detailed outline thereof;44

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English••

Describe activities related to the biosphere reserve and how the recommendations
on the management plan of the previous periodic review have been taken into
account;
Clarify how the development and logistic functions of the biosphere reserve would be
strengthened.

275. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Puszcza Kampinoska Biosphere Reserve (Poland)
276. The Council welcomed the second periodic review report of this biosphere reserve,
designated in 2000, as a follow-up to the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2013.
It welcomed the information on how the Puszcza Kampinoska Biosphere Reserve wasinvolved in international activities and how consultations with local communities were heldon matters regarding the national park. The Council acknowledged the commitment fromthe Puszcza Kampinoska Biosphere Reserve to address the issues raised in the previous
recommendations.
277. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves. However, it encouraged the authorities to prepare,in cooperation with local stakeholders, a management plan for the biosphere reserve thatwould be broader than the national park management plan; it also recommended that the
local authorities build on existing local community-based institutions and local actiongroups, as well as the private sector, to ensure the participation of these stakeholders in
the activities of the area promoting sustainable development and in the management of
the biosphere reserve.
Luknajno Lake Biosphere Reserve (Poland)
278. The Council welcomed this second periodic review report for the biosphere reserve,
designated in 1976. The Council noted that the biosphere reserve has only core area andbuffer zones and that the activities described are mainly focused on nature conservation.
It also acknowledged that the area is of very small size (14 km2) with a very low
population. While the conservation and logistics functions are fully implemented, thedevelopment function is rather weak and local public participation in the biosphere reserve
management or partnership network for the overall governance of the biosphere reserve
has not been concluded. All activities are conducted in relation to the Luknajno Lake
Nature Reserve. The Council further noted that there is a vision for the creation of a larger
biosphere reserve in the area.
279. The Council therefore considered that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Given the high biodiversity ofLuknajno Lake, the Council encouraged the authorities to consider a possible future
proposal for a new biosphere reserve that would be larger, with Luknajno Lake as part ofthe core area and which would fully comply with the Statutory Framework criteria.
Tatra Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Poland/Slovakia)
280. The Council welcomed the first joint periodic review report for this transboundary
biosphere reserve, established in 1993. It acknowledged the efforts made by bothcountries in preparing this joint report using the updated transboundary periodic review
45SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
form. It also considered that both sites were working mainly on conservation aspects andmainly fulfilling the mission of national parks.
281. The Council also noted that several joint projects were focusing on conservation, such as
the common strategies for the conservation of large carnivores, including creating a Tatra
management unit of cross-border populations of large carnivores; the standardization of
protocols for dead animals and collecting samples for further study. It also noted activities
related to education, curricula for young people on both sides of theborder, as well as the joint organization of conferences.
282. However, the Council noted that there was no clear evidence of cooperation as regards
the sustainable development function. The Council considered that this transboundary site
addresses the Pamplona recommendations but recommended the following:• That the authorities provide clarification on changes in human population;• That the authorities provide a joint management plan in accordance with the Seville
Strategy and Pamplona recommendations for the transboundary biosphere reserve,
using a participatory process and in close cooperation with local communities andstrategic partners, including the private sector;• That the authorities ensure the proper involvement of local people in management
and activities fostering sustainable development;• That the authorities of both countries provide their national periodic review forms at
the same time as the joint transboundary periodic review form.
283. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
284. The Council also requested that the MAB Secretariat contact the Slovak MAB National
Committee concerning a letter that has been received which is challenging some
information contained in the periodic review form.
East Carpathians Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Poland/Slovakia/Ukraine)
285. The Council welcomed the first joint periodic review report for this transboundary
biosphere reserve, established in 1998. It acknowledged with satisfaction that acooperation agreement had been prepared, that there were prospects for joint future
activities and that effort had been made towards fostering development. It also took noteof the information provided on scientific research, confirming the large amount of researchstudies done in the area in flora and fauna, but also the lack of social studies.
286. The Council welcomed the information that local participation had started during the
preparation of the periodic review form. The Council pointed out that there was still nomanagement plan for the entire area and that no person/group or entity had yet been
appointed coordinator of the transboundary biosphere reserve.
287. The Council concluded that the transboundary biosphere reserve was not addressing thePamplona recommendations for transboundary biosphere reserves and recommended thethree national authorities to:• Establish a coordination structure for the transboundary biosphere reserve tofacilitate activities public awareness-raising activities, partners and projects among
all six entities involved in the transboundary biosphere reserve;46SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English••••

Operationalize the cooperation agreement and extend it to activities fosteringdevelopment, encourage local involvement in joint actions and projects, including
tourism management;
Promote some applied research projects to address local issues related to tourism,
culture conservation and promotion, as well as local knowledge conservation;
Prepare programmes and activities enabling the active participation of local
communities;
Implement joint initiatives listed in the joint periodic review.

288. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Paul do Boquilobo Biosphere Reserve (Portugal)
289. The Council welcomed this first periodic review report for the Paul do Boquilobo Biosphere
Reserve. The total surface area comes to 55, 400 ha. This biosphere reserve wasdesignated in 1981 and enlarged in 2005 to include a transition area. The Committee
noted, however, that the map provided did not include a transition area. There is also no
human population in the transition area.
290. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In order to meet the criteria, it isrecommended that the authorities implement the following recommendations:• Provide a map with proper zonation.
• Provide information on the governance of the biosphere reserve.
• Provide information on the involvement of local people in management and indecision-making processes concerning the biosphere reserve.
291. The requested information should reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2015.
Nerussa-Desnyanskoye Polesye Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
292. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, designated in
2001. The Council noted that, whereas the conservation function was fully implemented,
the logistics function was weak and the development function non-existent. It also notedthat the activities and management described in the report focused mainly on the Bryansk
Forest State Nature Reserve. The Council further pointed out that there was no overallmanagement plan for the biosphere reserve, no participation of local communities in thebiosphere reserve management and no vision for the biosphere reserve. The Council
could not find appropriate measures to address these weaknesses and problems. The
Council therefore concluded that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
293. The Council requested that the authorities provide the following documents andclarifications by 30 September 2015:• Resubmit the periodic review on the updated periodic review form;• Design a management plan for the overall biosphere reserve with clear proposals foraction to enhance the logistic and development functions;• Design a mechanism for the biosphere reserve coordination body that would include
local communities in management through participation;• Provide an explanation for the absence of a buffer zone around the Skripkinsky core
area;
47

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English•

Clarify how the various projects and research outcomes are integrated in thefunctioning of the biosphere reserve.

Far East Marine Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
294. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, designated in
2003. The Council noted that, whereas the conservation function and the logistic function(namely research) were of a very high standard, the development function was weak,
partly due to the absence of any settlements on the reserve. It was also noted thatparticipatory management, which includes local stakeholders in the biosphere reserve,
was also non-existent.
295. The Council therefore considered that, whereas the site was doing excellent work in thefields of nature protection and research, it does not meet the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Within the context of theimplementation of the exit strategy, the Council recommended submission concerning all
missing elements described above by 30 September 2015.
Visimskiy Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
296. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of Visimskiy Biosphere Reserve,
established in 2001. The Council considered that the biosphere reserve meets the criteria
in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, through a strong
conservation function and good logistics with improving education, despite a weaker
development function.
297. The Council noted with appreciation that the biosphere reserve authorities planned to
improve the work of the biosphere reserve by involving a certain number of partners, civicorganizations, educational departments and entrepreneurs, who would collaborate on
activities related to environmental education and the development of tourism at the site.
Also noted was the will to get local authorities interested in engaging with the local
community in the biosphere reserve in events, actions and festivities and the provision ofenvironmental education and tourist services.
298. The Council recommended that the authorities:• Provide an updated zonation map;
• Clarify how the development and logistic functions of the biosphere reserve will bestrengthened;• Provide information about the representation and consultation of local communities
and their participation in the life of the biosphere reserve through proposals for amore participative and inclusive approach to biosphere reserve management andprovide supporting evidence of the creation of a supervisory board, as indicated in
the report, in which stakeholders and inhabitants of the closest municipal districts
could be represented.
299. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Commander Islands Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
300. The Council welcomed the periodic review from this biosphere reserve, designated in
2002. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It noted that the conservation function was48

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
being implemented, as well as the logistic function; however, it considered that thedevelopment function, despite a sparse population, should be strengthened.
301. The Council noted with satisfaction the focus on work with indigenous communities andencouraged the authorities to promote participatory approaches in decision-making
processes further. It also welcomed the dissemination of information on the biospherereserve (e.g. the use of resources is beneficial) but encouraged the direct involvement oflocal communities in the joint management plan and the preparation of a strategy forsustainable use of natural resources.
302. The Council recommended that the authorities:• Integrate all the workplans in an integrated biosphere reserve management plan with
the involvement of stakeholders in all processes;• Document examples of projects completed in the biosphere reserve;• Design a more inclusive biosphere reserve management structure, based on themodel of the existing Commander Islands Nature and Biosphere Reserve Scientificand Technical Council, composed of representatives of the indigenous populationand the district authorities.
303. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Katunsky Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
304. The Council welcomed this first periodic review report for this biosphere reserve,
designated in 2000. It noted with satisfaction the implemented changes, especially thosein the field of participative management and coordination of the biosphere reserve throughthe establishment of the multistakeholder Public Council of Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve.
The work focusing on sustainable development and in helping to create alternative
sources of income for local communities and to reduce the human impact on theenvironment was also noted with high satisfaction, as this work could serve as a model forother biosphere reserves.
305. The Council commended the representatives of the Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve for thehigh quality of the periodic review report. It considered, however, that the biospherereserve does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the zonation be revised, with the buffer zones
surrounding entirely the core areas. This revision should reach the MAB Secretariat by 30
September 2015.
Nizhegorodskoe Zavolzhye Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
306. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of Nizhegorodskoy Zavolzhye Reserve,
established in 2002. The Council considered that the biosphere reserve does not meet thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The site
has a strong conservation function but considerably weak logistics and development
functions. It was noted that there was no permanent or temporary population living in thebiosphere reserve and that the biosphere reserve only interacted with settlements, someof them fairly large, beyond its borders. However, the Council noted with appreciation theefforts made by the biosphere reserve authority to include stakeholders in the process ofparticipatory management, even though this concerned special occasions or temporary
working groups.
49SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
307. The Council requested that the authorities:• Consider extending the biosphere reserve to include settlements and their
populations, as already suggested in the periodic review.
• Propose establishing an institution with a coordinating function for the entire
biosphere reserve that would involve stakeholders and inhabitants on a permanent
basis.
• Design a comprehensive management plan for the entire biosphere reserve.
• Clarify how the development and logistic functions of the biosphere reserve will bestrengthened.
• Clarify how the various projects and research outcomes are integrated in thefunctioning of the biosphere reserve.
308. The Council strongly encouraged the biosphere reserve to use the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves to share experience and practices and requested that the Secretariat
receive all information related to the above-mentioned clarifications by 30 September
2015.
Julian Alps Biosphere Reserve (Slovenia)
309. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of Julian Alps Biosphere Reserve,
established in 2003. The Council considered that the biosphere reserve meets the criteria
in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, having a strong
conservation function and a good logistics function but a weak development function. The
Council took note of the biosphere reserve authority's willingness to improve theparticipation of local stakeholders in the process of elaborating a management plan.
310. The Council recommended that the Slovenian authorities:• Clarify how the development and logistic functions of the biosphere reserve will be
improved• Clarify the social and ecological impacts of tourism development (i.e. ski resort);• Provide the management plan for the Triglav National Park once validated;• Provide information on how local communities and municipalities are involved in the
different projects and management of the biosphere reserve.
311. The Council strongly encouraged the biosphere reserve to use the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves for sharing experience and practices and requested to receive all
information requested above by 30 September 2015.
La Palma Biosphere Reserve (Spain)
312. This biosphere reserve had been originally designated as El Canal y Los Tiles in 1983
then extended in 1998. The entire island was included as a biosphere reserve in 2002
which was renamed La Palma, including marine areas. This revision also provides anadjustment to the zonation to include the new protected areas that were declared when it
was first designated as a biosphere reserve. The Council congratulated the local
authorities for the detailed information provided and for the continued adaptation of thebiosphere reserve concept to the local situation. It serves as a model of participatory
management. The Council noted that more information was also provided in the 20132022 Biosphere Reserve Action Plan entitled From protected area to area of protection.

50

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
313. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and provided a model for insular
biosphere reserves.
Monfragüe Biosphere Reserve (Spain)
314. This biosphere reserve was designated in 2003. During that session, the Council had
requested that further information be provided on the protected status of the core areaand buffer zone lying within the biosphere reserve but which are not part of the nationalpark. In line with this request, the Council noted that in 2007, almost the whole core areaand buffer zone of the biosphere reserve was given the status of a National Park by theauthorities. The national authorities also elaborated an action plan for the entire biospherereserve which integrates the national park management plan and other protected areas,such as those within Natura 2000, all of which are reflected in the zonation. The
Monfragüe Biosphere Reserve is also engaged in achieving the MAB objectives incollaboration with local communities.
315. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Picos de Europa Biosphere Reserve (Spain)
316. The Council welcomed the periodic review of this biosphere reserve, designated in 2003.
This biosphere reserve conforms to the surface area of the Picos de Europa National
Park. They share a common management structure and action plan. This partnershiphelps the biosphere reserve to achieve its objectives. The biosphere reserve is also part of
the Asturian Biosphere Reserve network, which is a platform for tourism promotion andlocal income generation. The Council suggested that the local authorities extend the areaof the biosphere reserve and encouraged them to explore this possibility. This would
include more urban areas in the biosphere reserve, as already proposed in the periodic
report. This suggestion follows the recommendation of the Council in 2003.
317. The Council concluded that this Biosphere Reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Terras do Miño Biosphere Reserve (Spain)
318. The Council welcomed the first periodic review of his biosphere reserve, designated in
2002. During that session, the Council had requested clarification of the protected coreareas. The biosphere reserve has several categories of protected area like the Natura
2000 sites and regional ones that ensure the protection of the core areas. Since 2011, its
management structure and action plan have been developed in consultation with local
communities; this helps guarantee the active functioning of the biosphere reserve.
Activities in education and communication are being implemented to promote the area’s
environmental and cultural values. The Council also noted the peculiarity of the zoning
system, which is complementary with the Cantabrian mountain chain.
319. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves but requested more informationon the unification process of the biosphere reserves of the Cantabrian mountain chain.

51

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Valles del Leza, Jubera, Cidacos y Alhama Biosphere Reserve (Spain)
320. This biosphere reserve had been designated in 2003. During that session, the Council
had requested confirmation of this proposal’s endorsement by the appropriate local
representatives and more information on the establishment and role of the management
board of the biosphere reserve.
321. In line with this request, the Council noted that the biosphere reserve had a proposed
action plan for 2014-2023 that is coordinated by the manager of the biosphere reserve.
The biosphere reserve is an active member of the Spanish Biosphere Reserve Network, inparticular as concerns the “label” thematic working group, which is an example of its
activities promoting cooperation. It is also working on educational and communication
programmes to engage local authorities and communities.
322. The Council acknowledged the zoning proposal to readjust the borders of the biospherereserve to integrate some communities in the transition area. It welcomed this initiative as
an example of local community involvement. It also suggested standardizing the name of
the biosphere reserve to avoid confusion.
323. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that thenational authorities implement the following:• Standardize the name of the biosphere reserve.
Dehesas de Sierra Morena Biosphere Reserve (Spain)
324. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of this biosphere reserve, designated in
2002. During that session, the Council had recommended that the biosphere reserve:• Develop an integrated management plan for the entire area, paying attention to
improving the level of participation of all stakeholders;• Step up environmental education in areas other than the three national parks locatedin the biosphere reserve; and• Explore cooperation related to the study and management of Dehesas culturallandscapes in other parts of Spain and Portugal.
325. In line with this request, the Council noted the use of a management plan to coordinate
the biosphere reserve in the three natural parks (Sierra de Aracena y Picos de Aroche,
Sierra Norte de Sevilla, Sierra de Hornachuelos). These plans ensure the participation of
local communities surrounding the natural parks and promote environmental education.
The Council encouraged the authorities to continue working on the completion of abiosphere reserve management plan and noted that the designation of a coordinator of
the Dehesas de Sierra Morena Biosphere Reserve had been initiated. This biospherereserve is a member of the Andaluzia regional committee of biosphere reserves andtherefore benefits from the experiences of other biosphere reserves in this part of Spain.
326. The Council concluded that this Biosphere Reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council encouraged thenational authorities to:• Finalize the management plan specifically for the biosphere reserve.
• Pay attention to monitoring the regulation of hunting activities, in order to ensure an
ecological equilibrium.
52

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Valle de Laciana Biosphere Reserve (Spain)
327. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of this biosphere reserve, designated in
2003. It is managed by the “Fundacion de la Laciana Reserva de Biosfera”. In spite of its
slow start, in 2008/2009 an action plan was established for it to promote activities onconservation of the cultural and natural values, sustainable development, communication,
research and management. The Council also noted the creation of the Association ofCastilla y Leon Biosphere Reserves in 2012 (that includes four of the eight biospherereserves from this province). However, some challenges exist with regard to mining, forest
fires and the preservation of the habitat for bears. The Council encouraged the biospherereserve authorities to continue pursuing their activities.
328. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and urged the national
authorities to take the following actions:• To elaborate a management plan;• To integrate the transition area (cities and mines) with the buffer zone;• To promote the research and inventory of biodiversity;• To promote ecological restoration of the environment near the carbon mines;• To create a plan to guarantee the connectivity in the landscape.
Muniellos Biosphere Reserve (Spain)
329. The Council welcomed the periodic review of this biosphere reserve designated in 2000
and extended in 2003 following the proposed Gran Cantabrica Biosphere Reserve
designated by the autonomous provinces. This biosphere reserve also fits the delineationof the Fuentes de Narcea, Degaña e Ibias Natural Park. They share a common
management structure and action plan. The biosphere reserve is part of the Asturian
Biosphere Reserve network, which is a platform for promoting tourism and local income
generation, in line with the previous Gran Cantabrica concept. However, the similar
naming of the Muniellos Biosphere Reserve and the Reserva Natural Integral de Muniellos(for conservation issues only) has created some confusion. In addition, the Council noteda potential zoning conflict with the authorization for mineral extraction, hunting areas andthe biosphere reserve limits. The Council encouraged the local authorities to consider the
possibility of extending the area of the biosphere reserve and including more urban areas,
as proposed in this periodic report.
330. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and encouraged the national
authorities to consider revising the zonation of the biosphere reserve, in order to increase
the protection of the western part of the core area.
Kanneliya-Dediyagala-Nakiyadeniya Biosphere Reserve (Sri Lanka)
331. The Council welcomed this first periodic review report of the biosphere reserve,
designated in 2004. This biosphere reserve has been active with respect to the threebiosphere reserve functions. The Council noted the proposed changes in the zonation: toextend the core area, buffer zone and transition area with the aim of incorporating an
adjacent forest area.
332. The Committee concluded that this site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of
the World Network of Biosphere Reserves Biosphere Reserves and approved the53

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
proposed extension. The Committee encouraged the national authorities to consider
connecting this biosphere reserve with the Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve.
Hurulu Biosphere Reserve (Sri Lanka)
333. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the Hurulu Biosphere Reserve,
designated in 1977. The original total surface area was 25,500ha without a transition area.
The new total surface area will be 69,641ha, comprised of 512ha of core area, 40,670haof buffer zone and 28,459ha of transition area. For the first 30 years following its
designation, the authorities could not undertake any significant activities in the biospherereserve owing to civil unrest in the area. The current human population in the area is
14,654.
334. The Council commended the authorities for this well-prepared report. The Council
concluded that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network
of Biosphere Reserves and approved the proposed extension. The Council encourages
the authorities to consider increasing the size of the core area.
Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve (Sri Lanka)
335. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve,
which was designated in 1978. It is the largest rainforest in Sri Lanka. The first periodic
review report for this site was submitted in 2003. The Committee noted that the authorities
had implemented well the MAB ICC’s past recommendations.
336. At the time of its designation, this site only had a core area of 11,187ha. Currently, there isa buffer zone of 16,316ha and a transition area of 2,087ha, which were demarcated in2014, in addition to a core area of 11,427ha. The Council congratulated the national
authorities for this improved zonation. There are permanent local communities living in thebiosphere reserve who are actively involved in managing the site.
337. The Council concluded that this site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves and approved the proposed extension. The Council
recommended that the national authorities consider re-zoning to avoid direct contact
between the core and transition areas, especially in the location indicated as Lankagama
on the zonation map.
Hauy Tak Teak Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)
338. The Council welcomed this second periodic review of the Huay Tak Teak Biosphere
Reserve, designated in 1977. The committee commended the authorities for setting up acoordinating centre in 2012 which is responsible for facilitating collaboration among
various stakeholders.
339. The Council concluded that this site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council recommended greater involvement by
the local government and community in managing the biosphere reserve, a task whichshould not be restricted to the central government only. The governance structure also
needs improving, with a detailed management plan.
340. The Council noted an error in the legend of the map (the buffer zone had been given as
the transition area). The authorities are, therefore, requested to send the MAB Secretariat54SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
a new zonation map with the correct legend and a detailed management plan by 30
September 2015.
Ranong Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)
341. The Council welcomed this second periodic review report for the Ranong Biosphere
Reserve, which was designated in 1997. Mangroves constitute the predominantecosystem of this biosphere reserve. The site remains largely unchanged and themangrove forest conditions are reported to have improved considerably. The Council
noted that the zonation was the same as when the biosphere reserve was designated.
The Council also acknowledged the information provided on the management structure of
the biosphere reserve and local stakeholder participation.
342. The Council concluded that this site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council was concerned, however, that local
communities had very little knowledge about the biosphere reserve concept. The
authorities are, therefore, encouraged to embark on building awareness and educating
local communities about biosphere reserves. The authorities are requested to submit acomprehensive management plan taking into consideration local community participation.
Askania nova Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine)
343. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for this biosphere reserve, which was
designated in 1983. The first periodic review report was done in 1998. The total area
remains the same. It is also a Ramsar site. The predominant ecosystem is lowland
steppe.
344. Economic activities in the buffer zone include agriculture and sheep-grazing. Animalhusbandry and agriculture are practiced in the transition area which has seven villages.
There is a dedicated management team and a functional management plan. The Council
noted that an updated map had not been submitted together with the periodic review
report, despite being required on the form.
345. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and requested that the national authorities
submit a report including an updated map showing the zonation clearly by 30 September
2015.
Chernomorskiy (Black Sea) Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine)
346. The Council welcomed this fourth periodic review report for this biosphere reserve,
designated in 1984. The Council welcomed this report as a follow-up on theimplementation status of the 2012 recommendations made by the MAB ICC.
347. The Council took note with satisfaction of the information provided and the measurestaken on the ground to create a new zonation and to improve management of the entire
biosphere reserve. However, the Council considered that this site does not meet thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The
terrestrial core area is not surrounded by a buffer zone. The committee requested that theauthorities provide a new zoning, enlarging the transition area to encompass farmland,and creating a buffer zone around the terrestrial core area.

55

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
348. In addition, the Council took note of the management policy aimed at preserving thetypical and unique socio-ecological system, as well as the study of change processes. It
requested that the Ukrainian authorities provide additional information on: (i) the
involvement of local communities in the coordination council and how they participate in
the decision-making process; (ii) how research studies contributed to management design
and implementation; (iii) the conservation status of rare species within the biospherereserve and on the regional scale; (iv) how wind power was taken into account in the
management plan.
349. The Council requested that the MAB Secretariat be provided with the afore-mentioned
information by 30 September 2015 at the latest.
Shatskyi Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine)
350. The Council welcomed the periodic review of this biosphere reserve, designated in 2002.
The total surface area, as reported in this periodic review report, comes to 48,977 ha.
However, it is not clear whether this was before or after the reported extension of thebiosphere reserve in 2011. Nor is it clear whether the MAB Secretariat has been informedof this extension.
351. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and Council requested
that the national authorities submit a report and an updated map with clear zonation andclarify the reported extension by 30 September 2015.
Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine)
352. The Council welcomed the periodic review of this biosphere reserve, designated in 1992.
The Council commended the national authorities for this second submission of a periodic
review report for this site since its designation. The ecosystem is characterized by foothill
oak-groves, mountain beech, mixed and spruce forests, pine-alder alpine elfin woodland,
subalpine and alpine meadows and upland rocky-lichen landscapes.
353. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The national authorities are requested toclarify how, where and why the extension mentioned in the periodic review reportoccurred. The national authorities are also requested to review the zonation of thebiosphere reserve, in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Having implemented the necessary actions,the requested information should reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2015.
354. The Council encouraged the authorities to submit a transboundary biosphere reserve
nomination together with Romania.
General recommendation for United States of America
355. The Council welcomed the positive and unprecedented response of the US biospherereserve authorities to the MAB Secretariat’s request to submit periodic review reports forthe relevant biosphere reserves under US jurisdiction. The Council acknowledged thesignificance of this action in demonstrating the US authorities’ commitment to promoting
the goals and objectives of MAB and the concept of biosphere reserves within theircountry.
56

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
356. In this spirit, the Council wished to reiterate further the importance of ensuring thatbiosphere reserves are designated, structured and managed in order to fulfill the interconnected objectives of reconciling biodiversity conservation with its sustainable use while
also supporting initiatives to advance research, scientific cooperation and education. To
this end, the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves are the primary reference for all biosphere reserves.
357. Accordingly, while noting with great appreciation the progress made by many US
biosphere reserves that have submitted periodic review reports, particularly with regard totheir important contribution to conservation, promotion of education, research and science,
the Council wished to express its concern at the lack of emphasis given to fostering
sustainable development with the participation and involvement of local communities in
the current frameworks and structures of the majority of the US biosphere reserves forwhich periodic review reports have been received.
358. In light of the foregoing, and in line with the exit strategy it had adopted, the Council
recommended that a further review be considered by the authorities, in order to:•Incorporate a development function component aimed at fostering sustainableeconomic and human development of the local communities in each of thebiosphere reserves,•
Consider a re-design of the biosphere reserves, in order to ensure a zonation of thecore area, buffer zone and transition area to facilitate the three functions ofconservation, sustainable development and logistic support for science andeducation for each biosphere reserve.
•
Integrate the various plans managing the areas within each biosphere reserve in
one overall biosphere reserve management plan.
359. The Council considered that one possible way forward for the US authorities to address
the above recommendations may be through technical workshops, dialogue, consultationand technical visits involving all stakeholders in each biosphere reserve.
Big Bend Biosphere Reserve (USA)360. The Council welcomed the submission of this first periodic review report for the Big Bend
Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1976. The Council noted that the zonation of thebiosphere reserve remained the same as when it was designated. The Council noted thequality of the numerous conservation and tourism development activities and actions. The
Council considered that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of
the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, since there were strong conservation and good
logistics functions but a weak development function .
361. It also noted the lack of local communities’ involvement in activities promoting sustainable
development. The Council noted the long existence of cooperative projects. It
recommended that the size of the transition area be increased and invited the US
authorities to explore the possibility of creating a transboundary biosphere reserve with
the Maderas del Carmen Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, as the Big Bend Biosphere
Reserve is part of a cluster of an international area of huge conservation interest .
362. The Council also recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with thefollowing information:• A new periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
57SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English•

Land use maps and zonation maps with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone andtransition area.

363. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
California Coast Ranges Biosphere Reserve (USA)364. The Council welcomed the submission of this first periodic review report for the California
Coast Ranges Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1983, and the reports on some units ofthis site. With regard to the Heath and Marjorie Angelo Coast Range Reserve Unit, theCouncil noted that the zonation remained unchanged since its designation. The Council
noted the quality of the numerous actions to promote conservation and develop tourism. It
noted the strong conservation and good logistic functions but regretted the weakdevelopment function, as well as the lack of involvement of local communities in activities
promoting sustainable development. The Council acknowledged the rich biodiversity at
this site and the importance of the conservation function and high standard of research,education and training programmes and stewardship activities.
365. As regards the unit of Landels Hill Big Creek, the Council noted that the zonation
remained unchanged since its designation. The Council noted the quality of the numerous
actions to promote conservation and develop tourism. It noted the strong conservation
function and good logistic function but regretted the weak development function, as wellas the lack of involvement of local communities in activities promoting sustainable
development. The Council acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site and theimportance of the conservation function and high standard of research, education andtraining programmes and stewardship activities.
366. As regards the Redwood National and State Parks Unit, the Council noted that thezonation remained unchanged since its designation. The Council noted the quality of thenumerous actions to promote conservation and develop tourism. It noted the strong
conservation function and good logistic function but regretted the weak development
function, as well as the lack of involvement of local communities in activities promoting
sustainable development. The Council acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site andthe importance of the conservation function and high standard of research, education andtraining programmes and stewardship activities.
367. Based on the above information, the Council considered that this site does not meet thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The
Council recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following
information:• A new periodic review report using the official periodic review form for the 11 units ofthe biosphere reserve.
• Land use maps and a zonation map with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone andtransition area.
• Evidence of engagement with the surrounding local communities.
368. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.

58

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Carolinian-South Atlantic Biosphere Reserve (USA)369. The Council welcomed this periodic review from the Gray's Reef National Marine
Sanctuary unit, which is part of the biosphere reserve designated in 1986. From thelimited information provided, the Council considered that this site does not meet thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
However, the Council acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site, the importance of theconservation function and high standard of research, education and training programmes
and stewardship activities. The committee also noted the creation of the Gray's Reef
National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council to enable a participatory process and public
involvement.
370. The Council recommended that the authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with thefollowing information:• Updated periodic review report using the official form for all the units of thisbiosphere reserve;• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
371. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Central Gulf Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve (USA)372. The Council welcomed this periodic review from the biosphere reserve, designated in
1983. From the limited information provided, the Council considered that the site does notmeet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
However, the Council acknowledged the rich biodiversity at this site, the importance of theconservation function and high standard of research, education and training programmes.
The committee also noted that the biosphere reserve staff cooperated with many
stakeholders but that the stakeholders had no mechanism for participating directly in thebiosphere reserve management and planning. The Council recommended that theauthorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:• Updated periodic review report using the official form ;• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
373. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Channel Islands Biosphere Reserve (USA)374. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the Channel Islands Biosphere
Reserve. Designated in 1976, the Channel Islands Biosphere Reserve is located west of
Los Angeles, covering the Channel Islands National Park and the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary. Over the years, the park and sanctuary, in cooperation with
The Nature Conservancy, have played an important role in ensuring biodiversity
conservation, restoration and recovery, through a rich portfolio of management, protection,
research, monitoring, education and public awareness-raising programmes and projects.
375. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects islimited. The Council concluded that the Channel Islands Biosphere Reserve does notmeet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

59SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
376. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
Denali Biosphere Reserve (USA)377. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the Denali Biosphere Reserve.
Designated in 1976, Denali Biosphere Reserve is situated in south-central Alaska,
centered on the Alaska Range in the vicinity of the Denali National Park and Biosphere
Reserve. Since its inception, the reserve has contributed to the protection andmanagement of the ecosystems and wildlife found in Denali. A large number of institutions
are carrying out a wide range of important research projects in the area. The national parkand biosphere reserve are also successfully involved in activities related to education,
public awareness-raising and traditional ecological knowledge.
378. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects islimited. The Council concluded that the Denali Biosphere Reserve does not meet thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
379. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
Glacier Biosphere Reserve (USA)380. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the Glacier Biosphere Reserve andNational Park. Designated in 1976, Glacier Biosphere Reserve and National Park is
located in north-western Montana in the northern Rocky Mountains and adjacent to the
Canadian Waterton Biosphere Reserve. There is transboundary cooperation between
Glacier and Waterson National Parks, which comprise a joint Peace Park, designated in
1995 as a World Heritage site (Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park). As a uniquewilderness area with a very rich geological past, including mountain formation andglaciation processes, this biosphere reserve has successfully provided vital contributions
to science, research, education, recreation and transboundary cooperation over the years.
381. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects islimited. The Council concluded that the Glacier Biosphere Reserve and National Park
does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves.
382. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Having
implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
60

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Glacier Bay and Admiralty Island Biosphere Reserve (USA)383. The Council welcomes the submission of the periodic review report for this biospherereserve, which was designated in 1986. This biosphere reserve represents an outstanding
example of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem of the Sitkan Biogeographical Province ofNorth America. This biosphere reserve is reported to be a protected area. It is a large
oceanic island well-buffered from the effects of development on other islands off themainland. In addition, the Admiralty Island unit is not only a national forest but also anational monument and largely designated wilderness.
384. The Council noted that the management structure emphasized protection andpreservation of biodiversity, providing for only modest development and extraction
activities. Economic activities at this site are recreation, tourism, a resumption andexpansion in mining, a decline in commercial logging and investment in infrastructure. The
committee acknowledged the submission of a location and vegetation map for thisbiosphere reserve.
385. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve was functioning well with respect toconservation, logistic support and development. It noted, however, the lack of proper
zonation with respect to what is prescribed in the Statutory Framework of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves.
386. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities
provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve (USA)387. The Council welcomed the submission of this periodic review report for the Golden Gate
Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1988. The riparian habitat in the park has
been reported to support many wildlife species, including federally threatened Cohosalmon and federally endangered California freshwater shrimp. Economic activities in thebiosphere reserve include tourism and agriculture (wine grapes, silage and apples).
388. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities
provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information:• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
Hawaiian Islands Biosphere Reserve (USA)389. The Council welcomed the submission of this periodic review report for the Hawaiian
Islands Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1980. The committee noted thereported increase in the size of the two national parks which constitute this biospherereserve since 2003, although this new area is not included in the biosphere reserve.
390. This biosphere reserve provides a refuge for over 100 endangered plant and animal
species. The majority of these species are endemic and globally unique to the islands.
About 90% of the plant species are endemic, which makes this site very significant forbiodiversity conservation. The description provided for this site was done in detail.
61

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Opportunities to encourage sustainable development are focusing on lands adjacent tothe biosphere reserve, through collaborative partnerships with landowners and public
outreach to surrounding communities.
391. The Council acknowledged that this biosphere reserve contributed immensely toconservation and also noted with appreciation the involvement of local communities. It
noted, however, the lack of proper zonation and concluded that this site does not meet thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of Biosphere Reserves. It therefore recommended thatthe biosphere reserve authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following
information by 30 September 2015:• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
Jornada Experimental Range Biosphere Reserve (USA)392. The Council welcomed the submission of the periodic review report for this biospherereserve, which was designated in 1976. It noted that, in terms of conservation values, nosignificant changes had been reported. This biosphere reserve fulfills its logistic function
by collaborating with numerous universities, including New Mexico State University. It also
noted that there had been collaborations with the USDA Agricultural Research Service.
The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities
implement the following:• Provide an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
• Provide a zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone andtransition area.
• Explore opportunities for economic activities in the biosphere reserve and the
involvement of local communities in decision-making processes with regard to its
management.
393. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Konza Prairie Research Natural Area Biosphere Reserve (USA)394. The Council welcomed the periodic review report submission for the Konza Prairie
Research Natural Area Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1978. This biospherereserve is reported as being operated as a field research station by the Kansas State
University Division of Biology. It is a unique outdoor laboratory that provides opportunities
for the study of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem and for basic biological research on a large
range of taxa processes.
395. The Council noted with appreciation that there had been increased emphasis on
ecotourism in the Flint Hills and enhanced efforts to build public awareness and educate.
The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities
provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information by 30 September 2015:• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.

62

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve (USA)396. The Council welcomed the periodic review report submission for the Mammoth Cave Area
Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1990. This biosphere reserve consists of acore area (52,830 acres) a zone of cooperation (94,365 acres) and a transition area
(762,133 acres).
397. The Council noted that a variety of agricultural activities continued within the biospherereserve outside the core area. This biosphere reserve was expanded in 1996 to include909,328 acres in six counties. Along with promoting sustainable development, there
continues to be a strong effort to promote awareness of the importance of water quality toprotect the internationally recognized cave and karst landscape throughout the Mammoth
Cave Area Biosphere Reserve.
398. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and requested that the authorities provide
the MAB Secretariat with the following by 30 September 2015:• A zonation map with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
Mojave and Colorado Deserts Biosphere Reserve (USA)399. The Council welcomed the periodic review report submission for two units of the Mojave
and Colorado Deserts Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1984. This areaconserves large landscapes and areas of biodiversity. Topographical features and climaticconditions serve to isolate populations.
400. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities
provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information by 30 September 2015:• A zonation map with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form for all unitsof the biosphere reserve.
New Jersey Pinelands Biosphere Reserve (USA)401. The Council welcomed the submission of this first periodic review report for the New
Jersey Pinelands Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1983. The Council noted the highquality of the numerous actions promoting conservation and the development of tourism. It
noted the strong conservation and good logistic functions of this biosphere reserve.
However, the development function was weak and there was a lack of local community
involvement in activities promoting sustainable development. The Council therefore
considered that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities provide the
MAB Secretariat with the following information by 30 September 2015:• An updated periodic review report using the official form.
• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
• Evidence of engagement with the neighbouring local communities.
Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve (USA)402. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve.
Designated in 1979, the Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve is located 65 km northwest of
Denver in north-central Colorado. Niwot Ridge has successfully been used by the63SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
University of Colorado and its Mountain Research Station for science and environmental
education for more than 80 years and the site is today one of the best-studied subalpine
and alpine ecosystems. Globally, offering excellent opportunities to detect the impact ofclimate change and atmospheric pollution on biodiversity, notably through the MountainResearch Station and Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) programme.
403. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation and limited focus on development
aspects, the Council concluded that the Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve does not meetthe criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
404. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Having
implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Noatak Biosphere Reserve (USA)405. The Council welcomed the detailed periodic review report for the Noatak Biosphere
Reserve. Designated in 1976, the Noatak Biosphere Reserve is located in northwestern
Alaska in the Arctic Range. The biosphere reserve is largely situated in the Noatak
National Park and the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Reserve; its main function isto promote nature conservation and related research and monitoring, including as
concerns the unregulated Noatak River and the rich wildlife found throughout the area.
Economic activities within the site are limited to subsistence hunting and fishing among
local residents and some tourism and recreation. However, there are important mining
operations adjacent to the reserve. Due to its zonation, the focus on the development
aspects of the biosphere reserve is limited.
406. The Council concluded that the Noatak Biosphere Reserve does not meet the criteria in
the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
407. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Having
implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Olympic Biosphere Reserve (USA)408. The Council welcomed this first periodic review report presented by the US authorities. It
appreciated the quality of the report on activities implemented since the site wasdesignated in 1976. It noted the success of the Elwha River Restoration project conductedwith the national park. This demonstrated the importance of providing technical authorities
and policy-makers, who share a common concern for ecological, economic and social
sustainability, with detailed scientific information. Moreover, the research also highlighted
the economic importance of service sectors other than tourism, especially in the transitionarea, which lies beyond the national park.
64

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
409. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the authorities
provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information by 30 September 2015:• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
Rocky Mountain Biosphere Reserve (USA)410. The Council welcomed this first periodic review report presented by the US authorities. It
took note of the report on the activities implemented since the site was designated in
1977. The Council welcomed the sharing of experiences organized through the “sisterpark agreement,” which they rather understand as a “sister biosphere reservesagreement”. Indeed, mountainous areas are the most sensitive to climate change, making
the Rocky Mountain Biosphere Reserve an important site for monitoring and experiencing
mitigation and adaptation measures. The Council suggested that the authorities delineate
the most sensitive areas as core areas and buffer zones. The Council also added that thelogistic function of the transition area would contribute to mitigating the impact of tourist
flows.
411. In this regard, the Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended thatthe authorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information by 30
September 2015:• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
• A zonation map showing a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
• A revised management plan reflecting the integration of these zones in the biospherereserve.
San Joaquin Experimental Range Biosphere Reserve (USA)412. The Council welcomed the periodic review report of the San Joaquin Biosphere Reserve.
Designated in 1976, the San Joaquin Biosphere Reserve is located on the western slopesof the central Sierra Nevada Mountains. Established in 1934 by the US Forest Service as
an experimental range to investigate resource and animal husbandry management issues
on the foothill rangelands, San Joaquin Biosphere Reserve contributes in particular toresearch and educational activities on these issues through a vast network of state andfederal agencies, universities and organizations.
413. However, due to its zonation, the focus on the development aspects of the biospherereserve is limited. The Council concluded that the San Joaquin Biosphere Reserve does
not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves.
414. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Having
implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.

65

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Sequoia and Kings Canyon Biosphere Reserve (USA)415. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the Sequoia and Kings Canyon
Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1976, the Sequoia and Kings Canyon Biosphere
Reserve is located in the southern Sierra Nevada (California) and comprises the Sequoia
and Kings Canyon National Parks. Based on two prominent national parks, it is clear thatthe biosphere reserve is managed primarily for biodiversity conservation, research,monitoring, education and public awareness-raising. Biodiversity changes detected in thereserve over the years, including due to global warming, have been recorded in the parks’2013 Natural Resources Condition Assessment. However, due to its zonation, the focus
on the development aspects of the biosphere reserve is limited to tourism and recreation.
416. The Council concluded that the Sequoia–Kings Canyon Biosphere Reserve does not meetthe criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
417. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory
Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an
updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Having implemented
the necessary actions, the requested information should reach the Secretariat by 30
September 2015.
South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve (USA)418. The Council welcomed the periodic review report concerning the South Atlantic Coastal
Plain Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1983, the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere
Reserve is located in the flat floodplain of the Congaree River in the eastern United Statesencompassing the Congaree National Park. Through the good work of the national park,
important inventories, research and educational programmes have been undertaken andsupported in partnership with a large number of academic institutions and organizations.
Work is also under way to discuss development issues, as the overall population in theState of South Carolina is growing rapidly.
419. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects islimited. The Council concluded that the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve
does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves.
420. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Having
implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve (USA)421. The Council welcomed the detailed and comprehensive periodic review report for theSouthern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1988, the biosphere reserve islocated in the Southern Appalachian Mountains shared among six states. Encompassing
several units, including the National Great Smoky Mountains National Park, based on an66

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
innovative cluster approach, the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve engages
successfully with a wide range of community, federal, state and academic institutions tofoster biodiversity conservation, research, monitoring, environmental education,
sustainable tourism and recreation.
422. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects islimited. The Council concluded that the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve does
not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves.
423. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function in line with the Seville Strategy and the Statutory
Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map and an
updated periodic review report using the official periodic review forms. Having
implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
University of Michigan Biological Station Biosphere Reserve (USA)424. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the University of Michigan Biological
Station Biosphere Reserve. Designated in 1979, the University of Michigan Biological
Station Biosphere Reserve is located at the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula ofMichigan on the southern shore of Douglas Lake. The reserve is renowned for its piping
plover recovery programme. Teams from the University of Michigan, as well as from alarge number of other universities, are successfully conducting biodiversity research inand around the Great Lakes, as well as research on carbon flows in temperate forest
ecosystems. The site also has an impressive educational programme.
425. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects islimited. The Council concluded that the University of Michigan Biological Station
Biosphere Reserve does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves.
426. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve (USA)427. The Council welcomed the periodic review report for the Virgin Islands Biosphere
Reserve. Designated in 1979, Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve is located on and aroundthe volcanic island of St John and based on the Virgin Islands National Park. Climatechange caused the loss of 52% of the live coral cover in one bleaching event in 2005.
Tourism, notably cruise visits, have increased rapidly and pose a management challenge.
The reserve makes highly important and appreciated contributions to biodiversity
conservation, research, monitoring, education and public awareness-raising.

67

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
428. However, due to the biosphere reserve’s zonation, its focus on development aspects islimited. The Council concluded that the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve does not meetthe criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
429. Consequently, the Council recommended that the authorities be invited to revisit thezonation of the site, in order to include buffer zone(s) and transition area(s) that can caterfor the sustainable development function, in line with the Seville Strategy and the
Statutory Framework. The authorities are also requested to submit a revised zonation map
and an updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form. Having
implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Yellowstone Biosphere Reserve (USA)430. The Council welcomed this first periodic review of the Yellowstone Biosphere Reserve,
established in 1976. The Council noted with satisfaction the major efforts in the areas ofscientific research and environmental education. It noted that this national park had
gained important international recognition, with 3 million visitors per year. It is one of thebest-preserved ecosystems in the northern hemisphere, with comprehensive reports on,
and inventories of, the biosphere reserve’s biodiversity.
431. While welcoming the periodic review report, the Council regretted that no maps had been
submitted. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that theauthorities provide the MAB Secretariat with the following information by 30 September
2015:• A zonation map with a clearly defined core area, buffer zone and transition area.
• An updated periodic review report using the official periodic review form.
• A management plan developed taking into consideration the Seville Strategy andpark management strategies.

Follow-up recommendations
Parc du Djurdjura Biosphere Reserve (Algeria)
432. The Council welcomed the report submitted by the Djurdjura Biosphere Reserve in
response to recommendations from 2011. The Council noted with satisfaction thedevelopment efforts in support of local populations. It also noted the challenges
encountered in managing tourism and related activities in the biosphere reserve. The
Council also recognized that the Djurdjura Biosphere Reserve did not derive any
substantive direct benefits from tourism and that this should be possible, as it would help
the reserve recover its operating costs.
433. The committee concluded that the Djurdjura Biosphere Reserve does not meet the criteria
in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and requested
that the authorities:• Clarify the biosphere reserve zoning, which includes one national park, to facilitate
the inclusion of human populations ;• Systematically conduct impact studies for new infrastructure developments and forimportant existing installations;68SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English•

Identify legal and regulatory means for enabling the biosphere reserve and nationalpark to engage in, or benefit from, commercial activities to meet their operating
expenses.

434. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve (Belarus)
435. The Council welcomed the additional information from Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve. It
noted that the proposed extension of the biosphere reserve included an enlargement of
the transition area only. It also noted that the reason for extension was to further promotesustainable forestry, hunting fishing and tourism.
436. The Council acknowledged the description of all these activities as joint actions between
the administration of the biosphere reserve and active community groups. It also
welcomed the incentives to increase interest among local youth in the region’s
development and to create new jobs and social conditions that would attract young
professionals. The Council also welcomed the information on the involvement of local
communities in the implementation of the European Union International Assistance Project“Water, nature and people in disappearing landscape - Development of sustainable
tourism in Russia and Republic of Belarus” in Lepel district.
437. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves and approved the extension.
438. The Council requested the authorities to provide an updated map with topographic layers
showing the precise location and delimitation of the three zones of the biosphere reserve,in electronic copy, together with the shape files (also in WGS 84 projection system) used
to produce the map. The requested information should reach the Secretariat by 30
September 2015.
Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve (Canada)439. The Council welcomed the report by the Canadian authorities on the implementation
status of the MAB ICC’s recommendation of 2012. The Council noted with satisfaction themonitoring for conservation in the core areas and the involvement of First Nation members
in managing the site. It acknowledged that the zonation and size of the biosphere reserve
seemed functional. The Council noted with satisfaction the measures taken to address thesustainable development function and concluded that this site meets the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It also noted that themonitoring and the involvement of local communities were satisfactory.
Long Point Biosphere Reserve (Canada)
440. The Council welcomed the report of the Canadian authorities on the implementation statusof the 2012 recommendation by the MAB ICC regarding this site. The Council noted withsatisfaction the information provided and measures taken on the ground to explain thezonation of the biosphere reserve, especially the core area and buffer zone and the
additional Bacchus Wood core area. The Council considered that the additional Bacchus
Wood core area was surrounded by properties owned by Nature Conservancy Canada
that could be easily included with some farmland to constitute a buffer area surrounding
the entire new core area, eventually in connection with the major buffer zone, if possible.
69

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
441. The Council requested that this new core area be surrounded by a buffer zone, in orderfor the zonation to meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves. The Council requested that the zonation be updated by the end of
September 2014 and that a new zonation map be sent to the MAB Secretariat by the endof September 2014, in order to confirm that the site meets the Statutory Framework
criteria.
Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve (Canada)442. The Council welcomed the explanation and strategic plan, as well as the involvement planelaborated since the MAB ICC recommendation of 2011. The Council noted withsatisfaction the information provided and measures taken on the ground. The Council
noted the efforts by the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Foundation (MABF) to support
initiatives limiting urban sprawl. The Council appreciated the new actions that had beendeveloped and the action plan relating to active participation by local communities andFirst Nation members. The Council encouraged the authorities to pursue the fundraisingprocess, as well as awareness-raising on socio-ecological issues, and to implement theplanned actions outlined in the new strategic plan (2013-2018).
443. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve (Canada)444. The Council welcomed the report of the Canadian authorities on the implementation statusof the recommendation by the MAB ICC in 2012 regarding this site. The Council
acknowledged the information provided and measures taken on the ground. The Council
appreciated the updated information relating to efforts made to reinforce the biospherereserve management committee by extending its membership to include, in particular,
provincial government agencies and First Nation members. The Council noted theprogress made towards the design of a coordination plan.
445. The Council noticed the difficulties concerning the buffer zone delineation, especially as
concerned conflicts with local landowners, but considered that without a clear delineationof a functional zoning, the biosphere reserve does not meet the Statutory Framework
criteria. The Council noted that the local biosphere reserve authority preferred to name thebuffer zone a cooperation zone or to use existing perimeters (health system or nationalpark boundaries) to design the buffer zone and the rest as a transition area.
446. The Council considered that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and requested clear zonation maps showing
all suggested zoning options, as well as clarification of their impact on implementation of
the biosphere reserve’s three functions, by 30 September 2015.
Southwest Nova Biosphere Reserve (Canada)447. The Council welcomed the information provided by the biosphere reserve further to the
MAB ICC recommendation of 2012. It noted with satisfaction that an executive committee
had been established with several sub-committees (tourism, education, science andresource management) and that their task was to facilitate and coordinate planning andproject implementation. It also appreciated the participation process, through meetings
with municipalities and supporting agencies. It pointed out, however, that there was not70SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
enough information on the engagement with local communities and First Nation members.
It also acknowledged that numerous communication and educational activities had been
implemented.
448. The Council further encouraged the authorities to implement the biosphere reserve’s 15
local recommendations for future activities and requested that they:• Provide a management plan for the biosphere reserve adapted to its current financial
and management status.
• Provide evidence of a participatory process in the biosphere reserve’s activities andengagement with First Nation and coastal communities.
• Foster conservation of nature and cultural heritage and provide evidence of activities
performed and proper strategies.
• Provide an updated zonation map.
449. The Council requested that the authorities send all these elements to the MAB Secretariat
by 30 September 2015, so that the Council could consider if the site meets the criteria in
the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Waterton Biosphere Reserve (Canada)
450. The Council welcomed the follow-up information with regard to the MAB ICC
recommendation of 2009. The Council noted that the formalization of zonation, especiallyregarding the transition area, was not yet finalized. It appreciated the plan to elaborate
delineation and prepare a cooperation plan using a participatory process. It also
acknowledged that the communication plan had been completed in 2010.
451. The Council considered that the site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council recommended that theauthorities:• Provide updated zonation, with a high-quality map giving a clear explanation of thefunctions for each zone, to meet the criteria• Provide the management plan for the biosphere reserve452. This information should reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2015.
Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta Biosphere Reserve (Colombia)
453. The Council welcomed the follow-up information provided by the Colombian authorities
with regard to the recommendations it had made in 2011.The Council noted that thetransition area was still being defined and that the map sent did not include the zonation of
the biosphere reserve. The Council also pointed out that the list of sustainable
development projects to be implemented had not been sent. The Council concluded that
this biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the Colombian authorities provide
a clear zonation map, a management plan for the entire biosphere reserve and guidelines
for a research agenda.
Cinturon Andino Biosphere Reserve (Colombia)
454. The Council welcomed the follow-up information provided by the Colombian authorities
with regard to the recommendations it had made in 2011. The Council noted that thetransition area was still being defined and that the map sent did not include the zonation of
the biosphere reserve. The Council also pointed out that the list of sustainable71SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
development projects to be implemented had not been sent. The Council concluded that
this biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the Colombian authorities provide
a clear zonation map, a management plan for the entire biosphere reserve and guidelines
for a research agenda.
El Tuparro Biosphere Reserve (Colombia)
455. The Council welcomed the follow-up information provided by the Colombian authorities
with regard to the recommendations it had made in 2011. The Council noted that thetransition area was still being defined and that the map sent did not include the zonation of
the biosphere reserve. The Council also pointed out that the list of sustainable
development projects to be implemented had not been sent. The Council concluded that
this biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the Colombian authorities provide
a clear zonation map, a management plan for the entire biosphere reserve and guidelines
for a research agenda.
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Biosphere Reserve (Colombia)
456. The Council welcomed the follow-up information provided by the Colombian authorities
with regard to the recommendations it had made in 2011. The Council noted that thetransition area was still being defined and that the map sent did not include the zonation of
the biosphere reserve. The Council also pointed out that the list of sustainable
development projects to be implemented had not been sent. The Council concluded that
this biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the Colombian authorities provide
a clear zonation map, a management plan for the entire biosphere reserve and guidelines
for a research agenda.
Taï Biosphere Reserve (Côte d’Ivoire)
457. The Council welcomed the report for Taï Biosphere Reserve, which follows up therecommendations provided in 1999 by the Council, following submission of the first
periodic review in 1998. Taï Biosphere Reserve was designated in 1978. The Council
acknowledged the response to the recommendations related to transboundary
management of the forest with Liberia, the establishment of a foundation providing
sustainable financial resources and completion of the management plan of the Tai
National Park structured around conservation, research, development, education andinstitutional marketing.
458. The Council noted with concern that neither the zonation nor the management planaddressed the specific issues related to the refugee problems facing the biospherereserve and that the report did not provide enough information on actions taken.
459. The Council considered that the biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and requested that theauthorities:• Improve the zonation and management of the site, taking into account the need toreduce the impact of settlement and that of the influx of refugees from Liberia.
• Develop a management plan for the whole area as a biosphere reserve andimplement it with the involvement of the local population.
72

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English••

Provide additional information on the settlement policy in the region and its impact on
the site.
Explore the possibility of enhancing cooperation with the Liberian authorities, in orderto improve the management of the whole transboundary ecosystem.

460. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Bile Karpathy Biosphere Reserve (Czech Republic)
461. The Council welcomed this updated information. It noted that the biosphere reserve had
established cooperation with the authorities at the municipal level with most of the mayors
and farmers. It appreciated that a regional trademark had been created in cooperation
with an NGO to support local craftsmen. It also took note that a LIFE project had started in2011 to improve grassland management in the area, involving the local population andscientists.
462. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves and encouraged the authorities to:• Ensure participation of all mayors in their respective areas in managing thebiosphere reserve.
• Support actions, projects and events that would enable joint work between managersof the biosphere reserve and the local population, in addition to farming.
• Participate in the WNBR and share with it the results of the ongoing LIFE project.
463. Having implemented the necessary actions, the requested information should reach theSecretariat by 30 September 2015.
Krkonose/Karkonosze Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Czech Republic/Poland)
464. The Council welcomed the information provided as a follow-up to the MAB ICC
recommendation made in 2012. It noted that the biosphere reserve had designed aManagement Plan for the Krkonoše Mts National Park for 2010 – 2020, with chapters
describing possible development activities. The Council appreciated the short list of joint
activities, which provided an insight into the cooperation between the two countries. It
acknowledged the ongoing work related to the preparation of a common logo, the many
joint projects focusing on nature management, environmental education and raising publicawareness.
465. The Council considered that the site followed the Pamplona recommendations fortransboundary sites. The Council recommended that the authorities ensure that the
management plan included goals and activities related to sustainable development,
research, communication and local community engagement in the activities of thetransboundary biosphere reserve.
Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (India)
466. The Council acknowledged the responses provided by the national authorities concerning
the MAB ICC recommendations made in 2013. The Council concluded that this biospherereserve does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves and encouraged the authorities to reconsider extending thebiosphere reserve and to explore opportunities for a transboundary biosphere reserve
initiative in the Gulf of Mannar region.
73SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve (Israel)
467. The Council welcomed this report of the Israeli authorities further to the submission of theperiodic review of Mount Carmel in 2007. The Council noted that land issues and theestablishment of settlements in the biosphere reserve prevented the appropriation by the
local communities of the vision of the biosphere reserve and their participation in thecoordination structure. The Council acknowledged the measures foreseen by theauthorities to redynamise (renegotiation of limits, hiring of a coordinator) the biospherereserve and their intention to share their experience with EuroMAB.
468. However, the Council considered that the biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in
the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. It recommended
that the authorities pursue:• Redefinition of the limits of the biosphere reserve with the support of the Stateauthorities, in close collaboration with all the communities and the relevant actors.
• Development of a management plan which would be the result of the newcollaboration arrangements with local communities.
• Inclusion of representatives of the communities in the new management structure of
the biosphere reserve.
469. The Council requested that the Israeli authorities send a report on progress made by 30
September 2015.
Cilento and Vallo di Diano Biosphere Reserve (Italy)
470. The Council welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requesting
the Italian authorities to: provide additional information on the education and sustainable
development functions of the biosphere reserve; develop the management plan for thebiosphere reserve with integration of tourism; clarify the coordination between the National
Park and the transition area regarding implementation of activities and involvement of
stakeholders; reinforce the participation of local communities in the management andgovernance of the biosphere reserve; improve the monitoring of the impacts of economic
activities on the biosphere reserve; clarify how the various projects and research activities
contribute to the functioning of the biosphere reserve; share experiences and practices
among the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, for example during regional meetings
such as EuroMAB.
471. The Council acknowledged with satisfaction the information provided by the Italianauthorities in response to the above recommendation. The Council concluded that thisbiosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves.
Circeo Biosphere Reserve (Italy)
472. The Council welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requesting
the Italian authorities to: enlarge the buffer zone to encompass farmland; enlargetransition areas to cover the rest of the plain where the national park authorities havedeveloped monitoring with other organizations; secure the participation of local
stakeholders in managing the biosphere reserve and in the decision-making process ofthe governance structure; develop co-management and socio-economic action plans forthe biosphere reserve and integrate these into the regional master plans; provide explicit
and detailed information on how these action plans address the issues of tourism and74

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
farming; improve monitoring of the impact of economic activities and raise awarenessamong the inhabitants, including those from different social and ethnic groups.
473. The Council acknowledged with satisfaction the additional information provided by the
Italian authorities in response to the above recommendations, including the information
concerning the extension of the buffer zone and transition areas, and concluded that thesite meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves.
Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo Alto Molise Biosphere Reserve (extension and change of
name, former Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo Biosphere Reserve) (Italy)
474. The Council welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2012 requestingthat the Italian authorities provide information on the implementation of the zonation, as
well as elaborate a management plan for the whole area. Further to this recommendation,
the Italian authorities decided to propose an extension to the biosphere reserve and tochange its name to Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo Alto Molise Biosphere Reserve.
475. The Council took note of the information provided by the Italian authorities in response to
the above recommendation, notably the detailed extension proposal and the overallmanagement plan and renaming of the site. The Council concluded that the site meets thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves andapproved the extension and new name.
Miramare Biosphere Reserve (Italy)
476. The Council welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requestingthat the Italian authorities: develop a co-management plan for the biosphere reserve andsupport its integration into the regional master plans; clarify and reinforce the participationof local communities in managing the biosphere reserve and in its governance bodies;clarify how the various scientific research outcomes are contributing to the functioning of
the biosphere reserve; improve the integration of the social science-based studies within
the research monitoring function of the biosphere reserve.
477. The Council took note of the information provided by the Italian authorities in response to
the above recommendation and concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in
the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Somma-Vesuvio and Miglio D’Oro Biosphere Reserve (Italy)
478. The Council welcomed the additional information with regard to this biosphere reserve.
The Council noted that the biosphere reserve had put mechanisms in place to deal withillegal dumping and construction through cooperation with several relevant authorities. It
also appreciated the fact that information on coordination between the authorities incharge of the different zones had been provided.
479. The Council welcomed the plan of the Park Authority to establish a specific frameworkagreement between various stakeholders for participatory management of the biospherereserve. It also appreciated the information provided on education and capacity-building of
local communities with a focus on better resource management.

75

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
480. The Council noted with satisfaction the work on monitoring the ecological and social
impact of economic activities, especially as concerns tourism and urbanization, funded by
the Ministry of Environment.
481. The Council appreciated the explanation of how the various projects and researchoutcomes would be integrated within the functioning of the biosphere reserve.
482. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council requested that the biosphere reserveauthority design a biosphere reserve management structure which would involve all
stakeholders, separate from the national park. It also requested that the authorities further
describe the activities planned to reinforce the participation of local communities in thebiosphere reserve management.
Ticino Valley Biosphere Reserve (Italy)
483. The Council welcomed the additional information provided by the authorities and the
explanation concerning the delineation and extension of the biosphere reserve withsupport from the cities of Belgirate, Meina, Lesa and Stresa.
484. The Council acknowledged that clarification had been provided about the coordination ofactivities between the authorities, including the signed Memorandum of Understanding
between the Parco Ticino Lombardo and the Parco Ticino Piemontese, concerning thepromotion and implementation of cooperative actions, including the coordinatedmanagement of the biosphere reserve itself. The management structure is constituted by
the Consultative Assembly, Executive Committee and a MAB Bureau. Regione Lombardia
and Regione Piemonte are about to approve a Protocol of Agreement, in order to identify
areas for collaboration specifically regarding significant topics, such as the local
sustainable development, tourism and culture.
485. The Council further took note of the information provided on local and regional
management and planning, strengthening of participation by local communities in the
management of the biosphere reserve, the improvements in monitoring the impact of
economic activities like agriculture and networking within the WNBR. It welcomed thepossible future establishment of a transboundary biosphere reserve with the neighboring
part of Ticino River in Switzerland.
486. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended that the Italian authorities
provide a monitoring strategy for economic activity (especially agriculture) in terms ofimpact assessment.
North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (Latvia)
487. The Council welcomed the information provided on the governance of the biospherereserve, further to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013. It appreciated the recruitmentof a new employee in charge of coordinating the site but questioned whether a part-timeassignment was sufficient to implement the biosphere reserve functions effectively andensure appropriate management.
488. The Council expressed concern about the ongoing biosphere reserve management andfinancial status and congratulated the authorities on the efforts made to address these76

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
issues in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Regional Development. The
Council requested that updated information on the management and financial situation besent to the MAB Secretariat by the end of September 2014.
489. The Council suggested that the authorities consider the creation of an institution with acoordinating function for the entire biosphere reserve that would involve stakeholders andinhabitants on a permanent basis, where authorities in charge of nature conservation
would be only one of the stakeholders and the biosphere reserve management, staffing
and budget would be secured in a collective manner.
490. The Council considered that the site meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves but requested that the following information be sent
to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September 2014:• Updated information on the management and financial situation.
• Updated information on the creation of an institution with a coordinating function for
the entire biosphere reserve that would involve stakeholders and inhabitants on apermanent basis, where authorities in charge of nature conservation would be only
one of the stakeholders and the biosphere reserve management, staffing and budget
would be secured in a collective manner.
Sahamalaza-Iles Radama Biosphere Reserve (Madagascar)
491. The Council welcomed the report of the Madagascar authorities on the implementation
status of the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2012 regarding the SahamalazaIles Radama Biosphere Reserve. The Council noted with satisfaction the information
provided and the measures taken on the ground to address these recommendations. The
Council appreciated the improved zonation of the biosphere reserve, which clarifies thecore area and buffer zone delineation; however, the transition area is still unclear. The
Council acknowledged the integration of the management plan of the national park and of
the biosphere reserve within a regional master plan. The committee took note of theinvolvement of local communities and traditional chiefs in a co-management process
based on local park committees. The Council encouraged the authorities to pursue theimplementation of such participatory land planning and management, which is compliant
with the biosphere reserve concept.
492. The Council considered that the biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended thatthe authorities provide a new zonation map clarifying the limit of the core area, bufferzones and transition area, by 30 September 2014.
Mananara Nord Biosphere Reserve (Madagascar)
493. The Council welcomed the report of the Madagascar authorities on the implementation
status of the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2012 regarding the Mananara
Nord Biosphere Reserve. The Committee received with appreciation the information
provided and the measures taken on the ground. The Council acknowledged theimprovement in the community-based management of forests located in the surroundingsof the national park and the clarification of the zonation. The committee noted andapproved the efforts by the authorities to reinforce the control of illegal logging and build
the capacity of rangers and local communities in charge of managing the forests.

77SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
494. The committee considered that the biosphere reserve does not meet criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and recommended thatthe authorities:• Provide a new zonation map of the terrestrial part, clarifying the limits of thededicated biosphere reserve zones: core area, buffer zone and transition area.
• Provide a map on an adequate scale of the marine part of the biosphere reserve
showing the three zones.
• Clarify the status of the zonation function of the enclave (buffer zone/transition area).
495. This information should be submitted to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September 2014. The
Council encouraged the authorities to develop a strategy to address the issue of theenclave and to minimize its impact on biosphere reserve management.
Mapimí Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)496. The Council welcomed the report of the Mexican authorities on the implementation statusof the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2013 regarding the Mapimi Biosphere
Reserve. The Council noted with satisfaction that the maps and the list of sustainable
development projects to be implemented had been sent. The Council concluded that thisbiosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves.
Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)497. The Council welcomed the report of the Mexican authorities on the implementation statusof the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2013 regarding the Montes Azules
Biosphere Reserve. The Council noted with satisfaction that the transition area wasclearly defined and that the map and the list of sustainable development projects to be
implemented had been sent. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)498. The Council welcomed the report of the Mexican authorities on the implementation statusof the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2013 regarding the Sierra Gorda
Biosphere Reserve. The Council noted with satisfaction that the maps and the list ofsustainable development projects to be implemented had been sent. The Council
concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)499. The Council welcomed the report of the Mexican authorities on the implementation statusof the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2013 regarding the Sierra Manantlán
Biosphere Reserve. The Council noted with satisfaction that the transition area wasclearly defined and that the map and the list of sustainable development projects to be
implemented had been sent. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets thecriteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Babia Gora Biosphere Reserve (Poland)
500. The Council welcomed the additional information provided on the Babia Gora Biosphere
Reserve as a follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013. It noted that the satellite
core areas were temporary (interim status only) and that the connection of the remote78SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
core area to the main core area was planned within the enlargement of protected areas tobe approved by the Ministry of Environment in 2015.
501. The Council appreciated that the forestry activities in the buffer zones and transition areas
were managed sustainably, in accordance with Polish legislation and the international
nature conservation agreement, Natura 2000. It also welcomed the information on
participation by private landowners in the biosphere reserve management, including
through the Scientific Council of the National Park. The Council considered that thisbiosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves.
502. The Council encouraged the authorities to design a biosphere reserve coordinating
management structure that would be inclusive and involve stakeholders and inhabitants
on a permanent basis (where the nature conservation authorities would be on an equal
footing with other stakeholders). The Council recommended using the WNBR to find an
inspiring model for such inclusive and participatory management of the site. The Council
requested that the authorities prepare an integrative biosphere reserve management plan
based on the national park's management plan by the end of 2014. The Council
welcomed the possible creation of a transboundary biosphere reserve with Slovakia andencouraged the establishment of such a site and preparation of the joint nomination form.
Slowinski Biosphere Reserve (Poland)503. The Council noted the responses submitted by the Slowinski Biosphere Reserve further tothe MAB ICC recommendations of 2013.
504. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Council
encouraged the national authorities to continue engaging in constructive efforts towards
achieving sustainable development in the biosphere reserve. The Council also welcomed
any additional information on the state of, and future plans for, sustainable use ofrenewable energy. The Council requested that the national authorities provide the MAB
Secretariat with links to relevant management plans covering the integrated managementof the biosphere reserve.
Darwinsky Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
505. The Council welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requestingthat the Russian authorities provide: all documents having a bearing on the report in one
the working languages of UNESCO (English or French); a clear zonation for the threezones, including a zonation map, rationale, description of activities in each zone, exact
number of people living in each zone, maps with locations of towns and settlements and aclear delineation of the transition area; a description of industrial activities in Cherepovets
and monitoring of their impact; the management plan for the biosphere reserve with adescription of its governance; information on strategies for sustainable development,
communication and public awareness-raising, and the participatory process for involving
the local population; identify key stakeholders and the process for cooperation with the
managers of the Rybinski reservoir hydropower station; information on how it was
promoting (or planned to promote) greater participation in the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves and international cooperation in climate change research and environmental
impact assessments of water accumulation.
79SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
506. Following examination of the information provided by the Russian authorities in responseto the above recommendations, the Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meetsthe criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Smolensk Lakeland Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
507. The Council welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requestingthat the Russian authorities provide information on: the activities in each biospherereserve zone and areas; and the radiation monitoring and data linked to the possible
establishment of a nuclear plant facility in the vicinity of the biosphere reserve.
508. Following examination of the information provided by the Russian authorities in responseto the above recommendations, the Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meetsthe criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Ugra Biosphere Reserve (Russian Federation)
509. The Council welcomed this follow-up to the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013 requestingthat the Russian authorities provide a description of the current status and monitoring ofindicators of the state of the environment, specifically with regard to the electromagnetic
field levels, the possible health hazards these represented for people and their impact onnature.
510. Following examination of the information provided by the Russian authorities in responseto the above recommendations, the Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meetsthe criteria in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Slovak Karst Biosphere Reserve (Slovakia)
511. The Council welcomed the additional information provided by the Slovak authorities
regarding the MAB ICC recommendation of 2013. It acknowledged the efforts maderecently. However, The Council considered that the issues raised had not yet beenaddressed, so that the site does not meet the criteria the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of Biosphere Reserves. The Council requested that the Slovakian authorities
address all issues by 30 September 2015.
Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve (South Africa)
512. The Council welcomed the report of the South African authorities on the implementation
status of the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2013 regarding the Kruger to
Canyons Biosphere Reserve. The Council noted with great satisfaction the information
provided. It appreciated the efforts made to develop a participatory process and integrate
mining and agricultural activities within the management process. The committee noted
the involvement of local communities and local authorities within management structures,such as the biosphere reserve board and the network coordinating unit.
513. The Council also appreciated the development of an environmental monitoring projectbased on local communities’ empowerment. The committee also acknowledged theestablishment of the K2C Environmental Education Forum for co-learning and thestandardization of monitoring of interventions in the biosphere reserve. The committee
noted the clarification of ecological and social issues related to land claims and theconsequences of rezoning. The decisions ensconced in national regulations and theMemorandum of Agreement provide an efficient operational framework for dealing withthese key issues.
80SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
514. The Council commended the South African authorities for the high quality of the reportand considered that the biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Reservat da Biosfera Val Müstair – Parc Naziunal (Switzerland)
515. The Council welcomed the report of the Swiss authorities on the implementation status of
the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2010 regarding this site. The Council notedwith satisfaction the information provided and the measures taken on the ground to create
a new buffer zone around the core areas and develop an integrated management plan for
the entire biosphere reserve. The Council appreciated the democratic process adopted tothis end and noted the potential difficulties and willingness of the biosphere reserveauthorities to conclude before the end of 2014.
516. In order to evaluate whether the site is meeting the criteria in the Statutory Framework of
the World Network of Biosphere Reserves and implement the exit strategy, the Council
requested that the MAB Secretariat be provided with information on the rezoning andmanagement of the biosphere reserve by the end of September 2015.
Mae Sa-Kong Ma Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)
517. The Council acknowledged the map sent by the authorities for this biosphere reserve,
which was designated in 1977.
518. The Council recalled that the first periodic review of this biosphere reserve had been
submitted in 1999 and that the second periodic review was now due. Therefore, theCouncil requested that the report, including a proper zonation map for this biospherereserve clearly showing the core area, buffer zone and transition area, reach the MAB
Secretariat by 30 September 2015.
519. The authorities are requested to address the recommendations below, endorsed by the
MAB ICC in 1999, by the time they submit their second periodic review report:
The Council noted that several national bodies were involved in research andmanagement activities at Mae Sa-Kog Ma and that, among the recommendations ofSouth-South Working Paper 3 on the site, there was the need to improve co-ordination
among the many government policies, objectives and implementing offices involve in thearea. With this as background, the Council recommended that the Thai authorities:• Establish a transition area, in consultation with relevant government agencies andthe local population, and provide a map for the entire biosphere reserve;• Examine the management structure and responsibilities of the agencies concernedwith the Biosphere reserve, with regard to improving co-ordination and leading to a
management policy/plan for the whole area as a biosphere reserve;• Consider launching and implementing a study on conservation policies similar to that
undertaken within the East Asian Biosphere reserve Network, in co-operation with
UNESCO field offices;• Encourage further community involvement in reserve management.
520. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve does not meet the criteria in the
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserve.

81SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Sakaerat Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)
521. The Council acknowledged the map sent by the authorities for this biosphere reserve,
which was designated in 1976.
522. The Council recalled that the first periodic review of this biosphere reserve had been
submitted in 1999.
523. The Council concluded that this site does not meet the criteria in the Statutory Frameworkof the World Network of Biosphere Reserve and requested that the authorities undertakethe second periodic review and submit the report to the MAB Secretariat by 30 September
2015 at the latest. The national authorities are also requested to submit a zonation map
for the biosphere reserve showing clearly the core area(s), buffer zone(s) and transitionarea(s).
Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve (Uruguay)524. The Council welcomed the report of the Uruguayan authorities on the implementation
status of the recommendation made by the MAB ICC in 2012 regarding this site. The
Council had recommended in 2012 that a management structure be designated tocoordinate the activities of the biosphere reserve and that information thereon besubmitted to the MAB Secretariat by the end of December 2013, together with a clear
zonation map for the biosphere reserve, as well as information on how the sustainable
development function of the biosphere reserve could be strengthened.
525. The Council noted with satisfaction that maps with a preliminary zonation had been
submitted. The authorities are still defining a management structure and working on how
the sustainable development function of the biosphere reserve could be strengthened.
526. The Council concluded that this biosphere reserve meets the criteria in the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserve.

XIII. UNESCO MAB Policy on Open Access to MAB/Biosphere Reserve Documentation
527. The Secretariat introduced paper SC-14/CONF.226.11, which referred to the objective of
introducing a policy on open access in order to increase transparency and public accessto MAB and biosphere reserve information, data, documents and multimedia materials,
including complete biosphere reserve nomination files, periodic review reports, andassociated items. The Secretariat described these resources as a huge treasure: a veryrich resource for research and education.
528. Overall, the responses of Council members and observers to this proposal were positive,
and it was noted that this policy would link well to the measures to increase
communication and data sharing that should be included in the new MAB strategy.
However, concerns were expressed, and consensus achieved, on a number of issues.
First, a number of members noted the sensitivity of certain maps: the identification ofparticular areas and resources could link to security concerns, poaching, looting, etc.
Second, that the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Bureau should not
be published, as these are internal documents: they are taken into consideration by theCouncil in making decisions, and only these should be published.
82

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
529. The conclusion of the discussion was that the MAB programme should have a principle
and policy of open access as described in paper SC-14/CONF.226.11, as follows:
530. For existing documents already held by the Secretariat, the Secretariat will issue a MAB
Circular Letter requesting Member States to give permission for open access to allexisting materials relating to biosphere reserves currently held by the Secretariat, and also
to state if there were any specific documents or items, such as maps, to which open
access should not be provided. Considering that many materials are not in digital form, theSecretariat will seek to secure extrabudgetary financial resources to digitize thesematerials, including from Member States that provided the materials in question.
531. For documents to be produced in the future, the Secretariat will issue a circular letter
stating that the general principle will be that there will be open access to documents
relating to approved biosphere reserves and periodic reviews unless specific requests are
made to limit access. The Secretariat will draft a protocol to be used for this purpose.
532. Each year, proposals for biosphere reserves and periodic reviews will only be madeavailable to members of the Advisory Committee for their scrutiny and also, together withthe recommendations of the Advisory Committee and Bureau1, to members of the Council
one month before their annual meeting. These files will be available to members of theCouncil on a password-protected website.
533. After the Council has met and made its decisions and recommendations, documents
relating to approved biosphere reserves and periodic reviews will become open accessand posted on the UNESCO MABnet unless the respective national authorities haveexpressly requested that documents (or parts of documents such as maps), should not bemade available. Proposals for biosphere reserves that are not approved by the Council
will not be made available.
534. In addition to documents and data held by the Secretariat, all national committees, focal
points, biosphere reserve managers, and regional and thematic networks are encouraged
to promote communication and enhance information exchange and data sharing bothwithin the WNBR and with as wide a range of stakeholders as possible, as outlined in
paper SC-14/CONF.226.11.
535. The Council will review the implementation of this policy at its 27th session in 2015.

XIV. Michel Batisse Award for Biosphere Reserve Management536. The Chair introduced this item and informed the Council that the Secretariat had received
7 eligible case studies from 7 countries by 31 October 2013. He further informed that the
Bureau endorsed the recommendation of the Advisory Committee made at its twentiethmeeting and that Ms Ana Luisa R. Figueroa (Mexico), Director of Islands of the Gulf ofCalifornia Flora and Fauna Protection was the 2014 winner for her case study on “A groupof fishermen and fishing families became guardians of the San Pedro Martir Island, which

The MAB Secretariat would like to recommend that due to procedural matters with respect to theelection of the Bureau this decision should be further reviewed by the Council.

183

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
is part of the Islas del Golfo de California Biosphere Reserve”. Ms Ana Luisa R Figueroapresented her case study.

XV. MAB Young Scientist Awards
537. The Secretariat received 54 eligible applications from 34 Countries. Twenty-two of theapplicants (40.7%) were females. Applications were received from Afghanistan, Albania,
Algeria, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba,
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guatemala, India, Iran,
Kenya, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines,
Portugal, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Tunisia.
538. The Council endorsed the six (6) winners of the 2014 MAB Young Scientist Awards. The
winners and the topic of their research studies are.
Country
IranWinnerMs Mona Poordazy

LebanonMr. Nizar Hani

MexicoMs Julieta Rosell
GarciaPhilippines

Mr Thomas E. Dela
Cruz

Slovakia

Mr Juraj Svajda

South Africa

Ms Michelle Jooste

Project Title
Replacement of renewable energies in Arasbaran
Biosphere Reserve instead of using the forest
resources as fuel wood.
Sustainable Territorial Management and Action
Plan: Shouf Biosphere Reserve
How will bark contribute to plant survival underclimate change? A comparism of plant communities
in wet and dry environment.
Biodiversity, Taxonomy, ecological patterns andconservation of myxomycetes and macrofungi in
Peurto Galera Biosphere Reserve and Sablayan
Watershed Forest Reserve, Mindoro Philippines
Monitoring of Visitors (impacts and perceptions) in
the Slovak part of the Tatra Biosphere Reseerve
The invasive tunicates Ciona intestinalis andBotryllus Schlosseri: Habitat utilization and impacts

539. The 2014 Selection of the winners of the MAB Young Scientist award shows an excellent
case of gender balance and geographical representation.
540. The MAB Secretariat informed participants that due to the financial situation affecting
UNESCO which has resulted in the reduction of the total Regular Programme budget, it
has been compelled to reduce the number of MAB Young Scientist Awards from ten(10) tosix(6) since 2013. The MAB Secretary added that, considering the importance of thisaward to the MAB Programme, Member States should consider supporting an increase in
the total number of awards and the award amount. He acknowledged the financial supportof the Austrian MAB National Committee and thanked them for their pledge to finance twoof the awards for 2015.

84

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
XVI. Information on the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve case541. The Secretariat introduced document SC-14/CONF.226/14, which notes the Judgment of
the International Court of Justice in the case concerning the “Territorial and Maritime
Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)” rendered on 19 November 2012. The Council
encouraged the two Member States to continue their dialogue to address issues relating
to the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve and invited them to report at its 27th session in 2015.
XVII. Date and venue of the 27th session of the Council
542. The proposed date and venue of the 27th session of the Council are 8 to 12 June 2015 at
UNESCO Headquarters in Paris.

XVIII. Other matters543. As required by Resolution 104 of the 37th session of the General Conference of UNESCO,
all UNESCO intergovernmental programmes shall complete a self-assessment covering
the overall relevance of their work. This process is being managed by an external auditor,
which has developed a survey consisting of 38 questions, to be completed by 2
September 2014. The Secretariat will obtain the survey and send it to all members of the
Bureau as soon as possible. Each member of the Bureau will then send the survey to themembers of the Council for its region, requesting a reply by 31 July 2014. Each memberof the Bureau will then compile the responses from its region and return the resulting
document to the Rapporteur of the Council by 15 August 2014. The Rapporteur will thenprepare a consolidated response and circulate this to the members of the Bureau for theircomment, revision and approval before the Chair of the Council submits the final versionof the consolidated response to the external auditor by the deadline.
544. A few members of the Council proposed that, given the large number and complexity of
proposals for biosphere reserves and periodic reviews and the need for clear
communication of complex decisions, the Chair of the Advisory Committee should attend
future sessions of the Council. One member noted that the mandate of six members of theAdvisory Committee ends in 2014, and requested information about the process ofchoosing the members of the Committee. It was noted that they are invited to serve intheir personal capacity and are chosen to ensure geographical representation. It wassuggested that members of the Advisory Committee should not represent their countries
in the Council, and should certainly not be members of its Bureau.
545. An observer delegation noted that certain National MAB Committees have developed
criteria which they utilize for periodic reviews of biosphere reserves in their own countries,
and that they have shared these criteria with other national committees and with theSecretariat. It was noted that it is challenging to manage a process of assessment that isbased on broad criteria, such as those in the Statutory Framework, and considering also
the desire to accommodate the diversity of the network and the need for consistency inapproach and outcome. It is clear that the process of the Advisory Committee be open,transparent, and accountable. Consequently, it was proposed that the criteria by which theAdvisory Committee makes its decisions be available on the MAB website so that all85

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
Biosphere Reserves and National Committees clearly understand the processes used toassess proposals and periodic reviews.
546. A member of the Council proposed that, at future sessions of the Council, the agenda itemon periodic reviews should come before the agenda item on proposals for new biospherereserves. This would give more time for the Bureau to review proposals and, if necessary,consult with the concerned Member State.

XIX. Adoption of the Report547. Mr Martin Price, Rapporteur of the Council, presented the draft report of its 26th session to
the Members and Observer Delegations section by section, and paragraph by paragraphwhere appropriate. A small number of modifications, additions and deletions introduced bydelegations were noted.
548. The draft report was adopted with the modifications, additions and deletions proposed
during the review of the report on 13 June 2014, the last day of the 26th session of theCouncil.

XX. Closure of the Meeting549. A representative of the Government of Peru expressed their interest to host the 28th
session of the Council and the proposed international conference on biosphere reservesin 2016. The Chair thanked the Government of Peru for this offer.
550. In their closing remarks, the Chair of the MAB Council and the MAB Secretary thanked theGovernment of Sweden and the Sweden National Commission for UNESCO for hosting
the Council meeting and for their invaluable input which had ensured the success of themeeting. They also acknowledged the Sweden MAB National Committee, the team fromthe East Vättern Scarp Landscape Biosphere Reserve and the student volunteers for theirsupport in coordinating the various logistical needs for the meeting. They thanked allparticipants, especially the MAB ICC members and the MAB Secretariat, for their
extraordinary work despite the heavy agenda. Lastly, the Secretary thanked the technician
for his immense contribution and the interpreters for their excellent work.
551. The Secretary then presented certificates to the student volunteers in recognition of theirservices during the 26th session of the MAB ICC. The Secretary took the floor again tothank members of the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves for theirwork which provided a sound basis to facilitate the work of the Council. He also thanked
the former Chair of the MAB ICC and the past Vice-Chairs for their leadership andcontribution to the MAB Programme. He acknowledged that the Council had made good
progress in its work and that, with their support, the MAB Secretariat will continue to
implement the Exit Strategy and the Statutory Framework for the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves. He once again assured Member States that a recommendation fordeferral of a nomination was not a rejection but rather an opportunity for Member States toresubmit an improved nomination file. He added that the Secretariat will continue to workon improving the various working methods of the MAB Programme in order to ensure
efficiency.
86SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 7 July 2014
Original: English
552. Finally, the Chair acknowledged that the field visit organized by the Sweden MAB National
Committee was a success and subsequently declared the 26th session of the MAB ICC
closed.

Annex 1: Participants list
Annex 2: Agenda
Annex 3: Report of the MAB Secretary87

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Annex 1
Participants list

88

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L’EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
Conseil international de coordination du Programme sur l’Homme et la biosphère (MAB)
International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme
Vingt-sixième session / Twenty-sixth session
Jönkoping, Réserve de biosphère East Vättern Landscape, Suède
Jönkoping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden
10 – 13 juin 2014 / 10 – 13 June 2014PROVISIONAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE PROVISOIRE DES PARTICIPANTS
ICC MEMBERS / MEMBRES DU CIC
ALGERIA / ALGERIE
Mr Mohand Amer Nassim
Attaché des Affaires Etrangères
c/o Permanent Delegation of Algeria to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
75015 Paris
FranceEmail: dl.algerie@unesco-delegations.org
Pr Dahmani Malika
Représentante de l’Algérie au CIC-MAB
c/o Permanent Delegation of Algeria to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
75015 Paris
FranceEmail: Malika_dahmani@yahoo.fr
Tel: 0033 (0)145.682.964
Dr Khelifi HouriaMaître de conférences à l’ENSA,
Présidente du Comité MAB-Algérie
Département de Botanique Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Agronomie (ENSA) El Harrach 16200
Algérie
Tél: 00213 21 66 86 24
Fax: 00213 21 66 82 83
mail: h.khelifi@ensa.dz / houriakina@yahoo.fr
BURKINA FASO
Mr Jean-Marie Ouadba
Professeur
CNRST
Ouagadougou BP 7047
Burkina Faso
Email: jmouadba@yahoo.fr
Tel: +22 670.283.962

89

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

CHILE / CHILIMr Mario Galvez
Forest Engineer
National Focal Point MaB in Chile
Tres Norte 541
2520695 Viña del Mar
Chile
Email: mario.galvez@conaf.cl
Tel: +56 996.495.720
COTE D’IVOIREDr Martine Gauze nee touao kah
LeaderDelegation of Côte d’Ivoire
08 BP 109 Abidjan 08
225 Abidjan
Côte d'Ivoire
Email: mtahoux@yahoo.fr
Tel: +22 507.921.641
Dr Kaddy Kamate
Delegate
Delegation of Côte d’Ivoire
BP V 151 Abidjan
Côte d'Ivoire
Email: kaddy.kamate@egouv.ci
Tel: +22 507.905.392
EGYPT / EGYPTE
Ms Boshra Salem
Professor
Delegation of Egypt Family name / Nom: Salem
Moharram bey, Faculty of science
21511 Alexandria
Egypt
Email: boshra.salem@dr.com
Tel: +0020 100.144.9645
Pr Atef Ahmed
Advisor
Delegation of Egypt
Suez Canal University
202 Cairo
Egypt
Email: atefkamel1955@hotmail.com
Tel: +20 100.413.5504
Pr Manal Fawzy Ahmed
Professor & Chair
Environmental Sciences Dept, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University
21511 Moharram Bek, Alexandria
Egypt
Email: dm_fawzy@yahoo.com
Tel: +20 122.228.8901
90Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Ms Amira Soliman
Assistant professor
Institute of African research and studies, Cairo University
12316 Cairo
Egypt
Email: sitamira2000@yahoo.com
Tel: +01 009.388.468
ESTONIA / ESTONIEDr Toomas Kokovkin
Delegate
Delegation of Estonia
Sadama 19
92411 Kärdla
Estonia
Email: toomas@pelagis.eu
Tel: +37 250.230.75
FRANCEMr Jean-Pierre Poncet
Deuxième Conseiller
Délégation permanente de la France auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
75015 Paris
FranceEmail : jean-pierre.poncet@diplomatie.gouv.fr
Mobile : 33 (0) 6 12 05 32 66
Ms Catherine Cibien
Directrice
BP 42234
31321 Castanet-Tolosan
FranceEmail: catherine.cibien@mab-france.org
Tel: +33 561.735.702
Ms Mireille Jardin
Delegate
Delegation of France
136 avenue Emile Zola
75015 Paris
FranceEmail: mireille.jardin@mab-france.org
GERMANY / ALLEMAGNE
Mr Jürgen Nauber
Delegate
Delation of Germany
Konstantinstrasse 11053179 Bonn
Germany
Email: juergen.nauber@bfn.de
Tel: +49 228.849.11780
91

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Mr Marc Auer
Delegate
Delegation of Germany
Robert-Schuman-Platz 353175 Bonn
Germany
Email: marc.auer@marcauer.de
Tel: +49 228.305.2782
GHANA
Mr Daniel Amlalo
LeaderDelegation of Ghana
Environmental Protection Agency, Starlets 91 Road, P O BOX M326
M Accra
Ghana
Email: daniel.amlalo@epa.gov.gh
Tel: +233 302.664.697/8
Ms Sheila Ashong
Delegate
Delegation of Ghana
Environmental Protection Agency, Starlets 91 Road, P O BOX M326, Ministries
M Accra
Ghana
Email: sashong@gmail.com
Tel: +233 302.664.697/8
Pr Akwasi Asabere-Ameyaw
Delegate
Delegation of Ghana
University of Education+233 Winneba
Ghana
Email: vc@uew.edu.gh
Tel: +233 244.314.781
HAITI
Mr Paul Judex Edouarzin
Programme Specialist
Delegation of Haiti
5, Rue 4, Pacot
HT 6110 Port-au-Prince
Haiti
Email: pauljudex.edouarzin@gmail.com
Tel: +50 937.771.910
HUNGARY / HONGRIEDr Rozália Érdiné Szekeres
Head of Department for Nature Conservation
Delegation of Hungary
Kossuth ter 111055 Budapest
Hungary
92

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Email: rozalia.szekeres.erdine@vm.gov.hu
Tel: +36 309.821.388
ISRAEL
Prof Uriel nahum Safriel
LeaderDelegation of Israel
Tedesky 393780 Jerusalem
IsraelEmail: uriel36@gmail.com
Tel: +97 277.300.6905
JAPAN / JAPONMr Hiroyuki Matsuda
Japanese National commission for UNESCO
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
100-8959 Tokyo
Japan
Email: jpnatcom@mext.go.jp
Tel: +81 367.342.557
Mr Noda Takao
Senior Specialist for Cooperation with UNESCO
Delegation of Japan
Monbukagakusho, 3-2-2 Kasumigaseki
100-8959 Chiyoda-ku Tokyo
Japan
Email: jpnatcom@mext.go.jp
Tel: +81 367.342.585
Pr Takehiro Masuzawa
Specially Appointed Professor
Delegation of Japan
Monbukagakusho, 3-2-2 Kasumigaseki
100-8959 Chiyoda-ku
Japan
Email: jpnatcom@mext.go.jp
Tel: +81 367.342.585
KAZAKHSTANPr Roman Jashenko
LeaderDelegation of Kazakhstan
Al-Farabi street, 93
050060 Almaty
Kazakhstan
Email: r.jashenko@inzool.kz
Tel: +77 017.239.525
KENYA
Dr Paul Makenzi
Chairman Kenya MAB Natcom
20115 Egerton
Kenya
93

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Email: pmakenzi@yahoo.com
Tel: +25 472.467.5219
Mr Albert Ingati Etechera
Programme Officer Natural Science
Kenya National Commission for UNESCO
Harambee Avenue 72107
00200 Nairobi
Kenya
Email: declanmagero@gmail.com; aetechera@yahoo.com
Tel: +25 472.043.2551
LUXEMBOURG
Mr Christian Ries
Alternate
Musée national d'histoire naturelle
Rue Münster 252160 Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Email: cries@mnhn.lu
Tel: +35 246.223.3416
MALAYSIA / MALAISIEMr Zoal Azha Yusof
Secretary General
Delegation of Malaysia
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, level 17, Wisma Sumber Asli
62574 Putrajaya
Malaysia
Email: zoalazha@nre.gov.myTel: +60 388.861.652
Mr Danial Lee Abdullah
Principal Assistant Secretary
Delegation of Malaysia
Biodiversity and Forestry Management Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment,
level 12, Wisma Sumber Asli
62574 Putrajaya
Malaysia
Email: danial@nre.gov.myTel: +60 388.861.134
Mr Mohd Zulkifli Bin Mohammed
Permanent delegate of Malaysia to UNESCO
Delegation of Malaysia
1, rue Miollis
75015 Paris
FranceEmail: dl.malaysia@unesco-delegations.org
Tel: +01 456.834.73
Mr Jamili Nais
Director
Delegation of Malaysia
Sabah Parks Board, P.O. Box 10626
94

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

88806 Kota Kinabalu
Malaysia
Email: jamilinais@gmail.com
Tel: +60 198.610.101
Mr Zulkifli Mohamed Hashim
Deputy Secretary General (Science)
Delegation of Malaysia
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, level 6, block C5, complex C, Federal
Government Administrative
62662 Putrajaya
Malaysia
Email: dr.zulkifli@mosti.gov.myTel: +60 388.858.017
Mr Abdul Fatah Amir
Director
Delegation of Malaysia
Natural Resources Officer, Chief Minister's Department, 11th floor, Wisma Innoprise
88817 Kota Kinabalu
Malaysia
Email: abdfatah.amir@sabah.gov.myTel: +60 884.231.11
Ms Mushrifah Idris
Head of Tasik Chini Research Centre
Tasik Chini Research Centre, Faculty of Science and Technology, National University of Malaysia
43600 Bangi
Malaysia
Email: mushrifahidris@gmail.com
Tel: +60 389.213.291
Mr Mohamad Roslan Harun
Dato'
Delegation of Malaysia
State Economic Planning Division, 4th floor, Wisma Sri Pahang
25503 Kuantan
Malaysia
Email: tsuk1@pahang.gov.myTel: +60 951.267.01
Ms Wan Azlida Wan Muda
Delegate
Delegation of Malaysia
State Economic Planning Unit, 4th floor, Wisma Sri Pahang
25503 Kuantan, Pahang
Malaysia
Email: azlida2308@gmail.com
Tel: +60 951.267.04
Ms Nik Munirah Muhd Nur
Delegate
Delegation of Malaysia
State Economic Planning Division, 4th floor, Wisma Sri Pahang
25503 Kuantan, Pahang95

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Malaysia
Email: nikmunirah@pahang.gov.myTel: +60 951.267.13
Mr Mohd Soffi Abd Razak
Dato' Ir
Delegation of Malaysia
3rd floor, Wisma Sri Pahang
25503 Kuantan, Pahang
Malaysia
Email: soffi@pahang.gov.myTel: +60 951.784.42
Mr Muhammad Shafiq Ruslan
Research Officer
Delegation of Malaysia
Tasik Chini Research Centre (TCRC), Faculty of Science and Technology, University Kebangsaan
Malaysia
43600 Bangi
Malaysia
Email: muhammadshafiqruslan85@yahoo.com
Tel: +60 389.213.291
MEXICO / MEXIQUEMr Sergio Guevara
Vice-President for Latin-America
Delegation of Mexico
Carretera Antigua a Coatepec no. 351
91070 Xalapa
MexicoEmail: sergio.guevara@inecol.mx
Tel: +52 228.842.1806
Ms Ana Luisa Figueroa
Winner of the 2014 Michel Batisse Award
Gulf of California Islands Biosphere Reserve /CONANP
Isla Rasa esq. Isla Peruano, Lomas de Miramar
85450 Guaymas, Sonora
MexicoEmail: afiguero@conanp.gob.mx
Tel: +52 (622) 221.300
REPUBLIC OF KOREA / REPUBLIQUE DE COREE
Ms Eun-Young Kim
Chief, Sciences Team
Korean National Commission for UNESCO
26 Myeongdong-gil Jung-gu
100-810 Seoul
Republic of Korea
Email: heidi@unesco.or.kr
Tel: +82 269.584.122
Ms Jeewon Jung
Assistant Programme Specialist
Delegation of Republic of Korea
96

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

4th FL, 144 Mapodae-ro (Taeyoung Bldg. Gongdeok-dong), Mapo-gu
121-717 Seoul
Republic of Korea
Email: meiran0130@gmail.com
Tel: +82 109.956.3537
Mr Hokyung Jung
Deputy Director of Natural Policy Division
Delegation of Republic of Korea
Ministry of Environment, Eojin-dong339-714 Sejong
Republic of Korea
Email: dreaminblue@korea.kr
Tel: +824 420.172.31
Mr Chung-Il Choi
Chairman of MAB National Commitee of Republic of Korea
Delegation of Republic of Korea
Suite 1413, Teheran Office Building,707-38, Yoksam-2-dong
135-918 Seoul
Republic of Korea
Email: cichoi@hanyang.ac.kr
Tel: +82 109.194.9290
Mr Do-Soon Cho
Vice-Chairman of MAB National Committee of Republic of Korea
Delegation of Republic of Korea
4th FL, 144 Mapodae-ro (Taeyoung Bldg. Gongdeok-dong) Mapo-gu
121-717 Seoul
Republic of Korea
Email: dscho@catholic.ac.kr
Tel: +82 103.019.4357
Mr Myunggyu Hwang
Secretary General of MAB National Committee of Republic of Korea
Delegation of Republic of Korea
4th FL, 144 Mapodae-ro (Taeyoung Bldg. Gongdeok-dong) Mapo-gu
121-717 Seoul
Republic of Korea
Email: nimrod58@hanmail.net
Tel: +82 109.014.9341
Ms Suk-Kyung Shim
Professional Officer of ICLEI Korea OfficeDelegation of Republic of Korea
16, Jeongjo-ro 905beon-gil, Paldal-gu, Suwon
442420 Gyeonggi-do
Republic of Korea
Email: hallosks@gmail.com
Tel: +82 109.629.9907
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES / SAINT VINCENT ET LES GRENADINES
Ms Claudine Le Marant de KerdanielCounsellor
Delegation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
97Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

39 rue François 1er
75008 Paris
FranceEmail: dl.st-vincent@unesco-delegations.org
Tel: +01 565.209.11
SOUTH AFRICA / AFRIQUE DU SUDMr Vongani Nicolus Maringa
Assistant Director
Delegation of South Africa
315 Pretorius Street
0001Pretoria
South Africa
Email: vmaringa@environment.gov.za
Tel: +27 123.103.368
Mr Caiphus Ernest Khumalo
Director
Delegation of South Africa
315 Pretorius Street
0001Pretoria
South Africa
Email:ckhumalo@environment.gov.za
Tel: +27 123.951.849
Ms Skumsa Kathlen Audrey Mancotywa
Chief Director
Delegation of South Africa
315 Pretorius Street
0001Pretoria
South Africa
Email: smancotywa@environment.gov.za
Tel: +27 123.103.014
Mr Mpho Pila
Biodiversity Production Officer grade B
Delegation of South Africa
315 Pretorius Street, fedsure building forum
0001 Pretoria
South Africa
Email: mpila@environment.gov.za
Tel: +27 731.033.53/ 277 380 5625
Mr Mashudu Lucky Nemutandani
Deputy Director Scientific Support
Delegation of South Africa
CNR. DR. James Moroka and Stadium RD
2735 Mafikeng
South Africa
Email: Mnemutandani@nwpg.gov.za
Tel: +27 738.844.469
Ms Lebogang Diale
Director Environmental Epowerment Services
Delegation of South Africa
98Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Cnr. Dr. James Moroke Drive and Stadium Road
2735 Mmabatho
South Africa
Email: Ldiale@nwpg.gov.za
Tel: +27 826.979.433
Ms Mbassa-Sibaji Thandeka
Head
Department of Agricultural and Rural Development
11 Diagonal Street
New Town
Johannesburg
South Africa
Mr Leku Tebogo
Department of Agricultural and Rural Development
11 Diagonal Street
New Town
Johannesburg
South Africa
Email: tabo.leku@gauteng.gov.za
SPAIN / ESPAGNEMr Francisco José Cantos
Secretario del Comité Español del Programa MAB
Delegation of Spain
José Abascal 41
28003 Madrid
Spain
Email: FJCantos@oapn.es
Tel: +34 915.468.239
Ms Paloma Ramos
Oficina Técnica Comité Español del MaB
Delegation of Spain
José Abascal 41
28003 Madrid
Spain
Email: at_mab3@oapn.es
Tel: +34 915.468.258
SWEDEN / SUEDE
Ms Johanna MacTaggart
National MAB Coordinator
Delegation of Sweden
Biosfärkontoret, Box 77
542 21 Mariestad
SwedenEmail: johanna.mactaggart@vanerkulle.se
Tel: +46 501.393.193
Mr Per Magnusson
Deputy Director
Delegation of Sweden
Drottninggatan 1699Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

10333 Stockholm
SwedenEmail: per.magnusson@gov.se
Tel: +46 702.295.889
Mr Mats Djurberg
Secretary General
Delegation of Sweden
Drottninggatan 1610333 Stockholm
SwedenEmail: mats.djurberg@gov.se
Tel: +46 840.514.57
Ms Annika Markovic
Ambassador to UNESCO and OECD
Delegation of Sweden
17 rue Barbet-de-Jouy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: annika.markovic@gov.se
Tel: +33 144.188.883
Mr Tomas Kjellqvist
Vice Chair National Commission for UNESCO
Delegation of Sweden
Olof Skötkonungs väg 32
12650 Hägersten
SwedenEmail: tomas.kjellqvist@bth.se
Tel: +46 730.937.293
Mr Göran Blom
Chair of Swedish MAB committee
Delegation of Sweden
Valhallavägen 195
106 48 Stockholm
SwedenEmail: goran.blom@naturvardsverket.se
Tel: +46 869.817.11
Mr Shepherd Urenje
Programme Specialist
SWEDESD – The Swedish Internaitonal Cetnere of Educaiton for Sustainable Development
Uppsala Universitet
SE-621 67 Visby
SwedenTel: +46 18 4718407
Email: shepherd.urenje@swedesd.uu.se
TANZANIA (UNITED REPUBLIC OF) / REPUBLIQUE UNIE DE TANZANIEMr Albert Mziray
Park Ecologist
Delegation of Tanzania
C/o TANAPA, P. O. Box 3134
100

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

ArushaUnited Republic of Tanzania
Email: almziray@yahoo.com
Tel: +25 578.439.5826 / +25 576.739.3608
THAILAND / THAILANDE
Mr Theerapat Prayurasiddhi
Leader
Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation
61 Pholyothin Road, Ladyao, Chatuchak
10900 Bangkok
Thailand
Email: theerapat@hotmail.com
Tel: +66 256.107.77 Ext. 1930
Mr Prasert Sornsathapornkul
Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation
61 Pholyothin Road, Ladyao, Chatuchak
10900 Bangkok
Thailand
Email: ps_dnp@yahoo.com
Tel: +66 890.207.54
Mr Sumeth Dechatuntrakool
Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation
61 Pholyothin Road, Ladyao, Chatuchak
10900 Bangkok
Thailand
Email: workshop67@gmail.com
Tel: +66 897.815.801
Mr Wijarn Meepol
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
184 Moo 4 Tumbon Ngao Muang District
85000 Ranong
Thailand
Email: wijarn.meepol@yahoo.com
Tel: +66 860.965.218
Mr Chakree Rodfai
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
120 Moo 3, Chaeng Watthana Road, Thong Song Hong, Laksi district
10210 Bangkok
Thailand
Email: chakree_rod@hotmail.com
Tel: +66 214.113.71
Ms Ratchanin Pongudom
Foreign Relations Officer / Programme Officer
Bureau of International Cooperation
The Thai National Commission for UNESCO
Ministry of Education
Thailand
Email: ratchanin@yahoo.com
Tel: 66 262.856.46 ext. 114
101

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND/ ROYAUME-UNI DE
GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET D’IRLANDE DU NORD
Pr Martin Price
LeaderDelegation of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Perth College UHI, Crieff Road
PH12NX Perth
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Email: martin.price@perth.uhi.ac.uk
Tel: +44 1738-877217
Mr Andrew Bell
Vice Chairman UK MaB Committee
Delegation of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Civic Centre
Ex39 1EA Barnstaple
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Email: andybell33@gmail.com
Tel: +44 796.713.4149
UKRAINEMr Pavlo Cherinko
Deputy Chairperson of National MAB Committee
Delegation of Ukraine
54, Volodymyrska Street
01130 Kyiv
UkraineEmail: Cherinko@nas.gov.ua
Tel: +38 044.234.8630

102

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English
OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURSUNESCO MEMBER STATES / ETATS MEMBRES DE L’UNESCO

ALBANIAMs Djana Bejko
Vice Minister for Environment, Chairperson of MaB Committee of Albania
Delegation of Albania
Rruga "Durresit" 27
1000 Tirana
Albania
Email: Djana.Bejko@moe.gov.al
Tel: +355 422.599.00
Ms Jula Selmani
Assistant and Zv. Ministres
Delegation of Albania
Rruga e "Durresit" Nr 27
00000 Tirana
Albania
Email: Jula.Selmani@moe.gov.al
Tel: +355 422.706.25
Mr Ardit Konomi
Prefect of Korca Region
Prefektura Korçe, Blv. Republika,
Sheshi i Katedrales
Albania
Email : prefekturakorce@gmail.com
ARGENTINA
Ms Laura Ramirez Barrios
Embassador
Delegation of Argentina
Narvavägen 32 - 3° floor (Zip C:115 22) P.O. Box 140 39
104 40 Stockholm
Email: lramirezbarrios@yahoo.com.ar
AUSTRIA
Mag. Dr Günter Köck
LeaderDelegation of Austria
Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 21010 Vienna
Austria
Email: guenter.koeck@oeaw.ac.at
Tel: +43 664.205.3444
CANADAMr Jean-Philippe Messier
Chair
Canadian Association of Biosphere Reserves
41 Mance Avenue
G4Z 1M6 Baie-Comeau
Canada103

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Email: jpmessier@rmbmu.com
Tel: +14 182.932.548
Ms Megan de Graaf
Executive Director
Delegation of Canada
P.O. Box 1650 Stn Main
E1C 9X5 Moncton NB
CanadaEmail: info@fundy-biosphere.ca
Tel: +01 596.874.3272
Mr Stanley Boychuk
Chair
Canada MAB
3018 Blackwood Street
Victoria, British Columbia
CanadaEmail: stan@boychukconsulting.com
Tel: +01 250.589.7826
CHINA
Mr Ding Wang
Secretary-general
Delegation of China
NO.52, Sanlihe Street
100864 Beijing
China
Email: wangd@ihb.ac.cn
Tel: +86 106.859.7591
COLOMBIA
Ms Sonia Marina Pereira
Abassador
Delegation of Colombia
Carrera 6 No. 9 - 46
110321 Bogota
Colombia
Email: sonia.pereira@cancilleria.gov.co
Tel: +57 138.140.00 Ext. 1287
Ms Elizabeth Ines Taylor Jay
Durector Marine, Coastal and Aquatic Affairs
Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Calle 37 # 8-4000000 Bogota D.C.
Colombia
Email: etaylor@minambiente.gov.co
Tel: +57 316.525.2737
Ms Monica Isaza
Delegate
Delegation of Colombia
Carrera 6 No. 9 - 46
10321 Bogota
104

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Colombia
Email: monica.isaza@cancilleria.gov.co
Tel: +38 140.00 Ext. 1306
Ms. June Marie Mow Robinson
Advisor
Delegation of Colombia
Calle 55 #6-17
110236 Bogota
Colombia
Email: mariemow@gmail.com
Tel: +57 347.75.87
Mr Francisco Gutierrez
Permanent Delegation of Colombia to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
75015 Paris
FranceEmail: fj.gutierrez.co@unesco-delegations.org
Tel: +33 1 45 68 28 57
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Mr Yong Guk Kim
Counselor of the Embassy of DPR of Korea to Sweden
Delegation of Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Norra Kungsvagen 39
18131 Lidingo
SwedenEmail: koryo@telia.com
Tel: +0046 876.738.36
Mr Sim Il Gwang
Third Secretary
Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic Korea
Norra Kungsvägen 39
181 31 Lidingö
SwedenEmail: similgwang@yahoo.se
Tel: +46 0 728 444 059
INDIA
Dr. S.V. Reddy
Director (Scientific)
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government of India
Room No.753, Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi 110003
India
Email: sv.reddy@nic.in
Tel: +24366764
INDONESIAMr Yohanes Purwanto
Executive Director of The Indonesian MAB Programme National Committee
105Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Delegation of Indonesia
Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No 18
16122 Bogor
Indonesia
Email: mab-lipi@mab-indonesia.org
Tel: +62 251.832.5854
Mr Andi Basrul
Head of Gunung Leuser National Park Authority
Delegation of Indonesia
Jl. Selamat No. 137
20219 Medan
Indonesia
Email: mab-lipi@mab-indonesia.org
Mr Sudayatna Sudayatna
Head of the Lore Lindu National Park Authority
Delegation of Indonesia
Jl. Prof. Muhammad Yamin No. 53
94124 Palu
Indonesia
Email: tnlorelindu@gmail.com
Mr Jefri Susyafrianto
Directorate of Conservation Area and Protected Forest Management Staffs
Delegation of Indonesia
Gedung Manggala Wanabakti Blok VIII, LT 7 Jl. Jenderal Gatot Subroto
10270 Jakarta
Indonesia
Email: wiratns@gmail.com
ITALY
Mr Giorgio Andrian
Advisor
Delegation of Italy
Via Fasolato, 535132 Padova
Italy
Email: projects@giorgioandrian.eu
Tel: +39 335.680.2024
Mr Ottavio Di Bella
ExpertMinistry of the Environment
Via Cristoforo Colombo 44
00147 Roma
Italy
Email: dibella.ottavio@minambiente.it
Tel: +39 392.659.1870
Ms Valentina MaurielloExpertItalian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea
Via Cristoforo Colombo - 4400147 Rome106

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Italy
Email: valentina.mauriello@gmail.com
Tel: +39 347.301.3142 / +39 065.722.3484
Ms Anna Maria Maggiore
Officer
Ministry for Environment
Via Cristoforo Colombo 44
00147 Roma
Italy
Email: maggiore.annamaria@minambiente.it
Tel: +39 347.861.4314
Dr Michele Laudati
Director of Ente Parco Nazionale della Sila
Via Nazionale snc
Lorica di San Giovanni
87055 Fiore
Italy
Email: direttore@parcosila.it
Dr Valeria Pellegrini
Ente Parco Nazionale della Sila
Via Nazionale snc
Lorica di San Giovanni
87055 Fiore
Italy
Email: ufficio.stampa@parcosila.it
Dr Pietro Oieni
Member of MAB National Committee
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies, State Forestry Corps
Via Giosuè Carducci 500187 Roma
Italy
Email: p.oieni@corpoforestale.it
MACEDONIA (Former Yugoslav Republic of) / Ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine
Mr Dimitrija Sekovski
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Macedonia Office
Email: Dimitrija.sekovski@gmail.com
Mr Dejan Panovski
Ministry of Environment
Galiciaca 47
6000 Ohkid, Macedonia
Email: Dejapan11@gmail.com
Tel: +38 9 75 263 000
NIGER
Mr Hamissou Halilou Malam Garba
Chef de Division des Aires Protégées (DFC/AP)
Delegation of Niger
Rue des Ambasses
107Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

BP 578 Niamey
Niger
Email: hamissou66@yahoo.fr
Tel: +22 796.531.543
NIGERIAMr Patrick Okafor
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Delegation of Nigeria
1 Rue Miollis
75015 Paris
FranceEmail: patozulonye@yahoo.com
Tel: +33 698.156.398
Mr Adeshola Adepoju
ProvostForestry Research Institute of Nigeria Jos
Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Ibadan
2019 Bauchi Road, JOS
Nigeria
Email: soadepoju2003@yahoo.co.uk
Tel: +23 480.358.68634
NORWAYMs Irene Lindblad
Senior advisor
Delegation of Norway
Kongensgate 20
Postboks 8013 Dep, 0030 Oslo
NorwayEmail: Iren.Lindblad@gmail.com
Tel: +47 994.249.07
Ms Kari Evensen Natland
Project leader
Delegation of Norway
Postbox 135902 Isdalstø
NorwayEmail: kari@nordhordland.net
Tel: +47 480.709.72
Pr Peter Emil KalandProfessor emeritus
Delegation of Norway
Department of biology, Univ. of Bergen, Postal box 7803
N-5020 Bergen
NorwayEmail: peter.kaland@bio.uib.no
Tel: +47 905.540.22
OMAN
Mr Sulaiman Al Mabsali
Specialist, International Relations
108

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Delegation of Oman
1964
111 SEEB
Oman
Email: mabsali@moe.om
Tel: +96 899.244.626
PAKISTAN
Mr Omar Muhammad
Third Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
75015 Paris
FranceEmail: dl.pakistan@unesco-delegations.org
Tel: +01 456.830.77
PERU
Mr Nonally Pedro Gamboa
LeaderServicio Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado- SERNANP
Calle diecisiete 355 Urb. El Palomar, San Isidro
27 Lima
Peru
Email: pgamboa@sernanp.gob.pe
Tel: +51 122.601.22
POLAND
Ms Patrycja Stawiarz
Head of the Nature Projects Unit
General Directorate for Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources Management
Wawelska 52/54
00-922 Warsaw
PolandEmail: Patrycja.Stawiarz@gdos.gov.pl
Tel: +48 225.792.168
SERBIAMr Goran Sekulić
Expert support
Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia
Kumanovska 24
11000 Belgrade
SerbiaEmail: goran.sekulic@zzps.rs
Tel: +38 165.204.2726
Mr Marko Tucakov
Senion Associate for International Cooperation and Project Manager
Institute for Nature Conservation of Vojvodina Province
Radnička 20a
21000 Novi Sad Postal
SerbiaEmail: marko.tucakov@pzzp.rs
109

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Tel: +38 1648.500.709
SWITZERLAND
Mr Carlo Ossola
LeaderDelegation of Switzerland
Federal Office for Environment
3003 Bern
Switzerland
Email: carlo.ossola@bafu.admin.ch
Tel: +41 796.933.794
TURKEYMr Yildiray Lise
Delegate
Delegation of Turkey
Resit Galip Cad. Hereke Sok. No.10 Cankaya
06700 Ankara
TurkeyEmail: yildiraylise@yahoo.com
Tel: +90 532.520.4900
Mr Mahir Kucuk
LeaderDelegation of Turkey
Resit Galip Cad. Hereke Sok. No.10 Cankaya
06700 Ankara
TurkeyEmail: mkucuk58@gmail.com
Tel: +90 533.437.7871
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAMr Vernon Gilbert
President
United States Biosphere Reserves Association
2228 Island Home Boulevard
37920 Knoxville, Tennessee
United States of America
Email: vernongilbert@comcast.net
Tel: +86 557.901.99
Mr Ben Bobowski
Chief of Resource Stewardship
National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park, USA
1000 HWY 36
80517 Estes Park
USA
Email: Ben_Bobowski@nps.gov
Tel: +01 970.586.1350
Mr John Dennis
Deputy Chief Scientist
U.S. National Park Service
1201 I Street, N.W.
20005 Washington, DC
110

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

USA
Email: john_dennis@nps.gov
Tel: +01 202.513.7174
Ms Janel Heird
Second Secretary, Science Officer
U.S. Department of State
12, Av. Raphael
75016 Paris - France
Email : Heirdjm@state.gov
Tel: +33 143.127.499
INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONSORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES NON GOUVERNEMENTALESSCOPEMr Jon SamsethPresident
SCOPE - Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
SCOPE Secretariat, c/o UNESCO 1 rue Miollis, Bät. VII, Room 3.16
75732 Paris Cedex 15
FranceEmail: jsamseth@gmail.com
Tel: +33 145.684.571 / +47 996.186.08

INSTITUTS
Dr Lisen Schultz
Stockholm Resilience Centre
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm university
10691 Stockholm
SwedenEmail: lisen.schultz@su.se
Tel: +46 702.888.138
Dr Thomas Schaaf
Terra-Sana environmental consulting
Guenterstalstrasse 12a79100 Freiburg
Germany
Email: tschaaf22@hotmail.fr
Tel: +49 761.705.96556
Mr Wolfgang Fremuth
Team Leader TBR Ohrid Prespa Watershed
Frankfurt Zoological Society
Am Finkenberg 1353227 Bonn
Germany
Email: wolfgang@fremuth.net
Tel: +49 171.715.3236

111

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Pr Gaoming Jiang
SUMAMAD participator
Institute of Botany, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan
100093 Beijing
China
Email: jianggm@126.com
Tel: +08 601.062.836.086
Mr Mansour Esfandiari Baiat
SUMAMAD Case Study Project in Iran
Research Society for Sustainable Rehabilitation of Drylands (REaSSURED)West Saheli street, Lane 2, Eram Complex 2, 6/1
7143637994 Shiraz
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Email: esfandiari.b@gmail.com
Tel: +98 917.118.4741
Pr Donald Gabriels
SUMAMAD
Em.Prof.dr.ir.
Ghent University, Belgium
Coupure links 653
B9000 Ghent
Belgium
Email: donald.gabriels@UGent.be
Tel: +0032 476.898.772
Mr Maen Smadi
SUMAMAD
Head of protected areas
The royal society for the conservation of nature
11941 Amman
JordanEmail: maen@rscn.org.jo
Tel: +0096 279.727.3999
Mr Zafar Adeel
SUMAMAD
Director
United Nations University Institute for Water Environment & Health
175 Longwood Rd, South
L8P0A1 Hamilton
CanadaEmail: zafar.adeel@unu.edu
Tel: +19 056.675.511
Dr Magali Garcia Cardenas
SUMAMAD
Proyecto Quinagua
Facultad de Agronomia
Universidad Mayor de San Andres
Calle Abdon Saavedra esq. Landaeta
La Paz - Bolivia
Email: magalygc1@yahoo.es
Tel: +59 122.491.485
112

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Dr Rudy Herman
SUMAMAD
Senior Scientist
Ministry of Flanders
Science and Policy Administration
Boudewijnlaan, 30
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium
Email: rudy.herman@ewi.vlaanderen.be
Tel: +32 255.360.01

UNESCO SECRETARIATUNESCO Offices / Bureaux de l’UNESCO
Mr Ram Boojh
UNESCO New Delhi Office
B 5/29 Safdarjung Enclave
110029 New Delhi
India
Email: r.boojh@unesco.org
Tel: +91 112.671.3000

UNESCO Headquarters / Siège de l’UNESCO
Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences:• Mr HAN Qunli Director and Secretary of the MAB Programme• Ms Meriem Bouamrane, Programme Specialist• Ms Noeline Rakotoarisao-Raondry, Chief of Section, SC/EES/BNC• Mr Miguel Clüsener-Godt, Senior Programme Specialist• Mr Peter Dogse, Programme Specialist• Ms Melody Ocloo, Assistant Programme Specialist• Mr Alberto Hernandez Salinas, Assistant Programme Specialist• Ms Maria Cardenas, Consultant• Ms Kremena Nikolova, Assistant• Ms Sylvie Venter, Senior Assistant to the Director
International Oversight Service:• Mr Vaessen Josef, Principal Evaluation Specialist
Office of International Standars and Legal Affairs:• Mr Jean-Christophe Badaroux-Mendieta, Legal Officer

113

Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English
Interpreters / interprètes

Ms Cécile Galy
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: cecilegaly@gmail.com
Ms Christine Victorin
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: christine.victorin@wanadoo.fr
Ms Isabelle SeguelaInterpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: seguelai@wanadoo.fr
Ms Naia Sadaba-Herrero
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: nsadaba@yahoo.fr
Mr Philip Rees
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: philippe.rees@orange.fr
Mr Godrics Yann Obame Ndong
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: yan_ndong@hotmail.com

114Annex 1

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Ms Amaya Moran OrthizInterpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: amaia.moran@wanadoo.fr
Ms Ann Isabel Freeman
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: annabel.freeman@wanadoo.fr
Ms Dominique Chatelle
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: dominique.chatelle@wanadoo.fr
Ms Juan Maria Burdiel Perez
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: jmburdielperez@gmail.com
Ms Marta Bujan-Navarro
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: martabujan@yahoo.es
Mr Thomas Afton
Interpreter
UNESCO
7 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
FranceEmail: tomafton@gmail.com

115

Annex 2

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Annex 2
Agenda116

Annex 2

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONInternational Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme
Twenty-sixth session
Jönkoping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden
10 - 13 June 2014
AGENDA

1.

Opening by the Chair of the ICC

2.

Opening remarks by the UNESCO Director-General

3.

Report by the outgoing Chair of the ICC

4.

Election of the Chair, Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur

5.

Adoption of the agenda and timetable

6.

Report by the Secretary of the MAB Programme

7.

Reports on actions undertaken by Member States / regional and thematic MAB Networks
in the context of MAB and discussion on collaborative thematic and research projects

8.

Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP)9.

MAB and World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) – post Rio+20 opportunities andtowards a strategy for 2014-202110.

Proposals for new biosphere reserves and extensions/modifications to biosphere reserves
that are part of the WNBR

11.

Update on the exit strategy

12.

Periodic review of biosphere reserves and follow-up of recommendations

13.

UNESCO MAB policy on open access to MAB/biosphere reserve documentation

14.

Michel Batisse Award for Biosphere Reserve Management

15.

MAB Young Scientists Award Scheme

16.

Information on the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve Case

17.

Date and venue of the 27th session of the MAB-ICC

18.

Other matters

19.

Adoption of the report

20.

Closure of the session

117Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

Annex 3
Report of the MAB Secretary118

Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONInternational Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme
Twenty-sixth session
Jönkoping, East Vättern Landscape Biosphere Reserve, Sweden
10 - 13 June 2014
REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MAB PROGRAMME
Since the 25th session of the MAB International Coordinating Council (MAB-ICC), MAB has
seen many new developments at the international, regional and national levels. Divided into thefollowing five sections, this report provides MAB-ICC with an update on these developments:

I.

I.

The overall situation of the MAB Programme,II.

Implementation of the main decisions of the last session of MAB-ICC,III.

MAB regional/thematic networks;

IV.

Highlights of MAB actions and activities,V.

MAB partnerships.

Overall situation of the MAB Programme

1. Completion of 36C/5 (2012-2013) of MAB. After the 25th session of MAB-ICC, theimplementation of MAB Programme was accelerated by the Secretariat as well as by MAB
national committees and thematic and regional networks. The results of the implementationof the six Expected Results relating to MAB as well as assessments of the impacts andlessons learnt during the biennium were reported to the Executive Board at 192nd and 194th
Sessions as well as to the 37th General Conference, which accordingly endorsed thereports1. It should be noted that the successful delivery of the MAB Programme was made in
the context of the special financial difficulties experienced by UNESCO throughout the 20122013 biennium.
2. MAB in 37C/4 and 37C/52. Thanks to the strong support from the Member States, the MAB
Programme has maintained its importance in UNESCO’s new Medium-Term Strategy (20142021) and 37C/5 quadrennial workplan. The MAB Programme has been assigned to
implement one of the six Main Lines of Actions (MLAs) under the Natural Sciences
programme, namely, ‘Strengthening the roles of ecological sciences and biospherereserves’. This MLA is related to a specific Expected Result entitled ‘Use of biospherereserves as learning places for equitable and sustainable development and for climatechange mitigation and adaptation strengthened, and the ecological and biodiversity sciences1
2

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002266/226627e.pdf.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002268/226841e.pdf
119Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

reinforced’. Despite the difficult financial situation of the Organization and a much reduced
expenditure package for UNESCO’s Regular Programme, the governing bodies of UNESCO
have given ecological sciences and MAB Programme around 79% of the total Regular
Budget proposed, thus ensuring a basis for the implementation of the MAB Programme.
3. MAB and Priority Africa flagship programmes in the 37C/5. The MAB Secretariat participatedactively in the development of Priority Africa flagship programmes, within which ‘Flagship 4:
Fostering sciences for the sustainable management of Africa's natural resources anddisaster risk reduction’ and ‘Expected Result 3: UNESCO network of internationallydesignated sites expanded to foster sustainable socio-economic development includingtransboundary sites which successfully manage shared water and/or ecosystem resources’
specifically address action relating to MAB.
4. Information sharing with Member States. In addition to the information on MAB provided to
the governing bodies of UNESCO, the Secretariat also provided a report to the MAB
International Support Group (ISG) in March 2014 about the achievements and challenges of
MAB. In 2013, reports were provided during the preparation of the 37C/4 and 37C/5 to theAfrica and Asia-Pacific Member State groups represented by the Permanent Delegations to
UNESCO. A new MAB leaflet and a new World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR)
map were produced and distributed widely, both in hard-copy and on-line. This information
sharing meetings were highly appreciated by the Member States.
5. MAB contributions to major international processes related to sustainable development.
Through the MAB Secretariat, input and expertise were made available in support
UNESCO’s overall contributions to CBD, IPBES, UNCCD, climate change, Future Earth, thePost-2015 Development Agenda discussion and the preparation of the Sustainable
Development Goals, as well as the UN Secretary General’s Science Advisory Board (SAB).
The work of MAB – in particular the relevance and added value of the WNBR - contributed
to all these input and interventions.
6. New biosphere reserve proposals in 2013. There has been an increase in the proposals forbiosphere reserves in 2013, with a total of 29 nominations from 19 countries. This higher
number of requests for new biosphere reserves, including requests for transboundary
biosphere reserves, provides strong evidence that MAB and its WNBR are vibrant andhighly relevant to the Member States. The interest in making use of MAB and WNBR
continues to grow in the contexts of new and emerging international cooperation forsustainable development.
7. The MAB Secretariat. The financial situation has led to a reduction of professional-level
posts in the MAB Secretariat, which has impacted the capacity of the MAB Secretariat.
However, in the new and reduced structure of the Natural Sciences Sector, the MAB
Secretariat is still well maintained in the Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences with two
professional sections, namely, a) the Section of MAB Research and Policy: Ecology andBiodiversity, and b) the Section of MAB Networking: Biosphere Reserves and Capacity
Building. The Secretariat’s capacity is further reinforced by some 15 science professionals
partially working for the MAB Programme in the Field Offices of UNESCO across all regions
8. Overall, the MAB Programme is highly relevant to the needs of the Member States, andcontributes significantly toward UNESCO’s Overarching Strategic Objective of Promoting
International Scientific Cooperation on Critical Challenges to Sustainable development. MAB
120

Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

and WNBR constitute a central pillar in UNESCO’s programmes for sustainable
development. In spite of continued financial constraints, the opportunities for MAB and its
WNBR to grow and become stronger are real, tangible and worth exploring vigorously.

II.

Implementation of the main decisions adopted at the 25th session of MAB-ICC

9. Implementation of the Exit Strategy. Reference is made to the MAB ICC decision on the Exit
Strategy3. After the last MAB Council meeting, the MAB Secretariat has been following thisdecision very closely. The first year of the Strategy’s implementation has shown very
encouraging signs, as demonstrated by the response to the MAB Council’s call for thesubmission of periodic reports. A document (ref. SC-14/CONF.226/9) has been prepared forthis session of the MAB Council, detailing the progress made, recommendations made by
the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves at its meeting in March 2014,
as well as remaining issues to be addressed by the MAB Council.
10. Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan (MAP). Reference is made to MAB ICC decision tocarry out a comprehensive evaluation prior the completion of the MAP at the end of 20134.
UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Office (IOS), in close cooperation with the MAB Secretariat
and an electronic MAB working group, has carried out an online survey using aquestionnaire designed for specifically for the MAP evaluation as well as interviews with
programme specialists and a document desk review. A related document (ref. SC-14/CONF.
226/6) has been prepared by IOS for the MAB Council. The results of the MAP Evaluation
will be highly relevant and useful in the elaboration of the new MAB Strategy and related
action plans for the WNBR.
11. Preparation of the new MAB Strategy. Reference is made to the debate and conclusion of
the 25th Session of the MAB Council regarding MAB and World Network of Biosphere
Reserves – post Rio+ 20 opportunities and towards a strategy for 2014-20215. As follow up,
the Secretariat first concentrated in the preparation of UNESCO 37C/4 and 37C/5, as wellas on ensuring quality implementation of the remaining tasks in the 2012-2013 workplan(36C/5) and related reporting. The development of a new MAB Strategy was further
discussed at several regional MAB meetings in 2013. In February 2014, in order to enablebroad participation and collective contributions to the preparation of the new MAB Strategy,
a simple questionnaire was designed in consultation with MAB Bureau Members and theelectronic MAB working group. The questionnaire was sent to all MAB National Committees
in March 2014. At the time of writing, close to 30 MAB National Committees, some individual
Biosphere Reserves and the EuroMAB network had replied with specific comments andsuggestions in response to the questions of the questionnaire, providing a substantive basis
for further work. A preliminary draft (‘zero draft’) has been prepared (ref. SC14/CONF.226/7) for the attention of this session of the MAB Council.
12. The time frame for the preparation of the new MAB Strategy is one year, given the fact that it
has to be further elaborated, most likely through several working groups of MAB. It should
also be associated with, and benefit from, the global processes relating to the preparation of3

SC-13-CONF-225-11_Final_Report Paragraph 56-65
SC-13-CONF-225-11_Final_Report Paragraph 29-34
5
SC-13-CONF-225-11_Final_Report Paragraph 35-47
4121

Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

the SDGs and the Post-2015 Development Agenda. In the light hereof, it is suggested thatthe text of the new MAB Strategy be finalized by the 27th Session of the MAB-ICC in 2015.

III. Information concerning MAB thematic and regional networks
13. Thematic and regional MAB networks provide the main platforms for MAB cooperation in
research, elaboration of new ideas and subjects, sharing of information, exchange ofexperience and lessons learnt, and mobilization of cooperation for capacity building. During
the last 12 months, despite the constraints of the limited regular budget in UNESCO, most
MAB thematic and regional networks continued their cooperation, bringing together new
resources and new partners. This is evidenced by the list of meetings below (inchronological order):• 11th International Meeting of the East Atlantic Biosphere Reserve Network (REDBIOS),
at the Biosphere Reserve of the Island of Príncipe, Democratic Republic of São Toméand Príncipe, from 3 to 9 May 2013.
• 3rd Meeting of the Global Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves in the
Islands of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa, West‐Estonian Archipelago biosphere reserve, from
3 to 7 June 2013.
• 3rd General Assembly of the African Network of Biosphere Reserves (AfriMAB) in
Accra, Ghana, from 24–27 September 2013.
• EuroMAB 2013 meeting in Frontenac Arch Biosphere, Canada, from 15 to 19 October
2013.
• 13th Meeting of the East Asian Biosphere Reserve Network in Ulaanbaatar and Hustain
Nuruu Biosphere Reserve, Mongolia, from 21-25 October 2013.
• Training Course for Island and Coastal Area Biosphere Reserves Managers, island of
Jeju, Republic of Korea, from 21 to 25 October 2013.
• 7th SeaBRnet meeting in Puerto Princesa, Palawan Biosphere Reserve, Philippines,
from 23 to 27 October 2013.
• 5th SACAM Meeting (26-28 November 2013) and ECO Workshop (29-30 November2013) in Islamabad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
• 4th Meeting of the Pacific Biosphere Reserves Network (PacMAB): Role of Biosphere
Reserves in Sustainable Development in the Pacific, from 23-25 April 2014 in Nadi, Fji.
14. In addition to these events, MAB has participated actively in many other workshops andmeetings on issues such as climate change, mountain ecosystems, the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). One example of this engagement
by MAB was the International Workshop on Mangroves and Sustainable Development heldin July 2013 in Santa Marta, Colombia, organized by UNESCO-Quito, the PermanentCommission for the South Pacific (CPPS), Conservation International (CI), and the Ministryof Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia.
15. The above meetings provided very rich information and knowledge from country and sitestudies, and addressed the common issues of the MAB Programme: biodiversity and its
sustainable use under different ecosystems (islands and coasts, forests, mountains,
drylands) and various socio-economic contexts; development of green economies in andaround biosphere reserves; transboundary cooperation using biosphere reserve as
platforms; identification of new biosphere reserves in different region and subregions;promoting biosphere reserves as model regions for sustainable development; research and122

Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

measures on climate change impacts mitigation and adaptation; ecosystem rehabilitation;
participatory management and governance; traditional knowledge and management;interdependence of biodiversity and cultural diversity; and education for sustainable
development.
16. It is noted that, however, there is a need to improve communication within MAB, between
UNESCO programmes and sectors, and with civil society regarding the results obtained andthe new findings and ideas emerging from MAB’s thematic and regional networks. It is also
noted that a very large number of MAB-supported technical workshops and seminars areheld at the national level, the results of which are not effectively shared internationally. Thisissue will be addressed under the items relating to the new MAB Strategy and MAB
communication.

IV. Highlights of MAB actions and activities
17. While MAB thematic and regional networks as well as national networks have supported
exchange and sharing of information and experience relating to research and development,
numerous actions and activities have been undertaken by MAB National Committees andthe development authorities of Member States. Several examples of MAB actions andactivities supported and facilitated by the Secretariat are highlighted below.
18. Completion of the Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD) project.
Funded by the Flemish Government of Belgium, this 10 year project, which aimed to combat
desertification at pilot sites in nine countries: Bolivia, Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, India, Iran,
Jordan, Pakistan and Tunisia, has been completed. During the last 10 years, the ninecountries and their experts worked together to share experience in drylands conservationand development; to study rehabilitation of degraded drylands and improvement ofagricultural yields through better water management; to produce development of policy
guidelines for decision-makers; and to support local communities to adopt more sustainable
livelihoods through ecotourism, handicraft production, bee-keeping and dietary
diversification, and to reduce their dependence on traditional dryland agriculture in a
deteriorating environment.
19. Trifinio-Fraternidad Biosphere Reserve of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. This is thefirst tri-national Biosphere Reserve in the Latin America and Caribbean Region, establishedto promote transboundary cooperation in conservation of biodiversity and management of
natural resources. As a major step following the establishment of the tri-national biospherereserve, the three countries have agreed to work together to promote green economy
development of the local communities and municipalities located in the Trifinio-Fraternidad
Biosphere Reserve. This cooperation is supported by Germany, which has committed
project support totalling11 million euros.
20. The first MAB Category II Center. Following the decision by the 37th session of General
Conference, the Director-General of UNESCO officially inaugurated the Category II
International Centre on ‘Mediterranean Biosphere Reserves, Two Coastlines United by their
Culture and Nature’ in April 2014. Located within the premises of the Abertis Foundation in
Castellet I la Gornal, Kingdom of Spain, it is the first MAB category II centre under UNESCO
auspices. The center will focus on scientific cooperation between the two shores and thebiosphere reserves of the Mediterranean. As the first example of such a MAB institution, it is123Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

noted that the Centre combines public commitment and private sector financial support for
long-term support to MAB, indicating a new modality for MAB cooperation in support ofcapacity building at regional level.
21. Supporting nomination of new transboundary biosphere reserves for Peace in Lake Chadand in Central Africa. Sound management of transboundary ecosystems is one of thepriorities of AfriMAB. During the last biennium, the MAB Secretariat supported feasibility
studies at two transboundary biosphere reserves: one in Lake Chad involving Cameroon,
Chad, Niger and Nigeria, Central African Republic and Libya; and another in the TRIDOM
area in Central Africa involving Congo, Gabon and Cameroon. The study contributed to thecapacity of MAB national committees in these countries.
22. Promoting the use of solar energy by empowering women in Volcans Biosphere Reserve,
Rwanda. MAB and its local partner, the ‘Gorilla Organization’, supported the solar
electrification of 100 households in Nyarugina village within the Volcanoes BR in Rwanda,
home to the endangered Mountain Gorillas. The solar equipment provides improved accessto energy and security. The equipment is installed, maintained and repaired by local
grandmothers, who were sent to India for six months in 2012 to train as fully qualified solar
engineers. The training was provided through a partnership with Barefoot College in Tilonia,
India, and was supported by the Government of India, providing a good example of southsouth cooperation.
23. Exhibition 'Climate change impacts on mountain regions of the world’ Funded by the
Flemish Government of Belgium and using satellite images from JAXA, ESA, USGS, MAB
and IHP, and presented during the 37th Session of UNESCO’s General Conference, thisexhibition highlighted the effects of climate change in different mountain regions, many ofwhich are UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. The exhibition is currently shown in Italy, and will
be shown in Lima, Peru, in December for the next UN Climate Change Conference(COP20). Discussions are ongoing regarding a possible exhibition at the UN Climate
Summit 2014.
24. No plastic - a small gesture in our hands was an awareness and mobilization campaign
project supported by the MAB programme, the Spanish Ministry for Agriculture, Food andthe Environment, and the Island of Principe (Sao Tomé and Principe), to reduce plastic
waste and promote access to drinking water in a biosphere reserve. The campaign was
launched in February 2014 and was a great success. Fifty plastic bottles can be exchanged
for a ‘Principe Biosphere Bottle’, a reusable stainless steel bottle that can be replenished atvarious treated water points installed across the island of Principe. On the first collection dayof the campaign, 24,000 used plastic bottles were collected by schoolchildren and 400‘Principe Biosphere Bottles’ were distributed to the local population.
25. RENFORUS Initiative - Renewable Energy Futures for UNESCO Sites. The objective of the
RENFORUS initiative is to provide the international community with global climate change
field observatory sites involving the sustainable use of environmentally sound renewableenergy sources in UNESCO sites (biosphere reserves and World Heritage sites). Whileaddressing climate change mitigation, this initiative will also aim to demonstrate the benefitof harnessing locally available renewable energy sources and the potential impacts hereofon the environmental and ecological preservation of UNESCO sites.

124Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

26. Implementation of Green economy in Africa Biosphere Reserves (GEBR) was started inJune 2014 with inception meetings followed by workshops to set up the baseline for future
forest monitoring and related socio-economic activities in Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. The
project is the first KOIKA fund-in-trust (1.8 million US dollars) for African Biosphere
Reserves.
27. UNESCO – CHIC Group (China) Biosphere Integrated Rural Urbanization Programme(BIRUP): The Biosphere Integrated Rural Urbanization Programme (BIRUP) in the Ba’nan
District, Chongqing (China) promotes green economies based on integrated rural landconsolidation with new agricultural projects, training of farmers and expansion of urbanizedrural villages in-line with the biosphere reserve concept. Thorough the BIRUP project,possible inputs for the Milan Expo 2015 are also under preparation.
28. MAB communication, outreach and publications have increased since the last MAB Council,
although much more still remains to be done:• Production and distribution of the 2013-2014 map of the WNBR, with generous support
from the German National Commission for UNESCO and MAB-Germany. The map isavailable in English, French, Spanish and German, and available also online from the
UNESCO website.
• Production and distribution of a MAB programme Leaflet (in English, French, Spanish),also available online from the UNESCO website.
• A MAB Facebook page has been established on an experimental basis. The Facebook
page features new posts once or twice daily with information, pictures and videos about
activities related to biosphere reserves and the MAB programme. Use of other social
media platforms is also under discussion.
• The video ‘People and nature - better together!’ produced by EuroMAB network, features
the biosphere reserve story and shows that a sustainable way of living is not only
possible, but already happening.
• The video ‘Mangroves and Sustainable Development’ developed by the UNESCO Quito
Office in partnership with the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) andConservation International – Ecuador, promotes the conservation and sustainable use ofmangroves, the values of the ecosystem goods and services and to address economic
issues and cultural, social and spiritual aspects of mangroves.
• The book ‘Reservas de la Biosfera de Chile — Laboratorios para la Sustentabilidad’(Biosphere Reserves of Chile — Laboratory for Sustainability) presents each of thebiosphere reserves in Chile, in particular their natural and cultural heritage, in order tostimulate research and raise the interest among the Chilean population about theuniqueness of ecosystems and human livelihoods in biosphere reserves.
• The book ‘AfriMAB — Biosphere Reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa: Showcasing
Sustainable Development’ shares stories of sustainable development as portrayedthrough the management of biosphere reserves in nine African countries.
29. MAB training and education continued during the last 12 months, with the following newactivities undertaken:• ERAIFT (Regional Post-Graduate Training School on Integrated Management of
Tropical Forest and Lands initiated by UNESCO-MAB in partnership with DR Congo,
EU and UNDP) now offers bilingual courses (French and English) and short term
capacity building for professional staff of national institutions. With 21 sub-Saharancountries benefitting, ERAIFT has developed a strong technical partnership at alllevel. In 2012-2013, 41 Masters and 36 PhD students have been enrolled with 23
125

Annex 3

•

•

•

•

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English
graduated during the 2012-2013 academic year. Cooperation with UNEP has been
fostered through revived MAB participation in the Great Apes Survival
Partnership. The enrolment for the 9th promotion of DESS (Diploma in Advanced
Specialized Studies) to start in September 2014 has been launched.
A training course on bioinformatics and taxonomy in Rwanda trained 23 trainers fromuniversities, research institutions and NGO’s who will be an asset for a bioinformatics
centre foreseen to be established as part of the Centre of Excellence. As a result ofcourses organized by UNESCO in 2012 in collaboration with University of Rwanda
and University of Cape Town, South Africa, eleven species of mosses new to
Rwanda have been recorded. This is a very important step in the inventory of plants
in the country, which is a biodiversity hotspot.
Training Course for Island and Coastal Area Biosphere Reserve Managers.
UNESCO and the island of Jeju organized this training course in the island of Jeju,
Republic of Korea, from 21 to 25 October 2013. The aim of the course was todeepen the understanding of biosphere reserve managers of the concept and visionof biosphere reserves, raise their awareness of the vulnerability of island and coastal
biosphere reserves to climate change, and transfer technical knowledge.
Masters Course on Biosphere Reserves for Sustainable Landscape Development.
Offered by the Department of Economy and Society, Human Geography Unit School of Business Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), thecourse gives a deep insight into the concepts of sustainability and biospherereserves.
Effort to build capacity of MAB national committees in Southern Africa. In the subregion, so far only South Africa and Zimbabwe have established biosphere reserves.
A capacity building regional workshop was organized by the UNESCO Harare officein July 2013 in Limpopo Province in South Africa. This was followed by anothertraining workshop in Botswana in November 2014 in collaboration with BfN (German
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation).

V. MAB partnership
30. Partnerships are vital for the MAB Programme and its WNBR. In a rapid changing world anddynamic international environment, MAB needs to consolidate its traditional partnership with
scientific institutions and organizations on one hand, and on the other hand to explore
vigorously new partnerships with civil society organizations, local governments,
development agencies and the private sector. For the latter, encouraging developments are
already taking place through the work of the UNESCO Offices in Beijing, Jakarta and New
Delhi and Venice, in particular in the fields of ESD and biodiversity. While partnerships
remain a critical matter of discussion for the new MAB strategy, the past months have seen
positive developments in MAB partnership, as follows.
31. In partnership with the French government and research institutions, as well as CBD, IUBS
(International Union of Biological Sciences) and the Global Partnership for Plant
Conservation, MAB Secretariat will organize the International Conference 'Botanists of theTwenty-first Century: Roles, Challenges and Opportunities' in September 2014 in Paris, withthe objective of developing forward-looking perspectives for the botanical profession in thetwenty-first century.

126

Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

32. Sustainable financing for AfriMAB. Following the request of the 3rd general assembly of
AfriMAB, the MAB Secretariat completed a study and concept note on the AfriBioFund, atrust fund to be established to support regional activities in African Biosphere Reserves withparticular focus on development and logistic functions. It is worth noting that this study has
been financed by voluntary contributions from African MAB national committees.
33. Partnership with the World Heritage Convention has led to new joint efforts for developmentof a project on biodiversity in Africa and related fundraising. An expert dialogue of
MAB/WNBR and WH as well as the global geopark network on the use of spacetechnologies for the management of internationally designated sites held in May 2014 in
China provides new insight into common management challenges and opportunities forcooperation between the three categories of sites.
34. Communication and information exchange with the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and
IUCN has become more active. This is evidenced by a joint proposal of IUCN, MAB, Ramsar
and WHC for a comparative study on international designated conservation areas (to befinanced by Jeju Island of the Republic of Korea); MAB cooperation with IUCN for a coastal
and island Biosphere Reserves workshop at the World Park Congress 2014; and IUCN
participation at the 20th session of International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reservein March 2014.
35. SCOPE has expressed interest in continuing its work with MAB and has offered to publish a
special issue of about MAB and WNBR in the international journal Ecosystem Health andSustainable Development (EHS) in early 2015. Exchanges with the Stockholm Resilience
Center also demonstrate strong potential for joint activities in research. UNEP-WCMC has
indicated its willingness to reactivate database cooperation on WNBR - an issue that will
require further examination by the MAB Council and the next session of International
Advisory Committee.
36. An important partnership with Member States is the provision of professional staff to the
MAB Secretariat through UNESCO’s Associate Expert Scheme. Thanks to the French
Government, an associate expert is now based at the GRASP Secretariat in Nairobi. Other
arrangements include professional secondment and government supported young
professional internships. The MAB Secretariat and UNESCO Field Offices welcome suchpartnership, in particular given the reduction of staff at the MAB Secretariat and the growinginterest of many countries and young researchers in the work of MAB and WNBR.

VI. Conclusion – facing the challenges and moving forward
37. MAB is relevant, active and vibrant. While MAB and its WNBR continue growing, deliveringand performing, the challenges are also mounting and serious. Among the main challenges
faced are the following.
38. Firstly, the lack of resources. A much greater effort must be made by all to raise resources,
both financial and technical. To sustain and develop an intergovernmental scientificprogramme of MAB’s scale and an extensive world network of learning laboratories forbiodiversity and sustainable development, it is no longer adequate to rely mainly on
UNESCO’s regular budget. New funding sources must be found, in the interest of all
countries and communities involved.
127

Annex 3

SC-14/CONF.226/15
Paris, 26 June 2014
Original: English

39. Secondly, the MAB research agenda. A new, inspiring and forward-looking MAB research
agenda is truly needed for the Post-2015 era. Such an agenda must lead MAB work toaddress the most critical issues (both current and emerging) relating to biospheresustainability, and must contribute to the mainstream development agenda of participating
countries.
40. Furthermore, communication. MAB needs to communicate much better in this era of
information and interconnectivity. MAB needs to publish more and better, and explore newforms of communication. Only with the support of general public will the ideas, concepts andscientific advice from MAB make real impacts. Successful communication to this end isessential.
41. Next, the tools and instruments used in the operation of MAB. There is a need to improve
the technical operation of the programme, by refining, compiling and improving the tools andinstruments used - in project development, in the technical guidance provided for fieldmanagement practices, for databases and data standards. There is also a need to consider
greatly enhancing the MAB Young Scientists Award or Fellowship Scheme.
42. In conclusion, the MAB Secretary is confident that - with the continued support andguidance from all Member States, in particular guidance of the MAB ICC - and with thesuccessful elaboration of the new MAB strategy, MAB will continue to be one of the mostinspiring, energetic and productive programmes of UNESCO. Now in its 5th decade, MAB
continues to provide highly useful and increasingly important services to all Member States.
43. On behalf of the MAB Secretariat and all colleagues working both in Paris and the network
of Field Offices. I express my sincere thanks to the MAB Council for its attention.

128